Response to interpellation 2023/24:50 on the Pensions Agency's independence
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government, together with SD, is correcting an injustice where persons born in 1957 were incorrectly taxed more than intended 1 2. M emphasizes that they have great confidence in the Pensions Agency's professionalism and integrity, as well as that the dialogue with the agency is very good 1 2 3 4. M argues that the error occurred during the previous Social Democratic government 2 3. SD argues that the agency was aware of the deficiencies earlier than was announced and questions whether the agency acted correctly by delaying the information 5 6. SD argues that there is reason to review the agency's routines and the placement of pension funds 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! David Perez has asked me how I and the government intend to act so that the error which has resulted in citizens born in 1957 being taxed more than what was originally intended will not affect future pensioners. David Perez has also asked me whether my confidence in the Pensions Agency has been affected by the fact that the Pensions Agency did not previously alert the government and the Riksdag to obvious errors and deficiencies in the legislation. David Perez has finally asked me whether I will conduct a dialogue with the Pensions Agency regarding the fact that the agency did not inform the government when the error was noticed.
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by stating that it should always pay to work, especially when one has worked a whole life and it is time for retirement. In the Tidö Agreement, we establish that we shall submit proposals on how pensioners' finances can be strengthened and that the tax on both earned income and pensions shall be lowered. The Government has now, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, lowered the tax on work for the elderly, lowered the tax on pensions, and also lowered the tax for everyone who works, with a focus on low- and middle-income earners. These are welcome additions to household finances, which are now being hit hard by high interest rates and inflation.
Now the coalition parties are correcting the injustice that has affected the 59s and also ensure that the 59s do not suffer from this injustice. The next time the age limits for pensions are raised is 2026, i.e., in two years. So that the 59s do not end up in the same situation – so that this situation does not arise again – the Government Offices have also referred a proposal which means that the raising of the age limit for the right to the increased basic deduction is postponed from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027. This means that persons born in 1959 will have the right to an increased basic deduction for the tax year 2026, that is, from the year they turn 67. Persons born in 1958 are not affected by the upcoming raising of the age limit for the increased basic deduction to 67 years but receive an increased basic deduction exactly as intended.
I have great confidence that the Pensionsmyndigheten carries out its work professionally and with great integrity. I also assume that the Pensionsmyndigheten, within its area of responsibility, provides the information needed for the government to be able to make well-founded decisions. An important prerequisite for this is a well-functioning dialogue, and it is something that I definitely experience that I and the government have with the Pensionsmyndigheten.
David Perez (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It pleases me that Sweden has a government that, together with the Sweden Democrats, is now rectifying the error that has affected thousands of pensioners across the country, particularly those born in 1957 and 1959. Since we have not been able to return with a correction and repayment until this autumn budget, the question has characterized the debate for a long time and created very great anxiety among those who have been affected.
The background to this mistake is an inadequate proposal from the previous Social Democratic government in connection with the decision to raise the retirement age, which was something the Sweden Democrats voted against. Several heavy referral bodies, such as the Swedish Tax Agency and the Pensions Agency, unfortunately missed the consequences of the proposal.
What prompted me to call the minister here today was the question regarding precisely the 57s and something remarkable that occurred in connection with the last Almedalen week. This is something that I have also raised in my question.
It concerns a civil servant at the Pensionsmyndigheten who spoke at a seminar in Visby. It emerged there that the authority had been aware of the extensive deficiencies that had existed with the proposal earlier than had been signaled. They apologize by stating that at the time it was no longer relevant or possible to do anything about it. That may be so, but this nevertheless affected around 100,000 eligible voters. They have a great right to be informed about changes to their pension and might have chosen to cast their vote for someone else if they had known that they, as they themselves say, would be punitively taxed.
As the Minister knows, our authorities must be independent and not make any trade-offs that even come close to bias, especially during an election campaign. I consider it serious to delay or postpone matters of interest to the public, the government, or other parties in the Swedish Riksdag. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether, within the framework of her role as Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance, she has had a dialogue with the Pensions Agency regarding when inaccuracies in the bill were flagged and whether this could have been done earlier than it was now, not least in light of what the aforementioned official has said.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I want to start where I finished in my previous speech and state that I have great confidence in the Pensions Agency and that they perform their work with great professionalism and great integrity. The dialogue that the government and I have with the Pensions Agency is continuous and very intimate. This dialogue is very good.
I move on to the second question, which concerns justice regarding the proposal that we are now amending.
The background to the proposal for compensation to persons born in 1957 and 1959 is the situation that the Member of Parliament highlighted in his interpellation. Persons born in 1957 are not covered by the age increases in the pension system or surrounding security systems. At the same time, they have had to wait an extra year to take part in the increased basic deduction. The missing tax reduction that this has caused shall be compensated in the budget for 2024.
It was Magdalena Andersson who was Finance Minister when the proposal that led to the rules being changed for persons born in 1957 was referred. Despite the fact that she knew that they would have to pay for the missing tax reduction during 2023, no one was informed of this. This I, as well as several other ministers and members of the Swedish Riksdag, have lamented on several previous occasions in this chamber.
Those who have been affected by the new rules in this way have had to wait an extra year for the tax reduction that the increased basic deduction entails, but now the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is correcting this injustice for persons born in 1957. They will be compensated. We are also ensuring that persons born in 1959 will not be affected in this unfortunate way.
The Ministry of Finance is now submitting a memorandum on these proposals, and the compensation to persons born in 1957 is proposed, in addition to being included in the 2024 budget, to be tax-free. The amount will be based on the individual's established earned income and municipal tax rate for 2023 - this is so that the compensation shall, to the greatest extent possible, correspond to the missed tax reduction.
The local government leader David Perez's proposal in Uppsala concerns the change for up to 4,200 people born in 1957, and they will receive an average tax reduction of 28,000 kronor which will be tax-free.
It is proposed that Skatteverket become the administrator for this reform. No application procedure will be required, and the payment will be made automatically via the tax account on July 1, 2024. The reform will cost 3.2 billion kronor.
In order for the same situation not to occur for those born in 1959, it is also proposed that the raising of the age limit for the right to the increased basic deduction to 67 years be postponed from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027. The proposal is assessed to reduce tax revenues by 3.4 billion for 2026.
The mistake is now being corrected, and it is regrettable that it was not done by the previous government. This government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, is however taking responsibility.
David Perez (SD)
Madam Speaker! I also thank the Minister for this answer.
It is good that the government takes the issue seriously so that more people are not affected in the future. I am also pleased to hear that 4,200 people in Uppsala will receive a welcome compensation.
I note, however, that the Minister did not choose to comment on the question of what the Pensions Agency knew when. I also note that the Minister says to have great confidence in the agency. At the same time, a debate is ongoing in the shadow of Dagens industris revelation regarding how the occupational pensions are placed by the agency. The background is that the Pensions Agency changed its investment policy in the middle of the ongoing pandemic and chose to place a substantial amount of the pensioners' capital with a single real estate company following an offer from an American investment bank. The investment was included in what was called a low-risk option, but the investment in the individual company involved far from low risk. Similar investments at other pension companies have led to immediate dismissals. The Ministry of Social Affairs held a dialogue with the agency as recently as a couple of weeks ago regarding precisely this investment.
In light of the Minister's certification of her great confidence in the Pensionsmyndigheten, I therefore repeat the question: Does she consider that they acted correctly by waiting to inform, on the one hand, the government, and on the other hand, the affected pensioners when the agency became aware of the error, that is, before the election, while questionable investments are now appearing within the framework of the pension savings?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! The Pensions Agency has an important role as an expert authority and is tasked with monitoring, analyzing, and communicating the development and effects of the old-age pension system for individuals and society as a whole.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks and as the member also noted, I have full confidence in the Pensions Agency and also assume that the agency, within its area of responsibility, provides the information needed for the government to be able to make well-founded decisions.
It was during Magdalena Andersson's time as Finance Minister in the then Social Democratic government that the decision was made to proceed with the proposal without further notification.
I also have a well-functioning dialogue with the Pensions Agency, and nothing in that dialogue has given me reason to believe otherwise regarding the information that has emerged. On the contrary, I have many times had good reason to be impressed by the employees' hard work for today's and tomorrow's pensioners. For me, this is about a mutual and important exchange of information.
David Perez (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister once again for the answers regarding the 57s, the 59s, and the confidence in the Pensionsmyndigheten.
I can state that there is reason to review how the authority has acted in its choice of larger placements, especially when there have been deficiencies in the underlying material for the large investment in the real estate company, which emerged in Dagens industris revelation.
Let me conclude with a couple of questions that may be relevant for those listening to the debate at home and for the 100,000 eligible voters who might have made a different choice if they had known that they would be subject to punitive taxation. Has the Minister reflected on whether there is a need to review the Pensionsmyndigheten's routines? Is there reason for concern regarding how the pension funds are invested by the country's various actors?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I also thank you for this beneficial interpellation debate. It is important that politics, when it has made a mistake, corrects it and is clear about in what way and in what order. This is obviously of importance so that the same or similar mistakes are not made in the future, as they have major consequences.
The dialogue we have with the Pensionsmyndigheten is very good, and it is high-level. I can state that I am very satisfied with the exchange of information we have and that I have great confidence in the Pensionsmyndigheten.
There are, however, always reasons for us, in all parts, aspects, and issues raised in this assembly, to continuously ensure that improvement work takes place, and that is something I am just as passionate about as the member.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.