Economic security in case of illness and disability

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to inform that there are several expenditure areas left to debate and many registered speakers for today's debates. I would therefore like to flag that it is not certain that all matters will have time to be debated to completion before 23.00 today, when we break. Speeches remaining at 23.00 will be moved to the end of tomorrow's agenda.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Insurance Committee's Report 1 on Expenditure Area 10 Economic Security in Case of Illness and Disability.

The goal for the expenditure area is that absence from work due to illness shall be at a long-term stable and low level, provided that the focus is therefore on preventive, rehabilitative and coordinated measures, which is important to emphasize.

Let me first say that we Sverigedemokrater support the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a difficult time. The security situation in our immediate vicinity is serious. Households and companies are under heavy pressure from both high inflation and rising interest rates. At the same time, we are facing a recession and increasing unemployment.

The tough economic situation affects people's everyday lives, and it particularly affects those who have small margins. In these challenging and difficult times, it is important that people affected by unemployment or illness can feel secure, that the social safety net works, and that the conditions for receiving help and support do not deteriorate.

It is also absolutely crucial that every tax krona is used with prudence. Virtually all experts warn against an expansive fiscal policy, as it would risk driving up inflation. Therefore, it is important that we take responsibility for and safeguard the welfare by making wise priorities while simultaneously managing, in a responsible manner, the greatest inflation threat in Sweden in over 30 years.

By making the better conditions in the a-kassa permanent, proposing that the exceptions from certain assessments in the rehabilitation chain be extended for people waiting for care, and ensuring that the allowance for travel with a private car to and from rehabilitation better corresponds to the actual costs, we also make necessary efforts for people who are extra vulnerable. Sverigedemokrater will also continue to work for further improvements.

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear about one thing. Unjustified terminations of sick leave must never be a tool to reduce the number of people on sick leave. The strategy that the previous government used to reduce the number of people on sick leave, by introducing strict assessments that led to terminations of seriously ill people, was truly open to criticism.

Preventive measures and effective rehabilitation must always be the starting point. Positive incentives and support measures shall facilitate the path back to working life after a long period of sick leave. We need to look at how we best help people and create the conditions for returning to work through adapted and well-considered measures.

The assessments made must also be reasonable and grounded in reality. It is good that now, after much pressure, important reforms have been implemented to reduce the risk of inhumane terminations of insurance. But long sick leaves must never become an excuse for not making follow-up and supportive interventions for the individual.

An area where further efforts are needed is the coordination between Försäkringskassan and Arbetsförmedlingen, so that people do not fall through the cracks.

We also need to become better at preventing the ill health that causes long sick leaves. The preventive sickness benefit that exists today is almost not used at all. Measures are needed to make it more accessible and user-friendly.

This leads me to the subject of sick leave due to psychiatric diagnoses, which is now increasing again after having decreased during the years of pandemic restrictions. We know that women account for a large part of sick leaves caused by mental ill-health. It is primarily related to stress, for example, exhaustion syndrome.

Recent statistics show that the number of people on sick leave with a stress-related diagnosis increased by 13 percent between July 2019 and July 2022. Of all ongoing stress-related sick leaves, 79 percent are women. We can also see, in a comparison between March 2019 and March this year, that the number of new sick leaves that can be related to stress has increased by 14 percent during the same month. And of the new sick leaves, women make up a full 75 percent.

The trend is clear: mental illness is our time's great public health challenge. We must begin to work more purposefully to manage the worrying development.

Mr. Speaker! A relevant issue is that there is a lack of important knowledge regarding which rehabilitation interventions have a good effect for people who are on sick leave due to mental ill-health. This is also something that representatives for healthcare, Försäkringskassan, employer organizations, and trade unions recently established.

It is therefore important that research in the field can contribute to the development of effective rehabilitation interventions to reduce the incidence of sick leave in psychiatric diagnoses. The Sweden Democrats have long worked to ensure that research in the field of women's health is prioritized, because research on women's diseases is a neglected area.

There is also a great need to increase general knowledge about women's health within healthcare and in society at large. Therefore, it is pleasing that there is now, in the Tidö Agreement, an explicit targeted focus specifically on research on women's diseases and health. With expanded research, care and treatment methods will be able to be developed and made more efficient. It can also give us better conditions to understand the causes behind women's impaired mental health.

Since mental illness is the most common cause of sick leave, it is extremely important that the support for persons who are signed off work due to a psychiatric diagnosis is developed and improved. The actual deficiencies linked to mental illness that we see in the sick leave and rehabilitation process must be addressed. We see, for example, a need to strengthen the competence and knowledge regarding mental illness at the relevant authorities, in this case Försäkringskassan and Arbetsförmedlingen.

There is also a need to carry out a review and an analysis of Försäkringskassan's change work with a particular focus on sick leaves resulting from psychiatric diagnoses. Being disqualified from insurance can have very severe consequences for the person affected. Fear of being disqualified can also lead to deteriorated health and hinder the possibilities for rehabilitation.

There is also an overriding and serious problem with people choosing to end their lives because of a denial of insurance coverage. The fact that it occurs indicates major flaws in the system that is intended to be a safety net for people who become ill and need society's support. The possibility of implementing requirements for medical suicide risk assessments in the insurance medical decision support is therefore something that we believe needs to be investigated as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker! There is therefore much to do. The Sweden Democrats will work hard to strengthen preventive and health-promoting work so that the incidence of sick leave due to psychiatric diagnoses can be reduced in the long run. By managing the increasing mental ill-health in society in a more strategic way, with a focus on evidence and strengthened knowledge, we can achieve set goals that mean fewer people are affected by mental ill-health and that those who are affected receive an evidence-based and humane treatment throughout the entire sick leave process. It will not only be a saving for society as a whole but will also lead to a reduction in human suffering.

I move again for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) agreed.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Daniel Persson!

I am pleased that our two parties still agree that the sickness insurance is an important system and that those who are ill shall receive support, help, and compensation until they regain their capacity to work. It is something that unites our two parties.

But that is all the more what separates our two parties. I want to inform the member that one of the things where there is a great difference between our parties is that when we are in power and have influence, we make changes in the right direction. That is why it was we Social Democrats who, two parliamentary terms ago, removed the deplorable stumbling block in the health insurance. I hope the member will remember that.

Another thing is that we take the chance to improve things. My question to the member is therefore: When will the Sverigedemokraterna push through the improvements in the sickness insurance that the Sverigedemokraterna have talked about year in and year out? When the Sverigedemokraterna in previous budget debates on expenditure area 10 have stood here in the speaker's chair, they have demanded changes to the waiting period, removal of the "stupstock" (ceiling), reinforcements in the sickness insurance, and better financial security for those on sick leave.

Now the Sweden Democrats are in the heat. Now it is the Sweden Democrats who are responsible for the budget proposal that lies on the Riksdag's table and the guidelines that the majority, against the Social Democrats' wish, have unfortunately voted through. But it was the majority's will.

My question to the member is: When will the Sweden Democrats fulfill their promises to their voters to improve the health insurance?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your question! We have quite recently voted through quite many important reforms that are to be implemented during the coming time. We have also been proactive when it comes to these proposals. They were proposals that you submitted – absolutely. Among these proposals was, among others, the security pension. It shall become easier for elderly people who are close to retirement to receive sickness compensation. We have been involved in changing the labor market concept, i.e., that one shall be assessed against a specified occupational group, for example.

We will follow the developments regarding these proposals and see if they contribute to more reasonable assessments and that people also receive the support measures they need in the form of rehabilitation. I am not worried that these reforms would be threatened by the new government.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Daniel Persson for listing several of the important reforms and improvements of the health insurance that we Social Democrats implemented when we held government power. It was good that I did not have to do it myself. I thank him for that.

But the question remains: When will the Sweden Democrats take the chance to push the right-conservative government so that they make the improvements that are actually needed in the health insurance? There are amounts of people today who still do not receive the support and the help that they need.

We have, for example, proposals to change the concept of work capacity for those who qualify for the sickness and activity allowance. Why have the Sweden Democrats not ensured that this is pushed through? Why have the Sweden Democrats, in their negotiations with the right-conservative parties, not taken the chance to get this into the Tidö Agreement? There is nothing there that shows that one wants to strengthen the sickness insurance.

Why do the Sweden Democrats not do what they ran for election on and promised their voters, that is to remove the unfair quarantine deduction? We Social Democrats have, of course, included it in our budget proposal. Now you have unfortunately voted it down, when you had a chance to remove that unfair quarantine deduction. Why do you not do more for the sick and ill-treated, those who today do not receive the support and the help they need in the health insurance?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for your questions! I actually cannot go into what was discussed and what did not come up in the negotiations regarding the Tidö Agreement. But we are maintaining the better conditions in the unemployment insurance fund. The exceptions from certain assessments in the rehabilitation chain shall be extended for persons waiting for care. And the allowance for travel with a private car to and from the rehabilitation shall be improved and correspond to the actual costs.

Sverigedemokraterna will continue to work for further improvements, and no deteriorations will occur in this area.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for this discussion! Vänsterpartiet has been the party that pushed through the improvements to the health insurance that took place during the previous parliamentary term. The Member is right that it looked roughly the same. Under the bourgeois government, 90,000 were disqualified with the "stupstocken" [the stick]. Unfortunately, the goals that the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet introduced in the regulatory letter meant that instead, roughly the same number were disqualified at day 180 and day 365. So that is how reality looked.

But now there is a fully investigated proposal that could make it easier for those who have long been denied sickness and activity compensation to receive it. There is also a fully investigated proposal that could make it so that precisely the rehabilitation, which the member speaks warmly about, could be done better for those who are close to a long-term sick leave. Why have the Sverigedemokraterna not placed the demand regarding the sickness insurance at the top when they have negotiated?

When the Left Party had the chance to influence, we introduced all the improvements that occurred during the last parliamentary term. We set the requirements in the budget negotiations, and it was then that the improvements that are now occurring were introduced.

Today I hear the member from Sverigedemokraterna say: I promise that nothing will get worse. But is there anything that will be improved during this mandate period? Is there anything that the member wants to tell their voters - have Sverigedemokraterna fought so that things will get better for the sick? Or is one satisfied with Vänsterpartiet's reforms?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Ida Gabrielsson, for your questions! I have to repeat a bit of what I just touched upon. We will maintain the better conditions in the unemployment insurance fund. The exceptions from certain assessments in the rehabilitation chain shall be extended for persons waiting for care, and the allowance for travel with a private car to and from the rehabilitation shall better correspond to the actual costs.

That is what we stand for right now. Furthermore, we say that there will be no deteriorations in this area.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Then we must conclude that what the Sverigedemokraterna have succeeded in in these negotiations is that none of the Vänsterpartiet's implemented reforms have been removed. My question remains: Why did the Sverigedemokraterna not put the health insurance at the top of the agenda when they had the chance, when they were at the castle? Did they go and lie down to sleep? Was it not interesting enough to participate during the evening negotiations on welfare and health insurance? Did they call it a day when they had gotten the word deportation in 16 times in the Tidö Agreement? It is difficult to see it in any other way.

What shall the Sweden Democrats say to those with cancer who are now forced to work? What shall one say to the person who cannot afford the electricity and the fuel, even though it is 14 öre cheaper, when no support is coming to northern Sweden? What shall one say to the person who has been born with a disability?

There is, therefore, a completed investigation proposal that could result in many more people being entitled to long-term compensation, i.e., sickness benefit. Despite this, the Sweden Democrats have not managed to get a single comma in regarding the sickness insurance in the Tidö Agreement or the budget.

Furthermore, they have managed the feat of giving us who sit here in the Riksdag a huge tax cut, while at the same time not a single krona in tax cuts goes to those who already pay more tax today, i.e., the sick and the unemployed. Why have the Sverigedemokraterna not prioritized lowering taxes for the sick and the unemployed, but instead prioritized lowering taxes for us who already have?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your questions! Let me be clear. Wanting to raise the tax is not the same thing as a tax cut. No decisions have been made regarding tax cuts. We determine the price base amount, and because inflation is high, the effect becomes greater. And we do not intend to depart from the legislation and the regulatory framework that has existed for many years.

Now that we have high inflation, we do not believe that more people should pay more in tax. I assume that the member's party instead wants to raise the tax for 1 million people and change the legislation that entails a stable and predictable tax policy. I do not think that is responsible.

Let me also be clear that the government is not making any cuts to the health insurance. The reforms that we voted for in 2021 and which were part of the M, SD, KD and L budget for 2022 remain in place.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member did not mention the quarantine deduction in his speech. My party colleague Åsa asked about this, among other things, but I did not perceive that the member answered.

Approximately 90 percent of LO's members cannot work from home.

The care deduction hits hardest against all those workers who go to work every day and ensure that society functions. Many also work in contact professions where one is exposed to a very high risk of being infected and thus a risk of economic loss.

At the same time, more and more methods for working from home have been developed for civil servants. Going to work while sick can cause a medical condition to be prolonged and worsened, and furthermore, there is a risk of infecting colleagues who are also needed for society to function.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats said during the election campaign that the period of absence deduction (karensavdrag) should be removed for healthcare and school staff. The Moderates, on the other hand, had a different line. What is the message to my colleagues in the welfare sector from the government parties: remove the period of absence deduction or additional period of absence?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the questions! It is true that we Sverigedemokrater have wanted to see that the waiting periods are removed in certain groups, but how the waiting period deduction looks today and how it will be handled in the future, I must admit I do not know. This is not quite my area – I have stepped in today due to illness. I do not have just that detailed knowledge and ask to be allowed to come back to it.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, member - I fully understand that it is not easy to keep track of everything! But I wonder if the Sweden Democrats, as was promised during the election campaign, will work for a fairer labor market where people who work in contact professions will not continue to be affected by the unfair quarantine deduction?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As was said, it was our ambition, and it is something we will take with us into future negotiations. I cannot promise anything, but we have that ambition in any case.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Daniel Persson says that nothing should be worsened in the sickness insurance, but electricity prices are skyrocketing, inflation has remained stable at around 10 percent, and at the same time, the lowest levels in the sickness and activity allowance remain.

We in Miljöpartiet do not think that illness and disability should be equal to a life in poverty. The minimum levels in the sickness and activity compensation must be raised. We have a proposal to raise it by approximately 10 percent. Sverigedemokraterna promise that nothing will get worse, but if the minimum level in the sickness and activity compensation is not raised, the money will not be enough when both food prices and the prices of winter shoes skyrocket.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Annika Hirvonen, for the question!

Just when it comes to this, I do not know if I can answer the question, if I am to be completely honest. I am sorry - I do not really have that detailed knowledge. I will pass now and return at another occasion.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite simple mathematics. If prices increase while one receives the same - or just as little - in their wallet, it becomes harder to make ends meet. The compensation levels for those who receive the least are far too low. It is around 10,000 kronor a month that one is expected to manage on. For a person with a chronic disability, this de facto means a life in poverty.

We in Miljöpartiet want to significantly raise the minimum levels in the sickness and activity allowance, and it is particularly acute in the situation we have today. It is namely those who have no margins who are hit hardest.

A lot of support is coming now from the government and the Sweden Democrats. I get electricity support and I don't know what else. But the person who lives on sickness benefit and lives in northern Sweden gets zero kronor in electricity support while the prices of food, clothes, and even electricity are increasing. How do the Sweden Democrats intend to take responsibility? You say that life is not supposed to get worse.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only agree that the electricity price is skyrocketing. We have had a stable electricity production here in Sweden, but fully functioning nuclear power has been decommissioned. Electricity prices are now soaring.

The reduction obligation has also seen to it that fuel costs have become very high. We will address that. But it will not happen quickly, but unfortunately slowly. Food prices are also high as a result of this.

The budget is a first step for the government, and there is much to address. We Sverigedemokrater will monitor our interests in this. I cannot say much more. We will not make any deteriorations in this area during the coming mandate period, but we will have to see what we can achieve in upcoming negotiations. That shall be my answer to the question today.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The sickness insurance is a fundamental pillar in the Swedish security system. We Social Democrats are constantly working to repair the cracks in the insurance so that everyone receives the compensation they are entitled to. In our budget proposal, we prioritize our common welfare, where security systems built on the idea of duty and right are an important part.

Last week, we could hear the responsible minister here in the chamber express concern that the number of long-term illnesses is increasing. That ill health is increasing is worrying. That it takes a long time for people to regain their capacity for work is also worrying. But that the long-term ill now have the right to financial compensation and support to regain their capacity for work instead of being kicked out of the insurance as they did with the right-wing parties' stumbling block - that is simply good.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats are proud of all the changes we made during our eight years in government to improve health insurance, for the elderly, and for people with disabilities. But we are not satisfied.

Before we abolished the stupstock, the severely ill were forced to live on their savings, to go to Arbetsförmedlingen to try to seek new work - despite their illness - or in the worst case go to the social services and ask for maintenance support. It did not make them healthier, but instead poorer.

Mr. Speaker! A study from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency shows that four out of five people whose insurance was terminated returned to sickness insurance as soon as it was possible to re-enroll. However, very many of them had been completely without income for a quarter. Of those who were on full-time sick leave when their insurance was terminated, 95 percent were back in sickness insurance within a three-year period.

Mr. Speaker! One does not get healthy by being made poor.

That we have now removed the stumbling block enables more people to become healthy faster. Worrying about missing income and missing support does not make anyone healthier. On the contrary, this worry impairs the possibility of regaining one's capacity to work.

Mr. Speaker! A budget debate clarifies priorities and political choices. The Social Democrats always choose to invest in a welfare that covers everyone. We contribute together and receive according to need. When you are at your weakest, society must be at its strongest.

But we still live in a class society. One of our greatest injustices is how illness and injuries affect people, perhaps especially those who work in a profession with a physical and tough work environment. Therefore, it is time to rectify the unjust sickness benefit deduction.

Mr. Speaker! The care deduction hits hardest against all those workers who go to work every day and ensure that society functions. It is about childcare workers, nursing assistants, bus drivers, shop assistants, construction workers, and all others who cannot work from home. Many also work in contact professions, where one is exposed to a much greater risk of being infected and thus also run a greater risk of economic loss. At the same time, methods for working from home have been developed for white-collar workers. This, Mr. Speaker, is deeply unfair and causes the labor market to be torn apart.

Those who go to work while ill can cause a case of illness to be prolonged or injuries to be aggravated. Furthermore, there is, as we heard earlier here in the debate, a great risk that one infects colleagues or the people one works for.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats went to the election on a platform to abolish the unfair travel deduction. Therefore, we are now making a billion-kronor investment in our budget proposal to show that we are serious about that promise. It is about justice and solidarity with all those who cannot work from home.

Mr. Speaker! Another initiative we are making in our budget proposal concerns the fact that those who have permanently reduced work capacity due to illness need to have other opportunities to receive compensation over time. The proportion of people who are newly granted sickness and activity compensation is today at a record low, and the rules are so strict that it is very few who gain access to the insurance despite permanently reduced work capacity.

We have commissioned several investigations - some are finished, others are still ongoing - and begun the implementation of the improvements that the investigations propose.

Mr. Speaker! The current, right-conservative government needs to continue this work and further improve the regulatory framework for the sickness and activity allowance. We believe that priority should be given to preparing the investigation proposal that the right to sickness allowance and activity allowance be tested against the same labor market concepts that currently apply to the sickness benefit. For this, we have allocated funds in our budget proposal.

We also believe that the government should continue to work on the investigation to facilitate work, studies, assignments, etc., during the period when one receives sickness benefit and activity allowance.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say three things.

Firstly: A secure health insurance shall be available to everyone. We all contribute to it when we work, and we should also be able to receive support and help from the compensation when our capacity to work fails for various reasons. The "stoppstock" [stoppstocken] does not make people healthier, but rather poorer, and therefore it has been removed.

Secondly: People who have the capacity to work but who, for various reasons, are not seen as attractive on the regular labor market also need to have a secure financial situation while the work capacity they have is utilized in the best possible way. The Government needs to review how people with permanently reduced capacity can obtain a secure situation without being bounced around between different agencies.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker: We must all take decisive action against the growing mental ill-health in society. The Social Democrats are ready to serve every day of the week as the government wishes to discuss measures for better well-being for women, men, young and old.

Mr. Speaker! Since our proposal for budget frameworks has fallen here in the chamber, I simply stand behind our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for her speech.

As everyone knows, covid-19 represented an exceptional situation that also required exceptional measures. We in Moderaterna were driving behind a number of important measures that were taken during covid, including the abolition of the quarantine deduction and an expansion of preventive sickness benefit for people in risk groups. But just as convinced as we were that this would be introduced for a limited time, we were that it would be rolled back when covid receded.

Now I hear the member speaking about a billion-kronor investment on the quarantine deduction. I am searching feverishly in the report and looking at the different expenditure areas, and I probably need a small clarification. Regarding sickness benefit and rehabilitation, the Social Democrats' budget proposal is identical to the government's. Regarding activity and sickness compensation, it is 230 million that separates them. We are therefore talking about an expenditure area that covers 106.5 billion, and there is a difference of 230 million between the Social Democrats' proposal and the government's proposal. The member is welcome to lead me through how the Social Democrats obtain a quarantine deduction that would cost approximately 5.1 billion.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Heindorff, for giving me a chance to elaborate on the whole thing!

It is interesting to hear how the Moderaterna describe history; it differs in many ways from the reality that we Social Democrats have experienced. But we are glad that the Moderaterna at least wanted to make changes for people during covid-19. We thank them for that; it was good that there was consensus between the parties in the Riksdag, so that we could implement rapid changes.

The situation is once again dramatic for many households and companies. We Social Democrats would welcome quick agreements to help, for example, companies and families with children. We have submitted proposals that your parties have voted down, but we are here if you want to continue to find cross-party solutions that help households and companies.

When it comes to the unfair quarantine deduction, it is correct that these funds are not included under expenditure area 10. However, I can refer the member to our party motion 2022/23:2074. There, we have included funds in a ladder. We want to investigate how the quarantine deduction can be removed. These funds are scaled up over the entire three-year period.

There, the member may hopefully find inspiration for new proposals from the government for the coming years. I hope the member agrees that the care deduction, in its current design, is deeply unfair. If the member is serious about helping Sweden's low-wage earners, I hope that the member's party returns with sharp proposals.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer and for the clarification.

The members of the board are welcome to state which funds are involved during 2023. Åsa Eriksson mentioned that it concerns a ladder. Given that, for example, the Social Democrats' sister parties on the left have invested approximately 5.1 billion – it is stated in either the Left Party's or the Green Party's budget – it would have been interesting to be able to compare this with the investments in this social democratic ladder.

I believe I have time to ask the member for one more thing. It concerns the goal for the sickness benefit which seven of the eight parties stand behind. The goal is a stable and low level regarding sick leaves. But what we can read here is that the change that was made at day 180 resulted in, in any case, 15,000 more cases of sickness in December 2021 compared to the year before.

I heard that the member before spoke about changes in the right direction, but it was actually the case that over 20,000 more were on sick leave compared to the year before. Those who had been on sick leave for longer than 180 days were 15,000 more.

Therefore, I am questioning. I have not seen anything in your budget motion for the expenditure area that shows that you still stand behind that goal. I have seen that one party deviates from that line. I become a bit questioning when the changes that the Social Democrats made during the last parliamentary term meant that for one year, sick leaves increased by approximately 20,000 cases. Do the Social Democrats still stand behind the goal for the sickness insurance, that is, a long-term stable and low level?

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats, Ulrika Heindorff, have submitted our own budget motion. What other parties write in their budget motions, they must answer for. When it comes to the unfair quarantine deduction, we Social Democrats have invested a total of 1 billion over a period of three years. We realize that 1 billion will not be enough if the quarantine deduction were to be removed entirely, but it needs to be investigated how we can change the quarantine deduction. What we have decided to say is that the quarantine deduction today is totally unfair, and it is the unfairness that must be removed. A system that is more just for all wage earners must be introduced.

Then it was the question of whether we stand behind the goal regarding the number of sick days. We have not reserved ourselves on that question. We do, therefore, stand behind the goal, and we want to see a stable development.

But I must also inform the members that the increase that occurred in the number of sick leaves at day 180 was the intention when the stumbling block was removed. People must have time to be rehabilitated, have time to receive support, have time to regain work capacity, so that they can return to their work instead of being cast into poverty. There has not, so far, been any increase in sick leaves at day 365, which so far indicates that people actually have time to be rehabilitated and regain work capacity within that time.

That is exactly what we want. I believe that both the member and I are in complete agreement that the goal is for people to be healthy, work, and support themselves. That is not achieved when people are cast out of our safety nets.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! The healthy person has a thousand wishes, but the sick person has only one. It is as true as it is said.

Today we are debating report SfU1, U tgiftsområde 10 E economic security in case of illness and disability. This is an important and large budget area that covers approximately 106.5 billion kronor.

On October 18, just over two months ago, the new Moderate-led bourgeois government took office. The government took office in a difficult time with several parallel crises. There is high inflation in Sweden and the rest of the world, declining growth, and Sweden is judged to enter a recession during 2023. This is happening at the same time as many people and companies are subjected to substantial cost increases as well as high fuel and energy prices.

In addition to this, we have major problems and challenges with crime, increased emissions, and long healthcare queues. Unemployment in Sweden is still high. We heard in the debate before our debate that unemployment is the fifth highest in Europe, despite the former Social Democratic government promising that Sweden would have Europe's lowest unemployment. The number of people on sick leave in Sweden is still high. In December last year, it was 188,700 people. Throughout all of last year, 620,000 people had received sickness allowance or rehabilitation allowance.

Mr. Speaker! In order to meet these great problems and challenges, everyone who can be available for the labor market is needed. We need more people working, more people contributing to the welfare, and more people contributing to healthcare, school, and care. Work creates prosperity and counteracts individuals' poverty.

Today we are debating the health insurance, and I would like to quote from the Tidö Agreement:

"The sickness insurance shall provide financial security for those who, due to illness, cannot work. The focus shall be on rehabilitation and the design shall counteract unnecessarily many sick leaves, especially long ones, among other things through clearly defined review occasions. Measures are implemented to counteract ill health."

Mr. Speaker! Those who are ill or injured and cannot work must, of course, have the right to compensation, care, and rehabilitation. We Moderates are convinced that the opportunities and incentives to act to help people back into the workforce must be strengthened for all actors within the framework of the sickness insurance system. It is a matter of the insured person, the employer, the healthcare system, and Försäkringskassan.

Much can be done within the preventive work, but there are some sick leaves that cannot be prevented. When someone is affected by breast cancer, that is one such example.

A loved one of mine was affected by breast cancer one and a half years ago. It was a life-altering announcement both for my loved one and for all relatives. Thankfully, the cancer was detected early during a screening. In such a case, one is grateful to live in Sweden and that these screenings are carried out with great continuity. Nevertheless, it involved treatment with first surgery, then radiation, and then chemotherapy.

The possibility of sick leave was clearly decisive for my relative. But I would like to point out that the possibility to work to the extent that my relative could and wanted to also was important.

Having routines is important even when one has cancer, said my relative. Working and feeling needed is just as important regardless of whether one has cancer or not, she further explained. It is about feeling that one is part of something and not just a patient in the healthcare system. Furthermore, it is about getting the social context, outside of family and friends, which work provides. Anxiety and stress can arise both at the time of the diagnosis and before treatment. In that case, it is nice that something is as usual and that one can go to one's work to the extent that it is possible.

It was not about my relative being forced to work. On the contrary. Based on the doctor's experience, recommendations were made regarding how much one usually manages to work during treatment, and adjustments were made gradually. I gained an enormous number of new perspectives on sick leave by seeing all of this up close and truly understanding how important it is to consider each individual's own possibilities and wishes.

Speaking of wishes, Mr. Speaker - as we approach Christmas, it is about time to express one's wishes. I wish that all members in the chamber devote a significant part of their speeches to talking about how we should prevent sick leaves and how we should best perform rehabilitation.

To ensure that this wish is partially fulfilled, I therefore intended to speak now about the preventive work and rehab.

I will briefly mention three reports. In 2021, the Riksrevisionen report on preventive sickness benefit and work-oriented rehabilitation support was published.

Let me give a brief explanation for those of you who may be listening to the debate. An employer can apply for grants to prevent sick leave or to facilitate the employee's return to work. This can involve investigating, planning, initiating, implementing, and following up on workplace-oriented measures.

The review showed that these two tools are low priority internally within Försäkringskassan. The Swedish National Audit Office therefore assessed that the agency's possibilities to influence sickness benefit figures and figures on ill health with the help of these compensations were limited.

This is extremely serious. Sick leave should, according to the goal that we have discussed here earlier, be at a long-term stable and low level. And from a human perspective, it is always better with early interventions that can contribute to preventing sick leave from occurring.

Last year, the second report was released, an IFS report reviewing employers' establishment of such a plan for return to work. It showed that not even half of the employers do so within the prescribed time.

In 2020, another ISF report was released regarding preventive sickness benefit. Preventive sickness benefit has existed for 30 years. Despite that, the report clearly shows that for shorter interventions such as CBT therapy, the preventive sickness benefit does not work. One must be on sick leave at 25 percent, and it does not work when it comes to, for example, CBT therapy for mental ill-health.

In conclusion, I want to say that I hope and believe that the government's clear focus through the Tidö Agreement on the prevention of sick leave and rehabilitation will reverse the negative trend that we can see in all these three reports, which show that there are tools but that they are not used to a sufficient extent to prevent sick leave or for rehabilitation.

The previous government has clearly not succeeded in increasing the preventive work. The current government must succeed with this.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Heindorff, for the speech! I am pleased that the member wants us to focus on preventive measures and rehabilitation. It is truly important. I support it.

I also believe that we can agree on the principle that the best sick leave is the one that never occurs. The member is right that not all sick leaves can be prevented, but I believe there is more we can do there. We Social Democrats are ready at any time to discuss measures with the government for a healthier and more sustainable working life. I believe that is extremely important.

But I requested the floor not only to praise the member but also to ask a question.

One thing that really does not facilitate people with mental ill-health to be rehabilitated and regain their work capacity is the worry of losing their income.

The member belongs to a party that campaigned on reintroducing the absolute time limits in the sickness insurance, which resulted in people being kicked out before they were healthy. We have both listened to the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, which shows that one became poor instead of becoming healthy.

I want to ask the member if she can promise both me and everyone else who I believe is following this debate with great interest – it is very many people who are worried about what will happen with the sickness insurance now that we have a right-conservative government – that she will not contribute to reintroducing absolute time limits in the rehabilitation chain.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member very much for the question and for raising the concern she feels regarding the sickness insurance. I know that the member's commitment began with precisely the outer time limit in the sickness insurance.

There is some research regarding this with reporting occasions and time limits. Among other things, ESO - Expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi, which the member surely is aware of, says roughly this: If the compensation rate is high, the control is weak and a lower time limit is missing, the sickness absence can be expected to be higher than if the compensation rate is lower, the control is strong and a time limit exists.

I think that regardless of what one thinks about the outer time limit, it is important to talk about these check-in occasions. That is what makes exactly what is stated in the Tidö Agreement – that we want to avoid many sick leaves and especially the long ones. In that case, it is extremely important with check-in occasions during the time that one is on sick leave so that one can return to work as quickly as possible. I hope that I and the member share that view.

I believe that the focus should be on precisely these reporting occasions. They already exist today but need to be significantly improved, among other things linked to what I mentioned earlier regarding one of these three reports where it is seen that the employers do not to a sufficient extent, for example, make a plan for return to work. It is something that worries me enormously.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats completely agree with the member that monitoring in the rehabilitation chain is good. Requirements for early interventions so that people can receive rehabilitation and support and be able to regain their work capacity are very good. But it is not the same thing as being kicked out of the insurance because one has not become healthy fast enough. It is a completely different matter.

Earlier today, I met here together with a colleague with a representative from TCO, who handed over a report showing that a third of the TCO members on long-term sick leave are dissatisfied with the support they receive from their employer – despite the fact that we have check-in meetings. There is, therefore, much else to do to shorten sick leaves and help people regain their capacity to work than to kick them out of the insurance so that they become poorer.

But I have another question for the member. A few weeks ago, we were both in a panel that dealt with exactly the sickness insurance. Then the member spoke about the security pension for the elderly that we Social Democrats have introduced so that people who have worn themselves out at their jobs, who no longer have full work capacity and who are approaching retirement age, can receive sickness compensation instead of being forced into unemployment and forced to take early retirement. This, the member meant, was to give up on older people and deny them rehabilitation.

Fortunately, there were many in the audience who protested against this description of reality. So it is not that at all, but rather it is about avoiding people being thrown into unemployment or forced to take early retirement. But I still became worried when the member expressed herself as she did.

Therefore, I want to ask if the member will contribute to removing the important security pension for worn-out elderly people.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it was an interesting discussion and debate that we had a few weeks ago.

I can say that my concern remains. I am thinking about the entire historical description and what the situation was like 15 years back in time. Then we had, depending on how one counts, in any case 100 people who were early-retired every day. Some figures even pointed to that it was 140 people who were early-retired every day in Sweden. It was also a way of telling all these people who were perhaps 30, 40 or 50 years old: You will never be able to work again.

I am afraid, member, that the changes the Social Democrats made during the last term—what the member calls a security pension but which I think rather begins to resemble what was early retirement—result in people being left in the lurch. It means that for those who have turned 60, the interventions that would need to be made are not made, because one knows that there is another way out. I still have that concern.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In her speech, Ulrika Heindorff spoke about the importance of being able to be on sick leave and work as much as one can manage and needs. Therefore, I would like to ask whether the Moderaterna will realize the proposals in the investigation "A sickness insurance with prevention, rehabilitation and security" that Samuel Engblom has presented and which proposes precisely that the sickness insurance should become more flexible and individually adapted.

Mr. Speaker! Today, one can only be signed off on sick leave at 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent. If one manages to work, for example, 30 percent, one can end up in a situation where one is only allowed to work 25 percent or is forced to push oneself to work more hours than one can handle. This can be particularly challenging in the phase when one is on the way back to work after a longer period of sick leave. Suddenly doubling the working time from two hours a day to four hours a day can be a big step that, in the worst case, can lead to one overexerting oneself if one is on the way back from a stress-related illness.

A step-free compensation is proposed for those who have a sick leave of more than 25 percent so that one can be on sick leave exactly as much as is needed.

Against the background of the speech, I wonder if Ulrika Heindorff and the Moderate-led government will realize this proposal.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for a good and pertinent question that I will not be able to answer fully today.

The moderate and recently inaugurated government – it is almost as if we still need to have a "new-on-the-job" label – is currently reviewing all the investigations that have been completed and all the investigations that are ongoing in terms of how they should continue and whether the directives should be changed. When one then has a clear picture of just this combination, one can return to the question.

I think the member is raising an important issue, the lack of flexibility in the health insurance, which was also confirmed by my relative.

I cannot promise today what the government will do moving forward, but the investigation the member mentioned will be one of the things that will be looked at.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In this investigation, A health insurance with prevention, rehabilitation and security, there were many proposals to improve the health insurance, and we in Miljöpartiet want to proceed with many of these proposals. We have already decided on this in our budget, where we present proposals.

Another proposal that I am concerned about concerns early interventions and preventing illness. Today we have a system that is unknown and where there are deficiencies, as Ulrika Heindorff pointed out. Now there is a finished bill on the table to change today's system with preventive sickness benefit into something that is proposed to be called prevention compensation, which is to be much more clearly linked to concrete interventions.

I actually have the same question here. When will we receive a response from the Moderaterna? The proposals have been there since 2021, and there has been plenty of time to read up and take a position. So, what does the Moderaterna say?

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! In any case, they have not been on this government's table since 2021, for then we had not yet taken office. The question must therefore be posed to the Social Democrats.

Even in this issue, we will have to return to it in the future. There is surely much in this investigation that we can bring to the table - but not in today's debate. We will return to it shortly.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! We have long had a poorly functioning health insurance system in Sweden. People have not received what they are entitled to, and thousands of sick people and persons with disabilities have for many years been cast out of the system.

For those affected, this has had catastrophic consequences. Entire lives have been shattered, and for some, no other way out than to take their own lives has felt possible. It is an enormous scandal and a great shame for the welfare state Sweden, the consequences of which we will see for a long time to come.

During the Christmas season, there is a belief in the power of miracles, that wishes can come true and hopes become reality, alive. But in politics, it is not about believing, hoping, and wishing. We who are elected, chosen by the people to represent the citizens, must act decisively and not close our eyes or primarily act as talkers. The promises we give, we must fulfill.

Mr. Speaker! The Alliance implemented today's system in 2008. They stepped forward as the new era's miracle workers and, unlike Sweden's collective medical profession and medical expertise in the current state of research, were able to cure all 90,000 sick people through a magic spell. According to the new law and Försäkringskassan's new criteria, the rehab chain performed pure miracles. People who were on their deathbeds were in fact as healthy as cows and could work. Up and at 'em!

But, Mr. Speaker, the time of miracles was unfortunately not over just because we changed governments. The Social Democrats and the Green Party introduced targets for the number of sick days after the costs for the sickness insurance had increased. After that, the rejections quadrupled, without any legislative change, at day 180 and day 365. The target was then nine sick days per person on average. During the height of the pandemic, a record number were disqualified. Never have so many been disqualified at these two time limits.

Then came the turning point. Vänsterpartiet succeeded, together with many others, in giving those affected by the deterioration in the sickness insurance a first vindication through several improvements. The rules were changed, and today more sickness benefit is granted.

A new security pension was introduced so that older workers are not under-insured and forced into transition. The ceiling for the sickness benefit was raised. The basic allowance in the sickness and activity allowance was raised by 1,000 kronor, and after the turn of the year, it will be increased through indexing by an additional approximately 900 kronor per month.

The funkisskatt was removed so that everyone with sickness and activity compensation has the same tax level as other wage earners. But unfortunately, the right and SD managed to introduce a new tax gap immediately afterwards.

The ceiling for the housing supplement was raised to 7,500 kronor for everyone, so not only for age pensioners but also for sickness pensioners.

During last Christmas, Vänsterpartiet succeeded in negotiating away the disability insurance goal in the regulatory letter that has long governed Försäkringskassan's work.

Then there was a change of government, and the Left Party no longer had the possibility to influence policy. But the Sweden Democrats did, and you can never guess what happened. Did they push through the completed rule improvements in the sickness benefit? Was the benefit level in the sickness allowance raised? Was a crisis commission appointed to provide redress for everyone who has been disqualified from sickness benefit over the years? No, unfortunately. The Sweden Democrats neglected to set a single requirement regarding the sickness insurance in the Tidö agreement. Not a single reform in the area exists. One sentence can be found in the agreement, and it cannot be interpreted in any other way than that more people are now to be kicked out of the sickness insurance.

Mr. Speaker! I have all the understanding for why many have lost faith in politics after all these years of deterioration. Politicians say one thing but do another. The political decisions that have been made have been completely different from those that were promised in the election campaigns.

The Left Party has done the opposite, and that is what we will continue to do. We represent our voters and not ourselves, and note well: Today we are the only party, just as during the previous mandate period, that wants to remove the goal of low sickness rates from the budget. These goals have been there since the Alliance's reorganization of the sickness insurance - goals that are words on a piece of paper but which in real life have entailed enormous catastrophes for the people who have had the misfortune of being struck by illness.

The goals are nothing other than disability insurance goals. Had it been about preventive work and rehabilitation, one would have invested in improving the working environment in, for example, the welfare sector and not, as the government and Sverigedemokraterna are now doing, lay a budget cut where tens of thousands of jobs in school, healthcare, and elderly care will disappear. Had the goals intended prevention and rehabilitation, there is already a fully investigated proposal that the government could have presented. But that is not what they do because the purpose is not to contribute to more people being healthy, but on the contrary, that those who are actually sick should be denied compensation.

Vänsterpartiet votes today against the execution insurance case. I regret that we stand alone there once again.

Mr. Speaker! People do not get healthier, but sicker from the treatment the system subjects them to. Not being believed is the height of humiliation. That is how you dehumanize a person. Vänsterpartiet, together with all of you who are active in various appeals to change the health insurance, has outplayed the previous government and other parties in front of us. I want to thank you very much. You should know that it is you who have made all the difference.

But now those who have been declared unfit to work over the years also need to be given redress and financial compensation and have their SGI back. There is much left to do.

Vänsterpartiet proposes that the karens period be abolished. The sharp time limits need to be removed, and the rehabilitation chain must become individualized and realistic. Medical certificates shall apply. Those who are chronically ill or have a disability must be granted the right to permanent compensation. Therefore, the already investigated changes to the sickness benefit must now be implemented.

Today, one is referred to Arbetsförmedlingen, but there one is told that one is too ill to receive help with a job, while Försäkringskassan considers that one is perfectly healthy. So it must not continue. That is what we shall work to change.

Mr. Speaker! It is we, the wage earners, who pay for the health insurance with our sacrificed wage space. It is our right. It is not a handout - we have earned it. Vänsterpartiet wants to raise the compensation levels broadly in both the sickness benefit and the sickness and activity allowance. We are the only party in the Riksdag that year after year removes the penalty tax for all the sick and unemployed in our budget.

This year's Christmas gift from the Sweden Democrats and the government cost 12 billion and goes to those who earn over 50,000 a month. It is not right. That money could have been used to significantly bolster the health insurance. We will continue to push forward. We always put people's security first. No palace events in the world could make us back down when it comes to people's right to economic security in the event of illness and disability. I therefore move for approval of the Left Party's reservation.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an engaged speech! I have looked a bit at all the opposition parties' budgets. One must say that they vary quite a bit.

As I mentioned before, S only adds 230 million, which in context - we are talking about 106 billion here - is pocket change. It is a very small reinforcement. V, on the other hand, makes a substantial reinforcement of 8 billion. Centerpartiet reduces the expenditure area by approximately 515 million, and MP adds almost 7 billion. So, it looks a bit different.

The first question I want to ask is how the member views the possibility of reaching an agreement with the other three parties on the left regarding specifically the health insurance issues. It would be interesting to hear the member's position on that question.

The member spoke about the redundancy pay. But in the Left Party's budget motion, I noticed that that sum is to be placed on the employer. These are economically tough times. I come from Skåne myself. During the month of October, I know that the bankruptcies there increased by approximately 40 percent. Does the member and the Left Party think it is reasonable to add further weight to the burden, so to speak, and place the redundancy deduction on the employer? Furthermore, it is not only companies that are affected, but all employers. It would have been interesting to hear member Ida Gabrielsson's views regarding this.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It will go terribly well to reach an agreement on this. Last time we negotiated – it was I myself who negotiated – we in Vänsterpartiet got through the list that I preferred here. It will go excellently next time. We will put health insurance first, unlike what the Sverigedemokraterna have done. Then the others will have to accept it, quite simply. I do not think that is any danger.

Furthermore, we in three of the parties agree that the sickness benefit must be improved and that the rules must be improved. It therefore feels like we have a good start.

Vänsterpartiet has also on several occasions suggested that we should look into whether the state could take over a portion of the sick pay costs for companies with up to 10 employees or up to 25 employees, which we have looked into.

There are, therefore, ways to compensate for the fact that employers incur increased costs. It is also possible to look at other variants for the future. If the member were interested in introducing a quarantine period, Vänsterpartiet could absolutely consider whether the state could step in and cover part of the costs. We are open to that.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer! Whether it is easy or difficult for you to reach an agreement is not for me to judge. The member may possibly speak with the Center Party's representative, who is not in the room now. That might be just as well.

I thank, as I said, for the answer that was given, but I have some reflections. The rate of increase in sick leaves right now is 6 percent. The member prefers, in an excellent way, the reinforcements that you think are right and that you want to make as a party. But I hear quite little about how to get down the rate of increase in sick leaves.

Would the member like to say something about the Left Party's proposals to actually reduce sick leaves? Even if the member does not want this as a goal, perhaps for other reasons, I believe that we in this chamber are nevertheless in agreement that for economic, social, and highly human reasons, it is good that as few as possible are on sick leave. Then I would like to hear something about how the member's party views those issues and wants to reduce the number of people on sick leave in Sweden.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! Vänsterpartiet is of the opinion that it will not affect how often people are ill based on what we write in the goals for the expenditure area. It is rather about which measures are introduced. In that regard, Vänsterpartiet has even allocated almost 20 billion more than the government to welfare. That could mean that one gets more colleagues and that the stress decreases. That is where we see that sick leaves increase. Sickness rates increase in female-dominated occupations.

There is also a completed proposal that involves an intensification of a preparatory sickness benefit, where interventions can be made earlier. But what becomes my counter-question is: What is it in this expenditure area that the Moderaterna believe will contribute to making the goals of lower sickness rates a reality?

It has indeed turned out that people have been ill previously but simply have not received compensation. That is what the statistics show. The reports that have been compiled have shown that people have instead paid for their own sick leave. They have reduced their working hours, tried to support themselves through relatives, or received social assistance. It is not the case that they have instead worked and been healthy.

My perception is that it is through other measures that we prevent. It is about the work environment, investments in welfare and preparatory measures. We have all these proposals in our budget, but in my opinion, the government lacks very many of these proposals in its budget.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet is a very generous party. Within the area of health insurance, the party wants to invest around 4.3 billion kronor more than the government does for the year 2023 and over 12.5 billion for the period 2023-2025.

These promises are part of a comprehensive battery of generous initiatives in various areas that cost around 450 billion kronor over the next three years. The problem is that we do not have this money, Madam Speaker. The Left Party's generosity is funded by an enormous tax shock of over 200 billion kronor over the three-year period, but that is not enough. Approximately 250 billion is missing, and these funds must obviously be borrowed at the high interest rates that unfortunately will prevail for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, Vänsterpartiet expects the national debt to increase by 250 billion during the next three years. This does not seem to concern Vänsterpartiet, which, over the next ten years, wants to replace today's surplus target with a deficit target for public finances. According to the party's calculations, it could amount to 800 billion kronor. It is about a gigantic indebtedness, Madam Speaker. It corresponds to an increase in the national debt of 80 percent.

My question to Member Gabrielsson is whether she considers it responsible to be generous with borrowed money and in this way finance today's investments with the help of future generations' resources.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I can give Mauricio Rojas a reassuring message here. The member does not need to be worried; we have a balanced budget this year. So it is no danger - no loan investment is taking place yet, and not a single borrowed krona will be used for operating costs such as sickness benefit, sickness allowance and other. Such things we, of course, finance within the reform space.

If the economic development allows it, Sweden nevertheless needs to expand. It is possible that we may need to postpone it for another year, depending on how the economic climate looks, because we do not want to enter with too large investments at a time when it might not work. That is why we are not starting with it this year. But Sweden needs to expand, just as we have done previously. We need a better railway. We need to transition. We need to ensure that housing is built and renovated.

It concerns a type of investment that cannot be made within a one-year budget because they are costly. In the long run, however, they pay for themselves. This is a completely different issue from the one we are debating today, namely the expenditure area that covers the right to compensation and security in the event of disability and illness. This has nothing to do with that, but Member Mauricio Rojas is very lucky as I am part of the Left Party's budget group and can still answer the question.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I know that you are part of the budget group, Ida Gabrielsson; you have signed the motion.

That is why it surprises me that you do not seem to have read page 128 in what you have signed. It states there that the national debt would grow by just over 25 billion in 2023. During 2024 it would be 115 billion, and in total it would be 251 billion kronor in 2025. It is not a balance. It is something else, namely a deficit.

You have also yourselves said that you want a deficit target over the next ten years, so that you can realize what you have said. Then you must admit that this is about a deficit – that you are going to borrow money and that this money is to be paid back by future generations. You talk about ten years and about 800 billion kronor in debt, which is to be paid by those who come after us. I actually do not think that is responsible. One must not burden future generations in that way.

I believe that the framework that Sweden has today for its public finances - the one that came into existence in 1996 and began to apply in 1997 - and where a surplus target is pursued over the entire economic cycle is very important for keeping the public finances in order. I hope that you never get help from other parties to have a deficit target over ten years and 800 billion in debt, Ida Gabrielsson. That would not be good for the coming generations, and it would not be good for the security in Sweden. In that case, we will pay more and more in interest.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The member is still not debating the expenditure area we are now discussing, namely that which covers the right to compensation in the case of illness and disability. In that area, we have no thoughts whatsoever of financing the costs through loans, but they are contained within the reform space we are bringing in.

For year one, we will have a balanced budget. If the situation then allows, we will move forward to ensure that we make the extensive investments that we believe we cannot postpone - for the sake of future generations. The climate transition needs to be made here and now. That is also how Sweden has built out the welfare in the past: We have made large investments to get railways and housing in place.

I understand that Member Mauricio Rojas has strong feelings regarding the 90s and the mess that, among other things, the then-bourgeois government had caused, but fortunately, we are no longer in the 90s. Now it is the 2020s that matter, and now we need to once again look at the possibility of carrying out large investments - which we of course pay back - in order to be able to transition quickly. It is about ensuring that people can get to work by public transport. People should be able to commute, and they should have somewhere to live. We shall have energy-smart homes.

Furthermore, we of course need to ensure that this is then paid for every year. It is entirely possible and reasonable to do this. We are no longer in the 90s, but now it is the future that matters.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal to approve the government's budget proposal for expenditure area 10 on economic security in case of illness and disability.

Everyone should live with the security that the collective carries and provides support when, for various reasons, one is unable to do so oneself. The Christian Democrats' starting point is that the social insurances shall contribute to an economic security regardless of when and where in life one finds oneself. At the same time, we believe that there is very much more to be done so that more people do not have to become ill.

The social security systems are of great importance for both people's security and people's behavior and motivations to work. The Christian Democrats advocate for a security system that provides economic security through life's different stages.

Social protection shall be designed so that the individual is encouraged to participate in measures that lead to the best possible health and to a rapid return to work after any illness or injury. For the latter, those who have or can regain a capacity for work must be given good access to rehabilitation and other necessary support.

To reduce sickness absence rates in a real and long-term way, the preventive work is also central. Kristdemokraterna want to emphasize that this preventive work must be seen in a broad perspective. It is not enough to only focus on workplaces and the problems that arise there. The fundamental need is a policy that broadly contributes to reducing stress and to creating good conditions for an improved public health.

The possibilities for each individual to put together their life puzzle are affected by the policies pursued in several different areas. We Christian Democrats believe that policy should, to the greatest extent possible, avoid governing and dictating people's lives. Instead, it should be aimed at continuously creating better conditions for individuals and families to manage their everyday lives.

The Christian Democrats therefore see it as important to increase people's everyday power and freedom of choice. A large proportion of the population is stressed about their own household's private finances. As a response to this, politics can increase ordinary people's economic room for maneuver.

Unfortunately, we have seen how proposals from previous governments have gone in the opposite direction. There has been a desire to exert more control over the everyday lives of individuals and families with children.

The Christian Democrats want to implement a clear shift within family policy, where power and influence over one's own everyday life is moved from politics to the individual families. In this way, today's stressed parents and children can get more time with each other while it is simultaneously possible to combine it with parenthood and work life.

Madam Speaker! There are additional pieces of the puzzle to counter disease. As has been said earlier, it is a self-evident fact that not all disease can be avoided through strong preventive work. In that case, healthcare must be there and offer good, accessible care within a reasonable timeframe.

Healthcare should help us all to feel well and provide care when we have become ill. This means that healthcare has both a health-promoting and a caring mandate. The health-promoting interventions must be further developed. Every person naturally has their own responsibility, but several of our societal sectors must contribute so that all people have good both physical and mental health and that preventive measures work.

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

Madam Speaker! It can be observed that the healthcare queues are still unacceptably long. This is not only due to the pandemic we have had and which is still highly relevant in our society. During the previous conservative mandate period, measures were taken that resulted in the queues being shortened. It is possible to do it again, and now the new government has started the work to do so.

We Christian Democrats have long argued for measures that should address the long healthcare queues. For us, it appears that increased state governance is required, which is also one of the many proposed changes in the Tidö Agreement.

A first step is taken with a national healthcare coordination to ensure that the available care places are shared by residents regardless of where they live. In the longer perspective, an investigation is being conducted with the aim of taking greater state responsibility.

Shortening the healthcare queues provides the opportunity for faster recovery and gives an opportunity to return fully to one's capacity for work. It is very positive for every human being but also positive for our society.

Madam Speaker! The new government intends to focus on rehabilitation and that the design shall counteract unnecessarily many sick leaves. This shall, among other things, occur through clearly defined review occasions. Measures will be put in place to counteract ill health, and a reform effort shall be initiated to increase the labor supply.

Since we can see a positive trend with increased life expectancy for our citizens, it is also required that more people work and create a foundation so that society can manage to meet the needs that exist in care, but also economically.

Improved rehabilitation and work based on the ability one has provides the conditions to meet this societal mission.

The Christian Democrats note that Sveriges Kommuner och Regioners national waiting list database shows that there are still strongly increasing healthcare queues and that they have increased during the pandemic when healthcare has been forced to cancel large parts of care in favor of treatment and focus on those affected by covid-19, and the healthcare queues continue to be long throughout the country.

Against that background, we, like the government, consider it important that the temporary legislation regarding exemptions from certain assessments within the sickness benefit in cases of postponed care or rehabilitation remains in force. We share the assessment that the provisions in the Social Insurance Code should be extended until December 2023.

Madam Speaker! Keeping down and preferably breaking inflation is the reason for the restrained budget that we see from the government. It is important for both those who have a job and those who are seeking work. It is important for those who are healthy or those who have reduced work capacity. We can state that inflation hits the most vulnerable the hardest.

Based on my reasoning, I want to support the budget for 2023 that has been pre-negotiated between the four parties Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna. These parties have jointly agreed on action programs in many areas. This provides a new direction for Sweden in many areas.

Even within this area, economic security during illness, there are things that can be done differently and better and that need to be changed.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is a privilege to be allowed to stand in the chamber on such a Monday evening to debate expenditure area 10. I mean that sincerely. It is one of the most important areas in the state budget. It is about how we, when we are struck by illness, injury, or a disability, shall have financial security.

It is interesting to take as a starting point the three goals that are set out for the expenditure area. The first is that, in the long term, we shall have a stable development of sickness rates at a low level. We shall not return to the situation we had in the early 2000s with rapidly increasing sickness rates and large early retirements. We shall try to unite around a regulatory framework that ensures we do not end up there.

The second goal concerns the regional differences. In that regard, we have fared significantly better now than we have in the past. There are still regional differences, but they are not as large as they have been. It is also one of the more interesting areas regarding research. Here, one can actually find some of the explanations for why we still have problems within the health insurance.

The third goal that I am most concerned about concerns the difference between men and women. There, the differences are unacceptably large regarding sickness rates, more specifically by a factor of two. Försäkringskassan has very clear statistics on that. There are major deficiencies in the research here.

Even within the occupational injury insurance, the differences between women's and men's approval rates are completely irrelevant. Men receive compensation for occupational injuries more easily than women do. Women receive poorer investigations than men, which in turn is due to the fact that the knowledge of the connections between work and the injuries and illnesses that arise is poorer in female-dominated workplaces than where men work.

There are a number of concrete proposals for improvements that could be made to the sickness insurance. Most of them can be found in the Social Insurance Inquiry's final report, which all parties support except for Vänsterpartiet. It is surprising that more have not reached the Riksdag's table. This includes, among other things, the possibility of using preventive sickness benefit significantly more than today.

There is already a possibility today to grant sickness benefit for preventive purposes. But it is not utilized nearly as much as it could be. For us in Centerpartiet, it is an important part to ensure that we reduce sickness absence through expanded use of preventive sickness benefit.

We also have a very rigid regulatory framework regarding the sickness benefit where sickness benefit is currently granted at 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent. An important change would be to make this more continuous. The step from 50 to 75 percent can many times be perceived as enormous, almost insurmountable. It would be an advantage if there were a possibility for a more gradual return to work.

There are also still ambiguities regarding Försäkringskassan's role in coordinating the measures needed for rehabilitation. This is interpreted differently by the parties involved in the process. It must become clearer here who does what.

The responsibility for coordination shall lie with Försäkringskassan from beginning to end. Försäkringskassan shall have the mandate to ensure that the parties gather and to ensure that there are resources for rehabilitation.

There is a very unfortunate pattern in that the rehabilitation starts far too late. The coordination meetings that Försäkringskassan has in its coordination mandate with the sick leave holder's employer are delayed by an average of 400 days after the first day of sick leave. After that, it takes even more time before the rehabilitation starts. Here, it is important to have clear boundaries for when rehabilitation measures should be initiated.

From parties both to the right and to the left, one hears increasingly loud demands from the rostrum for a general loosening of just the rehabilitation chain. We think that would be very unfortunate. It would risk us returning to the situation that we had at the beginning of the 2000s.

Madam Speaker! It is also important that the administrative burden for companies is reduced. One way could be to proceed quite quickly with the existing proposal on e-income, where there is an automatic reporting from the companies, from the employers, to the Tax Agency. This would provide a good basis for the calculation of SGI.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to highlight the situation for small business owners. For a small business owner, it can be completely devastating to be on sick leave – to be prevented from producing goods and services but also from delivering and being forced to cancel sales meetings and so on. Added to this is the administrative burden of managing one's own sick leave. Here, it is important that one can proceed with the decision that the Riksdag made in the spring of 2022 that those who are small business owners must be able to have a limited administrative activity in their company during parental leave. In the same way, it could also be developed to apply when one is on sick leave.

The group that we have discussed the least here today is people with disabilities. Even here, there are changes that could be made to achieve a significantly more efficient way to also give these people the opportunity to, for example, be able to run businesses – a way to be able to support themselves and break a sense of exclusion. This is about realizing one's dreams. These are people who have often become stuck in an activity compensation and never had a place on the labor market. Measures are needed here to enable even them to take a step out into the labor market.

Those who receive sickness benefit or activity compensation unfortunately do not profit from seeking work today because the income, even if one receives housing allowance, can decrease by a quarter if one registers with Arbetsförmedlingen.

It is important that people are continuously given the opportunity to enter the regular labor market. People living with a disability who receive sickness benefit or activity compensation must be given better opportunities to break their exclusion. Their situation can change, and therefore it must be possible for them to dare to try working without losing their compensation. The work can be full-time, part-time, on individual days, for longer or shorter periods.

Many with activity compensation today are entitled to daily activities via LSS. The compensation that is then received is paid by the municipality, which also decides which amount applies. It differs, as we all know, significantly between municipalities how much is paid out. When it comes to wage setting otherwise, it is in negotiations that the levels are set so that there are fair wages. We believe that also the compensation for daily compensation must become more uniform in the country's municipalities.

For those who have been granted sickness or activity compensation from July 1, 2008, the possibilities to study are limited. They have the possibility to study, but they must then pause their compensation. The compensation can then be suspended for up to six months for those who have activity compensation and two years for those who have sickness compensation.

Madam Speaker! In a free society, all people should be able to feel the freedom to test their wings. People who receive sickness benefit on a part-time basis have the opportunity to study on a part-time basis. This should also apply to those who have sickness or activity compensation. Studying should also be an alternative to what we call traditional daily activities.

Madam Speaker! Since our budget proposal has fallen, I would like to refer to our special statement.

I also take this opportunity on this Monday evening to wish everyone listening and Madam Speaker a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for his speech. The member highlighted several important aspects that we actually have not talked so much about today, including the focus on entrepreneurs. A big thank you for that! It is very important.

But I have a small reflection. The different budget proposals from the four parties that do not belong to the government base are a bit scattered. The Social Democrats make a marginal increase of 230 million kronor. That is small in context when we are talking about over 106 billion kronor. But both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet add quite large sums to this expenditure area, while Centerpartiet reduces it by 515 million kronor.

I previously asked a question to the member from Vänsterpartiet when I realized that I perhaps should have asked it to Anders W Jonsson. The question that I asked to Vänsterpartiet was: How are you going to be able to reach an agreement among the four parties on the left? And precisely in this context, I include C.

Ida Gabrielsson's answer from Vänsterpartiet was then: We will dictate the terms, and then the others will say yes. That is exactly what they did last time.

Therefore, I thought I would ask a concrete question about the quarantine deduction which is not included in the Center Party's budget motion. What does the Center Party think about reintroducing the removal of the quarantine deduction? Both the Left Party and the Green Party have included a removal of the quarantine deduction in their budget motions and have accounted for it in different ways. One of the parties wants to place this on the employers, which I believe would have been very bad in the economic situation we find ourselves in. And the other party has placed it within the framework of the budget. But what does the Center Party think about precisely a reintroduced removal of the quarantine deduction?

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that I get the opportunity to elaborate on this a little. When listening to this debate, I think there is a consensus between the old alliance parties - Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna and Centerpartiet. But if one also looks at the budget proposals, they do not differ so much from Socialdemokraterna. I believe it would be an enormous advantage for Sweden if we, just as we have previously done with the pension system, could find a truce when it comes to the health insurance. It is, in fact, deeply unfortunate to have a situation where there are constantly political battles and political struggles in the election campaign regarding different parts of this.

What I and the Center Party have as a dream in this situation is whether one could in some way achieve a large consensus between the Social Democrats and the former Alliance parties. And I do not believe at all that it would be impossible. The parties that in this debate are closest to each other in their view on how to expand the health insurance are actually the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party, who can take each other by the hand in very many issues. Within the framework of the Tidö Agreement, I have also seen Moderates and former Alliance friends really agonize over having had to completely accept the conditions that the Sweden Democrats have set up.

This ambition existed early in the 2000s when a parliamentary inquiry into health insurance was appointed. The ambition then was to return to having a stable health insurance system which, just as expressed in the first objective for this expenditure area, does not vary with political conjunctures. It may possibly vary with diseases that exist in society but nothing else.

Regarding the view on the quarantine deduction, I agree completely with the Moderates' view.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, member!

I do not have much more to add other than that I agree that we have a great deal of consensus. I also think that can be seen in the different budget options. They differ quite little, except for what concerns Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, which make a fairly large reinforcement in the area. The other parties can be said to have a fairly great consensus.

I would like to thank the member for the answer. We will have to see how the path forward becomes and if we can reach more agreements in the future.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I can then use my closing remarks to explain that the reduction we have made in the expenditure area is linked to our desire to return to the regulatory framework that existed previously, namely to have increased requirements for evidence at day 365. When I listen to the debate, I think there is a belief that sick leave is something completely harmless, that it is a gift from God to the population to be able to be on sick leave as much as one needs.

But we must keep in mind that it is a tool in healthcare that is associated with a number of very serious side effects, namely illness and death that are not linked to the illness that causes one to be on sick leave. We know from studies in Sweden that those who are on sick leave have a shorter life ahead of them. They have significantly more illness, not least mental illness. In the studies, one has naturally removed the fact that there is a reason for one to be on sick leave.

I would like to see significantly more of that in the debate. Sick leave is a fantastic instrument that we have to guarantee economic security in connection with illness and disability. But it is a double-edged sword that causes a great deal of harm, just as much of the other things one engages in within healthcare can do. Therefore, it is important with restrictiveness and that one tries to preserve the regulatory framework that exists for this.

Therefore, there is, I believe, a need for significantly more consensus and that the serious parties in the political center can jointly nurture the fantastic system we have for providing people with security.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Expenditure area 10 of the budget bill is one of the heaviest budget items, totaling over 100 billion kronor. The goal for the expenditure area is that absence from work due to illness shall be at a long-term stable and low level. It shall also not vary depending on whether you are a man or a woman or where in the country you live.

Madam Speaker! In a long-term analysis, a very positive development can be observed regarding the measure that best reflects the situation in the area, namely the number of people with health issues, that is, the number of net days per year that persons between 16 and 64 years of age on average receive sickness benefit, rehabilitation benefit, sickness compensation, or activity compensation. According to the budget bill, the number of people with health issues has decreased from just over 40 net days in the mid-2000s to 22 net days in 2021. This has resulted in more than a halving of the expenditures related to illness and disability in relation to the country's gross national product, from barely 7 percent of the gross national product in the late 1980s to 2.5 percent in 2021.

A generally improved state of health and healthier work environments have been important factors that can, at least in part, explain such a positive development. But the regulatory changes have also played a central role in the context. This was the case, for example, when an upward trend regarding sickness-related expenses was reversed in the early 1990s through the introduction of the sickness benefit period and the reduction of the replacement level. It is an important lesson that must not be forgotten, regarding how regulatory changes can affect the long-term development in a very significant way.

Madam Speaker! In this largely positive development, there is however a particularly concerning aspect that must be addressed so that much more is done in this area. It concerns the differences between women and men, which have even increased over time.

We can take the sickness benefit rate as an example, that is, the number of net days per year during which a person on average receives sickness or rehabilitation benefit. Here we can note - it is important not to overlook this aspect - a substantial general reduction in the long term. But the gap between women and men does not decrease but rather increases over time.

During the period with the highest recorded levels of sickness benefit rates, between the years 1987 and 1991, women's rates were 32 percent higher than men's. 15 years later, between 2002 and 2006, the gap had risen to 79 percent. And between 2016 and 2020, the gap was a full 99 percent. This development cannot be regarded as satisfactory and speaks of a tangible failure regarding the goal to reduce the differences in sickness absence between women and men.

Even more concerning is to note the role of mental diagnoses in this context. It is stated in the budget bill that "mental ill-health, in the form of, among others, anxiety and depression, is today the most common cause of sick leave for both women and men." The bill also states that the differences between women and men were significant in this area. Of approximately 87,000 people who were on sick leave due to a psychiatric diagnosis at the end of 2021, 61,000 were women and 26,000 were men. That means that women's sick leave due to psychiatric diagnoses was 2.3 times more common than men's.

There is much to do here, and the budget bill's analysis of the situation is accurate. "High performance requirements and occupations requiring high emotional and psychological commitment, which characterize the so-called contact jobs where many women work, contribute to women having a high risk of sick leave with psychiatric diagnoses. An additional factor contributing to women's sick leaves with psychiatric diagnoses is that women still take a greater responsibility for unpaid home and care work, i.e., to a greater extent than men combine gainful employment with the primary responsibility for children and home."

Madam Speaker! A society that in many ways is still unequal is, as clearly appears from the quote above, an important explanatory factor behind the significant gaps that we have observed regarding women's and men's utilization of the sickness insurance, especially with psychiatric diagnoses as the basis.

In that perspective, the national strategy for mental health announced in the government's declaration is a very welcome measure.

Madam Speaker! With these words, which call for continued work for a more equal society, I wish to conclude my speech and move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Mauricio Rojas speaks in his speech about the appalling statistics showing how much the ill health differs in the population. Many more women need to take sick leave, not least due to stress-related mental ill health. In Försäkringskassan's statistics, we see that it is in the health and social care professions that the sickness rates are highest. It is in the welfare sector that, above all, women become burnt out.

Madam Speaker! I truly welcome that the government is to produce a plan regarding mental health, but in the budget, those women who are worn out in the welfare sector are being let down. SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner) has calculated that an additional 14 billion kronor would have been needed to avoid making even more cuts in just the welfare sector. This concerns the healthcare and care professions. It concerns the preschools, where we have childcare workers and preschool teachers who are hit hard by exactly high workloads, large child groups, and conscience stress when they do not have time to see every child. It also concerns social workers and the staff within healthcare and care, who have suffered greatly during the pandemic.

But here the government, in which the Liberals are included, allocates so little money that it practically results in large cuts and even more weight on the shoulders of those who are already affected by high sickness rates. How does one think that it is going to add up?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Annika Hirvonen! It is a very important question. I truly hope that when the government returns with the new national strategy against mental ill-health, it will, among other things, address that question. It is extremely important to work in that way.

But I must also point out that the member Annika Hirvonen belongs to one of the generous parties. Both that and the Left Party are generous with the taxpayers' and future generations' money. Therefore, one can promise a lot. The Green Party's deficit and debt-incurring policy is extremely generous. It even surpasses the Left Party's, and that is no small thing in this context.

In the area of health insurance, it concerns just over 20 billion kronor over three years. But this is only a small part of the underfunded reforms that the party proposes. Despite a tax shock of approximately 150 billion kronor over three years, this results in a fiscal deficit of just over 350 billion kronor over three years. The national debt naturally grows by the same amount, or by 35 percent, in just three years.

My question back to Annika Hirvonen is whether she considers it responsible to promise reforms, investments, and much more, given that it is future generations who will be paying for this.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In the Green Party's budget, we borrow for investments in the climate transition. Coming generations will pay a terrible price for the climate denial policy that the Liberals have agreed to in the Tidö Agreement. In the government's budget, most money goes towards increasing climate emissions – that is the largest investment.

The Green Party presents a ten-year plan where we invest for a just climate transition. With our budget, we show that one does not have to pit the world's or even Sweden's most vulnerable groups against each other. By having an investment budget in the same way as in municipalities and regions, we ensure that we make the necessary climate transition here and now, when it is needed. At the same time, we have a policy where those who have a lot pay more in tax, so that those who have far too little for their wages to suffice at the end of the month will actually manage through the inflation crisis that everyone is now affected by due to Putin's actions against Europe.

We in Miljöpartiet take responsibility for future generations through a budget that entails a just climate transition. I interpret the Liberals' budget as one where, instead, the staff in the welfare sector are made to pay with their health.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the answer! The last part was harsh words.

I am reading from your budget motion. The national debt is growing by 82 billion next year. It will be 206 billion within two years and 352 billion within three years. It is a phenomenally rapid indebtedness, which, according to what you say, will continue for approximately ten years. Is that the intention? Do you have a deficit and debt policy that is much more aggressive than the Left Party's?

Miljöpartiet seems to lack the Left Party's honesty and does not want to call a spade a spade. Therefore, the party chooses to plead for a reform of the fiscal framework where the current surplus target shall be replaced with what the party in a very cryptic way calls a balance target. I wonder, member, how one can call a debt of 352 billion over three years a balance target. It is a word in your budget motion - balance target. You do not explain exactly what it means. I cannot make sense of this. You should say as the Left Party does: We plead for a deficit policy that shall be financed with loans, which shall be paid off by future generations. Then I would be able to understand.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and its puppet government are making a major investment in the budget to increase Sweden's climate emissions. They are stopping the protection of valuable nature, and they are presenting an electricity subsidy that gives the most to the richest while the very poorest are left behind.

The poor pensioners in northern Sweden do not receive a single krona in electricity support, and the extremely low minimum levels in the sickness and activity compensation are not being addressed, even though both food and winter shoes are becoming more expensive. We in Miljöpartiet show with our budget proposal that it is possible to do exactly the opposite. Instead of giving the most to the richest, we give more to those with the greatest needs.

The Green Party is transitioning to meet the climate goals while simultaneously distributing more money to the poorest. We propose that the period of absence deduction in the health insurance be abolished entirely. You who work in healthcare, childcare, or in a shop should have the same opportunity to stay home when you are sick as the civil servants who can work from home when the symptoms of illness knock. It is time to permanently abolish the unfair period of absence deduction and ensure that there are fair and decent conditions for you who need to stay home when you are sick.

Madam Speaker! The sickness benefit has not been fair. Many people have unexpectedly lost their sickness benefit despite not having recovered. I am very pleased that we have finally managed to achieve a change in the regulations that leads to fewer people being excluded after day 180. That is something we in the Green Party have worked hard for.

Another injustice that we environmentalists want to rectify is that people can lose their compensation retroactively and end up in debt to Försäkringskassan. We do not think it is reasonable that a person who has been signed off sick by a doctor can later be affected if Försäkringskassan makes a different assessment or if one wins in court and Försäkringskassan appeals the court's decision. That is what we want to put a stop to.

Miljöpartiet also proposes an increase in the minimum level of both the sickness and activity allowance and that it be made more flexible with increased opportunities to work, for example voluntarily, but also to study. We are convinced that more people can be given their rights in this way.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants a health insurance based on the individual, a health insurance where one is not bounced between different boxes or, in the worst case, left in between. Regardless of whether you who are ill are to receive your help from Försäkringskassan or Arbetsförmedlingen, we want to ensure that society sees to it that you receive the support you need and that society has an instance with a common health and work-life insurance. That is what we want to investigate instead of how fewer people should have the right to the common welfare.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet hope that the new government proceeds with many of the proposals that Samuel Engblom investigated so that health insurance can be improved in Sweden. But since we have invested much more money than the government in this expenditure area, I cannot vote in favor of the proposal today, as the Riksdag has already decided on a narrower budget framework for health insurance.

Economic security in the event of illness and disability

The Green Party's budget shows that it is possible to meet the climate goals, strengthen welfare, and improve the economy so that we can all manage the day we become ill. The Green Party shows that one does not have to pit vulnerable groups against each other.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Madam Speaker! Much has already been said in the debate that has now been ongoing for a few hours, and I am last. I stand behind the Social Democrats' special statement.

A secure health insurance is a part of a strong society. It is a central part of the welfare and constitutes an important contract between society and the individual. The health insurance shall provide security in the event of loss of income or when one lacks work capacity. It is an insurance that we all pay into when we work.

Those who fall ill should be able to expect financial security, good support, and rehabilitation to recover and be able to return to work. The Social Democratic government took several important steps towards a better sickness insurance, but more needs to be done.

I would like to take the opportunity to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

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