Response to interpellation 2023/24:788 on the new unemployment insurance fund and the unions' income insurance

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Patrik Lundqvist has asked me if I intend to take measures to secure trade union organizations' opportunities to offer supplementary income insurance at the same levels as they can today, also in the future.

The unemployment insurance is and shall continue to be a transition insurance that provides financial compensation during transition between jobs. As a job seeker, one has a responsibility not to remain in unemployment for too long. For this reason, it is important that the unemployment insurance actually functions as the transition insurance it is intended to be. With the clearer and more uniform tapering proposed in the bill, the incentives for job seekers to find a new job are strengthened. In this way, more people can move from unemployment to employment.

The Government considers it reasonable that the unemployment benefit is tapered down for everyone receiving compensation in a transition insurance. With regard to the purpose of the tapering, the Government considers it reasonable that an applicant should not be able to be compensated from a private income insurance in such a way that the consequences of the tapering provisions are neutralized. The incentives for job seekers to find a new job shall be strengthened.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Pehrson for the answer.

It appears with all desirable clarity that there is no interest in securing people's insurance against unemployment. The best thing in this situation would actually be if we had a fund that actually delivered the security people expect. That is, however, where we are not, and we have not been for a very long time.

It is also clear that there is a very strong mistrust within this government towards the working population in Sweden. People talk about that people need incentives to take a new job; that is the most important thing in this. The most important thing is not the security for people when they become unemployed - when society enters recessions, crises, or other things that cause many people to lose their jobs at the same time.

It takes approximately two and a half months for people to get a new job during a normal economic cycle. We know that there are groups for whom it takes significantly longer without it being a matter of these people's motivation or incentives. This applies to, for example, older people. We know that people approaching 60 or who are over 60 have a harder time returning to work when they lose their jobs than people in their 30s or 40s. When major crises hit society and large groups fall into unemployment, it takes longer for some of these people to get their job back or to get a new job.

These are things that do not seem to concern the government at all. These people are to receive lower compensation despite being very motivated to get a new job and doing what they are supposed to, because they - perhaps in competition with their former colleagues - do not manage to do it within 100 days. They are to be punished for it. This is not an arrangement that I think is reasonable.

We have had people who have been prepared to pay a little extra to ensure that they are able to go between jobs even in such situations, when they are a bit older and there might be tougher competition from younger people who get jobs before them, or in crises. The government does not think they should have this possibility at all. I think it is unreasonable.

In crisis situations, when many become unemployed and we enter a recession, sensible benefits from an unemployment insurance also function as a countercyclical measure that ensures the crisis does not worsen even further when people become unemployed, have less means to move with, and can spend less. This affects more people out in society and creates a recession that is deeper than it would need to be.

There is an opportunity here that means people pay for it themselves. I know that the right wing otherwise usually advocates for people to take their own responsibility. Here they have done that, but now the government is removing these opportunities.

Actually, as we have said, we should have a fund that covers this; one should not have to go in and pay for it oneself. But here we are now. This opportunity is also disappearing. I do not understand how the minister can stand here and talk about that people need increased incentives to take jobs. It is simply not true.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The unemployment insurance is a fundamental safety net for the individual, but it is not the only safety net that exists. It is important that one constantly works with the conditions for skills development. A part of the Swedish model, which the government and the Liberals stand behind and which I know the Social Democrats also stand behind, is the idea that the most important thing that exists in times of transition – regardless of whether it concerns green transition, digitalization, demographics, or other structural transformations in society that affect the labor market – is the ability to adapt.

The basis is the allowance and that one receives compensation directly. We now have a proposal that contains a tapering, just like the current system, and a possibility for supplementary insurance with clear limitations. Such are also the current conditions for income insurance - this remains. When one changes the tapering slightly and makes it straighter and more equal for everyone, it does, of course, affect in a way that some may think is bad. I can really understand if someone thinks the fundamental change is bad; it is indeed very logical.

However, this is not the only thing. Alongside these initiatives, entry-level jobs have been introduced. I can also mention the conditions for the transition package, with transition study support and major investments in vocational training so that people, in the event of the accident of becoming unemployed against their will, can transition. This is a very important part of the policy to increase security.

To return to the common view that I would nevertheless say prevails, I want to say that it is important to be ready and have competence for new jobs if a company, an organization, or a public authority changes so that one becomes unemployed. It is this that is the strength of the Swedish security.

However, the underlying foundation is the transition insurance that the akassa is. We do not in any way control the terms of the private insurers, but we are clear that the limitations that apply in today's system shall also apply in the new akassa that is on the Riksdag's table.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I perceive that the Minister truly understands which changes are on the Riksdag's table. The current system with "akassa" has two systems for tapering: the ceiling and the replacement level. What is being done now is to move everything over to a ceiling limit. This also means that one limits the supplementary insurances that the trade unions have signed. This does not happen if the replacement goes down in today's system, so for heaven's sake, one limits more with these changes than what has been the case before.

It is naturally true as the Minister says: Transition, education and other such pieces are very important. But that is not what we are talking about now - this is not included in the unemployment insurance, and it is not included at all in the proposal that we are now discussing.

There is a great expectation for a new answer where one actually addresses the questions instead of talking about all kinds of things around it which are admittedly quite important but which have nothing to do with this matter.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! First, one wants to return to the main part regarding the new unemployment insurance, which is on the Riksdag's table. There is a broad consensus on large parts, but I have noted that the Social Democrats have a differing opinion regarding a more consistent and straightforward tapering that should be the same for everyone. A tapering occurs after 100, 200, and 300 days. After that, there are other compensation systems and supports that take over, in addition to those I listed.

We are also raising the ceiling for the right to social assistance, and I believe there is a consensus that it is good to raise it. There is also a consensus that we shall raise the lowest floor if one falls into other guarantees - guarantees that have not been raised for 20 years but which we are now raising. Here, I believe there is a consensus. It is also about having an income calculation based on what one has earned per month previously, with some exceptions. It should be simple to apply and simple to understand.

I heard in the member's first contribution something about the government, the Liberals or the bourgeois, or whatever it was, seems to like private insurance. I have nothing against people having all kinds of insurance for their cars and houses. One continues to have the possibility to insure oneself, just as today, but not in the same way because there are limitations. In that case, it is important that a phase-out occurs that is equal for everyone. If one does not like the phase-out but says that the state should take responsibility for it first, I understand that Patrik Lundqvist is, in purely logical terms, for an alternative solution.

But in order to maintain the transition allowance, which is an important, strong, clear and good transition insurance, this is a consequence that we have taken into account. It is therefore that this change also changes the conditions for income insurance, which we leave completely free for the market, the unions and their partners to design; it is nothing we interfere in. But there is a limitation when it goes directly into the public system.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, that is exactly it. It limits the possibilities one has to insure one's income against unemployment. Is it really a sensible thing to do in this situation? I do not think so. When it comes to people's will, ability, and opportunity to transition and find a new job, it is very important that they do not have to worry during that time about whether they will manage on the money they receive.

The Minister previously spoke about people in state authorities, researchers and others with high education. It is very important that they do not just get a job when they are unemployed, but that they also get the right job. Both the individual and society benefit from people getting the job they are qualified for. If they instead take a job from someone who does not have that education, it hits more people in several links. That is, it is important that one is not forced to take a job all too quickly. This may not happen so often among the highly educated, but it can happen. Therefore, it is important to also take such aspects into account.

I think the minister's reasoning is a bit too hollow and breathes the same attitude as always: People should have it harder, otherwise they do not seek jobs fast enough. But that is not true, regardless of which social stratum or which workers we are talking about.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! High gears are being shifted regarding this strong unemployment insurance with a clear tapering over time every 100th day of compensation, which is approximately every fourth month. It is combined with strong measures for further education either in the regular system or through the transition support that the state ultimately participates in and pays for. It is a good Swedish model.

But I understand that Patrik Lundqvist thinks that the compensation should be higher for a longer period and that he will prioritize that instead of other things in his budget options. He might take from defense or the police or raise the tax.

But fundamentally, it is a person who is affected by unemployment. Many people within the construction industry are having a hard time now, and what they need is an economy that grows so that the construction projects that are standing still in Skellefteå, at home in Örebro, in Södertälje, or wherever they are from, get started. That is how we create a growing and strong economy and jobs for the people who are unemployed. That is the most important focus. But in the meantime, it is important to have a strong, clear, and straight fiscal policy.

Now improvements with broad support are being implemented, and after the summer next year the new allowance will come into force. It will apply to new applicants, so people who are in today will not be affected. There must be time for the system to settle, and one must be able to prepare this in every way. Therefore, this is important. But it is not the only support for people who are affected by something as terrible as unemployment.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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