A continued strengthened unemployment insurance

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The unemployment insurance is a transition insurance for both the individual and society. It maintains purchasing power so that recessions are not deepened and prolonged. To worsen the security of wage earners when a recession is warned against is the wrong path to take.

We are pleased that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have agreed on a continued strengthened unemployment insurance. This means, among other things, that one can focus on seeking a new job instead of worrying about one's personal finances when becoming unemployed. One might dare to change jobs when one knows that one's finances will hold up even if one were to lose a probationary employment or if one is the last in and is not included on the employer's exception list during layoffs. The landlord or the bank may require that one is a member of an a-kassa in order to receive a rental contract or a loan for a home.

In 1997, I was foreclosed on myself. I had just bought a villa, and we had had our first child. I believe the son was seven months old. The foreclosure took effect, and I had to leave my job. My wife worked part-time in a shop. Without a strong unemployment insurance fund, I would have had to leave my house after having lived there for only a year. I simply had not had the means to stay.

A further strengthened unemployment insurance

For me, the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan) is very important. If one has ever been there in one's life and understood what it means to become unemployed, I believe one reasons differently on this issue than one otherwise would have. It is quite easy for young people sitting here in the chamber who have never had a bit of dirt under their fingernails or been in that situation to think that the unemployment insurance fund is a benefit and should be treated as such. But that is not the case. The unemployment insurance fund is definitely not a benefit, but it is a transition insurance for Swedish wage earners that one also contributes to oneself.

The A-kassa is therefore an important issue for the Sweden Democrats, and this is yet another election promise we got through via negotiations in the Tidö Agreement.

Madam Speaker! I will not be long-winded today, but I must nevertheless comment on the other government alternative and their view on the proposal. We can see that it is fragmented, and it is very clearly fragmented, in all directions.

A party wants to lower the unemployment insurance and preferably abolish both that and the Swedish model. There, it is free labor immigration and wage dumping that applies.

Another party wants to increase the unemployment insurance and reduce the requirements and unfortunately equate it with other benefits, which would significantly weaken the legitimacy of the unemployment insurance.

A third party does not care so much about labor market policy and unemployment insurance at all, but rather routinely sells out labor market policy to the highest bidder. We have seen this in previous years. First it was to Reinfeldt and Löfven, and now it is to Andersson.

Madam Speaker! The fourth and largest party always says that all good policy implemented is actually their policy, despite the fact that they did nothing for eight years except worsen LAS and contribute strongly to the EU's process of systematically dismantling the Swedish labor market model via the social pillar. Ordinarily, one gives away everything solely for power, as the positions in the Government Offices overshadow everything else. It is something we have seen and heard several times in this chamber.

This, Madam Speaker, shows that the Tidö parties can and will reach solutions like the agreement on the unemployment insurance fund, as we fundamentally share the view on Sweden's problems, a view that unfortunately the other government alternative completely lacks.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of the motions.

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 things such as crop failure, drought, diseases, accidents and war that made existence uncertain.

At the end of the 1800s, Sweden became seriously industrialized. Steelworks, pulp mills, mechanical workshops, spinning mills and many other industries were founded. Consequently, people also began to employ industrial workers who received wages for their work, and it was only then that one could also become unemployed.

Even though the wages were low, employment nevertheless meant that one had 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 harsh and the compensation, if one received any at all, was minimal. Being forced to go to the poor relief was also perceived by many as very humiliating.

To strengthen their position towards the employers, employees across Europe began forming trade unions during the second half of the 19th century.

The basic principle of the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan) is that people who are without work should receive sufficient support to be able to actively seek new employment. By paying a fee to one's a-kassan while working, one gains the opportunity for unemployment insurance if one were to become unemployed. For wage earners as a collective, the insurance contributes to preventing unfair competition and maintaining wages at a decent level during times of high unemployment.

The unemployment insurance also has an important role in the economy. It dampens cyclical fluctuations, improves the functioning of the labor market, has a positive effect on productivity, increases the labor supply, and contributes to increased equality.

In order for those who lose their jobs to be able to have good opportunities to either retrain or find a job that corresponds to their competence, the unemployment insurance fund must provide a reasonable compensation. 80 percent of the income is a reasonable level to secure income security and the ability to transition for the individual.

Under the bourgeois government 2006-2014, many important parts of the unemployment insurance were deliberately and strategically dismantled. The conditions for qualifying were tightened, replacement levels were lowered, and higher and differentiated fees were introduced. As a result of these substantial deteriorations, a large group of employees were placed outside the insurance.

During the years 2014-2018, Vänsterpartiet, together with the government, implemented certain improvements in the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan). Among other things, we raised the compensation levels, a new part-time limitation rule was introduced, and the number of waiting days was reduced.

Madam Speaker! During the pandemic, the government at the time implemented several temporary reinforcements of the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan). The replacement levels were raised, and the eligibility criteria were adjusted so that more people could qualify for benefits. These were necessary and important reinforcements that the Left Party (V) pushed for and welcomed.

So, this government is proposing that the temporary provisions in the law introduced during the pandemic should remain in force indefinitely and describes the proposal as "a continued strengthened unemployment insurance." Admittedly, it represents an improvement compared to the situation before the pandemic, but the unemployment insurance obviously needs to be improved further. The temporary reinforcements that have been added mean that it is still barely four out of ten full-time workers who actually receive 80 percent of their previous salary in compensation. The proposal should therefore actually be described as "a slightly improved unemployment insurance in need of further improvements."

In order for the insurance to be improved, some changes are required regarding the qualification and compensation conditions. When it comes to the work condition in the law, I believe that more wage earners should and must be given the opportunity to fulfill the condition and thus qualify. Similar to LO, I think the requirement for hours worked is set far too high and that the work condition should be lowered to 40 hours per month. Such a condition would make it much more attractive for those who work in some kind of limited capacity to join an unemployment insurance fund.

When it comes to the eligibility requirement, I also share LO's view that the eligibility days should be abolished entirely. The basic deductible in a compensation level that is already below 100 percent from the start, in combination with a cap on the compensation and a successive reduction of the compensation level over time, already provides clear incentives for the individual to avoid unemployment, if anyone actually believed that one deliberately got rid of their job to live on a compensation. No additional deductible was needed for that.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I do not think it is enough to permanently establish the improvements that were introduced during the pandemic. Nor is it enough to, as the castle parties agreed in their budget bill for 2023, permanently establish the compensation levels in the a-kassa. To re-establish an unemployment insurance that is worthy of the name and that actually is an income insurance for more wage earners, even more improvements are required.

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. We want to index the compensation amounts to wage development. We want to raise the compensation level to 80 percent for the entire compensation period as well as for the period with activity support. We also want to improve the qualification and compensation conditions, abolish the karen days in the unemployment insurance fund, and reintroduce the study condition.

With that, I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation number 2.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! As an opposition politician, one can feel a certain disappointment when certain bills are presented. One can enter the chamber with a sense of indignation, resignation, and sometimes frustration. The feeling is sometimes that this political proposal takes Sweden in the wrong direction. It makes Sweden a worse country to live in. It is a political proposal that does not benefit the broad masses of the people and that does not make Sweden a better country for all those people who work hard day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the feeling today. The bill that has now been laid before the Riksdag is, in fact, a bill that ensures that good political proposals are implemented. This bill ensures that the temporary reinforcements of the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan) that were implemented by the previous Social Democratic government become permanent. That is good. It is good for Swedish wage earners who lose their jobs. It is good for Swedish wage earners who are members of the unemployment insurance fund to know that one of the defenses is strong.

The goals of the unemployment insurance are several. First and foremost: In a decent society, we do not force people into the poverty house when they lose their work. We do not refer people to the gutter when they are separated from their work. We do not let people, the day after the onset of unemployment, sell their assets to cover their upkeep. No, we create security systems. The unemployment insurance, the a-kassa, is such a system.

Furthermore, we ensure that through the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan) we do not create a situation where people rush to the first available job at the lowest wage. We ensure that skills can end up where they are needed most. People can go to the job where they do the most good, and wages can be kept at good and reasonable levels. It is important. It is important for the interests of wage earners, and it is important so that power is not shifted to the employers' side to an excessive extent.

Madam Speaker! When the pandemic hit Sweden - yes, the whole world - it was urgent that the a-kassan was strengthened and that the conditions for receiving compensation from the a-kassan were eased. The alternative would have been that people could have been sent into poverty and misery. In the health crisis that also became an economic crisis, the risks were many. The threat of a severe economic crisis was by all means real. The previous Social Democratic government reacted resolutely and clearly. What was done saved people from poverty and from worry and anxiety. The previous Social Democratic government ensured that if your job disappeared, society would be there for you.

It is not usually inherent in the nature of a government consisting of three so-called bourgeois parties to strengthen the a-kassa. That this government chooses to do this anyway is pleasing. There are many passages in the memorandum that forms the basis for the bill that cannot be described as anything other than positive. The memorandum welcomes that more people can receive a-kassa. There is also talk about the importance of strengthening the economic security for those who have become unemployed by ensuring that the reliefs in the karen condition continue to apply. It is simply good Social Democratic policy that the government is now pushing through.

Madam Speaker! The a-kassa was established through legislation by the Swedish Riksdag in 1935. Since then, it has been an important foundation in the Swedish security system. As previously mentioned, the a-kassa provides economic security to those who become unemployed. It ensures that the unemployed person does not, out of desperation, take the first available job at the lowest possible wage just to be able to put food on the table for their children. It reduces the risk that engineers, surgeons, and teachers will take jobs that require low qualifications with low wages and insecure working conditions. It is an important aspect in the time we live in. In Sweden, we cannot afford to let competence go to waste.

In 1935, the conditions were obviously not exactly the same as they are today, but parallels exist. Unemployment in 1935 was at an annual average of 15 percent - significantly higher than today. But for the Social Democrats, the goal was clear - then as now. Sweden's wage earners needed an unemployment insurance so as not to fall into poverty, so that a low-wage competition would not be created, and so that competence would end up where it should. This was an important piece of the puzzle in Per Albin Hansson's vision of a society where there are no privileged or marginalized, no pampered children and no stepchildren.

Another important factor that deserves to be mentioned in this chamber is the unemployment insurance fund's role as a cyclical stabilizer. If a large number of people become unemployed and are thus cast into economic uncertainty and, in the long run, poverty, it is unreasonable to think that it would not have consequences for the economy. That we facilitate for more to join the unemployment insurance fund and receive financial support from there is therefore important for the entire economy of the society. It is not about some kind of charity. It is about ensuring that an economic crisis does not worsen.

During the last months, we have seen a political development where children are forced to bear an ever larger share of the consequences as the economic situation for the country's households becomes tougher. School kitchen staff testify that children eat more on Mondays and Fridays. Single parents have difficulty affording nutritious food for their children, and fees for associations and leisure activities are being cut back on. Arbetsförmedlingen and the government both project higher unemployment this autumn. It is another reason why the a-kassa needs to be available for more. With higher unemployment, Sweden's children and young people risk bearing an even larger share of the consequences than they do today. We therefore need to ensure that there is, just as the proposition is named, a continued strengthened unemployment insurance.

It is now up to the government to prove. Which line will the government choose for the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan)? Is it the current line, enabling more people to participate in the unemployment insurance fund and perhaps with higher ceiling levels so that more people receive more of their salary? Or is today's bill an exception that further into the mandate period will turn out to be the only thing done to strengthen the unemployment insurance fund? As the largest opposition party in the Riksdag, we will monitor the government's work closely. Our ambitions for the unemployment insurance fund are high. We will have reason to be seen in this chamber again if we suddenly were to witness a political line that runs completely contrary to today's proposal.

Madam Speaker! The ambitions for the a-kassa need to be high, as has been said. This chamber cannot, after today's decision, rise up, clap their hands, and state that the task is completed. We as elected representatives need to continue working to make the a-kassa better, stronger, and accessible to more. It is the Social Democrats' firm conviction. That is also why we have a special statement in connection with the proposition we are dealing with today. We welcome the proposal, but we are not finished. We have higher ambitions for the a-kassa.

Madam Speaker! What does higher ambition for the unemployment insurance fund mean? More people need to be covered by the security that the unemployment insurance fund provides. More people need to receive 80 percent of their salary during unemployment. And the unemployment insurance fund needs to continue to develop so that the transition from unemployment to a new job becomes as painless as possible, especially in a time when we risk facing growing unemployment and where the supply of skills becomes an ever-increasing problem. Neither the individual nor we as a society can afford for people to take the first available job at the lowest possible wage.

It may not be the year 1935. We do not have an economic depression plaguing the world and an unemployment rate of 15 percent, but the need for a strengthened unemployment insurance is important even today. We have people who even today risk being cast into poverty in the event of unemployment and who risk having to take the first available job at the lowest wage. We also have a situation where rapidly rising unemployment risks worsening an already approaching recession.

We Social Democrats welcome today's proposal from the government on the area of cash. Let us hope that it is not the last time that a Social Democrat utters that sentence in the chamber of the Riksdag during this parliamentary term. Should the government embark on a sudden change of course, the government can count on the Social Democratic opposition's response to be anything but positive.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Adrian Magnusson, for a very fiery and beautiful Social Democratic speech! I thought I would let Adrian Magnusson tell his members and voters and LO what it is that makes the Social Democrats only write a special statement. They speak quite nicely about these matters and say that more people should qualify for the unemployment insurance fund, that this is certainly not a benefit, that it is a transition compensation and that one should have higher compensation. How is it that Adrian Magnusson and the Socialdemokraterna write a special statement instead of actually reserving themselves against the proposal and demanding a better and strengthened a-kassa?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my speech, our ambitions for the unemployment insurance fund are high, and they will continue to be high throughout the entire parliamentary term. I have also read LO's statement. There is much in there that is very interesting to take part in - obviously, that is the case.

For the Social Democrats, it is important that the policies are coherent, that what we say here in the chamber is supported by what we propose when it comes to the budget, for example. And in the situation we find ourselves in now, it is this policy for which we have economic coverage.

But we have high ambitions. I said that several times, and I can say it several more times. We will return with proposals within the unemployment insurance fund's area regarding exactly how we want to strengthen the unemployment insurance fund. I believe that the member and I agree that we need to get more people into the unemployment insurance fund. We need to ensure that more people receive 80 percent of their salary.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet considers it to be covered in its budget, because Vänsterpartiet believes that this is a truly important and decisive issue so that people do not become poor and so that we do not get a Poor Sweden.

It is truly beautiful with higher ambitions, but I actually believe it is even better to translate that into political action and show political decisiveness that can truly mean change and is not just bourgeois-ish and social democratic-ish.

I thank Adrian Magnusson very much for having told us about his ambitions, and I look forward to it also becoming action.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the member meant it that way, but I object to the description that this should be bourgeois-ish politics. I actually do not think so, so I still want to mark my opposition to that.

We are at the beginning of the parliamentary term. We have many years left and many budget bills to submit. I am therefore convinced that the Social Democrats will return with significantly more detailed proposals regarding how we want to develop the unemployment insurance fund, and I am pleased that both the Social Democrats and the Left Party have clear ambitions for the unemployment insurance fund.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1, which means the rejection of the bill.

In the morning, when I get on the escalator towards the subway, I am met by a packed subway carriage. In any case, I want nothing else in the morning than to have a calm journey sitting on the way to work. Then I hear that it sounds very loud, and the entire subway train shakes. I realize that the carriage is full of students, dancing, singing, one spontaneous shout or another, and above all, hope for the future.

When we stop at Karlaplan, a man goes off and snaps a bit at the students and says "Welcome out into unemployment!". I would instead like to say "Welcome into the labor market!". And if the labor market is to flourish in both the short and long term for both current and future generations, an offensive labor market policy that puts the work principle in focus is required.

There is a before and an after the covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic had both short-term and long-term effects on a number of different areas. The labor market is one such area. The Riksdag and the government were, in many respects, quick and flexible during the pandemic and adapted the systems based on a new, temporary reality.

It was good. It was right. But now the pandemic is over, and to permanently maintain temporary covid-19 measures instead of implementing the long-term reforms that Sweden is in such great need of, Centerpartiet argues is the wrong path to take. These are tough economic times and strained on the Swedish labor market. At the same time, more Swedes need to work, contribute, and pay tax. That requires an active labor market policy that makes it profitable to both work and to hire.

At the same time, I want to say that it is good that there has been a political discussion about the unemployment insurance fund, but a broader rethink was needed than what the government is now proposing. The Center Party believes that the unemployment insurance needs to focus on transition, encourage mobility, and make it easier for people to quickly change jobs. We simply need an unemployment insurance fund that is adapted based on what the labor market looks like today, not how it looked yesterday.

Then a flexible working life is required where people dare to change jobs without fear of becoming long-term unemployed. The unemployment insurance needs to enable a secure transition while simultaneously guaranteeing that it pays to work. It may be appropriate to remind the Moderaterna that this is what the work line looks like.

At the same time, it is important that the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) is opened up for more people who work, but this needs to happen from a holistic perspective and in line with a flexicurity model. The unemployment insurance therefore needs to be reformed fundamentally and aim for a long-term solution that is not based on temporary reliefs in the unemployment insurance that have been adapted for the pandemic.

For a government that calls itself bourgeois and wants to see the work line, it is very gratifying that the Center Party in the January Agreement secured a thorough investigation which has now been presented, which has been referred, and which is ready to be finalized into a government bill - SOU 2020:37. This investigation also takes a holistic approach and opens the unemployment insurance for more people.

As recently as a week ago, I posed a question to Minister for Employment Johan Pehrson regarding whether the government intends to carry out the investigation. I must say that I was quite positively surprised to receive such a clear answer that at least parts of the government share the Center Party's view that it is necessary to proceed with the investigation. Therefore, the next question is: What are you waiting for?

Madam Speaker! I want to be clear that the Center Party stands behind a waiting period, a deductible, which aims to ensure that a person avoids unemployment. A shorter waiting period means that the deductible decreases. The Center Party therefore considers that we should maintain the six waiting days.

Centerpartiet is always ready, in the event of something like the pandemic, to quickly review and take a stand on the measures that the situation requires in the Riksdag, but without a more thorough investigation and exemplification, Centerpartiet cannot, for the time being, support giving the government sole power to introduce exceptions to the so-called five-year rule. On the other hand, we believe that there may be reasons to lower the current five-year limit to three years. We also believe that it is important to follow the further application.

Madam Speaker! I had intended to stop there, but I must nevertheless comment on the likely pre-negotiated speaking point at the coordination office about always turning one's gaze towards the opposition and always talking about how the opposition is not in agreement. I understand the tactics. When there is friction in the own cooperation, it is much better to turn one's gaze towards the opposition.

Therefore, I must say that it is interesting that one repeatedly chooses to do it in precisely the labor market policy area. I can understand that it is done in a number of other areas, but I cannot understand it in the labor market policy area.

Let me take two examples. We can start with the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) specifically. It has not been many months since the Moderates' group leader in the Committee on Employment, Viktor Wärnick, stood and said that increased unemployment insurance is not Moderate policy but a compromise. It is obvious that the Tidö parties are not in agreement in the labor market policy area, and precisely when it concerns the unemployment insurance.

We also see it in the labor market policy, because everything takes so long. People cannot agree. That is why there is no momentum in the labor market policy. The Moderates and the Sweden Democrats have a fundamentally different view on what the labor market policy should look like. That is why nothing is happening. That is why we in the committee do not get any answers as to why progress is not being made, for example, on the establishment jobs.

Therefore, I must say that labor market policy, as an area where it is said that the Tidö parties are in agreement, is actually a remarkably poor example.

I welcome parties saying what they actually think and that one can sometimes compromise. That is why I am proud to say that the Center Party and the Social Democrats do not agree on the a-kassa. But we agree on fundamental values regarding all people's equal rights and value. I will never compromise on that.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Jonny Cato will not get away with it. We must stop repeating certain falsehoods.

Jonny Cato writes in his reservation, and also spoke in his speech, about the flexicurity model and that we must have much more flexibility in our labor market. I then assume that Jonny Cato knows that for such a model to function, it must stand firmly on three legs. It must, of course, be a flexible labor market, and the job seeker must be active. But those are only the two parts that Centerpartiet and Jonny Cato think are important. The third part for this to function is also to have a basic social security in between.

I am honestly worried about what would happen if Jonny Cato and the Center Party's idea that hungry wolves hunt best became the prevailing one, if there isn't a sense of reasonableness in that there should be a security to go between jobs instead of hunting down the conditions and pressing down wages on the labor market. Why does Jonny Cato want us to have such an insecure society?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! What the Left Party calls falsehoods, I would rather say is that the Centre Party and the Left Party have fundamentally different views on the labor market. We have different pictures of how the labor market has looked, how it looks, and how we want it to look moving forward.

We probably have different views on how we see the concept of safety and how extensive it should be. We have different weightings between carrot and stick, as well as between reins and lifebelts.

For the Center Party's part, I am proud that we, within the framework of the January Agreement, pushed through a broad investigation of the unemployment insurance. I find SOU 2020:37 interesting. We can move forward with parts of it. All three parts that the Left Party highlights are important, but we place slightly different values on how the different parts should be weighted.

However, a total review was needed, which was carried out within the framework of SOU 2020:37. Picking out different specific parts, as the government now chooses to do, I believe is the wrong way to go. It becomes shaky and a matter of patching and repairing.

The Center Party and the Left Party will probably never agree on the perception of reality or the future vision of the Swedish labor market. I mean that more people must go to work every morning, that more boys and girls must see their parents have a job to go to. Increased incentives are required for that, and increased demands must be placed on people to get more to move from the benefit line to the work line. I can only regret that the Center Party is the only party in this chamber that sees this.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! We have different views on security, says Jonny Cato. I think that security should nevertheless mean not having to leave home and house if one loses one's job; there should be a transition. Jonny Cato and Centerpartiet make it seem as if Vänsterpartiet thinks that everyone should lounge around and choose for themselves whether they want to work or not, that there should be a multitude of systems around that make people not contribute. He claims that Vänsterpartiet never wants more people to get into jobs. Nothing is more wrong.

Vänsterpartiet obviously also thinks that people should work. The fact is that it is not only Vänsterpartiet that thinks so, but everyone thinks so. Even those who do not have a job think so; they also want a job. The vast majority of people actually want to work. We often miss that in the debate. On the other hand, not everyone has the opportunity to take the jobs. It can be a question of them not receiving the right education to take the jobs that exist or that they want.

This is sad, and it is clear that we do not have the same view on how people should get into work. But we can agree that we do not want people to be poor. People should be secure between their jobs. The carrot should not be the whip, so to speak. One gets a bit of the feeling that one is supposed to whip people into work and take any job at all, or end up in the poorhouse - the old Sweden. It really is not good.

I naturally think that the bill could have been better, but it is regrettable that the Center Party wants to reject it entirely.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the parts concerning the matching on the Swedish labor market. There, the Center Party and the Left Party are in complete agreement, namely that the government needs to do more so that more people have a job to go to. I truly share the view that I believe people want to work, but then the government must also make it possible for more people to receive the right education and enter the labor market.

I genuinely believe that we have somewhat different views on what security is and what the transition should look like. But I also want to clarify that the Center Party has revised our model for the unemployment insurance fund. This can be seen, among other things, in our latest budget proposal, where we have adjusted the model for how our unemployment insurance fund should look. It is reasonable to have a higher compensation at the beginning and for the scale to then be sharp, so that one is actually encouraged to seek work and enter the labor market. Unlike the Left Party, I believe that it is sometimes good to have both carrot and stick. A little stick may be needed so that more people choose the work path over the benefit path. That is where the Left Party and the Center Party differ, and it cannot be a surprise or news to anyone.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Everyone who can work shall work. Therefore, rules, incentives, and support must be designed to create the conditions for full employment. Work is security, community, and access to the growing prosperity in Sweden. The work principle is the promise that politics does not give up on anyone, the conviction that no human being is useless, the idea of the intrinsic value of work, and the insight that requirements mean caring.

In order for the labor market not to become that club for mutual admiration between those who already have a job and those who hire, politics needs to take the role of the third party in the labor market and also represent those who lack work. An unemployment benefit that is too high risks weakening the incentives for work and in that way cause fewer people to work and more to be left behind. We believe that everyone should be included.

Madam Speaker! A functioning and efficient unemployment insurance fund is an important component of a functional labor market. A well-functioning unemployment insurance fund fulfills the function of being a temporary financial support for those who are between two jobs – what is commonly called frictional unemployment.

Policy then needs to balance between ensuring that the unemployment insurance fund is sufficiently restrictive so that the motivation to seek work remains high, but sufficiently generous so that people are matched to a job that suits their skills and abilities and are not placed on the street for a short period as unemployed.

Madam Speaker! It is no secret that the Moderates wish to reform the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) in a somewhat different direction. We have proposed a shortening, a steeper tapering, and lower compensation levels. We want to strengthen the insurance element in the unemployment insurance. Today, as is known, the unemployment insurance fee only covers administrative costs. Levels and rules could have been redesigned so that they vary based on industry or economic cycle and in that way strengthen the insurance components.

It is also no secret that the government's bill is a consequence and a result of a parliamentary reality, which obviously must be taken into account in the Tidö Agreement. There is a majority in this chamber for higher contributions and other compensations because both the Social Democrats' and the Sweden Democrats' economic policies partially weaken the incentives for work and in that way cause some damage to the work line.

This bill is partly about higher compensation and partly about lowered requirements to access the compensation. The Riksdag's investigation service has assessed that this increase, if made permanent, leads to the number of unemployed being permanently increased by 40,000 people. Economics professor Lars Calmfors, former chairman of the Swedish Council for Labour Market Economics, argues that in 24 of 28 available empirical studies, the connection between higher unemployment insurance and longer periods of unemployment is proven. The National Audit Office released a report this week showing that the job tax credit has strengthened the incentives for work, but that the expansion of the unemployment insurance has dampened these effects.

Madam Speaker! Politics is also about timing. The uneasy economic situation, the recession we face and the high inflation obviously strengthen the motives for this bill being on the Riksdag's table today.

The government strengthens the work line with support in the Tidö Agreement. Policy must be seen as a whole. The subsidy reform will strengthen the drivers for work where it is particularly important now, as the Social Democrats' integration failure has resulted in our time's most difficult exclusion not being in the unemployment insurance fund but in the social assistance. The tax on work shall be lowered; if this is what we agree on. The Public Employment Service shall set higher requirements for job seekers to apply for different jobs in several different locations in several different industries. We have a responsibility to ensure that the policy collectively means that more people enter work and that exclusion is pushed back. At the same time, we Moderates must work hard in the meeting with the voters so that we can ensure a majority for the work line after the next election.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö Agreement shall be implemented, and I move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Oliver Rosengren, for important clarifications! One could say that the statement was the definition of saying one thing, thinking one thing, and doing something completely different.

The Moderates and not least Oliver Rosengren had a very high level of criticism towards the Center Party and our cooperation with the Social Democrats in the January agreement. I can state that when S and C cooperated, it became bourgeois liberal politics, and when M and SD cooperate, it becomes the Social Democrats' politics.

The January Agreement contained much bourgeois liberal policy. S, C, L and MP agreed that the work line would be strengthened by reforming the unemployment benefit in line with a flexicurity model. Such a model has been investigated, presented and referred, and is ready to be implemented. I would say that it is central for us to be able to move from the benefit line to the work line.

My question to Oliver Rosengren and the Moderaterna is therefore whether the Moderate-led government intends to submit a proposition on a regulatory framework for the unemployment insurance with an income-based a-kassa based on SOU 2020:37 A new regulatory framework for the unemployment insurance.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Jonny Cato, for the questions!

It is obvious that the government is not for Social Democratic policy – otherwise, the Center Party would have voted for it. That is, so to speak, the primary operational conclusion one can draw from how Swedish politics has developed recently, so it must be judged as unlikely that it would be that way given just this.

What one can nevertheless observe is that there are good points in the investigation regarding income-based unemployment insurance that Jonny Cato is asking about. Perhaps the most important parts, if one were to proceed with that type of proposal, are that it would significantly simplify the administration linked to the unemployment insurance and reduce the risk of fraud and inaccuracies.

Today, unfortunately, we have reached a situation where the reform of Arbetsförmedlingen that Jonny Cato often boasts about has instead resulted in that Arbetsförmedlingen even today fails to proceed with sanctions in several cases where the unemployed are not job-seeking, despite it being a requirement to receive a-kassa. It is obviously unfortunate.

An income-based unemployment insurance would be an advantage in many ways. It is one of the reasons why that investigation is still being prepared in the Ministry of Employment.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I am struck by how easy it must be to be called Oliver Rosengren. Everything is the Center Party's fault. Everything is the Center Party's fault. We are the root of all evil. That is obviously not the case.

It is also interesting to hear that if the government had pursued the Social Democrats' policy, the Center Party would have voted for it. At 16.00 today, there will be a vote in this chamber on the bill we are currently debating. The Social Democrats will vote for it. The Center Party will vote against it. That means that the Social Democrats support the government's policy, and therefore it is socialist policy that the government pursues.

I do, however, want answers to my question, because Sweden truly needs to move from the benefit line to the work line.

I must say that I am genuinely impressed by much of what Oliver Rosengren did in Växjö and by the Växjö Promise. I believe we can be very inspired by that in this chamber. There is now a lot of talk about the Växjö Promise becoming the Sweden Promise, and in that case, I think we need an income-based unemployment insurance fund.

Therefore, it is not enough for this to be prepared within the framework of the Government Offices. These are tough economic times; concrete decisions are needed. Will the government present a bill based on SOU 2020:37? If so, when will such a bill reach the Riksdag for us to take a position on?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! I can start by reassuring Jonny Cato. Not all evil comes from the Center Party, not in any way. Such a great significance is difficult to attribute to a single party.

However, there is great importance in proceeding with a reforming of the labor market. I am pleased that Jonny Cato advocates that the Växjö Promise should become the Sweden Promise. It would mean powerful reforms with both lower taxes on work and sharper requirements for those who are job seekers, and a substantial benefit reform so that it always pays more to work and so that everyone can also live on their wages.

Part of this would be to continue reforming the a-kassan. It is no secret that the Moderaterna think that it should be done.

The SOU that Jonny Cato is asking about is still being prepared within the Ministry of Employment.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! The first chapter of the Instrument of Government stipulates that the government governs the realm. In the speech here, it became rarely clear that it is not the Moderates who govern the government. It is the Sweden Democrats who govern the government and its work, and that is indeed astonishing.

It is quite obvious that here the Moderaterna said something before the election. Then the election was carried out, and after the election they have a different opinion - all because it is the Sverigedemokraterna who actually decide what happens at the Government Offices and what is on the ministers' agendas and daily schedules, perhaps especially on the Minister for Employment's.

The representatives of the Sweden Democrats have been quite clear that they will not accept any deteriorations within the unemployment insurance. Not a single one. Yet, the Moderates stand here in the chamber today and say that they would like to lower levels and so on.

My question to the Moderate member is how far the Moderates are prepared to go to ensure that the Sweden Democrats are held in check. Do the Sweden Democrats have free rein within the unemployment insurance area? Where is the Moderates' limit?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! What is positive about the cooperation among the Tidö parties is that we have written a proper reform program that clearly describes what one should expect in the unemployment insurance area. That proposal is on the table here and now. This is a permanentization of the temporary increase that was implemented during the previous mandate period. This is precisely what appears in the Tidö Agreement. It is being implemented now.

However, the astonishing announcement from the Social Democrats came in the exchange of replies just now. Apparently, one is to assume that the abolished wealth tax, the reform of the Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen), and the relaxations in LAS that were carried out during the previous parliamentary term were things that one as a Social Democratic voter would simply have expected. Someone could have heard Adrian Magnusson say before the election that one should expect this. That one negotiates with parties after an election to form a majority for the policy and sometimes needs to compromise is not part of the policy. That is the conclusion one draws from Adrian Magnusson's reply. It surprises me.

I believe that quite a few Social Democrats did not expect the Social Democrats to abolish the defense tax, heavily reform Arbetsförmedlingen, or loosen LAS during the last parliamentary term, but it was nevertheless a consequence of the January agreement. Should we perhaps simply accept that we seek support in elections, and in the parliamentary situation that exists in Sweden today, it sometimes ends with not everyone being fully satisfied and getting what they expected?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! The government representative is obviously most comfortable in opposition and prefers to talk about the opponents' policies rather than his own. It is undeniably interesting.

So it is not the government that rules the realm, but it is the Sweden Democrats. I received no answer to my question. There is, therefore, no outer limit. The Moderates could say during the election campaign that they would lower the levels and worsen the conditions in the unemployment insurance fund, but now, after the election has been held, the Moderates are prepared to do precisely what the Sweden Democrats tell them to do. It is an interesting message to all those who perhaps thought that there was anything left of the New Moderates' labor policy in the Moderates. Apparently, there is not. Now it is the Sweden Democrats who decide in the labor market policy area.

There is also talk that the work line shall apply and that Arbetsförmedlingen shall set higher requirements. How is that possible with 700 million kronor less for Arbetsförmedlingen? One can also wonder about that. What will the requirement-setting look like when responsible authorities receive less and less money to use to set these requirements?

It may simply be that there is no labor market policy in this government, but it is the Sweden Democrats who are in control in the area of the labor market.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! I unfortunately cannot answer whether I would have enjoyed being in opposition, as I have not experienced that so far. However, I can state that the Social Democratic member has completely misunderstood the work principle. The unemployment insurance fund is obviously a significant part of the Swedish transfer systems and Swedish labor market policy. But it is in no way the case that the unemployment insurance fund and today's changes destroy a work principle. On the contrary, the overall reinforcement of the work principle in the Tidö Agreement is evident.

When the Swedish National Audit Office issued its report last week, it was noted that the changes made, particularly in the budgets supported by those who now govern the realm, involved changes in the tax systems that increased employment. The A-kassa change contributed to a deterioration, but it was in no way a deterioration that negated the positive effects of the other parts.

Exactly in this way we will conduct politics during this mandate period as well. Now there will be a deterioration in the work line in connection with the decision on the unemployment insurance fund. It is no surprise that this has been regulated in the Tidö Agreement and is to be implemented. But the overall work line in the Tidö Agreement implies powerful reinforcements, a subsidy reform, lower tax on work and stricter requirements for job seekers.

Overall, this will result in more people entering the workforce and more people getting to share in the growing prosperity in Sweden. It is a very balanced and reasonable policy for Sweden to be strengthened, in contrast to a policy that straight through worsens the work line in the way the Social Democrats desire. It is obviously not this that is the Tidö parties' position, but we will strengthen the work line with the overall reform program that the Tidö Agreement entails.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal regarding the unemployment insurance.

It is often said that a society shows its strength in how it treats the elderly, the sick, children, and refugees. It is an old motto: It is in the care for one another that we show our strength. We also see this over time. In a hunter society, it is the common hearth and the distribution of the meat that allows one to survive. In an agricultural society, one sees how they save over time to endure a colder period.

In an industrial and knowledge society like the one we find ourselves in, it is about wages but also about allocating resources for another time, if something happens, and we can do that in the form of insurance or via the tax slip in the form of social assistance and other supports. We have built a society where we catch each other somewhere.

The earliest social insurance that is documented is probably in the Bible. It is when Joseph says that one should store for seven years to use during seven bad years. It is probably the first documented distributive policy model.

This is quite exciting, because it seems to be quite universal that we try to see and support one another. Or as Göran Hägglund expressed it: We shall have a society where no one is held back and no one is left behind. It is precisely in this way that the different insurance systems function.

But at the same time, there is a problem – we saw it, among other things, in the 1980s – if one has a tax levy that becomes too high. Already in Joseph's time, I suspect, the farmers in Egypt would have become a bit grumpy if one had taken all their harvest. But if one sets aside a part of the harvest, 10, 15 or 20 percent, and saves it over time, one sees the benefit of it.

In the 1980s, we had the interesting phenomenon that the tax was so high that if you worked overtime, you often had a verbal agreement to get two hours off. It was simply not profitable to take it out in wages, because then you crossed a breakpoint. It is the same with insurance.

If we have an unemployment insurance that is too high, a sickness insurance that is too high, or various benefits that are too high, so that the gap between working and still being provided for becomes too small, problems will arise. It matters, so to speak, not what we think about it. Everyone who studies economics knows this. We can go into history whenever we want and look. There is a balance point.

The American Revolution began because the tax on tea was raised, and we got the Boston Tea Party. Actually, the tax was raised on all goods. But there is always a balance point.

When I was chairman of KDU, we looked for points of balance. Among other things, it was a colleague here in the Riksdag, Hans Eklind, who wrote a book where one spoke about basic security. We have insurance systems that give us a basic security. No one should be left out, but no one should also come after. It must pay to work. There must be a basic security and a benefit.

I have been involved in some local politics and seen how our different insurance systems and other security systems have functioned in practice. I have also noted that Miljöpartiet has been involved in the same reasoning, although they have called it a citizen's income. Even there, the reasoning exists regarding where the breaking point lies. Where do we find a situation with a good basic security and at the same time an opportunity to encourage more work? We will, after all, need more work.

We are today in a situation where we have a shortage of labor. We will not manage the welfare if we do not succeed in getting more people into jobs. Then these questions become important.

When I sat in the Riksdag for the first time, 1998-2002, I wrote a report together with Stefan Attefall and Maria Larsson about the Danish model. It is an exciting model where one has a high level of security but a fairly fast-falling angle. But one has also ensured that it should be easy to change workplaces. It is a model that I believe can work if there is a labor shortage, but what happens if one has high unemployment and a steep staircase?

No matter how we turn and twist as politicians, we tend to end up in situations where we have to weigh different goals, in this case the goal of providing people with security if they become unemployed. I think Magnus Persson expressed it in a fantastically good way here in the speaker's chair a moment ago - how it can be when one is personally affected. I have good friends who have ended up in that situation where they have been laid off, lost their jobs and risked losing their house and home. It is clear that a high compensation is very important for them.

In Great Britain, I met and spoke with Somalis from a Somali association. They had first moved to Sweden and the Nordics. In just a few years, almost 10,000 Somalis had come to Lancaster, I think it was. I don't remember exactly which city it was, but I was there on a study visit as a municipal politician. Their description was that almost all had come from the Nordics or Holland. I naturally asked about the motive for leaving the Nordics and Holland and moving to Great Britain, and they answered: Here we got jobs.

There is a driving force in us humans that we want to be part of society, be a part of it and do something. This I believe we in Sweden need to take to heart. If our security systems become so secure that people are excluded, it is not certain that it is security. I have districts here in my own municipality where 50 percent are unemployed and 40 percent of the schoolchildren do not meet the goals.

As a Christian Democrat, I stand behind the agreement. I can agree with those who say that it is the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats who have pushed the line of a quite high unemployment insurance. I have no problem standing behind that, because I believe that we need to have a basic security. But I also believe that when one makes an agreement, one is forced to look at other reforms.

We must make it easier for people to enter the labor market. We must review the benefit systems in general, because there must be a gap between the compensation one can receive without working and the compensation one receives when one works. If this gap does not exist, we will have problems with our pension systems and social security systems, and we will not be able to maintain the welfare. We must, in fact, be more people who contribute through jobs.

I believe that most of us agree on this fundamentally. Then one can always consider where the balance point in the unemployment insurance fund lies, whether it is at 70, 90 or 72.5 percent. I believe we can continue those discussions indefinitely. The most important thing is still that we agree that work and trade create welfare.

(Applause)

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! It was undeniably an interesting journey, from Joseph in Bethlehem to the 80s, and then we were in a turn on 1998-2002. Thank you for this!

It was a many times sympathetic account that the member made, and it undeniably sounded good. But the member's speech was also another clear example of how Christian Democracy is struggling and that one actually thinks it is quite difficult to stand and defend today's proposition, yet does so anyway.

When the Committee on Finance made the decision on an extra spring budget amendment in 2020, when the Social Democratic government temporarily raised the ceiling levels in the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan), Jakob Forssmed wrote: "But there are reasons to particularly emphasize the importance of the ceiling increase being temporary, otherwise it risks having a long-term inhibiting effect on the transition between unemployment insurance and work. . The Christian Democrats therefore argue that it is important that the relatively large ceiling increase becomes temporary and returns to current levels in order to maintain incentives for work when the economic situation is more normal."

I understand that the Christian Democrats are struggling here in the chamber today with that starting point. I want to ask the same question that I asked the Moderate member earlier: How far is KD prepared to go in relation to the Sweden Democrats? How far will you let the Sweden Democrats lead the Christian Democracy forward? Is there any limit to that, or is it the Sweden Democrats who dictate the Christian Democracy's stance on the issue?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe the member should take and study Christian Democracy a little bit. We are the only bourgeois party, for heaven's sake, that de facto has a historical traditional relationship with trade unions, especially on the continent. That means we have a different view on this.

I do not feel uncomfortable at all that compromises are made in the political conversation from time to time, on the contrary. We are not a party that has an ideology that there is a finished society. We believe, however, that the journey forward with the aim of constantly making society a little better is the political goal in itself.

It is absolutely no secret that this specific issue is a compromise, and I have no problem standing by that. My reasoning is more about a philosophical reality. All economists point out that there is a breaking point for how much tax one can collect before people stop working.

There is also a breaking point for how strong a security system can be before it happens that some choose not to seek work. This we all know, even the Social Democrats. It is about finding this breaking point. I concede that the Social Democrats are a movement that has historically highlighted this. The work line is not just a Moderate line, but historically it was a Social Democratic line.

One must not get stuck in a subsidy trap and believe that it helps people. We shall have a warm society, but we shall also set requirements that people must work and help out so that the society becomes warm.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I can assure the member that Social Democracy remains firmly anchored in the work line, but it is the government's bill that we are discussing now. It should be in line with the work line, if that is something the member cares so much about.

I am a bit surprised when the member speaks about the need for a gap and some kind of breaking point, just as the unemployment insurance fund gives 100 percent of the salary on the first day. That is not the case. There is already today a clear difference in moving from work to unemployment insurance or compensation from the unemployment insurance.

The Speaker said that it is a compromise. For me, a compromise means that one gets to both give and take. One gives something, and in this case, the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna have given up the a-kassa, which was given great focus on before the election. In exchange, I assume, one has received something else. I would very much like to know what it is that one has received in the labor market area in exchange for negotiating away the a-kassa.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats' focus in the negotiations has not been on committee after committee. Therefore, the question itself becomes impossible to answer.

The major Christian Democratic gains in the Tidö negotiations are primarily about healthcare, where we Christian Democrats saw queues that had to be managed. The last time we sat in the Ministry of Health, we were involved in halving the queues, and we hope to be able to be involved in doing so again together with the regions.

We also fought for an issue that was extremely sensitive for, among others, the Sweden Democrats, and that was the aid. We did not reach all the way. We wanted 1 percent, but we reached 0.7. Without us in the negotiations, it would have looked worse. That is politics, and every citizen knows that. Every single person who goes and votes knows that one goes to an election for what one wishes to do. But one accepts an election result.

In my opinion, we received an all-too-poor election result. The voters should understand that we are better. Had they understood that, we would have had more artillery in the negotiations, but based on the conditions we were given, we have tried to negotiate our promises. We can now state that we have secured a tax reduction of 1 krona on fuel, that from January 1, 2024, we will receive a reduction of the reduction obligation, and that we get a major healthcare reform.

I will be honest and say that I am very satisfied with the results we have. Therefore, I am today prepared to accept a compromise where the Sverigedemokraterna get something that was not exactly what we wanted. But it is what they have won. We have won a major healthcare reform, and that is what I am proud of.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! As the final speaker in this debate, I can note with little surprise that some think the compensation from the unemployment insurance is too high and that some think it is too low. Some think the criteria are too harsh, and some think they are too easy to achieve. We have landed on a decision that most of us seem reasonably satisfied with.

Madam Speaker! I think mostly that the design of the unemployment insurance is wrong. I hope that with a liberal, bourgeois labor market policy we will see a change of the system during the mandate period. The best thing would be, however, if we replaced the 26 different a-kassorna with a state and universal insurance that covers everyone who works - a bit like the health insurance.

The best would be if we also included self-employed persons and other forms of employment. The future labor market does not look like today's.

Madam Speaker! It would also be much better if we let the compensation be based on an income. A general unemployment insurance should apply shortly after you have started working and, similar to the parental insurance, be based on the income you have – no complicated rules about time worked.

The best thing would be if we had an unemployment insurance that gave people the knowledge to make well-founded decisions and not complicated rules. Imagine an annual pink letter, similar to the orange ones we receive in the mailbox every year, where one can see what it means if one loses a job or chooses to resign. In this way, we increase the empowerment and freedom for everyone who works, and perhaps we get a more mobile labor market as a bonus.

And so it was this with the level of the insurance. It may be high, but only initially. Above all, it must be phased out significantly faster than it does in today's system. The unemployment insurance (A-kassan) is a temporary solution, a transition insurance between two jobs, and not a long-term provision.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I have understood from this debate that this is a compromise from the Liberal Party, the Christian Democrats, and the Moderates. I can state that it is a magnificent victory for the Sweden Democrats. One can sometimes wonder who it actually is who governs this government, who sets the course and indicates the direction forward.

I thought I heard the member say that the Liberals are somewhat satisfied with the compromise. My first question is therefore: What do the Liberals actually think about the bill? Is it good or is it bad? It is a simple question.

Then I heard the member describe, just as the Christian Democrats and the Moderates also did, what they actually want with the unemployment insurance fund. It is quite interesting when the decision we are to take today is something completely different.

The Liberals have received not only the Minister for Employment position but also the Deputy Minister for Employment position. The Liberals, if any party, should therefore actually not only be able to say what they want to do but also move from words to action and deliver in reality.

We are actually getting quite far into the parliamentary term now. I do not think it is sufficient anymore to provide explanations that it is being prepared in the Government Offices.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member a question. Do the liberal ministers intend to proceed with SOU 2020:37 regarding an income-based unemployment insurance fund, which the member speaks so warmly about in their speech?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! The member said that he asked a simple question: Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the compromise? The answer is that we, from the perspective of the work line, are not satisfied with this compromise. But in total, we are satisfied when we have to make compromises.

What is it then that is required for us to land sensibly in this? Well, it is that we must strengthen other things in order to get the work line to function.

As a previous speaker has described here, it is important that there is a difference between incomes that one has worked for and compensations that one receives via various insurances.

Just as the member said, SOU 2020:37 is being prepared by the government. I cannot anticipate my ministers and say when it will be implemented. But if the member has listened to the speakers here today, he knows that there is a fairly large consensus between those of us who share government power that these are important issues that we shall proceed with. I therefore imagine that it will come soon.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I agree somewhat with the previous comment from the Social Democratic member that the Tidö parties seem to enjoy being in opposition. It is no longer possible to talk about the work line. It is time to deliver the work line. There is nothing this government has done that has actually resulted in an increased work line. We can talk about almost anything - about the unemployment insurance, about the employer contributions for young people. I understand that it can sometimes take time. But we actually receive no concrete information on what specifically should be done to move from a benefit line to a work line.

It is interesting that the member says that this is being prepared and that there is some agreement. But you are not in agreement. The Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals are in agreement. But the Sweden Democrats do not share the view on the unemployment insurance fund with the government parties. It has become completely obvious in the labor market policy in the committee, when we talk about everything from minimum wages and the platform directive to the unemployment insurance fund and reduced employer contributions, that it is not the Liberals, Christian Democrats, and Moderates who are shaping the labor market policy. It is the Sweden Democrats who are steering the labor market policy.

Therefore, I want a clear statement. Does the government intend to proceed with SOU 2020:37? The only information I receive is that it is being prepared.

What I believe it is actually about is that you are not in agreement and that the Sweden Democrats are saying no. In that case, it is better to say it, that the Liberals would gladly have moved forward but that SD stopped it. It would have been more honest in this chamber and for the voters.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I cannot give the member Cato any more answers than that this is being prepared. As far as I know, negotiations on this have not even started with the Sverigedemokraterna.

When I listen to the Sweden Democrats here, they are not negative towards a change in the design of the unemployment insurance. What we have not agreed on is the level of the compensation. And this is therefore a compromise.

The chairman says that he does not see any other changes that contribute to the work line. These are also things that are being prepared and will come. It is about the replacement level in terms of the gap between earned income and replacements from other than work. It is about wanting to lower the employer contributions for everyone and not just for the small group of young people, because it has not turned out to be as effective as one wants.

We have been delayed due to inflation and due to the world around us, but I am quite convinced that we will soon deliver a labor market policy that even Member Cato and the Center Party will be satisfied with.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! Just as the member from the Center Party was involved in the Liberal Party's Ministry of Employment at more or less all its levels. One holds the position of Minister for Employment as well as the position of Deputy Minister for Employment. The Liberal member spoke for 2 minutes and 17 seconds about the bill, which comes from her own minister. It is signed and ready from the party chairman, and she devoted 2 minutes and 17 seconds to it. I still think it should be noted.

Liberal bourgeois labor market policy was mentioned. It is therefore 700 million kronor less for Arbetsförmedlingen, cuts to vocational training to then bring back some of those funds in the spring budget and perhaps – we shall see – a scrapping of the establishment jobs. It is liberal bourgeois labor market policy.

That letting the Sweden Democrats rule the policy in the area of unemployment insurance is also liberal bourgeois labor market policy in 2023. It is still quite fascinating, because in connection with us in the Social Democrats presenting the election promise to make these reinforcements permanent if we won the election, Mats Persson, who is now the Minister for Education, said the following: Small business owners have acute problems finding competent employees, and in that situation, it is the wrong signal to increase the compensation to the one who is unemployed.

But what has the government done? Well, it has raised the levels in the a-kassa, and it is making permanent the reinforcements that the Social Democrats pushed through during the pandemic. We often hear here that it is compromises and negotiations and that this is the outcome. My question to the Liberal member is how she views the outcome of these negotiations. Where do the Liberals draw the line for the Sverigedemokraterna when it comes to pushing the Liberals forward in the a-kassa issue? That is what I would be interested in hearing.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I must first comment on this with time. It is the first time you and I stand here in a debate, Member Magnusson. Had you spoken with your colleagues, you would have known that I like to express myself briefly and concisely. It is not the case that things get better because one speaks for a long time. The proposals I delivered were probably more than many of you managed to put forward during your eight minutes.

Regarding some of the other matters the member raised, we have talked about them many times. It concerns cuts to adult education due to the pandemic, where we have, in fact, returned to what was before the pandemic and then lifted it again. I do not see that we have cut back in the way the Social Democrats often claim in the debate.

I see that we are making important changes in the labor market area, and yes, I have heard what Mats Persson - who is also from Skåne - said before the election. But the answer there is that this is a compromise we have made. Then I think that, given how the situation looks with inflation, unrest, and other catastrophe scenarios that have existed during this period, we perhaps should ensure that we raise the unemployment insurance. We will then have to address the work principle in other ways, which I also spoke about in previous debates.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! Then we look forward to the Liberals launching reforms for how to address the work line, as it was expressed. The Liberals have, as said, complete control over the Ministry of Employment, so I expect that the reforms will soon be rolled out and that we will see them coming to the Swedish Parliament on a rolling basis. That would be desirable.

I just want to briefly interject that the Scanian connection – that there is so much Scania here today – is of course pleasant. I can also feel sympathy for the idea that one should keep it brief sometimes, absolutely. It is almost like being in the regional council, even though I have never sat in the regional council at home.

Now I almost lost my train of thought just because of that, but: I also thought I heard something in the presentation about the Liberals wanting to see a clear tapering. Is that anchored with the Sweden Democrats? As I understand it, the Sweden Democrats have been very clear that they will not allow a single deterioration in the unemployment insurance fund during the mandate period. Still, the Liberals are talking about wanting to see a clearer tapering in the unemployment insurance fund. Is this something that is being negotiated, or will it be presented in the chamber? Is it part of the liberal reform package that we are all supposedly waiting for?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I explained what the Liberals want and what our starting point is, and that is that the a-kassa is welcome to be high initially and then be tapered off. It is about, for example, strengthening the work line – that it goes faster and one gets greater mobility. Whether it has been negotiated with the Sverigedemokraterna, I cannot answer; that takes place within the walls of the Government Offices.

I have sat in regional councils, and even there I expressed myself very briefly.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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