(cont. from § 9) Social insurance issues (cont. SfU14)

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in report number 14, which we are debating today.

Social insurance issues

Mr. Speaker! Throughout my working life so far, I have had the great privilege of rarely being ill, whether for short periods or for longer periods. But unfortunately, that is not the case for far too many. According to statistics from Försäkringskassan, 197,950 people had an ongoing illness with sickness benefit or rehabilitation benefit in December 2022. Of these, 65 percent were women.

We must do more to reduce sick leave. But when one becomes ill, one should be able to live with the security that the collective carries when one is unable to do so oneself.

The Christian Democrats' starting point is that social insurances shall contribute to creating economic security regardless of where you are in life. You shall be able to rely on the collective carrying you when you are unable to do so yourself. Sickness benefit shall function as a security for those who, for the foreseeable future, lack the capacity to work. But you shall also be able to rely on the society doing what it can so that you do not become ill or be on sick leave.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, we still see that women's sick leave is higher than men's. As a Christian Democrat, I therefore view the work the government is doing to address this positively. We naturally want sick leave to decrease for both women and men. More measures must be taken here, and the government has begun that work.

We know, for example, that the family's freedom to decide for themselves how the family puzzle is to be managed is important for parents' health. The double days were introduced by the Christian Democrats during the Alliance government and have led to fathers who otherwise rarely take out parental leave doing so. Research also shows that the double days have large positive effects on new mothers' physical and mental health.

It was therefore with great joy that I, as a Christian Democrat, received the news of the proposal that the number of double days shall be doubled, from today's 30 to 60 days. The proposal also means that the days can be utilized over a longer period, until the child is 15 months old. I have previously mentioned this during this morning's debate on equality, but it is worth mentioning again.

Mr. Speaker! My party colleague Hans Eklind has on several occasions stood in this rostrum and debated what I am now going to state. It is about the fact that not everyone can work 100 percent of a full-time job, but that everyone should have the opportunity to work 100 percent of their own ability.

We Christian Democrats want a society that takes advantage of all people's opportunities and inherent abilities. To let people work 100 percent of their capacity would mean that significantly more people could work a little more, while others would get the opportunity to reduce their hours. A job is about so much more than salary. It is about being part of a community and about feeling needed and appreciated.

Mr. Speaker! If we let the ability to work – not the inability to work – be the starting point, the need for flexibility is clear. Therefore, the Christian Democrats have previously fought for the fixed steps in the sickness benefit, the sickness allowance, and the rehabilitation benefit – which today are 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent – to be abolished. Now that the Christian Democrats are part of the government, this work is underway. We also know that several of the parliamentary parties think the same way.

It must be possible for a person to work an additional 10 percent if that is where the limit lies for a successful rehabilitation, but it is not possible today with the blunt fixed steps. I must therefore say: Finally, the issue is moving in the right direction!

Mr. Speaker! When we Christian Democrats discuss and reason around changes to the design of the social insurance system, the guiding principle is how to best utilize human and societal resources. It is therefore not possible to bypass the importance of rehabilitation and preventive work.

According to a survey from Skandia, the cost of sick leave in Sweden was 65 billion kronor in 2020. Reducing the number of sick leaves would, of course, have positive effects both for society as a whole and - most importantly - for the individual.

Even more decisive in the work to reduce the number of sick leaves is that we, to the highest degree, want people to feel better. This is a task that needs more focus from different parts of society - from the state, the regions, the municipalities, the employers, and civil society. Therefore, I welcome the Occupational Injury Inquiry, which has begun its work, where the starting point is to prevent occupational injuries and to counteract long sick leaves. Furthermore, the inquiry's mandate has been broadened to promote the worker's return to work. This inquiry shall be reported by August 1, 2023, at the latest.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to emphasize how valuable it is for every human being to have a job to go to, to feel in demand and needed, to be part of a community at a workplace and to be able to participate and contribute to society and the welfare. Everyone has the right to be included and be a part of the community.

My wish, and what I want to work for, is that everyone should be able to work 100 percent of their ability. As I said initially: Everyone should live with the security that the collective carries them when they themselves are unable to do so.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet are very pleased that the government will proceed with the reform to ensure that people can be on sick leave and work according to their own ability rather than according to square boxes - that is how the system has looked previously.

We started this work together with the Social Democrats, and this is one of many proposals that I hope will move forward. I would like to take the opportunity to ask Camilla Rinaldo Miller if the government intends to proceed with the entire inquiry into the sickness insurance, which concerns precisely prevention, rehabilitation, and preventing people from needing to be on sick leave for a long time, but also about adapting the insurance system so that those who need to receive sickness and activity compensation receive it.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

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

This is very important, and it was exactly this I was touching upon in my speech. It is about the possibility for people to work 100 percent of their ability. I am incredibly proud and happy that the government we now have follows up on the work that has been started in this direction and furthermore broadens it and takes a larger grip when it comes to these investigations.

My and the government's goal is that people should be able to work 100 percent of their ability. I do not want to anticipate any investigation. We know that the investigations are underway, but I cannot in advance say what an investigation will come to.

What the member asked for has already started. When it comes to the sickness benefit, one wants to look at an investigation that is to see if it is possible to have medical certificates have greater significance in a sickness benefit case. The previous government started this, and now the current government is continuing this work and this investigation.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! My question concerned the proposals that have been investigated and are on the table, namely SOU 2021:69, which deal with several of the things that Camilla Rinaldo Miller at least in words seems to stand behind, namely that we should work more preventatively and more with rehabilitation. There are also important proposals there that deal with more people who do not have the opportunity to enter employment receiving sickness and activity compensation.

Will the government proceed with these proposals?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to repeat what I said to Member Hirvonen: Since several investigations are ongoing, this is included in the continued work. The current government is also reviewing the sickness and activity allowance. We have a government that wants a work line and that wants all people who have the possibility to work to work. One wants to look at all possibilities to make this a reality and not just talk.

The investigations are ongoing. The investigation that the member referred to will, of course, continue to be included in the work that the government has begun.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for her contribution to the debate.

The sickness insurance shall provide security in life's various stages. People who today have sickness and activity compensation are a group that has fallen behind economically for several years.

Parents who have adult children with disabilities say that their children do not manage on their compensation from the sickness insurance - relatives must chip in money. People's finances affect a number of different areas of life, for example health, housing and leisure. It has social consequences if one cannot afford to live like others.

I know that the Christian Democrats protect this vulnerable group. My question to the member is what message she has to those who have such a low economic standard that they must receive financial support from relatives.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank member Jessica Rodén for the question.

In my world, relatives should not have to chip in money so that a person can live a dignified life with an economy that adds up. I also cannot see that we have a government that would think that is acceptable.

I cannot say anything concrete today about what the government is doing, because I do not want to preempt ongoing investigations. But the work that has been initiated is about ensuring that all people have a financial compensation that they can live on without relatives needing to chip in money.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

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

In an interpellation debate with Minister Tenje, I asked whether the government will take measures to strengthen the economic security for those who receive sickness and activity compensation. The Minister's answer was that they will follow the development closely but that they must first and foremost combat inflation. In my ears, it sounds as if the government means that the group with sickness and activity compensation should act as a buffer for the government's policy, while high-income earners get more in their pockets.

Does the member's party share the Minister's position that persons with disabilities who have no possibility of influencing their income and are economically vulnerable should be a buffer for the government's policy?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the follow-up question.

Of course, the government takes responsibility for Sweden's economy. It has not been well-managed in recent years, and we have seen a negative development in the economy.

That people who live on sickness and activity benefits should act as a buffer is not something I recognize in what the government has presented. I believe that we have a government that has taken into account that those who have it the hardest, the weakest in society, should receive the support and help they need, both financially and in other ways.

Let me reassure Member Jessica Rodén that the government takes responsibility for every person and that even those who are weakest shall receive the support they need.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Insurance Committee's report on social insurance issues, and I initially move for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation number 31.

Social security is a central part of the developed Swedish welfare state. It is a legal area that has developed in step with societal development and which has in various ways characterized and shaped the society we live in.

The policy that has been and is being pursued in our country obviously plays a decisive role for development. The Swedish social security system is also not an isolated island, but it must obviously be seen in interaction with EU law.

Much has happened since the law, which is often regarded as the oldest social insurance law, was adopted in 1901 and which implied an obligation for certain employers to pay compensation to workers injured in the line of work.

Despite the fact that different political orientations over time have brought about many changes in the legislation, the basic features are enduring. There is, however, still some work to be done to further improve and develop the parts of our welfare system that the social insurance constitutes.

Mr. Speaker! I will now take the opportunity to speak about the Sweden Democrats' view on the quarantine deduction and the current work in the area. In its current form, the quarantine deduction hits vulnerable professional groups particularly hard, something that the Sweden Democrats have pointed out for several years. Many who work in contact professions are exposed to a greater risk of infection. Having to go to work while ill can also mean that the state of illness worsens and is prolonged or that injuries are aggravated.

There is also a risk that those who go to work while sick infect their colleagues. This, in turn, could mean that the negative effect and the actual costs may become unnecessarily large.

People who work in close proximity to other people are at a higher risk of contracting illness for natural reasons, and it is far from everyone who has the opportunity to work from home. Therefore, consideration must be taken of different working conditions in order for the system to become more fair.

The Sweden Democrats consider it completely unreasonable that those who are ill should be punished financially. We instead see great advantages in that those who are ill also have the opportunity to stay home and recover without constantly having to worry about the financial loss that it will entail.

We see the possibility of positive effects when it comes to exactly infection risk. If more stay home when ill, it also reduces the risk that more people become infected and in turn are also absent from work.

But we also want to be clear that fraud and over-exploitation shall be countered and that proposals for measures to handle exactly this need to be developed.

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Sweden Democrats, the working group appointed by the government will specifically analyze the conditions for changing the quarantine deduction to increase equality for specific professional groups that are particularly exposed to infectious contact surfaces and who find it difficult to work from home, for example, employees within healthcare, school, and care. Subsequently, the working group shall develop a model for this.

The working group shall also, among other things, assess the consequences for the gender equality goal and relevant sub-goals, and then primarily economic equality and equal health.

The working group shall further assess whether any changes have any consequences for Sweden's commitments towards the International Labour Organization and simultaneously ensure that they are compatible with the EU's directives on equal treatment in the workplace and rules on state aid.

In addition to this, it is positive that, following the Sverigedemokraternas request, a parliamentarily composed reference group is now being appointed to support this working group. Our conviction is that we can benefit from transparency and wise discussions when all the Riksdagens parties are allowed to participate and contribute to this important work of change.

In our cooperation with the government, the sickness insurance and the need for improvement measures within the activity and sickness benefit will continue to be a priority issue. Our view is that there is a need to review how the regulatory framework for activity and sickness benefits can be improved, and the Sverigedemokraterna continue to prioritize the work for a secure and safe sickness insurance that puts the individual's needs as well as opportunities at the center.

In today's report, there is a series of proposals from the Sverigedemokraterna, and I would like to conclude by raising one further pressing issue. It concerns the fact that today there is a significant discrepancy between the conditions governing the right to compensation and people's actual opportunities to work. Today, a stricter assessment is made of the right to sickness benefit than of the right to sickness allowance.

We therefore consider that when assessing the right to sickness benefit, the assessment of the insured person's capacity for work shall be made against the same concept of the labor market as used when assessing the right to sickness allowance. That is to say, the assessment of the capacity for work shall be made against gainful employment in such a specified occupational group as contains jobs that are normally available on the labor market or against other suitable work that is available to the insured person.

The Sweden Democrats will therefore push for the government to carry out a review of the assessment of the right to sickness and activity compensation.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. One becomes terribly happy when one now hears that the Sweden Democrats are in favor of the proposal that has already been investigated, completed, and submitted, and which one can introduce tomorrow if one so wishes, for there is a majority in the Riksdag for it. Then I heard something vague in the background about that you would review it. But the fact is that it is already finished and prepared. The bill can be tabled as early as tomorrow. The investigation is done, and we have all parties sat for one and a half years to produce that the assessment should look like this.

My first question is, quite simply, whether the Sweden Democrats are prepared to sharply introduce the same work ability assessments that apply for sickness benefit for those with sickness and activity compensation, or if what the Sweden Democrats are standing here and saying is just talk.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Ida Gabrielsson for the question.

I was quite clear in my speech, I think, regarding how we view the matter. It is an important issue for us, and we will push forward in our cooperation with the government to ensure it is implemented. It is not that we are going to go behind the government's back in any way, but we want to see that we can jointly arrive at what is absolutely best. We have an agreement in place with the budget to adhere to. This is not free; it also costs money. We must see what we can prioritize and how and when, and we do that jointly with the government, not behind the government's back.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I then understand it as that the answer to the question is no – one is not prepared to push through the proposal, as one was stating.

When we in Vänsterpartiet entered into cooperation - when we used our mandates and placed demands on the government - we got through a raised ceiling in the sickness benefit, the basic allowance in the sickness and activity allowance was raised by 1,000 kronor, the rules for the sickness benefit were changed and the ceiling in the housing supplement was raised to 7,500 kronor, not only for age pensioners but also for persons with disabilities. We also changed in the regulation letter to Försäkringskassan. There are more things, but the minutes I have are not enough to list everything we got through.

My first question to the Sweden Democrats is: What have the Sweden Democrats achieved when they have set demands on the government regarding the sickness insurance? We have heard about the Karens Investigation which was buried in the closet at the Ministry of Social Affairs instead of being the broad investigation where everyone can be involved in the whole society and provide their opinions and references as the Left Party had already accomplished. There is nothing to bring up, I think. Then I would rather have some more concrete things.

Finally, I wonder if you think it is good that, when one is now to further review the investigation that Vänsterpartiet has had passed with sickness benefit improvements, one has switched to an investigator who, among other things, was involved in developing the goals that resulted in a lot of people being dismissed. Do you think it is a good direction? Unjustifiably long sick leaves are what should be looked at now. I can read here what is on the investigator's CV, but perhaps Sverigedemokraterna have a handle on that.

But if I could hear what you have gotten through from the government, I would be happy.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again for the questions.

I think it is pleasing that the Left Party nevertheless welcomes that the Sweden Democrats gain influence with their politics and that it should go faster, and I promise that we are working on it. It was therefore not a no that was the answer to your previous question, I can guarantee that.

The Sweden Democrats have actually already had some changes passed, and there are also quite a few changes in the works. We have the quarantine deduction, which I think has become a clearer and better direction, as it looks now. I am quite sure that the mission that lies ahead is something that Vänsterpartiet can also stand behind. We have pushed for the number of double shifts to be doubled. This has also become a reality, and this is something that has measurable effects on women's health, not least.

Thanks to the Sweden Democrats, the unemployment insurance fund is also continued to be strengthened, which is very important. We have also contributed to the government now increasing and extending the housing allowance, which gives 111,000 families a strengthened economic position in a very difficult time. These are some examples.

We will continue to push to get our policies through. If the Left Party member reads the report and all the proposals that we have, the member can see which issues we stand behind and what we want to push through, even in the specific statement that is in the report.

We take responsibility during the inflation. Unlike the Left Party, we do not have a deficit of 200 billion that fuels the inflation. I think it is important to mention that. We want to invest in targeted measures, but we do not want to fuel the inflation.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I requested the floor because I actually do not understand what the Sweden Democrats are really saying.

During the election campaign, we heard that the Sverigedemokraterna had a very high tail-end. At that time, both one thing and the other were promised. It was demanded that those incorrectly denied insurance should receive financial compensation, it was argued that the karens deduction should be removed for healthcare and school staff, and it was wanted that a parliamentary committee be appointed for, as they called it, a more humane and sustainable health insurance.

Then negotiations were held with the government, and what did we get? Well, lowered taxes for high-income earners like the member and myself, who hardly need it if one compares with a person who is disabled or chronically ill and has not been granted the right to sickness or activity compensation but instead has to live on their parents or on social welfare. Is the member satisfied with that prioritization in the negotiations? That is my first question.

Then we heard the previous exchange where MP Gabrielsson tried to get answers on whether you in the Sverigedemokraterna intend to take the chance and do what you say you want, that is, change the concept of work capacity, so that more people can be covered by the sickness and activity allowance. You say that you want it, but the reservation that the MP just demanded from the rostrum concerns a review. A review of a review! Therefore, I want to ask the MP: In what way will this review of the review help all those people who today do not have any financial compensation because they are ill or have a disability?

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

Let me say initially that eight years is a significantly longer time than six months, and we have already managed to introduce several proposals, as I mentioned earlier – not least the Karensutredningen, where the mandate has become both sharper and better. But what have the Social Democrats themselves achieved during the last eight years in a government position? Did they take action to change the unfair karens deduction when they had the opportunity, the very thing they are now shouting so loudly about? Did they see to it that proposals on a changed labor market concept were implemented when assessing the right to sickness and activity compensation?

The answer to my questions is unfortunately no, Mr. Speaker. Instead, they pushed for the number of exemptions. It is also a fact that the Social Democrats instead chose to lower the tax for high-income earners by removing the wealth tax.

Mr. Speaker! I am myself a friend of tax cuts, but one must still question the priorities of a party that claims to protect the weak and vulnerable - when they are in a position of government and have the opportunity, what do they do then? They abolish the protection tax.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since the Social Democrats are a party that protects the weak and the sick, among others, I would like to refer the member to my speech on social insurance issues in the budget debate where the member was not present. There, I listed what we achieved during our eight years.

We commissioned the inquiry, for example, to ensure that the possibilities of obtaining sickness and activity compensation for those people who need it would increase. It is the inquiry the member herself refers to in the reservation she just moved for approval. Unfortunately, we did not have time to carry it out because we lost government power, but God knows we have fought so that more people should be entitled to compensation from this insurance.

I want to once again pose questions to the Sweden Democrats. I received no answers to my questions. Is the member satisfied with the priorities – for example, lowering taxes instead of giving money to live on to the sick and those with disabilities, which, according to us, one has a right to if one lacks work capacity – and will the Sweden Democrats take the chance to vote on reservation 33 tomorrow at the vote, which would force the government to take the measures that the member just stood in the rostrum and said she wanted to see?

If the member's party comrades vote on reservation 33, we have a majority here in the Riksdag, and then we can force the government to implement the change in the concept of work capacity that the member says she wants to see, so that people can actually have money to live on when they lack work capacity. Is the member and her party comrades prepared to do that tomorrow?

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The fact is that the Social Democrats will vote no in this chamber to the Sweden Democrats' proposal on a changed concept of the labor market. It is a proposal that we have previously discussed and which will involve an announcement to the government so that the government can begin this work.

It would obviously have been appropriate if the Social Democrats themselves had had a similar proposal in the committee report, which they do not. Since they do not, it is also very strange that they do not choose to stand behind the Sweden Democrats' proposal in the committee report. It becomes particularly noteworthy. We can therefore conclude that the Social Democrats are passive in government and very loud in opposition.

We Sverigedemokrater show instead, through our talks with the government, that we are prepared to negotiate. We are having very good talks, and my hopes are that we can really make a difference in these issues. That is our ambition. It is also what we have promised our voters. Now it has been six months and not eight years. We have a bit more time, and I promise to do what I can to influence this in the right direction.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I become a little confused when I listen to the Sweden Democrats and compare it with reality. A statement was made from the rostrum that sounded as if the unfair quarantine deduction should be abolished, and I see a reality where the government that the Sweden Democrats support removes the work that has been set in motion to abolish the unfair quarantine deduction.

The investigation that had the assignment was shut down, and instead, a small working group was appointed that might be able to make the quarantine deduction less unfair, according to the Sweden Democrats. But honestly: In what way does it become less unfair that some have quarantine deductions and others do not?

Mr. Speaker! I believe this half-measure will unfortunately not lead to justice but rather to more injustice, even if from the Green Party's perspective – we want to abolish the quarantine deduction completely – it may seem good that it is abolished for some. But I am doubtful about calling it just.

I also think it is problematic to believe that a working group at the Government Offices could produce a correct specification of all people who are exposed to infection in their jobs and all people who cannot be at home and work from home when they are sick. It will not be fair. It will not be good. The Sweden Democrats had the option to demand that the investigation which was to abolish the quarantine deduction for everyone should be allowed to continue.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now, the fact is that the change that has occurred is that the investigation has been moved closer to the Government Offices. It does not worsen anything. One takes with them the knowledge they have had from previous work in the investigation. There is also a parliamentary reference group where one will be able to raise and bounce around further ideas. I believe that the member will receive more information about the ongoing work and can ask those questions then. Then I can also recommend that the member read the new directives in the investigation. It can be good to do that if one feels that one does not have a handle on it.

I would like to bring up something else. The fact is that Miljöpartiet is a party in Sweden's Riksdag that does not take responsibility during the current inflation. I think it is very serious and should be highlighted. Miljöpartiet fuels the inflation with underfunded reforms.

We look closer at what Miljöpartiet included in its budget. What Miljöpartiet offers the Swedish people is a tax shock of 150 billion, a state-financed deficit of around 350 billion, and thus a national debt that increases by 35 percent in three years. That policy, Mr. Speaker, is harmful to Sweden, and I am deeply grateful that that budget was not voted through in Sweden's Riksdag.

The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have chosen to invest in effective measures that make a difference for people in their everyday lives. We have lowered the fuel tax, lowered the tax on agricultural diesel which in turn lowers the cost of food, and strengthened the travel deduction, to mention a few examples. These are investments that make a real difference for families. The Green Party opposes all of this. With your policy, it would have been much more expensive to live - that is a fact.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am becoming confused. I am happy to have a discussion about diesel prices any day, but now I thought we were having a debate on social insurance issues. I asked questions about why the Sweden Democrats stopped the work that was underway to stop the unfair quarantine deduction. Does one not want to have that discussion? Does one think that question is not important?

I can only interpret this action in one way, and that is that the Sweden Democrats are prioritizing symbolic politics in the form of abolished plastic bag tax instead of ensuring that sick people are not unfairly affected by the quarantine deduction. Some people have the opportunity to work from home if they get a cold. Other people actually risk the lives of users if they go to work with a small sniffle, even if they are healthy enough to manage to do their job themselves. They are therefore faced with the choice of receiving a lower salary at the end of the month while food prices – which the government has not done a jot to manage – are skyrocketing.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a major and serious issue that deserves a discussion that should not be about the entire budget debate that we had on Monday. I actually wonder if the Sweden Democrats could not just make it easy for themselves and say that the sick pay deduction and people's right not to be affected financially by illness is not an important issue for the Sweden Democrats.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The care deduction is a very important issue for the Sweden Democrats. We have been involved in negotiating these directives to make the investigation much clearer and better and to ensure it goes in the direction we believe it should go. I also believe that the members will be positively surprised by the work and what is concluded, because unlike, for example, previous governments, we do not just appoint investigations when it starts approaching the election campaign in order to be able to say that one has done something, but we do things for real. The Sweden Democrats are therefore serious about the care deduction, but we will certainly have to return to that question.

I am happy to talk about symbolic taxes, such as the plastic bag tax that Miljöpartiet raised here. I think it is very negative to focus on taxes - tax shocks - for the Swedish people. We must still be able to talk about the whole, because weak and vulnerable people are hit hardest by this policy. That is why we must take responsibility at all levels.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal and thereby reject all reservations. This in no way means that there would not be valuable suggestions in many of the reservations, which I am sure the current government will take into account in the policy development within the social insurance area. Therefore, I would like to highlight some of the proposals or policy directions that from a liberal perspective are most interesting in the motions that we are debating today.

The first is in the Center Party's committee motion regarding the qualification for the health insurance systems. There, it is rightly emphasized, which for us liberals is the cornerstone of the entire social insurance system, namely a strong and clear connection between work and the right to various benefits. This connection we must not only safeguard, but also strengthen when justified. It should pay off better to work and thereby pay tax to the common welfare, because when more people work and go to work, acquire a sense of community in the workplace, are included and feel that they contribute, both Sweden and the welfare become stronger.

Another noteworthy direction is found in Moderate MP Boriana Åberg's motion regarding the need for a system for qualification to welfare. It would make our welfare system more economically sustainable and, not least, strengthen the incentives for newcomers to quickly establish themselves on the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! There are few other aspects that would benefit the integration of newcomers and thus the legitimacy of our entire migration policy as much as a clear connection between contributing to society and receiving benefits from society. This is one of the current government's guiding principles, and therefore the qualification for welfare will be promptly investigated with the aim of establishing such a qualification system.

A third policy orientation that is extremely important and which the government is working intensively on can be found, for example, in the respective committee motions of the Socialdemokraterna and Sverigedemokraterna regarding the importance of curbing fraud and improper exploitation of the common security systems. The liberal Minister for Employment Johan Pehrson has emphasized this on various occasions and stated that around 18 billion kronor are paid out incorrectly every year. These are funds that are needed in welfare and would, for example, have been sufficient to employ 26,000 teachers. In this context, a broad exchange of information between different agencies is completely necessary in order to be able to combat the fraud in an effective manner.

That criminal gangs have systematized welfare fraud is another heavily weighted reason to prioritize a resolute anti-fraud policy, and it is gratifying, Mr. Speaker, to be able to state that there is solid support in this chamber today for such a policy.

Also noteworthy are the various motions pointing out the need for more flexible security systems that can be adapted to significant groups whose working conditions do not correspond to those that apply to the more traditional worker groups. Sole traders, freelancers, cultural workers and combinators, that is to say people who combine employment with running a business, are mentioned in this context, and we can assume that these and other less conventional forms of work will grow much more in our post-industrial era. In the modern economy, not everyone works at the same type of workplace with a permanent employment. Therefore, it is extremely important to gradually adapt our security systems to this new reality which affects more and more people in our society.

Last but not least, I want to draw attention to the motions - and there are several - which highlight an aspect that is always a priority for us liberals, namely the equality aspect in both working life and the utilization of our social insurances. That there are large differences between women and men in these respects is a well-known fact.

As pointed out in various motions, this applies in particular to the sick leaves; women are on sick leave to almost twice the extent as men. The development regarding persons on sick leave due to a psychiatric diagnosis is particularly worrying in this context. Of the persons who were on sick leave for that reason at the end of 2021, 70 percent were women. But the inequality also applies to other types of insurance, for example, the occupational injury insurance.

The government is well aware of this issue and the complex causal relationship behind it. Political measures are being prepared, for example the announced national strategy for mental health, but further changes within both working life and, not least, family life are needed to address this very concerning lack of equality.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! For many years, we have had a poorly functioning health insurance system in Sweden. People who are ill do not receive what they are entitled to. Thousands of ill people and persons with disabilities have been cast out of the system. For those affected, this has had catastrophic consequences. Entire lives have been shattered, and for some, there has been no other way out than to take their own lives.

That is not how a welfare state should function. We who are elected, chosen by the people to represent the citizens, must act decisively and not turn a blind eye or primarily act as talkers. The promises we give, we must fulfill.

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

We later succeeded in abolishing the "stupstock" and the outer limit in the sickness insurance. But unfortunately, it would not be long before new mass-disqualifications became a reality. The S- and MP-government introduced targets for the number of sick days in 2015, and then actually about as many were disqualified as during the Alliance government. The rejections quadrupled without any legislative changes being made. Instead, day 180 and day 365 became the new "stupstockar". They came a little earlier. During the height of the pandemic, record numbers were disqualified at these points in time.

But then came the turning point. We in Vänsterpartiet, together with the trade union movement and those who have been personally affected, succeeded in pushing through improvements to the sickness insurance. The rules were changed so that more people are granted sickness benefit today. A new security pension was introduced so that older workers are not excluded from insurance and forced into transition. The ceiling for sickness benefit was raised. The basic allowance was raised by 1,000 kronor in the sickness and activity allowance. The so-called "funkisskatt" was removed, so that everyone with sickness and activity allowance has the same tax level as other wage earners. Unfortunately, however, the right and the Sverigedemokraterna – together with Centerpartiet, I believe – managed to introduce some additional tax gap there, so it did not turn out so well in the end. The ceiling for the housing supplement was raised to 7,500 kronor, not only for age pensioners but for everyone, including sickness pensioners. Vänsterpartiet also succeeded in negotiating away the then, in and of itself non-quantified but still insurance exclusion goals that had long governed Försäkringskassan's work through the regulatory letter.

Then there was a change of government. Vänsterpartiet no longer had the possibility to influence policy, but the Sverigedemokraterna did and still does. You can never guess what happened next. Did they push through the completed rule improvements in the sickness benefit? Was the compensation level in the sickness benefit raised? Was a crisis commission appointed to provide redress for everyone who has been disqualified from insurance over the years? I wouldn't believe it. No, the Sverigedemokraterna disregarded making a single demand regarding the sickness insurance. A single sentence can be found in the Tidö Agreement, and it cannot be interpreted in any other way than that more people are now to be cast out of the sickness insurance.

Quite right, Mr. Speaker - there is more. The investigation that was to be carried out to abolish the unfair quarantine deduction, which was one of the Left Party's demands in the budget negotiations, was scrapped. Instead, an additional quarantine day was to be introduced, so that bus drivers, teachers, and nurses would become even poorer when they were affected by illness. The Left Party and others put pressure on the government, and they had to withdraw the proposal.

How did it go with the investigation that was supposed to produce a proposal to abolish the waiting period? Well, it let the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates bury it in a closed room at the Ministry of Social Affairs. And who is it that rules there then? Well, the same Moderates who just submitted a proposal that an additional waiting day should be introduced. You don't have to be a genius to understand that it is not so likely that the waiting period will be abolished during this mandate period. The Sweden Democrats understand that too. But they simply do not care.

Mr. Speaker! One might think that the misery stops there. But unfortunately, we must conclude that is not the case. An inquiry that Vänsterpartiet had pushed through to review more improvements within the sickness benefit than those we had pushed through earlier has now completely changed direction. The investigator has been fired and replaced. The directives for the inquiry now instead concern reviewing unjustifiably long sick leaves. In other words, more people are to be disqualified from benefits. The new investigator's resume is long. He has, among other things, argued for the importance of quantified goals in the sickness insurance, that is to say, what originally caused everyone to be disqualified in the sickness benefit.

Mr. Speaker! I have all the understanding for why many have lost faith in politics after all these years of deterioration. Politicians say one thing but do another. The political decisions that have been made have been completely different from those that were promised in the election campaign. But we in Vänsterpartiet have done the opposite, and that is what we will continue to do.

Yesterday, I visited the social services in Skarpnäck outside Stockholm. The number of sick people without compensation has increased over a longer period and doubled. This concerns groups that are in need of subsistence support, i.e., people who are on sick leave from doctors but are denied compensation by Försäkringskassan.

It is good that we got through some improvements to the sickness benefit, but now the rules for more people to be entitled to sickness compensation must also be implemented. There is a completed investigation proposal that could be implemented tomorrow. Vänsterpartiet has submitted the proposal earlier but did not get a majority. At that time, Sverigedemokraterna voted for Vänsterpartiets proposal. But now that Sverigedemokraterna themselves can influence, they do nothing. Getting into the inner circles of the Government Offices seems to have been the goal, rather than getting changes for ordinary people. It is regrettable.

Mr. Speaker! People do not get healthier, but sicker from the treatment that the system subjects them to. Not to be believed is the height of humiliation. That is how you dehumanize a person.

We in Vänsterpartiet, together with all of you who are active in various appeals to change the health insurance, have outmaneuvered the previous government and other parties in front of us. I want to thank you so very much! You should know that it is you who have made all the difference.

But now those who have struggled and done the work, and those who have been declared unfit for work over the years, must also be given redress and financial compensation and have their SGI back. There is much left to do. Vänsterpartiet proposes that the karens day be abolished. The sharp time limits need to be removed. The medical certificate shall apply. Those who are chronically ill or have a disability must be granted the right to permanent compensation. Today, one is referred to Arbetsförmedlingen. There, one is told that one is too sick to receive help for work. But Försäkringskassan considers that one is perfectly healthy. So that must not continue. That is what we shall work for.

Mr. Speaker! It is we, the wage earners, who pay for the health insurance with our sacrificed wage space. This is our right. It is not a handout. We have earned it.

Vänsterpartiet wants to raise the replacement levels broadly in both the sickness benefit and the sickness and activity benefit. We are the only party in the Riksdag that year after year removes the penalty tax for all sick and unemployed people in our budget. We will continue to press on. We always put people's security first. No one shall make us back down when it comes to people's right to economic security in the event of illness and disability.

I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 26.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! When I read the report on social insurance issues and the committee's position, there are some words that recur: An investigation is underway, the investigation has just been commissioned, the investigation has just been submitted, we must wait for ongoing work. And of course, it is true that one needs to follow the investigations that have been commissioned. But we shall see. My patience is beginning to wear thin as well. Six months have passed. The probationary period is essentially over. Now I want to see that something also comes back soon. Otherwise, it sounds very much like the previous government.

When will the clear and concrete proposals arrive that make the rehabilitation chain and the reconciliations clearer? When will the proposals regarding the removal of time limits and regarding the preventive sickness benefit arrive? When will the proposals regarding students' health and healthcare, regarding rehabilitation for students, and regarding students' opportunities to perhaps even retain their SGI during their studies arrive? When will the proposals regarding entrepreneurs' possibility to have simpler administration when they are on sick leave so that they do not have to shut down their companies arrive?

This issue of what percentage one should be signed off sick at – 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent – is strictly regulated today. We have heard speakers who have highlighted that question. Now the government is in agreement with the Social Democrats to reject just such a proposal. The Center Party has previously been in agreement with many of the parties in the sitting government when it comes to rehabilitation, and that is what it is about, Mr. Speaker. People who have become ill should receive support to be able to return to work as soon as possible. In that case, we need to work on reviewing Finsam's mandate and governance. How does one work with their follow-up? What research exists? Is there follow-up research, so that we know which early interventions make a difference? What does the cooperation look like? How do rehab coordinators out in the country, who could be given a larger role, operate?

There is support for entrepreneurs and employers regarding work-oriented rehabilitation support. It should be directed more towards small and medium-sized companies, because that is where the support is needed. There, it is not possible to have a large HR department that can help. Today, that support goes quite a lot to larger employers.

Mr. Speaker! I will now take the opportunity to move for approval of reservation number 16. It concerns precisely the possibilities for entrepreneurs to be able to manage their company in smaller parts even during a sick leave.

As I said just now, during the previous parliamentary term, I was quite in agreement with one, two, or three of the government's parties on important issues regarding early support. It is about support to be able to return to the labor market and to be able to receive support during a potential transition. Students shall be able to transition, and entrepreneurs shall survive. The work line is what shall apply.

Six months have passed. I have chosen not to make any remarks in the debate. Instead, I am posing an open question. When will the concrete proposals arrive that can make it so that people return to work faster?

There must be a focus on early interventions and coordination. It is an important task. The Government has a great responsibility. I expect that we do not have to wait another six months before clear, concrete proposals are presented.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What kind of society do we want? Who do we want to be? We in Miljöpartiet want Sweden to be a country where people have trust in one another with a strong welfare state where we carry each other when we are too weak to manage on our own. We want an equal Sweden.

In recent years, Sweden has been one of the countries in the world with the fastest-growing inequalities. It is not uncommon if we look globally that sickness is equal to poverty. But should we really have it this way here in Sweden?

No, we in Miljöpartiet do not think so. We are therefore making powerful investments in our budget so that people who cannot work due to illness or disability do not fall so far behind financially that they cannot manage on their income.

There are many testimonies about what it means to have a lifelong disability that prevents you from supporting yourself. It is tough enough to manage illness. You should not also have to be poor.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a country where taxes on capital are, moreover, significantly lower than taxes on labor, and taxes on labor are significantly lower than the tax on income for those who, due to their disability, receive sickness and activity compensation.

We are distributing in the wrong direction. It should be the opposite. Those who have more should pay more in tax. Instead, there are more poor people. More have also completely fallen outside the insurance system.

Thankfully, we have not yet seen a large increase in the number of people who go to the social services and ask for social assistance. But that, Mr. Speaker, is thanks to the fact that very many of those who came to Sweden in 2015 are now in work.

I shudder at what the recession and the skyrocketing inflation, in combination with low benefits in the health insurance and other economic support, will entail.

Our vision, the Green Party's vision, is a society where we let all people grow and develop. Illness should mean neither a life in poverty nor that doors to new paths are closed.

Today's insurance system and not least the government's discussion about it is characterized by a great deal of suspicion. Recently we could read that it would be "fat" to not have a salary but live on insurance compensation. This was stated by a minister in Sweden's government.

To believe that it is so "cool" is a dangerous illusion that can have real consequences for the people whose compensations the government wishes to lower.

We are convinced that people can and want to do what they are capable of to contribute to our common society through work or in other ways if we provide the conditions for it.

But if we have a system where people are worried about losing their benefits if they engage a little bit in the housing association's board or manage to start studies, we risk instead holding people back.

As I already pointed out in my exchange with the Sverigedemokraterna, we also want to abolish the unfair quarantine deduction. This means that some people are hit much harder by illness than others.

Many can stay home and work at a computer for a day if they get a cold. Others cannot even go to work even if they are capable of doing so with a runny nose because they would then risk their users' health and, in some cases, also their lives. We experienced this clearly during the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker! No one should also fall between the cracks, not if we in Miljöpartiet get to decide. I personally know people who, in a completely absurd way, have been bounced back and forth between on one side the Arbetsförmedlingen which says: You are too sick, no one will hire you, and on the other side Försäkringskassan which thinks: You are not sick enough for sickness benefit.

It must be stopped. We in Miljöpartiet want an insurance system that does not have those loopholes and where there are no chairs to fall between, but it must be an insurance that hangs together. It must cover people's needs regardless of what the cause is and which category they fall into. It must be a work life insurance.

It is also important that the sickness insurance should work for more people. Today, it is adapted for people who have employment with an employer. Self-employed people, artists and others have very difficult time making their life situation fit into the system. It is our responsibility to change the system. It is the system that is for the people; it is not the people who should limit themselves to our boxes.

The stress-related ill health, Mr. Speaker, is an enormous and growing problem. We in Miljöpartiet want a society that neither burns out the people nor the planet. Interesting attempts have been made with fantastically fine results regarding, for example, reduction of working hours, which have shown that by working less, one can get more people to have the strength to work more. It does not sound like something one intuitively thinks of, but those who hesitate should take a moment to reflect and read up.

Mr. Speaker! We are in a situation with skyrocketing inflation. But we are not all affected equally. Those with the smallest margins are hit hardest when everything becomes more expensive. The government currently in power has chosen to let high-income earners pay less in tax while simultaneously doing nothing about food prices. At the same time, there are many who live on sickness insurance and other benefits that do not make the finances add up.

From the Green Party's side, we are appalled by the development. We are appalled that the government, in the name of fighting inflation, is de facto making cuts to welfare. That is the result when one does not compensate healthcare, elderly care, schools, and childcare for the cost increases. The consequence will then be fewer colleagues on the floor for those professional groups who are already on sick leave most often. It is an unhealthy policy and a policy for inequality.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I choose to move for approval of only reservation 18.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Almost 35,000 residents of Västmanland are not self-sufficient, according to a recent report from Svenskt Näringsliv. This means that every fourth person of working age in Västmanland does not have an earned income exceeding approximately 13,500 kronor per month. And this is how it looks all around in the whole of Sweden.

These people are largely dependent on our social security system. Many of them live on benefits today despite having a functioning capacity to work. They have become stuck in our collective safety net. What is supposed to be a supporting hand along the way when life does not turn out as one intended becomes instead something that locks people into a state of exclusion. It is an exclusion that, furthermore, risks being passed down as an inheritance.

To break the exclusion and to ensure that our benefit systems continue to be as they were intended - a safety net - extensive reforms must take place.

Firstly, we must strengthen the drivers for work. Secondly, we must set requirements and educate people to make them employable. Thirdly, we must simplify and improve the possibility for companies to hire more.

The first part, the drivers for work, falls within the framework of what we are debating today. Many of today's proposals may be heartfelt and difficult to say no to. But the current Moderate-led government has an important mission: to re-establish the work line. Furthermore, a number of important and interesting investigations are currently underway that may affect the trade-offs—a process that the Riksdag should not precede.

We need to prioritize and weigh our measures. The reinforcements we make in the subsidy system must be accurate and, above all, must not risk exacerbating the marginal effects, which make it unprofitable to work. But they must also not risk exacerbating inflation.

In a difficult economic time, we must both support those who have it toughest and have the strength and courage to prioritize. A contribution ceiling was needed, a qualification for welfare was needed, and order and clarity in our welfare system were needed.

Now we must re-establish the work line so that more people have a job to go to and so that more people move from receiving benefits to contributing.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In what way, Caroline Högström, do you want to increase the incentives for work? What is it concretely that it is about?

We see today how more school meals are being served on Mondays and Fridays. Why? Is the food tastier on Mondays and Fridays in Sweden's average schools? No, I unfortunately do not think so. What teachers and school staff testify to is that children are hungrier on Mondays and Fridays, because far too many children do not get to eat until they are full during the weekend.

Child poverty in Sweden is one of our biggest problems. When the Moderaterna pushed the work principle, it unfortunately meant that poor people were made even poorer. I ask myself: How hungry do the Moderaterna want children to be in Sweden?

There are other ways to prioritize. One could, for example, ensure that those of us who are paid a lot pay more so that those who work and have low incomes could keep more. At the same time, one can ensure that fewer are poor, including children whose parents need the society's benefits because they do not have work or cannot work.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Hirvonen, for the contribution! In the report and the debate here, a number of motions are being addressed. Many of them can, just as I said, feel good in the stomach. One feels kind. One feels the consideration – that we take care of people.

But upon closer inspection, we see the consequences of some of the proposals from, among others, Miljöpartiet. It is the party that Hirvonen represents and which is, in some way, the pioneer when it comes to this type of proposal. When we examine the proposals, we see that they are not particularly kind. They do not feel particularly good, and above all, they do not have good consequences.

With an all-too generous system, we lock people into a state of exclusion. We subtract them and say: You were not needed on the labor market! But our welfare system is built precisely on the fact that those who can work also work. It is built on as many as possible participating and working and paying tax. It is care for people. To set requirements is to care.

I accounted for some of the proposals that concern strengthening the incentives. It is about contribution ceilings, and it is about qualification for welfare. But it is also about tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners so that one creates the incentives for work. But it is you in Miljöpartiet who unfortunately are not interested in it.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There are many slogans and platitudes that I hear being repeated here. It should pay to work. Yes, I think so too.

But I also think that those who cannot work and will not be able to do so due to a disability should receive sickness compensation. Is it this proposal that Caroline Högström means is against the work principle? Or what concrete proposals is it about?

The Moderates are talking about a benefit ceiling. Where are you going to set it? Should the benefit ceiling be so high that the children are full when they arrive at school on Mondays, or should they be hungry? At some point, it is important that we become concrete so that we can have a proper discussion about what we mean.

We in Miljöpartiet believe that it should pay to work and that one should not become poor because one is too ill to work. Are we in agreement on that, Caroline Högström?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat fascinated that I am accused of having many platitudes when Annika Hirvonen's contribution is very fine and heartfelt but also filled with platitudes. It is not about letting children go hungry or about not providing the right support and the right help in time. It is about the fact that we have a system that has very problematic consequences.

You spoke about making it more profitable to work but propose something that can almost be likened to a universal basic income. In my opinion, based on my ideological conviction, it has the exact opposite consequence: that it does not pay to work.

When we talk about, for example, a benefit ceiling, we are very clear. I read directly from the Tidö Agreement: "Partly through the introduction of a benefit ceiling that ensures that those who can work can never, in total, receive higher income from benefits than they would receive through their own work." This is an example of what could be done. But this is also an ongoing investigation that I do not want to preempt, Mr. Speaker.

I note that this sense of consideration is constantly put forward, but that people are not looking at reality. You talk about how one should not become poor if one is ill, but we can look at the figures: One in four of working age in my own home county of Västmanland does not have a job to go to. One in four is not, for example, disabled in this context, but we have people who stand outside, who get stuck in an exclusion and whom we must begin to account for. We must get them into work, get them to come to work so that they get a meaningful occupation and also get to participate in paying tax.

(Applause)

In this speech, Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD) agreed.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Mr. Speaker! Welfare creates security. Therefore, our common welfare is the foundation of a strong society. It is based on a fundamental idea that everyone gives according to their ability and receives according to their need.

The social security system shall provide economic security during life's different stages. We Social Democrats want to strengthen the insurance and make it more solidary, just, and equal. The sickness insurance is a central part of the welfare and constitutes an important social contract between the individual and society.

Mr. Speaker! I am on leave from my work as a support assistant at an LSS residence in my home municipality, Marks kommun, which is located in Sjuhärad. Over the years, I have seen how individuals with disabilities have had to fight to make the finances work. It is not entirely uncommon that relatives are forced to chip in money to make the everyday economy work.

According to SCB, one in four persons with a disability has a low economic standard.

In FUB's report *Trapped in Poverty?*, it is written that the primary reason for poverty among individuals with disabilities is precisely the levels of the sickness and activity compensation. These individuals also have no possibility of influencing their income. They are completely dependent on a secure sickness and activity compensation.

Today, the guarantee level is approximately 12,000 kronor before tax, this following a much-needed increase of the price base amount of about 8 percent. But, Mr. Speaker, when food prices have risen by over 20 percent, that increase is not noticed in the wallet. More needs to be done.

A few weeks ago, I attended a meeting with individuals who have LSS interventions. The question that several of those who were at the meeting asked me was: When will you increase our compensations?

We Social Democrats appointed an inquiry that was to review the system for calculating the compensations. The purpose was precisely to strengthen the economic security for persons who have sickness and activity compensation. This inquiry was, unfortunately, shut down two days before Christmas last year. The work to improve the regulatory framework for the sickness and activity compensation was thus stopped by the right-conservative government, at the same time as several disability organizations are sounding the alarm and argue that persons with long-term reduced work capacity and disabilities are forced to make themselves dependent on relatives.

Social insurance issues

Mr. Speaker! I also want to take the opportunity to remind the House of how it looked the last time a bourgeois government governed Sweden. Back then, it was the unemployed and the chronically ill who paid the price for the tax cuts. I can say nothing other than that I am worried, Mr. Speaker.

The right-conservative government prioritized that high-income earners should get more money in their pockets instead of, for example, raising the guarantee level in the sickness and activity allowance. We Social Democrats, on the other hand, want to continue the work of restoring security in the event of illness and disability. The sickness insurance shall be a security in the event of loss of income or when one lacks work capacity.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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