Response to interpellation 2022/23:350 on labor market policy priorities

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Teresa Carvalho has asked me whether I intend to instruct Arbetsförmedlingen to reprioritize measures as a result of the steering towards more participants in matching services and labor market training, and which measures could then be relevant. Furthermore, she asks whether I have initiated an analysis of the consequences of the government's cuts to appropriation 1:3 in expenditure area 14 regarding the number of participants in labor market policy programs and measures, and if I can, in that case, report the results of the analysis.

In the budget bill for 2023, the Government announced a more efficient labor market policy by prioritizing cost-effective measures that are close to the workplace and that contribute to a high level of job-seeking activity. The Swedish Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen) was therefore given a mandate in the regulatory letter for 2023 to, among other things, increase the number of participants in work placements, labor market training, wage subsidies, and other subsidized employments.

A continued high number of participants in matching services can also contribute to more contacts with employers and better meet employers' competence supply needs. In the budget bill for 2023, the government also proposed extra funds to increase the number of internship placements.

In accordance with the Riksdag's decision on the autumn budget, Arbetsförmedlingen's personnel resources are being reinforced with 50 million kronor to be able to meet the increased unemployment. Even though this is financed through a corresponding reduction of the program part, there is still room for an increase in efforts relative to current levels that respond to the challenges on the labor market.

Unemployed people who cannot find a job may need education. In accordance with the Riksdag's decision on the autumn budget, over 700 million kronor will be invested to create 8,350 more places within vocational training for adults across the country.

Furthermore, the parties in the Tidö Agreement have agreed to carry out a benefit reform during the mandate period and lower the tax on earned income so that it pays off better to move from benefits to work. Clearer activity requirements will also be imposed on those who are unemployed.

Arbetsförmedlingen has been tasked with improving geographical and occupational mobility among the unemployed. Those who are without work must be prepared to retrain or seek work in another municipality.

The work line must be restored, and everyone who can work shall work. It must be rewarding to move from benefits to jobs, and high requirements must be placed on those seeking jobs, combined with the unemployed being offered the right support and measures. There must also be clear activity requirements for receiving benefits.

This is a labor market policy with cost-effective measures designed so that more people get into work.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer, even though I do not consider that I received a sufficiently comprehensive answer to my questions. We will hopefully resolve that during the course of the debate.

What I have asked about is, in short, what the consequences for labor market measures will be from the government's budget, which contains a cut of billions on the appropriation for active labor market policy at the same time as we enter a recession.

The government has previously, as in the answer we heard here from the Minister for Employment, been clear that the cuts are not to lead to fewer places in labor market training or the private matching services. Apparently, it is even supposed to result in more people receiving support. Now that half the year has passed, I simply want to know if the government still makes the assessment that this will be achieved. Which measures are it then that fewer will be able to take part in? In the name of logic, something must be affected when billions of kronor disappear.

Madam Speaker! I can admit that, if properly designed, private matching services can certainly help certain groups of job seekers. But much indicates that it is the wrong measure for the long-term unemployed who, above all, are in need of more comprehensive and empowering interventions.

Many long-term unemployed people lack education. That was the reason why we Social Democrats expanded Kunskapslyftet during our time in government, not least with adult education places. It is also the reason why, within labor market policy, we want to invest more in shorter labor market trainings that are actually in demand on the labor market.

In addition to the fact that more training places are needed, we Social Democrats understand that many long-term unemployed people who lack education and perhaps additionally have deficient language skills and short work experience may need preparatory measures to be better equipped in the next step to acquire an education. But it is precisely that which Johan Pehrson overlooks. It is precisely that he cuts back on. Instead, he believes that long-term unemployment is due to it being too easy to be unemployed.

We are in complete agreement that high requirements must be placed on job seekers to make themselves employable. But the requirements must be accompanied by support that equips people with the skills that employers demand. That is where we are less in agreement; we see that in the budget that applies for this year.

I can also remind of the differences compared to last year's budget, that is, the year when the Liberals did not sit in a government position but presented their own budget here in the Riksdag. At that time, the Liberals proposed a fairly substantial reduction specifically on labor market training. So it is still legitimate to question how important it actually is for Johan Pehrson, when he now says he wants to shield the labor market training from the government's cuts on the rest of the labor market policy.

But perhaps it is a genuine shift from the Liberals' side, and that is good in that case. I am still, however, concerned that the government's policy in practice may still lead to fewer people getting the opportunity, because one is cutting so drastically on the appropriation that finances the majority of the labor market measures, including the labor market trainings.

I hope, as I said, that the Minister wants to elaborate on his answer regarding which measures are being cut this year. He is also welcome to say something about how many fewer in total will receive support to enter employment.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Teresa Carvalho for this important issue and the opportunity to debate it.

I also want to emphasize that we have enormous needs in the Swedish labor market today. That is why it is a major problem that resources allocated for labor market policy measures are not utilized but are returned, year after year. We have also had this discussion and debate with the Minister for Employment several times. It is particularly problematic because the needs in the labor market are huge today.

In the budget bill for 2023, the government decided that the budget allocation for the nystartsjobb shall amount to 8.1 billion kronor, a doubling compared to 2022. We have previously, as stated both in the chamber and in debate articles, warned of the risk that the funds allocated for nystartsjobb will not be utilized and that billions of kronor will be returned at the end of the year.

This is, as has been said, particularly worrying because the nystartsjobb (new start jobs) are based on an entitlement law, which means it is likely that the funds will not be fully utilized when economic activity decreases. This means that the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas decision could lead to a situation where the funds for labor market policy measures and Arbetsförmedlingens operations will not be sufficient, while at the same time we will see funds for nystartsjobb being returned.

We have, as we have pointed out previously, that this can have devastating consequences for the labor market policy but also for the legitimacy of that policy. The government chose not to listen to us then. I hope that the government can listen to us today.

When I look at Arbetsförmedlingen's reporting to the government until May 2023, I see that only 26 percent of the 7.5 billion kronor allocated for new start jobs have been used, which means 1.98 billion kronor. With the current consumption rate for the year, probably less than 5 billion kronor will be used. More specifically, it is 4.8 billion kronor that we believe will be utilized. Furthermore, we know that activity decreases during the summer months, which means the probability increases that we will end up somewhere around 4.5 billion kronor.

In other words, it seems our previous warnings are hitting home, and the risk is now that 3 billion kronor set aside for new start jobs will not be used. These funds could, as mentioned, be used for labor market training and to strengthen Arbetsförmedlingen's administrative grants so that more people can be employed at Arbetsförmedlingen. But the government has chosen to prioritize none of this.

In view of Arbetsförmedlingen's reporting to the government, I would like to ask the Minister how he justifies that funds earmarked for labor market policy measures and not least for Arbetsförmedlingen's organization are not matched by sufficient resources. The agency is already starting to cut personnel costs, which we will debate a bit later. At the same time, Arbetsförmedlingen will return 3 billion kronor to the government and the state.

I also want to ask what measures the government intends to take to ensure an effective and optimal use of these funds to combat unemployment, not least the long-term unemployment we have today, as well as how we are to promote employment and manage the skills supply in Sweden.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to my colleagues and to the interpellor, as well as to the Minister, who is here and providing us with answers to the interpellations we will debate today.

In this interpellation debate, I will focus on the personnel resources that these 50 million kronor, which were not included in the autumn budget but were included now in the spring budget, would make possible in order to meet the increased unemployment—that is, as I see it, to manage Arbetsförmedlingen's regular tasks. These 50 million kronor, is it pocket money? Maybe there will be a piece of cake too. But it is nothing more, in these contexts.

Pehrson speaks warmly about people moving from benefits to jobs. But then one cannot cut down on the supply of interventions, which this government has done. People who are close to or far from the labor market are individuals who need different types of interventions. Someone needs a smaller intervention, and some need more, larger interventions over time to eventually land and be in the labor market. Then one cannot narrow it down and say: Now we ensure that the supply becomes smaller and the alternatives fewer. Arbetsförmedlingen says themselves that we need more different variants of interventions for people to get into jobs, not fewer.

Instead, the government is putting many of its eggs in the nystartsjobb basket. The nystartsjobb are aimed at those who are quite close to the labor market. To a considerable extent, they could enter employment without these targeted interventions.

At the same time, we see a large extent of exploitation and fraud from companies that utilize nystartsjobb. It is not small change that is bleeding from the state in connection with this exploitation and fraud. But there, we see no crackdown at all from the government to ensure that those funds go to the targeted measures.

Furthermore, the majority of new start-up jobs have historically not been aimed at women but at men. At the same time, we see that many women are long-term unemployed and need to enter the labor market.

The Minister usually says that one should be careful with the taxpayers' money, and I can do nothing but agree one hundred percent. But I do not think it is responsible to allow companies to exploit the system and that this money goes to unserious companies - that there are not enough resources to control and follow up.

I believe that one should invest in people and that it is the most important and best way to use tax revenues. My question to the Minister is therefore: Why is there room in the programmed parts? Why is the greatest commitment and effort not put into ensuring that all these programmed parts actually work? Tax money should work, and it should work by us investing in people so that they get out onto the labor market.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the contributions in this interpellation debate, which actually concerns 89 billion eggs. That is the sum that a majority in the Riksdag has stood behind and which we are investing broadly in this area. I hear in here that there are those who want to invest even more, who think that 89 billion is too little.

We are working intensively to ensure that we manage these 89 billion in the absolute best way.

We note that other parties are scaling back on start-up jobs and investing in other things. That there are few start-up jobs may be due to the fact that we have a surprisingly, let's be honest, positive development in the labor market despite the bitter situation. We must remember that we are living in a war economy. We live next door to a war. We have high inflation. We have endured a pandemic, and we do not know what the coming winter will bring. I want to remind everyone in here that it is six months until Christmas Eve - yes, less than that, actually. Then we will again face an energy situation in this country that makes it difficult. Yet, we see a quite strong labor market.

We are planning and are prepared for the possibility that it could become tougher times. It is difficult to predict. Therefore, one must see that we will then return in a spring revision budget. We will soon return with new forecasts. Everything that the interpellator and the participants in the debate otherwise put forward will be weighed into the budget that we place on the Riksdag's table in the autumn, but also in any further adjustments in the so-called autumn revision budget, if it is relevant.

I see and hear what you are saying. Over the last 10, 20, or 30 years, appropriations at the Ministry of Employment - currently 89 billion - have been moved around to maximize efforts and reach those who are far from the labor market, those who are medium-distance from the labor market, and those who are closer to the labor market.

I cannot provide any more answers right now regarding what we are planning in the autumn budget. We will return, and then I am quite sure that the four Members of Parliament who are here in the chamber now will return with what they consider to be better proposals. I guess that it will then be about having even more resources.

We believe that one manages best by constantly trying to seek efficiency. That can be said at any time. It is difficult to be against more efficient labor market policy. One simply cannot be for an inefficient labor market policy.

But we have this at a time when Arbetsförmedlingen and other actors have been subject to major transitions in the labor market. We also now have to manage the fantastic transition support, which adds further support to people so that they can retrain themselves more offensively or have resources and additional support in the event of unemployment beyond what we are now talking about.

I cannot provide much more than that, but we are trying to counter this with resources in the supplementary budget. Finally, large investments are also being made post-pandemic in education within vocational colleges and adult education.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Johan Pehrson began his contribution by trying to be a bit funny and saying that there are 89 billion eggs in the labor market basket. He is then referring to approximately how much money there is in the total labor market policy.

But the question we are discussing in this interpellation debate specifically concerns the measures in appropriation 1.3. There we have today approximately 7 billion, which is approximately 2 billion less than last year, for it is this that the government is cutting. When Johan Pehrson spoke about 89 billion, he included, for example, the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan). So let us stick to the subject.

I can state that Johan Pehrson, after half a year as Minister for Employment, cannot answer clearly and distinctly regarding what the practical consequences will be of the cuts that I am now asking questions about. It is wishful thinking that we are hearing about. We are hearing about efficiencies. It is precisely wishful thinking, and it will have consequences.

This is not the first time I have asked questions about this, and the answers have remained outstanding, as they have today as well. Therefore, I have asked the Riksdag's investigation service and asked them to look at the effects of the Social Democrats' job initiatives in the budget in relation to the government's. It turns out that approximately 20,000 more would receive support to enter work with our policy - with the distribution between the different initiatives maintained, it is best to add.

While we Social Democrats want to gear up, the government chooses, on the contrary, to cut back on the measures that exist to break long-term unemployment. Breaking long-term unemployment is something we must do to break segregation and increase social cohesion.

At the end of the last parliamentary term, we also saw a clear break in the trend. Despite the refugee crisis, the pandemic, and war in our vicinity, the curves actually began to point in the right direction. Long-term unemployment began to fall for the first time in a very long time. Employment increased, and furthermore, the establishment time for newcomers was halved. It is this development that I am now afraid will come to a grinding halt with the government's cuts. The last thing Sweden needs is more segregation and exclusion.

Johan Pehrson may have an unknown plan for the jobs. What is the government's strategy to break long-term unemployment? It is not just I myself, we Social Democrats, or the united opposition who wonder about this, but we also hear that, for example, Svenskt Näringsliv wonders what the government's job policy actually is.

So far, there has been quite a lot of talk and very little workshop, one might say. There has been a lot of prao and very few initiatives, proposals, and propositions.

Much can be said about this, but to conclude, I can state that the Minister for Employment stubbornly sticks to the claim that more people should be able to receive support despite so many resources disappearing from the employment measures. Therefore, I want to once again pose this fairly simple question to the Minister for Employment: How are more people to receive support to get into work when fewer measures are offered? It simply does not add up!

I see through the Minister for Employment's bluff with the help of the Riksdag's investigation service. With the government's budget, 20,000 fewer people will receive measures to get into work this year compared to the Social Democrats' alternative.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I asked two questions that problematize a discussion. I did not receive any answer on how the Minister views the fact that now, when the money for the nystartsjobb has been doubled, these funds will hardly be used. That is to say that 3 billion kronor will be sent back unused to the state.

The Minister says that they will come back when it comes to the budget for next year. What we are discussing is what is today. If we look at the figures in the budget today, we can state that the money is not being used. This is the problem.

It is not about us Social Democrats wanting more money for the labor market policy or that 89 billion should become 99 billion. What we are looking for is that one should be able to ensure that these resources are used wisely.

We can look at the appropriations. Of the 89 billion, 38 billion go to the fund. 6.9 billion go to labor market policy programs and measures. 7.7 billion is Arbetsförmedlingen's administrative appropriation, that is, staff, offices, wages and so on so that we can have a state labor market authority.

Let me return to the question. I would very much like to hear the Minister comment on this based on what we see today and what the Public Employment Service has reported to the Government. It is 3 billion that will not be used if we fulfill what the Public Employment Service has reported to the Government. Does the Minister consider that these funds could be used, for example, for labor market training or to upgrade the Public Employment Service, so that we – not least against the background of what the Minister said about post-pandemic – have a Public Employment Service that is well-equipped to handle crises?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister speaks many times, even today, about a more efficient labor market policy. No, one cannot be against that. But we Social Democrats want an active labor market policy. We collect tax money and subsidize because we want people to work. All people who can work should work, and then we need to have measures so that they can also take a job. Then I think that these funds also need to work, not go to the Public Employment Service, stomp around, stand still and come back while we watch. We shall invest these funds so that they are used in the absolute best way and so that we strengthen, build and invest in individuals who can also become taxpayers.

We want an active labor market policy. Is it the same thing for the Minister, that it is an effective labor market policy? He is welcome to elaborate on that.

I can only state that it is very clumsy of this government and of the State Council to tinker with pocket change in a spring budget amendment. Will these funds be used this year, or are they to be saved to then be used for the upcoming deficit to manage the upcoming cuts? Are these funds, the pocket change, 50 million, used this year?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! What is the job policy? It is clear that it is active and effective, but the Liberals will never participate in a government with a policy where we hide people in various measures just to reach lower unemployment. The goal should be that one should move towards self-sufficiency, where one can obtain the freedom, the opportunity, and the empowerment that it entails. This might be the first job, the first real job. This must lead to real jobs. Therefore, we are restructuring large parts.

I know that the Social Democrats loved the extra services, but large-scale evaluations have not been conducted showing that they have led to enormous results, that people have taken gigantic steps into the labor market. That has not happened. I gladly await such a report. If such reports are produced, I will read them with great interest.

I will also read the sensational calculation from the Riksdag's investigation service – and it is well not so sensational. It is about what happens if one invests even more money. Socialdemokrater do have a policy when one lays down the final budget. When one ends up in opposition, one has a new policy, where one invests even more resources than one had first intended to do according to the budget that applied to the last year before that. But one is not worse off than that one can change one's mind. One comes with new proposals. And now you have more resources. I say it.

But I mean that one must be able to use 89 billion, including the unemployment insurance fund. All of that is intended to be used. This is incredibly difficult, and I believe even the Social Democrats can acknowledge that. One sees how this has been moved in the state budget from year to year when you have tried to plan. It concerns the expenditures. It is not a goal in itself that one should spend all the money. That time must surely be over too for the interpellator and the co-debaters here – that there is a goal in itself to spend all the money.

These resources exist. If they are not used, one must ask: Can we do this more efficiently? Can they be used in some other area? Can there be even more vocational training? Can there be even more investments in other regular education? Yes, that is perhaps even better labor market policy.

Then I want to say something for the record and to those listening to this debate. It is about reforming language teaching, sharpening the requirements, and ensuring that people enter language teaching. It is no use for anyone in here to sit and sulk because no one has learned Swedish in one, five, or ten years. It is probably better if they do it now, in that case. Sfi must be reformed. A completely different framework and completely different requirements must be introduced. There I expect the Social Democrats' support, because I guess they are at least now in favor of requirements when it comes to the Swedish language.

Then it is about fighting inflation. It is important labor market policy. If we do not fight inflation, unemployment is guaranteed to start increasing again. Now, it has been expected, but we have not seen it yet. We must fight inflation. We must arm ourselves against external and internal threats. That is also labor market policy, I can say. It is about people daring to invest in Sweden. We see how the investments are coming here in rows. I meet directors regarding all possible green and good investments who wonder: Do you have any people to put to work? Yes, we are in full swing.

Every month, perhaps 1,000 different labor market trainings are started. We have a university college that has grown very strongly while maintaining quality. We ensure that we grow and achieve quality in higher education, because we also need a few more engineers in Sweden. We work with youth schools to reduce the number of dropouts. It is about children who have not received sufficient grades to proceed to upper secondary school. The number has grown year after year.

All this, together with counter-requirements regarding maintenance support over a longer period, is part of a coherent policy for jobs and for empowerment for individuals who are given the honor of supporting themselves.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! It became a bit fuller at the end. Now it only remains for the government to start delivering in terms of these matters, because it still echoes quite empty. A lot of bills or even directives for investigations that are then to become bills in the area of the labor market have not dropped down. But we look forward to the continuation.

I just have to respond to what the Minister for Employment says. He insinuates that we Social Democrats in opposition have more money to move with compared to if we had sat in government and compared to the current government. But the simple truth is that we have just as much money, but we prioritize very differently.

The government focused primarily on a large tax cut for high-income earners, and we Social Democrats chose welfare and job policy instead. That is, among other reasons, why we have more resources for labor market initiatives.

I shall try to summarize this debate, Madam Speaker. I can state that the SD-led government began the mandate period by taking out the chainsaw and the sledgehammer against the labor market policy. This is happening at the same time as we enter a recession.

The Riksdag's investigation service has, as mentioned, compared our budget alternatives. Then we see the difference. With the government's policy, approximately 20,000 fewer people in need of support to enter employment will receive help and interventions compared to our policy.

The Minister for Employment speaks sweepingly about efficiencies, but in this context, it seems mostly to be code words for cheap and private. What actually meets the needs of the labor market does not seem to be as important as saving on labor market policy to afford tax cuts.

I realize that my speaking time is over, so I must thank you and conclude this debate.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I feel that I want to counter some of this with chainsaws and sledgehammers. It feels like one should be careful about resorting to Johan Pehrson's robust language. One must sometimes hold back a bit, because it can hit the wrong way. It is very difficult to say that one has produced large sledgehammers and chainsaws when we have a unified labor market policy of this volume.

I just want to underline - and I want it to be clear - that I wish we would have a bit less of this in the future. If we succeed with a business climate and an entrepreneurial climate so that there are more new jobs, there will be more tax money. We see now how SKR is struggling. The Social Democrats themselves didn't have a single krona for SKR in our amendment budget. Correct me if I am wrong! It is fine to nod or shake your heads. I know you didn't have it.

That is how the money rolls in. That is how prosperity is created, and fundamentally, a functioning youth school and higher education. That is what will make people enter the workforce, and that is what makes it possible for us to ensure that we get the competence supply that is needed.

Many of the things the Social Democrats did were wise, so we have taken over. This applies, for example, to the fact that after eight years it was concluded that it is good to dimension the upper secondary school. Unfortunately, it took eight years. But it is better with year eight than nothing at all. More people are seeking out those educations, and the young people get an honest answer about where the jobs are in the future. It is foolish to educate oneself for jobs that do not exist, even in a country that gives all people the freedom to choose education and compete for the positions that exist.

The government prioritizes school and education. We have chosen to reform the policy and increase the controls. We continue to work on these issues, but it takes some time. There are no finished legislative proposals, because the boxes were empty when we took over from the Social Democrats. You will see, and we will talk a lot about this.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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