Work assessment with maintained sickness benefit

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats always stand up for security, solidarity, and a society that holds together, and we do so today as well. In our social construction, a stable health insurance is an important cornerstone. But it must be an insurance that also helps people back to work as soon as it is possible.

This proposal from the government, which we basically think is good, touches on exactly this fundamental point: the possibility of work testing with maintained sickness benefit. The goal is, of course, that sick leaves should be as few and as short as possible, but that the economic security must be there for the individual when the ability to work is diminished.

Mr. Speaker! Lowering the thresholds to gradually return to work is important. At the same time, it must not become a way for unserious employers to exploit the system in a way that is not intended. I will return to that. Our ambition is to create a secure path back for those who can and need to test their work capacity but are not quite ready for an escalation into wage labor yet.

We Social Democrats move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report, with reservation for our special statement. We do so because the basis of the proposal is correct. People should be able to approach working life at a reasonable pace and with the security that their livelihood is not jeopardized in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker! The referral bodies have, however, pointed out important concerns that we Social Democrats share in some respects, and we take them most seriously.

The Swedish Medical Association points out, for example, that patients who are subject to work trials often belong to a vulnerable group. There are medical risks with overly hasty transitions: risk of the condition worsening and of chronic symptoms being aggravated. We must take this with us. The Swedish Medical Association requests clear routines for cooperation with healthcare and an absolute focus on the patient's health and dignity.

We Social Democrats have in previous interpellation debates with the responsible Minister pointed out that Försäkringskassan's coordination mandate must be clarified. This ISF has been incredibly clear about in its follow-up of the coordination mandate.

Mr. Speaker! We also note the concern that work assessment could become a means of pressure. This is something that the Swedish Medical Association explicitly warns against. No one on sick leave should have to feel pressured back to work too early or risk being exploited in a vulnerable situation. On the other hand, the possibility must, of course, exist if one wishes to test their work capacity.

Försäkringskassan also points out deficiencies and ambiguities in the proposal. They request a clearer connection to the coordination mandate, nota bene, and argue that it must be clarified that work placement is part of the employers' rehabilitation responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! From the trade union side, similar important points are being made. LO supports the proposal but emphasizes that it must be crystal clear that the insured person does not risk having their sickness benefit questioned because they participate in work trials. That security is, of course, crucial. LO also considers that the local trade union organization should be able to participate in the discussions if the employee so wishes, as support during rehabilitation and work adaptation.

TCO also supports the proposal but points out some practical problems. The rules must work even for those who have multiple employments and for those who have a part-time sick leave. This is an important perspective in the working life we have today.

The unions also warn that unserious employers could exploit employees as free labor, which is of course completely unacceptable and something that we must curb. This is the reason why we Social Democrats do not want to see even longer trial periods; as that increases the risk.

Mr. Speaker! All these concerns are legitimate. It is about safety, justice, and respect for every individual's circumstances. These are values that we Social Democrats do not compromise on. Despite this, we conclude that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the drawbacks. This reform creates a new and important opportunity for those on sick leave to approach work without losing financial security.

Overall, this means that we can stand behind the bill because we see the potential. With the right adjustments, it can make a real difference for those on sick leave who want to return to the workforce. This is fundamentally a reform that strengthens the possibility for people to grow, participate, and return – something that is completely in line with our view on work, community, and security.

We therefore move for approval of the proposal in the report but, as stated, have a special opinion.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the committee's report on work assessment with maintained sickness benefit. I would first like to state that I support the committee's proposal as a whole.

This proposal aims to lower the thresholds for returning to work by making it possible for those entitled to full sickness benefit to undergo work assessment, in agreement with the employer, with maintained compensation for a limited period. The work assessment shall, as a result of this proposal, be able to be carried out for a period of at most 14 days, twice a year.

The Sweden Democrats' view is that the sickness insurance should provide financial security for those who need it when the ability to work is diminished due to illness. At the same time, there must be flexible systems for the purpose of creating conditions for a secure and sustainable return to work.

For many who are on full-time sick leave, the step back to work is not black or white. It is rarely the case that one day you cannot manage to get out of bed and the next day you are completely recovered. The balance and the boundaries found in the proposal on work trials are important to stick to because it will with great certainty encourage more affected individuals to dare to take this important step. It will not become overwhelming. Instead, we give the person who has been on sick leave for a longer period a realistic chance to test their work capacity, at a reasonable level.

Mr. Speaker! This proposal therefore means, in short, that the person who is on sick leave can test their ability on a voluntary basis. This shall take place in simpler forms, without performance requirements and without the risk of the right to sickness benefit being lost.

This creates a long-awaited flexibility within the framework of a clear regulatory system that we have today. It also provides security for the insured. Today, work training exists as part of the work-life oriented rehabilitation, but it is often associated with extensive processes, forms of compensation, and contacts with authorities.

Many of us know what pressure and stress can mean in the event of illness, not least if one is on sick leave due to stress-related ill health, which today is the most common reason for sick leave. It can lead to the well-being worsening and the period of sick leave being extended.

This proposal fills a vacuum. It provides space to cautiously test whether the time is ripe for a return to work, what adaptations may be needed, and what the individual can actually manage, without high expectations and unreasonable demands on individuals who already have a reduced capacity for work.

It benefits the insured, it makes the first step back to work easier to take and it can contribute to strengthening self-confidence and lead to better and healthier routines. It also gives the employer better conditions to take their rehabilitation responsibility. This is good for society because more people will hopefully experience that it is easier to take the first, decisive step back to work.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that the work trial is not intended to replace or change the employer's responsibility for the work environment, adaptation, and rehabilitation, but it is a complement – one tool among many. It does not change the distribution of responsibility or the work with other interventions in the area.

This is a reform proposal that takes hold of the reality for many who are on sick leave and their employers. It combines security with opportunities and responsibility with flexibility. It is pragmatic, well-defined, and in line with the basic purpose of the sickness insurance.

I really look forward to following the continued work and gradually seeing what effects it will have.

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! As I have said many times before, the health insurance is an incredibly important part of the Swedish welfare and security system, but a part where we have quite large challenges. This we see in the large fluctuations in the sickness rates. These are not at all linked to any epidemic in the country, increased incidence of cancer or anything else, but it is completely other factors that govern.

There are also quite large regional differences that also have no connection to the occurrence of illness, or injuries, for that matter. It is this, Mr. Speaker, that makes us in Centerpartiet very cautious and hesitant regarding all changes that in any way lower the thresholds and make it so that more people can go from work to sick leave. That is why we have said several times that we do not want the waiting period deduction to be removed.

In the same way, Mr. Speaker, one must be very positive towards all proposals that in some way mean that the threshold between being on sick leave and returning to work is lowered. That is why the proposal and the decision that the Chamber will make this afternoon are so important. It is because it concerns the threshold for those who have been away from their workplace for a longer period.

I believe everyone can relate to the resistance one feels when going back to work after three, four, or perhaps five weeks of vacation. How difficult is it then to go back to work for the person who has been on sick leave due to injury, reduced capacity to work, or illness? And in that case, it might not be about three, four, or five weeks, but about months or even years. It is a psychological threshold called "coping," and if we can do something to lower it, Mr. Speaker, we must.

The proposal that one should be able to undergo work testing is therefore excellent, and it should be easy to do so. Today, the possibility of work training exists, of course, but it is surrounded by a long series of formal requirements. The purpose is that one should gradually train oneself back to being able to work.

Work assessment is not about that at all; instead, there, after agreement with the employer and notification to Försäkringskassan, one should be able to easily obtain two periods of 14 days within a period of 365 days. There, Mr. Speaker, we are critical that the government has not dared to take the step fully. Why should we have the rigid limit of only two weeks?

It can be the case that after some years of sick leave, one dares to return to work and is to begin a work trial, but then the flu or a cold hits and causes one to have to cancel. Then the period has disappeared. Or perhaps one discovers that a bit longer time is needed and that two weeks are not enough. The workplace may not have been in full swing, or there are additional things one wants to try before feeling that one can take the next step. Even there, there are sharp boundaries.

This is something that several referral bodies have pointed out – that it is not adapted to a modern working life. Today's workplaces do not look like that.

What are then the reasons why the government wants these rigid boundaries? This has the Social Democrats described well from the rostrum, namely that there would be malicious employers who can exploit those who have been on sick leave for a longer period. The employer might force the person to work and try to get out as much as possible during those two weeks.

I strongly question this worldview. All the small business owners and employers, even within the public sector, whom I meet are prepared to do everything they possibly can to help the employee from a long-term sick leave to finally return to the work community. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have two reservations which concern partly the limit of 365 days, and partly – and above all – the rigid two weeks. There, we would have liked that one should go further.

If it were to turn out that there is widespread abuse and that a large part of Sweden's employers, both in the public sector and small business owners, try to exploit those on long-term sick leave, then one would have to change this.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Riksdag will make this decision, but I wish that one had not been so rigid and that one had not seen it as a threat from ill-intentioned employers against those on long-term sick leave, or for that matter that it would become complicated for Försäkringskassan. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of our reservation number 3.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is fair that those who want to do right by themselves are given support to return to work. It is a cornerstone of the Swedish social contract that society's support is there when it is needed.

Too many hard-working people who have been affected by illness feel frustration and anxiety today. They want to contribute, they want to return to work and they want to be part of the work community again. But they do not dare to take the step for fear of losing their economic security. They get stuck in a limbo between illness and work – it is not right.

At the same time, employers stand powerless. They want to help their employees back and see the value in retaining the competence and experience, but they lack the tools to do this in a safe way.

Mr. Speaker! That is why it is gratifying that we are debating work trial with maintained sickness benefit today. I believe that many of us in this chamber are saying: Finally! This is about effort. Effort should pay off, even when one is on the way back from sick leave. The person who makes an effort, who wants to test their wings and who wants to take responsibility for their own life deserves society's support, not bureaucratic hurdles.

Work trial existed as a tool for Försäkringskassan before 2016 but was removed as it lacked concrete legal support. Already in 2017 – nine years ago – Svenskt Näringsliv and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner submitted a petition to the then Social Democratic-led government. In 2022, Försäkringskassan also submitted a formal petition.

The proposal we are debating today means that those on sick leave will have the opportunity to return to work with maintained sickness benefit for a shorter period, obviously by agreement with the employer. The entire purpose is to reduce the thresholds for returning to work.

The sickness insurance should not only be an economic safety net but also build bridges back to work. When people get the opportunity to test their wings and their ability in practice, with the support of their employer and without risking their sickness benefit, the chance that they return increases.

Imagine Maria, a nursing assistant in Västerås, who has been on sick leave for six months. She feels better, and she wants to return. But does she dare? What happens if she cannot manage? What happens to her finances? With this reform, Maria can try working for two weeks with full security. She and her employer can look at it together: Is it the right time? Are any adjustments needed? If it does not work, the security remains.

Or imagine Stefan, a small business owner in Skåne. One of his best employees has been on sick leave. Stefan wants to help, but he doesn't know how. With this reform, he gets a concrete tool. He can offer a trial period, adapt the work tasks, and see what works without anyone risking their security.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the employer and the workplace play an important role for the return to work. It is particularly important to promote measures that employers need to take in connection with the workplace – this so that the employer and the insured person are given the conditions to easily investigate whether the timing is appropriate to begin the return and what measures need to be taken to make it possible.

This is an important reform, above all for those who have been affected by illness and want to get back on track, but also for employers, who have a great responsibility and need more tools. The proposal is suggested to enter into force as early as March 1, 2026, and implies that the possibility of work assessment may continue during two separate periods of 14 consecutive days each during a framework period of 365 days.

It can be argued for shorter and for longer periods, but this is a well-considered and balanced proposal. The purpose is clear: the person on sick leave should be given a chance to return to work and thus be able to leave sick leave and sickness allowance. At the same time, this must not become a permanent solution. The goal is, therefore, always a full return to work or, if that is not possible, other forms of support.

Mr. Speaker! It is particularly gratifying that the reform gathers broad support here in the Riksdag. It shows that when it comes to standing on the side of hard-working people, when it comes to valuing effort and responsibility, we can gather a majority. This is a step towards a fairer Sweden – a Sweden where effort always pays off, a Sweden where society functions when people need support, and a Sweden where we value those who want to contribute, who want to build, and who want to take responsibility.

We are on the right path, but we are not there yet. There is more to be done to strengthen the work line, to ensure that more people get into work and to build a society where hard work always pays off. But today we take an important step for Maria in Västerås and for Stefan in Skåne, for all the hard-working people who want to do right by themselves and who deserve the support of society.

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

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can agree with everything that Caroline Högström said here in the rostrum. But we differ on a decisive point.

This proposal would have been significantly better, as several referral bodies have pointed out, if one did not have these rigid time limits of two weeks and 365 days. It is something that will cause the threshold to continue to be high. It will affect all those on sick leave who are present for a week but then suffer an infection or have the reason for their sick leave recur.

What makes me a bit disappointed is that this proposal has been developed by a Moderate social insurance minister. The main argument, which we have also heard from the Socialdemokraterna, for why they have not been able to be more flexible regarding this – which would have benefited those on long-term sick leave – is this fear of the unserious employers, regardless of whether they are in the public sector or are small business owners or whoever they may be. If they had had more flexible limits, they would surely have exploited the person on long-term sick leave and tried to force them back to work and to come for more periods, be there longer and perhaps even contribute to the production at the workplace.

I wonder: What is the worldview that the Moderates have? What kind of entrepreneurs does one encounter? Where does one see that the great threat is unserious small business owners who will use every chance they have to exploit those on long-term sick leave?

Mr. Speaker! Here I must say that I do not quite recognize the Moderates, who are fundamentally a party with good contacts with entrepreneurs, not least small business owners. But one lands in this position, which coincides completely with the one that the Social Democrats have presented: Unserious employers are the problem.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Jonsson, for the question!

It is not the Moderates who plan to cooperate with the same Social Democrats who view companies in the way the member describes here.

The Moderate-led government is very clear: We are going to create simple, clear rules. That is why we have set up these fairly clear frameworks with 14 days. We reduce the risk for entrepreneurs of making mistakes, because that must also be known: Linked to this type of legislation with people who are on sick leave, entrepreneurs are very worried about making mistakes. In that case, we must have a clear system where we reduce the risk that they accidentally make mistakes. This is a clear system. It should be easy to do the right thing. I believe that is what many small business owners need and want. It should be easy to do the right thing to get their employees back.

I do not really recognize myself in the picture the member wants to paint of this proposal. On the contrary, it should be easy to do right for entrepreneurs who want to get their staff back.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of information: Ahead of the autumn election, we see two prime ministerial candidates, of whom the current Prime Minister is one and Magdalena Andersson is the other.

But that makes me even more disappointed when I hear that the two parties have a quite identical view on small business owners. They paint them as the threat. They say that the problem could be that if we open this door, entrepreneurs – especially small business owners, I assume they mean – will exploit those on long-term sick leave.

If the member has read Företagarnas consultation response, which I assume she has done, she knows that it is one of their important points. This will be difficult to use for small business owners. It would have been significantly simpler if there had been flexibility in the system.

The Speaker says that it should be simple and clear. Does one not think better of Sweden's small business owners, or for that matter public employers, than that they cannot distinguish whether it is two weeks sharp or if there is flexibility? That is the disappointment. There, one sees a bit of how the view on entrepreneurs and employers shapes a number of issues, including this one.

One could have presented a proposal here that would have been much better regarding ensuring that people return to work, which we all want. But then comes this fear that both Social Democrats and Moderates seem to have: We cannot let this go entirely free, because then the employers – read: the entrepreneurs, especially the small business owners – will exploit those on long-term sick leave.

This makes me both worried and a bit disappointed. In a situation where we in Centerpartiet see two prime ministerial candidates, it is unfortunate that they apparently have a common view on how Sweden's entrepreneurs could act, given that the Riksdag makes this decision.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! This perhaps explains why the Center Party has gone so astray in Swedish politics over the last 10–15 years. It seems that what we say here in the speaker's chair about the policy we pursue has not been listened to. Our policy is business-friendly and puts companies in focus, because we know that they are the engine of growth. But if one constantly listens to the Social Democrats first and believes that our policy is somewhere in there, then it is clear that one lands quite wrongly.

I would like to say that this proposal is very clear. Different referral bodies had different starting points. Svenskt Näringsliv thought that this was well-balanced. They did not have proposals for a longer time period. It seems that the parties have slightly different views. That is why this is an important first step. It must, of course, be evaluated. If we see that a longer period is needed, yes, then the Moderaterna do not close the door on that. But it should be easy to do the right thing.

For many exceptions and special solutions, it also makes it cumbersome and difficult to interpret. The goal is that this should actually be usable by Sweden's entrepreneurs so that they can get their employees back, get back those who really want to return to work but who today do not quite dare because there are obstacles. We shall lower those thresholds, and I believe that even the Center Party is well aware that of the two prime ministerial candidates being put forward, it is actually only the Moderates who have the ability and the will to do it for real.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here in the chamber to debate a very welcome proposition from the government. It is not often I have had the opportunity to say this during my time in the Riksdag, but this is a good proposal from the government that I am glad they are putting forward.

In Sweden, there are hardly 80,000 people who have been on sick leave for over a year. If we also include those who have been on sick leave for several months, it becomes many more. These are people who want to feel well and work but who, due to physical illnesses or psychiatric diagnoses, are unable to jump back straight into the workplace again.

Sadly, we also know that the number of people who never return to work increases the longer the sick leaves continue, and at the same time, the proportion who become unemployed or receive sickness benefits increases. It is therefore clear that paths back to work are needed for people who have been ill for a long time.

It is positive that Försäkringskassan has assessed that it should be permitted for someone who is on sick leave to be present regularly at their workplace for social reasons, as it can speed up recovery. However, according to current legislation, it is not permitted to try out work tasks to see what one can manage.

This is, of course, completely unreasonable, and here the current proposal can make a difference. By enabling work trials with maintained sickness allowance, a sick-leave employee could test different work tasks to determine what they are capable of doing in their current condition.

It would also give the employer the opportunity to easily assess whether it could offer adaptations and other measures that would facilitate a return to work. In this way, more people would hopefully be able to return to their jobs a little earlier than they are able to today. It is therefore welcome that this possibility is now to be introduced.

Mr. Speaker! The government's bill could have been even better, and that is why we in Miljöpartiet have submitted a follow-up motion with a proposal for an even better design.

Several of the referral bodies that have submitted referral responses highlight concerns regarding the proposed time limits in the proposal. According to the government's proposal, a sick-leave employee may only be subject to work assessment during two separate two-week periods within a timeframe of one year, and there shall be at least 30 days between two periods of work assessment.

It means that an employee who has started two periods but for some reason has not been able to complete them, for example due to a shorter illness, does not have the possibility to undergo any further work trial until a full year has passed since the start of the period.

It goes without saying that it risks delaying the return to work unnecessarily long if an employee is not first given enough time to try out their work and feel whether it would be possible to return, and then needs to wait almost an entire year before they can be tested for work again.

Every two weeks is in itself a very short time, both for the employee and for the employer, to form an opinion on the employee's work capacity and the conditions for them to return to work. This applies in particular to sick leaves that have lasted for a long time or when there is a complex clinical picture.

The industry organization Företagarna highlights that this can be particularly difficult for small companies, which often need a longer starting phase and more time for evaluation. Several referral bodies – from Företagarna to TCO and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner – therefore consider that the trial period needs to be longer than two weeks.

We in Miljöpartiet agree with their assessment, and just as Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, we therefore propose that the trial period should be extended to four consecutive weeks. This would give both employees and employers better opportunities to assess the ability to work and the conditions for returning to work, and the risk posed by short sick leaves would become significantly smaller.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude my speech by saying that the bill is good and welcome, but it is regrettable that the government did not listen to the aforementioned referral bodies and proposed a trial period that would actually provide the conditions for people to undergo work testing to a sufficient extent. There is a great risk that the review, when this reform is evaluated in a couple of years, will show that a longer trial period would have been necessary to achieve a truly good result.

I therefore move for approval of the Green Party's motion in reservation 1.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin my speech by calling for approval of the committee's majority decision. This means approval of the government bill and rejection of the motions regarding work assessment in the sickness insurance with maintained sickness benefit.

We know nothing about our tomorrow, and life can contain situations where one needs support both from healthcare and financially. We should all have the opportunity to feel security that the collective carries and provides support when one, for various reasons, is unable to manage on one's own.

For us Christian Democrats, it is important that state support contributes to economic security regardless of where and when in life one finds oneself. At the same time, more can be done so that fewer people have to become ill and so that one can return to activity and work after a period of illness.

We advocate for a security system that provides economic security through life's different stages. How this system is structured is of great importance both for people's security as well as for people's behaviors and motivations to work.

Mr. Speaker! Not all disease can, of course, be avoided, but through strong preventive work, it can be reduced. In that case, healthcare must be there and offer good, accessible care within a reasonable time. Health and healthcare shall help us feel well and provide care when we become ill.

It can be stated that we still have unacceptably long healthcare queues. It is important to shorten the healthcare queues to provide the opportunity for faster recovery and to return to work fully to the extent of one's ability. This is positive for every human being and for our society. This important work is in focus for this government, and we are working with force to resolve the queues.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats' starting point is that the sickness insurance shall be secure for those who, due to illness, have reduced work capacity. Those who can fully or partially regain their work capacity – which shall be the main purpose – shall receive help and good support to return to work. Everything else is a great waste of both human and societal resources.

We Christian Democrats see the importance of having a system where one looks at human possibilities and finds drivers to be able to utilize every individual's work capacity. Naturally, different paths back to work shall be offered. The individual's work capacity shall be emphasized, and therefore a possibility for greater flexibility is needed.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating one of the proposals that can increase this flexibility. It is an amendment that aims to lower the threshold for returning to work after a period of illness. This shall enable an insured person to have the right to full sickness benefit and, in agreement with their employer, for a limited period, to undergo work assessment with maintained sickness benefit.

This is a new opportunity. It is a new measure so that employees and employers together can find a way back to health and an opportunity to return to work. We see that there is a need to create conditions to more easily investigate if and when the timing is appropriate to find a way back to work, as well as what measures may need to be taken for this to be possible.

Space needs to be created to be able to test things out and to adjust work tasks, the workplace design, or other aspects of the work from both the insured person's needs and an employer's perspective. Naturally, the employer and the insured person must agree on the work trial, and the trial may not be associated with requirements that the insured person must perform to a certain extent.

It is also important that the work trial is surrounded by clear time limits so that the basic condition for retaining the sickness benefit does not risk being eroded. In the proposal that has been developed, there are time specifications regarding both periods and how the periods are distributed over a year. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on March 1, 2026.

Mr. Speaker! As I have said, we in Kristdemokraterna give our support to the committee's proposal for a decision. It is pleasing that the proposal has broad support among the parties working in the committee and who also see the need for the change.

We Tidö parties, as a government base, have agreed on political action programs in many areas during this mandate period. This provides a new direction, which also applies within this area, where we now propose work assessment with maintained sickness benefit. This shall provide further opportunity for people to find their way back to health and work, and based on both the employer's and the employee's conditions.

This is something that we Christian Democrats welcome, and I move, as I have said, for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 1.

Just as previous speakers have spoken, the proposal concerns lowering the thresholds for returning to work by enabling an insured person who is entitled to full sickness benefit to, in agreement with their employer and for a limited period, undergo work assessment with the employer while maintaining sickness benefit.

In many cases, it is precisely this that people need to be given space to do, that is, to try things out. When one has been away from the labor market for a longer period, it is indeed difficult to know what one can manage.

The framework shall be based on both the individual's needs and what is possible from an employer's perspective – whether it is possible to adjust work tasks, the workplace design, and other aspects of the work. The employer and the individual shall also agree on the work trial, and it may not be associated with requirements that the insured shall perform to any specified extent.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has proposed that the work trial should be able to take place during two separate periods of 14 consecutive days each within a timeframe of one year. According to the Government, the possibility of a work trial should be surrounded by short and clear time limits so that the basic condition for sickness benefit, namely that the capacity to work must be reduced due to illness, does not risk being eroded.

We in Vänsterpartiet are positive towards the government's proposal that people shall be given the opportunity to undergo work trials with maintained sickness benefit, Mr. Speaker. It gives more people the opportunity to enter employment.

An individual person who has started two periods and for some reason has been unable to complete them – for example due to a shorter illness, such as a cold or a flu, as the previous speaker mentioned – will however not have the opportunity to complete any further work trial within the timeframe of a year. We believe this risks undermining the proposal, unfortunately. It also risks complicating the introduction of the opportunities for return to work that all parties in the Riksdag seem to agree on.

We therefore consider that there needs to be an opportunity to test different work components at a reasonable pace over a longer trial period than in the proposal. Against that background, we have joined reservation 1 that the trial period for work requirement shall be allowed to last for two periods of four consecutive weeks each.

We also consider that there needs to be greater flexibility regarding how much time must elapse between two periods of work trials. Therefore, we also stand behind reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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