Response to interpellations 2022/23:339 and 347 on the transition study support
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the transition study support and CSN's resources. L argues that the government introduced the support according to agreements 1, that CSN has received extensive funds for administration 1 and that they are doing their utmost to ensure the reform becomes good 2 3. L believes that the new labor market model is a political victory 4 and that problems can be solved with tangible proposals 3. S argues that CSN needs additional appropriations 5, that case officers are overworked 6 and that the government risks shaking the foundations of the Swedish model 7. V argues that the government is making a misjudgment, lacks respect for workers 8 and is not keeping its promises 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Niklas Sigvardsson has asked me if I intend to inform the parties that the government will not do what the state has committed to in the agreement on transition student aid. Niklas Sigvardsson has also asked me how I intend to act to ensure that the Central Student Aid Board, CSN, is given the right opportunities to manage the processing of the transition student aid.
Furthermore, Samuel Gonzalez Westling has asked me what measures I intend to take to be able to guarantee that the relocation of staff at CSN does not have consequences for the rest of CSN's operations and other borrowers. Samuel Gonzalez Westling has also asked me what measures I and the government intend to take so that those who have applied for transition study support before the autumn can receive an answer before the term begins. Samuel Gonzalez Westling has also asked me if the government is prepared to provide more money to CSN if it turns out that it is not enough to relocate staff internally at CSN to reduce processing times. Samuel Gonzalez Westling has finally asked me if I intend to take any general measures so that those who have applied for transition study support in the autumn and are still waiting for a decision can receive an answer quickly.
Mr. Speaker! Through the bill Flexibility, adaptability and security in the labor market (prop. 2021/22:176), a historic reform was implemented that laid the foundation for a new main agreement between the parties in the labor market. After the bill was decided in the Riksdag last year, representatives for Svenskt Näringsliv, the Negotiation and Cooperation Council PTK, and LO signed the new main agreement.
The government is now introducing the transition study support exactly in the way that was announced in the bill, which was adopted by the Riksdag with a large majority. The bill, in turn, is based on the agreement reached with the parties. The government introducing the reform in the way announced in the bill means that the support is introduced gradually, in such a way that funds for the support are added and scaled up over time, to be fully expanded by 2026. It also means that CSN has been provided with extensive funds for development and administration to ensure that the transition study support can function as intended. The government is now continuously monitoring how the reform is implemented and has a close dialogue with CSN and the parties regarding how the introduction is proceeding.
Mr. Speaker! Many people are applying for transition study support - which is naturally positive - but the processing times are unfortunately far too long. Here I want to point out that CSN is carrying out extensive and ambitious work to improve the processing. However, recruiting new staff for the processing of the support takes time, and the processing times need to be shortened immediately. The Government assesses that efficiencies and reprioritizations within CSN's operations are the most effective way to reduce processing times in the short term.
The Government has therefore recently tasked CSN with taking necessary measures to shorten the processing times for the transition study support, for example through streamlining or reprioritizing resources from other parts of the agency's operations. The starting point for the assignment is that the measures must not have any major impact on other study support recipients. The agency shall report on how the work progresses on a monthly basis to the Ministry of Education.
CSN's reports will provide us with a more in-depth picture of what can be done within existing frameworks and what the funding requirements look like moving forward. I see no reason to anticipate these reports.
Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Education, for the answer! It is no new question we are discussing. The Minister for Education and I have debated this issue earlier in the chamber, and I had perhaps hoped that we would avoid continuing to debate it.
I perceive it as that we are in agreement that the transition study support must become good. That is also why I have written the interpellation, because I am concerned about the path the transition study support is taking.
I am actually also distressed by the government's handling of the transition student grant since the debate we had on February 21. Even then, strong concerns began to emerge from the parties, both unions and employers. But they also came from CSN itself, which began to flag the difficult situation and how hard it would be to be able to deliver what they have been tasked to deliver.
Already in its submission regarding the budget basis for 2024-2026, CSN pointed out that if they do not receive additional appropriations for the current year, i.e., 2023, and increased appropriations moving forward, they will not be able to process applications to the extent that they should be able to. The assessment at that time was that 18,000 applications would be submitted in 2023. Now we are many times over that level, which is positive because people actually want to use the support.
In the middle of April, CSN clarified what this could mean. They assessed that they would not be able to pay out 600 million kronor for the current year if they did not receive additional funds in the autumn budget. The government's and the minister's answer was: no money.
As late as yesterday, a press release was issued from CSN stating the following: "With current resources and an unchanged regulatory framework, 600 million kronor of the 2023 appropriation will need to be returned. For 2024, the outlook is even bleaker, and with current resources, two billion kronor of the 2024 appropriation of 2.84 billion kronor are expected to go back to the state treasury."
It is truly bad. If 2 billion is returned, it means that 15,000-20,000 people will not be able to take part in the study opportunities they are entitled to. The government's outward response has been silence and no more money. It is to these 15,000-20,000 people that I expect the minister can give clearer answers here. Also, the labor market parties, the unions and the business community, who based on this part of the agreement concluded agreements on transition study support and other security mechanisms in the labor market, need to receive an answer.
I therefore continue to wonder, just as in my question which I do not think we have really received an answer to, what the minister is going to do more concretely so that CSN can manage its processing. Or is it appropriate for the minister to call the parties to a meeting to admit that the government will not be able to fulfill the commitment that the state has taken upon itself?
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even though it rather opens the door for more questions than provides concrete and clear answers.
It is no secret that the Liberals, perhaps even the minister himself, in connection with the formation of the government after the 2018 election, pursued a line of blackmail in order to release a government in exchange. It was with great fanfare and a festive atmosphere that the January Agreement was presented by the two bourgeois parties that entered into it. It was difficult to avoid how schadenfreude-filled the Liberals were over that one had forced the Social Democrats to threaten trade unions with legislation if they did not give in in the LAS negotiations. It has been outright admitted by the Liberals themselves that the objective with the agreement was to damage social democracy as much as possible.
Many things can be said about both the process and the final result. But what we are going to focus on today is a single part of the whole, namely the transition study support. It is likely one of the few good things that came out of the process. But now there is great doubt about how it actually works. Can the state live up to what has been promised?
Mats Persson states in his response that CSN has been allocated extensive funds for development and administration and that the government is continuously monitoring how the reform is implemented. I may have missed something, but when one reads the government's own budget bill, it is not possible to interpret the appropriations to CSN as anything other than a reduction. More specifically, the Riksdag decided, on a proposal from the government, on reduced appropriations of 31 million. I cannot make that equation work. But I still choose to primarily trust the figures that I must assume Mats Persson has given his approval to - they are, after all, the ones the Riksdag has decided on - and not the words we hear the Minister for Education utter here today.
CSN announced in February that they were in need of nearly 50 million kronor to be able to fulfill the assignment. From the government, we now get the answer that it shall be done through efficiencies and reprioritizations. From the budget bill, we can read that it is something that the government considers CSN should already have been able to do. Is it not possible to assume that it was a misjudgment from the government right from the start, partly to add additional work tasks, and partly to simultaneously remove resources?
In light of this, it is perhaps not particularly strange that fewer than half of those who have applied for transition study support have not received a decision yet. It is not particularly surprising that fewer than half of the total number of people who could receive the support have been granted it. It is not particularly strange that the entire reform is beginning to degenerate into a failure. Why does the government not want CSN to receive enough resources to fulfill its mission?
CSN itself states that 600 million kronor, which were intended to be paid out, risk having to be returned. This only applies to this year. And if no change occurs, CSN's assessment is that over two-thirds of the 3 billion that are intended to be paid out in transition student support for next year will need to return to the state treasury.
That this cannot be regarded as anything other than a breach of the agreement that the state has entered into with the parties is clear to everyone. But just keeping promises is perhaps not this government's greatest strength.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! On 22 June 2022, the new main agreement between the parties in the labor market - LO, PTK and Svenskt Näringsliv was signed. The main agreement is not just any agreement. It constitutes the basis for large parts of Swedish labor law. The main agreement is the ultimate proof that in Sweden, it is largely the parties in the labor market and not politics that set the framework for labor law.
The main agreement did not, however, come from nowhere. It did not just appear out of thin air one day. No, it was the result of hard political pressure. Under this hard political pressure, the parties in the labor market took responsibility. They did their jobs, and the politicians did not step in and twist the framework for labor law. The Swedish model held. It was not without a little sweat, a little blood, and a tear or two. But the model held. It was a demonstration of strength.
Mr. Speaker! For Swedish workers, one of the most important reforms was that the transition study support was put in place. The reform was also important for the Swedish business sector, Swedish companies and the Swedish public administration to be able to secure their skills development in the future. It is simply important for all parties and for Sweden as a knowledge nation.
The government and the Riksdag backed, as the Minister was pointing out, the proposal. The parties had reached an agreement, and then the politics did its part. Money was allocated. The proposal became law. The applications could start streaming in to CSN. The Swedish model held. Everyone was satisfied and happy.
We fast forward to today. The applications for the transition study support have, as we have heard, exceeded all expectations. CSN has sounded the alarm that there are insufficient resources to process all applications in time. It is in itself positive that the new system is popular. But it is of course less good that CSN cannot manage the pressure of applications with the resources that the agency has at its disposal.
CSN has signaled clearly and distinctly that more resources are needed. The Government has countered by not giving CSN the resources that have been signaled as needed. The future of the transition study support is perceived by some as threatened, which is raised in the debate here today.
Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, this is not the only thing the government is doing right now that runs counter to the Swedish model. The establishment jobs are another important reform that the parties have developed under heavy political pressure. That reform risks becoming nothing and zero. As with much else in the government's work, the Sweden Democrats say no, and then the government follows suit. The Sweden Democrats' word counts, and the government bows and carries out the request.
It would have been less remarkable if the government parties had come out before the election and said: "If we win the election, the establishment jobs will be lost, and we will cut back significantly on the transition study support." But that is not how it sounded; rather, it was the opposite.
What makes it serious is that the entire Swedish model risks being shaken. Two important labor law reforms, developed by the parties in agreement with the politicians, are threatened by the government's work. In some way, it also means that the entire Swedish model risks being questioned and threatened. How shall the parties in the future be able to know that the government's word counts if the government does not do what it has committed to? How shall the parties be able to negotiate in good faith if a negotiation result can be rejected by the government much later? How shall the Swedish model hold?
I do not know if the government's intention is to challenge the Swedish model. I really hope not. I hope that it is not something that has come up at the coordination office, in any party leadership conversation, or in the small hours at Tidö Castle. But it is a concerning situation. The government's somewhat hesitant attitude towards important reforms developed by the labor market parties risks shaking the foundations of Swedish labor law. I hope that the government is well aware of this and that the parties, not least Svenskt Näringsliv, are also aware of it.
I hope to receive an assurance from the Minister for Education today that there is no challenge to the Swedish model underway. If I do not receive it, I will be disappointed, and the parties will become concerned.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the interveners for excellent contributions on a very important issue.
Let us begin by establishing that the reform taking place in the Swedish labor market is large and important. It is correct, as several interpellators point out, that the Liberals bear a very large responsibility for the fact that we now have a completely new labor market model in place. Had the Liberals not demanded reforms of LAS and that labor law should be made more flexible, this regulatory framework would not have existed. It is, therefore, a correct analysis by the interpellator that this is a major political victory for the Liberals. I can confirm that.
The model that is now emerging is unique in that it gives individual employers an increased opportunity to dismiss employees when such a need exists. There will be less inertia in the system, and the opportunities increase for individual employees to get a new job. It will become a more dynamic labor market, while at the same time we build up a new student support system that makes it possible to change careers in the middle of life, further educate oneself and take new jobs, for example in the new industries that are emerging.
This is a unique model that I believe has very great advantages and which feels modern given the technological development and the strong, green transition that is occurring all around Sweden and which benefits us all. There, this model can play an important role.
Mr. Speaker! I also want to emphasize in connection with this that even when the parties decided to introduce the reform and introduced it, that is, in the autumn, it was known that it was a rather tight schedule. It was known that the authorities that are to handle the exercise of authority would have difficulty doing so with such short notice. Such were the conditions. I know that there is great understanding that heroic efforts are being made at CSN to get this in place. When it comes to the exercise of authority, it is considerably more difficult to make assessments in each individual case, which causes it to take more time.
In this situation, it has been important for the government to achieve changes as quickly as possible, and the fastest changes we could make during the spring were to ensure that CSN had the conditions to reprioritize staff and make efficiencies in the workplace so that more existing case officers can work with the transition study support. That is what provides an effect most quickly. Hiring many new employees would, according to our collective assessment, not have had an effect until at the earliest in the autumn, and it would not have solved the problem. Whether it needs to be allocated more money further ahead is a question that is being carefully analyzed and which we will return to.
Mr. Speaker! The Government has a broad dialogue with the parties on these issues. As recently as this week, we had a meeting. This is important, because the broad dialogue is a prerequisite for the model to become good. It is a good, broad dialogue that is based on trust, understanding of each other's roles, and a great determination that the model shall become really good and that individual people shall truly be able to transition in the middle of life and obtain the new competence that many strive for.
Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister's answer makes me anything but calm. The answers regarding dialogue and that CSN has been tasked to relocate staff, reprioritize and streamline in order to handle a demand pressure that is more than three times as large as expected are astonishing.
The Minister referred to the assignment the government gave CSN, which meant that the agency should take necessary measures to shorten the processing time and which had the addition that it should at the same time have no major impact on other student aid recipients. That addition is very important, and I will return to it.
Mr. Speaker! I actually do not understand how this is supposed to work and whether the government is aware of the situation that the authority is in. Given the answers provided, I must doubt it, because as recently as last week I spoke with representatives from the trade union ST which organizes processors at CSN. The reality that was painted was alarming.
The case officers are doing their absolute best, are struggling, and have struggled hard for a long time to ensure that the processing becomes as good, fast, and legally secure as possible. They are shouting as loud as they can that they need to be more to manage to do a job as good as possible. But they are met with announcements that make them feel hopeless about more relocations being made. These are things they have been doing since last autumn. More efficiencies are to be made, but those are also things they have already done. The overtime budgets are full, and there are no more overtime hours to be taken.
The administrators are working and toiling hard, but the Minister for Education and the government only say that CSN has been tasked with reprioritizing staff and that it is the solution to the problem. Unfortunately, it will not solve the problem. If it were as the Minister for Education says, that it would have had an effect first this autumn if more staff had been hired, it would have been very welcome, if it is this autumn that it gets started. If CSN had received notice that they would receive funds as early as when the autumn budget was released in April, they could have started the recruitment work and had new staff on site – if not now, then quite soon after the summer.
I also want to point out how difficult the processing is by quoting what was on CSN's website as recently as yesterday: "Currently, we are processing applications that came in in October, which was the month when the most applications were received. We are sending out decisions continuously, but it may take a few more months before everyone who applied during the autumn has received their decision."
Applications that came in during October are currently being processed. Today is June 1. The terms they concern have, in some cases, begun to conclude, or will conclude in the coming days, and the applicants may receive a decision in a few months. There is much to do, and the government has a great responsibility to accelerate the work and give CSN and other authorities the opportunity to do as good a job as possible.
Now, the applications that came in in April and which concern the autumn are to be processed. Are they also to wait, perhaps all the way until around Christmas? I must, therefore, continue to ask how the minister will ensure that CSN has the resources they need.
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Mr. Speaker! The response from the Minister for Education leaves one somewhat astonished by the lack of respect from the government's side regarding workers. There are obviously no limits on how much staff should be able to work. They should be able to work an extreme amount of overtime. At the same time, the minister says that the Liberals are proud of what they have achieved and pushed forward.
If you are proud of something, there is surely some value in ensuring that it actually works? CSN, that is, the agency that is tasked with carrying out what the government - the state - has agreed upon with the parties, says that they cannot manage this if they do not get more money. That is what they explicitly say.
It can certainly be said that it was a tight schedule and that it is difficult to assess how much is required for a new reform, but as has been pointed out previously, the authority itself has stated that more resources will be needed for the whole thing to function.
As was said here earlier, the assessment is made that if one injects money, it will not have any effect until later in the autumn. Therefore, no money is being injected at all with the hope that just that will lead to a change. I do not understand the logic in that and how it adds up.
I am also still waiting for an answer from the Minister regarding what was said in the interpellation response, namely that the government has allocated more resources so that CSN can manage the administration of the transition study support. The fact is that the government has made cuts and withdrawn money from CSN ahead of this budget year. It concerns 31 million. What CSN is requesting is actually an increase of 20 million based on what was had previously. This was what it was meant that one needs. Now, 50 million has been requested to complete the assignment.
If the Minister and the Liberals are so proud of the reform they claim to have implemented, I wonder why they are not interested in ensuring that it actually works. Instead, the Minister stands here in the chamber and just says a lot of fluffy words. I still think it is reasonable to keep what one has agreed upon.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! We have a model in Sweden where the parties in the labor market truly take their responsibility. They take their responsibility in good times, and they take their responsibility during bad times. The Minister himself pointed out that there is a trust and an understanding there. We must not see a development where the trust that exists between the parties and politics is questioned.
There is, however, a concern that raisins are being picked out of the cake, that political reforms are being pushed through but that what was promised on the other end is not being done. Politics must do its part when agreements like this are reached, where the parties are involved. The trust that the Minister of State mentions is fundamental and central to the Swedish model.
Today we are not speaking about establishment jobs, of course, but I hope we can see that they will soon be in place and not be shuffled away. I also hope that the transition support can function fully in the near future. It is urgent. Then two of our time's major reforms in the area of labor law can thus be rolled out and achieve the effect that we all hope they will achieve.
We shall see if the liberal ministers at the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Employment are as good at pushing forward when they lead departments as they were when they negotiated the January Agreement, as the minister suggested. We can hope so. If they are not, we will have to see each other here more often.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Mr. Speaker! I repeat what I said earlier once more so that we shall see if the message gets through. You must listen with slightly larger ears so that perhaps the message reaches through this time.
We think this is a very important reform. It is a large and important part of the transition in the Swedish labor market. We have taken measures for CSN's ability to process this that will bear fruit and have an effect as soon as possible. We have focused our measures on what can be done here and now during the spring, and those are also being implemented.
We are following the issue very closely and do not rule out taking further measures if required. One should also know that CSN had very tough conditions because the timeline for when this was introduced was very tight, which everyone who has been involved in the issue and especially the parties know. We should all have respect for that.
It is, for example, important that everyone who is now applying for an education receives a legally secure and individual assessment. If one is to live up to that, it also takes a little longer than we otherwise consider desirable. If there are things in how the assessment is carried out that can be changed, or if there is anything in the regulatory framework that can be simplified, the government is, of course, prepared to look at and carefully analyze it.
This is an important reform. It is important that many people get the opportunity to change careers in the middle of life. The Government is prepared to do what is required for the reform to become as good as possible.
Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for a clarifying debate. The government will therefore not here and now take any clear and rapid steps and cannot guarantee that CSN receives the resources it needs. I think that with my larger ears I could hear that in the latest contribution.
The last thing I want to bring up here concerns the thousands of people who now risk not receiving the support. It is for them that the support is most important. During 2023 alone, around 4,000 people who are entitled to the support risk not receiving it because the processing is not fast enough. Next year, there is an imminent risk that over 10,000 people will not receive a support that they actually have a right to. We are talking here about money that is set aside, and it concerns people who have a right to support but who will not receive it because CSN does not have the required resources.
The whole thing is about us introducing a system that will enable people to transition in the middle of life, to change careers or sharpen their skills to be employable in the future. That is why it is so important that we push forward and do our utmost so that it truly becomes as good as we all want.
I want to conclude my speech with the appeal that one must think of the thousands of people for whom the support is intended, so that they can transition. The government needs to step up and do more so that CSN has the opportunity to do its job.
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister says that we should listen and open our ears. What I hear is that the government is saying: We do not intend to do what is required.
Telling people that they must work faster and more efficiently will not lead to them doing so in practice. Believe me, I know! I have been in an organization where one constantly received such orders. "We just need to work a little faster and more efficiently." It doesn't work that way in reality.
The government must listen to its own authorities when they say that they cannot fulfill their mandate and that they need more resources. It is the government's duty, especially in such an important issue as this, which concerns upholding one's part of an agreement. This harms the confidence in the state's ability to keep agreements and its promises towards the parties on the labor market and the employees who are covered by and apply for the support.
If you do not keep your promises, you cannot expect to be believed in other contexts either. Just as I said at the end of my opening statement, the government has actually not made itself known for keeping its promises.
I really hope that it is as the minister says and that it will work out - perhaps through magic or influence from God. I hope that it will be so, but not for the government's sake but for those who apply to receive the transition support and so that the parties in the labor market do not lose confidence in the state.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Mr. Speaker! I do not think we need to involve higher powers to solve this problem. I hope and believe that we will be able to solve it with tangible proposals.
I believe that everyone listening to the debate understands that we all, not least the government, are doing our utmost to get this excellent reform implemented in the best possible way. It has broad support in the Riksdag. All parties except Vänsterpartiet were in favor of it and voted for it. We who are carrying this reform naturally do our utmost to ensure it is done in the best way.
I believe it is important for the opposition in the Swedish Riksdag to lower the tone somewhat. I believe those watching the debate understand that when a government wants to take responsibility for this type of reform, it does so in the best way. I would never dream of accusing the Social Democrats of "shaking the foundations" of the model because the Social Democrats, during four years in government, did not introduce the reform with the establishment jobs, because the introduction of this model involves legal complications—which the member is, of course, fully aware of—which this government is also handling. I believe the viewers and listeners of the debate understand that politics is sometimes harder than the opposition in the Swedish Riksdag wants to make it.
Responsibility is important. Sweden is in a very tough time. We are entering a recession. The transition study support is then important. Many people want to take the chance to transition in the middle of life. Many people want to take the chance to educate themselves and do something new, and society stands ready to enable people to change skills, develop in the middle of life, take new steps and get new professions. It is welcome. We shall do our utmost to ensure that this reform becomes good, so that as many people as possible can develop their skills.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.