Compensation for high sick pay costs ceases

Jessica Rodén (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU16 Compensation for high sick pay costs ceases.

The government has decided to abolish the compensation, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain our Social Democratic position on the matter.

The compensation for high sick pay costs is a compensation that employers have been able to apply for when their sick pay costs exceed a certain proportion of the wage costs. This system has existed to relieve particularly the small and medium-sized companies, which can be hit hard financially if several employees fall ill at the same time. The compensation has thus played an important role in creating security both for employers and for employees.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office notes, however, in its report *Easy to make mistakes* that the compensation system has several clear efficiency deficiencies that lead to an increased risk of incorrect payments. One of the major problems is that the employers themselves are responsible for the calculation of sick pay costs, which increases the risk of inaccuracies. Furthermore, the Swedish National Audit Office points out that the coordination between Försäkringskassan and Skatteverket is insufficient, which complicates the control work.

The Social Democratic committee group will not object to the government's proposal to abolish the compensation. We believe that there are several problems with the current system that need to be addressed. It is clear that the system's current construction is not sustainable in the long run and that there is a need to reduce the risk of incorrect payments.

At the same time, we Social Democrats have some concerns that we highlight in our special statement regarding how the proposals may affect the willingness to employ different groups of insured persons, such as the chronically ill and persons with a medical history.

We are aware that there is a risk that these individuals may face difficulties in the labor market if employers become more selective in their hiring. For us, it is clear that all people have fair and equal opportunities in the labor market. From the committee group's side, we will follow the issue closely and return with proposals if we consider it necessary.

Furthermore, it is important that we do not lose focus on the work environment work. A good work environment is not just a matter of avoiding work-related injuries and sick leave, but it is also about creating a workplace where the employees feel safe and appreciated.

The employer already has a great responsibility to ensure that the work environment is such that it minimizes the risk of work-related injuries and, in the long run, sick leave. Abolishing this compensation means that the Riksdag sets clearer requirements for employers to fulfill this responsibility.

The Riksdag must also ensure that those affected by sick leave receive the support they need to be able to return to work. Here, we need to continue working with measures that strengthen both preventive work and rehabilitation. It is crucial that employers receive the tools they need to be able to take responsibility for ensuring that employees return to work after illness. This shall occur without it involving an unreasonable economic burden for the employers.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! In the bill that we are discussing today, the Government proposes that the compensation for high sick pay costs shall cease.

The proposal meets extensive criticism from the referral bodies. Among them are Svenskt Näringsliv, Småföretagarnas Riksförbund, LO, Saco, Myndigheten för delaktighet, and Funktionsrätt Sverige. They reject the proposal on the grounds that it leads to increased selection on the labor market. Arbetsgivarverket is skeptical about the proposal and considers it better that compensation for high sick pay costs remains and is instead developed.

The compensation for high sick pay costs is most significant for small companies. There is a cap on how much compensation each employer can receive, which means that the compensation is of less significance for large companies, municipalities, and regions. In the Council on Legislation's referral, the following can be read regarding the assessment of consequences for the companies:

It means that the compensation in that case corresponds to 5 percent of the employers' total sick pay costs. Most companies that would lose the compensation in the event of an abolition are smaller employers with few employees. This is important to remember when we discuss the proposal.

We also know that small businesses have had it particularly tough during both the pandemic and the recent period with high inflation. That a bourgeois government waves away the criticism coming from Svenskt Näringsliv regarding the impact on small businesses is surprising to me.

The Government points out as an argument for the abolition that there is a risk of fraud in the system. The Crime Prevention Council argues, however, that the proportion of incorrect payments is not remarkably high in relation to other compensations and that it therefore cannot be said that the compensation is extra vulnerable.

The Swedish National Audit Office has submitted a number of recommendations on how fraud can be avoided. They recommend more controls and better opportunities to share information between authorities. Additionally, the employers' obligation to provide information should be tightened and combined with sanction fees. These are welcome proposals that we in Vänsterpartiet would have liked to see the government develop further to avoid fraud in the system.

In the memorandum that forms the basis for the bill, the perspective of functional rights is conspicuous by its absence. Funktionsrätt Sverige points out in its referral response that the proposal risks further worsening the opportunities in the labor market for persons with a disability or chronic illness. It is a target group that perhaps already has the most challenges in the labor market at a time when a record-high shortage of labor prevails. The Government should strengthen the opportunities for persons with a disability in the labor market, not worsen them.

LO also argues that the proposal presented is not sufficiently scrutinized and well-balanced, and to an excessive extent risks leading to increased selection in the workforce and to higher sickness absence, and furthermore hit employees at small employers extra hard.

Instead of abolishing the compensation, LO argues that the system should be reviewed on a larger scale, including both general and specific high-risk protection, so that selection in the workforce, incorrect payments, and other negative effects can be avoided.

The Swedish Pensions Agency lacks a consequence analysis of how much the compensation for special high-risk protection may be affected by an abolition of compensation for high sick pay costs. The Swedish Pensions Agency does not consider this to be sufficiently scrutinized. I also consider this to be a clear deficiency in the bill we are now discussing.

Vänsterpartiet agrees with the criticism from the referral bodies and views the risk of selection in the labor market particularly seriously, where people judged to have a high risk of sick leave are screened out during employment.

The Government justifies the decision to proceed with the proposal despite this criticism by stating that an incentive is needed for employers to counteract high sickness absence rates. Vänsterpartiet agrees that an incentive is needed.

In an international comparison, employers in Sweden have very weak incentives to counteract high sickness absence rates. Vänsterpartiet believes, however, that the incentive structure needs to be developed in a more fundamental way. To only focus on the high sickness pay costs is insufficient and risks missing the mark.

When the government abolished the Karensutredningen and instead appointed a working group at the Government Offices to investigate the issue, it also opted against a more comprehensive analysis of how employers' incentives to counteract sick leave could be strengthened. Vänsterpartiet is very critical of this. If the government had wanted to reduce high sickness rates resulting from a poor working environment, it could have taken measures to improve the working environment in the country's workplaces.

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag should reject the bill. I therefore move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

The intention of the compensation for high sick pay costs has been to protect small companies against unforeseen expenses that an employee's sick leave can entail, with special consideration for newly started companies. The compensation is designed in a way that primarily benefits smaller companies.

In order to facilitate the administration of the companies, the application process has been automated.

The compensation is designed in such a way that sickness benefit costs in certain situations are fully compensated by the state. This occurs when an employer's sickness benefit costs exceed a certain proportion of the total wage costs.

It cannot be considered appropriate that the entire marginal cost of employees' sick leave is shifted onto the state.

Mr. Speaker! The system for compensation for high sick pay costs has been shown to have several flaws. There is therefore a great risk of incorrect payments and increased subsequent administration. The system's current construction entails an increased risk that incorrect data will occur when reporting sick pay.

A prerequisite for an automated system to lead to correct payments is that the compensation is calculated based on the correct data.

In the preparatory works for the reform, the cost for compensation for high sickness benefit costs was estimated at 360 million kronor. It was six times higher than the expenses for the previous system, compensation for high-cost protection for employers. But in the end, the cost became twice as high as the estimated.

In 2019, that is four years after the system came into force and before the pandemic, the costs for the system were 1.1 billion kronor. This is thus three times higher than the level specified in the preparatory works for the regulatory change.

Mr. Speaker! What the cost increase is due to is not clarified, but there are speculations.

In the previous system, it was a complicated application procedure, which perhaps led to the previous compensation being underutilized.

The continued increase in costs may partly be due to more employers having become aware of the compensation and started reporting the sick pay cost in the employer declaration, which is required to receive the compensation.

One also cannot rule out that the increase is due to an actual increase in sick leave among the employees. Incorrect payments can also be a partial cause. What the cost increase is due to has, as mentioned, not been clarified.

Mr. Speaker! There are also challenges in carrying out the oversight work.

Försäkringskassan is dependent on the employer in its controls of the right to compensation for high sick pay costs. Only the employer has access to information on who has been ill and when, which are pieces of information that are always requested during in-depth investigations. But in many cases, the employer does not respond when Försäkringskassan requests supplementary documentation.

Försäkringskassan has also clarified the information in the template that employers are to fill in for the supplementation because it was often filled in incorrectly.

It has been shown that in half of the cases where Försäkringskassan requested supplementary information, the employer submitted it. Half, therefore, did not submit supplementary information.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal to phase out the system means that approximately 5 percent of employers' total sick pay costs will no longer be compensated by the state.

The vast majority of companies that would lose the compensation in the event of an abolition are smaller employers with few employees, and in the vast majority of cases, it concerns very small amounts. The assessment is that a cessation of this compensation should in no way be decisive for a company's continued survival.

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I requested the floor when I heard Daniel Persson begin his speech by pointing at this as a way to support the companies. In that case, Daniel Persson and the Sweden Democrats have fundamentally not understood what the main reason was for the Alliance government in 2010 and then also the Social Democratic government in 2015 ensuring that we received this system.

It is about a group that Daniel Persson does not mention at all in his speech, namely people who are on long-term sick leave, who have disabilities and who have an increased propensity to have recurring periods of sick leave. They had an extremely difficult time gaining a foothold on the Swedish labor market, as employers simply did not dare to hire them.

That was the main purpose of this system – to lower the threshold for those groups who were far from the labor market so that, among other things, small business owners would not hesitate to hire even the person who had a chronic illness and even the person who had a disability.

Daniel Persson does not mention it at all. He talks about this as if it is only about a subsidy to companies. For one thing, we have had to get used to the fact that the Sverigedemokraterna seem to be immune to protecting important systems when it comes to pensions, unemployment insurance, and health insurance. But it is surprising that the Sverigedemokraterna and Daniel Persson do not mention this at all.

I must therefore ask Daniel Persson: Now that you have analyzed this proposal and signed off on it, what is your assessment of how it affects people with chronic illnesses, recurring periods of sick pay, or disabilities, who today are far from the labor market? How have you thought in the Sverigedemokraterna?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

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

That people who have a high risk of sick leave can be screened out can certainly happen today. But if it were to happen, it is a form of discrimination, and we must crack down on that more firmly.

I also think that during a job interview, one has no obligation to disclose previous sick leaves or illnesses one has had, and it is actually very inappropriate for an employer to ask such questions. There may be exceptions when it comes to occupations such as firefighter, police officer or the like, but otherwise, one should not ask those questions.

I also want to point out that in the memorandum, it is highlighted that employers can continue to apply for compensation for high sick pay costs when the employee has been granted special high-risk protection. This can be granted when there is a risk of repeated sick leave or if the employee has a disease that entails a higher risk of sick leave.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I must repeat my question. This in some way shows that the Sweden Democrats and Daniel Persson have not understood how the labor market works.

Those who are absolutely best at employing people with disabilities or those who have chronic illnesses are not the large corporations, not the state and not municipalities and regions, but it is precisely the small businesses. And what small business owners say when you ask them is that one of the biggest obstacles and the greatest concern they have when they make a new hire in the small company, where they might have two or three employees, is the responsibility for sick pay that they undertake.

It was that which made the alliance government ensure that we got this system - to do everything one can, to turn over every stone, to ensure that people with disabilities and people with chronic diseases shall get at least a somewhat greater chance to get a job.

Now the Sweden Democrats are backing down, and Daniel Persson does so with the argument that the employer is not allowed to find out what the situation is regarding someone's illness.

The small business owner is not blind. The small business owner is not deaf. The small business owner must make an assessment in a situation where one makes a hire.

The proposal that the Sweden Democrats are now pushing through will have two important consequences, and above all, it will have a consequence for this vulnerable group. It will mean that small business owners in Hedesunda or in Söderhamn who are about to make a new hire will consider very carefully whether it is a person who has an increased risk of being signed off sick. In that situation, they will simply force that person out. This is the reality, Daniel Persson.

I am soon ceasing to be surprised by how inclined the Sverigedemokraterna are to strike at all possible safety nets we have in this country - furthermore in cases where it affects people with disabilities and chronic illnesses.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member W Jonsson for the supplementary question.

We meet entrepreneurs quite broadly. Something that constantly recurs in my meetings with entrepreneurs is the regulatory complexity that exists. The government has addressed this to some extent. The regulatory letter for 2024 that has been sent out means that for 30 agencies, they shall, among other things, work on reducing the regulatory burden and in that way also reduce the administrative costs. It is a way to support the entrepreneurs.

For those workers who perhaps have a bit more difficulty entering the labor market, there are, as mentioned, somewhat different types of support available. I mentioned, among other things, specifically high-risk protection. On Försäkringskassan's website, subsidies for personal assistants, establishment jobs, introductory jobs, wage subsidies, new start jobs, projects with a labor market policy orientation, Samhall, sheltered work with a public employer, and special introduction and follow-up support are also mentioned. There is, therefore, already a safety net in place today.

If people were to be subjected to any form of discrimination, that is what we need to take action against, I think.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The system we are discussing today is something that has existed for quite some time. It was the Alliance government that introduced the system in 2010, and it was modified in 2015. There were two major reasons for introducing the system. The most significant one, I have touched upon in my exchange of remarks; it was about lowering the threshold for employers to hire people where they saw, or knew, that there was an increased risk of sick leave. It was also a way to facilitate things for the small companies that actually take a very large responsibility.

As I have said before, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that are absolutely best at employing people who have a disability or who have a chronic illness. It is connected to the fact that they operate in the local community. They know people around them and know that just this person would benefit greatly from having a job.

It was therefore a real cold shower, Mr. Speaker, both for the funkis movement in Sweden and for the small business owners when this proposal arrived. An entrepreneur said that it felt as if this government does not want small businesses at all. It is not only this proposal that the government has put forward that hits small businesses hard, but it is also a long series of others.

The reasons the government provides in its bill, that is, to abolish the entire system, have no support at all in the underlying data, Mr. Speaker. Three major reviews have been conducted of the compensation system – Försäkringskassan, Riksrevisionen, and Inspektionen för socialförsäkringen. All three evaluations that have been made in modern times show that there are a number of deficiencies with the system, but they do not conclude that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater; instead, they have a long series of proposals on how the system could be improved. The natural and reasonable conclusion from the government's side would therefore have been that the compensation system should be developed and improved, not phased out.

The cost of sick pay is a significant obstacle for small businesses to be able to grow and hire. The proposal would increase this cost significantly.

The government writes in the bill - it has also been said from the rostrum previously - that the compensation only constitutes a marginal part of the employers' total sick pay costs and that an abolition of the compensation should not be decisive for a company's existence because, in the vast majority of cases, it concerns relatively small sums.

This shows that this government with M, KD, L and SD completely lacks a small business perspective. It becomes almost mocking when the proposition suggests, which Daniel Persson has also repeated, that this is indeed so good for the companies because it reduces the administration. Now small businesses do not need to keep reporting this to Försäkringskassan, and then they avoid administration – great!

But it is not the case that the business organizations, Småföretagarna, Företagarna, Svenskt Näringsliv and several others, are applauding this. Their reaction is rather that they have received a cold shower. They did not think that a government with the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna would come up with a proposal like a bolt from the blue that hits small businesses directly.

Mr. Speaker! It is also the case that the impact assessment in the bill is deficient, especially regarding the effects for small companies, which several referral bodies have also pointed out. No proper assessment of alternative solutions has been made.

We know from other surveys that the responsibility for sick pay is the second largest obstacle for companies to hire and expand. Among business owners who state that they want to hire, two out of three state that the responsibility for sick pay has a negative impact on that willingness. Svenskt Näringsliv estimates that the employers' total sick pay cost in 2023 will amount to 33 billion kronor. That is 9 billion higher than in 2019. In that situation, this government therefore chooses to throw hundreds of millions in increased costs towards, above all, small and medium-sized enterprises.

Particularly serious is, as I have previously said, that the proposal hits small and medium-sized enterprises which we know mean so incredibly much for new hires - four out of five new jobs come in that sector - and for employing people who are far from the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! Therefore, I move for approval of the reservation, that is, the rejection of the bill.

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposed decision.

In the economic situation we find ourselves in, it is absolutely crucial that our tax resources are used in an efficient manner. We need to get more people into work, and the funds that are released through the reform we are now debating are needed to make Sweden safer.

It is always important that the correct compensation is paid to the correct recipient. Over the years, the number of companies utilizing the possibility of compensation for high sick pay costs has become almost double what was expected when the reform was introduced in 2015. At the same time, the amounts paid out have also become significantly higher.

When the rules in the current system were introduced, the costs for this compensation were calculated at 0.3 billion kronor per year. In the coming years, the reform is estimated to cost the state over 2 billion per year. This means that the negative consequences that exist take on a different magnitude than what was assumed to be the case when the reform was introduced.

Not only did it become an expensive reform. It also became a reform with a tangible risk of fraud. The National Audit Office has audited the system. Their report is tellingly titled "Easy to make mistakes," because this turned out to be a reform where it became easy to make mistakes. The National Audit Office stated that the risk of inaccuracies in reported data is high. Försäkringskassan's targeted controls have not been sufficient to ensure that no fraud occurs. This is, therefore, a system that can be abused. We are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater; we are plugging the holes so that the tax money cannot leak out.

It can be questioned whether the benefit fulfills its purpose of protecting small companies from unforeseen costs. The fact is that in the vast majority of cases, the compensation is paid out first the year after the year in which the sick pay cost arose. This means that the employer still needs to be prepared for the unforeseen costs that an employee's sick leave entails in the current year. Admittedly, there is a possibility to apply for compensation in advance, but that application procedure involves administrative hassle for the employer and is only used to a limited extent.

Is it not possible to do as parts of the opposition have suggested and keep the compensation but perform more controls? It states in the report that if one has a compensation based on detailed information from employers regarding employees' sick leave at an individual level in combination with more frequent and extensive controls, it would likely reduce the risk of incorrect payments - but it would also mean significantly increased administration for employers. The government's intention is not to make it more complicated for small companies but on the contrary to simplify.

It must be remembered that this compensation only constitutes a small part of the employers' sick pay costs. The employers who received compensation received an average of 26,000 kronor for the period April-December 2022. For small businesses, the figure is 13,000 kronor. At the same time, current forecasts indicate that the state's costs in the coming years will amount to just over 2 billion. This means that the compensation corresponds to approximately 5 percent of the employers' total sick pay costs.

One must have great respect for the fact that many companies are having a tough time. But there are even more pressing reforms to focus effort on, which make a greater difference for the business climate. In a tough economic situation, we must prioritize. Let me mention some of these priorities.

Mr. Speaker! The government has so far introduced a simplification council in order to reduce the regulatory burden for companies. We will also create an implementation council to counter over-implementation of EU directives. Last week, the Riksdag decided to abolish the requirement to keep physical receipts. It is a very important reform that significantly simplifies the administration for all companies.

Mr. Speaker! Through this change of the system for sick pay costs, the work line is strengthened. Employers now receive an increased incentive to prevent sickness absence. Small employers have low sickness absence on average, but there are also small employers where sickness absence is high, and they need to take measures to reduce sickness absence. Of course, there are many who already take great responsibility today, but we want to clarify that we want to see an even greater focus on employers taking measures so that more can return to work. For persons who have extensive sickness absence, the possibility of special high-risk protection still exists.

Mr. Speaker! This is a business-friendly government. This is also a government that takes economic responsibility and plugs the holes for fraud. These are three important principles for getting Sweden in order.

(Applause)

In this speech, Viktor Wärnick (M) agreed.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It was, as said, we – the Moderates, the Centre Party, the Liberals and the Christian Democrats – who together once introduced this system. The purpose was to provide support to small and medium-sized enterprises but above all to ensure that it became easier for people with disabilities and chronic diseases to get work.

Now we are told that the motive for the changes is that with this system, it is easy to make mistakes. But those who have conducted investigations of the system have a number of proposals on how this could be addressed by making corrections and increasing the possibilities to report in a simple way. If there were support for the line that the Moderaterna claim, Svenskt Näringsliv, Företagarna, and Småföretagarnas Riksförbund would stand up and applaud that this system is finally disappearing. But that is not the case, but rather the opposite.

Mr. Speaker! I did not think I would experience the day when a Moderate stood in the Riksdag's rostrum and argued that companies must take increased responsibility for the sick pay costs. It has previously been the left side that has always argued for it, and we conservative parties have said that it is not the right way to go and that the entrepreneurs are already doing everything they can today. They do not need increased costs; they need to receive more help to handle these situations.

My question concerns what the member said about 5 percent of the sick pay cost being a marginal cost. Have the Moderaterna not thought through at all that this in itself is a negligible, marginal cost for large companies, but that it hits hard and is not negligible in a situation where you have one, two, or three employees? What kind of analysis have the Moderaterna made when they dismiss the collective criticism from Sweden's small business owners who say that this is a bad proposal?

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! The compensation paid out to small employers amounted to 13,000 kronor on average for the period April-December 2022. It is therefore a matter of relatively low amounts. An abolition will result in reduced administration as these sick pay costs no longer need to be reported in the employer declarations.

The National Audit Office has also noted that it is easy to make mistakes. We must close the loopholes for fraud, and we need to focus on more pressing reforms such as establishing a simplification council and an implementation council. We are now also abolishing the requirements to keep physical receipts. These are reforms that truly simplify things for small businesses.

We will, of course, protect small businesses and not least continue to fight inflation so that companies can avoid all these incredible price increases which really hit every company hard. Then we must also review various economic reforms and put the money where it does the most good. They do not do that in just this system.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now I am becoming a little extra worried. Small business owners are to be protected by establishing one or two new councils or inquiries at the Government Offices. I believe that a small business owner with two or three employees is not in the least impressed by that. That type of council has existed before, and they have worked on it, but it has not been noticed in the individual entrepreneur's workshop.

I think inflation perhaps does not have that much to do with this debate.

I become concerned when I hear the Moderate member say that the average cost for small businesses is very low. But as a business owner, I am completely uninterested in what the average cost is. Most small businesses have very low sick pay costs, but this hits very hard those who have two or three employees and who have dared to hire someone with an increased propensity to be on sick leave. For small businesses that never have any sick pay costs, it is, on the other hand, quite uninteresting. Furthermore, the average cost becomes low, of course.

What the entrepreneurs are extremely worried about is that in those cases where they are actually affected by sick pay costs – it might be one in ten small business owners – this proposal pulls the rug out from under them. Then they have to pay the price for having employed a person with an increased propensity to be on sick leave.

I wonder if Eleonore Lundkvist understands how wrong it becomes when one talks about average costs. One should instead have listened to the business organizations, which have indeed shouted loudly in light of this cold shower. It came like a bolt from the blue from a government that calls itself business-friendly but is something completely different.

It would be interesting to hear Eleonore Lundkvist explain to a small business owner why the average cost is what is interesting – not what the individual entrepreneur is affected by.

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Eleonore Lundkvist has visited enough companies to understand that inflation is hitting all companies very hard today. I have also visited enough companies to have repeatedly heard how they highlight the need to take a collective grip on regulatory simplification and all EU directives; they do not understand why we should implement them unnecessarily. I have great confidence that the government will deliver in this area.

We also need to look at something that the member did not mention at all, namely the big problem with fraud and that tax money does not go to the recipients for whom it is intended. This is really something that many entrepreneurs highlight. It is about the absence of security in society and about being able to feel that the hard work one puts in pays off by the tax money going to those who are entitled to it and not to criminals.

If we were to continue with this expensive system and introduce additional controls, as the Center Party advocates, the companies' administration would increase significantly. Is that really what the Center Party wants? It sounds like one is very keen on their own reforms, but is it really more important for the Center to cling to their own old proposals than to look up, consider today's reality, and see what is actually best for all of Sweden?

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The government proposes that the compensation for high sick pay costs shall be abolished. This right means that an employer can receive compensation for a certain proportion of the sick pay costs. The provisions are designed in such a way that they benefit small employers, many times small businesses.

From the Green Party's side, we are clear that these regulations should be developed and improved, but we think it is completely the wrong way to go to scrap this compensation. It is very important that employers dare to hire people even if they have a disability or have periods of sick leave in their background.

We already have a labor market today where people are being screened out. This is absolutely not something we want to fuel, but we need to highlight the perspective of functional rights in this issue.

There is an absolute need for incentives for employers to work with issues regarding the work environment. From Miljöpartiet, we want to see an additional number of improvements in the work environment. We do, however, see that the Tidö Government is backing down even in this area. We would, for example, like to see a prevention allowance, so that one can work more with preventive measures so that people do not become signed off from work. There must also be work aids at workplaces to a greater extent.

When it comes to the sickness insurance, we believe that the hard time limits that exist should be reference points. One should be able to be signed off on sick leave to the extent that is needed and not just based on the fixed limits of 25, 50 and 75 percent.

I return to the debate on this proposal. As I was mentioning, the system needs to be developed. In the National Audit Office's report, a number of improvements are proposed, for example, strengthening the coordination between relevant authorities and reviewing the legislation to reduce the risk of incorrect payments. We need to move forward with this, and that is what I have heard everyone who wants to keep the system say today.

To abolish this instead of choosing the development and strengthening of the system is, however, completely wrong. It hits the individual person with recurring periods of sick leave. It hits people with disabilities. It also hits small business owners who dare to employ these people.

It is interesting to note that the Tidö government sometimes cares about small businesses and sometimes ignores them. There is, for example, another legislative proposal concerning sustainable procurement and that those who procure shall partly set requirements on climate, environment, and health, and partly shall develop guidelines on how to work with these issues. The government scrapped this legislative proposal out of consideration for small businesses, even though the industry organization Företagarna thought the proposal on guidelines was good.

In this case, one proceeds with the proposal despite many referral bodies and industry organizations saying that this is the wrong way to go. It is distressing that the argument regarding the well-being of small business owners is used so lightly by this government. It is also extremely serious not to look at the individual human being in these issues.

I move for approval of reservations 1 and 2 and for the rejection of the bill.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 29 May.)

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