Response to interpellation 2023/24:718 on the consequences of a sharper reduction of the unemployment insurance fund

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Teresa Carvalho has asked me what I and the government have done for a consequence analysis of the proposals in the bill on a new unemployment insurance based on incomes for different income groups. Teresa Carvalho has also asked what I and the government have done for a gender equality consequence analysis of the proposals in the bill. Teresa Carvalho has finally asked whether I and the government intend to take any measures to ensure the right to labor market policy interventions and activity support for persons who have qualified via the alternative rule and who are judged to be in need of such.

In the bill An unemployment insurance based on income (prop. 2023/24:128), only the consequences of the proposals submitted in the bill, that is, the legislative proposals themselves, are reported. The proposals in the bill are to be supplemented with provisions in a regulation. It is the size of the amounts proposed to be determined by regulation that in practice determines the consequences for equality, because these amounts affect, among other things, the number of recipients, the size of the compensation, and the length of the compensation period. Therefore, the full consequences of the entire reform are not presented in the bill.

The Ministry of Employment has, during the course of the work, continuously carried out consequence analyses of the reform. This includes, for example, gender equality analyses and analyses of consequences at the individual level, including economic outcomes. The gender equality analysis and the analysis of other consequences in connection with what is proposed in the ordinances will, in the usual manner, be completed in connection with the ordinance work.

An assignment to a labor market policy program is not a right. Measures and activities shall be labor market policy justified. Measures and programs must appear suitable both for the individual and from an overall labor market policy perspective. If Arbetsförmedlingen assesses that an applicant shall be assigned to a labor market policy program, the program participant may be entitled to activity support.

In some cases, such as when referring to the job guarantee for youth and the job and development guarantee, it is also required that the applicant has been unemployed for a certain period in order to be able to participate in the program. When it comes to the job and development guarantee, it is also required, among other things, that the days of unemployment benefit have been exhausted. The labor market policy programs, including the job and development guarantee, are regulated by ordinance. The work on a reformed unemployment insurance is ongoing.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the a-kassa, the pattern is recognizable. The a-kassa is improved under Social Democratic governments and worsened under right-wing governments. Many probably still remember the Alliance government's slaughter of the insurance the last time it happened, which led to half a million Swedes being completely left out of the unemployment insurance and left high and dry just in time for the financial crisis to arrive.

When we Social Democrats came to power in 2014, we rebuilt the unemployment insurance again through several important improvements. Now the right is in power again, and a new insecurity shock is at the door. This time it concerns those who do not manage to get a new job within 100 days, and the notification will arrive at the same time as the wave of layoffs sweeps across the country.

The bill is extensive, and not everything is poor, Madam Speaker. The major systemic change, which means that in the future one will be able to qualify for unemployment insurance through an income requirement instead of a work requirement, is simply good. In fact, this was the basis and the reason why we Social Democrats appointed the inquiry that parts of the government's proposal are based on.

But changing the qualification model does not mean that one must lower the compensation levels in the a-kassa, which the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are now proposing. We Social Democrats say no to the new tapering at 100 days of unemployment because it will hit unreasonably hard. Millions of wage earners will receive a worse insurance, and it concerns primarily LO-affiliated women.

With this interpellation, I have posed a number of questions to Johan Pehrson regarding how the government has intended to proceed and what impact assessments have been conducted. I must say that I am astonished by some of the answers I have just heard.

Firstly, I wondered if the government has conducted any impact analysis regarding different income groups. It is obvious that the proposal will hit unreasonably hard against those who currently fall below the earnings ceiling, which is currently 33,000 kronor per month.

Secondly, it is no state secret that it is primarily women who are in the lower income brackets and who will become the real big losers. And not only does the proposal itself hit women hardest – the government has also disregarded making a gender equality analysis of the proposal, even though it is a requirement to do so.

One does not need to be particularly conspiratorial to suspect that this is a matter of strategic forgetfulness because the government simply wants to avoid showing what a death blow this proposal represents for women. As the Minister for Employment knows, I find this behavior unacceptable, and I have also asked the Committee on the Constitution to review the Minister's handling of the matter in this regard.

I think Johan Pehrson would have been wise to hesitate in this situation. To do as he is doing now, referring to poor excuses that consequence analyses will come later in some regulations, simply does not suffice. It is a bill that Johan Pehrson submits to the Riksdag, to lower the compensation level in the a-kassa after 100 days of unemployment from 80 to 70 percent of the salary. But how these legislative changes will affect equality is not apparent in the bill.

It was not particularly difficult to calculate that it will involve thousands of kronor in reduced unemployment insurance for those with salaries below the ceiling, especially women. There is plenty of gender-disaggregated wage statistics, and from there, it is not rocket science to perform that equality analysis. I can do it for the minister: The government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy will hit equality hard. It is an equality policy failure.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! More than 8 percent unemployment is harvested by companies within the construction industry every day, month after month. The healthcare regions are laying off thousands and thousands of employees. These are consequences of this government's economic policy.

The government lacks ability, I choose to interpret it as such, and not ambition or will. It is the ability that is deficient when it comes to fighting inflation. When one fails to succeed in fighting inflation, we see how the consequences roll out over households and the labor market. Then one chooses not to act to alleviate the consequences of inflation.

What the government chooses to do in this situation is to make changes to the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan). It is considered very inappropriate to make changes to the unemployment insurance fund. It is absolutely necessary for the government to ensure that a sharper tapering is created and that people receive less money after 100 days from their unemployment insurance fund.

100 days is a rather short time for me, especially when people are to enter a labor market after they have lost their jobs because they are no longer needed. The construction worker who has been laid off is to enter a labor market where over 8 percent are unemployed. In that case, 100 days is not such a long time.

One might wonder: What is it that makes the government choose to make just this specific legislative change right now in these times? It is probably because the minister considers it far too fat to be unemployed. The government solves unemployment by ensuring that people become even poorer. People lose their jobs. When they lose their jobs, they are to become poorer, because then they will realize they need to apply for a job and get a job, and in that way, the government lowers unemployment. I cannot make sense of it, Madam Speaker.

The explanation that the government and the minister use is that people will end up in an unemployment insurance hammock that they lie comfortably in while they are supposed to pay their bills. It is the healthcare personnel who work incredibly hard and work overtime on top of overtime. They are also now at risk of being laid off and ending up in unemployment. They are to end up in some unemployment insurance hammock, and there they shall pay their bills.

The message from the Minister is that what the government is doing is that you are to end up in a trampoline. You are to be able to bounce back into the labor market again with these changes by becoming poorer when you become unemployed. To me, it is a mystery how that is supposed to work. The Minister is welcome to explain to me, the construction workers, and all healthcare personnel how they are to accept this.

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Teresa Carvalho for a very pressing interpellation! This is a question that, in large parts, should actually have been handled at the Government Offices before the question landed on the Riksdag's table. But now we stand where we stand.

In Sweden, we have a fairly long and very good tradition of the decisions we make being decisions that are made on good grounds. This is thanks to the fact that we have been relatively careful about being able to present underlying material that discusses the pros and cons of proposals and, for example, presents different consequence analyses for different groups. The proposition that forms the basis for today's interpellation debate is a piece of underlying material that has certain deficiencies when it comes to, for example, consequence descriptions.

Madam Speaker! The organization Generation Pep, which works to spread knowledge about the health of children and young people, recently released a report in which they presented the current situation for the well-being of children and young people in Sweden. The report is a relatively gloomy reading where several troubling conclusions are presented.

In large parts of the report, it is stated that society's economic inequalities have a major impact on children's health in several different ways. It concerns everything from access to nutritious food to children who suffer from mental ill-health due to the family's economic situation.

The report shows, among other things, that two out of ten children whose families have a low income are worried about their family's financial situation. Children whose guardians have a lower income eat breakfast to a lesser extent than children who come from families with higher incomes.

Children of guardians with low income have significantly worse access to leisure activities than their friends from families with well-off parents. Children's physical activity is also affected by their guardians' finances.

For example, there is a correlation between how many children cycle to school or preschool and their parents' income level. The proportion of children who cycle to school therefore increases the more money the guardian earns.

Madam Speaker! It can be stated that there is a clear connection between children's well-being and the guardians' economic situation. Why do I then want to bring up those conclusions in the interpellation debate? Well, it is as is known that the government in the bill on the unemployment insurance fund puts forward a proposal for a sharper tapering of the unemployment insurance fund where the compensation is reduced after 100 days.

The people who receive a lower compensation are likely quite often just guardians who find it significantly harder to manage their private finances, which in this way means that this has an impact on our children's well-being. It may perhaps seem a bit exaggerated to highlight children's well-being in a debate concerning a proposition regarding the a-kassa. But I do not think it is exaggerated.

Madam Speaker! The truth is that in several areas we do not know what consequences the changes will have. The bill lacks impact assessments for different income groups. When it comes to a gender equality analysis, it is exactly the same situation. We simply do not know that much about the bill.

Madam Speaker! There is a consequence description with a heading as fine as "Children and youth." It is a little over one page long. There, they do not highlight the possible consequences that can arise with a sharper tapering of the unemployment insurance when it comes to children's well-being.

The only thing that is mentioned in practice is that children benefit from their parents working and not being unemployed, and therefore the parents should not have unemployment insurance for too long, as well as that it is good for young adults that there is a functioning unemployment insurance.

I would therefore like to give the Minister a chance to elaborate on his and the government's reasoning outside of the formal legislative process regarding how they assess that the sharper tapering will affect children and young people when their parents find it harder to put food on the table and harder to pay the rent at the end of the month. I would very much like to hear a bit more about that.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to thank my colleague Teresa Carvalho for the interpellation to discuss the right-wing government's and the Sverigedemokraternas proposal for a sharper tapering of unemployment benefits after 100 days. It is a proposal that would entail major economic consequences for many groups of wage earners in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! A secure unemployment insurance is a cornerstone of the Swedish welfare model. It provides protection and support until the unemployed person finds a new job. The proposal to reduce the compensation after only 100 days is socio-economically counterproductive.

Madam Speaker! In a time when many families are already struggling financially due to inflation and the economic downturn, it is unsustainable for the government to present a proposal that would lead to many wage groups losing several thousand kronor a month compared to today.

Madam Speaker! The A-kassa is more than an individual insurance. The A-kassa is a transition insurance that helps the entire society hold together in times of economic uncertainty. Giving people time to find a new job that truly suits their competence does not only protect the individual but also the economic structure in our society.

Madam Speaker! To believe that all unemployed people will be able to find a suitable new job within three months is not only naive. It shows a profound ignorance of our labor market. Especially during a recession when job opportunities decrease, this proposal will create great difficulties for many people.

Reducing support for the unemployed will force many people to either incur debt to cover basic living costs or seek additional help from social services in the municipalities. This creates an increased burden on other parts of the welfare system and undermines the purpose of the a-kassa as a stabilizing force in the economy.

Madam Speaker! The proposal to quickly reduce the unemployment insurance benefit after 100 days risks worsening poverty and economic inequality, which is particularly concerning because it affects low-income earners with precarious employment, women in the LO collective, and young people. By maintaining a strong unemployment insurance, we give people the chance to recover from unemployment without the additional stress of economic insecurity. This is crucial for maintaining a stable and efficient labor market.

Madam Speaker! Given the potentially profound negative consequences for both individuals and society as a whole, I would like to ask Minister Johan Pehrson how the Minister can justify such a drastic measure as a sharper tapering of the unemployment insurance after only 100 days. In light of the obvious shortcomings in the impact assessment, which my colleagues have previously mentioned, I wonder: How does Johan Pehrson intend to address the need for a comprehensive and inclusive analysis regarding the a-kassan and, not least, the tapering?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Yes, unemployment is a huge burden. If it is to be as low as possible, it requires that one invests in education and entrepreneurship. But people can be affected by economic crises, just as Sweden has currently been affected by an economic crisis.

When I took office, I inherited an inflation of 10-11 percent. I did not get Europe's lowest unemployment; I got one of the absolutely highest. No one has desired this. No one in here has desired it, but it is a fact.

To address this in a difficult time, this government, my government, has invested in compensating households in various ways. I can mention a few. We have increased compensations that are adjusted according to the consumer price index. We have transferred and returned electricity support to help vulnerable households. We have strengthened the housing allowance. Those who are most vulnerable have been most protected against inflation, while people in general, including members of the Riksdag, have received less adjustment of their salaries. We must, in fact, together get ourselves out of the darkness of inflation.

One of the participants in the interpellation debate - I believe it was Sofia Amloh - was on the ability to hold on and endure. You cannot just talk about fighting inflation. You cannot joke it away, because inflation eats up prosperity, welfare, and people's savings and wallets. Therefore, it is important that we fight inflation.

I do not want to say that we are there yet, but it could be on the way. There are positive signals that we are approaching 2 percent, and it will have effects on, for example, how the Riksbank chooses to set the interest rate - it is they who do this - which affects so that we get down the inflation. It is important so that few are unemployed. Then it is important that one gets a growth climate and that one has fought inflation. Otherwise, it is very difficult.

The Social Democrats have always supported an unemployment insurance fund that has been sustainable and which has been a clear transition insurance where there has been a tapering off. All of this is included in the unemployment insurance fund that is now proposed in the bill. It is a proposal for a higher ceiling, that is, more compensation at the beginning. It is a proposal for a raised floor for those who remain very, very long in the guarantees. We are raising those compensations. It applies all the way until one has returned to the labor market. We will never give up on any person.

What is then the reason that we do this after four months? Serkan Köse said it was three months. That is wrong. 100 days is four months, so to speak. It is very important to remember that when we talk about 100 replacement days. So, a step-down occurs every hundredth replacement day, that is, every fourth month.

It is stronger compensation at the beginning, but a clarity that the compensation may decrease over time if one does not have any supplementary insurances. This is important. It is supported by research. It is supported by empirical evidence in other countries. And it is to ensure that this is an important transition insurance. That is why this is being done, and I assume that is also why the Socialdemokraterna backed an a-kassa with a phase-out earlier.

Now it is much straighter. It occurs every hundredth replacement day, every fourth month.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Does Johan Pehrson mean that a lowered unemployment insurance is part of the government's inflation fight and that it is the weaker households that are to pay the bill for this, while the wealthiest households have received large tax cuts?

For us Social Democrats, a secure unemployment insurance is fundamentally about respect and dignity. When life is thrown into turmoil because mom or dad loses their job, it is not the children who should have to pay the price by going to school in broken winter shoes. For Johan Pehrson, however, it seems that this issue is primarily rooted in his belief that it is too easy to be unemployed and that more incentives are needed for an unemployed person to want to work. But there are already incentives in the unemployment insurance, Johan Pehrson. There is even already a tapering.

The new model, with a sharper and steeper tapering already after 100 days of unemployment, which the government and the Sweden Democrats are now putting forward, will hit unreasonably hard, especially against those who earn below the earnings ceiling - and we know that it primarily concerns women.

I know that Johan Pehrson considers the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) to be too high. But to put this into some perspective, I can state that before the pandemic and before we Social Democrats raised the unemployment insurance, when many ended up in a situation where they needed to receive unemployment insurance, Sweden ranked 21st out of 27 in the entire EU - at the bottom of the barrel.

There are many advantages to a secure unemployment insurance. Above all, it is about contributing to that one will find the right job instead of just any job, whatever it may be and at whatever low wage. We have to weigh different things against each other, and for us Social Democrats, the security of ordinary people weighs very heavily.

Another aspect is that the unemployment insurance fund affects the balance of power in the labor market. We know that a strong unemployment insurance fund counteracts the downward pressure on wages. A strong unemployment insurance fund supports structural change and, in the long run, increased productivity. It dampens cyclical fluctuations, contributes to maintaining a high labor supply, and contributes to maintaining the degree of union organization, which is a fundamental part of the Swedish model, which has served Sweden very well.

But it is also, as said, about how one views the human being. While Johan Pehrson seems to proceed from the assumption that people are lazy and need to be whipped into work, we Social Democrats believe that most who are dependent on unemployment insurance for a period will want to return to work and want to continue to do the right thing.

It is smart to have a secure unemployment insurance fund that enables one to move forward in working life. Of course, it should not be without requirements, but one must be able to pay the rent during the time one is transitioning and seeking a new job. For us Social Democrats, it is a given that it is about both duty and right—the duty to actively seek work and to be available to the labor market, and the right to a reasonable economic security during the time one is transitioning.

What the government and the Sweden Democrats are doing now, I actually think is shameful. They are targeting people in an already tough and vulnerable situation. When all energy should go towards precisely transitioning and seeking new work, they are instead being stressed over the economic situation and perhaps even need to leave their homes because the money is not enough for the rent.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister answers our questions in the Chamber by, among other things, speaking about the ability to hold on and endure.

Yes, I do not think it is any problem at all for the government to sit very still in the boat. But I am thinking of the households that are now struggling.

We have an economic situation where incredibly many households - above all women with children in their household - do everything they can every month to make ends meet. They have sold what they could sell on Blocket, they have borrowed money from family, relatives and friends, and they have taken the crowns they had in the savings account. There is nothing more. This is the economic policy that the government has pursued, and it is women who pay the highest price - above all working women. It is women who work.

The answer is therefore: Hold on and hang in there! I think it is almost cheeky to say so. Now we have this proposal for a sharp reduction of the allowance, and one doesn't even do an analysis of how it affects women respectively men. What one does instead is ignore it – one doesn't want to, but simply disregards it – and so women are punished again, time and again. Why?

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I note, however, that the Minister does not quite answer the Social Democratic members' questions when it comes, for example, to the gender equality analysis and other impact assessments of the bill being submitted to the Riksdag.

The Minister also does not answer my question as to why there is no broader impact assessment of children's situation and how it may be affected by this bill and the effects it may have. That the impact assessment regarding children and young people of such a large bill – likely the Minister's largest this mandate period – consists of just over one A4 page, I believe implies a clear failing grade for the government and the bill.

The Chamber will likely pass the bill that the government has submitted to the Riksdag in about a month. The bill actually contains some good things, as my colleagues have previously mentioned, but there is a great deal here that we are not entirely satisfied with. As we have discussed, clear consequence descriptions are missing in several areas, such as the proposal's distribution profile and what equality effects the proposal may have when it finally comes into force. To introduce a fairly sharp tapering off of the allowance in such a situation is not a wise decision. The bill should have been supplemented with the consequence analyses and analyses that we are raising from the rostrum here today.

As has been mentioned previously, we do not know whether the sharp reduction of the allowance will result in the well-being of children and young people being negatively affected and their health deteriorating. I would therefore like to give the Minister the opportunity again to describe this. Does the Minister believe that it will have any consequences for children and young people in this country when families cannot make ends meet?

I know that the Minister usually describes the [akassan] as a form of trampoline, and all of us in this chamber are probably very much in agreement that everyone who can work should work. But this will likely not be a trampoline for either the parents or the children. It will not mean more leisure activities and not a safer upbringing. Instead, it will likely mean more reminder notices, more payment defaults, more meals with insufficient nutritional content for the children, and more children going to school with a lump in their stomachs. It is not worthy of our Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! In this interpellation debate, just as in the previous one, we can observe that Minister Johan Pehrson has no answers. Johan Pehrson talks about combating unemployment. At the same time, Johan Pehrson withdraws resources from the active labor market policy - from ensuring that more people can get into work. We talked about youth unemployment earlier, and there are no reforms on the table there.

Madam Speaker! My colleagues note that there is no impact assessment of the proposal that is on the table. It hits various groups very hard, but there is no impact assessment.

We can look out into the world, because sometimes one might think it is good to look at international research and international studies. The Economic Journal and others have looked at this and show that sharp reductions of the unemployment insurance often do not lead to increased employment. On the contrary, such measures during economic downturns can worsen the unemployment situation. That is what international research shows.

In these times, the priority from the government's side should be to strengthen the social safety net, not to weaken it. The proposal from the government and the Sverigedemokraterna that is now on the table risks deeply affecting the recession but also reinforcing the inequality in our society. These cuts will force people to take any job at all, which undermines not only their well-being but also our economic stability and growth.

Madam Speaker! A generous unemployment insurance acts as an automatic stabilizer, which helps to maintain consumption and economic stability. These measures are an investment in our society's future well-being and, not least, in economic growth.

With the proposal that is on the table, Johan Pehrson and the Sverigedemokraterna will permanently create an economic underclass in our country. I want to ask Johan Pehrson again: How can the minister justify such a drastic proposal, which not only forces people into poverty after only 100 days but also lacks support in international research?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that nothing is as important for children and their well-being as having secure parents who can support themselves and the children. This happens by ensuring that we have a policy that creates conditions for more new jobs.

People can still be affected by unemployment, perhaps depending on a government that is unable to create conditions for growth through a wise energy policy and a wise education policy where education pays off - perhaps the government places high taxes on education, or whatever it is it does - and then we think it is reasonable to have a strong transition insurance with a phase-out. It is therefore exactly the same thing as what exists today, but because just this phase-out comes from the current government, it apparently leads to people largely ending up on the street directly after four months.

We go from 80 to 70 to 65. We raise the ceiling, and we raise the floor if one moves over into guarantees. We also ensure that more qualify and get the right to benefits, because we have a labor market that has actually changed significantly. We ensure that one receives a higher compensation in the event that one is in the benefit system. It is important to be in the benefit system.

We think this is good and necessary, but it is not the only thing that can be done to combat unemployment. The change is intended to take place in October 2025 to create an opportunity for knowledge, information, and awareness about what this allowance looks like. Our calculations show that the change is largely cost-neutral compared to the regulatory framework that exists today. If one is against the tapering of the allowance, it is important to say so, but then it is very strange that one has not gone to storms against previous regulatory frameworks.

We have reported this, not least in the interpellation response. I have never witnessed – and I have had the privilege of serving the Riksdag and the Swedish people for a number of years, Madam Speaker – that complete analyses of regulations are carried out before the regulations are adopted, so to speak. It is very unusual.

What is stated in the bill is, however, correct, and that cannot be escaped: If the policy is to lead to more people entering employment and to that we will come down in level from the high unemployment we have in Sweden, a change is required. One simply cannot, as a Social Democrat in the Riksdag, so to speak, talk down the unemployment. The Social Democrats tried to get down the unemployment during a boom period that lasted for many, many years, but it didn't quite work.

There is support in the empirical evidence, in the referral responses, and in the research that a consistent and straight reduction every fourth month - from 80 to 70 to 65 - is a way to strengthen the unemployment insurance as a transition insurance.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Nursing assistants, shop assistants, childcare workers, cleaners, cooks, mail carriers, shelf stockers, personal assistants, security guards - the list of occupational groups that will lose out on the government's and the Sweden Democrats' new rules can be made almost as long as one likes. One can also quite quickly conclude that it is primarily employees in female-dominated occupations who will lose thousands of kronor a month if they do not manage to find a new job within 100 days. That is why we Social Democrats say no to this change. It is not because the sender happens to be named Johan Pehrson - we do not, after all, place such great weight on the minister.

Madam Speaker! This week I was called by Gunilla, 60 years old. She was desperate. She has worked and done right by others, but she has now been laid off due to the recession and is receiving compensation from her unemployment insurance. She described this transition as a shock. There are jobs to apply for, she said, but there are no jobs to be had.

She also described how the support from society is incredibly absent. This will become even worse now because the government and Sverigedemokraterna are cutting back on labor market policy by billions while we are in a recession.

Gunilla was worried about what will happen now that the Sweden Democrats and the government have decided to cut the allowance already after 100 days. She told me that she is already living on the margin. She asked me if she should skip both breakfast and dinner from now on and settle for lunch.

My final question in this debate is: What is Johan Pehrson's advice to Gunilla?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I find it very difficult to comment on an individual case, but I have met many people who have stood in unemployment queues during the Social Democrats' time. These people have felt that nothing is happening. Insufficient investments are being made. Closures occur. Industries move abroad. I know the pain and uncertainty people feel and how much it can hurt in the stomach.

That is why the government is investing in ensuring that more adults, through municipal adult education, universities of applied sciences, or transition study support, get a chance to further their education. I am completely certain that this person, whom we can call Gunilla, wants to ensure that she can support herself and that her work leads to her having an opportunity to realize both small and large dreams. She can do that when she enters the workforce; there is no other way.

If it is difficult to find work – perhaps she has worked in an industry that has disappeared – she must be given broad support to educate herself again, retrain, and take one of the over 100,000 jobs that exist. But that may not be enough for everyone named Gunilla, and we must ensure that we also have a policy that leads to growth in entrepreneurship in the country. The new sectors, the green transition, and the digital revolution will result in jobs being added in broad segments for more people.

Every person who is unemployed is a person who could do much more. That the welfare system in Sweden has a clarity, with a high ceiling, a slightly raised floor and more people coming in but also with a clear tapering off, is however not something that will disadvantage Gunilla.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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