Response to interpellation 2022/23:115 on the restructuring of labor market and integration policy

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Johanna Haraldsson has asked me what new concrete measures I intend to take now that the labor market and integration policy is to be restructured. Furthermore, Johanna Haraldsson asks what measures are planned in the short term to meet the now increasing unemployment and what measures I consider important so that long-term unemployment does not increase now.

Everyone who can work shall work. It is a fundamental matter of justice and crucial for increasing security and strengthening welfare. Increased employment is also crucial for improving integration. The work line needs to be re-established. It must become more profitable to move from benefits to work, and there must be clear activity requirements in order to be able to receive benefits.

In the short term, it is about using existing measures that are close to the workplace to make labor market policy more cost-effective and designed so that more people enter, preferably a regular job. There is room for a continued increase in measures relative to current levels, including when it comes to labor market training, matching services, and work placements. The work of allocating more to regular studies shall continue, and the government has in the budget bill for 2023 proposed that adult education should be strengthened to counteract unemployment.

In the longer term, the four coalition parties in the Tidö Agreement have agreed to work towards ensuring that a major subsidy reform is implemented during the mandate period, aimed at improving the chances for people to enter employment and thereby push back exclusion. A subsidy ceiling shall be introduced, clear and adapted activity requirements shall be set for all who receive social assistance, and the possibility for socially useful interventions shall be investigated. The possibilities for transition need to be strengthened, and the transition study support that has now been introduced is central to this work.

It is also necessary with a new work and education line in the integration policy with a particular focus on the exclusion of women born outside of Europe. Knowledge of the Swedish language is crucial for newcomers to be able to establish themselves on the labor market. The teaching in SFI should be reviewed with the aim of being strengthened, among other things by ensuring that SFI teaching combined with vocational training should be offered to newcomers in all municipalities.

The Government is prepared to take further measures in the area of the labor market if necessary during the mandate period if the situation on the labor market deteriorates.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johan Pehrson, for the answer! The Minister for Employment means that the labor market and integration policy needs to be restructured. I naturally wonder in what way this restructuring will take place. I have listened with interest to what kind of new measures and initiatives this would entail. That is why I submitted this interpellation, where I ask the government how it intends to meet the now increasing unemployment and the risk that more people will become long-term unemployed, in addition to me wondering what new measures will be taken to restructure.

I find it difficult to see, even after Johan Pehrson's answer, what are such significant changes that one can call this a reorganization. I also lack initiatives that can meet a higher unemployment.

The Minister states in his answer that a work line is needed in the integration policy. Everyone who can work shall work. This is something we Social Democrats have said very many times, even during previous terms. And it is something we are in complete agreement on.

We Social Democrats revised the establishment program so that more requirements were actually set. One had an obligation to participate in the measures that were judged best to lead to employment. All new measures focused on work or education and language. But Johan Persson's government is now – despite the minister's speech about job focus – significantly reducing the resources for both the measures that are to lead to jobs and the measures that are to support the unemployed in getting one.

It is also argued that an educational line is needed in the integration policy. That is also good, and something that the previous government also focused on. We introduced a compulsory education for newcomers. We have introduced an obligation to participate in language training if one needs it to be able to get a job. We have also significantly expanded the number of educational places.

The Minister would like to say that he is investing in education. He says in his response to the interpellation that adult education is being strengthened. But that is not the case. In this budget that the government pushed through as recently as December, the investments in adult education are reduced by over 1 billion. This is what Johan Pehrson in the next breath says he wants to invest in. You can call it what you want, but everyone who can count sees that it is a cut.

The Minister also says that there should be a special focus on women born outside of Europe. It is the case that the limitation in parental leave, the abolition of child support, and the introduction of extra services have moved foreign-born women closer to the labor market.

We have been extremely clear in the management of Arbetsförmedlingen that workplace-oriented measures shall reach more women. We commissioned investigations, and we have given instructions that one should be close to people who have the greatest needs for support. This is also being hindered now by the right-wing government's cuts.

From the Minister's answer to the interpellation, I hear that we are in many ways in agreement on what we need to focus on to get more people into work. This aligns quite well with what my party has already pushed through. But my question remains: What is new in the right-wing government's policy? What new initiatives will be taken to live up to its big words on restructuring, beyond the cuts that we are now seeing?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I can understand and respect that the opposition always wants more resources. To think that what is being done is too little or too late lies within the opposition's eternal privilege. And if I am to be completely honest, I have never myself seen this coming at any point.

The previous government included proposals in its latest budgets that meant that large investments we had had during the pandemic were concluded - both they and I thought that was good, and so this is being implemented. But then it is said that one has new money now. In that case, one could have had that from the beginning when the budgets for 2021 and 2022 were written, where one can primarily see the time-limited appropriations that were due to the pandemic. There I think one must be correct. This does not prevent you from still allocating more money.

What makes the difference is what exists within the labor market policy. Here, I also want to emphasize in this interpellation debate that if one adds the increased unemployment insurance and the transition support, multi-billion investments are made to ensure that the skills shortage is resolved and unemployment is reduced when the outside world affects us in different ways.

We are keeping many parts, such as this with establishment – I think that was a good focus. It started with the government we had before eight years ago with the Social Democrats which is now finished. We moved the entire establishment to Arbetsförmedlingen. For heavens' sake: One might have considered whether people who came to our country should work instead of being in the municipality or had some other idea of what they would contribute directly. "Welcome to Sweden! Here we work, speak Swedish and behave." It is a fairly simple integration policy, but nevertheless difficult to implement in practice.

When it comes to the reallocation, it is the large one that we have signaled a subsidy reform. We have to see if the Social Democrats are on board with this, with ensuring that it always pays to work. But we have not had time to do this in this budget. Between the election and the first budget, despite the election being moved forward by a week during an election year, it is a bit short time for this. We are working on it.

Working out a part of this was indeed the counter-requirement for subsistence support. There have been many variants in the municipalities over the years of the model "welcome to subsistence support, you are an adult and healthy, I expect that you are here and that you do this, and then you use the rest of the time to seek work." In many places and under different colored political governments, this has proven to be effective. Here, it seems it is something else that decides: will rather than exact political affiliation.

What we are also doing here are investments in the school. It is absolutely crucial for many parents, also as unemployed for a short, medium or long period, that the school works for the children. If the school and also the preschool work, one has the motivation to more easily move towards work, internship or subsidized employment.

Then I also think that the investments we are making in sports in the disadvantaged areas are a reorganization. There is more focus on women's organizing and not just talk about all the men who are problems; it is to ensure that women get the chance to organize without, for that reason, stopping the talk about men who perhaps do not behave - regarding current issues in this city.

We also have the language requirement for citizenship. All of this is big things that are now underway. These are quite large reorganizations that should have arrived 20 years ago.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! It is as I could read: the contribution ceiling and the contribution reform are the major reorganization.

But I thought I would counter this with educational initiatives and initiatives on labor market policy and that the opposition always wants more resources: Well, we prioritize differently. We have the same money to work with. We chose, in and of itself, not to lower the tax for those who have the highest incomes in Sweden, but otherwise we have the same money to contend with. And we also contend with reality. It is clear that we must reassess when we see that we are entering a recession and therefore need to invest more in active labor market policy and education. And we are completely in agreement that it is important to ensure that the transition study support actually gets the resources it needs so that people can really transition and meet the skills shortage that exists in Sweden.

The Minister for Employment also knows what we are in agreement on regarding the A-kassa. And it is good that the responsibility for the establishment is being moved to Arbetsförmedlingen. That is something we have held firm on during our eight years.

But as I said, contribution ceilings are what applies nowadays. It is a proposal that the government and Sverigedemokraterna are holding very firmly to. It is a major contribution reform that is intended to improve the chances for people to enter their own work. It is an incredibly unclear proposal that we who stand outside the palace parties can only speculate about what consequences it will have for people who are currently without jobs. In particular, there is a concern among people about how this will affect children in families with low incomes who may be receiving social assistance. But the minister perhaps can meet my and others' concern with some announcements today.

More people need to get into work. If there are obstacles that we can do something about politically so that more people can approach the labor market, we will of course do so. Therefore, the Social Democratic government appointed an inquiry that is to come with proposals on increased incentives for work and self-sufficiency in the social assistance, and where a proposal shall also be developed on how the activity requirement, which Johan Pehrson mentions, can be implemented.

But it is not only through setting requirements and through changes in different compensation systems that we increase the possibilities for self-employment and livelihood. It is by doing both; by both setting requirements and in different ways providing support so that those who are without jobs can acquire new skills and gain new work experience. A breadth of measures is needed. People are different and need different types of support. Some can take part in many supports simultaneously, and some need a chain of support. The breadth is important. This rhymes poorly with the minister's speech about streamlining. Not because I think streamlining is bad in any way in itself, but for what it seems to mean for this government: fewer resources and a smaller range of support that can suit different individuals.

More training places are needed, and an upgraded labor market policy is needed across the entire country. We know that the Sweden Democrats have previously wanted to minimize the number of interventions for the unemployed, and particularly those aimed at foreign-born individuals. Is it the case that Johan Pehrson actually wants a powerful labor market policy but has had to give in to the Sweden Democrats' demands?

Given that the major reform is actually the subsidy reform, I would also like to ask how it will potentially affect families who might be affected by it.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! We begin with the last point, namely that it should pay to work. It is a quite important structural change. I have not met a single person within any workers' organization or within the unions - nor even a single person who works with research in the field, with recruitment or with social conditions - who has said that it does not matter. Everyone says instead that it is important that it pays to work.

Then one must look at this, and that is where a collision occurs. We have enormous social ambitions, with social assistance as an ultimate floor, which is very good. But I want to remind that during the last parliamentary term, there were several Social Democratic representatives—in the government too, I actually believe—who, for example, spoke about this regarding the multi-child supplement. The question was asked whether it is reasonable. I said that it is difficult but that I think it is reasonable that the question is asked and that one looks at those conditions, which the Social Democrats raised in articles and so on, if I don't remember entirely incorrectly.

I think we must look at the overall picture. I go out on visits, and I hope that all members of the Riksdag do as well. Yes, I know that you do. One meets large, medium-sized, and small companies that say they have problems finding people: "Here there are a lot of people who are adults and healthy, but they are not working." The companies have instead solved this with labor immigration from any country very far away. Then one realizes that something is wrong here – and that it may be the case that this benefit reform is truly needed.

I naturally look forward to the Social Democrats sticking to what they said about, for example, the support for families with children, that is to say that they are prepared to look at it. They said that before the election, and I hope that it also applies after the election. I also hope that they stick to what they say about it being important to have a counter-performance for subsistence support after a certain period when it concerns healthy adults. I think it is completely necessary if we are to crack this nut and achieve improved integration and reduced exclusion.

However, this is not enough; there must be jobs. There must be a first job, which might be simple. Then we all develop in our jobs – even in the Riksdag, I want to emphasize. Things happen during the time we have a mission or go to a job. Sometimes one also changes jobs. We need to focus as much as possible on what is close to the workplace so that as many as possible can get into regular jobs.

It does not prevent us from having discussions, not least with Arbetsförmedlingen, regarding subsidized employment and that they need to increase. I will meet Samhall in the near future to see what help and support they need, so that Arbetsförmedlingen helps those people who have the opportunity for a significantly improved life in terms of freedom and dignity by making their best effort at Samhall. It is about having somewhere to go during the day. Work is very good. This does not, therefore, prevent this.

I also want to emphasize that investments in schools, language requirements for citizenship, investments in sports in vulnerable areas so that young people have a meaningful leisure time, and investments in increasing women's engagement are an expression that it is not just about setting requirements, but also about showing that there is a sense of care. Other measures are also required, not just new requirements.

I shall give a final word regarding the round given on tax on labor. I have understood that the Social Democrats in almost all years, or at least during the last ten, have thought it has been good that we have indexations for pregnancy compensation, pensions and CSN - and also for the tax system. But I see that one has abandoned that opinion now.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Employment for this debate.

I can throw back that it is once again about this issue of priorities. It is clear that it is important that we keep taxes at reasonable levels and that we constantly review what we have for revenues in order to be able to finance what we need to do, for example within labor market policy or the large investments that we want to make in our municipalities and regions so that the welfare will maintain the standard over time.

Just like the Minister for Employment, I believe we need to look at different supports. For example, the individualization of the establishment allowance is a reform we would support if the government were to move forward with such a reform. Several other important reforms were implemented during the Social Democratic government's time to get more people into work and shorten the establishment period. The focus in integration policy has shifted to be more about jobs and education, and that is something we completely agree on.

Just as I said earlier, we need a jobs policy that both sets higher requirements and provides significant support. That is why we Social Democrats want to invest more in both education policy and labor market policy. Johan Pehrson's speech about a reorganization of the policy actually echoes quite hollowly and does not really contain many new measures, except possibly a very unfinished and unclear subsidy reform. The only change we have seen so far is fewer resources for both labor market and education policy. It is nothing that will benefit those who want nothing more than to work and support themselves but who have been without a job and perhaps lack the skills that are in demand.

I view the last sentence in the Minister for Employment's response positively, that is, that one is prepared to develop new measures if needed. In that case, we Social Democrats will stand ready to listen to, evaluate, and debate the proposals, because we will always continue to work to improve the opportunity for more people to get jobs.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Besides saying that it is too little and too late, which is the opposition's privilege, it is often said that it echoes empty—which is also the opposition's privilege. However, I am not among those who said that it echoed empty. When the Social Democrats during the previous term stepped forward and said that we must look at the compensation systems and whether these multi-child supplements are reasonable, I said: Oh, this was brave! I said that because there are forces in the Riksdag who think that one should not talk about this at all, because it is only bad.

But that people should support themselves - that people should have support and help at all times but also take personal responsibility - is a thought that I know has been strong within Social Democracy through the years, and it is good that it is coming back. People have a personal responsibility for themselves and their own livelihood. Regardless of whether the labor market policy is at the level that applied during the previous mandate period, that is, the level that the Social Democrats stood behind then, or at the level that the Social Democrats now stand behind, there is always a personal responsibility that it is important to take. This discussion will continue.

When it comes to the skills shortage and recruitment, I know that even the Social Democrats are deeply knowledgeable on the issue of the needs within the public sector and healthcare. This applies to nurses, specialist nurses, JAS-pilots, and everything else of the sort. Still, you proceed with hefty tax increases for those who have worked for a long time in their profession, Johanna Haraldsson. Take, for example, police officers who have worked for a long time – or engineers, whom our industry is crying out for. You proceed with heavy tax increases for them, and I do not know if it leads to more new jobs immediately. There are few economic theories from Swedish universities that indicate that.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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