(cont. from § 5) Pensions (cont. SfU11)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the future of the pension system and the work of the Pension Group. L advocated for expanding the Pension Group to all parties that support its basic principles, such as the life-income principle and long-term sustainability, in order to regain broad parliamentary support and counter populist outbursts 1 2. L emphasized the need for a holistic approach to manage demographic challenges and the erosion of the work principle 2. C argued that it is important for the current five parties to first agree on working methods and principles before taking a stand on expansions 3 4. MP demanded increased pensions and guaranteed pensions to meet rising costs, proposed a reduced VAT on basic goods and an increased housing allowance 5. MP also wanted to enable pension transfers for cohabitants 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Mauricio Rojas (L)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech!
I want to ask something that I know is important for the member. It concerns the Pensions Group. What is the Center Party's purpose with the group being investigated? Are you positive about inviting all those parties that stand behind the principles that the Pensions Group works from?
Martina Johansson (C)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.
You and I have not worked together for that long, but it is good that it shows that the Pensions Group is important to me. The reason for that is that we are to safeguard the pension system which, at its core, is a very good system.
I usually say that it has shaken a bit, and over the recent years we have perhaps not always been completely in agreement. What is important for me right now is therefore that the five parties that from the beginning were tasked to safeguard the pension system have a substantial discussion about how we should work, what should apply, which principles we should safeguard, and what the nearest steps are that we need to take. That is the most important thing for me right now, and the discussion must land before I at all take a position on other kinds of discussions.
Mauricio Rojas (L)
Mr. Speaker! When the pension system was launched, more than 90 percent of the Riksdag stood behind it. That has decreased significantly. If we included all the parties that are positive towards the pension system and who also want to be part of the Pension Group, we would once again have 90 percent who stood behind it. Therefore, I think it is very important to consider the possibility of expanding the Pension Group.
The basis must be that the parties stand behind the principles that guide the work in the group. How can we explain that we do not invite parties that want to be part of the Pensions Group and who stand behind the principles that guide our work?
Martina Johansson (C)
Mr. Speaker! What is important to me is that it is a cross-bloc cooperation where we agree on where we are going and what the working methods should look like, and that the parties in the group jointly safeguard the fundamentals of the pension system. The pension system does not benefit from the volatility of recent years, as agreements have been made outside of the Pensions Group.
In the current situation, it is difficult for me to answer exactly how the cooperation should look. The pension working group must first sit down and consider how they are to work together. Should it be exactly this constellation? Can the transparency and the discussions be handled in some other way? Or is it in this form that the discussion should take place? Before we have settled on how we want to work moving forward, it is difficult for me to answer the question.
Mauricio Rojas (L)
Mr. Speaker! In several of the motions we are debating today, there are interesting proposals that can help to improve our general pension system. Nevertheless, I want the Riksdag to reject the substitute motions and approve the committee's proposal. The reason for this is simple, Mr. Speaker. Our pension system faces major challenges that require a holistic approach in order to be managed in a responsible and long-term sustainable way. It is, of course, the opposite of a populist election circus of the type that we experienced not so long ago.
What it is about is developing, under new circumstances, the fundamentally sound basic principles that the general pension system is based on. We Liberals have stood and continue to stand behind these principles, for example, the separation from the state budget, the life income principle, intergenerational responsibility, which ensures that future generations are not burdened, the respect for the non-work-related pension which ensures that it always pays to work, and last but not least, long-term sustainability, that is to say, a long-term balance between the system's income and expenditures.
It has been the Pensionsgruppens task to safeguard and further develop these basic principles since the new pension system was launched in the 1990s. It functioned well for more than two decades but has hardly done so during recent years. Therefore, it is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, that this steering group gets a fresh start, not least considering the two major challenges that our public pension system faces.
One is a fundamental demographic challenge. Life expectancy has increased more than working life, not least in comparison with the forecasts that the system originally rested on. Therefore, the general pension does not become high enough when the same money is to suffice for a longer retirement life. This means that pensions on average lie significantly below the compensation level that was intended when the system was launched.
The second challenge is a shrinking respect distance which causes the work line to be quickly eroded. This was pointed out by the Director General of the Pensions Agency, Daniel Barr, in a prominent debate article in November last year. This is partly due to the relatively low level of the income pensions, partly due to the large increases of the basic protection which were decided by the Riksdag last year, and partly due to the different indexing mechanisms that apply to the income pension and to the guarantee pension.
These great challenges underscore the need to resume the Pension Group's work. It should be done based on as broad a parliamentary basis as possible. All parties that explicitly stand behind the basic principles of the pension system should be invited to become part of the group. This would restore the system's broad parliamentary support, which existed in the 90s, and additionally prevent populist outbursts of the type we recently witnessed from becoming commonplace in Swedish politics.
Mr. Speaker! Everyone should be able to feel security regarding their pension. We want a stable pension system where one receives more in pension the more one pays in. We want a pension system where citizens are protected against political whims and benefit from working more and paying tax.
Marielle Lahti (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Pensions in Sweden must be raised. Far too many pensioners are now looking with concern at how they will make the money last when costs are skyrocketing. Covering their basic needs has become more expensive as electricity and food prices have shot up. PRO's own price survey showed that the price of a food basket increased by more than 20 percent. Since then, prices have continued to rise. Therefore, it is now more urgent that we actually get reforms in place that will improve the situation for Sweden's pensioners.
We from Miljöpartiet have, among other things, proposed that the VAT on important staple foods should be lowered to zero for a period from March 1st and three months forward. This is something that would make the weekly grocery shopping less financially burdensome for all pensioners in the entire country. But, Mr. Speaker, Sweden's pensioners deserve, above all, a good pension. We want to raise the general pension and increase the contributions to the pension system. When the general pensions are raised, we also believe that the guarantee pension should be raised to improve the situation for those with the lowest pensions. These reforms would improve the lives of many and furthermore contribute to preserving the legitimacy of the long-term pension system that we have in Sweden.
Women are overrepresented in the group that has the lowest pensions. The labor market is and continues to be unequal. This means that women generally receive lower wages, which in turn leads to lower pensions. Raising pensions for those with low pensions is therefore also an important equality issue. It can improve the lives of many women who live with small economic margins. It can be about women who have worked a whole working life and yet live on a pension that is far too low.
Mr. Speaker! The housing supplement is an important part of improving the economic security for pensioners with low incomes. We therefore want to increase the housing supplement to support those pensioners who are now facing increased costs. To receive the housing supplement, one must apply for it. Unfortunately, this has resulted in that many who are entitled to the support do not receive it. We want the Pensions Agency to design a system that ensures that those who are entitled to the housing supplement can also receive it.
We also think that the current system for transferring pension rights is a bit too rigid. We want to make it possible for cohabitants to transfer pension rights in the same way that is currently possible for married couples. This would enable one party in a couple to compensate their partner, for example, because they have taken on a greater responsibility for managing the housework and taking care of the children. Couples who want to compensate the partner who has taken on a greater responsibility for children and housework should also be able to do so.
Just as our pension system is to be economically sustainable over time, the part of the pension system that is invested should also contribute to sustainable development. We have pushed for the AP funds to take a greater sustainability responsibility, and we have come a long way since we began pushing the issue. That work must now continue, so that our pension money is not invested in fossil fuels that contribute to climate change and skyrocketing inflation.
In summary, we therefore believe that pensions should be higher, more equal, and more sustainable. I move for approval of reservations 4 and 7.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
(The decision was to be taken on 22 February.)
The Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's supervision of pharmacies and wholesale trade of pharmaceuticals
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.