Social insurance issues

Clara Aranda (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Insurance Committee's report on social insurance issues. I would first like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

I would like to begin my speech by focusing on a very important starting point. It is about the trust in our security systems. It is absolutely crucial that the security systems that we have built up over a long period, and for which Swedish taxpayers set aside a significant portion of their wages every month, are used for what they are actually intended for: our common welfare. It is about that who is entitled to support shall receive it and that the systems must not be exploited. This cannot be repeated enough.

Politics is not just about wanting. It is also about prioritizing when it really matters, and that is what the Sweden Democrats and the government have shown time and again during this parliamentary term.

Madam Speaker! We must speak plainly about the benefit fraud. Every krona that is paid out incorrectly is a krona taken from those who truly need the support.

The Sweden Democrats have during this mandate period been driving issues regarding crime and punishment, and we have been equally eager regarding measures to counter even this type of crime. We have clearly shown that we do not accept the widespread welfare crime, a crime that affects the most vulnerable in our society.

Madam Speaker! Between 15 and 20 billion SEK are estimated to be paid out incorrectly from the state welfare systems every year. Approximately half of these payments are judged to be due to suspected benefit fraud. We are therefore talking about taxpayers' money, which risks ending up in criminals' pockets and which in addition can contribute to strengthening organized crime. It is unacceptable. Therefore, it is important to highlight the fact that the Sweden Democrats and the government are now putting forward proposals for an administrative sanction fee and a benefit ban in the social insurance.

With more tools like these, society will have better conditions to prevent welfare crime while we strengthen the legitimacy of our common security systems. But it is also about ensuring it is correct from the start. Therefore, we have also increased the control so that more decisions regarding payments from Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten are correct. Both Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten have been tasked with preventing individuals from becoming liable for repayment. Both agencies are simultaneously working to strengthen their ability to reclaim the incorrect payments that have been made.

Regarding the issue of reclamation, the Sweden Democrats mean that it shall occur when it is justified and that it shall occur in a legally secure manner. We will always stand firm on that principle.

In summary, it should be easy to do the right thing, and it should be felt by those who try to harm and exploit our common welfare.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, those living with a disability should be able to feel freedom, security, and inclusion. Living with constant anxiety because one does not know if the money will last the whole month is not dignified. Society shall provide full protection to those who need it. Therefore, it is very pleasing that the Sverigedemokraterna, together with the government, are now among others in agreement to task Försäkringskassan with submitting proposals annually on the level of the hourly rate regarding the assistance allowance. This creates increased predictability and strengthened security, which our parties consider a fundamental prerequisite for a dignified life.

We can state that Sweden today is being governed in a clear direction, where we, together with the government, are pushing through measures that lead towards a cohesive, knowledge-based and long-term effort to make our country good again. Step by step, we are strengthening trust in our safety systems. We protect vulnerable groups and have no problem setting clear boundaries where needs exist. It is a necessary and important work that has begun, and after this mandate period, we can state that we are finally on the right path.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, I and the Chairman of the Culture Committee, Mats Berglund, met with the organization Klys, which works to strengthen the conditions for Sweden's cultural creators in society. One of the issues they raised with us concerned the inclusion of cultural workers in social insurance, which we have debated many times in this chamber.

Today's system for sickness benefit-earning income is adapted for a working life with permanent employment with an employer. But within the cultural field, a majority of the professionals are self-employed or so-called "combinators" with multiple employers, short employments, and their own company in parallel. For many of them, grants are an equally important part of the income as wages. The consequence of this is that many of them have no SGI and are therefore very vulnerable if they become ill or want to take parental leave.

When Amanda Lind was Minister for Culture, an inquiry was appointed to come up with proposals for solutions to this. That inquiry presented its proposals in June 2023. Ahead of the 2022 election, the Sverigedemokraterna campaigned very hard about wanting to strengthen the conditions for cultural workers. They made many statements in the media and were active in Facebook groups with thousands of members where they spoke about wanting to ensure that cultural creators would be included in the safety systems in a fair way. But during this mandate period, absolutely nothing has happened on that front, despite the fact that the inquiry, as mentioned, has been finished for almost three years and despite the fact that the Tidö parties had their own majority to carry out everything they wanted to do.

I would like to hear from Clara Aranda why the Sweden Democrats have not kept their promises to Sweden's cultural workers and why the cultural workers should trust them this time.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member for the question!

The Sweden Democrats continue to consider that we need to investigate the issue of SGI, i.e., the calculation of the income qualifying for sickness benefit. Our assessment at the current stage is, however, that the current final report does not constitute a sufficient basis, as it is quite extensive changes in the legislation that have been presented. This final report is being prepared within the Government Offices, and we are following the work closely. We have certain views. This is a matter that we simply have to return to when the time comes.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has been three years since the investigation was presented. I do not know whether I am naive or not, but I can think that a government should be able to prepare a matter somewhat faster than three years. It will probably become more than three years, given that the Sverigedemokraterna apparently want to investigate the issue further. I shall have to hope that they do not need to do so because they will lose the election.

Madam Speaker! I would actually like to hear more from Clara Aranda regarding what the problem is with the proposals. Why is it not possible to proceed with these proposals, which are properly investigated and which Klys wants to see implemented? The cultural workers are very satisfied with the proposals in any case. What are the deficiencies that the Sverigedemokraterna see in the investigation? What is it that cannot be implemented?

I wish for a little more clarity towards the cultural workers who are suffering today because they do not have a social security system (SGI) that works. They cannot receive parental leave pay at a level consistent with their income. If they become ill, they are affected because they do not have a social security system that it is possible to live on. Why should they continue to wait? What is actually the problem? I would like, Madam Speaker, for Clara Aranda to clarify something.

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have achieved very much good during this mandate period. It is very difficult to manage to do exactly everything.

I agree that a number of years have passed. We will, of course, follow up on the issue, as it is important to us. At the same time, Miljöpartiet has also had the opportunity to influence this issue. Why has it not done so when it has been part of the government? I question that very much.

The members of the committee want answers as to why we cannot proceed with the specific proposals right now immediately. The fact is that there are uncertainties in the proposals being presented. They become technically very difficult to implement because they are so complicated and extensive.

We want to do this in a good way. We therefore see a need to deepen the investigation work regarding the proposals that we believe should be moved forward with. We have a proposal in the final report that SGI can be determined to the higher of historical income or current income.

It is a proposal that we find interesting. But otherwise, I cannot directly give any statement on it. We simply have to come back to the matter.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 26, which concerns the abolition of the quarantine deduction.

One could say that this debate is a closing of the accounts. It is a closing of the accounts over what the government and the Sweden Democrats have achieved during the mandate period. Or perhaps rather: A closing of the accounts over what one has not done.

Madam Speaker! We have just heard the member from Sverigedemokraterna in the speaker's chair. It is a party that before the election had a high tone regarding the health insurance and which speaks of strengthening security. But now, after almost an entire parliamentary term with influence, we see what it was worth. Security has not been strengthened. Instead, inequality has increased. That obviously raises a simple question: What are Sverigedemokraterna's promises actually worth?

Madam Speaker! There is a clear difference between the politics that the government and the Sweden Democrats stand for and the politics that we Social Democrats stand for. It is about the view on security and fundamentally about the view on people, whether we as a country believe in solidarity and equality or whether we leave people to fend for themselves.

Madam Speaker! For me as a Social Democrat, it is important to say that the sickness insurance is not just a technical construction. It should not be used as a tool to press down the sickness rates. People do not get healthy by being made poor. No, the sickness insurance is a promise. It is a promise that the person who becomes ill shall receive security and a chance to come back.

We Social Democrats stand up for that promise. For us, the work line is not about pressuring people, but about giving people the conditions to be able to work, to move from unemployment to work and from illness to recovery. But above all, it is about giving people the conditions for a healthy working life. That is how we build a strong society.

Let us look at reality. Försäkringskassan shows that the long sick leaves are increasingly about mental ill-health. Work is often a contributing cause. It is about stress, high demands and too little recovery. It is women who are hardest hit. It is women who have worked until they can no longer cope.

Madam Speaker! This is not happening in a vacuum. When welfare is on its knees, sick leaves increase. When the nursing assistant runs between too many users, when the schedule does not hold and when recovery is missing, people become ill. We see a working life that pressures people from all sides.

That is why the preventive work is so crucial. It is about the work environment functioning, that people receive support in time and that there are enough colleagues. For it is always better to prevent ill health than to repair it in hindsight.

Madam Speaker! It actually starts earlier than that. How you manage school affects how you feel as an adult. Those who do not receive the right support in time are left in a weaker position on the labor market and face an increased risk of ill health later in life, so school is also a part of health insurance policy.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the sickness insurance is a reflection of how society functions in large. When the labor market policy works, people can get support back to work. When the work environment is reasonable, people can manage to work a whole professional life. When the welfare has resources, there are enough colleagues so that no one needs to break down at work.

How has the parliamentary term been? It is a rather gloomy closing balance. When households struggled the most with high food prices, increased interest rates, and anxiety, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna chose to stick to their line. It was tax cuts that were prioritized over support for families with children, over welfare, and over the school.

In the midst of the worst inflation, Sweden was the only country in the Nordic region that did not increase the child allowance. It is a political choice. It is a choice away from equality. We see that pattern in area after area.

Sweden risks, for example, missing its climate goals. The Climate Policy Council has been clear in its criticism of the government's policy. But instead of taking responsibility, there is a lack of both direction and long-term perspective.

Madam Speaker! This is connected. A society that is unable to take responsibility for the future also finds it more difficult to take responsibility for people here and now.

Unemployment is high. More children are growing up in families where the money does not suffice for the most basic needs, and the welfare workers are going to their knees.

All of this spills over. It eventually lands here, with the health insurance, on people's health and on their ability to work. When society does not hold together, it is people who fall through. But it does not have to be that way, Madam Speaker.

In this report, the government and the Sweden Democrats say no to several proposals that could improve the sickness insurance. The quarantine deduction remains, and people are still forced to go to work while sick because the finances would not hold otherwise.

We know who pays the price. It is the nursing assistant and the police officer, the bus driver and the street sweeper and the stable hand and the construction worker. It is all those occupational groups that cannot work from home. That is where we Social Democrats take responsibility. People should not have to choose between health and economy.

It also concerns those who are injured by their work. The occupational injury insurance is outdated. It does not capture today's working life. Far too few receive the compensation to which they are entitled.

We Social Democrats stand firm that those who wear out their bodies in work should be able to rely on the fact that society is there. It is solidarity in practice.

Equally important is that the rehabilitation works. The person who becomes ill or injured should not be left alone to find their way back. It is a collective responsibility.

It also concerns how we view work today. More people have insecure employment, multiple sources of income and different assignments, but the system does not hang together.

The income underlying the sickness benefit cannot be determined in a reasonable way. People risk being left without protection despite having worked and paid in. It erodes trust.

Madam Speaker! If one wants to see the consequences in full, one must also see how people with disabilities get trapped in poverty because the compensations are simply too low. They become completely dependent on their relatives. It is not worthy of a country like Sweden. Equality is about the right to an independent life.

Madam Speaker! This is not a law of nature. These are political choices. We also see how the government acts. The previous Social Democratic government, for example, appointed an inquiry to review the sickness and activity allowance in order to improve the living conditions for persons with disabilities. That inquiry was laid down by the government and the Sverigedemokraterna, for this is not their priority.

We also hear time and again how the government speaks about people in our safety systems with a tone that casts suspicion, as if it were a matter of a lack of will. But the reality looks different. It is about people who have become ill, people with disabilities, people who have injured themselves at work, and people who are far from the labor market and who need support to return.

We must dare to say it as it is: It is not the people who are the problem, but it is the lack of the right politics. It is not the people who have failed, but it is society that has not given them the right conditions.

Our mission is not to point fingers but to take responsibility. We shall give people a real chance to move from unemployment to work and from illness to recovery.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to go in a different direction. We want to build a society that holds together and a society where security is not just a word but something that one feels. If life falls apart, one should know that society is there.

That is why we want to remove the care allowance and strengthen the sickness insurance. We want the same labor market concept to apply to both sickness benefit and sickness compensation. We want to modernize the occupational injury insurance, update SGI so that more people are covered, and create real paths back to work. We want to develop Finsam so that more people receive coordinated support and are not bounced around between different systems.

In a strong society built on solidarity and equality, no one should have to be afraid of falling ill or of falling.

Madam Speaker! A society is not measured by how it fares for the strongest, but by how we treat those who need us the most. We Social Democrats are prepared to take responsibility for building just such a society.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! This parliamentary term is coming to an end, but much work remains. It is a parliamentary term that has been characterized by an uncertain world but with a stable government with strong support here in Sweden's Riksdag.

It has meant that we have begun the necessary course correction in a number of important issues. The Moderate-led government's focus is to solve the social problems that Sweden and the Swedes face.

We began by taking on the fight against inflation. We have presented restrained budgets but with a strong focus on supporting families. The results speak for themselves. When the Social Democrats handed over power, inflation was 10 percent. Prices spiraled, and the Swedes became poorer. Today, inflation is around 2 percent, and we see the economy slowly turning around.

As a result of the Moderate-led government's measures, an ordinary family with children will keep 5,000 kronor more per month this year compared to 2022. We have lowered the tax on work and pension, because it is fair that it should pay more to work and to have worked. Furthermore, we have supported families financially by making it cheaper to live, through lowered taxes on food, fuel, and electricity.

Now that fuel prices are soaring again as a result of the uncertain global situation, the government is taking direct action. Did you know that the diesel price had been 10 kronor higher per liter with the Social Democrats' and the Left Party's policies? Think about that next time you refuel! This makes a real difference.

On April 1, we lowered the food VAT. These measures obviously also facilitate things for those who, due to illness, cannot work and therefore live with tighter margins.

Madam Speaker! Effort should always pay off, and we know that many, for various reasons, need society's support. Those who strive to return to work should be met with society's broad support. That has not always been the case, and many have experienced obstacles on the way back. That is why we already on March 1 changed the law and once again allowed work assessment with maintained sickness benefit. Effort should pay off.

We also see people's ability. While previous Social Democratic governments hid and forgot people in the sickness insurance, we are keen on getting people back to work. We see their ability and potential, and we want as many as possible to be able to be a part of the community at a workplace. This places new demands on our common society in some cases, for example with adaptations of workplaces.

That is why we have tasked Försäkringskassan and Arbetsförmedlingen to take advantage of the work capacity of, among others, those on long-term sick leave. We do not give up on people. We have also previously tasked Försäkringskassan with following up on employers' plans for return to work and strengthening the coordination of rehabilitation efforts.

Madam Speaker! In the report, we handle motions concerning social insurance issues. These are not small, neat questions. They are questions with many layers where there is rarely a simple solution. Many of the problems we see within the health insurance do not necessarily resolve themselves through a single change in the Social Insurance Code. Here we see rather symptoms of what are sometimes broader societal problems.

I am thinking particularly of the women – of the childcare worker Miriam, the nurse Anna, and the mother of two Josefin. Women run twice as high a risk as men of being signed off sick due to stress-related ill health. Women are overrepresented. These are not new figures, but we can go back 20 years in time and still see the clear differences. Particularly affected are women who work in the public sector with a public employer.

Madam Speaker! Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked as a preschool teacher. I have seen and met my share of fantastic educators who have been affected by illness. There were various reasons. It was, of course, not entirely uncommon that it was due to a tough work environment and work situation. But sometimes it was life that got in the way, and the sick leave was not always the best because one then lost their footing. A heavy responsibility rests on municipalities and regions in their capacity as public employers to take this issue seriously, because this is obviously not how it should be.

That is why I am proud of the prioritization that the government is making where we, among other things, give sharp assignments and targeted funds to the parties concerned linked to women's health and care. It is also about mental health and the care for those who are affected by mental ill-health.

It is also a matter that we are now actually starting to talk more about the unreasonable life-puzzle that many women face. It affects very many. It is admittedly a private matter, but we need to talk about it so that more people open their eyes to how life can appear and what can actually happen.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, we can observe that historical fluctuations in sickness absence specifically show that rule changes alone are not sufficient. A stable and long-term level requires that we also address the underlying problems: a poor working environment in the welfare sector and insufficient primary care for mental ill-health. We need a sickness insurance system that consistently rewards rehabilitation over passivity.

Some time ago, I met a doctor who described what an incredible journey this health center has made in the work of countering unnecessary sick leaves. We must know in this chamber that sick leave is not always the best, especially not a passive sick leave.

The sickness insurance shall provide financial security for those who need it. There must be functioning incentives to return to work, and employers also need support in how they can best utilize the work capacity of their employees. Much good work is underway here. Försäkringskassan, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, Arbetsmiljöverket, and Arbetsförmedlingen have all received sharp mandates regarding how we can improve the situation, especially linked to mental health and the path back to work.

Madam Speaker! Another part of this report concerns fraud and benefit crime. Every year, it is estimated that 15–20 billion kronor are paid out incorrectly from our welfare systems. Approximately half is estimated to go to criminals. It is unreasonable that taxpayers are financing the criminals' cars, drugs, and weapons. Therefore, the Moderate-led government has since day one worked intensively to stop benefit crimes.

This week we took another step and appointed an inquiry to review the possibility of completely stopping grants to gang criminals and persons who have committed serious crimes. Already this spring, sharp reforms will be implemented to provide tangible consequences for those who deliberately cheat our social safety net. It will be a clear and concrete sanction ladder. For those who notoriously cheat and profit from our common resources, there will be a grant ban. It is we Moderates who, together with our coalition partners, are seriously taking on the fight against grant-related crime.

Madam Speaker! I also want to talk a little about the grace period. We have previously debated the proposal on the abolished grace period in this chamber, especially the non-existent funding from the Social Democrats.

We must speak plainly. Non-existent funding does not mean that the proposal does not cost money. The question is only who will pay. It will be ordinary workers and entrepreneurs who will have to bear the heavy yoke here. The healthcare assistant will have to pay in the form of fewer substitutes and colleagues. Companies will risk having to lay off staff.

Slopad karens is estimated to cost society billions. The number of billions varies, but it is nevertheless a matter of billions. Often, the additional behavioral change has not been taken into account.

Madam Speaker! This is where it knots a bit particularly in the stomach. What large parts of the opposition are doing is not just populist. One plays on people's emotions and lulls large parts of the Swedish people into a false sense of security. The fact remains: Someone will have to pay for the abolished quarantine.

In conclusion: Those who are ill or have a permanent impairment of work capacity that means the person can no longer work and is thus in need of society's support should be able to rely on the fact that the help, the compensation, the care, and the rehabilitation are there. They should be able to rely on the fact that there is a clear path back. The sickness insurance should provide financial security without having locking effects. No one deserves to be hidden and forgotten in the statistics and be left behind in a long-term exclusion.

I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is somewhat remarkable that Member Högström is complaining about how a removal of the quarantine deduction would fall on the shoulders of the nursing assistant. The government's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy already weighs quite heavily on the nursing assistant and all other welfare workers; they have to pay when the government and Sverigedemokraterna give tax cuts to high-income earners. We can, however, bicker about that another day.

The sickness insurance is about something quite simple: The person who becomes ill should be given the opportunity to return to work. Previously, people were assessed after half a year against so-called normally occurring jobs. These were jobs that most often did not exist in reality but were nevertheless used to draw the sickness benefit. The consequences were serious – people were cast out of the sickness insurance and into unemployment and economic insecurity.

As I said earlier: People do not get healthy by being made poor. That was why the Social Democratic government introduced this exception. If there were good reasons to believe that the person could return to their work, they would be given a real chance to do so. Then the assessment against the entire labor market could be postponed. We know that this works, as the Riksrevisionen's report has shown.

We now see, however, that the number of rejections is increasing again. My question to Member Högström is therefore: Why do the Moderaterna want to limit a tool that actually helps people back into work? Member Högström also spoke in his statement precisely about helping people back into work.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! No change has occurred regarding the exception. We can simultaneously observe that the exception has rather become the rule, and that is actually problematic. We have appointed an inquiry that looks into this. The Swedish Pensions Agency has also carried out several evaluations and inquiries regarding this issue.

Of course, those who are ill should receive help to get back, and if one is ill, one should have a safety net that covers them. What we have problems with in some cases is that we have a group of people who actually have the capacity to work but who today perhaps cannot find their place on the labor market. Försäkringskassan can assess that a person has the capacity to work. The person can then come to Arbetsförmedlingen, be assessed as unemployable, and end up in limbo.

This is a huge societal problem, but we do not solve it by pushing these people back into the social security system. Instead, we solve it by finding tools so that people can return to work and work community and get routines in their lives. There are fantastic examples of good operations, for example coordination associations, which tangibly help people back to work. I believe we must look at such initiatives instead of hiding and forgetting people in the statistics and saying: We release them into the social security system even though they can actually come to work and have work capacity.

I believe that we should see the healthy in people to a greater extent. I believe we can go much further then.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I am glad that MP Högström mentioned Finsam specifically, and I hope that during the short time remaining of the mandate period we can see that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna want to make major investments in this fantastic operation.

I would like to talk a bit about the occupational injury insurance. If one gets injured at work or becomes ill because of it, I believe one should be able to rely on the insurance working. However, it does not do so today. The occupational injury insurance is outdated; it is designed for a working life that no longer exists. Today, the working life is to an ever increasing extent about stress, high workload, and mental ill-health, which Member Högström mentioned in his speech.

There is a completed report. I and other members have regularly asked the responsible minister in interpellations, but we receive no answers. Member Högström may know something that the minister does not know. When will the government implement the proposals that the investigation has put forward?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! It should be added in this context that Member Högström does not know more than Minister Tenje does.

The investigation's proposal is being prepared in the Government Offices, but I can take the opportunity to problematize a bit regarding this issue. I agree with Member Rodén that there are challenges and problems with how today's work injury insurance functions. Just as the Member said: The legislation is old, and we have a new working life.

Some referral bodies problematized the investigation and argued that this might create new problems. I believe we need to take into account that it is not always just a matter of straightforwardly implementing the proposals from an investigation. It is not necessarily the case that it will just become better. The Social Insurance Inspectorate pointed out that this was an enormous leap that did not have desirable effects but rather created new problems. Therefore, one needs to be a bit cautious.

In these debates, I often point out that the social security system is a fantastic piece of legislation and a fantastic safety net, but there are also challenges with it. If we make it too open to interpretation, it can take a direction that contributes to creating new lock-in effects and to people not returning to work. We need to be quite cautious all the time.

The conservative vein in the Moderaterna gets quite a lot of space in just these issues. We need to work methodically and carefully so as not to create new problems and so as not to have to stand here in the chamber a year later and wonder why it turned out this way. We need to take it quite carefully here, I would like to say.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! One should be able to feel secure that the safety nets are there when life takes a turn – when one becomes ill, is injured, or can no longer manage to work. It is the very basic idea of our collective welfare, but unfortunately, reality all too often looks different.

We have heard countless stories about people who, despite their doctors having assessed them as too ill to work, have nevertheless lost their sickness benefit from Försäkringskassan. The justification is often that they are considered capable of taking normally available work on the labor market. But what does that actually mean for someone who can barely manage everyday life? What is the kind of work one is expected to be able to take when the body or the psyche says no? This is not just an administrative issue; it is about people's lives, health, and security.

Madam Speaker! The situation did, however, improve somewhat when the Left Party's mandate became decisive in negotiations with the Social Democrats. Then, important changes were made to the sickness insurance which meant that more people could actually keep their sickness benefit after day 180. It was a step in the right direction, a step towards a more humane sickness insurance.

But these improvements seem to have disturbed the government and the Sweden Democrats. They chose to appoint an inquiry to evaluate the new rules. What was the conclusion then? Yes, that the rules should be abolished, that is, the rules that allow people a reasonable chance to get well and actually return to work. That says quite a lot about the direction one wants to take.

Madam Speaker! The Government may perhaps have a small pat on the back for not moving forward with the commission's proposals. But at the same time, in the same breath, one chose to scrap another commission, a commission that was supposed to look at how the sickness insurance could be further improved.

This is telling, because while the problems are obvious, the will to tackle them seriously is lacking. There is, in fact, much that needs to be improved. The main goal for the health insurance must be clear: People shall become healthy. They shall regain their capacity to work and be able to return to work or, if necessary, receive support to find a new job.

The sickness insurance shall not be a tool to press down the statistics or achieve politically set figures. The so-called figures policy has been allowed to rule for far too long. Instead, we must put the human being at the center. During the time one is ill, one should be able to feel economic security. Being ill should not mean that one is simultaneously forced to worry about one's livelihood, one's rent, or one's future.

Madam Speaker! I will also say a few words about the sick pay deduction. The sick pay deduction practically means a major economic blow, especially for those who work in classic blue-collar jobs. This applies in particular to those who are extra vulnerable to infection or who work in occupations where it is crucial not to infect others, such as in preschools or in healthcare. These are people who every day make society function but who at the same time are punished financially when they make the responsible choice to stay home when ill.

Sweden also stands out in the Nordic region. We have a system with double deductibles: both a waiting period and a sickness benefit that does not cover the entire income. No other Nordic country has chosen that path. Nevertheless, we hear warnings about the so-called Monday sickness if the waiting period were to be removed. It is remarkable that this illness seems to be unique to Sweden. In our neighboring countries where the waiting period is absent, it does not seem to exist.

For many LO workers, a quarantine deduction means that the salary decreases by around 1,000 kronor during a single month. It is money that many simply cannot afford to lose. The consequence is that people go to work despite being sick. They risk infecting colleagues, users or children, and they also risk worsening their own illness.

This is neither reasonable, responsible, nor worthy of a welfare state. Therefore, it is high time that Sweden, in like manner with the other Nordic countries, abolishes the quarantine deduction.

Madam Speaker! We need a health insurance that puts the human being first, a health insurance that provides security, not worry, and a health insurance that helps people back to health and work, not pushes them out of the system. It is not just a question of politics; it is a question of what kind of society we want. Do we want one that provides security or one that provides vulnerability?

For Vänsterpartiet, the answer is crystal clear. We want a Sweden that holds together in wet and dry.

I move for the approval of reservation 20.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The debate has focused on health insurance, and that is because we have very large challenges there. Here in the Riksdag, we have decided on three goals for a well-functioning health insurance: there should not be large regional differences, there should not be large differences between the genders, and the morbidity rates may of course vary with epidemics and other things, but not for other reasons. In all these three areas, it is not functioning. This is deeply unfortunate, not least for the people who are affected.

I reacted a bit when I heard from the rostrum that sick leave is something that is supposed to make people healthy. But we do not know if it is the case that just being on sick leave makes one healthy. In last week's issue of Läkartidningen, a rather large review of this had been made because there is a lot of research on what a sick leave means for the sick person.

The Swedish Work Life Institute has conducted a large survey where 800 patients on long-term sick leave were asked to answer questions about self-perceived positive and negative consequences of sick leave. The negative consequences clearly outweighed the positive ones.

The National Audit Office looked at this in 2016. 5,000 patients who were denied sick leave by Försäkringskassan were randomized into two groups when they appealed. Depending on when they were born, some were subsequently granted the sick leave. This study could not find evidence that those who were denied sick leave suffered any negative outcomes from it. On the contrary, those who were denied sick leave had an increased probability of being in work three years later, better income development, and a decreased probability of later living on sickness benefit.

In total, 36 studies were successfully identified that met the criteria, and 34 of them showed predominantly negative consequences of sick leave.

This does not mean that one should not be on sick leave because one feels bad about it. But it is not as simple as that if one becomes ill or suffers an injury, one gets better just by being on sick leave for long enough.

This is an area where we have a great need for reforms, and it is regrettable that so little has happened during the last four years. What has the Tidö government actually done? A number of things have been done to combat subsidy fraud, which is good and correct. Everyone agrees that people should not engage in crime within the welfare systems.

But beyond that, nothing has happened. Yes, the high-cost protection for sickness benefit costs has been removed, which has hit small and medium-sized companies very hard. Furthermore, which is even worse, it has hit individual people. What do small business owners do when they do not get coverage for sickness benefit costs? Yes, they are forced to scrutinize every new hire to check that it is not a person who has an increased propensity for sick leave or has a disability. This also hits these people very hard. This is what the Tidö government has managed to achieve – they strike at the weakest and, moreover, attack the small businesses.

It is a problem for small business owners, not least within the liberal professions, that the security system does not work. However, there are investigation proposals. The Sverigedemokraterna member was asked about this but had no answers as to why this has not been raised at all during the mandate period. We have great challenges in this area but a government that has largely been passive.

Madam Speaker! I raised my eyebrows when I heard the Sverigedemokraterna member raise the issue of the hourly rate in the assistance allowance. That debate has primarily been conducted in the Committee on Social Affairs. The government, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, has held back the hourly rate in the assistance allowance very strictly, which has affected those who are dependent on assistance. The Riksdag made an announcement two years ago that this should be indexed in relation to the wage agreement, which is the only reasonable thing. Nothing has happened except that in the autumn we saw a record-low increase.

Then one hears from the member of the Sweden Democrats here that now it has been solved. What happened in connection with the budget amendment was that the government said there would be no indexing, which the Riksdag had demanded, and also no increase.

People have gotten away with this here by saying that Försäkringskassan, when it submits its request to the government, shall perform a calculation of how the costs have increased. In this way, the whole thing is pushed into the future for an additional two years, as Försäkringskassan has already submitted its request for the coming years. This government has a lesson to learn, not least regarding how it has fundamentally cheated people who are dependent on assistance.

Madam Speaker! I become concerned when I hear the opposition, especially the Social Democrats and the Left Party, constantly raising that the major issue we must do something about now is to remove the maternity leave deduction. I want to be clear and say that the Centre Party will not contribute to the abolition of the maternity leave deduction.

It was the Center Party and Social Insurance Minister Karin Söder who introduced the karens days during the early 80s. It had the effect of stabilizing the sickness rates in Sweden. The Social Democrats also went to the election at that time on the basis that they should be abolished, which was done when they regained power. I believe it was in 1987 that they disappeared. The effect was immediate: We quickly got increasing sickness rates in Sweden. It was not until the beginning of the 90s, in connection with the crisis then, that the karens days were reintroduced and the sickness rates were once again brought down to a reasonable level.

The reason why it is very bad policy to remove the sickness absence deduction is that it shifts large costs onto the companies, which is negative. At the same time, one gets what the Tidö government has caused, namely that companies and everyone who hires new employees are forced to walk on eggshells and do absolutely everything they can to not hire people with an increased risk of being signed off sick, because that cost, whether it is 2 or 40 billion, hits the companies' budgets, not the state's budget.

It also becomes very clear when looking at behavioral changes that an abolition of the quarantine deduction would mean that short-term absences and also cheating in the system would increase. It is not a policy that the Center Party will support.

However, there are other things that should be looked at when it comes to the sickness insurance. I am thinking of what has sometimes been called mourning pay. We all experience grief at some point in our lives, and some are affected by very severe grief when, for example, a child or a close relative passes away. In Sweden, we have the system where something that is a part of life, namely being affected by severe grief, when one obviously cannot work and must stay home for a period of time, is classified as an illness.

It is not a disease to suffer from severe grief. This should be removed from the sickness insurance system. It can be called grief money or something else, but if one is struck by the catastrophe of a close relative dying, one should not have to go to one's district doctor and say that one has become ill. One has not, but rather one has been struck by severe grief, the worst catastrophe that one can be struck by during a lifetime.

Another thing that has been looked at time and again is the sickness and activity compensation. We would like to see a change for those people who obviously will never be able to support themselves or have their own work. One should ensure that they have a secured income, but not via the sickness and activity compensation, but through some form of social wage.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of our reservation number 2.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! In my housing cooperative in Malmö, a wonderfully pleasant woman in her upper 40s lives. In 2022, when she was just over 20 years old and studying to become a teacher, she fell ill with MS and lost a large part of her mobility. She was judged unable to work. The first years, before she turned 30, she received activity compensation and after that sickness compensation.

For those who have worked previously, the sickness and activity compensation is based on their previous salary. For those who have not worked before losing their capacity to work, such as for example my neighbor who was a student, there is a guarantee level. This year, the guarantee level is between 12,235 kronor and 13,715 kronor per month before tax, depending on the recipient's age and how long one has lived in Sweden.

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

My neighbor is not alone. One in three recipients of sickness or activity compensation in Sweden receives it at the guarantee level. This means that more than 73,000 Swedes today receive less than 10,000 kronor after tax from the compensation intended to replace their salary for the rest of their working life. Some of them have partners who work and earn enough to support them both. Many others have it worse. There are those who are single and those whose partners are also ill or have too low a salary.

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

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

Madam Speaker! It is for people like my neighbor that I act. It is for these people that we must design our security system. It is not worthy of one of the world's richest countries that thousands of chronically ill or disabled Swedes receive a compensation that is hardly livable. Sweden deserves better than that.

I believe that the vast majority of Swedes, if asked, would agree that those who are too ill to work should not have to work and that those who have a diagnosis or a disability that prevents them from working should not be forced to do so anyway. It should simply be possible to live in security and dignity and with a good standard of living even if one's health otherwise limits one.

For it to become a reality, political parties with ideas and ambitions are required. The Green Party's ambition regarding social insurance is clear: We want to see a comprehensive security system for unemployment and sickness insurance that is managed by one and the same agency and that covers everyone – simply a system where no one is excluded or falls between the cracks of different agencies because the case officers cannot agree on how sick one is or whose responsibility one is.

With such a system, a system for genuine job security, many of the deficiencies in today's social insurance would disappear for good. But, Madam Speaker, it also requires political decisiveness to implement important reforms here and now, and it is clear that the current government completely lacks it.

During the previous parliamentary term, when Miljöpartiet sat in the government, we commissioned a long series of inquiries into how the social insurances can be improved. The Tidö government has totally ignored or even scrapped all these inquiries and their proposals.

It concerns proposals such as introducing a prevention compensation, fully including cultural workers, gig workers and freelancers in the social security systems, expanding the right to sickness and activity compensation, giving students the right to part-time sick leave and introducing step-free levels in the sickness insurance. These are proposals that are fully investigated and ready, and which the Tidö Government has chosen not to implement. We in Miljöpartiet, however, will work to implement them as soon as possible after we have won the election.

Madam Speaker! A Miljöpartiet government will, of course, also abolish the care deduction. For us, the matter is clear: We shall have a security system that is fair for everyone and where it is possible to live safely and well in Sweden regardless of whether one is sick or healthy, regardless of whether one works full-time or part-time and regardless of whether one is a permanent employee, cultural worker, student or gig worker. With Miljöpartiet in government, it can also be so.

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 April.)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The debate has focused on health insurance, and that is because we face very large challenges there. Here in the Riksdag, we have decided on three goals for a well-functioning health insurance: there should not be large regional differences, there should not be large differences between the genders, and the morbidity rates may of course vary with epidemics and other such things, but not for other reasons. In all these three areas, it is not functioning. This is deeply unfortunate, not least for the people who are affected.

I reacted a bit when I heard from the rostrum that sickness insurance is something that is supposed to make people healthy. But we do not know if it is the case that just being on sick leave makes one healthy. In last week's issue of Läkartidningen, a rather large review of this had been made because there is a lot of research on what a sick leave means for the sick person.

The Swedish Work Life Institute has conducted a large survey where 800 patients on long-term sick leave were asked to answer questions about self-perceived positive and negative consequences of sick leave. The negative consequences clearly outweighed the positive ones.

The Swedish National Audit Office looked at this in 2016. 5,000 patients who were denied sick leave by Försäkringskassan were randomized into two groups when they appealed. Depending on when they were born, some were subsequently granted the sick leave. This study could not find evidence that those who were denied sick leave suffered any negative outcomes from it. On the contrary, those who were denied sick leave had an increased probability of being in work three years later, better income development, and a decreased probability of later living on sickness benefit.

A total of 36 studies that met the criteria were successfully identified, and 34 of them showed predominantly negative consequences of sick leave.

This does not mean that one should not be on sick leave because one feels bad about it. But it is not as simple as that if one becomes ill or suffers an injury, one gets better just by being on sick leave for long enough.

This is an area where we have a great need for reforms, and it is regrettable that so little has happened during the last four years. What has the Tidöre government actually done? A number of things have been done to combat subsidy fraud, which is good and correct. Everyone agrees that people should not engage in crime in the welfare systems.

But beyond that, nothing has happened. Yes, the high-cost protection for sickness benefit costs has been removed, which has hit small and medium-sized enterprises very hard. Furthermore, which is even worse, it has hit individuals. What do small business owners do when they do not get coverage for sickness benefit costs? Yes, they are forced to scrutinize every new hire to check that it is not a person who has an increased propensity for sick leave or has a disability. This also hits these people very hard. This is what the Tidö government has managed to achieve – they strike at the weakest and, moreover, attack the small businesses.

It is a problem for small business owners, not least within the liberal professions, that the security system does not work. However, there are investigation proposals. The Sverigedemokraterna member was asked about this but had no answers as to why this has not been raised at all during the mandate period. We have great challenges in this area but a government that has largely been passive.

Madam Speaker! I raised my eyebrows when I heard the Sverigedemokraterna member raise the issue of the hourly rate in the assistance allowance. That debate has primarily been conducted in the Committee on Social Affairs. The government, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, has held back the hourly rate in the assistance allowance very firmly, which has affected those who are dependent on assistance. The Riksdag made an announcement two years ago that this should be indexed in relation to the wage agreement, which is the only reasonable thing. Nothing has happened except that in the autumn we saw a record-low increase.

Then one hears from the Sverigedemokraterna member here that now it has been solved. What happened in connection with the budget amendment was that the government said there would be no indexing, which the Riksdag had demanded, and also no increase.

People have gotten away with this here by saying that Försäkringskassan, when it submits its request to the government, shall perform a calculation of how the costs have increased. In this way, the whole thing is pushed into the future for an additional two years, as Försäkringskassan has already submitted its request for the coming years. This government has a lesson to learn, not least regarding how it has fundamentally cheated people who are assistance-dependent.

Madam Speaker! I am becoming concerned when I hear the opposition, especially the Social Democrats and the Left Party, constantly raising that the major issue we must do something about now is to remove the karens deduction. I want to be clear and say that the Centre Party will not contribute to the abolition of the karens deduction.

It was the Center Party and Social Insurance Minister Karin Söder who introduced the karens days during the early 80s. It had the effect of stabilizing the sickness rates in Sweden. The Social Democrats also went to the election at that time on the basis that it would be abolished, which they did when they regained power. I believe it was in 1987 that it disappeared. The effect was immediate: We quickly got increasing sickness rates in Sweden. It was not until the beginning of the 90s, in connection with the crisis then, that the karens days were reintroduced and the sickness rates were again brought down to a reasonable level.

The reason why it is very bad policy to remove the sickness absence deduction is that it shifts large costs onto the companies, which is negative. At the same time, one gets what the Tidö government has caused, namely that the companies and everyone who hires new employees are forced to marginalize people and do absolutely everything they can to not hire persons with an increased risk of being signed off sick, because that cost, whether it is 2 or 40 billion, hits the companies' budget, not the state's budget.

It also becomes very clear when looking at behavioral changes that an abolition of the quarantine deduction would mean that short-term absences and also cheating in the system would increase. It is not a policy that the Center Party will support.

However, there are other things that should be looked at when it comes to the sickness insurance. I am thinking of what has sometimes been called mourning pay. We all experience grief at some point in our lives, and some are affected by very severe grief when, for example, a child or a close relative passes away. There, in Sweden, we have the system that something which is a part of life, namely being affected by severe grief, where one obviously cannot work and must be allowed to stay at home for a period, is classified as an illness.

It is not a disease to suffer from severe grief. This should be removed from the sickness insurance system. It can be called grief money or something else, but if one is struck by the catastrophe of a close relative dying, one should not have to go to one's district doctor and say that one has become ill. One has not, but one has been struck by severe grief, the worst catastrophe that one can be struck by during a lifetime.

Another thing that has been looked at time and again is the sickness and activity compensation. We would like to see a change for those people who obviously will never ever be able to support themselves or have their own work. One should ensure that they have a secured income, but not via the sickness and activity compensation, but through some form of social wage.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of our reservation number 2.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! In my housing cooperative in Malmö, a wonderfully pleasant woman in her upper 40s lives. In 2022, when she was just over 20 years old and studying to become a teacher, she fell ill with MS and lost a large part of her mobility. She was assessed as unable to work. During the first years, before she turned 30, she received activity compensation and thereafter sickness compensation.

For those who have worked previously, the sickness and activity compensation is based on their previous salary. For those who have not worked before losing their capacity to work, such as for example my neighbor who was a student, there is a guarantee level. This year, the guarantee level is between 12,235 kronor and 13,715 kronor per month before tax, depending on the recipient's age and how long one has lived in Sweden.

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

My neighbor is not alone. Every third recipient of sickness or activity compensation in Sweden receives it at the guarantee level. This means that more than 73,000 Swedes today receive less than 10,000 kronor after tax from the compensation intended to replace their salary for the rest of their working life. Some of them have partners who work and earn enough to support them both. Many others have it worse. There are those who are single and those whose partners are also ill or have too low a salary.

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

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

Madam Speaker! It is for people like my neighbor that I act. It is for these people that we must design our security system. It is not worthy of one of the world's richest countries that thousands of chronically ill or disabled Swedes receive a compensation that is hardly livable. Sweden deserves better than that.

I believe that the vast majority of Swedes, if asked, would agree that those who are too ill to work should not have to work and that those who have a diagnosis or a disability that prevents them from working should not be forced to do so anyway. It should simply be possible to live in security and dignity and with a good standard of living even if one's health otherwise limits one.

For it to become a reality, political parties with ideas and ambitions are required. The Green Party's ambition regarding social insurance is clear: We want to see a comprehensive security system for unemployment and sickness insurance that is managed by one and the same agency and that covers everyone – simply a system where no one is excluded or falls between the cracks of agencies because the case officers cannot agree on how sick one is or whose responsibility one is.

With such a system, a system for genuine job security, many of the shortcomings in today's social insurance would disappear for good. But, Madam Speaker, it also requires political decisiveness to implement important reforms here and now, and it is clear that the current government completely lacks it.

During the previous mandate period, when Miljöpartiet sat in the government, we commissioned a long series of inquiries into how the social insurances can be improved. The Tidö government has totally ignored or even scrapped all these inquiries and their proposals.

It concerns proposals such as introducing a prevention allowance, fully including cultural workers, gig workers and freelancers in the social security systems, expanding the right to sickness and activity allowance, giving students the right to part-time sick leave and introducing step-free levels in the sickness insurance. These are proposals that are fully investigated and ready and which the Tidö Government has chosen not to implement. We in Miljöpartiet will, however, work to implement them as soon as possible after we have won the election.

Madam Speaker! A Green Party government will, of course, also abolish the care deduction. For us, the matter is clear: We shall have a security system that is fair for everyone and where it is possible to live safely and well in Sweden regardless of whether one is ill or healthy, regardless of whether one works full-time or part-time, and regardless of whether one is a permanent employee, a cultural worker, a student, or a gig worker. With Miljöpartiet in government, it can also be so.

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 April.)

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