(cont.) Working environment (cont. AU12)

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! My question is quite simple. We are in fairly good agreement that there is a very large shortage of safety representatives, especially local safety representatives, within the LO collective. Since Sweden Democrats absolutely must not be safety representatives, my question to Johanna Haraldsson is quite simple: What is Johanna Haraldsson's and the Social Democrats' solution to the large shortage of local safety representatives? What should we do to get more people to want to become safety representatives?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I think we need to start with the question of what makes it so that we have fewer safety representatives. I believe it is partly due to more people working at small workplaces and having insecure employment. In that environment, it is difficult to take on a mandate that takes time away from the work. It affects one's colleagues to a large extent and means that one does not get the support and backing from colleagues that might be needed to be able to carry out the mandate in a good way.

I also believe that in an environment where the number of local safety representatives is decreasing and the unions are finding it harder to recruit members, we need to ensure that we strengthen the regional safety representatives. It is they who, in that case, need to step in at the smaller workplaces and the workplaces that do not have safety representatives.

That is why we Social Democrats, when we were in government, put forward a proposal on how one could strengthen the regional safety representatives and ensure that they could visit more workplaces and contribute to a better working environment, but also be a support for employers, which they also contribute to in many ways at the smaller workplaces.

This is, however, something that the Sweden Democrats have directly opposed. When we presented the proposal for expanded access rights for the regional safety representatives, they wanted to abolish them and replace them with another model for control.

I believe that we need to both expand the regional safety representatives' right of access and ensure that we get more resources for the regional safety representatives. In the current situation, the appropriation is eroded.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to Johanna Haraldsson, it seems that she wants to replace the local safety representatives with regional safety representatives with increased access rights. That is also a solution, and I will take that with me into future debates. But it is still the local safety representatives who work at the workplace who are the contact between the employees and the company. I therefore think it is very worrying that the Social Democrats stand here and say that they want to replace local safety representatives with regional ones.

When it comes to the proposal on increased access, it is correct that the Sweden Democrats had a different solution than the Social Democrats when the question was on the table, Madam Speaker. At that time, the proposal was that the right of access should be extended at workplaces that had collective agreements. The Sweden Democrats wanted to go significantly further and give the regional safety representatives, who are paid by the state, access to all workplaces in Sweden without reservation. I remember this very well, because I had many debates with the then Minister for Employment, Eva Nordmark, where we clashed over just this issue. I therefore do not buy Johanna Haraldsson's argument.

Then I have a final question for Johanna Haraldsson. It is quite simple: Why is a politically active Sverigedemokrat a worse safety representative than a politically active socialdemokrat who sits in the same municipal council?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

When I receive these questions from the Sverigedemokraterna, I wonder a bit what the Sverigedemokraterna actually want with the system for safety representatives. Since the Sverigedemokraterna have stopped explaining their positions in motions, it is a bit difficult to know.

When listening to Magnus Persson, both in his main speech and in this exchange, it appears that in any case, one wants to abolish the unions' priority to appoint safety representatives. This is a proposal with very clear consequences. A safety representative without union anchoring risks being completely dependent on the employer. The mission is based on representing the employees – being able to make demands, speak out, and stop dangerous work even when it costs. It requires independence.

If one removes the unions' right of first refusal, independence is weakened at its core. The risk is that we will get safety representatives who are more cautious, in the worst case quieter, and who do not dare to raise deficiencies or stop dangerous work. There will be fewer who have the strength to fight for their colleagues' protection and safety.

What would have been the consequence – how many more would have become ill, how many more would have died – during the pandemic if we had not had safety representatives who dared to stop the work when elderly care did not offer sufficient protective equipment?

Now I cannot get any answer, but I can ask a rhetorical question: I wonder how the Sverigedemokraterna intend for us to ensure that safety representatives actually have independence and dare to make demands without having a trade union behind them.

(Applause)

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

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

Work environment issues are close to my heart. As a former manager within health and social care, I have had the privilege of closely following a female-dominated workplace, a reality that is often discussed here in the chamber. I have seen how crucial it is to work consciously with the work environment, to see every human being, to support one another, and to show respect for the work that every day sustains our welfare. I continue to carry those experiences with me.

At the same time, it is a complex reality we are discussing. Certain goals should be self-evident, such as that people should be able to go to work and come home again. But that is not always the case.

The preliminary statistics for 2025 show 45 deaths at Swedish workplaces. These concern accidents involving vehicles, falls, and machinery – tragedies that should never have happened.

I have myself had contact with parents whose children went to work but never came home again. It puts the issue into perspective. We must all take responsibility to stop the fatal accidents.

In addition to this, during 2024, approximately 40,000 workplace accidents occurred that led to sick leave and a further nearly 100,000 accidents without sick leave. It is a clear signal that the work on the work environment needs to be strengthened.

The debate often gets stuck in the public sector and care. It is important, but the most serious accidents are more common in industries such as construction, transport, manufacturing, and agriculture and forestry. Therefore, the measures must be broad and reach the entire labor market.

Madam Speaker! A good working environment requires three things: strong leadership, early rehabilitation, and an employer responsibility that is taken seriously.

The government has therefore reinforced Arbetsmiljöverket with increased resources for a more effective and accurate supervision. The inspections have become more numerous and more frequently unannounced, and they are directed towards the workplaces where the risks are greatest. The competence requirements for the inspectors have also been developed.

Information initiatives for small businesses have been carried out, and cooperation regarding occupational health care has been strengthened. At the same time, the zero vision has been developed, from the goal that no one should die at work to the goal that no one should die as a result of work. It is an important increase in ambition. But we must also see the long-term risks. Every year, around 3,000 people die prematurely due to work-related illnesses – those linked to stress, high workload, noise, and physically heavy work. This, too, is obviously unacceptable.

The government is also working powerfully against crime in the labor market. Through a national strategy, supervision is strengthened, sanctions are tightened, and agency cooperation is improved. Unserious actors shall not be able to outcompete serious companies or exploit people. The government's efforts are yielding results, even though much work remains.

Madam Speaker! Working life is changing rapidly. Therefore, a new work environment strategy is now being developed for the years 2026–2030, with a focus on a sustainable, healthy, safe, and innovative working life. Digitalization, AI, and the green transition place new demands on not least the cognitive work environment, as well as on transparency when new technology is introduced. Therefore, a new fourth sub-goal is also being introduced in the strategy.

Leadership is crucial. Managers must have the right conditions, administrative support, and a reasonable number of employees. In elderly care, where the demands are high, leadership needs to be further strengthened. Therefore, the government has appointed an inquiry.

Rehabilitation needs to be developed. Early and active interventions are crucial for people to be able to return to work. The possibility of work trials with maintained sickness benefit is a step forward, but more needs to be done.

Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight women's working environment. On average, women are on sick leave significantly more than men, and they live a larger part of their lives in ill health. This is connected to high pressure both in work life and at home. At the same time, we know that targeted interventions yield results. Investments in, for example, menopause care, education, inspections, and workplace adjustments can significantly reduce sick leave. It is a matter of equality but also of quality and efficiency in our operations.

Work environment policy is ultimately about responsibility. It is about preventing accidents, illnesses, stress, threats, and violence. It is about laws being followed and that no one should become ill or die from their work. But it is also about systematicity – that safety representatives are on site, that companies receive support to do the right thing, that crimes are prosecuted, and that no one should die as a result of their job.

It is about employers taking their responsibility and preventing accidents, stress, threats, violence, and harassment. It is also about a government that ensures that laws and regulations are followed and about us working to reduce sick leave so that people can actually manage a full working life. It is good for Sweden and for our productivity and competitiveness, but it is also good for the person who has a job and colleagues to go to.

It is also about people – about the nursing assistant, the teacher, and all the others who go to work every day and make Sweden function. They should feel safe in their workplaces, they should have leaders who take responsibility, and they should be able to go home to their families. That is why we pursue a policy for a better working environment.

(Applause)

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Saila Quicklund for a good speech and for specifically highlighting women's working environment.

I want to look back a little bit. When Saila Quicklund and I had our first exchange of remarks here in the chamber, in a debate on the work environment three years ago, I asked the member a couple of questions. They sounded roughly like this: Do the Moderaterna think that employers need to take greater responsibility for the psychosocial work environment? Are you prepared to introduce sanctions in the event of deficiencies in the organizational and social work environment?

The answer I received from the member then was very clear. I have trimmed a bit of the answer, but the following is what she said: Of course, I, the Moderates, and the government think that we should proceed with possibilities for sanctions. It is entirely in line with the Moderates' position. There is no conflict in that question.

It was an announcement that created expectations. There was, and still is, a concrete, fully investigated proposal that would increase the pressure on employers to take issues such as high workload and mental ill-health as seriously as the physical risks in the workplaces. The investigation was presented in 2022 and proposed that sanction fees should also be introduced for deficiencies in the psychosocial work environment and in the systematic work environment management.

Now we stand here three years later, at the end of the mandate period, and in this issue, nothing has happened. Therefore, I want to ask the member what it was that changed. Why did that which was so obvious at the beginning of the mandate period suddenly not be worth implementing?

(Applause)

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Johanna Haraldsson for the question.

Yes, Johanna Haraldsson – why are we here? We had eight years with a Social Democratic-led government, which did not introduce this. I perceive it as this being a major request from Johanna Haraldsson and the Social Democrats. I can put it as a final question: Did the Social Democrats or Johanna Haraldsson drive this? Because it seems to be important.

We know that the employer has the absolute greatest responsibility for work environment issues at a workplace, but I also see it as a collective responsibility. The employer parties bear a great responsibility, but so do the safety representatives.

Regarding sanctions, the government is now reviewing penal reforms. Even the Penal Code, under which occupational health and safety offenses fall, is being reviewed. Sanctions are being discussed. Contrary to what the member said in the previous exchange of remarks about that we will not present an occupational health and safety strategy, I can inform that the work is ongoing and that it will be presented. Whether we make it before this mandate period ends, however, I do not know.

Sanction fees are being reviewed. I cannot answer here and now whether they are being introduced, but the issue has been raised and the parties are jointly looking into that specific question. If there are sanctions in typically male industries, I think it would be extremely relevant that there are also [sanctions] where women dominate in the workplaces. But that is a personal opinion, and I cannot promise anything here and now.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it was the Social Democrats who appointed the investigation that proposed increased sanction fees. It was in 2022, shortly before the election, and after that, the investigation was referred. The referrals and the investigation were on the government's desk when the Tidö government took office in 2022. It was therefore prioritized by the previous government, but one usually does investigate things before submitting proposals to the Riksdag – and that is what we did.

I want to oppose what the member is saying. The employer has full responsibility for the working environment at the workplace – this is established in the Work Environment Act – and it is up to the employer to cooperate with employees and safety representatives.

The work environment strategy does not seem to be particularly prioritized. As I said in my speech earlier, there are other policy areas where proposals could be submitted in time – and well in advance – before the election, but that has not been done when it comes to the work environment strategy. In my opinion, it depends on how highly one prioritizes work environment issues, and it does not seem to be particularly high.

To return to the question: Time has passed, and there have been all the opportunities to move from words to action when it comes to sanction fees. In the meantime, people continue to fall ill from stress, unhealthy workloads, and a lack of responsibility for the work environment.

The government makes collective decisions. I assume that the member has a dialogue with the Ministry of Employment, so the member should – and ought to – be able to answer why the government has not proceeded with the proposal. What is the reason that there have been no new sanctions during this parliamentary term, even though the government has had the entire parliamentary term to present such a proposal?

(Applause)

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! This is becoming truly strange. Here stands a representative for the Socialdemokraterna accusing the sitting government of not having produced a reform for sanction fees for the female-dominated professions during three and a half years. The Socialdemokraterna sat in government for eight years and submitted an investigation in 2022. What was the Socialdemokraterna's priority? For eight years, they did not present the proposal that now seems so urgent. After three and a half years, they now come to us. We are making extensive efforts in the area of the work environment. This is astounding, I must say.

As a comment to the member, I would like to say that the employer obviously has the primary responsibility for work environment measures. What I expressed was that this shall take place in cooperation. Here, the safety representatives have an important role. It is also the employees and the employers together.

Somewhere I believe we must have a discussion about where it is lacking. One can close workplaces. There are sanction possibilities if it concerns even worse things. Why are these possibilities not used?

There is a clear responsibility, but several parties must cooperate; we can never get away from that.

I must return to what I said earlier: It is surprising that the Social Democrats did not introduce this themselves.

I know that this issue is being reviewed, and I would believe that sanction fees on female-dominated workplaces will be included. The sickness rates are extremely high. Therefore, we need more inspections – we know they have an effect – and perhaps also sanction fees. We will see.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the working environment. It is ultimately about people's lives and health. It is about the right to go to work, but above all, about the right to come home again.

For every fatal accident in working life, there is a name, a human being, and a family. There is someone who does not come home and someone whose children, partner, or parents receive a notification that can never be taken back. Fatal accidents are the ultimate consequence of deficiencies in the work environment, and yet they continue to occur.

The development is deeply worrying. In several industries, we see how the risks are increasing. This includes the construction industry, the transport industry, and the manufacturing industry, but also other sectors where working conditions have been pressured for a long time. We know that many of those affected are at the bottom of the labor market's hierarchies. It concerns fixed-term employees, migrant workers, and individuals without a strong position against the employer.

Madam Speaker! Against that background, it is not enough to merely refer to ongoing work. Vänsterpartiet believes that the situation is so serious that a unified national grip is required. Therefore, we propose that a crisis commission be appointed to analyze the fatal accidents in working life and develop concrete measures to reverse the trend. Such a commission must work broadly and without preconceived notions. It must bring together trade union organizations, employers, researchers, and relevant authorities. It must get to the bottom of the causes: time pressure, subcontracting, lack of control, and unclear lines of responsibility. It must also deliver proposals that make a difference – not in ten years, but now. A zero vision without action is actually not worth the name.

Madam Speaker! One of the most important factors for a safe working environment is that there are strong safety representatives at the workplaces. The safety representatives are the workers' voice in the work environment work. They see the risks in everyday life and can often act before accidents occur. They constitute a counterweight to the employer and ensure that the work environment work does not just become a paper product.

Today, however, we see serious deficiencies. In many workplaces, safety representatives are completely missing. In other places, they exist but lack sufficient conditions to carry out their mission. We also see examples of employers actively opposing safety representatives or bypassing the system. It is unacceptable.

Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that the regional safety representatives' right of access be strengthened. They must be able to reach more workplaces, especially where trade union presence is lacking. It is often there that the risks are greatest.

We also want to see a statutory right to education for safety representatives. The assignment is very complex and requires knowledge of legislation, risk assessment, and work environment work. It is not reasonable that this is left to chance.

Furthermore, we need to examine how the protection committees function in practice. Today, there are unfortunately indications that so-called false protection committees occur. In these cases, the employers formally meet the requirements, but the employees' influence is in reality non-existent. It undermines the entire system.

Madam Speaker! Crime in the working life is a growing problem that affects both the work environment and competition in the labor market. It is about companies that deliberately break rules, exploit people, and push conditions to levels that no one should have to accept. It is about undeclared work, wage dumping, insecure employment, and outright crimes against the work environment legislation.

Those who are hit hardest are often those who are most vulnerable, as I said earlier, i.e., migrant workers, people in a weak position on the labor market and people who lack knowledge about their rights or are afraid of losing their jobs. At the same time as this happens, serious companies are being knocked out by unserious actors who compete with worse conditions. This is not just a labor market problem, but it is a systemic threat.

Madam Speaker! The Government has presented a national strategy against crime in the working life, and it contains several important components. However, it is not enough to just present a strategy. It must also be implemented, monitored, and evaluated.

Vänsterpartiet therefore considers that the strategy should be subject to a systematic evaluation. We must know which measures work and which do not. We must be able to adjust the policy based on facts – not hopes.

Furthermore, we need to strengthen the tools in the fight against crime in the workplace. It is about better coordination between authorities, increased resources for supervision, and stricter sanctions against the companies that break the rules. It must cost to cheat. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 13 in the report.

Madam Speaker! When work environment regulations are breached and people are injured or die, it is not just an accident. It is often a result of conscious decisions and of priorities where production and profit have taken precedence over safety. In those cases, society must act with full force. Work environment crimes must be investigated effectively and lead to tangible consequences.

Today we see all too often that the lines of responsibility are unclear and that the sanctions are not in proportion to the severity of the crimes. It risks creating a culture of impunity. We therefore need to review how workplace environment crimes are handled, from supervision to the judicial process. It must be clear who bears responsibility, and there must be consequences for breaking the law.

Madam Speaker! I perceive that there is a clear dividing line in this debate. On one side are those who see the working environment as a cost – something that can be efficiently removed in the name of competition. On the other side are we who see the working environment as a fundamental right.

Vänsterpartiet belongs to the latter category. We do not accept that people are harmed or die at work, we do not accept that unserious companies exploit people and distort competition, and we do not accept a system where the protection for employees is dependent on the employer's goodwill.

Strong work environment efforts require political will, they require legislation that works in practice, and they require that we stand up for the people who go to work every day and uphold our society. The least they can demand is to be able to come home again.

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ciczie Weidby for the speech.

Vänsterpartiet wants a statutory reduction of working hours. Initially, they want an investigation to enable this. They also speak of maintained wages. I have understood that the Socialdemokrater and Miljöpartiet are also on the same line – however not the Centerpartiet, so there is no united opposition on this issue.

According to SKR's calculations, a statutory reduction in working hours means that 130 million working hours will disappear and that the recruitment need will be 80,000 people in the public sector – this in a situation where SCB notes that 50 percent more healthcare and care employees will be needed by 2040.

When the Left Party also pushes for the abolition of the waiting period deduction at a cost of up to 24 billion kronor, the question is no longer whether the policy is well-intentioned. We know that sick leave increases significantly when the waiting period deduction is removed. The question is whether this is responsible. The answer must be no.

Can the Left Party explain how one is to recruit 80,000 people to a sector that already today has major problems with staffing and filling work shifts? How does the Left Party finance the 24 billion in new sick pay costs? Is it by raising taxes or by cutting back on welfare? How does the Left Party intend to do it?

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! We know that when people get to recover between different work shifts, they feel better, take less sick leave, and can perform their jobs better. This applies above all within healthcare, and in Stockholm, a very large number of nurses testify that they do a much better job and that the patients are more satisfied when they meet staff who are rested, alert, and fresh before a new work shift.

When it comes to the reduction of working hours, Saila had a calculation of how much it would cost. Sometimes one has to weigh pros and cons against each other. For example, it is already extremely difficult to recruit assistant nurses, and there is an enormous need for labor within health and social care. It may be worth mentioning that we already have statutory working hours. I am quite convinced that one will be able to recruit more people when one can offer them a better working environment. It could be about having more influence over one's job and schedule. It could also be about working a little less and thereby performing better at work.

A better working environment through shortened working hours is my answer to Saila Quicklund.

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

Saila Quicklund (M)

Madam Speaker! Reduction of working hours and quarantine deductions are truly a workplace environment issue, and I will explain why. That is also the core of this. Ciczie Weidby and I have worked with workplace environment issues for a long time, and I respect her expertise. That is why I want to discuss this with her. Already strained staff will therefore have to run significantly faster because one cannot fill the shifts with staff. If, in that situation, 80,000 people are taken out, where then is the health aspect for the staff?

I know that successful attempts have been made, but it has turned out that it does not work in the long run. The employees have often sacrificed lunch and other breaks to make the working hours fit. It is completely unreasonable. I do not believe in using this as a health factor to recruit more.

I return to my questions. How does Vänsterpartiet finance the cost of 24 billion, which I believe is underestimated? There is no funding in your budget for this, even if it is pursued. It is about the health factor for already heavily pressured staff and the supply of competence. Can more people be brought into health and social care when they are stressed even more? Perhaps in the short term, but not in the long run.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Everything is connected. When one is to introduce something new, one must sometimes think outside the box. Work shifts look different, because when one has shorter working hours, the schedule also looks different. One should therefore not fixate on how it looks now.

Saila believed something, and I, who am from Jönköping, know that one believes in church. There are so many successful examples of reduced working hours, and one has not only been able to recruit more staff but also been able to retain staff. Especially within healthcare, it is a problem that one does not succeed in retaining the competence one already has, but I know that there are countless examples of that one has succeeded with this thanks to the reduced working hours.

Let me also say something about the deduction. Saila experiences that more people are taking sick leave just because they can. Where I have worked, in LO occupations, it has never been like that because one does not easily take sick leave and receive less money. If one works, for example, at a restaurant, one loses everything by being at home, and therefore one wants to go to work. In that case, it is good if one does not lose as much when one is ill.

It is swings and carousels again. Yes, it costs a bit, but the gain is that we have healthy people at work. It will therefore be a gain in the end.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report on the working environment. The working environment concerns us all and is ultimately about people's lives and health, about safety at work and about ensuring that no one should have to risk being injured or dying at their work or be afraid of being subjected to violence, threats or offensive treatment.

For the Christian Democrats, work environment issues are also something that is value-driven. Work is for many an important part of life. It provides both livelihood, community and meaning, and it also contributes to personal development. Therefore, it is obvious that no human being should have to risk their health or their life in order to be able to support themselves or their family.

Madam Speaker! Despite a developed regulatory framework, we still see far too many serious accidents in working life. Every fatal accident is a failure and a tragedy for those involved and also something that is unacceptable in a modern working life in our country. It is a picture that many employers in Sweden share.

At the same time, unfortunately, there are employers who do not take their responsibility for the work environment seriously and who therefore neglect it. The construction sector and the transport sector are examples of areas where the risks are high both for accidents and for people being exploited. The construction industry has long had major problems with both safety and fraud.

In this context, it is necessary to speak plainly about crime in the labor market. Many unserious actors violate work environment regulations, tax regulations, and labor law regulations, exploit people, press wages, and create directly dangerous working conditions. Crime in the labor market is not only economic crime but also an attack on human dignity, on law and order, and on serious companies that do the right thing.

According to the Swedish National Audit Office, crime in the working life is a growing societal problem that is estimated to cost the public many billions of kronor annually. The schemes are often complex and can also have links to organized crime.

The Government notes and prioritizes on a broad front the work to combat crime in the labor market, which was described in the latest budget bill. This concerns not only the continued substantial investment being made in the justice system to combat crime in the labor market but also various agency assignments to, among other things, inventory the support needs of people who are exposed to labor exploitation.

It is about agency cooperation and the joint work for more agency-joint controls, which has resulted in more identified crimes and significant economic recoveries. It must be met with cooperation. We have seen that it is when agencies exchange information, break secrecy, and cooperate that they can access that criminality. It is also part of the broader responsibility for order and safety in society, so that no one should be able to build their business model on cheating, dumping conditions, or exposing people to danger.

Madam Speaker! Against this background, it is important and correct that the government provided Arbetsmiljöverket with increased resources during the three years 2025–2027, where a phased level increase of a total of 100 million was made, which gives the authority better opportunities to conduct supervision, analyze risks, and prevent accidents in working life. These significant and sustained investments contribute to a sharpened, more accurate and effective supervision against fatal accidents and other serious occupational health and safety risks.

An effective workplace environment inspection shall be risk-based, knowledge-driven, and present where the needs are greatest. This applies particularly in industries with a high risk of accidents and in environments where unscrupulous actors exploit workers and break rules.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats want to see a work environment policy that strengthens both the employees' security and the employers' responsibility. Good work environment work begins with close leadership, clear roles, and a culture where both safety and health are taken seriously. The state shall set the framework and follow up, but the actual and important work environment work takes place at the workplaces in everyday life.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all motion proposals.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! The working environment is about people's everyday lives at work. It is about coming home from work without injuries, without exhaustion, and with health intact. It is about being able to maintain a whole working life. My and the Center Party's starting point is clear: the work on the working environment must be preventive so that injuries simply do not occur.

We have come a long way in Sweden, where we have much greater protection today than before, but sometimes we still act too late so that employees become signed off on sick leave due to the work environment. Here we need to continue to work to be able to prevent risks. Even if not everything can perhaps be prevented entirely, we can reduce the damages with increased risk awareness.

For this to become a reality, we need to ensure that we have a functioning regulatory framework for both small and large companies. The small companies, which are in the majority in Sweden despite everything, do not always have large HR departments or work environment specialists; instead, it is often the entrepreneur themselves who has to manage both the operations and the regulations. Then the policy must also be reasonable for small companies.

Centerpartiet believes that the regulatory framework needs to be adapted and become a bit more flexible for small companies. It must be easy to do the right thing, not difficult to understand what applies. If the rules become complicated, we risk having the opposite effect: less focus on actual working environment and more focus on administration. Here, our authorities play a decisive role.

Madam Speaker! We believe that the Swedish Work Environment Authority should work in a more supportive and advisory capacity. Of course, rules must be followed, but there must also be a clear focus on helping employers do the right thing from the very beginning. A preventive approach requires not only control but also knowledge, dialogue, and accessible support.

Madam Speaker! The work environment is not created in law books but in workplaces. Therefore, cooperation is absolutely crucial. When employers, employees and safety representatives work together, safe, sustainable and developing workplaces can be created. It is in the dialogue that problems are discovered and solutions emerge.

We cannot talk about the work environment without talking about mental health. Stress, high workload, and lack of recovery are some of the biggest work environment problems in Sweden. This applies in particular within healthcare, elderly care, and other contact-based professions, but it exists across the entire labor market. We need to take this seriously. We need workplaces where people are not worn out, but where they can work a full career.

Madam Speaker! After the pandemic, remote work has increased, and this is positive for many people and employers. On the other hand, we need to review the responsibility for the work environment so that it works when employees have multiple workplaces and can partially control their own work environment at home. We also need to review what the responsibility for the psychosocial work environment looks like for those employees who are not at the workplace every day. I and the Center Party are completely convinced that remote work will remain, and in that case, it is a matter of identifying the ambiguities and ensuring that it becomes a whole even there.

Madam Speaker! Another thing that is also important for us to maintain a whole working life is the possibility of changing workplace and profession during life. Thanks to the Center Party, a reform was implemented during the previous parliamentary term called transition study support (omställningsstudiestöd). It is a long word that means that people have the opportunity, in the middle of life, to study and strengthen their position on the labor market and even change career paths. It is an incredibly important reform for lifelong learning. Changing profession during life is a large part of working life, also in order to keep up. The transition creates freedom for the individual and increases the availability of competent staff for employers.

In summary, Madam Speaker, the Centre Party's work environment policy is about something quite simple: to prevent instead of repair, to make it easy to do the right thing, to see the entire labor market – including the small companies – and to take both physical and mental work environments seriously. That is how we build a sustainable working life for the individual, for the companies, and for Sweden.

Centerpartiet has trust in all people. We have trust that both companies and workplaces with the right conditions can and want to take responsibility for a good working environment.

With that, I move for approval of reservation number 6.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not possible to talk about the work environment without saying something about crime in the workplace, so it is natural that crime in the workplace is addressed in this very motion report.

Workplace crime is not actually a new phenomenon. At the beginning of industrialization, what we would today call workplace crime was legal. It was the norm. Fraud with wages, unreasonable and unregulated working hours, and slave labor were things that happened and for which there was not much regulation against. The individual worker, who perhaps had left farm life and moved into the city, was, if not lawless, not far from it.

Madam Speaker! That is why it hurts when one reads about cases that show that human exploitation is still occurring today, all the time. One reads about people who are deceived into coming here and then suffer at the hands of someone who only makes money from them. One sees pictures of mattresses on the floor in some restaurant, where people have been made to sleep at their workplace.

Madam Speaker! This is not an order that is acceptable on the Swedish labor market. We must do more. The sanctions must be tightened. It should not pay to engage in labor market crime. Companies that repeatedly break laws and regulations shall be met with escalating sanction fees. The systematic cheating must be crushed.

It is also evident that Sweden needs more work environment inspectors and more inspections. Arbetsmiljöverket can do a lot to combat crime in the working life, and the focus must be on shortage industries. More inspections must be carried out.

We Social Democrats also want to see a blacklisting of companies that engage in crime in the labor market. It should be easy to do right and it should be punishable to do wrong. Municipalities and companies that want to do the right thing should not have to spend a lot of time identifying which companies are engaging in criminal activities. There should be a place to go and a register that municipalities and companies can turn to – sometimes called in English a one-stop shop.

Madam Speaker! I have received examples from workplaces all over the country where there are so many subcontractors that it is difficult to count them. It has gone so far in Sweden that employers do not know who is dying at their workplaces when the worst accident has occurred. It is hair-raising, and it is frightening.

In our neighboring country Norway, which in many respects is considered quite similar to Sweden, the number of subcontractor levels has been limited to two. Something similar is being requested by many here at home, not least by trade unions. It should be possible to do this here in Sweden as well, we Social Democrats believe.

Workplace crime generates hundreds of billions of kronor every year. These are staggering amounts. It is obvious that more can be done, and it is obvious that more must be done. It would be possible, in addition to increasing sanction fees for repeated offenses, to also have sanction fees linked to the turnover of the companies. This would hopefully mean that even the so-called big dragons on the Swedish labor market would do more to combat workplace crime.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish model that we so often talk about and praise in this chamber, at seminars and in other contexts, does not end at the threshold of crime in the working life, but it continues there.

The parties, employers and trade unions, need to take an even greater responsibility for crime in the working life. Employers must not turn a blind eye to cheating. It does not only harm the Swedish labor market but also the competition within Swedish business, as those who cheat and commit crimes obtain advantages that others do not get.

We could also do more in the work of cross-referencing registers with the help of modern tools such as AI. A lot of time is spent with people, case officers and others, sitting and manually comparing registers with one another. With AI, we could, with relatively small means, cross-reference registers and find more who cheat and engage in crime.

Previously, what constitutes labor-related crime today was legal. Today, the struggle in many parts is the same. It is still people who are exploited by employers who, without scruples, exploit people to make a profit. It is not fundamentally different from when employers a hundred years ago or more brought poor workers from other countries here to compete out Swedish workers. They were housed in substandard accommodations, if they were lucky, and sometimes perhaps they were mistreated by the employer.

Trade unions need to continue to go to the forefront to combat crime in the workplace by highlighting and removing the actors who exploit other people and organize people in Swedish workplaces. The knowledge of where crime in the workplace exists in Sweden is within Swedish trade unions. Therefore, the unions' work and the unions' knowledge are completely crucial. Their knowledge and their familiarity with the Swedish labor market should, if nothing else, be completely crucial for the authorities that are to combat crime in the workplace.

Madam Speaker! This is not a simple fight. The economic interests are large and in many cases global. New criminals will emerge when we succeed in cracking the old ones. Therefore, cooperation, collaboration and organization are so important among both employees and employers. It is important that we do everything we can to stop work-related crime – at least we who want to stop it.

My hope is that one day we will no longer have to see pictures of thin mattresses and people who are forced to pay back almost their entire salary because they are in debt to an employer. But then more must be done. Tangible penalties, more inspections, greater responsibility for the parties, making it easier to do right, and fewer subcontractors—perhaps even a maximum of two—would take us a good way toward that hope.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Adrian Magnusson, for a very good and relevant speech!

The fight against crime in the labor market is very important, because it exists everywhere in the entire society. At the home of the party leader of Adrian Magnusson, for example, illegal labor was hired to clean her home. That is not how it should be. I do not blame her, but it must not go on in that way.

We saw another example in the city of Gothenburg. There, 15 illegal construction workers were hired, who were given jobs by the city in a protected area.

My question to Adrian Magnusson is quite short and concise. How does Adrian Magnusson view the client responsibility, and how does Adrian Magnusson view the proposal on official responsibility?

It is also the case that in many municipalities and regions, one does not have the competence when it comes to procurement. What do we need to do there? Do we need to educate the municipalities, or how should we handle that question?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I have noted that Magnus Persson usually enjoys my speeches. I appreciate it, I must say.

I believe that Magnus Persson is completely right that we need to educate more people in procurement. We need to ensure that people understand the procurement rules and can utilize them correctly.

I also believe that politicians across the country need to understand the procurement rules better. Both Magnus Persson and I have been municipal politicians and perhaps are to some extent still. We know how it can be when one has to make decisions regarding procurement out in the municipalities. It is not easy, and therefore I believe that politicians across the country need better education on procurement.

I believe that is where the responsibility should lie in the first instance. It doesn't matter whether they are Moderate municipal politicians, Centre Party municipal politicians, Social Democratic municipal politicians, or Sweden Democrat municipal politicians. If decisions are made on procurements that do not follow the rules that must be followed, that is where the responsibility should be demanded, not from individual civil servants. That is at least my opinion. I believe that in a democracy, like the one we live in, the voters should hold politicians accountable. One should not, as an individual civil servant, feel that one can be scapegoated for a decision. It can sometimes be decisions made under certain budget conditions and the like by municipal politicians and regional politicians all over the country.

I believe that the responsibility in a democracy primarily rests with the elected representatives, and they must also be held accountable all the way for the decisions that are made.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It does not look like that in all small municipalities. I can take my own municipality as an example. When I started in politics, the municipal procurer was a Social Democrat and also sat as vice chairman of the municipal executive board. So it can look like that sometimes, and it is not a situation we want.

Before we conclude this debate, I would like to raise a question that I find very interesting, namely the question of the number of subcontractors. Adrian Magnusson mentions the Norwegian model, and I have met Veidekke and discussed it very much. I think it is a fairly good model. There, it is about the main responsibility, and then there can be an additional hundred subcontractors underneath, but the responsibility must lie with two subcontractors.

Is it this that Adrian Magnusson means, or does Adrian Magnusson mean that there should only be two subcontractors per workplace with total responsibility? We must clarify in the discussion what is meant from the Social Democrats' side when they say subcontractor agreements. As it looks, for example, on a road construction project today, there are a hundred subcontractors; every single excavator operator is an independent contractor. I want a clarification on what the Social Democrats mean in this issue. Is it about the main responsibility or about the number of subcontractors?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know the political affiliation of all procurement managers across the country, so I do not intend to delve into that discussion.

Bromölla is very beautiful, and I have been there many times. I appreciate being in Bromölla and hope that I get to go there again soon.

When it comes to the subcontractor chain, I intended to say that it concerns two levels. One can imagine that it should be a horizontal line instead of a vertical one, as I am now drawing in the air. That is how we think about the subcontractor chain, that it is two side by side instead of it being one up there and far below a hundred subcontractors – or seventy, or whatever it may be. That is how we think about the subcontractor chain, i.e., as two levels.

I hope it became a bit clearer now that I tried to wave here and make it visible with my pen.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 April.)

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