Response to interpellations 2025/26:250 and 263 regarding Finsam
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns coordination agreements and Finsam. M argues that the coordination agreements are significant for people's work capacity and self-sufficiency 1. M believes that the government has strengthened the support through new routines for coordinated rehabilitation measures 1. M argues that the government has acted to guarantee the use of ESF funds and created a structure where Försäkringskassan can act as a project manager 2. M argues that the model aims to get more people into work and reduce dependency on benefits 3. S argues that Försäkringskassan dictates the terms and that the cooperation is not equal 4 5. S believes that the government does not govern its agencies correctly 4 5. S wants to change the Finsam legislation 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Åsa Eriksson has asked me if I will take any measures to change the development and give the coordination unions the opportunity to use their full potential to get more people into work.
Eva Lindh has asked me if I intend to take measures to re-enable external funding and ensure that the coordination associations' activities can be developed to meet future needs.
That people's ability to work is taken into account to the greatest extent possible is important from both a human and a societal perspective. The coordination associations are significant for supporting people to achieve work ability and also self-sufficiency through coordinated rehabilitation efforts.
The importance of the coordination funds is evident, for example, from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency's (ISF) evaluation of the effects of coordination fund-financed interventions on individuals' livelihood situations. According to ISF's evaluation, those who participate in coordination fund-financed interventions in the form of team activities get better opportunities to support themselves.
Since Försäkringskassan presented its analysis in December 2024 of the need for changes to the Act (2003:1210) on financial coordination of rehabilitation measures, the so-called Finsamlagen, the government has taken several initiatives to strengthen the support for persons who need coordinated rehabilitation measures.
Försäkringskassan has, on behalf of the government, developed routines intended to guide how the cooperating parties – through the coordination associations' preparation structures – identify and carry out coordinated rehabilitation interventions with project funds from the European Social Fund Plus. Through this assignment, there is now a model that enables social fund resources to reach the coordination associations' target groups during the current programming period.
The Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society, MUCF, has been tasked with paying out state grants to municipalities and regions for initiatives where various social actors collaborate in order to facilitate the establishment in work and social life for young people who neither work nor study, or who run the risk of ending up in such a situation. It appears from the assignment that the routines and methods developed within the framework of the Försäkringskassan's mandate to ensure the implementation of social fund projects identified within the framework of the coordination federations' preparatory structure should also be able to be used to identify initiatives that can be financed through the state grant paid out by MUCF.
From the regulatory letters of Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan, it appears that the agencies shall contribute to ensuring that all parties in the collaboration take responsibility for the coordination unions' interventions. It also appears that Försäkringskassan and Arbetsförmedlingen shall, through the National Council for Financial Coordination, support the development of the coordination unions.
As appears from my answer, the government sees what the coordination associations can contribute. I and the government also have clear expectations that the relevant authorities shall contribute to ensuring that necessary measures are carried out so that persons who need coordinated rehabilitation measures also receive them.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is a new year and an election year. Then one must, of course, begin by debating financial coordination, which is so close to our hearts.
Mr. Speaker! Minister Tenje and I have had countless debates about Finsam. We have always agreed on how important the Finsam operations are so that more people can receive support and help to be able to support themselves. Therefore, it is extremely frustrating when we now see in municipality after municipality around the country that the development is going in the opposite direction under the Tidö government's rule.
Mr. Speaker! I have asked the National Network for Coordination Associations for help in obtaining a consolidated picture of the developments in the country. They state that the effects of the new interpretation of the law, which Försäkringskassan has made and disseminated in the knowledge support for Finsam, are that the financial coordination associations are now only to be a bank that finances rehabilitation efforts in line with the agency's needs – nothing else.
What is unfortunately even clearer is that it is one of the participating parties, Försäkringskassan, that dictates the conditions that the other three parties are expected to follow.
What the Minister himself just read out in his response – Försäkringskassan has, on behalf of the government, developed routines that shall guide how the cooperating parties identify and carry out coordinated rehabilitation efforts – is a very clear example of that. Försäkringskassan produces routines that the other parties are expected to follow. That is not cooperation, in my opinion. And it is not successful and effective cooperation according to the cooperation research that exists.
Collaboration is based on equal partners who together develop rules for how they shall work together. That is when it becomes long-term effective – for the individual, for the participating parties, and for us as a society. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. The development has gone backwards over the last three years.
Mr. Speaker! According to Försäkringskassan's new directive, joint competence development, advocacy work to have the parties' regular activities overlapped for the individual's best interest, as well as innovation and development, are things that the coordination unions may no longer engage in – according to Försäkringskassan. That is not because the law has been changed, but simply because one of the parties has made a different interpretation, and it is the authority that Minister Anna Tenje is responsible for. Minister Anna Tenje and the Moderaterna should steer it so that it follows the Finsam legislation, which clearly states that all four parties are equal and shall cooperate based on that. It cannot be one that steers the cooperation. Then it is not cooperation.
Mr. Speaker! This government often sprinkles around with fine words but obviously lacks the ability to steer the state authorities so that the words become reality. Long-term unemployment is increasing – we can all see that. Youth unemployment is increasing. Today we received a report from Försäkringskassan that sick leaves for mental ill-health continue to increase. This is happening at the same time as coordination unions all over the country are forced to end interventions that are clearly effective and make a difference – simply because the agency has changed its directives. It is frustrating.
Will State Secretary Anna Tenje take up the matter and do something about this so that Finsam can utilize its full potential?
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister, for the answer!
The coordination associations are not a side track in Swedish welfare. They are one of the few systems that actually work for people who have fallen between authorities, between regulatory frameworks, and between chairs.
It is usually about people who are too sick to work but too healthy for sickness insurance and who have a possibility of returning to the workforce. It is about people with complex needs, mental ill-health, long-term illness, low education or social problems, or who actually have not had the opportunity to enter the workforce due to system errors.
This cannot be met by one agency at a time, and that was exactly why the coordination unions were started. Here, the coordination unions also make a truly great difference: small but crucial steps towards better health, strengthened work capacity, and in the long run, self-sufficiency. Everyone who has investigated the activities, just as the minister told from the rostrum, shows that the coordination unions make a real difference.
The need to coordinate resources for the person at the center is enormous. But let me be honest: This government has not improved the conditions for these people during this mandate period. We have received a labor market policy where people are sorted out faster but do not come closer to work. We have received a work line that instead leads further away from the jobs. Unemployment is increasing dramatically, and the sickness insurance is to become harsher, narrower, and more suspicious. We have received a policy where those who have complex needs are left to their fate.
It is precisely here that the coordination associations come in. They are not project activities but a necessary response to a deficient system.
In the coordination forums, Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, municipalities and regions work together for real. There, the human being is seen, not the agency boundary. There, it is about step-by-step movements, slowly building up health, trust, competence and work ability. At least it has usually been that way previously.
The need for these measures is increasing. Unemployment is becoming entrenched, especially among those who are furthest from the labor market. Precisely in this situation, the state should therefore strengthen, not weaken, the structures that actually work. But now we see the opposite. Just as my colleague Åsa Eriksson has so profitably described, it is not about changes in the legislation but about the interpretation of the legislation and also a passivity.
I feel a great frustration. I have seen up close what the coordination associations do to make a difference. When the target groups are now being restricted and one cannot strengthen the funding possibilities with the ESF fund or follow up, I become worried that that which should be able to fill the gaps in our systems and give people proper help actually cannot continue to function as well as before.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would first like to say that I share Eva Lindh's initial description of how important the coordination agreements are, what benefit they can provide, and what they are for. That being said, I cannot entirely share the subsequent description of how things actually stand.
I also want to take the opportunity to inform both those listening and certain members that the order in Sweden is that it is the Riksdag and the government that enact laws, which our authorities then interpret. It is therefore completely in order that the laws and regulations we have are de facto interpreted. If one does not like the outcome of that, one can choose to initiate the legislative process and enact a new law, but in that respect, I just want to state that if one wants a rapid change, that is not the way to go. If one does not want to lose the so-called ESF funds and the money that lies in the structural funds just for this period and the application process, it is a matter of finding new ways forward, and that is precisely what we have tried to do from the government's side.
As we have seen previously, the coordination unions, which are composed of municipalities, regions, Försäkringskassan and Arbetsförmedlingen, are significant for carrying out the coordinated rehabilitation efforts and supporting people in being able to achieve work capacity and self-sufficiency. By supporting the parties through the preparation structure in the coordination unions to identify and start joint projects, sometimes with the help of ESF funds, there are now good conditions to utilize the entire potential that exists all around the country but also conditions to enable external financing in the form of ESF funds for coordinated rehabilitation efforts.
The Government has promptly and forcefully made this possible in order to achieve what the interpellants request in their interpellations and questions. Försäkringskassan shall now, if no other party has the possibility to take on the responsibility of being the project owner for an important ESF project, take on the responsibility for just this. Thus, there is now a foundation and a guarantee that the project will always be able to be realized. I also want to emphasize that this does not prevent any of today's cooperating parties from, just as it has always been possible, starting and running projects themselves or together under their own management, with or without Försäkringskassan.
Mr. Speaker! The ball is now exactly where it should be, that is, entirely in the parties' hands. They can now, as I said, identify good, common projects and either start and run them themselves jointly or within the framework of Försäkringskassan's care, in accordance with the space that the government has now created for them.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note that the Minister at the end says that the ball is now "precisely where it should be". The Minister is apparently very satisfied with the state of affairs when it comes to cooperation between the participating parties.
It is not us Social Democrats. We want to change the Finsam legislation so that more people can receive support and help to increase their work capacity and avoid long-term exclusion, sick leave, unemployment and social exploitation and get help to support themselves. That is our ambition.
I usually enjoy debating with Anna Tenje. I do so today as well. But I do not appreciate when the Minister pretends that we members of Parliament are stupid. It is clear that it is the laws that the authorities have to abide by. But a government is expected to govern its authorities. A government gives mandates to its authorities. The question is which mandates one gives, how they are formulated, and how they are followed up.
What I mean here is that the Tidö government is failing. One does not ensure that financial cooperation proceeds according to what the legislation stipulates – four equal parties – but instead, one lets Försäkringskassan run its own race. That undermines the coordination agreements. It causes successful operations to be terminated now. It causes more people to stand without support and help, and it causes more people to be dependent on benefits instead of supporting themselves. We Social Democrats think that is wrong.
I also believe that Försäkringskassan is violating the Finsamlagen when they now refuse to have board meetings in the local boards that have local anchoring and which are physically present at meetings. The directives now are that it is a few officials at Försäkringskassan who participate digitally at all board meetings without having any local anchoring. Why should we then have local coordination associations?
I mean that the government is failing in its work if one truly means that financial coordination is important for more people to increase their work capacity. It has gone so far that several coordination associations have now sought the help of independent legal investigations to try to understand what can be done. They simply do not trust the directives that come from Försäkringskassan.
When independent researchers request the underlying data from Försäkringskassan regarding how their new assessments have come to be, they are told that there are no other underlying materials than the report submitted to the government and a knowledge support. That is all. Försäkringskassan's interpretations are therefore absolute. There are no judgments, nothing else. Försäkringskassan dictates the conditions, and other parties are expected to fall into line. Those who pay the price are those who do not receive help.
Some coordination associations have hired PWC to look at whether the directives coming from Försäkringskassan, stating that they may no longer do anything other than be a bank, are actually compatible with the legislation. Contrary to what Försäkringskassan says, PWC's investigators write that it may even be the members' obligation to seek competence development for efficient resource use and to strengthen cooperation.
We do not know how Försäkringskassan has arrived at its interpretation of the legislation. What I mean here is that Anna Tenje is the one responsible. Therefore, I ask once again: Is Anna Tenje satisfied with how cooperation works today, or will she take measures so that Försäkringskassan becomes one of four equal parties in financial coordination?
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! All over the country, coordination associations are now being forced to phase out well-functioning operations. This is not because the needs are decreasing or because the results are failing to materialize, but it is because the funding is not holding up and because the obstacles to coordination have become too difficult. This is happening at the same time as the needs are increasing, long-term unemployment is becoming entrenched, and the government itself speaks of the importance of more people working.
There is talk of responsibility, but the consequences are shifted onto municipalities – this I want to return to – as well as onto regions and individual individuals. There is talk of order and tidiness, but in practice, it results in greater insecurity and increased costs further ahead.
It is difficult to understand the logic. More should work and fewer should live on benefits, but what we see in reality is that fewer work and more live on benefits. When it comes to the people who have the greatest need – the people who would really need help to get closer to the labor market, which I hope we all want to contribute to, and who would really need this coordinated support – the rug is being pulled out. That is actually what is happening.
I also find it difficult to understand how it has become this way. Försäkringskassan has alone taken on some kind of leadership role to slowly phase out the coordination associations. This is actually what is happening. We stand and watch, and no one – not even the Minister – seems to be able to do anything. That is why we, with untiring commitment – I hope – continue to fight so that the coordination associations can continue to have a good operation.
I would like to ask a specific question that was not included in my interpellation but which has become relevant following the new regulatory letters that have been sent to Försäkringskassan and Arbetsförmedlingen.
The groups that the coordination associations should turn to are narrowed down. We have a funding that does not hold. One is not allowed to apply for ESF funds. Even if one says that there is a new way, it is actually the case that this has been made more difficult and that one does not have ESF funds in the same way as before.
There are obstacles in the way, and these obstacles are built by Försäkringskassan itself. Now, there is also a narrowed target group.
My interpretation of this, besides the fact that it affects the people who need help and support, is that the municipalities will receive more people in need of social assistance in the future when people do not receive the help they need. The municipalities do not receive enough state grants to manage the welfare. By not being active and changing the conditions for the coordination unions, one also ensures that they risk facing increased costs for social assistance.
I wonder, as I asked the Minister in my interpellation, what the Minister intends to do. How does the Minister intend to act to resolve the problems that we see?
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me remind the members once again that it was not the government's decision that the coordination associations would no longer be able to run ESF projects. Changing the law, which would have been necessary to be able to continue as before, would have taken significantly longer. Furthermore, it would have involved a risk that all coordination associations would be locked into a structure that might not have applied during the next ESF period, which would have caused them to lose even more money.
Faced with this fact, the government chose to act here and now instead of having a long investigation process, which might have resulted in similar legislation, ahead of it. In a very short time, we established a system that both guarantees and enables the continued use of ESF funds for exactly those interventions that the members called for in their questions. Now there is a system in place that, through Försäkringskassan, guarantees ownership for important identified projects that the other cooperation partners, for various reasons, cannot or perhaps do not want to run themselves.
Försäkringskassan is the foundation and the guarantor that these projects will be realized. As I said at the conclusion of my previous contribution, this is based on the parties coordinating with each other, identifying suitable projects, reaching an agreement, and then being able to carry out the projects together.
The model that currently applies was developed in broad consensus with Försäkringskassan and several coordination associations. It was announced, among other things, through a joint debate article with the then-chairman of NNS. Their support has, to my knowledge, not changed.
Even then, my message was very clear. The government has now taken its responsibility and created a structure so that ESF funds can be used. No good projects shall be hindered by unnecessary bureaucracy. If problems of any kind arise for the parties to start or run ESF projects themselves, Försäkringskassan shall step in as project leader and constitute a foundation and a guarantor. This is clear, and I have also had it clearly confirmed by the Director General in our conversations.
Now a great responsibility rests on the parties to do their part and identify the projects, coordinate, and either themselves or through Försäkringskassan drive these projects for the benefit of all the people they exist for. That is where the money should go – to people who are in need of coordinated efforts to get into work.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister has now had 14 minutes of speaking time, but I have still not heard her say a single word about whether she is satisfied with how the cooperation works when Försäkringskassan dictates the conditions. I interpret the answer as that the Minister is not satisfied and therefore does not want to comment on this.
I hope that the Minister takes on their part of the governance and does something about this. The legislation, which is a little over 20 years old, has not been changed. It worked perfectly well for many years until Försäkringskassan made a different interpretation of exactly the same legislation. I hope that one returns to enabling effective and successful interventions, so that more people can receive support and help, instead of watering down Finsam.
A union leader I met recently said: What the government is doing now through Försäkringskassan is a starvation diet that will cause the coordination unions to die of their own accord if they are not given the conditions to be what they should be.
Mr. Speaker! As far as I know, no one has been able to see any legal investigations from Försäkringskassan that show why one should make a different interpretation of the legislation. I expect the Minister to see to it that a talk is had with the Director General or that a mandate is given so that a different interpretation of the legislation is made possible. As long as there are no judgments or new legal investigations, I cannot see that a party should be allowed to unilaterally destroy such an important activity as this is for so many people.
I conclude by asking Anna Tenje if she is satisfied with how the outcome for the coordination associations has become during her stewardship.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by agreeing with everything that Åsa Eriksson wondered. I therefore hope that the Minister can provide answers to the questions Åsa Eriksson asked. It is difficult to understand why a piece of legislation that has functioned for 20 years is suddenly being interpreted in a completely different way.
The question I asked the Minister did not receive an answer. When the coordination associations do not function better than they do right now, it has immense consequences, especially for the people who are affected and do not receive support, but it will also have consequences for the municipalities. Does the Minister share my assessment that the municipalities will also be affected, for example through the increased social assistance?
I also wonder if a consequence analysis has been carried out regarding what was written very clearly in the regulatory letter about that certain target groups shall be prioritized in the coordination associations' work. There are three target groups that shall be particularly prioritized. This implies changes for the coordination associations, as some people do not fit into the prioritized groups. Is there a consequence analysis of what this will entail, especially for those people who perhaps cannot receive support, but naturally also for everyone involved and society as a whole?
If the government is serious about more people being able to work, that those on sick leave should receive the right support, and that authorities should cooperate, then the coordination unions must be given reasonable conditions. I hope that we can look forward to that.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the members for the interpellations and the questions and for the debate and discussion we have had here today. It has been good to once again clarify the government's position and active work with the Finsam issues. It is about getting more people into work who today stand very far from the labor market.
It is very important to regain one's ability to work and to become self-sufficient. We leave no one behind. We do not hide or forget people in the statistics. We do what we can so that more people can enter the workforce. That is what our entire work during the past parliamentary term has been about – to get more people into work, so that more become self-sufficient and that people should move away from benefit dependency and away from social assistance in the municipalities. Not least the major benefit reform we are now launching aims to tackle this.
More children shall see their parents go to work, and thus the burden of the social assistance shall decrease for the municipalities. But it also means that the demands on the municipalities will increase when it comes to, among other things, the activity requirement, that is to say that there are more employments and activities and Swedish language instruction and also more internship and apprenticeship positions that will be available to those who today stand far from the labor market and have lived on social assistance.
When it comes to the Finnish issues, the work we have done recently aims to get a well-functioning operation started that can sustain itself over time and where we do not lose any money from the ESF funds. We shall ensure that the money reaches those it is actually intended for. It should not be about large overhead structures, large overhead costs or administrative staff, but about ensuring that people get to work.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.