Economic security in case of illness and disability

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating expenditure area 10 Economic security in case of illness. It is an important and complex area where our political decisions and choices of path affect the everyday lives and life situations of vulnerable and sick people.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have, during this mandate period, through well-functioning cooperation and constructive negotiations, solved many difficult issues. We have done so despite complicating circumstances with inflation, the deteriorating security situation in our vicinity, and the effects of the pandemic. I would not say that I am satisfied, but I am proud of much of what we have achieved together. Four parties have created stability and been productive, even in issues where we have different starting points.

The Sweden Democrats and the government agree that those who are ill shall have the right to both support and rehabilitation in order to regain their work capacity. No one shall be forgotten and disappear in the statistics, get stuck in benefit dependency and have to endure treatable ill health. Focus shall be directed towards early interventions and adapted measures, with a particular focus on sick leave due to psychiatric diagnoses. Processing times at Försäkringskassan shall be shortened, and case balances shall be handled more efficiently. And we shall, with a forceful effort, continue to meet the crime directed against the welfare systems and ensure that our tax funds do not end up in criminals' pockets.

Mr. Speaker! Every year, an estimated 15–20 billion kronor are paid out incorrectly from the state welfare systems. Hard-working people who do right by the rules must be able to trust and be assured that their tax money goes only to what it is intended for. Every incorrectly paid krona is a theft from all those who daily contribute to and build our welfare. It is also a theft from the people who are entitled to and in need of support.

It is therefore both reasonable and necessary that we now build a system with strengthened control, better information exchange, and a significantly lower possibility of abusing our common security system. We are now investing further in countering welfare crime by introducing administrative sanctions in the social insurance. At the same time, while it shall be easy to do the right thing, it shall become palpable when one submits incorrect information.

The purpose of this is to prevent both grant fraud and incorrect payments from the social insurance in a more efficient and preventive manner. Another important aspect is that if it is correct from the beginning, the clawbacks are reduced, which is our objective.

For people who settle in Sweden, we are now raising the requirements to qualify for the Swedish welfare. It is a total self-evident matter that those who receive access to benefits also contribute to society by working and paying tax.

Mr. Speaker! Together with the government, we are implementing important proposals in many areas. Another example is that we ensure that we facilitate things for persons with sickness or activity compensation; we make it possible to study part-time and at the same time have one's sickness or activity compensation partially suspended, while the trial period for studies with sickness or activity compensation is extended from six to twelve months.

In order to further improve the possibilities for those on sick leave to return to work, we want to make it possible for those who are on sick leave to, in agreement with the employer, undergo a trial period of work with maintained sickness benefit. This provides good opportunities for those concerned to test their capacity to study and work under safer conditions.

Mr. Speaker! Together with the government, we have, as we have said, achieved very much. But we are far from finished. Our important work for Sweden has only just begun. I look optimistically toward the future if we receive continued confidence in the next mandate period.

I would therefore conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Daniel Persson (SD) agreed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

When Vänsterpartiet negotiates with a government, we ensure that we achieve improvements, among other things, in the sickness insurance. The last time we did so, with the Socialdemokraterna at the end of the last parliamentary term, was the first time in a long time that the sickness insurance was developed in the right direction. That is something I am very proud of, not least after the sickness insurance has been systematically weakened and dismantled for decades.

It meant a great deal to many that we pushed through improvements, for example that more people would receive the compensation they were entitled to and that the ceiling in the sickness benefit would be raised. Then the basic level in the sickness and activity compensation was raised, and the housing supplement was raised to the same level as for age pensioners. Additionally, the tax gap between those with sickness and activity compensation and wage earners was closed. We also got the previous government to look at even more improvements in the sickness insurance and to review abolishing the unfair "karens" (waiting period).

When the Sweden Democrats negotiate with a government, they ensure that development is rolled back. They have recreated the unfair tax gap between those who work and those who have become ill. The sickness and activity allowance continues to be unreasonably low. And the unfair gap remains.

They have commissioned inquiries into improvements to the sickness insurance and have had the chance several times to abolish the unfair deductible, but have always voted to keep it.

What does the member have to say to all those who were promised improvements in the sickness insurance? And what does the member have to say to all those who were promised the abolition of the unjust waiting period?

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must inform the members that the Sweden Democrats and the government have removed the so-called "funkisskatt" (functional tax), i.e., the tax difference between those who work and those who live on sickness or activity benefits. We thought it was unfair and have removed it. It is just a clarification.

Then it was a matter of us having to stop improvements. But we have only implemented improvements. We have, however, stopped deteriorations.

Vänsterpartiet was very vocal when that investigation landed on the table, which examined the changes and improvements that we jointly implemented during the last parliamentary term. But we have not torn anything up there. The member may therefore be welcome to go into a bit more detail on what he means.

Vänsterpartiet usually wants to give everything to everyone. You want to increase the benefits and make it possible to live on benefits longer, actually without any requirements or major limitations whatsoever. Those who are punished by your policy are people who get up early, set the alarm every day and work hard. They shall instead pay more tax. It is they who shall finance the benefit line.

The Sweden Democrats believe that sick people should receive the support they need, but we do not want people to get stuck in a dependency on benefits or in social exclusion. Unlike the Left Party, we have high expectations of people. We do not give up hope for people, but we want to create the conditions for people to return to work. Paths back to work are important to us. We know how important it is, both for the individual and for society.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was very good that the member started by saying that improvements are being implemented. Which ones, though? Now I am not following at all. The member says that improvements are being implemented but then does not want to answer the questions. Instead, she enters into this talk about not wanting people to be stuck in benefit dependency and so on. The thing is that no improvements are happening.

There is a reason why the member does not want to talk about the fact that the unjust margin remains. The fact is that the Sweden Democrats deceived the voters. They promised that the unjust margin would be removed.

With the Left Party's budget alternative for the expenditure area we are now debating, the karens deduction would be abolished. The Social Democrats submitted such a proposal in the Riksdag a few weeks ago. At that time, the Sweden Democrats had another chance to vote away the unjust karens. But there is, therefore, a reason why the member does not want to talk about that question at all.

It is not more than reasonable that we level the economic injustice that is at issue. Some have jobs where one can work from home when one has a cold. Others have jobs where one meets many people and runs a higher risk of being infected but cannot work from home. Then one is hit hard financially when one becomes ill. But you let this deduction remain entirely.

I think the improvements that Vänsterpartiet pushed through a few years ago show that things become much better when Vänsterpartiet has influence. Now, the member tried to quibble around this in their response. It was very irrelevant. We showed – completely objectively – that it is possible to improve the sickness insurance system and our security systems. But as soon as we had done that, Sverigedemokraterna rolled back the progress. One of the first things Sverigedemokraterna did was to throw investigations on improvements to the sickness insurance into the wastebasket. And then they voted no to removing the unfair grace period. That is a fact.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Then the member was not attentive when I gave my speech. I went through which improvements we want to make, with a focus on the budget that we are now debating.

Regarding the grace period, we have never gone to an election on abolishing the grace period deduction entirely. We want to see a differentiated grace period deduction. It is something that we are working on internally now in the party. I ask to be allowed to return to that question. We see these injustices and how they affect particularly vulnerable professional groups. It is also for that reason that one must focus precisely there.

It is difficult to reconcile the Left Party's policy and logic, Tony Haddou. You want to cooperate with the Center Party, the only party that reduces the allocations in the expenditure area. How are you going to make that work? I do not believe that the Center Party wants to abolish the care allowance entirely either. I think rather that they dream of an additional care allowance, if I am to be completely honest.

Mr. Speaker! Can the member answer whose politics it will be if one votes for the Left Party? Now the Left Party and the Centre Party, which are to cooperate, are on completely different planets. This means that voters can get just about anything when they vote for the Left Party.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to remind that this was a closing statement. Tony Haddou can therefore not answer the question.)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I requested a reply when I heard Clara Aranda describe all the improvements and changes that have occurred. When I sat and thought this through, I came to the conclusion that what the Sverigedemokraterna have pushed through is, above all, a very large deterioration. This is because the high-cost protection for entrepreneurs in relation to sick pay costs has been removed. That was something the Alliance government introduced.

This is a huge problem for small business owners. It involves large costs. One has to pay the sick pay when the employee is away. It means that during recruitment, one must sit and review very carefully in order to sort out everyone who has some form of disability or risk of being on sick leave often. That was also why we introduced this system, which primarily benefited people with disabilities, people with recurring episodes of illness, and not least small business owners.

The Sweden Democrats contributed to removing this system very quickly, as one of the first reforms in this area and actually the only major one. Small business owners said: This must be a government that is directly hostile towards us.

We see the effect today. Sickness rates are increasing. It is more difficult for people with disabilities and long-term sick leaves to return to work. Not least, the burden on small businesses has increased. We see that unemployment is increasing in Sweden.

Now that the Sweden Democrats see how crazy it became to remove the high-cost compensation for small businesses, which affects people with disabilities and not least small business owners through increasing unemployment, I wonder: Is the Sweden Democrats prepared to work to have this withdrawn, so that we can once again have a system that benefits small business owners and also people with recurring sick leaves?

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The compensation for high sick pay costs was removed for several reasons. The system had received sharp criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office. The Swedish Pensions Agency had also pointed out significant risks, for example, of incorrect payments, partly due to the automated setup, where all the company's costs were handled as a total sum. Against the background of these deficiencies and the significant risk of incorrect payments, we concluded that this was a good and necessary decision to make.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite understand how Clara Aranda reasons. It is obvious that many of the social insurances have errors and deficiencies that must be corrected. In that case, the regulatory framework must be changed. But instead of taking the criticism from the National Audit Office and others and going in to make the changes that are required, one simply throws the baby out with the bathwater.

We see what consequences this has had, not least for people who now do not have the opportunity to get work. Small business owners are forced to sit and review whether the people applying for jobs have some form of disability that could mean an increased risk of sick leave or if, according to references, they have had recurring short-term sick leave. Those people are sorted out today.

Furthermore, a very heavy burden is placed on small businesses; for large companies, this does not matter as much. We know that nine out of ten new jobs in Sweden come from small businesses. It is not so strange that unemployment in this country is increasing as it is when the Sverigedemokraterna contribute to raising the fees and costs for small businesses that are to hire people. Perhaps the worst thing about this is that it affects people who are already vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker! I cannot comprehend the reasoning from the Sweden Democrats. Yes, there had been criticism of the system, and there were a number of areas that were to be corrected. But instead of correcting it, the entire system was thrown out, which affected small business owners and people who stood outside the labor market. It is that reasoning I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker. That is why I posed my question to Clara Aranda: Now that we see the result of this drastic measure – have you started to rethink? Can you imagine reintroducing some form of high-cost protection for small businesses?

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Despite the fact that this system was specifically designed to support small business owners and employers, there were a number of inaccuracies that we found problematic. Then we understand that small companies have small margins and are more vulnerable to costs in the event of sick leave. We are well aware of that, but we do not know if this solution is the best. We see other solutions when it comes to the sick pay responsibility for small business owners. This is something that we are looking into more closely at the moment and will raise further in negotiations. That is the information I can give to the member today.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to dwell on the quarantine deduction and the promises that the Sweden Democrats have made. Just as Member Aranda said, the Sweden Democrats promised during the 2022 election campaign to work for a differentiated quarantine deduction. It was therefore to be removed for certain professional groups.

The Sweden Democrats, as is well known, became the largest party in the government support, but the Sweden Democrats have not lifted a finger for three years to do anything about the unfair quarantine deduction.

We sat in a reference group for the government's own working group on the grace period. There, several good proposals were made that we Social Democrats and several other parties stood behind regarding at least lowering the grace period ceiling. As I remember it, the Sweden Democrats were also for that, but you haven't even done that. Sweden's wage earners have, as Tony Haddou said, been cheated by the Sweden Democrats.

Recently, we submitted a proposal for a committee initiative regarding the removed quarantine deduction, which the Sweden Democrats voted down. Now Aranda says that they are working internally to come up with a solution. It is very interesting. Why now, I wonder all the Sweden Democrats' voters are asking? Three years have passed, and now it is almost the deadline for government bills. The Sweden Democrats will not have time to make any change to the quarantine during this parliamentary term. There are plenty of voters who have been cheated.

Can Member Aranda now promise that the Sweden Democrats will, in any case, push for a removal of the quarantine deduction during the next mandate period?

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the member!

The Speaker claims that the Sweden Democrats have not lifted a finger for three years. I would still like to remember that it was the Social Democrats who held power for eight years before. The only thing you managed to accomplish was to appoint an inquiry at the end, which you can argue about in the chamber afterwards. It is roughly at that level.

The Social Democrats want the Sweden Democrats to declare their position on the issue of the period of pay during sick leave (karensavdrag). I think the Social Democrats are doing very well themselves. You are demanding a position from my party on an issue that we are not driving and that we did not go to the election on. We do not want to abolish the period of pay during sick leave entirely. Can I be any clearer?

The Social Democrats have concluded that a removal of the parental leave deduction would cost 5 billion. If we look at more realistic calculations, the cost will be up to 40 billion. In addition to the fact that your calculations are not even close, you allocate zero kronor for the removal of the parental leave deduction in the shadow budget that you present.

It is a clear proof that it is not about the quarantine deduction. You want to get a betrayal against the Sweden Democrats before the election campaign. That is all it is about. I would have had full respect if you had financed the proposal, but you do not do that.

We went to the election on a changed care deduction. We see the injustices, and we want to do something about them. We are working on that issue.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is very interesting. I want to agree with Clara Aranda on one point. No one knows how large the cost is for the care deduction today. The investigation that we commissioned, you laid down. Then there are different calculations.

We Social Democrats rely on RUT, the Riksdag's investigation service, which has concluded that Sweden's wage earners today bear large costs for the quarantine deduction. The cost for private employers is estimated at 5–6 billion kronor.

The Sweden Democrats campaigned on a differentiated quarantine deduction. It was to be removed for people who work in contact professions. All those people have today been cheated, because the Sweden Democrats have not lifted a finger.

If Clara Aranda believes that the Social Democrats have a removed quarantine deduction as one of their most important election promises to wage earners just to start a betrayal debate, it probably says more about the Sweden Democrats' view on politics than ours. We want to make a real difference for Sweden's wage earners.

I still maintain that all voters, both those who have already been cheated by the Sweden Democrats and everyone else, deserve an answer. Will the Sweden Democrats during the next mandate period ensure that they work for at least a changed care allowance, as the Sweden Democrats have previously promised? Or do you intend to skip it entirely and let the voters continue to be cheated?

(Applause)

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Member of Parliament claims that no one knows what the care deduction will cost. But everyone probably knows that it will not cost zero kronor. Which voters are it that are actually being cheated?

I think it is remarkable and arrogant of the Social Democrats to push this issue so hard but not allocate funds to implement the proposal in practice.

Either it will mean significant tax increases for hard-working people, or you will break your election promises. Which will it actually be?

If you really want to see justice in the labor market, it is significantly better to negotiate specific rules for vulnerable occupational groups and not to propose abolishing the care deduction generally.

The Sweden Democrats do not think it is a good proposal to abolish the sick pay deduction entirely. It will be very costly, as I have pointed out previously. It will have negative effects for employers. Short-term sick leave will very likely skyrocket, and that is not what we want to see. We think the proposal is directly irresponsible.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Clara Aranda said in her speech that she is proud of what the Sweden Democrats and the government have implemented in the area of social insurance and that they have achieved a lot. Then I must ask: What have they actually implemented?

No bill has been submitted regarding an expanded right to income qualifying for sickness allowance. This is in line with the investigation *A security system for everyone*, which was presented a couple of years ago.

No proposals have been submitted regarding reinforcements of the safety systems for students, gig workers, cultural workers or self-employed individuals, despite the fact that there are completed investigations with concrete proposals.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have said no to the proposals to abolish the karen deduction, to introduce step-free levels in the sickness insurance, to expand the right to sickness and activity compensation, and much more.

They began the mandate period by cutting back enormously on Försäkringskassan, which has led to much longer processing times. They have removed the compensation for high sick pay costs for entrepreneurs, as Anders W Jonsson mentioned. They have raised the high-cost protection for pharmaceuticals.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder what the Sweden Democrats and the government have actually done to help our sick and disabled during this parliamentary term. It is not clear to me.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That we have not implemented the Green Party's policy does not mean that we have done nothing. I stood right here and went through which initiatives we are implementing and why they are important for Sweden.

Miljöpartiet, on the other hand, presents several initiatives in the area of health insurance. But those proposals have significant flaws that cannot be ignored. You want to build up long-term cost increases without ensuring long-term financing.

Another problem is that the Green Party wants to increase the compensations but leave the system's fundamental problems unsolved. Legal certainty remains, rehabilitation is not improved, and people risk falling between the cracks with only a few more kronor in their wallets.

You also lack a plan for more people to be able to return to work and not get stuck in benefit dependency. It risks locking people into exclusion, Mr. Speaker. It is the opposite of what the Sweden Democrats and the government are working for with our efforts.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The reason I am asking the question is that the list that Clara Aranda mentioned in her speech was vanishingly short. We hardly even have committee meetings in the committee, and on average they are ten minutes long. No propositions are coming from the government. It is actually a bit embarrassing to sit in the committee sometimes.

The Sweden Democrats claim that the Green Party has no proposals to address the underlying problems in the social insurance system. That is totally false. Of course, we are raising the sickness benefit and the assistance benefit because we have thousands of people who receive these benefits and who live in poverty. In that case, they need to be raised.

But we have plenty of other proposals to address the fundamental problems and build the security systems, the health insurance, and the unemployment insurance into a single security system so that no one falls through the cracks. We have plenty of proposals for seamless levels in the health insurance, to stop the drop-outs due to delayed rehabilitation, and to safeguard rehabilitation opportunities by changing the rehabilitation ladder. The member may very much read our motion on the area, which will be debated here a little later.

The truth and the facts in the matter are that the government and the Sweden Democrats are not presenting any concrete measures. No bills are coming, except for the one mentioned regarding work trial for sickness benefit. And that just is great; we have been nagging about that for several years! Why did it only come now? Do something, the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Liberals and the Christian Democrats, because this is not good enough!

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are actually doing a great deal. But we took over power under very special circumstances and difficult times, and then our focus has been to dampen inflation and take responsibility in a difficult time – not to throw out propositions. At the same time, we have done a great deal that is good for Sweden.

In addition to the fact that Miljöpartiet delivers deficient proposals, there is another dimension. We know that Miljöpartiet wants to see a more generous migration policy, and that naturally means increased demands on the welfare system, including health insurance. At the same time as they do not take long-term responsibility for the financing and also cannot answer how people can return to work in a good way and not get stuck in benefit dependency, Miljöpartiet wants to increase the burden on the safety nets in Sweden.

I think it is deeply worrying, Mr. Speaker, that we have a party in Sweden's Riksdag that conducts such irresponsible politics.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I spoke on Sunday evening with a woman in Arboga who was upset that those who work in preschools are often infected by sick children. Then the staff must stay home to get well and to avoid infecting their colleagues and thus have to pay quarantine deductions, time and again. The woman was upset and said: Why is it like this? Why should we pay a higher price than others, who have other types of jobs?

That people who work in health and social care, school and preschool take more care periods than others is now confirmed in a brand new report from RUT, the Riksdag's investigation service. I will return to that.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is governed today by four parties that have unfortunately spent the mandate period worsening the welfare system and investigating how they can worsen the health insurance, but which have not lifted a finger to rectify the unjust quarantine deduction. It should be clear to the country's wage earners that Sweden needs a new direction.

Sickness insurance is one of the strongest pillars in our collective welfare system. It is an insurance; it is not a benefit. Sickness insurance shall provide security upon loss of income when work capacity is impaired, for it is an insurance that we all pay into when we work and should be able to count on receiving a share of when we need it. If one loses work capacity due to illness, one should be able to expect economic security, good support from both society and the employer, as well as good rehabilitation in order to be able to return to work as quickly as possible.

We Social Democrats want to restore and build upon the sickness insurance. It must be generous enough to provide security, legally secure enough to create trust, and strong enough to hold society together. Security breeds freedom, and a strong sickness insurance is the key to people daring to live their lives to the fullest.

Mr. Speaker! Illness can affect anyone. Yet we know that the risk is not evenly distributed. Women in manual occupations fall ill more often, and they fall ill earlier in life. Stress, understaffing, lack of influence at the workplace, and a constant sense of inadequacy are some of the causes. Being infected by those one works for is another. It is the important workers who keep Sweden running who today must pay the price. We Social Democrats want to change that.

The care deduction is a symbol of a system that no longer holds together. It affects the nurse who takes care of our children when they are sick but who cannot afford to stay home when she herself has a fever. It is the bus driver who, despite illness, steers the first trip of the morning, not because he wants to, but because he does not dare to lose a whole day's income. It is the nursing assistant who wears out her body over decades and is then punished when it can no longer endure.

In many other professional groups, there is an opportunity to work from home when one is feeling unwell and can thus avoid paying for sick pay deductions. It is deeply unfair.

Mr. Speaker! The proportion who sometimes work from home has been steadily increasing since 2008. Last year, a full 45 percent of the employed worked from home to some extent, shows a recent report from RUT. But that does not apply to those who must do the work at the workplace.

In both the private and public sectors, there has been a particularly clear increase in home-based work, especially for employees with post-secondary education and a higher salary level. They have different opportunities than the shop assistant, the treatment assistant, and the warehouse worker. This underlines how unfair the quarantine deduction is and shows why it must be removed.

Several reports confirm the picture that the sick pay deduction largely affects employees in manual occupations. The report "Sick at Work," which is based on a survey by Handelsanställdas förbund, showed that 72 percent of Handels members had come to work while sick during the past year. That one cannot afford to stay home is a common explanation for the sick attendance.

We want those who are ill to have the opportunity to recover at home instead of being forced to choose between their health and being able to pay the rent. And we do it responsibly: We propose a reintroduction of a high-cost protection for sick pay costs for smaller companies so that no employer should hesitate to hire someone who might become ill.

Mr. Speaker! People who have a long-term reduced capacity to work should also have financial security; it is a self-evident matter for us Social Democrats. That is why we have the possibility of sickness compensation. But the assessment criteria for being granted sickness compensation are so harsh that very few have that possibility today. It has gone so far that even Försäkringskassan's own sickness benefit administrators become frustrated. They may have investigated a person on sick leave for several years and tried all possible different measures and realized that there is no capacity to work, but even they are thus frustrated that the unit that assesses the right to sickness compensation nevertheless denies people compensation.

This is not worthy of a welfare system. It leaves sick people in limbo and in economic uncertainty. We cannot have it this way. We Social Democrats propose that the same concept of work capacity be used in sickness compensation as in the assessment for sickness benefit. We therefore add extra funds for this in our budget motion.

Mr. Speaker! The best sick leave is the one that never happens. When people get sick at work, it is often about the work environment and the working conditions. It is about preventive measures or about the lack thereof. It is about people being able to work a whole professional life, even in contact professions.

From TCO's report From risk factors to health factors, it appears that mental ill-health is the most common cause of sick leave within all of TCO's sectors.

As risk factors, they mention high workload, lack of influence over the work, understaffing, sleep difficulties, and lack of support from the manager. Kommunal also testifies to stress-related issues as a cause of long-term sick leave within the female-dominated professions. Risk factors that they highlight are lack of influence on the planning and design of the work, understaffing leading to psychological pressure and a feeling of inadequacy. It is not strange that one becomes ill from it!

Mr. Speaker! Employers who fail in their responsibility to ensure a good working environment and good working conditions must be able to be held accountable. We believe that it is time to consider the introduction of fines or penalty fees for employers who disregard their responsibility for employees' health. A review is needed of how the incentives for employers to work preventatively can be increased.

High-quality occupational health care and a solution-oriented plan for return to work should naturally be a self-evident part of having employees. It is no news, but nevertheless, stress-related sick leaves are increasing. It is therefore extremely pleasing that Mälardalen University has invested in research in this area that focuses on how management's actions are significant for the rate of sick leave among employees. They want to develop a matrix that is intended to reduce absenteeism and increase well-being in workplaces. I truly look forward to that. We must work more evidence-based and have more research on how we can reduce sick leaves due to the psychosocial work environment.

Mr. Speaker! Many doctors in primary care can testify to how the administrative work with medical certificates involves a large workload and takes much time away from the work with patients. We propose that one looks at what is in an investigation, namely a simplified certification for short sick leaves in order to save doctors' time and save administration at Försäkringskassan.

Preventing ill health and reducing sick leaves is a very long-term task. It takes time before results are seen. In order to achieve sustainable initiatives that can have a good effect in the long run, we want to investigate the possibility of introducing social outcome contracts to enable more employers to invest in their employees' working conditions and health. It is high time to think anew when we design the welfare system.

And there are several who are doing that. My colleagues and I have recently visited multimodal assessment teams that look at those on long-term sick leave with new eyes and find ways to get it right. It is very good. I also want to advocate for the minimum effective sick leave that has been started at several different health centers. We believe that is very good and something that we need to look further into. We must work together to get people back to work capacity significantly faster than today.

We want to build welfare around the individual instead of having the individual fight against the actors in welfare. Therefore, we also want to broaden the mandate of Finsam, financial coordination, to enable more people to increase their work capacity and support themselves.

For the sickness insurance to function in practice, Försäkringskassan must be able to do a fast and good job, and for that, Försäkringskassan needs better conditions than today. The recent reports regarding a culture of silence and a poor psychological work environment at Försäkringskassan must be taken most seriously. I therefore assume that the Minister for Social Insurance immediately summons the Director General to bring clarity to what measures shall be taken to ensure a good climate for all employees.

We Social Democrats are also providing more money than the government to Förssäkringskassan to work better with the A1 certificates. Order and clarity are important when it comes to the mobility of the workforce.

Mr. Speaker! Politics is about will, and we want security to apply to everyone. Welfare shall be shaped around the individual's needs, and that also applies to the sickness insurance. We want the sickness insurance to be a guarantee so that one can feel secure throughout an entire working life. It should not be a source of worry during those periods in life when one needs it most. Security during illness is the foundation for a strong Sweden, and it is time to make the changes that a modern working life requires of the sickness insurance.

We shall ensure that we give Sweden a new direction. We shall ensure that we give Sweden's wage earners security systems to rely on.

We Social Democrats have a separate statement in the report, because we are far from satisfied with the government's policy.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Åsa Eriksson from the Social Democrats!

I am very grateful that the member very clearly underlined that sickness benefit is an insurance. Since it is an insurance, one could see the waiting period deduction as the employee's small deductible in this insurance, while the sickness pay responsibility can be said to be the employer's deductible.

My first question to the member is whether one cannot consider it a rather obvious consequence of an insurance that there is a deductible.

My second question, which the member was also very clear about, concerns this as a matter of fairness. If an employee plays football in a recreational team and happens to break their foot, the employer must take responsibility for the sick pay for two weeks. Is it fair that an employer has to pay sick pay for two weeks for an injury that is not work-related?

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Member Camilla Rinaldo Miller for wanting to talk about the care deduction! I will do so more than gladly, as the Member surely knows.

The Chairperson asked: Is it not reasonable with a deductible in the health insurance? She also said that the waiting period was the "small" deductible.

We Social Democrats believe that there absolutely must be a deductible in the sickness insurance. But today we have three deductibles on the first day: We have the entire karensavdrag, the rest of the sickness pay is max 80 percent, and furthermore, the conversion factor in the sickness benefit is 0.97, which means you can never count on 3 percent of the salary. We thus have three deductibles in the sickness pay today.

The carence deduction gives zero kronor on the first day, something that causes many people to go to work even though they are sick because they cannot afford to stay home. We think it is wrong. Sweden is the only country in the Nordic region that has a carence deduction. It works perfectly in other countries.

Of course we shall have a deductible, but we think that the two that exist in the sickness benefit are perfectly sufficient: firstly, that the sickness benefit is a maximum of 80 percent of the salary, and secondly, that the conversion factor is 97 percent.

I believe that all those people who are at home and are sick and receive sick pay feel that the three deductibles are not a small deductible, as the member called it. We need to remove the sick pay deduction. We are completely on board with that.

I think it is interesting that the Christian Democrats are raising the question of what should apply if one gets injured and is not at work, but it is not certain that one needs to be signed off sick because one has broken a leg. There are many jobs that one can perform with a broken leg. It depends on what one works with. It is when the ability to work is impaired that one becomes signed off sick.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the member does not want to answer whether it is fair that the sickness benefit for the first two weeks should fall on the employer.

I cannot see that it is that. Now it is so, and we will not propose any change. I am, however, determined that the care deduction needs to remain.

The committee member says that other countries do not have any quarantine deductions and that it works. But I can only say that our neighboring country Norway is a horror example that shows that we should not have it as they do. On the other hand, many employees have good agreements with their trade unions and perhaps still receive compensation of up to 100 percent of their wages for the first two weeks. It is a matter of agreement.

I just took one example. I still want to ask again: Does the member think it is fair that an employer should pay two weeks of sickness benefit for an injury that has not occurred at the workplace and is not work-related?

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Rinaldo Miller said "sjukersättning" (sick pay compensation) three times, but I believe she meant "sjuklön" (sick pay). I therefore believe it was sick pay the member meant and that it is what we are talking about now. I am happy to talk about sjukersättning, but it does not seem to be what the matter concerned.

If the Christian Democrats have a proposal on how the responsibility for sick pay could be designed if a person has a sick leave for reasons not caused by the job, I would gladly listen, but I have not heard that anything such has been submitted.

The system today, which means that you have the right to stay home and be signed off on sick leave if you have reduced capacity to work due to illness, we Social Democrats think is good. Then, it is not always the case that one must stay home from work if one has broken a leg. It depends on what one works with. I believe the member, for example, could continue to be a Member of Parliament with a broken leg. It depends entirely on what one works with. The basis of the sickness insurance, we therefore believe is good, but it needs to become fairer and more secure. Above all, the waiting period deduction must be removed.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are discussing one of the most fundamental securities in a functioning society: economic security in the event of illness and disability. In expenditure area 10, a total of 122 billion kronor is allocated. This can be compared to last week's debate on the justice system, where 95 billion were allocated to the police, correctional services, and courts. The difference underscores the weight of today's area. Here, it is about providing support to some of society's most vulnerable.

In a quick comparison, we can state that those living on sickness benefit at the guarantee level, who are thus judged incapable of working, have received more than 2,500 kronor more every month since 2022. The corresponding increase for those with income-related sickness benefit is over 4,400 kronor a month. These are monies that make a difference in everyday life and that help people manage the bills when costs rise.

I will refrain from mentioning all the other good things the government has done both in this budget and previously to improve and support household finances, such as lowered electricity tax, lowered fuel tax, lowered food VAT, and so on.

Mr. Speaker! I would, however, like to continue spending time on some of the worrying trends we see within the sickness insurance – albeit with the caveat that the situation looks significantly better than before 2006, when the Social Democrats hid and forgot people in early retirement. A worrying trend that goes back over 20 years is that women are significantly sicker than men on a structural level. Women's sickness benefit figures are 87 percent higher than men's. One of the explanations is that more and more women remain longer on sickness benefit. It also, of course, plays some role that, in line with the raised retirement age, one remains longer in the sickness insurance than before.

Overall, sickness absence is slightly rising, but women's sickness absence stands out. Something also happens when women turn 30. From sickness benefit figures of around 11 days per year, the number increases to 17 days per year. Men of the same age are at around 8 days per year. This is not just statistics. It is women who break down to a greater extent than men, regardless of how we measure it. Certainly, choice of profession plays a role, but even within the same professions, we see significant differences. A male teacher appears to be healthier than a female colleague.

Women run twice as high a risk of sick leave due to stress-related mental ill-health compared to men. Regional variations also hit women more, where we can see greater variations than among men. This statistic is worrying. Therefore, the government's prioritization of funds for research on diseases that often affect women is important.

Many women suffer in silence or do not receive the right care at the right time. A clear example of this is menopause care. Here, employers can also do a lot. Employers must be given better tools to be able to take their responsibility to work systematically with the work environment and preventive measures. An example is the moderately-led Partille, where the menopause training yields good results.

The central challenge with the goals, figures, and human fates we follow in the Social Insurance Committee cannot be solved within a single policy area. It requires cooperation from the individual, the employer, the healthcare system, and the authorities, who must work together, not in silos.

Madam Speaker! Many of the measures needed to reduce sickness rates lie in other expenditure areas but strongly affect how many people become dependent on the social insurance. In this year's budget, there are important notifications that are also about to be addressed in this chamber. One such example is work trial with maintained sickness benefit. It is a concrete and important way back to work for many people.

We are also debating today several legislative proposals aimed at making the path back to work easier, including proposals such as enabling people with sickness and activity compensation to study part-time and thereby approach the labor market. The proposals mean that the compensation shall be declared partially suspended during studies and that the trial period for studies for those with activity compensation is extended from six to twelve months. It gives people more chances, not fewer, to take steps toward self-sufficiency.

We also have to take a position on the legislative proposal regarding stronger SGI protection for dependents. It is a welcome strengthened social protection for dependents of state employees, for example, when the Armed Forces staff positions as a result of Sweden's NATO membership.

I also want to take the opportunity to mention the expanded possibilities for Försäkringskassan to counteract the exploitation of the social insurance system by system-threatening crime. Every krona that ends up in the wrong pocket risks the trust in the entire welfare state.

Madam Speaker! Our jointly funded safety systems must be there when a helping hand is needed. This places demands on the individual themselves, Försäkringskassan, employers, and health and medical care. Coordination, rehabilitation, and a good working environment enable a healthier population.

Our safety systems exist so that those affected by illness can receive the help they need. It is not just about money. It is about people, about the person who becomes ill, about the person who fights to get back, and about us taking care of one another when life becomes heavy.

The government is investing in better coordination between health centers, workplaces, and authorities, because it makes a difference. Every person who receives the right help at the right time means less suffering and a stronger society. This is what our children should be able to rely on when they grow up. Sweden shall be a country where the safety nets work, especially when life takes a turn. With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mikael Damsgaard and Magnus Resare (both M) concurred.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Within this expenditure area, all three goals are heading in the wrong direction. The member mentioned a couple of them, but perhaps the most serious is that the sickness rates are increasing year by year. That should somehow worry a responsible government.

In the analysis in the budget, it is said that one of the explanations, of course, is that a changed assessment was introduced at day 180 and day 365. A special investigator was tasked with looking into that. The Swedish National Audit Office also did so. The special investigator said that the changes have only resulted in deteriorations. We have had extended sick leaves as a result. The investigator also suggested that one should go back, redo it, and do it right.

This received harsh criticism. It was said, among other things, that the whole thing was done in too close connection to covid. The government decided, apparently following demands from Sverigedemokraterna, that the changes should not be implemented, but instead this should be put in the wastebasket. But now we see the result of that in the rising numbers of illnesses.

Given that we do not seem to be heading in the right direction in any of the three goals, my question to the Moderate member is: What does the government intend to do to ensure that the curve is reversed so that we once again get stable sickness rates in Sweden?

Regarding what the investigator pointed out concerning changes at 180 and 365 days, a natural follow-up should be to say: "Okay, perhaps this was done in too close connection to the pandemic. We do it again and perform exactly the same runs and see if the changes persist." Is any such work ongoing in the Government Offices? Or what other proposals does the government want to implement to gain control over the development of the sickness numbers?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jonsson, for the question!

As you heard in my speech, we are concerned about the development. The government states in the budget that the goal has been partially achieved. But concrete measures are also proposed. For example, work assessment during sickness benefit is moving forward now. I believe that it can be an important measure to get people back into work. We move forward with proposals that one should be able to study while living on sickness benefit. We also move forward with important investments in research on diseases that more often affect women. We have not even touched upon the investments to counteract mental ill-health, which we see as a strong contributor to this. I would say that we, on the contrary, are doing very much in the area, and we are doing it responsibly, methodically, and carefully.

The investigation was commissioned by the government because the risk was seen. But just as the member described himself, it was noted that it was done too close to covid. Work and discussions on how to address the alarming figures of illnesses are ongoing at all times. One only has to read the budget to see many of the proposals.

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam President! I have nothing against the proposals and processes that are ongoing. They are certainly positive changes, but they will not fundamentally affect the development that we have seen since several years ago. In the analysis, which is also reproduced in the budget, it can be seen that the changes at 180 and 365 days have, to the highest degree, resulted in a negative development for the figures on ill health in Sweden.

My question is more specific: Will the government contribute to having the investigation redone and looking at fresh figures that are now a number of years away from the pandemic? If those figures and the results that the special investigator and also the Swedish National Audit Office came up with hold up, one should of course follow the advice given by the investigator, namely to go back, redo it, and do it right.

The changes were made with a very good intention and a good approach. If there were an opportunity to return to one's previous job, one could continue to be on sick leave based on an assessment against the previous employer. But the investigator showed that it was not possible. My question is therefore: Is the government prepared to turn the stone over once again and see if the results from the previous investigation still hold, and if so, propose the changes that the investigator came up with, namely to do it over and do it right?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jonsson, for the impatience that the Center Party is showing tonight!

I interpret this as there being high expectations for moderate-led governments. Not even one parliamentary term – barely a few years – has passed before one demands a rethink regarding an investigation and yet another investigation.

When the Center Party was a support party for other governments, one did not expect the same results. It is a positive example of the conservatism that the Center Party actually belongs to and the delivery that Moderate-led governments commit to. I therefore look forward to the upcoming election campaign and future collaborations, where we can implement good policies that reduce sick leave and ensure that we get a healthier population.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is fantastic when it works as it should. Safety and trust are worth everything when it really matters. We must nurture and strengthen what is good about Sweden. Of course, it is entirely possible. Cuts are not predetermined, but they are a result of political priorities. With different priorities than those the sitting government and the Sverigedemokraterna have made during this mandate period, we could have protected welfare and households, and we would have been better able to protect those who are ill and those who work.

With one year left until the election, we can nevertheless state that the government is playing a cynical election game in its budget work. After three years of austerity with the Tidö parties, the government is emptying the state treasury and letting the welfare system foot the bill. By having refrained from investing for a long period, the government has, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, cemented the economic downturn.

The government's and the Sweden Democrats' 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 over 80,000 kronor. The government proposes tax cuts of over 50 billion for next year.

At the same time, healthcare remains in crisis. Households are struggling. The government sat on its hands and let the housing market crash, and it has let unemployment spiral out of control without a single labor market measure. The government has left people at the mercy of the elements. It is only to be noted that the government has, point by point, failed to manage the problems we face. It is simply regrettable.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the sickness insurance, which we are debating today, the Left Party made demands to the government regarding it a few years ago. It was and is absolutely one of the most important priorities we could make. For the first time in a long time, the sickness insurance was developed in the right direction. I am proud of that, not least after the sickness insurance has been systematically weakened and dismantled for decades.

It meant a great deal to many that we pushed through improvements, for example that more people would receive the compensation they were entitled to and that the ceilings in the sickness benefit would be raised. Then the basic level and the sickness and activity compensation were raised, and the housing supplement was raised to the same level for age pensioners. Furthermore, the tax gap between those with sickness and activity compensation and wage earners was closed. These were important changes for people with sickness and activity compensation. We also got the previous government to look at even more improvements.

The government we have now has rolled back the development. There was a rush to scrap investigations and they did not even want to look at proposals to abolish the unfair allowance. The sickness and activity allowance continues to be low, and the unfair allowance remains.

People are being impoverished by this government, even though the Swedish model is based on the idea that people who become too ill to work should still have an economy to get by on and support to return to work. Being punished financially does not make anyone healthier, and unfortunately, the reality is such that many are disqualified from insurance and do not receive the support they need. So it cannot continue.

I think the improvements that came a few years ago show how important it is that Vänsterpartiet has influence over politics and that it is clearly only then that the sickness insurance can be strengthened. But it also shows how vulnerable people and our sickness insurance systems are and how important it is that the sickness insurance is prioritized. This government will not do that.

The sickness insurance, the security that exists when we become ill, is not fully functioning today. We have heard countless stories about people who end up in limbo, who lose their benefits and who receive rejections despite having very severe illnesses and being unable to work.

At the end of the previous parliamentary term, an inquiry was appointed to review the sick pay deduction. The conclusion could have been that the sick pay deduction should be removed – we do not know because the inquiry was not allowed to continue. It was probable; the goal was very clear. But the inquiry was scrapped 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 even if one has a cold, while others have occupations where one meets many people, runs a higher risk of being infected and infecting others, and simply cannot work from home. The latter are hit hard financially when they become ill. They simply cannot afford it today.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to move for approval of reservation 1 in the report we are debating today. It concerns the goal of the expenditure area. For the sickness insurance to function as intended, it must be need-based. The sickness insurance shall provide financial security to those who are too ill to work and opportunities for rehabilitation for return to work.

For all too long, other ambitions and objectives, for example pressing down sickness rates, have come to govern the function of the sickness insurance. The absurdity of this order became clear, for example, during the pandemic. The Government should therefore return with a proposal to change the goal for expenditure area 10, which we are debating today, to "to provide economic security in the event of illness and effective support so that the individual can regain their capacity for work and return to work." This should be allowed to guide Försäkringskassan's regulatory letter.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam President! Economic security in the event of illness or disability is not about figures on a piece of paper. It is not just about one of many areas of expenditure. It is about people and about people's everyday lives, security, and dignity. It is about our humanity and our common responsibility.

This expenditure area covers 122 billion, of which nearly 54 billion goes to sickness benefit and rehabilitation and over 51 billion to activity and sickness benefits. These are truly no small means, but above all, they are resources that reach those who most need economic security when life changes rapidly.

Madam President! When I meet children and young people, I often ask them if they have a dream job. The answers can vary. Some are quite sure about what they want to be when they grow up, while others are more thoughtful and don't really know. But for the most part, I meet children and young people with dreams, who see it as a given that they will work and who want to be involved and contribute. They are children and young people who want to take responsibility, people like you and I.

We all know that life can sometimes take different directions than we dreamed of when we were young. I myself had two quite different dream jobs: I wanted to become a hairdresser or a veterinarian. This was in the 1900s, and at that time both of these professions required high scores and good grades. I did not match that. But I got a chance. Ten years after I had finished ninth grade, when I was 26 years old, I started studying to be a hairdresser in high school. Even though I had to wait to become what I once dreamed of, I still got the opportunity to experience it.

But life can take other turns. An accident can cause a permanent disability. An employer may choose to move their operations, and an employee might not have the possibility to move with them. One simply becomes unemployed.

Madam Speaker! That is why a balance between security and responsibility was needed. As a Christian Democrat, I believe in humanity and responsibility, in security and the work line.

The Government's proposal for the budget within this expenditure area provides exactly this balance – a balance between security and the work principle. It provides support when it is needed most to provide security and space for transitions and economic compensation. The Government simultaneously sees a need to provide employers with support in various respects.

The Christian Democrats do not want the sick pay deduction to be removed. It would be far too costly and burden our small business owners with higher sick leave and difficulties in keeping costs under control. It would also lead to those who are already far from the labor market finding it even harder to get employment because employers would need to be even more cautious about whom they hire.

Last week I visited Kvarnstrands in Ekenässjön in Vetlanda municipality. The company operates in both Sweden and Norway. The staff perform exactly the same work tasks and have the same working hours and the same conditions. In the company's operations in Ekenässjön in Sweden, the sickness absence is at 3 percent. In Norway, it is at 10 percent. In Norway, there is no waiting period for sickness benefit.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats want a Sweden where the best interests of the human being are at the center, where the system exists for the human being and not the other way around, where every individual can live with dignity even when life changes, and where the help and security are concrete. The government's budget shows that it is possible to combine security and responsibility, humanity and sustainability, the individual's needs and the society's resources.

Madam President! Here we should be able to stand united for human dignity, for a common social responsibility, and for a Sweden where consideration and common sense carry our shared future.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam President! I must take the opportunity, when Member Rinaldo Miller says in his speech that the Christian Democrats do not want to abolish the care deduction. And then Rinaldo Miller again takes up Norway as an example. Norway has no deductible in its health insurance while Sweden has three, as I informed the Member a short while ago.

But I wonder: What actually applies? What is the Christian Democrats' policy? In the latest party leader debate on SVT, the leader of the Christian Democrats, Ebba Busch, said she was open to looking at the care deduction. So what is the message really? Do the Christian Democrats want to keep the unfair care deduction, or do they want to, as Ebba Busch says, look at it?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

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

No, the Christian Democrats do not want to remove the sickness benefit deduction. What my party leader said in a party debate was not based on the party having changed its position or its policy in any way. We heard earlier during the debate that there might be opportunities to look at what the Sweden Democrats talked about, an alternative. But not even that is something the Christian Democrats are on board with. Removing the sickness benefit deduction would be devastating for our small business owners. We also heard earlier that nine out of ten jobs are created by small business owners. We cannot subject them to this.

So no, the Christian Democrats stand by what we have said before: We do not want to remove the care deduction.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! I have no further questions, as that was a very good announcement from Member Rinaldo Miller. What her party leader says in debates does not matter – we should not concern ourselves with that. We know that, everyone who watches the debates and follows Ebba Busch. It is probably Rinaldo Miller one should follow instead, if one wants to know what the Kristdemokraterna's policy is. I thank you for that.

While I have the floor, I would like to take the opportunity to inform Rinaldo Miller and all others who are listening: in our proposal to remove the sick pay deduction, which we want to remove because it is so unfair and because it is Sweden's workers who are paying the price today, we have included a high-cost protection for small and medium-sized companies with up to 50 employees, so that they can receive compensation for high sick pay costs. That type of compensation has been removed by the Tidö parties, so that small and medium-sized companies today no longer have the possibility to apply for financial compensation if they have high sick pay costs.

We agree that it is important to dare to hire – to dare to hire even people who have a history of illness and people who risk becoming ill. Therefore, our proposal contains a responsibly designed support. But the quarantine deduction for Sweden's wage earners is unfair and must be removed.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am fantastically proud of my party leader Ebba Busch. I think she is doing a fantastically good job. If not otherwise, we can see it in the confidence polls, where she ranks very high, even though we are a small party.

But I suppose I must congratulate the Social Democrats if Magdalena Andersson has never ever spoken out against your party's policy and said anything when she has felt like it. I could personally vouch for the fact that it has happened, but I will not swear an oath on it. But I congratulate you if it is the case that Magdalena Andersson has never ever gone against the party's policy in a party leadership debate or in any other debate context.

We want as many people as possible to work. The Social Democrats have for many years promoted the full-time journey: All people shall have the right to work full-time. But we also know that there are people who cannot manage to work full-time.

I would have wished that the Social Democrats would talk more about letting people work 100 percent of their ability. Then many people could be able to work as much as they can and be able to receive compensation for the time they cannot work. More people could be able to go to work and feel valuable and have a community where they can feel included and in demand.

Perhaps we can begin discussing this together when we establish the future policy for this area. It is truly about economic security for those affected by illness but also for those who have a disability. Being able to work 100 percent of one's ability is an important issue.

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit exciting with the parliamentary debate in the late hour when the darkness has settled outside. We get exciting announcements from the rostrum, about party leaders who get a feeling in the party leader debates and give announcements that then do not apply because the party goes against them. I hope there will be more such exciting revelations during the evening, but perhaps not that I myself will contribute anything.

In the debate on expenditure area 10, it is an interesting starting point to look at the objectives that the Riksdag has established for the expenditure area. The first is that we should have a stable level for the sickness rates in Sweden. We do not have that. They are rising slowly.

The second is that we should not have unjustified regional differences. We do, and they are not decreasing. Gotland has much lower sickness rates than, for example, Värmland has.

The third is that the differences we see between men and women must decrease. They are not decreasing today.

It is surprising that the government, when these three central objectives are not achieved, does not come forward with proposals. Analysis exists to some extent, but no sharp proposals.

I have previously in a round of remarks highlighted precisely the rising sickness rates. There is a clear analysis there. A contributing cause – perhaps the most important cause – is the changes that we here in the chamber decided on, namely that the pressure should be eased during assessments at 180 days and 365 days. It was a change that we made. I voted for it, because we believed that it could be good and that more people would return to work faster. There, both an investigation and the Swedish National Audit Office have shown that is not the case.

I still interpret it as there being an opening from the government that one must look at this again, redo the analyses, rerun the statistics and let more time pass since the pandemic. If the figures hold up, they must be taken seriously and do as the investigator suggested: Do it over and do it right!

Another part, which has been discussed a lot during the debate but which perhaps is not so prominent in the report, concerns the waiting period deduction. I have full understanding that there are people who suffer from the fact that there is a waiting period deduction, not least in those occupations where one cannot work from home.

But I also react when it is said time and again from the rostrum that one cannot be having a cold and be at home waiting for the cold to pass. A cold does not by definition mean that one has the right to receive sickness benefit. One must have reduced capacity to work due to illness. I would like to say that very many people who have a cold still have good chances of performing their work. I find that connection very difficult to see. It is the reduced capacity to work that determines whether one can be at home and receive sickness benefit or not.

If you remove the sick pay deduction, which of course would be perceived positively by some, we know that it will drastically increase short-term absence. It will also increase long-term absence, as it is always linked to short-term absence. This means increased costs for the employers. You cannot just calculate, as someone previously said, the employer's sick pay cost. The major loss for the employer will be the loss of productivity. If key people in the work choose to stay home when they get a cold, it affects the productivity in the company in a very serious way.

Furthermore, it naturally involves a cost for the state, region, and municipality. The Center Party was the party that introduced the "karensdag," as it was then called, in 1982. We were also the party that, in negotiations with the Social Democrats in 1991–1994, ensured that the "karensdagar" were reinstated. I want to be very clear that the Center Party has no interest in voting in the chamber to remove the "karensavdrag."

The problem we have in Sweden is that we still have some of the Western world's highest taxes for hiring, especially in small businesses and with low wages. In a situation where we have rising unemployment, among the highest in the EU, it is therefore a self-evident measure to lower the costs of hiring. Therefore, one of the most important parts of the Centerpartiet's motion is also reductions of the employer contribution, which are social security contributions. It is a reduction of the total employer contribution by 13.3 billion. Initially, it is a reduction for small businesses. We have proposals on how it should look.

When it comes to the long-term unemployed, we propose that for those who have been unemployed for a year, the employer contribution shall be waived for two years.

Then it concerns the young. In the EU, today it is only Spain that has a higher youth unemployment than Sweden. Our youth unemployment is partly a consequence of one of the first things the Tidö government did was to significantly raise the tax for young people, which had a clear effect in the form of increased unemployment. Now the government has presented a proposal to lower it again, but not to the same low level as it was previously.

Also for people who have entry-level wages, we want to remove the employer contribution.

Just the sick pay costs are, as I have previously said in an exchange of remarks, a major problem and a great burden for small businesses, but not for large companies in the same way. That was why the Alliance government ensured that small businesses were compensated for high costs for sick pay. It was with the small businesses in mind and, as I have previously said, not least with the people with disabilities and people who have a tendency to have frequently recurring sick leaves in mind.

When it was removed by the Tidöregering, it had clear consequences. It is a significantly tougher situation for small businesses and not least for those people who are affected by the fact that small businesses today do not dare to employ these people.

In our budget proposal, we have proposed that a high-cost protection for small businesses' sickness benefits should be reintroduced. It is an important issue for both of these groups – both for small business owners and for people who today do not get work.

Madam Speaker! Our time has expired, so I will not make any motion. But I stand completely behind the special statement that we have submitted in the committee.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam President! I thank the previous speaker, who, at the beginning of his speech, somewhat humorously conjured up a bit more energy here on the evening branch. It was always needed. They say that love is the greatest, but joy comes in a good second place at least.

Madam President! When a person is struck by illness, society must be there. The sickness insurance is a promise of security when the ability to work fails and a bridge back to working life when strength returns.

At the last turn of the year, around 200,000 people were on sick leave, and a quarter of them had been for over two years. Behind every figure there is a human being who often longs to return to their ordinary everyday life. The longer the sick leave lasts, the more difficult the return becomes.

The basis of the sickness insurance is double promises – partly compensation for loss of income due to illness, partly support upon returning to work. In other words, the insurance shall provide security when one cannot work but also help the person on sick leave to be rehabilitated and regain their capacity to work.

The work line – that people are encouraged to work – is central. It is based on an individual assessment of work capacity and has been crucial for more people to return to work. Those who can and want to try working again shall receive help and encouragement, not be met by any invisible obstacles.

From and with next year, a new possibility is introduced for those on sick leave to test working for a shorter period without losing their sickness benefit. This gives both the individual and the employer a trial period, a breathing space where one can try to find a way back in calm and peace without everything being at stake at once.

Madam Speaker! All over Sweden, there are mothers and fathers who are torn between work and their children's needs. They love their children but are forced to worry about finances when the child's health or special needs require their time. It has created an unsustainable situation for many of those affected.

But finally, parents of children with chronic illnesses or tough setbacks will no longer have to take vacation or unpaid leave to be there for their child. In the budget bill for 2026, there will be a reform that eases everyday life for these families. We are expanding the right to temporary parental leave, so that parents can be there for their children. It simply means that they should be able to take parental leave to be present at the preschool or school and instruct the staff on the child's care needs. That is one example. They should be able to take parental leave to participate in important meetings with the school regarding the child's illness or disability, and they should be able to take parental leave to accompany their child during social services' investigations when the child may need support. It is very good that we are achieving this change.

We are also moving forward with changes that make it possible for those who receive sickness and activity compensation to study part-time and have the compensation suspended to the corresponding extent. Furthermore, the trial period for young people with activity compensation who are studying is extended – from six to twelve months. It is a good message. Those who are ill but have an ounce of capacity to approach self-sufficiency should not be hindered by rigid rules. By giving more people the opportunity to educate themselves or retrain despite having compensation, we open doors for people to be able to grow, acquire new knowledge, and perhaps find a job despite their current health status.

Madam Speaker! A proposal that has not received quite as large headlines in the budget but which is significant concerns the extended sickness benefit-earning income protection for accompanying family members of state employees, aid workers, among others, who serve abroad. This means, for example, that an accompanying husband, wife, or partner of someone who is on an overseas assignment will no longer have to lose their SGI during the time abroad. It makes it easier for more relatives to accompany without fear of being left without security upon return.

Madam Speaker! In order for the sick to be able to return, it requires not only rules but also resources and knowledge in our systems. The Government has previously intensified the work on rehabilitation and allocated resources to Socialstyrelsen for their mission to support the healthcare system's work with sick leave and rehabilitation.

It means, in practical terms, more support out in the regions, for example to spread better working methods so that the person on sick leave receives help in the right time. Particular focus is also placed on mental ill-health. There, the absence is very high, and it unfortunately continues to increase. And the way back is often lined with difficulties. Additionally, among other things, the method of individually adapted support to work for persons with mental illness and weak labor market connection has been introduced.

All this is completely in line with our conviction that knowledge and early interventions are the key. We must treat the causes, not just pay out compensation.

I take this opportunity to express my support for the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the vast majority of Swedes, if asked, would agree on one thing. I believe they would agree that if you are too ill to work, you should not have to do so, and if you have a diagnosis or a disability that prevents you from working, you should not be forced to do so. It should simply be possible to live in security and with a good standard of living even if your health otherwise limits you.

I would say that it is the very basic idea of having a welfare society at all with the safety nets that we have built up. Everyone who lives in our wonderful country should feel secure that they will not be left behind if they become ill or disabled. But that is not the case, and it is a shame for our welfare society.

In Sweden, we have a sickness and activity compensation given to persons with reduced work capacity due to illness or disability. For those who have worked previously, the compensation is based on their previous salary. For those who have not worked before losing their work capacity, for example because they have studied or have not had time to find a job, there is a guarantee level. In 2025, that compensation is between 12,152 kronor and 13,622 kronor per month before tax, depending on the recipient's age.

Every third recipient of sickness and activity compensation receives it at the guarantee level. This means that more than 73,000 Swedes today receive less than 10,000 kronor after tax from the compensation intended to replace their salary, perhaps for the rest of their working lives.

One of them is a neighbor of mine in my housing cooperative in Malmö, a woman in her upper 40s. In 2002, while she was studying to become a teacher, she fell ill with MS and lost a large part of her mobility. She was judged unable to work. During the first years, before she turned 30, she received assistance allowance. After that, she has received sickness allowance.

Since she was a student and had never had a job before she became ill, she has for over 20 years received compensation at the guarantee level, i.e., less than 10,000 kronor a month after tax. Since she also will never be able to work, she will receive compensation at the guarantee level for the rest of her so-called working life until she reaches the retirement age. At that point, she will receive guarantee pension and probably be able to utilize other parts of the basic security in the pension system.

Madam President! My neighbor is lucky. She has a man who can work and who earns okay. They live in a cramped space, but they manage. Many others do not have the same luck. There are those who are single, those whose partners are also ill or have a low wage.

Every year, more than 4,000 Swedes with sickness or activity compensation are forced to apply for social assistance from the municipalities to reach the level of a reasonable standard of living. The level of the compensation is not intended for one to be able to live on it long-term, but for one to manage temporarily in a crisis.

Even among those who are not entitled to social assistance, there are many with sickness or activity compensation who are stuck in a situation where the compensation does not cover basic needs and where every krona must be balanced against rent, medicine, and food.

Madam Speaker! It is not worthy that thousands of chronically ill or disabled Swedes receive a compensation that is hardly livable. Sweden deserves better than that. The guarantee level in the sickness and activity compensation must be sufficient so that one can live securely and comfortably for the rest of the time until retirement. When we sat in government, we implemented a very substantial increase of the guarantee level, and in our budget proposal, Miljöpartiet will increase the guarantee level in the compensation by 500 kronor per month next year.

In the long term, however, the system needs to be completely reviewed so that the compensations always guarantee a good standard of living. More people must be granted the right to sickness and activity compensation, the requirements of proof must be lowered, and it must become easier to engage in voluntary work or to try working or studying without losing the right to compensation. We have submitted a motion on this here in the Riksdag, and the proposals will be processed further later this autumn.

The security for the chronically ill and the disabled must increase. Miljöpartiet welcomes that the government and Sverigedemokraterna finally, in their last autumn budget, remove the unjust disability tax that they themselves introduced and which has resulted in the tax on sickness and activity compensation being higher than the tax on work.

In recent years, the government and SD have justified the disability tax with the work principle and the need for incentives to work. As if someone with a chronic illness would become healthy if they just wanted it enough, if they would earn enough from it. Now the government has finally realized its mistake. It is unreasonable that someone who cannot work without their own fault should pay more in tax than a wage earner, and it pleases me that the Tidö parties have finally listened to Miljöpartiet and to the disability rights movement, which has demanded this equalization for several years.

Madam Speaker! Another issue that affects many, both employees and employers, is the question of compensation for high sick pay costs. Today, around 60,000 employers receive support from the state to cover high sick pay costs when their employees are ill. It is a compensation that the government has decided to phase out gradually. Most employers who receive the support are small business owners, and even though the compensation they receive on average corresponds to approximately 5 percent of the companies' total sick pay costs, a single sick leave for a small business owner can mean a much greater financial burden than for the average.

Without the support, it risks becoming more difficult for small businesses to employ people with a history of illness, even though they are otherwise fully capable of working, because the economic risks for the companies become too great. And for those employers who are affected by several sick leaves, the high sick pay costs they incur can make further recruitment or important investments in the business impossible. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet want the compensation to remain, in order to facilitate things for small business owners, promote more employment, and improve the possibility of returning to work for people with a history of many illnesses.

Madam Speaker! Sweden deserves better than what this government gives us. Sweden deserves a security system that actually offers security for our sick and disabled. Sweden deserves a welfare system that actually delivers welfare to all our inhabitants. Sweden deserves a government that actually prioritizes the needs of the most needy over the profits of the most wealthy.

Miljöpartiet offers that alternative, and I look forward to the next mandate period, when we in the government will be involved in ensuring that it becomes a reality.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 December.)

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