Economic security in case of illness and disability

Clara Aranda (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 10 Economic security in case of illness and disability, and I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

That psychiatric diagnoses are the most common reason for sick leave is nothing new. That is how it has been for many years.

Mental ill-health continues to increase, and during 2024, sickness absence has reached new records. Regardless of profession, it is women who run twice the risk of becoming ill due to stress, which Försäkringskassan also notes in a recently released report.

The diagnosis that leads to the most long-term sick leaves is exhaustion syndrome, which is caused by prolonged negative stress. During the spring of 2024, there were 43,500 people who were on sick leave due to stress. 34,300 of these were women. This is an increase of 25 percent when compared to the same time in 2019.

Försäkringskassan has previously reported that women are affected by longer sick leaves to a greater extent, and it is the combination of a poor work environment and a double workload that, among other things, lies behind the higher absenteeism specifically among women.

Försäkringskassan reports in another report that among people with psychiatric diagnoses, a full 86 percent stated that work had contributed to their sick leave.

Research is clear that the work environment is a decisive cause behind the development, where we can see structural problems particularly within female-dominated industries. We know that many women work within welfare in contact professions close to people who have great needs for help. There are also significant work environment challenges there, not least when it comes to the existing imbalance between set requirements and the actual resources available at the workplace.

Madam Speaker! We can also note that there is an increased risk for men who work in the welfare sector and have a double workload, even though that group is smaller.

During 2023, stress-related illness accounted for 21 percent of the total paid out sickness benefit, corresponding to 9.2 billion. That is 14 percent more than the year before. And we can see that the trend is upward.

Due to the development, it is important that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, now implement a number of accurate measures. Let us look at what we have signaled in the budget for the coming year. We are developing the contribution for workplace-oriented rehabilitation support. We allocate 20 million kronor, which will make it easier for employers to take their rehabilitation responsibility and at the same time work to utilize the expert resources of occupational health services.

In the same way as it takes a long time to develop a fatigue syndrome, systematic work environment work is a long-term investment for a sustainable work environment and healthy employees.

Showing interest only in high figures in sickness absence and trying to reduce these as quickly as possible does not solve the underlying problem. The solution involves, among other things, taking a holistic approach to mental health and truly choosing preventive measures with an understanding that the effects will not be immediate. Therefore, it is quite difficult to stay entirely within the framework of the expenditure area we are debating, when a more comprehensive description of what we actually do together with the government is required.

Madam Speaker! I would therefore like to take the opportunity to mention that we are meeting the increasing mental ill-health, which is the cause of almost half of all long-term sick leave cases, with a series of strategic interventions in the area. Among other things, we are making a targeted investment in primary care and first-line care when it comes to the work with mental ill-health. There, we are adding half a billion for 2025.

We are working to ensure care in a timely manner and at the correct level of care, which is obviously absolutely crucial from a sickness insurance perspective. For example, untreated mental ill-health risks worsening the medical condition and prolonging the recovery time. These are therefore crucial investments to, among other things, counteract long-term sick leave.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have also commissioned an inquiry to produce a new work environment strategy with the aim of creating a better work environment for everyone. We agree with the government that Sweden should have a working life where work-related diseases and injuries are prevented to the greatest extent possible and that we must focus on measures to ensure exactly this. Then, it is obviously equally important to become better at handling the cases where this nevertheless happens.

We are presenting an overall supplement to Försäkringskassan of almost 900 million kronor for 2024, and substantial supplements are also planned for coming years. This gives the agency good conditions to work towards reducing processing times, strengthening service, and reducing incorrect payments. It will also provide better conditions to counteract benefit fraud.

Madam Speaker! In addition to the measures I have accounted for, we are reviewing the possibility of work trials with maintained sickness benefit for a shorter period. We will also continue to work on the conditions for partial sickness and activity allowance during studies. These are proposals that the Sverigedemokraterna have long advocated for, and we are very pleased that there is now a consensus on continuing to work on this.

It is also pleasing that we, together with the government, are now increasing the compensation for persons with sickness and rehabilitation allowance in special cases. The Sweden Democrats and the government are also ensuring that the basic protection of sickness and activity allowance is strengthened through a connection principle, which implies a requirement for a long period of connection to Sweden to obtain full entitlement to the social insurance's basic protection.

In conclusion, I can state that we in Sverigedemokraterna have said no to proposals for a return to a more restrictive regulatory framework in the sickness insurance, which according to us would lead to a worsened sickness insurance system. The most important thing for Sverigedemokraterna is that Sweden has a well-functioning and fair sickness insurance system that develops for the better, and we will always stand up for what we believe is right and proper.

The Sweden Democrats' ambition is to continue their political work in that direction. We do not at all consider the sickness insurance to be complete, and we are well aware that more must be done. Sweden shall be a country with a welfare to rely on, and the conditions for this we best create through our cooperation with the government. Sweden needs stability and the right focus forward, and it is my conviction that the Tidö cooperation will be able to deliver just that.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! "We are the social conscience of the Tidös Agreement." That is the headline of a debate article signed by Clara Aranda and Oscar Sjöstedt. The lead reads: "We promised the voters that the health insurance would become better, not worse. Now we are fulfilling that promise."

This fact that the Sweden Democrats are now going to improve the sickness insurance, I think was a very exciting piece of news. One wonders then if it is a removal of the rehabilitation chain that is underway. Or is it about a removal of the waiting period deduction? Is it about higher compensation generally for those on sick leave? I am extremely curious to hear what improvements the Sweden Democrats have had approved in the negotiations, because after two years with this government, we have not seen any improvements so far.

On the contrary, they have stopped all investigations that were to look at improvements within the sickness insurance - those investigations that we in Vänsterpartiet got through when our mandates were needed in the cooperation with Socialdemokraterna. They were investigations that were to review improvements in the sickness insurance and review the possibility of abolished waiting periods.

Instead, this government has devoted all its time to investigating the removal of the improvements that the Left Party (V) pushed through together with the Social Democratic-led government in 2021, which means that many more can now be on sick leave for longer periods. The government has devoted all its time to investigating why it would be bad for those on sick leave to be able to have more time to be rehabilitated.

I therefore really want to ask the member how she can look her voters in the eye and speak of improvements in the health insurance.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I have just given a speech of almost eight minutes in which I accounted for many of our initiatives. The member must therefore be a bit more attentive.

Shall we discuss what we actually do or what the Left Party once again claims the Sweden Democrats will do? I understand the Left Party's ignorance when it comes to what it actually is to govern and take responsibility for a country. Despite the fact that the Left Party has existed in Swedish politics for over 100 years, you have never, ever sat in a government, Isabell Mixter. You have never ever assumed the formal role in a cooperation. You can sprinkle as much money as you want and promise everything to everyone - it is not credible.

Tell me instead how you are going to gather a majority for your proposals! How are you going to govern the country together with the Social Democrats, who are happy to talk about which investments they want to make but do not allocate a single krona to carry out the investments? And how are you going to cooperate in that regard with the Center Party, which wants to reduce the allocations in the expenditure area? Please tell me how you are going to make that work!

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It is very interesting to hear the member's answer to my question. This can only be interpreted as the Sweden Democrats being satisfied with their way of being a part of this government. They are satisfied with having laid down all those investigations that actually would have looked at improvements within the sickness insurance, even though the Sweden Democrats' demands in sickness insurance issues year after year have been close to the Left Party's.

You have demanded major improvements, Clara Aranda, and beat the big drum about being the ones who stand up for those on sick leave. At the same time, you stand here and say that it is not so easy to govern and that Vänsterpartiet should give it a try. But do you know what? We actually have it in black and white what happened when Vänsterpartiet's mandate was needed—when we were needed—in cooperation with the Socialdemokraterna. Then the sickness insurance was improved. For the first time in 13 years, if one is to be exact, the sickness insurance was improved. More people were given the opportunity to be on sick leave longer when Vänsterpartiet's mandate was needed.

What you have done is completely ignored this issue now when your mandates were needed. I know for a fact that you have also sat in government just as little as Vänsterpartiet, so it is to sit on quite high horses to say that Vänsterpartiet should try it. We shall see how it goes in the election and if it turns out that Vänsterpartiet will once again have to show that the health insurance becomes better when we are part of the government.

We now see the result of the Sweden Democrats being involved in the decision-making: Then you don't give a damn about this issue. You say beforehand that the issue is very important, but when you are actually sitting and negotiating, it is not so important. When you have then succeeded in shutting down a small investigation, you say: Now we have won - we are the social conscience of the Tidö agreement. Feel free to look your voters in the eye and say that, the Sweden Democrats! I do not believe that your voters are satisfied, and I hope that on election day they will choose differently.

(Applause)

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament says that more people were given the opportunity to be on sick leave for longer thanks to the Left Party. Is that the objective – that more people should be on sick leave for longer? I think that sounds very problematic.

We are to counteract people ending up in that situation. The one who nevertheless does so shall, of course, receive proper support from society. But that is what should be the goal, that is to say to counteract, for example, the mental ill-health, which I spoke about in my speech. That is where we should place the focus, not on more people being dependent on benefits any longer or feeling unwell any longer. We shall focus on the right measures.

The Left Party's proposal is based on giving everything to everyone without a thought for creating incentives or innovation. It is clear.

It is said that Vänsterpartiet has been in Swedish politics for 100 years. Sverigedemokraterna has been there for 36 years. That is a bit of a difference. Still, we have achieved quite a bit more. We are a formal support party. Vänsterpartiet has not achieved that yet. I see that it is very difficult for Vänsterpartiet to do so given the fragmented opposition.

It may be that the Left Party itself considers that they have the best policy, but you have clearly not received the voters' support to implement it. I am humble before the fact that there is still very much to be done within the health insurance. But I still think that we have presented a budget proposal that in its entirety is good for Sweden, and that is something I am proud of.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: In all good intentions, I remind you of the language in the chamber and that everyone speaks via the Speaker and not directly to each other.)

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! Week after week we are fed headlines about the fact that stress-related ill health is increasing. Sick leave due to stress is increasing. This primarily concerns women working in care professions within the welfare sector. And this is alarming. It is terrible for all those affected by mental ill health and stress. It is terrible for their finances, their lives, their social existence and their families, but it is also terrible for all the people for whom the welfare sector exists: children, the elderly, weak and fragile people who need care and help. But those who work in the welfare sector are not given the opportunity to do a good job, and they become ill for that reason. It is a failing grade for our society.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, the answer to increased sickness absence rates is not to worsen the sickness insurance. We know that the person who is ill does not actually get healthy by also being made poor. Our answer to increased sickness absence rates is about providing the opportunity for preventive work, so that people do not need to become ill from their jobs, from stress, and from mental ill-health. There, unfortunately, the SD government is indebted to the answer in next year's budget.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, it is important that the large welfare employers, that is to say municipalities and regions, are given the resources required to increase staffing, so that there are more people working within care professions and so that they have time to do a good job, have time to finish their work, have time to see every child, have time to sit with every elderly person, have time to conduct proper investigations and have time to provide support and help to the people who need it. It is only in this way that we can build a good welfare, a sustainable society and people who have the strength to work their whole lives.

That is why we are investing 6 billion more than the SD government parties in inflation-proofing the state grants to municipalities and regions. That is also why we are investing 3 billion more than the SD government in increased staffing within health and medical care.

If we, as Member Clara Aranda said, are to give the health and medical care the opportunity to provide support, help, and rehabilitation to people who have been affected by mental ill-health, for example stress-related ill-health, then the healthcare must also have the resources that are needed. We cannot constantly cut back on public activities and constantly give those who work there worse conditions to do a good job.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats, in this year's committee motion regarding the sickness insurance, focus primarily on three things. The first thing we focus on is that the unfair waiting period deduction must be removed. It has played out its role on today's labor market. It is terribly unfair that it is the people who cannot work from home—those who need to drive the buses, clean the premises, take care of the children, and so on—who are forced into wage deductions, but not those who can work from home when they have a cold.

We Social Democrats hate injustices, and this is a priority area for us. Unfortunately, the Tidö government, as is known, laid down the investigation that we commissioned to review the sick pay deduction, so there are no finished proposals. Therefore, we also do not have any figure for this in our budget, but it is a priority area for us – rest assured! The ambition is clear: The sickness insurance shall function for all wage earners regardless of profession and type of workplace.

Focus area number 2 concerns those who have a long-term reduced capacity to work and therefore receive sickness or activity compensation. They have long had worse rules for the assessment of compensation than those who are on sick leave, and we consider that unfair and wrong. Therefore, we also propose this year a changed concept of the labor market when assessing sickness and activity compensation. Let us hope that it is the last time we need to submit this proposal and that the conservative parties can support it. It is truly something that people with long-term reduced capacity to work need.

Our third focus area is that a review of employers' responsibilities is truly needed. On one hand, we need to ensure that employers work preventatively, so that people do not become ill from their jobs; on the other hand, we need to ensure that employers more quickly develop a plan for return to work for those employees who have nevertheless been signed off sick. It is completely unreasonable that there are currently no economic incentives for employers to do the right thing and that there are no sanction possibilities regarding those employers who do not work preventatively and do not ensure that they do what is required to get their employees back into a sustainable work situation. This is what we Social Democrats want to change.

Madam Speaker! There is, of course, more that needs to be improved in the health insurance, but to drive this, a Social Democratic-led government is needed. In the meantime, I urge the Tidö parties to press Minister Anna Tenje to present the proposals from the working group she appointed, so that this becomes a reality. It will not remedy the entire injustice, but it is at least a small step in the right direction. It is the same thing with the proposals from the SGI investigation. Why is the government not acting? There are ready-made proposals.

We also urge the government to reform the Swedish workers' compensation insurance. There are also ready-made proposals from a commission that, as I understand it, is basically unanimous. The ILO list is very important – international guidelines for work-related injuries. But in Sweden, that list is outdated and insufficient.

We Social Democrats and the trade union movement demand that repetitive strain injuries and stress-related injuries be added to the ILO list, so that they too can be classified as work-related injuries. The insurance system must keep pace with societal development, otherwise workers are left without protection when they need it most.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, it is important that the sickness insurance should truly be an insurance, something we pay into when we work and that should be there when we need it. It should be there also for women who work in care professions in the welfare sector. It should be there also for construction workers who cannot work from home when they have a cold. It should be there also for facility managers, bus drivers, retail employees and everyone else.

We Social Democrats want to restore confidence in the welfare system, not make sick people poorer. I refer to our specific statement in the report.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! The goal for expenditure area 10 Economic security in case of illness and disability is that absence due to illness shall be at a long-term stable and low level. The purpose of the sickness insurance is to provide compensation for loss of income in case of illness and rehabilitation. People shall feel secure that help is available when they are affected by an illness that prevents them from working.

At the same time, it is important that the Riksdag monitors that the regulatory framework does not contribute to lock-in effects, but that the design counteracts unnecessarily long and frequent sick leaves. There must be clear incentives for both the individual and other actors, such as Försäkringskassan and employers, to act for a rapid return to work. The focus must be on rehabilitation with clearly defined review points.

In this debate, I want to begin—as I may paint a rather gloomy picture of reality moving forward—by reminding the chamber that sickness absence in the very long term is historically low. The difference between the genders is, however, obvious. Half of the population, the women, are more frequently on sick leave, on sick leave for longer, and more often on sick leave due to mental ill-health. For women, there are also greater regional differences in the sickness leave statistics.

Madam Speaker! We can also see an increase in sickness rates during 2023. The increase consists largely of sick leaves that last longer than a year. This is partly explained by the changes implemented by the Social Democratic government in 2021 and 2022, when it became easier to be on sick leave for a longer period. It is obvious that we must continue to monitor this development very closely.

Minister Anna Tenje has taken several initiatives regarding sick leave. Most recently, this occurred in the form of round-table discussions together with municipalities and regions to discuss, for example, the sick leave among women working in the public sector and that we must join forces. All actors must step forward.

Madam Speaker! The purpose of the sickness benefit is for people to return to work as soon as possible. We know that having one's own income, colleagues, and routines is incredibly important. It means security, social contexts, and the opportunity to have a more stable economy. Therefore, it is primarily the long sick leaves that worry me.

Every fourth illness has lasted longer than two years, and many of them are due entirely or partially to mental ill-health. We have not had such figures since the Social Democrats governed the sickness insurance during the early 2000s. People were hidden and forgotten then in order to polish the statistics. People with work capacity were retired prematurely, and young people with disabilities were completely disregarded.

Unlike the red-greens, we Moderates see the potential in people. The Moderate-led government sees the need for young people, for example those receiving activity compensation, to receive increased support and therefore gives Försäkringskassan the task of investigating the conditions for work-preparatory and work-life-oriented interventions. We believe that everyone has the opportunity to contribute, and we want to give them the opportunity to do so. We can also state that with a flourishing business sector and a great need for staff in large parts of the welfare sector, we cannot afford to write people off either. On the contrary, more must be involved and contribute and work for a wealthier Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I am also concerned, as I have said, that women in the middle of life who work in school, health care, and elderly care are particularly affected by sick leave. Women with these important occupations are more often ill than men, both in the same occupational group and in other occupations. They stand out in the statistics. Therefore, the government's package of measures to strengthen the return to work in various ways is important. Several instances must join forces, and a broad effort is needed with healthcare, employers and occupational health services, as well as with Försäkringskassan and other decisive authorities.

The government intends, for example, to support and develop the healthcare system's work with sick leave and rehabilitation. We also need to improve the basic structure for a systematic work with insurance medicine. This shall take place together with first-line work with mental health and investments in primary care - which, although handled in a different expenditure area, to the highest degree affects the work with a healthier population.

Madam Speaker! The budget bill on the table has a large and important focus on precisely the rehabilitation work to ensure that more people can return to work. Therefore, we strengthen the budget for workplace-oriented rehabilitation support. We also task the responsible authorities with developing their cooperation and supervision of employers' work environment and rehabilitation responsibilities.

The budget proposal also contains the possibility of work assessment with maintained sickness benefit and work training. It contains a removal of the upper age limit for switching to a shorter period of absence for self-employed persons. The system is also harmonized to abolish the so-called home country period within sickness and activity compensation in line with the changes that were made for the guarantee pension in 2023.

The government is also acting to ensure that social insurance benefits cannot facilitate and enable those who are suspected or convicted of a serious crime to evade investigation, prosecution, or the execution of a sentence. One might think that this should have already happened, but that is not the case. Now, however, the government is acting, and it is important and welcome.

In the budget proposal, we are consolidating efforts around the core operations through strengthened case handling and an increased focus on countering incorrect payments and benefit fraud. The Social Insurance Agency's own control unit usually describes it as every invested krona yielding 11 kronor back. Our agencies have not had sufficient tools or mandates to take a decisive stand against benefit fraud. It is downright offensive to see the enormous sums that go to criminals. It is high time to choke the criminal economy!

Madam Speaker! Society's collective strength and support must be there when one is struck by illness. It should be a helping hand and a warm embrace to lean back against when illness strikes. But it should then be a gentle push back to work and back into the community. There must be good conditions for a long and sustainable working life. It is central to work for a good working environment as well as rehabilitation and adaptation measures with a focus on countering many and long sick leaves. We need to develop the cooperation between different actors in the sick leave processes. We are doing that now in connection with this budget, which contains important steps on the way toward a healthier population.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare and Viktor Wärnick (both M) concurred.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to keep my tongue in check this time and avoid unpleasant words. We shall see how it goes.

Member Caroline Högström spoke about her concern that women in the middle of life within healthcare, school, and care are high in the sick leave statistics. That far we agree on the description of reality. That is how it looks in this country. One can, however, become a bit thoughtful - if the member, like I, is concerned about this - about the fact that the crisis within healthcare, school, and care is simultaneously allowed to continue.

We have the worst healthcare crisis in decades in this country, and the government prioritizes spending 34 billion on tax cuts. These tax cuts go primarily to those who already have the most in their wallets. At the same time, they let the crisis in welfare continue.

For me, it is a quite clear connection: If one continues to let there be far too few staff members within these operations, more will simply become signed off on sick leave. It is quite simple mathematics, and I would very much like to hear the member reason around that. How does she view the fact that one continues to underfund welfare and at the same time worries about the high sick leave rates within these industries and sectors?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by saying that I do not agree at all with Isabell Mixter's description of the budget. On the contrary, we are making investments in the regions and the municipalities.

Above all, I also want to say that I am not ashamed in the least that we propose tax cuts for ordinary people. I am not ashamed in the least that we go back to the principle of half remaining upon a wage increase. I am not ashamed in the least that an average wage earner in, for example, Surahammar gets to keep approximately 3,300 kronor more in a year in these economically tough times. I am not ashamed in the least that work should pay off and that those who set the clock and go to work should get to keep a little more of their hard-earned money. I am not ashamed in the least about that. I do not think that anyone else should either.

This is what is the key. The key is not more and more subsidies, but the key is that work shall pay off. Those who set the clock shall get to keep a little more of their own money. It is important for Sweden's economy. It is important for the individuals. This is completely the right prioritization, in my opinion.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It becomes quite absurd to hear the member's answer. One defends these enormous tax cuts and says that they are reasonable while at the same time we see a welfare system that is about to collapse.

It is said that those who set the clock should be paid for the effort. It is actually so, if one is to be honest, that the very largest part of these tax cuts does not go to the childcare worker or to the nursing assistant. And when they one day become sick leave due to the poor working conditions prevailing within these sectors, they will not get a bit of your tax cuts. Those who are on sick leave are actually doubly hit in this, while at the same time one is now lowering the tax for those who go and work.

One might think that this is very good. We also want to see people working, but we know that this working life leads to people being signed off sick. They then do not get a bit of your tax cuts. They have to continue with low benefits that hardly cover food and rent. They have to borrow money from their relatives just to have the means to survive the day. At the same time, it is said that it should pay to work.

What is the reward for having worked a whole working life and worn oneself out? What is the reward for being signed off on sick leave? Well, Prime Minister Ulf – now I am starting to mix up the names Åkesson and Kristersson; if I'm honest, I don't really know who is the Prime Minister in this government – [you] get thousands of kronor in tax cuts while at the same time those on sick leave get nothing.

What is the thanks for having worked a whole working life and worn oneself out, for having tried day in and day out to solve all the crises in preschool and in healthcare? The thanks is that one gets nothing, while at the same time Ulf Kristersson is worth a hundred times more in terms of tax cuts than one is oneself. How does the member view that?

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Isabell Mixter, for showing in some way how you completely ignore what we say in this chamber, do not read the budget, and do not even know who is the Prime Minister in Sweden!

I raised an example in my speech about a person in Surahammar who gets to keep 3,300 kronor more per year. This is calculated on an average income, approximately the same as an average preschool teacher or teacher in earlier grades in Surahammar has. Precisely the person the member says does not get to keep more is actually the one who gets more money in their pocket. That person's work pays off. This makes a difference for the person who takes care of the children while we others can work. It is these people who get the best of it. It is they who actually get more of this tax cut. It is for them we do this.

Ulf Kristersson's salary will be high regardless of this, because he is Prime Minister and has that job. But those who toil in healthcare are the ones who will get to keep more of our tax cuts. They are the ones who get paid for their effort.

This shows that one doesn't care at all.

In this budget, there are clear investments in rehabilitation and the work environment. One must, after all, return to work after a sick leave. It is returning to work that is the goal, not more and more benefits.

One can read the Left Party's budget motion. They propose 16 billion in increased grants. Where are those funds supposed to come from? Who will work and ensure the financing of the welfare state when more and more people are to go on grants and end up in different types of grant traps with the Left Party's policy?

In the Left's Sweden, it seems to be unthinkable to strengthen people's independence and to make people free from dependency on benefits. It seems completely unthinkable in the Left Party's Sweden, but in the Moderates' Sweden, this is the goal. More people shall work. More people shall return to work. One should be able to manage a whole working life. It should also pay off in retirement. There we have an important difference between the Left and the Moderates, because the Moderates say: Work shall always pay off.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: As Speaker, I must continue to remind that we speak through the Speaker and do not, as so often happens, use "you" and speak to one another.)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! After two years of the government's and the Sweden Democrats' governing, the priorities are clear. We see what the government prioritizes in its budget. Unfortunately, it is not economic security in the event of illness and disability, which we are debating here today. The most prioritized target group in Tidögänget's budget is people with monthly salaries of over 70,000-80,000 kronor.

At the same time as the government has spent 34 billion kronor on tax cuts, healthcare remains in crisis, and households are under great strain.

Vänsterpartiet notes that the government, point by point, fails to manage the problems we face. We see how unemployment is growing, how faith in the future has stalled, how inequality is increasing, how healthcare is in crisis, and how the climate transition is left to its own fate.

The Left Party's budget proposal stands in stark contrast to the Tidö parties' budget. Instead of a policy that benefits a few, we present a budget that addresses societal problems and gives ordinary people more in their pockets.

Trade's report "Sick at Work" shows that a full seven out of ten in trade go to work despite illness. In the entire labor market, it is around 60 percent who do the same. The two most common reasons why people go to work despite illness are that one does not want to burden their colleagues and that one cannot afford to stay home.

It is thus the case for a good many of those who work: One cannot afford to be at home despite illness. I think we should be able to agree in this chamber that this is a problem.

During the pandemic, there was an opportunity to receive compensation for the quarantine deduction from Försäkringskassan in order to reduce the spread of infection. One might think that is reasonable as a general practice, but that compensation has now been removed.

At the end of the previous parliamentary term, an inquiry was appointed to review the period of absence from work due to illness (karensavdrag). The conclusion could have been that the period of absence from work due to illness should be removed, but we do not know that because the inquiry was not allowed to continue. It was shut down by this government and the Sverigedemokraterna.

With the Left Party's budget alternative for the expenditure area we are debating today, the sick pay deduction would be abolished. It is no more than reasonable that we level the economic injustice that it means some have occupations where one can work from home despite having a cold, while others have occupations where they meet many people and have a higher risk of being infected and cannot work from home. The latter are hit hard economically when they fall ill.

Madam Speaker! The sickness insurance, the security that exists when we become ill, is poorly functioning today. The member before me, from the Moderaterna, spoke about security. But that is probably not what the public thinks of first and foremost in the matter of sickness insurance.

We have heard countless stories about people who end up in limbo, who lose their benefits and who are denied despite having very severe illnesses and being unable to work.

There are uprisings on Facebook that gather nearly 100,000 people who share their stories about how this system does not work and about how it is not about safety.

We have seen decades of austerity and tightening of the regulations. There is a great deal of uncertainty for the person who becomes ill regarding whether they will receive compensation at all and, if they do, whether it is enough to live on. We simply need to solve this.

With the Left Party's budget alternative, the ceiling for sickness allowance would be raised so that 80 percent of wage earners receive 80 percent of their salary in compensation if they were to receive sickness allowance. It is an important principle. If we are to have a system that we can rely on to give us compensation when we fall ill, the ceiling in the sickness allowance must be raised.

Today, the situation is such that if one is on sick leave for more than a year, the compensation is suddenly lowered from 80 percent to 75 percent. One might think it is reasonable that people should return to work as quickly as possible, the Left Party also thinks that, but there are also occasions when it is not possible to return to work any faster. One might simply have a severe illness that makes it necessary to need a longer period to rehabilitate. Why should one then be punished by receiving less money in the wallet?

It is completely unreasonable, and therefore Vänsterpartiet wants to remove the sickness benefit at the so-called continuation level so that even after one year, one shall receive a compensation corresponding to 80 percent.

Those who have been unemployed before becoming sick leave receive 543 kronor a day today, a compensation that has not been increased since 2015. At the same time, we have had skyrocketing inflation. Anna, who has had to use her pension savings to pay the bills, describes the amount in the newspaper Arbetet as a mockery.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see the ceiling for the sickness benefit for job seekers raised to 712 kronor per day and then indexed. It is not reasonable that it remains at the same level year after year despite the fact that costs and other wage developments are increasing. This is what we propose in our alternative.

Those who live on sickness or activity allowance also receive a very low allowance that is practically impossible to live on today. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to see that the allowance level within the sickness and activity allowance is raised to 80 percent of the assumed income. The right to these benefits shall also be assessed against the same labor market concept that applies to the right to sickness benefit.

Vänsterpartiet demands the rejection of the government's bill to remove the rule on the crediting of home leave for sickness benefit and activity benefit in the form of guarantee compensation. This government is conducting a policy that puts people in poverty.

The right to a lifelong pension for those who have been injured at work has been weakened for a long time. We have therefore included proposals in our budget aimed at ensuring that more people are entitled to a lifelong pension.

During this government's time, we have seen how the processing times at Försäkringskassan have created major problems for people waiting for decisions and for compensation. The government now seems to have woken up in the eleventh hour and after countless reports about people who have been forced to borrow money from relatives or turn to social assistance in order to survive the day.

Försäkringskassan has also for a long time been very clear that they need more money to fulfill their mission. The latest budget request from Försäkringskassan cannot be misinterpreted. The message was: We need more money, or else the government needs to tell us what we should not do.

In this budget, the government has added some money, and that is good. But I and the Left Party are skeptical as to whether it will be enough, because one has not fully met the demands of Försäkringskassan. One has also added more assignments to Försäkringskassan.

It is extremely important for our security systems and for the trust in our authorities that processing times do not become unreasonably long. In our budget proposal, we therefore increase Försäkringskassan's appropriation in order for processing times to be able to decrease.

Under both previous bourgeois governments and social democratically led governments, goals other than economic security and rehabilitation have been relevant within the sickness insurance. We have seen the stalemate and the immense consequences it had. We have also seen how the quantified goals in sickness insurance policy have led to forced insurance and personal tragedies.

It is therefore time that the goal for the expenditure area is changed so that the goal, instead of figures and having as few people as possible on sick leave, becomes to provide economic security in the event of illness and effective support so that the individual shall regain their capacity for work and be able to return to work.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1.

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 government's budget proposal for expenditure area 10 Economic security in case of illness and disability.

We can all be affected by illness or injury, and when it happens, it is important that there is help and support from our society, naturally in the short term but also as a security if the process of coming back after what happened becomes long.

The starting point for us Christian Democrats is that social insurances should provide a basis for economic security in the event of accident or illness, regardless of where and when in life you find yourself. At the same time, we believe that there is much more that can be done so that more people do not have to become ill. How social insurances are structured and how they function is of great importance for both people's security as well as people's behavior and motivations for working.

We advocate for a security system in society that provides economic security, but for the sake of freedom of choice, there must also be complementary solutions and personal responsibility. The social insurance system shall stimulate the individual to participate in measures that lead to good health and also to a rapid return to work after any illness or injury. For this to occur, access to rehabilitation and other support is also needed, both from society and from the employer. The employer needs to ensure that those who have and can obtain a work capacity are given good access to this support.

Madam Speaker! In order to significantly reduce sickness absence rates, the preventive work is also important. The preventive work must be seen in a broad perspective. It is a matter of not only focusing on the workplace and the problems that arise there, but it also requires a policy that broadly contributes and provides support and options for all of life's challenges. We need to reduce stress and create conditions for improved public health. The possibilities of achieving a balance in one's life puzzle are influenced by the conducted policy.

We Christian Democrats believe that policy, to the greatest extent possible, should avoid governing and dictating people's lives. Instead, one should create conditions for individuals and families to manage their everyday lives and increase people's everyday power and freedom of choice. Often, in the light of history, we have seen steps in the opposite direction, how there is a desire to govern more both for individuals and for families with children.

We want to see a clear shift, among other things within family policy, where power and influence over one's own everyday life is moved from politics to the individual families. In that way, stressed parents and children can get more time with each other while simultaneously facilitating the possibility of combining parenthood and working life.

Madam Speaker! Not all diseases can, of course, be avoided. But there must be a strong preventive effort, and in that case, healthcare must be there. Healthcare shall provide care when we become ill, but it also has a health-promoting mandate. The health-promoting interventions must be developed. Every person has their own responsibility, but several societal sectors must contribute so that people have good mental health and so that preventive interventions shall function.

The government, as stated in previous posts, is making investments against mental ill-health in next year's budget, which is a worrying trend in our society. It is important to counter this trend with various measures.

The Christian Democrats' starting point is that the sickness insurance shall be secure for those who have reduced work capacity. Those who can regain their work capacity shall receive help and support to return to work. Everything else is a waste of human and societal resources.

We want people's possibilities to be taken into account, and it is important that there are drivers to take advantage of every person's work capacity. Today, a person who works and receives compensation up to 50 percent cannot increase their work effort by 10 percentage points even if it were possible according to the doctor. This is because we have fixed steps of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent in the sickness insurance. This does not safeguard the individual's full capacity and possibility for increased work effort.

We Christian Democrats have for a long time advocated for greater flexibility with a percentage without fixed steps between 20 and 100 percent. We know that it is possible to have such a system. Our neighboring country Norway, for example, has no steps in its system.

A flexible sick leave policy can also be more accommodating towards people who have lost a loved one. This can happen quickly in life. There are many who take sick leave due to grief, and today, the possibility exists for those working in a company with a collective agreement to receive some leave in connection with the death. But after that, the system is blunt, something that makes it difficult for people who have lost someone to return to normal work capacity at the right pace.

Madam Speaker! Just as has been said earlier, there needs to be a focus on rehabilitation and on countering unnecessarily many and long sick leaves. There need to be review meetings, and measures need to be put in place to counter ill health and increase the labor supply.

We see a positive trend with increased life expectancy for our citizens. That also means that more people need to work, perhaps even longer in life, and then we must create a foundation that ensures society can manage the needs that exist regarding care and also economically.

Another proposal in the budget for next year is that more people should be encouraged to start and operate a business at an older age. It is about changing the limit, which today is 55 years, in order to be able to choose a shorter waiting period in the sickness insurance. We remove that limit, and that is good. It opens up for self-employed persons over 55 to have the freedom to choose a waiting period on the same terms as all other entrepreneurs. This creates increased security and stimulates increased entrepreneurship in the group.

Madam Speaker! It can be observed that the opposition's proposals vary, as they do in many areas. S does indeed invest more, but not that much more; they are quite close to the government's budget. Vänstern and Miljöpartiet invest generously in this area, and one might wonder about the financing. C actually invests less.

The Tidö parties have, based on the voters' responses in the 2022 election, agreed on a political action program that provides a new direction for Sweden, and this also applies to this area, the social insurance issues. We are reasoning our way toward a common line, but one can wonder how the opposition will handle it, among other things based on how it looks in this area.

We Christian Democrats, as said, give our support to the committee's proposal for a decision regarding the budget.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! In this budget debate, I believe it is appropriate to proceed from the goals that exist. They are concrete, and they are not so difficult to understand.

Firstly, sickness absence should not vary more than what is normal for different seasons. Secondly, unjustified regional differences should not occur. Thirdly, the difference in sickness absence between men and women should decrease.

I can, however, state that the government, through its policy, is moving further away from the goals. One could have expected the government to then conduct an analysis and perhaps come up with concrete proposals, but they are also missing this year. Sickness absence is increasing.

Madam Speaker! The main explanation for why sick leave is becoming longer is, of course, the rule changes that have been introduced regarding the assessment at day 180. This has been confirmed by the Swedish National Audit Office and the Swedish Pensions Agency.

During the year, an investigator has been tasked with evaluating the changes of recent years. The investigator presents their analyses in the report *En utvärdering av förändringar i sjukförsäkringens regelverk under 2021 och 2022*. From the report, it appears, among other things, that the concessions made at day 180 and day 365 in the rehabilitation chain have resulted in an increase in sick leaves. The results also show that the return to the own employer has decreased – i.e., contrary to what was intended with the changes.

Madam Speaker! A number of referral bodies point out, however, that the period for this evaluation has been too short and that part of the evaluation took place during the period when covid-19 affected the conditions. Centerpartiet thinks that it would have been reasonable to proceed with the investigation's proposals. To handle this, one could have used statistics for another time period, which is further away from the pandemic.

During 2023, the number of sick days for women amounted to 26.6 days and for men to 18 days. Women thus accounted for a significantly larger share of sick leave than men. Nor is there any analysis from the government's side here.

In a comparison of the counties' average sick leave, where the population's composition is taken into account among other things, it appears that there are also regional variations. The people of Gotland have the lowest sick leave and the people of Värmland the highest. Nor do we see any analysis here.

Madam Speaker! A small but important part of getting people back into their own work is what happens through Finsam, the coordination associations where Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan collaborate with regions and municipalities to help those who are furthest from the labor market to return. But unfortunately, the possibility for follow-up at the individual level has decreased based on how Försäkringskassan has interpreted the legislation. This is regrettable, and the government should have been able to come forward with a proposal for change so that we do not continue to let this issue linger.

In Centerpartiet's budget motion, we propose a system to cover high sick pay costs for entrepreneurs, something that the Tidö parties have abolished. This is important for many small and medium-sized entrepreneurs - to dare to hire a person who has a medical history. This is something that the Alliance government introduced in 2010, but other parties that did so together with Centerpartiet no longer stand behind it.

Then there were two major reasons to introduce the system: partly to lower the threshold for employers to hire, and partly to facilitate things for small business owners, who actually take on a great responsibility. That small and medium-sized companies are best at hiring people who have a disability or a chronic illness is connected to the fact that one operates in the local community. One knows the people around you and knows what they can do and that they feel good about going to a job.

Madam Speaker! It was therefore a real cold shower for both the funkis movement and the small business owners when the government removed the protection against high sick pay costs. An entrepreneur said that it felt as if this government does not want small businesses at all. As I have pointed out earlier in today's debates, it is not just this that hits small business owners.

Madam Speaker! Since our framework budget has fallen in previous votes, we have no reservation in this report, but I refer to our special statement.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! There are three parties in the opposition that stand relatively close to each other in this budget debate. They are Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Miljöpartiet – three parties that want to see more money allocated to the sickness insurance to improve the conditions for security and return to work.

Then we have the Centre Party, in the broad center, which in principle proposes nothing at all in this area, while we see how poorly the sickness insurance functions in reality.

Now, two years of the mandate period have passed. We have seen how the government and the Sweden Democrats are running this country into the ground. Households are on their knees. Healthcare is in a deep crisis. The government prioritizes billions for those who already have the most.

I want to ask a simple question to the member: In which government does the member imagine the Center Party will sit? Is it Magdalena Andersson or Ulf Kristersson who is the member's prime ministerial candidate?

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Isabell Mixter for the remark.

I want to start by saying that the Center Party sees people's possibilities to return to work. Therefore, we focus on ensuring that the coordination works. We want Finsam to function and that Försäkringskassan takes a much greater responsibility than what is done today. We also want to see more flexible benefit levels when people return to work after sick leave in order to make it easier for them to gradually return to work.

Which government the Center Party will sit in after the election I will be able to answer when I know what the election result looks like and in which government the Center Party gets its policy through.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It is quite simple: If nothing dramatic arises or happens, there are two government options to choose from. It is rather strange to say that we have to see what the election result will be. I do not think the voters are particularly satisfied with that announcement. The Centre Party also becomes quite irrelevant for itself.

I find it a bit difficult to understand why the Center Party cannot answer whether one chooses Ulf Kristersson, Jimmie Åkesson and that group or Magdalena Andersson, Nooshi Dadgostar and several others. I believe that the Center Party's voters are interested in getting answers on where the Center Party stands on this issue.

Will the Centre Party join a government driven by pitting people against people, or to a government base that has faith in the future, visions, and a policy for a better Sweden? I would like to hear the member's answer to that question.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite know how much the discussion about which government the Center Party chooses to support after the election belongs in this specific budget discussion area, but I will nevertheless say this: As a member of the Center Party, I take responsibility for my politics. I take responsibility for what I want to convey and for what I want to change in Sweden. As the member said earlier, the Center Party is a party that stands in the middle and finds opportunities to reach agreements in politics with different parties.

I and the Center Party will support a government that stands for people's fundamental values, which ensures that small and medium-sized enterprises are given the opportunity to move forward and which sees the opportunities of the climate transition and not its shortcomings.

With these proposals, I see opportunities to cooperate with the vast majority of parties in the Swedish Riksdag. Based on how the voters choose to vote in the 2026 election for the parties that have the possibility of cooperating thereafter, I will answer which government the Center Party will choose.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin my contribution with a simple exercise which, with the help of a few figures, summarizes the division that exists between the four opposition parties.

I will begin with the Center Party's ambitions within the expenditure area we are addressing in this debate. For the year 2025, the Center Party wants to save 760 million kronor compared to the government's proposal. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, want to spend approximately as much as the government. The difference - plus 2 per mille - lies practically within the margin of error.

Unlike these two parties, which want to spend less than or as much as the government, we have two distinctly populist parties that are extremely generous with other people's money, that is, with today's and tomorrow's taxpayers' money. Therefore, these parties can promise both one and the other, for their spending trousers seem to have inexhaustible pockets.

Miljöpartiet wants to spend 3.8 billion more than the government, which is a full 16 times more than what the Social Democrats want to spend. This obviously does not mean that the Miljöpartiet members are more kind-hearted than others, but it means that their way of handling both others' money and the state finances is characterized by a striking irresponsibility and a total lack of understanding of the consequences of their own proposals. Here it is truly appropriate to proclaim that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Green Party's extravagance is however nothing in comparison to the party that breaks all records regarding both the lack of understanding and the generosity with others' money, namely the Left Party. The Left Party members want to spend 16 billion more than what the government proposes within budget area 10. That is four times more than the Green Party members and 69 times more than the Social Democrats, not to mention the difference compared to the frugal Centre Party, with whose help they dream of becoming part of a future government.

So that is how it looks on the left wing - so disparate is the view on social policy and public finances among the opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker! As a famous economist used to point out: There are no free lunches. Much less are there any free festive dinners that those in Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet promise to host for the Swedish people, both within the budget area we are discussing now and within most others. It is obviously today's taxpayers and future generations who will have to pay for the populists' party.

Therefore, these parties propose a combination of large tax increases and rapid debt accumulation, which in the case of Miljöpartiet amounts to a total of 457 billion kronor for the period 2025-2027. Vänsterpartiet obviously wants even more taxes and a debt accumulation that totals over 522 billion kronor for these three years. It is the bill for these parties' generosity with others' money. It is what the Socialdemokraternas intended coalition partners promise.

Mr. Speaker! There is another important aspect that is worth noting in this context. The regulatory framework that shapes our social insurance, and the attitudes that influence its utilization, have a decisive significance for the will to work more and contribute to the common welfare versus the will to live on benefits and consume the welfare's resources. In order to have a sustainable welfare, it is absolutely necessary to pursue a consistent work line that is completely separate from the benefit line that characterizes our populist parties. That is what Sweden's history over the last decades clearly teaches us regarding the development of sickness and activity insurance.

Let me therefore look back to the time when the Swedish rate of ill-health was among the highest in the world and address how this Swedish sickness was cured through stricter social insurance rules and a less permissive attitude regarding the exploitation of social insurances.

In 2002, three experts in the field published a report to the Expert Group for Studies in Public Finance titled exactly The Swedish Disease.

In the report, it was stated, among other things, that in 2001 Sweden had the highest sickness absence of eight comparable countries. When a longer period was analyzed, it could be stated, for example, that our country had a sickness absence that was approximately three times higher than the German one.

There were no demographic or other structural variables that could explain such a large difference. It was in the regulatory framework and not least in the attitudes that a more satisfactory explanation for the observed differences could be found.

At that time, Sweden experienced not only a high sickness absence but also a literal explosion regarding early retirement, which was a simple but deceptive way to embellish the labor market statistics.

In 2005, the Swedish sickness peaked in terms of the number of people receiving sickness or activity compensation, which was called early retirement from 2003 onwards. At that time, it was almost 10 percent of the workforce, or just over 554,000 people, who had sickness or activity compensation.

In 2022, 17 years later, these figures had more than halved. The rate of ill-health has obviously followed the same development and decreased from a peak of just over 43 lost net working days per employed person during the first half of the 00s to 22.2 days in 2023.

Mr. Speaker! How could this miraculous healing of the Swedish disease have occurred? Can a general improvement of our living and working conditions, our state of health, or our demographic development explain this? It cannot, at least not in any substantial way.

It was important rule changes and a changed attitude that were the secret to the "dunderkur" (miracle cure). The bourgeois alliance government that took office on 6 October 2006 played a decisive role in this context.

It was primarily two reforms that were central.

The first was the earned income tax credit, which was introduced in 2007 and strengthened in four rounds between 2008 and 2014. It was a fundamental measure aimed at making it more profitable to work in comparison to receiving other compensations or grants. According to estimates from the Ministry of Finance and the National Institute of Economic Research, the earned income tax credit contributed to an increase in employment of up to 120,000 people.

The second important reform was the introduction of the rehabilitation chain on 1 July 2008. It meant that the sick leavee's work capacity and right to sickness benefit were checked at specific time limits.

In its time, this groundbreaking reform received strong criticism from both trade unions and the left-wing opposition, but today it is an indispensable part of our social security system, just as the job tax credit has become a permanent reform that the Social Democratic-led government 2014-2022 did not dare to abolish.

That was how the Swedish disease was cured, but it would certainly recur if, for example, the Left Party's proposal regarding, among other things, the abolition of the waiting period and a raised ceiling for the sickness benefit were adopted. That is exactly how one destroys the long-term foundation and sustainability of the common welfare. As the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mr. Speaker! I finally wish to approve the committee's proposal. It is a consistent continuation of the work line which, together with other important measures, for example the strengthening of the job tax credit and the abolition of its tapering for the highest work incomes, provides good conditions for a Sweden that becomes both wealthier and safer.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by saying that it is always fascinating to stand in the chamber or in a debate somewhere else and hear the word "kind-hearted" used as something negative against someone. It says quite a lot about our spirit of the times that one sees it as something bad to want to do well by people.

Perhaps it also says everything about the budget that we are debating these weeks, because this view is visible all the way through. For example, one is happy to send weapons to Ukraine, but one does not want to recognize Ukrainian refugees' right to basic welfare in Sweden while they live and reside here.

It says everything about a government that wants to introduce reporting laws or of that sort, or about a government representative who stands in the chamber and actually speaks lyrically in favor of stuprocks and a regulatory framework that left cancer patients completely without income and forced them into poverty.

I think I will take it as a compliment anyway. I am happy to be kind if the alternative is a Tidöre government.

Mr. Speaker! I know I am not allowed to do it, but sometimes I have a great desire to do a show of hands here in the chamber. Hands up, everyone who has been ill and been unable to work! Hands up, everyone who has a child with a disability! Hands up, everyone with chronic pain, everyone who has been affected by exhaustion, and everyone who is trying to push through the systems so that a relative can get the help they are entitled to!

I will not do it, Mr. Speaker; I promise. But when I read the government's budget, I must wonder how much of a protected workshop the politicians in the government and their puppet kings live in, because one can easily get the impression that the government has forgotten who the sickness insurance is for: the one who is sick and cannot work.

Mr. Speaker! Let us for a second imagine a woman working in home care in one of our municipalities. For a long time, her workload has become increasingly higher as a result of cuts and her room for maneuver increasingly smaller. She is burdened with the constant stress of having the ultimate responsibility for people who are fragile and in need of help, these people whom I nevertheless mean that we should be kind towards, but she is rarely given the tools to do her job.

One day it just doesn't work anymore. She just cries. It's impossible to stop. She doesn't get out of bed anymore. She takes sick leave and hopes it will pass. Maybe it's just a nasty cold. She gets a stomach ache at the thought of the quarantine day and what the loss of income will mean for an already strained economy, but it just isn't possible.

A week later she is not better but worse. She seeks help at the health center. In the meeting with the doctor, she can hardly speak; she only cries. The doctor signs her off work, and now an anxious wait begins for a decision from Försäkringskassan.

One of the first measures the government implemented when it took office was to slash the Försäkringskassan's appropriations. The effect was enormously long waiting times.

Mr. Speaker! Four out of ten single parents with low incomes have borrowed for necessary expenses during the last half-year. What happens then when the income stops completely?

The skyrocketing costs of burnout in care professions will not be countered by longer processing times or by reintroduced bottlenecks, which the government ordered but which were stopped by SD. They will not be stopped by tougher measures.

No, the soaring costs require increased appropriations for welfare in order to increase the possibility of doing a good job and the possibility of having enough colleagues to actually be able to provide precisely that care - this good-hearted activity - that is carried out in our welfare.

The Green Party is happy to finance this by rejecting the bizarre tax cuts for the very richest that the Tidö government wants to implement. It is about the 32 percent of the grants that are to go to the richest 10 percent among Swedes.

Mr. Speaker! Having a job to go to and an income of your own to support yourself on - that is freedom. But that presupposes that one is healthy enough to work. In our budget, we are making a major investment in Försäkringskassan, because they must have sufficient resources to support and help those who are ill. Försäkringskassan's main task is to help, support, and coordinate efforts so that more people become healthy faster.

We want to introduce a prevention allowance. I believe and hope that everyone in this chamber is concerned about ensuring that sick leaves are as short as possible. An important way to promote that is to prevent them, and in that case, one also needs to introduce preventive measures before a person needs to be signed off on sick leave full-time.

We are reinstating the compensation to companies with high sick pay costs that the government removed. Employers have a very large responsibility for work-related ill health but must also receive support - not least small business owners - to manage the costs for, for example, an employee who is affected by cancer. The secure society that Miljöpartiet wants to see requires cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! Of the costs for the job tax credit, 32 percent went to the 10 percent of Swedes who are the richest. Not even 1 percent went to the 10 percent of Swedes who are the poorest. And nothing of that tax reduction went to those who have long-term reduced capacity for work and who support themselves on sickness or activity benefits. It is completely logical in a Tidö society driven by the principle of the survival of the fittest, but it is completely unacceptable in a society where we take care of each other together and in that way build strong cohesion between people.

Miljöpartiet significantly increases the compensations in its budget motion. Perhaps it is kind-hearted, but it is because we believe that even those who cannot work should be guaranteed a good life. It is not just about survival, but about an opportunity to live on equal terms in our society.

Mr. Speaker! Many figures have been rattled in the chamber today in this debate. But beyond the figures, there is an immensely important difference in the view of our society. Miljöpartiet wants a society where we care for one another, where the one who can contribute much does so and the one who needs help can receive it. When we become ill, that help must be there: the help to get well, the help to return to work, and the help to support oneself during the time one is ill.

(Applause)

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is much that can be said about the appropriations in the Green Party's budget, but the most remarkable thing, after all, is that it is proposed that sick leave should apply even if Försäkringskassan later finds that the applicant does not meet the requirements.

So, anyone should be able to take sick leave and have compensation paid out, and if it later turns out that one was not entitled to the compensation, Försäkringskassan should not be able to demand any money back. This runs directly counter to what the Sweden Democrats and the government are working on and directly counter to the work against benefit fraud and welfare crime. The majority of the parties in the Riksdag stand behind that work - including the Social Democrats, who are the Green Party's intended coalition partners.

I would like to ask how this is viewed and if the member can explain the proposal.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is incredibly important to stop the subsidy fraud, that is, when someone deliberately cheats and tries to obtain money they are not entitled to. It is extremely important. But we have a situation where sick people who need sick leave to get well are also completely in the hands of the systems.

What can very well happen – and also happens – is that medical certificates are written in a way that causes them to be later rejected. It is not necessarily the same thing as having committed benefit fraud or not being entitled to compensation. What it does mean, however, is that one has been away from one's job, received no income, and then also had no opportunity to back out of that decision. The Sweden Democrats' view on people is based on the assumption that that entire group deliberately cheats. We, on the other hand, mean that a large group of people are hit incredibly hard by the fact that doctors issue sick leave and say that someone needs to stay home to get well, and that Försäkringskassan then says that the certificate has been filled out incorrectly. Consequently, the person is not given the opportunity for compensation.

We are happy to have a discussion on how to combat fraud, but the systems should not be so rigid that people risk being left without income when they have not actually done anything wrong, but on the contrary have been affected by other effects in the system. Therefore, we believe that our proposal is perfectly reasonable, that is to say, if one is not entitled to sickness benefit, one should not receive it in the future, but one should not be left without income in retrospect due to a decision based on information submitted by others. It affects primarily those who have the lowest incomes, i.e., the same groups who do not receive more than a few tens in your budget proposal.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the clarification!

We must nevertheless have confidence that an expert authority can make the right decisions in these matters. But the fact is that Miljöpartiet allocates 130 million kronor to facilitate welfare fraud.

I continue on the same track as before with an additional question mark in the Green Party's budget. There are not many concrete proposals in it, but something that can nevertheless be seen as a clear position is that the Green Party opposes the abolition of the crediting of home country time for the guaranteed pension—the so-called refugee exemption. Very well, but you are not allocating funds for this. It is quite unprofessional to include that proposal and then not have the coverage to implement it. The member may explain how the Green Party intends to proceed.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Since this is my closing remark, I take note that the member says in all seriousness that we are allocating 130 million kronor to subsidy fraud. Forgive me, but that says everything about the Sweden Democrats' and the Tidö government's view on sick people in Sweden and about the Tidö government's budget?

Does the Sverigedemokraterna member mean in all seriousness that all the people who are rejected are fraudsters? Is the member prepared to come out with me and speak with people on sick leave who are affected by errors being made and who would therefore not receive their money, be left without income and not have the possibility to pay the rent? Is the Sverigedemokraterna member in all seriousness prepared to say that no errors were ever made by either doctors or Försäkringskassan and that it would therefore mean that one is financing fraud when one wants sick people to receive the money they actually have a right to receive?

Economic security in the event of illness and disability

It is an incredible view of humanity. I should not be surprised, but I never cease to be amazed by what a total lack of grounding in reality the Sweden Democrats have as soon as it comes to people living in vulnerability.

Regarding the home country period, we absolutely think that one must be able to continue to credit it, because there are people who flee to Sweden in the middle of their lives and who also need to be able to receive compensation. That group is very small. Nevertheless, the Sweden Democrats must give in to them, for heaven's sake, if there were a group of vulnerable people in Sweden that the Sweden Democrats had not struck and battered with the pretext that everyone cheats!

Please join me out there, and please speak with sick-leaved nursing assistants and childcare workers! Let us have the discussion about how they experience the fact that they are left completely without income when a doctor has written an incorrect certificate or Försäkringskassan has made an incorrect decision!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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