Working environment and working hours

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating AU8 Working Environment and Working Hours. I begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee report.

The working environment and working hours are important issues that affect and involve very many employees, employers, and trade union organizations. A safe and developing working environment is central for a well-functioning and vital labor market and welfare. A good working environment is also important for a safer Sweden. This applies to both the individual and society as a whole.

The development of the work environment in our workplaces affects both growth and employment, as well as the possibilities for good, equitable and equal health. The work environment also has great importance for how long people can, are able to, and want to work, which is important given the demographic development we now have in Sweden.

There are questions that we have followed for many years. I will now speak about fatal accidents in our workplaces. Unfortunately, we cannot see any improvements at all in this area. From the Swedish Work Environment Authority's statistics, it appears that a total of 41 fatal accidents occurred during 2022. This is a major failure. Among the industries most affected by accidents are construction, forestry, agriculture, transport, and the manufacturing industry.

Another fact that is significantly worrying is that work-related accidents are increasing. The statistics show that the number of reported work-related accidents, both with and without absence, increased during 2021, which is the latest full year with complete statistics, compared to 2020. The total number increased from 33,626 in 2020 to 40,328 in the following year. The most common cause of work-related accidents with absence for men was accidents caused by loss of control over machine, tool, or transport equipment. Among women, fall accidents were the most common cause of absence.

The third thing that is concerning is that the number of occupational diseases is also increasing. During 2021, the number of reported occupational diseases increased by approximately 50 percent compared to 2020 to a total of almost 30,000 reports. As in previous years, the majority of the number of reports in 2021 were women. In the Swedish Work Environment Authority's survey on work-related ailments in 2020, 32 percent of the employed stated that they had had ailments as a result of work during the last twelve-month period. This corresponds to approximately 1.6 million people and is an increase compared to 2018, when the corresponding proportion was 28 percent. Seen by occupation and industry branch, those employed in healthcare and education were particularly vulnerable to ailments as a result of work. Among assistant nurses, nearly every other, 48 percent, had ailments as a result of work.

The demographic development now requires an additional 200,000 employees in healthcare by 2025. If recruitment to this important sector is to be possible, the working environment conditions within the sector must be significantly improved. The Moderates have, through committee motions over many years, put forward that we want to see an increased number of inspections, follow-ups of the work environment work, opportunities for sanctions, reinforced educational efforts, and so on, within just this sector.

Nearly three out of ten employed persons, 29 percent, had problems as a result of other conditions in work than accidents, which was an increase compared to 2018, when the corresponding proportion was 25 percent. The most important cause of problems from other conditions in work than accidents was too high workload.

Of course, those figures are alarming. Despite increased investments in Arbetsmiljöverket, the justice system, safety representatives, occupational health care, and a new agency, Mynak, the proportion of occupational diseases, work-related accidents, and deaths is rising. An important and central question must be: Why is this happening, and how can it happen? What measures can significantly improve the situation?

It is central and important issues for the politics, the employers and also the employees and the trade union organizations. It is also central to listen to the staff who are daily situated in these sectors. This is also important and needs to be significantly improved. There is a great potential for development here.

In the Tidö Agreement, there are provisions that improvements in the working environment within the healthcare sector shall be implemented. Inspections by the Work Environment Authority show that the need for the inspections is great. In a majority of cases, we can see that the interventions have resulted in 70-80 percent of the visited operations receiving requirements for improvement measures.

An inspection measure within elderly care a few years ago also showed that 90 percent of the inspected units had work environment deficiencies, and several were truly extensive.

Companies and other operations want to do the right thing, but they need guidance in this. This is pointed out during many of the company visits I have conducted. The level of knowledge regarding legislation and relevant measures to improve the work environment is sometimes too low. There is also a great potential for improvement here.

Another challenge is the ever-increasing work-life crime. This is mentioned in the work environment strategy for 2021-2025. In the strategy, the ambition to develop the work against work-life crime through more controls and preventive work is described, among other things.

A well-functioning cooperation between relevant authorities is judged to be of great importance for the work against labor market crime to be effective and purposeful. Likewise, cooperation between authorities and the parties in the labor market needs to be developed.

An important part of the work is the assignment that a number of authorities have received regarding joint authority control to counter fraud. Rule violations and crime in the working life must be prevented.

Madam Speaker! Work environment issues are constantly relevant. That is positive. Despite a difficult situation, it is good that we are getting an ever-increasing space for those issues in the public debate.

I would like to conclude by saying the following. I have received calls from desperate parents. In those cases, they have been living in Jämtland and Västra Götaland. The calls have been about parents who have lost their sons, both of these in their twenties, through fatal accidents at the workplace.

It is every parent's worst nightmare. The parents have been clear in their stories about what they believe has not functioned within the work environment area, and this also applies to the processes following the accidents.

The work to prevent workplace accidents, occupational diseases, violence, and harassment must therefore accelerate. Evaluations and statistics are clear, and the current efforts are obviously not sufficient.

Madam Speaker! Everyone who goes to work should be able to come home to their families after the workday. Everything else is unacceptable. With those words, I conclude my speech.

(Applause)

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Saila Quicklund, for a very good speech!

Saila Quicklund speaks about difficulties, problems, and workload in workplaces. The most common cause of women becoming ill at work is high workload and stress. Therefore, we must ensure that the organizational and social factors in the workplaces are handled with the same seriousness and the same weight as the physical ones. That is not the case today.

I know that the Moderates have previously highlighted the issue of strengthened possibilities for sanctions when it comes to the regulations. Now, the investigation commissioned by the Social Democrats regarding expanded possibilities for sanction fees for systematic work environment work, as well as the social and organizational aspects, is complete.

I am convinced that the employer's motivation to make the required efforts increases with the risk of sanctions. Now the investigation is complete. There are proposals that the government can take forward which will make it possible to demand sanctions even for other risks in the work environment than the physical ones.

I want to ask Saila Quicklund, in short: What do the Moderaterna actually think? Do you still see that employers must take greater responsibility for the psychosocial work environment? Do the Moderaterna mean that we should introduce sanctions for deficiencies in the organizational and social work environment?

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johanna Haraldsson! I really appreciate that we get a chance to exchange experiences and positions in a reply.

I am deeply concerned about the working environment conditions. It must nevertheless be considered a major failure when the previous government, over eight years, handled these issues and we see that the fatal accidents are rising and, not least, that the occupational diseases for women within the public sector and also the workplace accidents are rising.

There have been funds available to allocate to this with the aim of improving the situation, but it has not happened. It is therefore good that we can have an exchange on these issues right now.

Of course, I, the Moderaterna, and the government believe that we should proceed with the possibilities for sanctions. It was the Alliance government that, during its time, introduced the possibility of sanctions where one moved away from other criminal law measures. It is entirely in line with the Moderaterna's position.

I am well aware that the investigation has a proposal that Arbetsmiljöverket should be able to issue sanction fees. It is not an issue where there is any area of conflict.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I am extremely pleased to hear that the Moderates stand by their position and that the government will now move forward with the proposal. The question then becomes: When can we expect the government to deliver the proposal?

I must also address some of the claims that Saila Quicklund raised regarding funds to address workplace environment problems. This applies particularly in the welfare sector, but also funds for Arbetsmiljöverket for expanded inspections.

Here, the Social Democratic government has step by step built up the Swedish Work Environment Authority's inspection capacity during its time in government. It has also ensured to inject more resources into welfare where we have the major challenges with precisely high workload.

When the Moderates and the government now had the chance, with their first budget, to ensure that more funds were allocated to the Work Environment Authority and welfare in order to at least maintain the same level of welfare that we had before 2023, they refrained and instead prioritized tax cuts for those who earn the most.

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! The Government has allocated 12 billion to the municipalities and regions, also for the purpose of improving working environment conditions. This is also stated in the Tidö Agreement, which I mentioned in my speech.

Offensive measures will be taken. As I also mentioned, we face major demographic challenges, and that requires action. 200,000 people must be recruited to the health and social care sector, and that requires improvements in the working environment.

I share much of the previous government's views on what can improve the measures. However, I must nevertheless mention that there are enormous differences in efficiency when it comes to the Swedish Work Environment Authority's inspections. In 2013, 31,000 inspections were carried out with 555 inspectors employed. In 2018, there were 639 inspectors. That was 84 more people, but only 27,000 inspections were made.

When it comes to funds for Arbetsmiljöverket, we have exactly the same amount, so there is no difference there. On the other hand, I believe we must look at the efficiency and the difference between these years. What can we read from that? It is a large and important question that we must tackle.

More funds do not always yield results. Now we have the same sum for Arbetsmiljöverket. But it has, however, been the Moderaternas standpoint to conduct a review, to look over the efficiency and so on. We have had results since earlier showing that we have worked with fewer funds, fewer people and more inspections. That is important.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 11 in the report.

Work environment work is vital. No one should die at or as a result of their work. Both regional and local work environment work must function, and more people should be given the opportunity to participate in the work. To ensure the implementation of local work environment work, the number of local safety representatives must increase significantly. Today, we have a shortage of local safety representatives of many, many thousands.

In today's model, politically controlled trade unions have the right of priority to appoint local safety representatives. Unfortunately, this means, Madam Speaker, that a large number of wage earners are excluded from the role of safety representative, as party affiliation is significantly more important than knowledge and commitment.

We have an example from Halmstad from a month ago. A young guy, Daniel Widin, had been a safety representative for several years with full support from his workplace. But he received an ultimatum from his trade union, IF Metall: You must leave your assignments as safety representative and union representative. His only offense was that he was elected to the municipal council in Halmstad. That was the only justification he received.

We Sweden Democrats oppose this politicization of the work environment work. The work environment work is crucial for the wage earners' safety and health, and this work must be carried out as efficiently as possible. Anyone who is suitable and has an interest in and knowledge of the work environment work should be able to become a safety representative, regardless of which political party one represents. The power to appoint representatives shall lie with the workplace's employees, without restrictions. The same shall apply when worker representatives are appointed to safety committees.

Madam Speaker! Above all, the Social Democrats claim to stand up for and safeguard the Swedish model, while simultaneously deliberately weakening one party by using trade unions as a tool to discriminate against individuals with the wrong party book and prevent them from engaging in work environment work.

It is a counterproductive policy that in the long run contributes to weakening our Swedish labor market model, which is based on the fact that we have engaged members and that we have equal partners in the labor market. But it also contributes to shutting out thousands of wage earners from the chance to become a part of the work for a better working environment.

Madam Speaker! This is a cynical way of working, which in the long run will be very harmful for Sweden. It makes me worried about the future, because Sweden's labor market model is threatened partly from Brussels – we can read about that every week – and partly from within, nationally, for purely party-political reasons. It is very alarming.

Assignments and commitments linked to the work environment should not be governed by the color of a party book, but everyone must be allowed to get involved if we are to be able to live up to the requirements we as politicians set and the visions we have for future work environment work.

Madam Speaker! When we stand here and discuss work environment problems, one must also mention the so-called involuntary shared shifts, particularly within elderly care.

The Sweden Democrats consider it important to safeguard workers' right to a balance between work and private life. Staff within health and social care generally desire continuous work shifts, and it is important that staff have greater influence over their working hours.

Shared shifts are problematic in many ways, and they are often a contributing cause of stress and poorer well-being with sick leave as a result. It is unfortunate that the needs for measures to address the problems in the area are not seen.

The problem is most common in social democratically governed municipalities, which most often struggle with large budget deficits for various reasons. In those cases, cuts in school, health care, and elderly care are used as a pure budget regulator while simultaneously closing the door on private alternatives, which often function as a good complement to the municipal operations. This is an important issue that needs to be raised significantly higher on the political agenda.

Madam Speaker! I shall conclude by raising an issue that I and the Sweden Democrats have championed in this chamber for several years. Unfortunately, we have never been heard on it, which may seem strange since it is an issue that the Social Democrats have championed in several election campaigns. It is a promise that was given to LO as a thank you for part of the economic assistance, but also an issue that is very topical today when it comes to the problems we have with work environment injuries. We did discuss sanction fees and such earlier.

The Social Democrats simply choose to vote no to their own proposal on extended prescription periods for workplace environment crimes, and the only reason is that SD is driving the issue. They completely disregard the voters. And this, Madam Speaker, is an issue that lies outside the Tidö Agreement. Here, the Social Democrats could have therefore secured a majority, but unfortunately, they do not take that chance.

Everyone knows that in investigations of workplace environment crimes, several authorities are involved - Arbetsmiljöverket, Polismyndigheten, and Åklagarmyndigheten. The investigation time is often long, and resources are often lacking. Often several companies are involved, and many of them are posted abroad and have already managed to leave the country when the investigation starts.

The Sweden Democrats argue that, based on the overall picture of the problems in these investigations, there are good reasons to extend the prescription period. We regret that neither the government nor the Social Democrats currently want to extend the prescription period for workplace environment crimes of the normal degree from two to four years and for serious workplace environment crimes from five to ten years.

It is a fairly simple measure, which would have given the authorities more time and given more people a chance at redress. Not everything is about higher sanction fees; it is also about giving the authorities time to be able to investigate the crimes. It is something that is truly needed.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I intended to speak about crime in the working life. It is a growing problem in the Swedish labor market, and by that I mean the criminal activity where unscrupulous companies gain competitive advantages through black labor, illegal labor, shell companies, human trafficking, and not infrequently, completely substandard working environments.

Something that fuels crime in the labor market is the all-too generous regulatory framework regarding labor migration that Sweden has had for the last 15 years and which is primarily a remnant of the alliance government's visions of a completely deregulated labor market.

We Social Democrats have for a long time pointed out the importance of tightening the regulatory framework and protecting the Swedish labor market and wage earners against wage dumping and terms-of-employment dumping through the introduction of labor market testing.

Previously, the Sweden Democrats have held a similar view, but now something seems to have happened. Despite the fact that the Sweden Democrats are today the government's largest party, nothing is happening. From previously having portrayed labor market screening as one of the most important measures to get order and clarity on labor immigration, the Sweden Democrats have since the election been very silent on the issue.

Could it be that that matter of representing the employees' interests and stopping the dumping of wages and conditions actually wasn't so important anymore when the power was refused? Or why else has one abandoned the idea of labor market review?

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johanna Haraldsson, for raising a very important issue!

I will start by correcting Johanna Haraldsson. The Social Democrats have not driven this issue at all. It was only started when the Green Party was removed from the government support. Previously, it was the Green Party that dictated the terms for the Social Democrats.

I know that, because just like Johanna Haraldsson, I have been involved in quite a few election campaigns. The Social Democrats have gone into elections - 2014, 2018 and 2022 - on the basis that we should have a tough labor immigration policy and a labor market assessment, but in the negotiations with the Green Party, one has come out with one's tail between one's legs. Nothing has happened.

I agree with much of your criticism. Had I been the one to decide, I would have gladly wanted a state labor market assessment. There is nothing strange about that. It applies to the Sweden Democrats as well. But we negotiated with the government parties, and we reached a solution. We did not get everything through, but we got through significantly more than what the Social Democrats got through during the eight years when the Green Party was allowed to dictate the terms in this matter.

It will be very interesting to see how you will manage to put it together moving forward with your government option, which consists of Centerpartiet, Vänstern, and Miljöpartiet. Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to pursue the most liberal labor migration policy of all the parties in this chamber, so it will be interesting to see how you will make that equation work if you were to come to power.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Now it is the Sweden Democrats who have the power in their hands and can actually make changes. The Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the government cooperation, and it seems that this was not so important when negotiations were held with the other parties.

I can also state that the labor migration to Sweden continues to increase, despite the Sverigedemokraternas and the government parties' talk about various paradigm shifts. This also applies to low-skilled occupations. It was here that the labor market assessment was supposed to make a big difference.

One can absolutely stand here in the Riksdag's speaker's chair and accuse other parties, but standing for one's own policy seems to be harder than the Sverigedemokraterna perhaps thought. That one is also on a collision course with the business sector on the issue perhaps does not make the whole thing much easier.

I still want to ask: If the Sweden Democrats stand on the side of Swedish wage earners, which you often say you do, why then have you not pushed through the labor market screening that you previously spoke so warmly for?

One also cannot help but wonder if SD changed their minds, just as they changed their minds about profits in the welfare sector, when the business community had bought the Sweden Democrats' principles.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I could be very mean here. I do not know if Johanna Haraldsson remembers it, but the Sverigedemokraterna put a sharp proposal regarding a state labor market assessment on the table here in the Swedish Riksdag. We could have obtained a majority for it in the chamber, but you voted no. This was the year before the election, before we entered government negotiations. We could have pushed this through in the chamber. The proposal was on the table. You actively voted no to the proposal.

Then you stand here and portray the Sweden Democrats as those who betray Swedish wage earners. We have pushed through significantly more in six months than you managed in eight years. That you are raising the issue now is solely because you are trying to win back voters from the Sweden Democrats. But we see that the original is more credible in these matters.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In this report, we handle approximately 80 motions from the general motion period concerning the work environment and working hours, which shows that there is a great commitment to these important issues in the Riksdag. At the same time, the report shows that the government is already working on these issues and that a large number of investigations are underway which will come to the Riksdag after they are completed. I therefore move for the rejection of all these motions and for the approval of the committee's proposal.

Madam Speaker! With this I could have basically concluded my contribution, but I still want to take the opportunity to explain how we as Christian Democrats view these issues.

For us, it is important that we stick to the Swedish model, as it is the parties that have the primary responsibility for all the issues concerning the work environment and working hours. Several proposers highlight mental ill-health and that it should be possible to introduce a sanction fee when individual employers fail to prevent mental ill-health.

The previous government appointed an inquiry which, among other things, looked at these issues. The inquiry moved forward, and with the working environment in focus, it was handed over to the government in August 2022. The report has since been referred, and the proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices. We will therefore have the opportunity to return to these issues when the matter returns to the Riksdag. It is, however, important to state that it is already today the employer who is obliged to ensure a good physical and mental working environment for its employees.

The goal of a good working environment will always be about us, together with the employers' and employees' parties, the companies and the public sector, constantly working to improve the working environment. This is a task that will never ever be finished but is a constantly ongoing work where new improvements occur over time.

We have noted this in the Tidö Agreement, and in order for the state to be able to take its responsibility, we have allocated an additional 50 million kronor to Arbetsmiljöverket as well as 10 million kronor to the Agency for Work Environment Knowledge.

Madam Speaker! A few motions concern crimes against the working environment. As a Christian Democrat, I believe it is important that one constantly works to reduce crime in society, regardless of what type of crime we are talking about. Counteracting violations of the working environment legislation should be carried out through both preventive measures and criminal interventions.

It is therefore pleasing that the Swedish Work Environment Authority, the Police Authority, and the Prosecution Authority have improved their cooperation, which has resulted in more crimes being discovered and led to prosecution. In 2017, decisions were made on 52 prosecutions for personal liability and corporate fines. In 2021, the corresponding figure was 114. This is a positive development that is the result of legislative changes in the area, and it is a development that I hope will continue. The government's historically large investments in the justice system, with an additional 5 billion kronor during the coming three-year period, will also have an effect in this area. These are investments that the Kristdemokraterna have been pushing for.

Madam Speaker! The previous government carried out a number of investigations and changes aimed at having the authorities expand their cooperation to tackle crime in the labor market. They also established regional centers for the purpose of improving this work, which was good.

In the Tidö Agreement, we state that the authorities must be able to share information with law enforcement agencies when necessary to combat crime, subsidy fraud, incorrect bookkeeping, and white-collar crime. It is pleasing that there is such a great consensus that white-collar crime should be combated. These crimes do not only threaten the employees but also distort competition. Serious companies find it harder to conduct business when they compete with criminal companies. We also risk losing tax revenues that could be used for other important areas in society.

Madam Speaker! The report also addresses violence and threats in working life. Unfortunately, we see that there are several professional groups that are subjected to violence or threats of violence in different ways. As a Christian Democrat, I therefore think it is good that the Tidö Agreement highlights and points out the violence that blue-light personnel are subjected to.

Alongside this, I would also like to take the opportunity to mention social workers, teachers, retail employees, restaurant staff, and those who work in the transport sector. In addition to these, there are obviously more groups that I have probably missed. It is, however, important that we continue to review how we can increase safety in working life, while simultaneously being clear that this is primarily a responsibility that lies with the employers.

Madam Speaker! The report also addresses motions concerning work clothes and occupational health care. These are also important issues raised by the proposers. But since we in Sweden have chosen to have a labor market model where large parts of the responsibility lie with the parties, I note that these are also primarily issues where the employers, together with the trade union parties, must find local solutions.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish labor market is constantly in a state of change. Once upon a time, we moved from an agricultural society to an industrial society. Later, it has been about moving into a knowledge and service society, and today we see that we are getting entirely new labor markets with gig work and remote work.

Our labor market model has emerged during these changes. It has served us well, which we can see, among other things, through a constantly improved labor market regarding the design of workplaces, wage development, working hours, personal development, and relatively few conflicts in the labor market.

At the same time, every change forces us to consider who is responsible for what. Is it the parties in the labor market who should handle a new situation, or is support in the form of new laws needed? Often we have solved it through cooperation where, over time, we resolve the challenges that arise as new types of work and forms of employment and companies emerge. It will happen this time as well. But it is important that we in politics follow the development, so that together with the parties in the labor market we can see if serious problems arise.

Madam Speaker! We are debating important issues concerning the work environment and working hours. But I want to broaden the perspective. Often we on the bourgeois side speak about the work line, which is obviously good. But life is bigger than just work. I note that in this report we are trying to solve very many problems via the employers. It can be wise when it concerns issues that the employers can influence, but there are sometimes issues that are larger and more complex.

Let me take an example from the school world. Regardless of what the problem in society is, we politicians tend to point to the school. It is supposed to be the solution to the problems. That makes many teachers today say that the mission as a teacher is impossible to carry out, as they have been given so many other assignments via both the state and the municipalities.

In the same way, we tend to point at the employers regardless of what the problem is. One example is that if someone injures themselves in their free time while playing tennis, it is the employer who has to bear the sick pay cost. If someone goes through a life crisis, which can lead to temporary mental ill-health, it is the employer who has to bear the responsibility. The employers have a responsibility to develop an action plan for the employee, even if the problem is not work-related.

This means that many small business owners hesitate to hire more employees and that it becomes more difficult to be an entrepreneur and an employer. It is also a very inefficient way to meet people's needs in different life situations.

Madam Speaker! As a Christian Democrat, I hope that we can all, to some extent, stop and reflect on how we create a society and an everyday life, not just a working life, that makes the puzzle of life fit together.

Finally, I note that I was somewhat surprised by Member Johanna Haraldsson's contribution. The Social Democrats have, after all, been the largest party in various different blocks for eight years. Yet, they have not implemented what they claimed just a moment ago in the rostrum that they wish to implement. It surprises me, Madam Speaker.

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

Jim Svensk Larm (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, member!

The Christian Democrats would like to give the impression that they stand up for the welfare system. When the member speaks in their speech about the working environment, I do not believe that many within the welfare system feel that they are standing up for their working environment. It is not strange. The feeling is that one says one thing but does something else. Tax cuts for high-income earners carry more weight than more resources for the welfare system.

It probably feels heavy for the Christian Democrats to come out and meet the welfare heroes and to have to stand there and explain how the working environment will be improved for healthcare personnel when welfare is facing a steel bath.

Before the steel bath, it is extra important to ensure that the resources allocated to welfare also go there and not to fraud. We view with concern that organized crime within the welfare sector risks eroding trust in and the legitimacy of the general welfare.

My question to the member is how he sees that we should improve the working environment for employees within health and medical care.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the last point. I share the member's concern regarding organized crime. I devoted a large part of my speech to exactly that, for the simple reason that organized crime, which primarily operates against the welfare sector, takes money that we would need precisely to create a secure welfare. In that part, I believe we are in complete agreement.

Regarding tax cuts, we find ourselves today in a situation with high inflation. The Swedish krona is also weakening against other currencies. It is eroding workers' wallets in a much harsher way than everyone thinks. If any of us here in the chamber were to go to an election saying that one intends to lower someone's salary by 10-15 percent, we probably would not have been elected. But that is what is happening right now.

Even though the union parties received a good agreement, it is still an agreement that means the wallet is emptied for most workers. The government offsets this, among other things, with the tax cuts we are making for workers. If you look at how the tax cuts are made, you see that they primarily reach those with the lowest incomes. That is what I, as a Christian Democrat, am grateful for. We must protect those who are employed and their purchasing power if we are to have a good economy over time.

Madam Speaker! The last question concerned resources for the welfare system. It is a fact that we Christian Democrats have repeatedly added more resources to the welfare system than the Social Democrats have. During the last parliamentary term, we even reached an agreement with the Left Party - perhaps not everyone was aware that it could happen - precisely to add more money to the welfare system.

Madam Speaker! I am not ashamed at all when I am out – on the contrary. I am proud that we are trying to safeguard the welfare in all aspects, even during a recession with high inflation.

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

Jim Svensk Larm (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, member, even though I feel quite certain that it will not make very many within health and medical care feel secure when it comes to their working environment becoming better.

The Government says that more funds have been added to the public sector. Still, we saw in the budget last autumn that we wanted to inject even more. There was a need of 20 billion according to SKR. What the government managed to inject was not even close.

In one of our reservations, we point out the importance of pushing back against work-life crime within the welfare sector. Work-life crime has also found its way into the welfare sector. In the book Hemtjänstmaffian, for example, we have been able to read how municipalities are being cheated out of millions. Those who pay the ultimate price are both users and employees.

Tax money simply should not go to criminals. Everyone should be able to agree on that. Organized crime is constantly developing new ways to circumvent laws and agreements. In that case, it needs to be met with new methods and ways of working. That is what we point out in our reservation. But unfortunately, we do not receive support for that from the Christian Democrats.

How does the member see that we should tackle crime in the working life, specifically within welfare?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the most important thing is what I set out in the rostrum: cooperation between different authorities.

Much of the crime that occurs is perceived at first glance as legal. But when one begins to dig into it, one discovers that there is a systematic approach that leads to what is actually theft from the common purse.

I have personally listened to a person who was active as a lawyer in one of the largest fraud scandals in Södertälje. It was about how they worked with relatives of children with disabilities and how they worked systematically with both rent repayments as well as false wages and, in that case, also labor immigration on incorrect premises.

The only way to tackle that type of crime is to act collectively. Therefore, I am very pleased that even the Social Democrats—at least in the Riksdag, it does not seem to be the case in all municipalities—are prepared to stand up against this type of welfare crime. I am also very pleased, as I said in my speech, that we are allocating additional funds to precisely those law enforcement agencies, because it is through cooperation and more resources that we can tackle the type of crime that unfortunately exists in parts of Welfare Sweden.

Then I want to say once again that it is extremely important that the government lowers taxes for those who work in the welfare sector. It is not reasonable that people have their wages diminished. I am deeply concerned about the left's nonchalance regarding the workers' wage development.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We spend a large part of our waking time at work. Over 5 million people in Sweden set their alarms every day so as not to miss their shift at the warehouse, the elderly care home, the office, or the construction site. Everyone works to support themselves and their families while simultaneously contributing to the fact that society actually functions. Everyone who works, regardless of profession, deserves a safe and healthy environment at work. No one should have to go to work with the risk of being injured, becoming ill, or being killed.

The goal of the work environment policy, which everyone here in the chamber has stood behind, is a work environment that prevents ill health and accidents, counteracts people being excluded from work, takes into account people's different circumstances, and contributes to the development of both individuals and operations. This requires a clear regulatory framework that sets the framework for how workplaces can achieve this, but it also requires that one constantly follows the changes in the labor market and adapts the rules. It was a clear ambition from the Social Democratic government when the latest work environment strategy, A good work environment for the future, was developed.

The increased use of digital tools, robots and AI can often create a better physical work environment while at the same time they can entail new risks. One example is platform work, where new ways of organizing work have meant that companies do not take responsibility for those who work for them. It has resulted in a large group of people working hard every day but not at all having the same rights as other employees - not even when it comes to something as fundamental as a good work environment.

Even in these industries, one could prevent risks and accidents, but that requires someone to take that responsibility. That was, among other things, why the Social Democratic government commissioned an inquiry into extended employer liability. Implementing the proposals of that inquiry is a step on the way toward improving the working situation for all those who toil daily, such as bicycle couriers.

When the Work Environment Act entered into force, Madam Speaker, the physical risks were in focus. Given what the labor market looked like, it was important to prevent illness and accidents, but work life has changed since then. The physical risks remain, but other risks have gained greater significance.

In industries where many women work, there are deficiencies in the organizational and social work environment that create ill health and illness. The welfare sector stands out when it comes to sick leave due to stress. When Arbetsmiljöverket carried out a targeted inspection effort in elderly care, as Saila Quicklund said earlier here in the debate, it showed that 90 percent of the visited workplaces had deficiencies, primarily in the systematic work environment management.

We want women and men to have the same right to a good working environment and for the working environment rules to provide the same protection regardless of where you work, and that is how it is – on paper. When it comes to follow-up and opportunities for sanctions, it is not so.

Arbetsmiljöverket can impose sanction fees for physical deficiencies in the work environment, but not for psychosocial or other deficiencies. Now we have heard that the government will come forward with proposals for sanctions for deficiencies in the social and organizational work environment work, but the investigation suggested more areas where it should be possible to impose sanction fees. We simply have to wait and see what the government actually comes up with. I am convinced that this is a very good way to improve the work environment for everyone in the Swedish labor market, but perhaps primarily for women.

Madam Speaker! Threats and violence are commonly occurring in very many workplaces across Sweden. It is not acceptable in any way. Just as is the case with other risks in the work environment, the employer is responsible for organizing the work and preventing risks of threats and violence as far as is possible.

The government needs to take initiative as soon as possible to ratify ILO Convention 190 on violence and harassment in the workplace. There are no obstacles for Sweden to proceed with this, and it would send a clear signal that the government and the Riksdag do not accept that threats and violence are commonplace in far too many workplaces. Together with expanded opportunities for the Work Environment Authority to impose sanction fees in more contexts, a ratification could strengthen the preventive work against threats, violence, and harassment.

Madam Speaker! There are large health disparities in Sweden. The inequality is great. Perhaps what is most telling in the statistics is that the average life expectancy among women with low education is falling. A sustainable working life can counteract that development, but despite that, access to occupational health care has decreased over time, especially for workers and women, while reality shows that the needs are great. In this area, there are also proposals to strengthen access to occupational health care in preventive work. Here too, we wait for the government to take the initiatives required to strengthen access to occupational health care.

Before this debate, Madam Speaker, I spoke with a long-time safety representative about what she thought was important. She spoke about the danger of solitary work and, somewhere in the prioritization, she felt that the working environment was with the employers. She also spoke about one thing that stuck with me a bit more. She said something like this: "There is an attitude that if you work in manual occupations, you have to expect a few scratches. It is a bit like you have to blame yourself and that you should accept that it is not completely safe to work as an industrial worker, warehouse worker, or assistant nurse. It is as if it is not possible to prevent risks or that we have come as far as possible in the protection of people who work."

That is a dangerous attitude. No one should have to count on either large or small scratches at work. The work of protecting people at work never ends - or to put it another way: the work environment work shall be conducted preventatively, in cooperation, and be systematic at the workplaces. It shall be a natural part of working life.

To ensure that employees have something to say regarding issues in the work environment, there is a right to appoint safety representatives who shall work proactively and as spokespersons for everyone in the workplace. The safety representatives play a crucial role for a functioning safety work. The fact that the safety representatives are appointed by the union makes them stronger. They are more protected both through the law and through the support that a trade union organization can provide in a legal process or if the safety representative is pressured in other ways.

The regional safety representatives, Madam Speaker, work for improved protection for employees at workplaces where a dedicated safety representative has not yet been appointed. They play a major role in the work environment work, not least at smaller workplaces. Over 1,500 regional safety representatives collectively possess a broad competence and experience that would be impossible to replace.

We Social Democrats want to give the regional safety representatives access to more workplaces than today in order to strengthen safety work in a time when more workplaces are small and employment is more insecure to a greater extent. The regional safety representatives can also play an important role in the work against crime in the working life, something that my party colleague Jim Svensk Larm will speak more about in his speech.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, there are many employers who take their responsibility very seriously and who, together with the employees and their safety representatives, do everything they can to create a good working environment and prevent injuries and ill health. But I mean that it is obvious that we also have far too many employers who do not do enough. This is shown by all the statistics that Saila Quicklund mentioned in her speech.

We Social Democrats believe that one needs to become even better at preventing harm and ill health and that it should be palpable for those who do not follow the rules.

The government minister responsible for occupational health and safety policy has on several occasions stated that they continue to work in line with the Social Democratic government's occupational health and safety strategy. That is good.

The Social Democratic government left behind a number of fully referred proposals that are all in line with the work environment strategy, including the expanded possibility of sanction fees, a strengthening of the Act on Occupational Health Services, a proposal on increased management responsibility, expanded access rights for regional safety representatives, and a ratification of the ILO convention on the elimination of violence and harassment in the workplace.

Now we and people at our workplaces are waiting for the government to take the initiatives needed to strengthen the work environment work in Swedish workplaces.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying that we Social Democrats obviously stand behind all our reservations, but we move for approval only to reservation number 13.

(Applause)

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! In my speech, I addressed the statistics on, among other things, deaths and workplace accidents. In 2020, 41 occurred. Occupational diseases are increasing by 50 percent, workplace accidents are increasing significantly, and workplace crime is also increasing.

The S-led government was responsible for the work environment policy for a full eight years. I wonder if Johanna Haraldsson can describe what the Social Democrats' analysis is based on the statistics I just presented. Are there lessons that the previous S-government has drawn from this? I am talking, therefore, about deaths, occupational diseases, and work-related accidents. How did the Social Democrats reason?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Saila Quicklund, for the questions!

We came to power after the Alliance government in 2014. The first thing the Alliance government did in the area of the working environment after taking office was to cut resources to Arbetsmiljöverket, which had to lay off inspectors, which reduced the inspections on the Swedish labor market.

They also shut down the Arbetslivsinstitutet, a world-leading institution that worked with research and monitoring of occupational health and safety work and its development, but also with coordination of education for, for example, occupational health care personnel.

Based on this, during the Social Democratic government period, we have made decisions on two work environment strategies to collect and coordinate the work of improving the work environment in the Swedish labor market. We have established an office for sustainable working life. We have increased the resources for Arbetsmiljöverket. We have ensured that a new agency has been established - Myndigheten för arbetsmiljökunskap - which shall follow and disseminate work environment research.

I would like to say that we have, step by step, tried to re-strengthen the efforts that a government can make linked to the work environment work. I do not mean that we have reached the final goal, but we have step by step built up better work environment work from the state's side.

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! It is almost provocative that after eight years in government, one still blames the Alliance government. It is impossible to escape the fact that we still have 41 deaths, that occupational diseases are increasing by 50 percent, and that work-related accidents are increasing. This cannot be blamed on an Alliance government after eight years.

Johanna Haraldsson mentioned the zero vision and the work environment strategy. My question is: Is the member satisfied with these efforts? I must also return to the question: What analyses has the government conducted and what lessons has the government drawn after what we must nevertheless call a failure within the work environment policy?

Johanna Haraldsson also expressed that one is waiting to be able to introduce sanction fees and that one also wants to see improvements within occupational health care. Why did the S-led government not introduce these measures during its eight years? We have now sat in government position for a few months, and results are already expected from our government in such important issues. I understand that they are important; we agree with that. There is no difference in opinion that these are important matters.

I still must get an answer on what the analysis is after what we nevertheless have to call the failed work environment policy from the previous S government.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Saila Quicklund, for your commitment to issues regarding the working environment! I do as well.

I do not mean that we can be satisfied with the fact that people are still getting sick at work and that sickness rates are increasing, not least within the welfare sector, due to a pressured way of working on minute-by-minute schedules and the one thing after another that causes people not to stay healthy at work but actually become sick from it. This we absolutely cannot be satisfied with.

I wonder what effective measures the Social Democratic government has not introduced but that the Moderate-led government will now introduce. The fact that we did not introduce the things of which I listed a number depends on the fact that they had just been investigated and were ready for the new government to take the initiative to introduce. We actually usually investigate and prepare the legislative proposals that we then decide on and debate here in the chamber.

I am convinced, also when I listen to the representatives of the Moderates here, that there is hope that we can continue to cooperate on issues regarding the working environment, not least because the government and government representatives say that one should continue to follow the working environment strategy that the Social Democratic government introduced.

As said, it is only for us to wait and see and try to push so that we get more measures and not least more resources for the welfare sector so that the welfare workers can get an even better working environment.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am actually a bit provoked when, after eight years in government, the Alliance government is criticized. It feels as if one then loses their own responsibility. I am also a bit provoked by the fact that, after not having done particularly much during those eight years, one expects a new government to do even more in six or seven months.

Let me state how things look right now. We have a situation where staff are leaving schools, elderly care, and healthcare. We have a situation where staff, often women, suffer from wear-and-tear injuries, which causes them to leave the workforce at an earlier stage than others. This affects their pensions and their opportunity for welfare over time. We have a situation here and now where workers' finances are deteriorating due to inflation, currency changes, and high interest rates.

Then I come to my questions. What is S doing to improve the individual's economy? What is S doing in the public sector to take greater responsibility for the staff so that the staff get an employer they want to work for, where they stay and can stay? And given the demographic changes, I wonder what S is doing to facilitate for municipalities, regions and companies to hire staff.

We are facing a massive staffing crisis, and it will affect the working environment. If there is no staff on site, someone will be forced to do more work than they can handle, and then it leads to wear and tear injuries.

Show a little more humility regarding what has happened during your own eight years! I am curious about the answers to my questions.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for all the questions.

In order for us to have a sufficiently good working environment within the welfare sector, we need more employees within the welfare sector. I am now going to state a number of self-evident truths: We need resources for the welfare sector, and we need to train more people who can take the jobs in the welfare sector.

Therefore, I must raise an issue that perhaps is not primarily related to this committee report or to this debate. The government has concluded something that is important for the competence supply within healthcare, namely Äldreomsorgslyftet. I regret that.

I have highlighted what the Alliance government did and what we have since done. I have described what the starting point was when we took office, and from a low level, we have built on the work environment work with regulations, taken the initiative for a number of investigations, and added resources to the welfare sector and the Swedish Work Environment Authority to increase the number of inspections. The work environment does not become better from inspections, but I am convinced that employers are more inclined to fulfill the requirements in the Work Environment Act and the various regulations if they know that there is a risk of sanctions and criticism from an inspector.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I fully share the view that resources are crucial for how an operation functions, and therefore the government provides resources.

It is the same thing that more educational places are needed. In the basic system, more resources have been added, even though the temporary covid funds have not been extended. I can personally have views on this based on the mandate I have in the chamber, but we are trying to do both things.

During study visits, one meets many people. Let us look at psychiatry: the regions allocate funds, but there is no one to hire. In the municipalities, it is a matter of childcare workers and nursing assistants. They are not bad jobs, but still jobs where the employees have not needed to study at a university. But the municipalities cannot find anyone to hire.

That is why I asked the important question concerning labor immigration. The question was raised in the debate. What do the Tidö parties do then? We do a number of things. Among other things, we want to counter the terrible abuses that have occurred by setting requirements to raise the wage level. But we also want to make exceptions within agriculture and within the sectors where there is a clear shortage of labor. And we want to facilitate things for those who are studying.

We have presented all of this in different ways, obviously via investigations. It will be exciting to see what result they land on. We are trying to meet a problem that exists here and now with resources, education, and ensuring that the right people have the opportunity to come here and contribute to our welfare. Today, there is a labor shortage.

I have been to Kiruna. There, there are 1,400 jobs that cannot be filled, and that is a problem.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I can only agree that the skills shortage is a major problem. In that case, it is extremely problematic that the government is not investing sufficiently. The Social Democratic opposition submitted proposals for higher appropriations to the welfare sector, the education sector, and the labor market sector.

It is easy to take on, but one must also deliver what one says one wants to deliver.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Haraldsson for an engaged speech. There is no lack of commitment whatsoever regarding the Member's questions.

I realize that my reply will remind of Jacobsson's reply, and they will certainly overlap with each other.

During the previous parliamentary term, I was chairman of the board at Skåne University Hospital. The toughest part was the competence shortage. We seem to agree that cooperation to achieve a good working environment is the most important function, but I also hear the members and others in the chamber highlighting that sanctions and fines are important. I therefore pose an honest question: In what way do sanctions and fines benefit employers who are searching with a flashlight for employees to achieve a sensible working environment?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I must say that I do not quite understand the question. But I can still say why I think it is important that we have more sanctions.

I am becoming a bit concerned when I hear that the representatives of the Liberals and the Moderates do not seem to be entirely in agreement on the issue of expanded possibilities for sanction fees. I have earlier today in the chamber said that I am convinced that the motivation to actually follow the regulations increases for an employer who stands under the threat of having sanction fees imposed.

I believe that both public and private employers will look at the regulations that can be subject to sanction fees, and the regulations will gain greater weight. The organizational and social work environment will gain greater weight and priority among our employers. If the organizational and psychosocial work environment is prioritized and one has better preventive work, I am convinced that the work environment at those workplaces will improve and benefit the recruitment of new employees.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I can reassure the member that I have nothing against changing and strengthening the possibilities for sanctions and penalty orders. I am, however, curious about the rhetoric that money can remedy the problems.

It is your and my colleagues who sit in regional boards and work extremely hard to recruit staff so that the number of healthcare beds can be increased, Johanna Haraldsson. It is only through cooperation with safety representatives and trade union representatives that we can make progress. Imposing fines of a few million in a regional budget of several billion gives the wrong focus. It takes the focus away from cooperation. I find it difficult to see that my colleagues in regions and municipalities, just like your colleagues, do not do everything they can to resolve the issue.

I am curious if there are other possibilities. Can we together see other possibilities than to increase a sanction fee by a few million on a budget turnover of several billion? It practically does not affect the need. Fewer staff members still have to care for the sick, who do not stop arriving at the emergency room.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that those who follow the rules do not risk sanctions. That is probably the simplest answer.

It is also the case that the sanctions we have discussed today, linked to the regulations on systematic work environment work and socio-organizational work environment, are the regulations that to the greatest extent affect workload, offensive treatment, and such things that are more common among women and in welfare professions. The sanctions do not exist today, so it is not extended sanctions but new sanctions that could be imposed if one thinks the deficiencies are so large when Arbetsmiljöverket conducts an inspection.

I am convinced that cooperation is the key in work environment work, just as the member says here. But I am also convinced that the welfare sector needs more employees to be able to achieve a better work environment, just as I said in my previous turn, and then this chamber needs to ensure that decisions are made on higher appropriations for the welfare sector in the next budget.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! "Do you know who I am? I can make people disappear." The words are from a young man, and he says them to a youth leader who has gone to their job to do the important work with youth in Hammarkullen in Gothenburg.

I and many others have listened to the documentary Den tystade staden from Kaliber, and it is easy to imagine how one feels as a co-worker in that situation. The documentary provides many perspectives on exclusion, crime, and drugs. But I want to dwell on the work environment for public employees at libraries, youth centers, and emergency rooms.

When gangs of youths stand outside, triggered by a pride flag, and threaten to cut the throats of all homosexuals, it is easy to understand that it is difficult to go to work. One in five public employees has experienced threats against their workplace in the last two years. A harsher climate where racism, sexism, and hbtqi-hate has become commonplace makes it even harder to recruit employees.

Kaliber demonstrated with all clarity that it is required that different entities cooperate with one another to create safe working environments for employees. A systematic work environment process is the employer's responsibility, but for good results, cooperation with the employees is required.

Let me be crystal clear: the Liberals will not yield an inch when ligisters or perpetrators of violence create insecurity and fear in libraries, youth centers, and emergency rooms. They must be safe environments for everyone who visits them and everyone who works there.

The Government has appointed a special investigator with a mandate to consider various legislative changes to reduce public employees' vulnerability to violence and threats. The mandate is to be reported by August 1, 2023, at the latest, and I look forward with confidence to the concrete legislative proposals I hope we will be presented with thereafter.

Violence in the workplace is often associated with work-related crime. Work-related crime exploits people, undermines the conditions for serious companies, and cheats to obtain tax money that is needed for our common welfare.

It is good that an a-krim center has been formed, a regional center where authorities work together against labor market crime. We must combat crime in cooperation between authorities, the police, Skatteverket, and Arbetsmiljöverket, but also between municipal and regional representatives.

It is pleasing that the government has clear goals to tackle crime in the working life, and I look forward to the changes that are now being prepared in the Government Offices. In that work, fraud with bankruptcies and wage guarantees is also highlighted. This is good, because fraud with public support must be combated to preserve the legitimacy of the systems.

Madam Speaker! During the pandemic, I was active as the chairman of Skåne University Hospital. We managed the pandemic like most other large hospitals, neither better nor worse, but one thing is certain: It was thanks to the cooperation with the local safety representatives on site that we succeeded in saving lives. The employees had to find new ways of working and create their own safety routines in the moment, and daily check-ins between the employer and the safety representatives were a prerequisite.

That it is employees who participate in the daily work at a workplace who should represent their colleagues feels obvious, and that model needs to be developed. The regional safety representatives have an important role in highlighting work environment risks at workplaces that lack an organized local safety work. But the importance of the regional safety representatives for the work environment must be evaluated, and I think they should be independent from trade unions and instead act on assignment from Arbetsmiljöverket.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Jim Svensk Larm (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! I sat and listened carefully to how the Member would describe the work with work-life crime.

Crime in the working life is a phenomenon that is widespread in large parts of society. Counteracting it with existing strategies is important, but at least equally important is developing the strategies to meet new problems. One thing we know is that the criminals, even within this part, are constantly developing and finding new ways to circumvent rules and laws. In this issue, the consequences are great for both the employee and society as a whole.

The member mentioned – a bit too hastily, I thought – the problems that cause work-related crime. I would like the member to elaborate on their party's thoughts on how they have worked with that issue until today, but also how they intend to develop the work moving forward.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I think that we in the Liberals have been very clear about how we want to proceed in the work. It is about stopping unserious companies. It is about being on our toes and identifying problems in newly started companies but also in existing ones that have existed for a long time. We must have a cooperation between different authorities - it could involve the police, fire inspection and Skatteverket - and become much more efficient when we find problems. We must also have a judicial apparatus that takes action and delivers judgments.

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

Jim Svensk Larm (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

In the member's speech, I heard for the first time a liberal Member of Parliament speak in the Swedish Riksdag about how we should address crime in the working life. It is a subject that liberals are not accustomed to either debating or proposing motions on.

The fact is that when I search the Riksdag's database, I do not get a single hit for a Liberal member in the Swedish Riksdag who has even mentioned workplace crime in a post here in the Riksdag. When I check the Liberals' own website to see what they write about workplace crime there, I also get no hits. The fact is that the Liberals have not mentioned workplace crime in a single motion so far. It worries me.

It is only now, after the election, when we Social Democrats begin to ask questions and put pressure on the liberal ministers, that one starts to get hits in the Riksdag's database on what liberal representatives think and feel on this issue.

Given their lack of interest and commitment to these important issues, I must ask the member how the Liberals want us to work to tackle crime in the labor market. Or is it the case that we have a party that holds responsible ministerial portfolios but does not have its own thought on how we should tackle this social problem?

Even though it is a late awakening on the part of the Liberals, we can be glad that the strategy that we Social Democrats have adopted will not be thrown in the wastebasket by the liberal cabinet ministers.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I actually have no idea at all how my colleagues have discussed crime in the workplace. But I am pleased that you are so interested in our policy that you have searched through databases of motions, Jim Svensk Larm.

What I do know, however, is that we have a government minister who is very clear that one should not only continue with the submitted work plans that you, naturally, have profitably been involved in developing, but also continue to develop and improve the measures that have been initiated. This also requires greater knowledge and a better legal system when it is subsequently shown that irregularities have occurred.

I feel fully confident that the Liberals will pursue these issues in a concrete and good way.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I think the perspective that the member raised regarding the work environment is incredibly interesting. Her starting point was Hammarkullen. I am from Hammarkullen and live there. I agree that it is problematic that young people follow destructive machonorms that have their roots in the patriarchy and that they expose staff. I share the view that this is a problem. I am from Hammarkullen and do not diminish these people's experience, but I also do not believe that this is representative of Hammarkullen. I do, however, think it is incredibly interesting to see so much hope among young people and that it is possible to influence them in the right direction.

I actually do not understand the member at all. The Liberals cooperate with SD, who in several municipalities want to abolish pride and ban the rainbow flag.

Madam Speaker! Another major problem regarding the work environment is discrimination and sexual harassment. The Liberals share a bed with a party that wants to abolish the Discrimination Act, which actually constitutes a protection for people in workplaces.

How do you view these issues, member? Don't you think it is hypocrisy that you stand here and point out young people despite the fact that you cooperate with SD, who have much harsher views and actually also have political power to make life difficult for many people in our society?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! There we were again: we are discussing which cooperation partners we have instead of what policy we are pursuing. I mentioned Hammarkullen primarily because it was relevant in the documentary that has been broadcast in Kaliber in P1 and received very great attention. It could have been about another district and another city.

I and my party will not change our view on the importance of pride. There are absolutely amounts of municipal politicians who I think reach completely wrong conclusions. When it comes to the pride flag, some of them are Sverigedemokrater, and when it comes to other things, some of them have other party designations.

We in the Liberals have chosen to join a government supported by a fourth party so that we can obtain a government basis and be able to make the necessary changes required to both support and achieve a change in many areas, including regarding machoculture.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! As I have said, I share the member's view that machokultur is a problem. This is something we need to work on.

But I find it very difficult to take you seriously at all. You cooperate with the Sweden Democrats, who want to ban pride and pride flags, think that drag queens who read books to children are problematic, and want to abolish the Discrimination Act, which protects many people with a foreign background but also women who are subjected to harassment in their workplaces. That you do not criticize this but criticize young boys in Hammarkullen speaks for itself.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I criticize that one does not stand up for diversity. I criticize that one has views on who reads books in our libraries. I cannot see that my party, because we have government support from a party whose view in these matters we do not share, in any way would contribute to banning diversity or pride flags or, for that matter, to us losing focus on the changes we must make in the future regarding the attitudes of young people.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind all members that we have a Swedish parliamentary custom which dictates that all speakers address themselves directly to the Speaker. This means that one does not speak directly to one's fellow debater with words like you, you (plural), or you (singular), but it is the Speaker who is addressed. I have not said this previously but thought that in this situation there were reasons to point it out, for everyone's future debates.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Now we are going to debate the working environment and working hours, and there is very much to say about this.

I will begin by saying that for the employer to be able to live up to the requirements of the Work Environment Act, including a preventive and systematic work environment management at a workplace, the employer needs to have very good knowledge of the work environment. As it stands now, very many employers have good knowledge, but unfortunately, far too many lack basic knowledge. To meet the problem of lacking work environment knowledge, I want to highlight a proposal from the Swedish Work Environment Authority, namely that work environment management should be integrated into vocational training and internships in upper secondary school.

I note, in line with the committee, that the government's zero vision regarding fatal accidents has been expanded so that no one should have to die as a result of their work. This is truly welcome, but unlike the committee, I see a great need for an additional measure to find out why people die at their jobs, namely to appoint a state crisis commission that takes a holistic approach to fatal accidents in working life and can then propose concrete measures to reverse the trend. Representatives for unions, employers, and relevant authorities should be included in such a commission.

I also think it is high time to consider introducing a stricter occupational health and safety responsibility for the one who ultimately earns money from the work being performed. Today, it is very easy for a developer, a general contractor, or a large company to avoid taking responsibility for subcontractors and other companies at a workplace. The Government should return with a proposal to clarify the occupational health and safety responsibility so that it clearly appears that the employer who has primary responsibility for a workplace also has responsibility for the occupational health and safety for all employees working there, regardless of which employer they have.

Madam Speaker! In the Swedish labor market, widespread labor-related crime occurs. Unscrupulous companies dump wages and systematically violate laws and regulations in order to gain competitive advantages.

Labor crime affects workers, companies, and in the long run the entire society. Workers are exploited and forced to work for low wages and in poor conditions, which also pressures wages and conditions for other wage earners in these vulnerable industries. Companies that follow laws, agreements, and regulations are competed out by unscrupulous actors. Furthermore, society loses billions in the form of missing taxes and fees. I believe that the ongoing development is a threat to the system. It must truly be stopped.

Madam Speaker! It is important to remember that crime in the workplace has not emerged from a vacuum. It has been cultivated through political decisions that have paved the way for the widespread workplace crime that characterizes large parts of the labor market today. The Social Democrats' inability and the right's reluctance to tighten laws, rules, and routines have worsened the situation over time. I regret that the committee, despite claims that the issue is being taken seriously, does not see the need to promptly take measures to put a stop to workplace crime in the Swedish labor market.

Madam Speaker! In the report, the Left Party has 13 fantastic reservations. It is tempting to talk about them all, but I will try to limit myself to only taking up one reservation.

The labor movement's struggle for a shorter workday began as early as the late 1800s. The demand then was eight hours of work, eight hours of freedom, and eight hours of rest. During the 1900s, the statutory weekly working time was gradually shortened to 40 hours. Since 1973, my ladies and gentlemen, nothing has happened. We have had a 40-hour work week since 1973.

Today, the issue does not stand high on the agenda in the same way as before, although the general public talks quite a lot about shortening working hours. The explanations are always many. Globalization has increased the competitive pressure on the Swedish economy in general and on the manufacturing industry in particular. To meet the international competition, it is not possible to reduce working hours, is one of the messages. At the same time, international competition in itself is nothing new, and both working hours and productivity are in constant change under the influence of different trends at national and global levels. Much suggests that we now face an entirely new wave of automation and robotization that increases productivity in many areas and means that certain jobs disappear.

Furthermore, the power position of shareholders and asset managers today is stronger than it has been in a long time. The trade union movement has been weakened, and demands for increased flexibility from the employers' perspective, such as more hours worked and strengthened competitiveness through pressed wages and working conditions, have dominated. The debate has primarily been about how we can get more people to work more and longer, but a class and gender perspective is often lacking. There are large differences between different groups' real opportunities to work well into their later years or to work as many hours as one would actually wish on the regular labor market.

The bourgeoisie's prescription for addressing the increased stress in working life has been focused on lifestyle solutions for those with more resources through the introduction of tax reductions for household services. The trade union organizations, which previously have been driving the issue of shortening working hours, have long been pressured into a defensive struggle and, to the extent that it has been possible, have prioritized offensive demands for wage increases, extra vacation days, the right to full-time work and permanent employment in the collective bargaining movements instead.

Vänsterpartiet wants a human and just society where people have real opportunities to develop and live enriching lives. We want a sustainable labor market where people can manage to work until retirement age without being worn out prematurely. We want better conditions for couples to live equally. Shorter working hours - that is, a general reduction in working hours - would be a decisive step in such a progressive and freedom-expanding development.

Vänsterpartiet has, as the only parliamentary party, championed the issue of a general reduction in working hours for a long time. Finally, we are no longer alone in our struggle. In June 2022, the Kommunals congress decided that the union shall work towards a 30-hour work week, by law or collective agreement, without this affecting wage development. Vänsterpartiet welcomes this and assumes that Kommunal will be a driving force for a general reduction in working hours.

Madam Speaker! I promise that I will soon wrap up.

The conditions for a general reduction in working hours are good in several respects. Productivity has doubled in Sweden since the 1970s. At the same time, the wage share of the total production result has fallen. The economic room for a reduction in working hours with maintained wage levels is therefore significant in the economy as a whole. How this can be utilized and achieved in practice, however, differs between different industries. This can be due both to the availability of relevant labor and to the negotiation situation towards the employer side. In the long run, however, it is necessary that the reduction in working hours gains ground in the statutory normal working time so that too large gaps do not arise between different groups in the labor market in this regard.

Working life is characterized today by increased intensity, stress, and a high pace. This, in turn, leads to ill health, stress-related illnesses, and sick leave. The unequal distribution of unpaid domestic work between women and men persists, as does the fact that more women than men work part-time.

In addition to this, the earth's ecological carrying capacity also requires a somewhat different consumption pattern with lower consumption of non-renewable resources. A general reduction in working hours would contribute to reducing ill health, increasing equality, reducing gaps in the labor market, and contributing to a more sustainable development.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 23.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It is an understatement to say that society is constantly changing. It often happens very quickly. Development moves forward. With this, our ways of living and also our ways of working change. Development is often something positive but not without challenges.

The working environment in Swedish workplaces can and must become better. We think it is important that people feel good, both at work and away from work. Therefore, a good working environment is needed.

It is not the form of the work or the size of the workplace that should determine the level of the work environment work, but everyone who works has the right to a good work environment. At the same time, it is important to realize that different employers have different conditions. Smaller companies often have greater challenges when it comes to achieving all parts of a preventive work environment work.

Unlike the other parties in the Riksdag, the Center Party argues that specific investments are needed to create better conditions for all employers to conduct better preventive work environment measures. In these investments, a special focus needs to be placed on small and micro-enterprises, as they often have limited resources. The investments can involve knowledge dissemination, advice, or better tools to facilitate systematic work environment management.

Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance to simplify the regulatory framework, which may mean that certain requirements in the area of the working environment should not apply equally to large and small companies but be adapted to best ensure good working environment results.

Madam Speaker! It can only be stated that in many respects, there is a before and an after the pandemic.

The pandemic has brought with it that more people have tried to work from home to a greater extent. The increase in remote work has shown some challenges, including that some people risk becoming socially isolated. Remote work has, however, also brought many advantages, such as reduced need for transport and less time spent on commuting to work. Regardless of what one thinks, we can probably state that remote work is here to stay.

Remote work has also led to the life puzzle being eased for many and that children have gained greater access to their parents. When city and country have been linked together in a better way, we have also seen reduced costs for offices and a broadened recruitment base for employers, not least in the countryside, within both public and private operations.

The development of the conditions for remote work is of the times, as part of the development of digitalization. Through better conditions for remote work, it is possible to take further steps towards a more flexible work situation for more employees and more employers. It works in such a way that it creates better conditions for residents in other locations and makes all of Sweden grow. It is therefore important that the regulatory framework in the area of the work environment and the Swedish Work Environment Authority's advice and support keep up with the times and are adapted to the new conditions.

Madam Speaker! I am, of course, very eager to debate many other things that have been raised in this debate, everything from tax cuts to LGBTQ issues and not least labor migration. But I can actually take labor migration next week when the Riksdag is to debate just labor migration.

With this said, I would like to move for approval of reservation 21.

(Applause)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! A good working environment is the very prerequisite for a functioning working life, both from the individual's perspective and from society's perspective. For the individual, it is fundamental for health and well-being. For society, it is absolutely crucial that people are able to work for an entire working life.

Despite the occupational health and safety legislation we have, there are major problems in reality. This applies in particular within the welfare sector. In the female-dominated occupational groups, the stress is high. Regarding mental ill-health and stress-related medical conditions, it is still the most common cause of illness in Sweden. And it is more common among women than among men.

When stress is built into a work situation, it risks leading to mental ill-health and illness. This applies to both short-term absences and longer sick leaves. This has also led to thousands of people leaving professions where they are truly needed. Many would have wanted to stay if they had had a good working environment.

Madam Speaker! The Work Environment Act was specified in an important way in 2016. At that time, regulations were introduced that clarified requirements linked to the organizational and social work environment. In the analysis conducted before the change, it was seen that many were ill precisely because of problems that were largely stress-related. A report from the OECD stated that mental ill-health and sickness absence cost the Swedish society billions of kronor.

The clarification of the law brought hopes, but despite the clarification, there are major deficiencies in how the Work Environment Act is complied with. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to introduce a zero vision for work-related ill health. In Sweden, we have, for example, a zero vision for serious injuries in traffic. It is important and has ensured that work has been done methodically with increased safety, which has saved many lives. A zero vision can provide clarity and get things to happen.

A first focus area for such a zero vision should be health and medical care and elderly care. Year after year, employees have been forced to postpone their vacations so that the care can function. Nurses resign out of fear of being ordered to work during their vacation or being offered thousands of kronor to forgo completely necessary recovery. Over 13,000 nurses of working age have left the profession for other industries. Almost one in five midwives over 65 years old has chosen to opt out of the profession.

The shortage of staff has created a vicious circle that must be broken. More colleagues are required so that staff within health and medical care, and care and nursing, can have the conditions to perform their jobs. Opportunity for recovery and development is required so that more can manage to stay in their jobs and so that more will want to choose the profession. Having time to eat lunch in peace and quiet must be a given, and one should not have to be worried about not being able to take one's vacation.

I want to mention in this context a large and important initiative that Miljöpartiet is driving. We believe that the state should take increased responsibility through permanent state support for improved conditions for staff in health and medical care and care and nursing. We want to invest 10 new billion per year until it has been strengthened with 40 billion permanently in 2026. The initiative shall be directed towards new hires and increased wages. This would, if it becomes a reality, make a big difference for women's working conditions and reduce the risk of stress-related ill health.

We in Miljöpartiet also want to expand the recovery bonus that we pushed through when we sat in the red-green government. I want to remind my Social Democratic colleagues in the chamber of this. And, Madam Speaker, I see it as a mark of honor that the Sverigedemokraterna have noted our government's contribution.

These are funds that can be applied for to test development ideas that staff have to improve the work environment. It can involve new ways for recovery or testing different working time models or other innovative ways of working that staff groups want to test.

The core of the bonus is that the proposals shall come from the staff. Even this reform has the potential to improve many women's work situations and contribute to their ideas being brought forward and realized. Until now, the recovery bonus has been well utilized. It has also been complemented with a grant to reduce or abolish shared shifts, which we welcome. The recovery bonus has great potential, and we believe that it needs to be doubled.

Madam Speaker! I want to raise an unreasonable disparity regarding how deficiencies in the work environment are viewed. It concerns sanction fees. Arbetsmiljöverket can currently impose a sanction fee if there are physical deficiencies in the work environment. But that possibility is lacking for deficiencies in the systematic work environment management or deficiencies in the organizational and social work environment – this despite the fact that most people, therefore, become ill from the latter.

In the investigation Steg framåt, with the work environment in focus, a proposal was recently submitted that this should be changed. It is very important, and I hope that the government returns with a legislative proposal soon. It would make an enormous difference for many people.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say a few words about working hours. Miljöpartiet wants people to have more power over their time. Working hours are often poorly distributed over working life. Many who are new to the labor market work less than they want to do. Others wear themselves out and may be forced to leave the working life prematurely.

Working hours need to be more flexible for people's different needs and life stages. Miljöpartiet wants to lower the standard working time for everyone and make it easier to influence both one's working hours and one's working conditions. Those who want to should be able to choose shorter working hours instead of a higher salary.

Some steps on the way towards reduced normal working hours could be to let older people reduce their working hours with maintained salary, to offer people to take out their pay increase in more free time instead, or that it becomes reduced working hours with maintained salary in heavy female-dominated occupations in health and care.

In order for there to be a good working environment for everyone, it is also extremely important to work against discrimination and harassment in the workplace. This requires strong anti-discrimination legislation and sufficient resources for both the Equality Ombudsman and the Swedish Work Environment Authority.

While Miljöpartiet was in government, this work was strengthened. Much has also been done at the agency level. Unfortunately, there are reasons to be concerned now. I do not see any such ambition in this government. Rather, there is a risk that we take large steps backward. It would affect many people across the entire country.

I stand, Madam Speaker, behind the reservations I have in the report, but for the sake of time, I wish to move for approval only to reservation 4 and reservation 24.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Leila Ali Elmi for the speech. She mentioned a part of the proposal on reduced working hours that is in the committee report. I am very interested in how the member and Miljöpartiet are going to finance this. The proposal will require a very large number of new hires, especially within the municipalities, at a time when thousands of hands are already missing in, among other things, health and social care.

I therefore wonder how Miljöpartiet intends to finance the proposal and solve the enormous labor shortage that will arise if the working hours are reduced in the current situation.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

Reducing working hours for everyone is absolutely no simple thing to implement. It is also not possible to do it all at once. But we in Miljöpartiet believe that it can be done for older women in female-dominated occupations, and we believe that it can be done through investments. As I mentioned in my speech, we want to invest 10 billion per year in health and medical care by 2026, partly to improve working conditions for women, and partly so that the employees within health and medical care and within care and nursing shall have more colleagues.

We can do this by borrowing 100 billion for climate investments. This opens up for the use of the remaining reform space to introduce this. We believe that it is important.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand the spirit and accept certain parts of this. The intention is good, but in the proposal, it is about selecting certain occupational groups. We see a problem now. There is an ongoing debate when it comes to, for example, the firefighters and the negotiations between Kommunal and SKR, where certain occupational groups are not exempted. Here, Miljöpartiet selects certain occupational groups, primarily older women within healthcare.

This will ultimately become a municipal issue, and it will land on the municipal trade unions. The whole thing will create very large problems.

Is the intention of Miljöpartiet that you want to see a general reduction of working hours for everyone within the welfare sector, or do you choose certain specific groups? If one chooses certain specific groups, it creates problems, especially when it comes to the collective bargaining negotiations. That can be seen now if one follows the situation for firefighters, ambulance drivers and several others.

I just wanted to get a bit more meat on the bones.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As I previously mentioned, we naturally want the possibility of shorter working hours to apply to all people, but it is a reform that is completely impossible to implement. Reality contradicts the idea that everyone could receive it at the same time, but the possibility shall, of course, be given to everyone.

We look at the situation for women in female-dominated welfare professions, particularly within health care and social services. The women are heavily burdened. Many are leaving the profession, and the staffing of these professions is difficult. Therefore, we believe they would be a good group to start with.

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

Jim Svensk Larm (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish model is strong, with two parties that stand up for order and regularity for workers in Sweden. Through the Swedish model, Sweden has developed well over time, and it has benefited both companies and workers. It is a model we should be proud of.

Unfortunately, we see how laws and agreements are bypassed and workers are exploited in the labor market. It concerns criminal companies that build their operations and gain competitive advantages through, among other things, black market work, illegal labor, and poor working environments.

The work against crime in the working life shall increase. The authorities shall be able to work effectively, and companies shall be able to compete on equal terms. Crime in the working life does not belong on the Swedish labor market, and public employers and procurers shall be role models when it comes to working for healthy competition. It should never pay to commit crimes or gain competitive advantages by neglecting the employees' right to a safe working environment. Here, the regional safety representatives have an important role because they visit many workplaces and can pick up signals that something is not right.

Our overall perception of this is that it should be difficult to cheat, easy to get caught, and palpable to be punished. It is also the direction of the work that we Social Democrats began last mandate period. The national strategy against crime in the working life that the Social Democratic government developed provides a clear direction for how we shall work step by step to drive away the phenomenon. But equally important is to develop the strategy as knowledge within the area increases.

For many, labor market crime is probably a relatively new concept, but it is a fairly widespread phenomenon in Sweden. Some industries are more vulnerable than others. Authorities cooperating against labor market crime specifically point out the construction, cleaning, restaurant and transport industries, as well as health and social care, as industries vulnerable to labor market crime.

Within the construction industry, it is so widespread that every fifth employee in the industry reports that they have encountered people whom they know are being exploited. This involves, among other things, poorer working environments, being forced to pay back parts of the wages, and human trafficking. This is the ultimate way in which crime in the working life manifests itself.

Working environment and working hours

The problem also entails an unhealthy competition for companies that want to do the right thing but are forced to compete on unreasonable terms. A full 40 percent of those employed within the construction industry are concerned that the unhealthy competition within their industry will affect their work.

Working environment and working hours

Workplace crime is also creeping into the tax-funded welfare sector. In one of our reservations, we specifically point out the importance of coordinating the authorities' controls against fraud and workplace crime within tax-funded welfare.

Welfare faces great challenges ahead. SKR has pointed out a need for 20 billion more for welfare to maintain the level we have today. When resources do not come in the extent that is needed, it is extra important that we make use of the resources we have. Therefore, we Social Democrats become concerned when we receive reports of welfare crime within various areas. We believe, therefore, that it is important to strengthen the coordination for the authorities that is specifically directed towards the tax-funded welfare. The common funds that we allocate to welfare should go there and not to fraud.

Facilitating information exchange between authorities is important in the fight against organized crime, which is fueled by crime in the labor market. Therefore, we commissioned an investigation on how obstacles in secrecy can be removed. The investigation has submitted concrete proposals on how the secrecy legislation should be changed to remove these obstacles.

Removing these obstacles is important to tackle crime in the labor market. Therefore, the government must expeditiously prepare these proposals so as not to lose momentum in this important work.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 27 April.)

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