Response to interpellations 2025/26:165, 171 and 187 on the care deduction

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! When other members become ill or do not attend and other ministers are also not present, I am glad that we can still fill the chamber's time with debate. I thank the members who have now signed up for the debate – wonderful! This is an important issue to discuss.

Åsa Eriksson has asked me if I intend to work towards the abolition of the karens deduction. Lena Johansson has asked me if I and the government intend to consider abolishing the karens deduction. Olle Thorell has asked me what initiatives I intend to take, within the framework of my responsibility, to address the injustice that the karens deduction can entail for wage earners in, for example, Hallstahammar, Surahammar, and the rest of Västmanland.

In January 2023, the government decided to task a working group in the Government Offices with analyzing the appropriateness of the waiting period deduction and assessing whether there was any need for changes to the waiting period deduction.

In December 2023, Madam Speaker, the working group submitted its final report with the department memorandum Carens deduction and high-risk protection – a review of the carens deduction and proposals for expanded exemptions (Ds 2023:33). The report is a comprehensive knowledge base on the consequences and suitability of the carens deduction.

The working group assesses that the period of absence deduction entails a more equitable and insurance-based deductible compared to the previous period of absence. The working group also assesses that the period of absence deduction counteracts over-utilization but can be burdensome for individuals with recurring sick leave and for individuals with small economic margins.

There is also a so-called recurrence rule which means that a period of sick leave starting within five days from the time a previous period of sick leave has ended is seen as a continuation of the previous one. In that case, no new waiting period deduction shall be made. The working group notes that it is relatively common for the rule to be applied in cases of short-term absence due to illness and entails protection from waiting period deductions.

The working group has analyzed the effects of abolishing the quarantine deduction. According to the working group's calculations, the direct effect of an abolished quarantine deduction is that employers' sick pay costs increase by approximately 14 billion kronor. This corresponds to a 38 percent increase in employers' sick pay costs. Taking behavioral effects into account, sick pay costs are estimated to increase by an additional up to 10 billion kronor – thus approximately 24 billion kronor, Madam Speaker.

If the employers are not to be compensated for increased sick pay costs, it is reasonable for the working group to assume that the cost will be taken, in whole or in part, from the employees' wage room in future collective bargaining movements. If the employers were to be compensated by the state in some way, it would entail cost increases or income reductions for the state's economy.

Against the background of the working group's calculations and the assessed consequences, it needs to be carefully considered whether it is justified to abolish the quarantine deduction.

The working group has analyzed the conditions for changing the quarantine deduction to improve the conditions for specific professional groups that are particularly exposed to close human contact in their professional roles and who have difficulty working from home. The working group assesses that it is not appropriate to introduce a differentiated quarantine deduction based on occupation. This is primarily because there is no simple and comprehensive way to define which professional groups and employees would be covered in that case. This delimitation issue was raised to the working group during talks with the parties in the labor market. Both the central employee and employer organizations pointed out that it would be very difficult to make such a delimitation of which professional groups should be covered by such differentiated quarantine.

Let me in this context remind of the possibility that exists today to provide professional groups and employees with sick pay from the first day of illness. If there is a need to make exceptions from the waiting period for employees within specific professions or industries, the parties in the labor market can negotiate such exceptions through collective agreements.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It is interesting to finally be able to discuss the quarantine deduction again.

Sweden is governed today by four parties that have spent the parliamentary term worsening the unemployment insurance and investigating how to worsen the sickness insurance, but they have not lifted a finger to rectify the injustice in the quarantine deduction. This occurs despite the government's own working group, which Anna Tenje has just reported on, proposing a reduction of the quarantine ceiling – something that all parties stand behind. Still, the government has not lifted a finger.

It is obvious that this government does not care about injustices, and it should be clear to all the country's wage earners that Sweden needs a new direction.

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

The care deduction is unfair, and it has played out its role. It primarily affects workers who have to do the work at the workplace, and it primarily affects those with low wages. This is shown by a recent report from the Riksdag's investigation service.

We Social Democrats hate injustices. We want to abolish injustices. Therefore, we want to abolish the care deduction.

Madam Speaker! I also want to thank Member Caroline Högström, who has accepted my challenge in the local press at home to debate the care deduction. I want to thank her for being here, and it will be fun.

We have in previous debates raised whether deductibles are needed in the sickness insurance or not. That is what we Social Democrats think. Today there are three deductibles in the sickness insurance, and we think two is quite sufficient. Therefore, we argue that a removed waiting period deduction and simultaneously a reintroduced corporate support as protection against high sick pay costs is a well-balanced prioritization to partly protect Sweden's wage earners, and partly protect small and medium-sized enterprises. We have included that in our budget.

Madam Speaker! If the Moderaterna do not care that hard-working people are affected by unfair sick pay deductions, I hope that the Moderaterna at least care about the employers' high costs for sickness absence. Not even the Moderaterna can surely think it is good that people go to work while sick because they cannot afford to stay home. They then risk infecting colleagues and service users, posing a safety risk, and contributing to a lower production rate. Surely no one can think that is good.

We Social Democrats have submitted proposals to remove the karens deduction. We will go to the election on that, and we consider it a priority issue. At the same time, we propose a reintroduction of a high-cost protection for small and medium-sized enterprises that risk being hit unreasonably hard by high sick pay costs.

I begin by asking Minister Anna Tenje why she has not done anything during these three years to implement the proposal she has just outlined and which the government's own working group proposed, namely to lower the ceiling for the grace period. Why has the Minister not done anything about it?

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

Lena Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

When I heard the government's reasoning, it became clear that they are thinking in figures, not in people.

I have spoken with Kommunals section chairperson at home in Västerås about how she and her members think about the effects of the quarantine deduction. Kommunals members are some of the people who stand out in the operations every day. They hold the elderly by the hand, wipe tears at the preschool, drive buses in the winter darkness, or work nights at the group home. They are members who are already today struggling with small economic margins. Many of these are women, and some are single parents with children. They have children to support, usually not with the highest salaries on the labor market. But the minister knows this.

In my conversations with Kommunal, a pattern recurs: the care deduction hits hard, perhaps harder against women. It is a question of women with recurring female medical conditions.

I have met a woman who is undergoing IVF treatment. She told me what each treatment round entails in terms of side effects that make her have to stay home. Every time, it costs a deduction in parental leave. She described it like this: It feels like I am being punished for trying to become a parent – to become a mother.

A woman living with endometriosis describes monthly pain. Every time it means a deduction in sick pay. She said: I don't know what hurts most, the pain or that I lose thousands every time.

When the Minister and the government do not want to abolish the care deduction, I note that the government is leaning back and accepting the status quo, even though the groups that are hardest hit are those who carry our Swedish welfare on their shoulders.

When the government says that the employer's costs would increase, one should also say that those funds today come directly from the wallets of low-paid women and men. I do not know if the minister thinks that it is okay. I do not hope so, and I do not want to believe it. But then one must act. The minister and the government need to address the issue quickly. With the situation that prevails today, with a tough economic situation, high food prices, electricity costs and other things that also attack the wallet, a quarantine deduction does not make the matter better.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! In Västmanland, where I come from – in Hallstahammar and Surahammar – I meet people every week who do not need any tables, PowerPoint presentations or long explanations to understand what the karensavdrag is. It is a penalty tax for ordinary workers, which this SD government would like to keep. But we Social Democrats are running for election on removing this penalty tax.

My childhood friends who work in, for example, elderly care, in the industry in Västmanland or in warehouses in Västerås tell me how badly the care deduction hits. The nursing assistant Kicki comes home with a fever after an evening shift in elderly care but still goes to work the next day, not because she feels a cold or is heroic, but because she cannot afford to be sick. She is not alone. It also applies to construction workers, childcare workers, warehouse workers, industrial workers, teachers, bus drivers, and police officers. These are people who cannot sit on the sofa with a laptop and work when they are sick, people who uphold Sweden but are punished financially when they become sick.

It costs a huge amount. If you are sick for one day, it becomes a hefty thousand kronor. If you are sick for two days, it becomes between 2,000 and 3,000 kronor. That is money that could have gone to food, to rent, and to new winter jackets for the children. For many, it is the difference between managing the month's expenses or not.

This system is unfair and outdated. And Sweden is the only country in the Nordic region that has this penalty tax for ordinary workers.

While ordinary people work and toil, the government stands still. Nothing has been done with the investigation proposal that has been developed. For two or three years, the government has not taken a single step forward.

The Sweden Democrats, who are the foundation of this government, went to the election on a promise to remove the karen deduction. They have betrayed their election promise straight up and down and hope that the voters will forget it by September 13 next year. I do not believe that the voters in Västmanland, in Hallstahammar and Surahammar, are so stupid that they forget such obvious betrayals.

Madam Speaker! This is not rocket science. It is about ensuring that people who do the right thing are treated with justice and respect. Removing the unfair deductible should be a priority for every government. We must make it possible to get well without becoming poor.

I want to ask the minister once again which initiatives the government intends to take to get rid of this injustice in the labor market. It is possible in Norway, in Denmark and in Finland. But it seems to be completely impossible for this SD-led government to do. How is that?

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to debate the care deduction! I have not debated with Anna Tenje before. It feels particularly fun.

It is good that the situation for the country's small business owners is being highlighted. As a member of the Committee on Industry, I can testify that the country's small business owners have had it difficult since this government took office. The bankruptcies are record-breaking. It has never happened that so many bankruptcies occurred in such a short time in our country.

This government has pursued a fiscal policy that has not prioritized small business owners at all, but rather the opposite. Very little has been done to alleviate the situation for those who are nevertheless the job creators in our country. We must remember that four out of five jobs are created in small and medium-sized enterprises. They are important engines of integration for our country. I believe that even the Moderaterna are aware of this and agree.

Madam Speaker! That is why it is strange that, in the midst of a recession and when there is trade chaos, when geopolitical tensions in the world are increasing and when Sweden's economy is under severe pressure, one chooses to abolish the compensation for high sick pay costs for small businesses. It was criticized, rightly so, strongly by among others Svenskt Näringsliv when it was presented in 2023 and was included in the 2024 budget.

Since then, we can only observe that the jobs have become fewer, which was also warned about when it was abolished. And the number of bankruptcies has increased. In the midst of what can still be called an economic crisis, it was therefore chosen to abolish one of the most important supports for small businesses.

My question is short and concise: If the government is so concerned about high sick pay costs for small and medium-sized enterprises, why did they choose to abolish the high-cost protection for just small business owners regarding high sick pay costs?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking the Västmanland Social Democratic members for initiating this debate. It will, if nothing else, contribute to clarifying the alternatives in both Swedish and Västmanland politics.

I also want to thank the Minister for clearly showing the consequences of the Social Democrats' populist move. After eight years in government, the Social Democratic delivery was almost zero in this flagship issue.

Madam Speaker! What worries me most about this type of populist proposal is, however, that it misleads the voters. It misleads all the hard-working preschool teachers, nursing assistants, and warehouse workers. It is clear that this sounds good. It can be easy to get caught up in the fact that it feels good in the gut. But the Social Democratic members fail to describe what the actual result of abolished parental leave will be.

I believe that the voters in Hallstahammar and Surahammar, whom MP Thorell says he stands up for, both want and have the right to know what the risks are. It leads to behavioral changes, and there is a risk that short-term absence will skyrocket, similar to what has happened in neighboring countries. That was also the result the last time we tried this.

In addition, the abolished care must be financed. I understand that Madam Speaker is very curious about how the Social Democrats have financed this proposal in the budget, which we recently debated here in the chamber. Zero kronor, not a single öre have they put towards this. Who will then pay? Yes, the bill is sent straight to the employers.

I believe that all workers, everyone who has ever been employed in a municipality and who has worked on the floor, are well aware of what the result will be. There will be fewer colleagues and fewer substitutes. Instead of investing in and prioritizing the work environment, infection control in preschools, and measures for a healthier population, one delivers a policy whose result is already known. One says to stand on the side of hard-working people but seems more interested in their votes than in delivering a sustainable policy for workers.

Tuesday's debate on economic security in the event of illness and disability was clarifying. Member Eriksson spent the majority of her speech talking about a proposal that has not been financed. But I got stuck a bit on another matter. In the debate, the member was very clear that she and the Social Democrats trust RUT, the Parliament's investigation service.

I can state that in a recent report from RUT, it is noted that the effects of abolishing the layoff protection are at least 10 billion in pure sick pay costs alone. In that case, we have not calculated production losses and substitute costs. One is left asking: Where will the money come from?

Region Västmanland, our home region, notes that sick leave costs increase by 23 million with the Social Democrats' proposal. Where is the region supposed to find that money? In that case, we have, as we said, not calculated substitute costs, not overtime costs, and not the behavioral change that the proposal entails.

Zero kronor have been spent on this. What will then be the result of the Social Democrats' proposal? Well, it will be less care for the people of Västmanland and fewer colleagues for the nurses and nursing assistants, who carry our welfare, who are the hands and feet in healthcare. The Social Democrats should be open about that. Their proposal feels good in the stomach for all those who struggle and toil, but for all those who struggle and toil, the result would be a blow to the stomach.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the members who have raised this important issue and the Minister who is here to answer the questions being asked.

Madam Speaker! I want to take the chamber back to the time when the pandemic hit – not to the headlines and the press conferences, but to my workplace: an LSS residence in Horred in Sjuhärad.

From one day to the next, we pivoted. Our mission did not change; we were still to create good living conditions. But we received an additional mission: to protect people from a virus that we knew almost nothing about. There was no time to think – we just "did". We sanitized our hands until the skin cracked. With fogging glasses and sweat running under the plastic aprons, we tried to stay focused. We were to protect ourselves and the people we were there for. We fought against the virus and struggled to get hold of protective equipment. We learned new routines faster than we could reflect on them.

But the hardest part was not the protective equipment. The hardest part was what happened when the doors were closed to relatives. When the residents could no longer meet their families, we became the only contact with the outside world. We smiled with our eyes, because the rest of the face was hidden by plastic. We held hands through rustling plastic gloves, wiped away tears, and tried to provide security when everything around us was insecure. We tried to create normalcy when nothing was normal. In short: We did what was required for those who needed us most, because that is what you do. You do not leave people in the lurch. You do your job even when things are at their worst. I want to be clear: If it is required, we will step up again.

During the pandemic, we were cheered. We received applause and were called heroes. It felt good. But applause fades quickly, and applause does not pay the bills. Now that the applause has fallen silent, we remain in the same reality as before – understaffed, low-paid, and with a class legislation that hits hard financially precisely against those who always have to be on-site. A modern labor market cannot be built on certain groups being punished financially when they fall ill while others can log in from the sofa. Therefore, the quarantine deduction does not belong in a modern Sweden. It is time to remove it.

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to extend a big thank you to the debaters for the great commitment to this issue in the chamber.

I must nevertheless, Madam Speaker, state that it is remarkable that the Social Democrats have not learned from their previous mistakes. The proposal to abolish the karens deduction, we have tested before. We have seen the consequences of that left-wing experiment previously. The Social Democrats tried this during the 80s with very clear results. It resulted in more sick leaves and dramatic increases in short-term sickness absence with large costs as a consequence.

Worst of all was that it was precisely the hard-working people within elderly care, school, and not least service who really suffered from this. I can state that the members seem to completely ignore that. Above all, it was the case that the elderly did not receive the help and support they were entitled to, given that there was no staff at work. Bus lines were withdrawn because there were not enough bus drivers coming to work. These were the consequences when the weekend off was removed in the 80s.

As if it were not enough that one does not learn from one's mistakes, this is also a deeply unserious proposal. Member Högström touched upon this earlier. Not so long ago – I believe it was this spring – Magdalena Andersson, the Social Democrats' party leader, herself stated that a removal of the care deduction would entail a cost of at least 5 billion. Can you guess how many kronor and öre are budgeted for this magnificent reform in the Social Democrats' budget? Yes, it is zero kronor, Madam Speaker. It is therefore not underfunded, which is common with the Social Democrats' proposals, but completely unfunded. It is deeply unserious of the members who are lining up one by one on the speaking list to persist in that this is truly one of the most important proposals when they do not even bother to fund it.

Let us then look at the future – who are the Social Democrats going to implement this unfunded proposal with? Then it becomes even more fragmented. The Left Party has at least made an effort to include a few hundred million in the budget to be able to abolish the care deduction. But that is definitely not enough. According to the investigations from the Government Offices and the parliamentary investigation service, it is a matter of 24 billion and 10 billion respectively in direct costs. But the Left Party is, therefore, putting a few hundred million toward this.

If you look at Miljöpartiet, it becomes even more interesting. In their budget motion, they have not mentioned a single word about an abolition of the quarantine deduction. But when I then come to the question period here in the Riksdag, Miljöpartiet still asks questions about this and want me to abolish the quarantine deduction.

If one then goes to Centerpartiet, it becomes really interesting. Centerpartiet are clear that this is definitely not relevant. Centerpartiet's new party leader stated in the first interview that this is definitely not something that is on the map. They stand on the side of the entrepreneurs and are not interested in seeing the high sick pay costs soar, as during the 80s. Above all, they do not want to pull the rug out from under all the hard-working entrepreneurs. I agree with her. This is a danger.

The Social Democrats are obliged to answer the question: Who shall pay?

(Applause)

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is very amusing that this question upsets the Minister of State so much. We will continue to debate it, for it is a very important justice issue for Sweden's workers.

I want to start by commenting on some things that the Minister said. She said that we have tried this before. Yes, during the pandemic, for example. I think it worked perfectly well.

Why would Swedish workers be lazier or more prone to cheating than Danish and Finnish workers are? They have no quarantine deduction. As far as I know, companies in Denmark and Finland are doing perfectly well. Why do the Moderates mean that Swedes would be lazy and cheat? We Social Democrats do not believe that. I think it is a strange view.

We have today three deductibles in the sickness insurance, as I just said. We Social Democrats think that two are sufficient. We do not need the karen deduction. We mean that Swedish workers should receive sick pay from day one.

Since we take responsibility and want to carry things out responsibly, we have asked RUT to perform several different calculations. The Tidö group conducted that investigation on the abolition of the waiting period, which we commissioned when we were in government, so unfortunately, we do not have some calculations from there.

That we have zero kronor for this in our budget, as Caroline Högström says, is completely incorrect. We have money for a new high-cost protection for small and medium-sized enterprises affected by unreasonably high sick pay costs. It is there. You only have to read it. Be my guest!

According to the Riksdag's investigation service, a removed quarantine deduction is public-financially neutral for the state, municipal, and regional sectors. That is the answer to Region Västmanland. One only has to read the RUT report. I can send it to Caroline Högström directly after my post.

However, there will be a cost for private employers. That is the case. That cost is currently borne by Sweden's workers. In order for small and medium-sized companies not to be hit unreasonably hard, we want to introduce a special system against high sick pay costs. In this way, we take responsibility for Sweden's workers, abolish injustices, and ensure that Sweden's small and medium-sized companies can continue to grow.

Madam Speaker! Several reports confirm the picture that the care deduction largely affects employees in manual occupations. The report Sick at Work, which is based on a survey conducted by Handelsanställdas förbund, shows that 72 percent of their members have gone to work sick at least once during the last year.

That one cannot afford to stay home is one of the most common explanations for sickness absence. We also know from research at the University of Gävle that employers' costs for sickness absence are higher than employers' costs for sick leave. We must also take that into account.

When people cannot afford to stay home because they are sick and instead go to work while ill, they become a risk. They risk infecting colleagues and users, and there is a risk of reduced productivity. I do not think any employer wants that.

I want to ask Anna Tenje if, during her final half-year as Minister, she will take any measures to ensure that the regulations for quarantine deductions are changed.

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

Lena Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Get down from the gallery and get into the match, to quote the Minister. It probably doesn't just concern the Minister. It also concerns Caroline Högström.

To speak of being a populist in these contexts is absurd. Is it populist to care about one's fellow human beings? They are the ones who serve us and those who bring the coffee in the cafeteria. They are the ones who cook the food, take care of our children, and drive us in the taxi and on the bus in public transport.

Is it populism to care? God help us and forbid it to be populism! It is surely solidarity. Some order must be maintained in a party. I am so upset by this that it doesn't exist on the world map, if I am to be truly honest. I shall nevertheless try to compose myself.

The Minister speaks about how people will suddenly take sick leave just because the quarantine deduction is removed and that people will then be missing. Of course they will. Then one must establish a job policy and an education policy that is worth the name so that we can get more people into work and more competencies. It is about people getting more colleagues instead of being forced to go to work sick and care for frail people in elderly care who become infected and perhaps die.

If one looks at the problem, it is quite reasonable to have a job policy that gives more people the opportunity to take jobs in elderly care, schools, or childcare, or to work as a bus driver. But one would rather change ministers – now we are on the third labor market minister – than establish a job policy.

My question remains. Will the Minister do anything to abolish the care deduction?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! It is good that this debate is being held. It is now becoming clear for workers and ordinary wage earners in Hallstahammar, Surahammar and other municipalities in Västmanland what they can expect from the right-wing government.

They cannot expect that the tax on workers' wages will be removed. The tax credit will remain. They can expect that the unemployment insurance fund will be hollowed out. They can expect, and have grown accustomed to, a very expensive food basket. There will be a temporary VAT reduction on it of a few percent. They can rejoice in that. The electricity bill remains extremely expensive.

But they should be grateful. With this government, they have received a removed aviation tax. When they are out flying, it will be a bit cheaper with the weekend trips to New York – thank you very much! When they go to the grocery store, they can buy very cheap plastic bags – fantastic!

Madam Speaker! This is what the voters see in reality now. It costs a huge amount to be ill for a day. At the same time, they see how the government prioritizes tax cuts for those who are doing the very best.

If you have a few million in an ISK account, the tax will be lower. If you are lucky enough to become a high-income earner and earn 70,000, 80,000 or 90,000 kronor a month, you will get several thousand in reduced tax after the new year. If you are a venture capitalist and have masses of millions, you get several million in reduced tax. That can be expected.

It is a meager consolation for ordinary wage earners, such as nursing assistants who toil and warehouse workers who work shifts. They can dream that if one fine day they were to become high-income earners, then the Moderaterna would certainly deliver tax cuts to them. But when they fall ill, they are forced to bear a cost that others do not have to bear.

It is a profound injustice. We Social Democrats want to get rid of it. We do it in the way we always do and finance the proposals responsibly. We ensure that we find out the facts. Within the public sector, it is, for example, a cost-neutral reform.

It is not that there is no cost for sick leave. It is clear that there is a cost, both humanly and operationally. Ask the nurses who see the effects at Västerås hospital or the home care assistants and nursing assistants in Fagersta who go to work and see the effects of the sick leave.

It is not worthy of a welfare country like Sweden. It is not the case that the labor market has collapsed in Norway, Denmark, and Finland because of the irresponsible behavior that the minister and the member Högström accuses us of wanting to have.

I continue to ask the Minister. Will any initiatives at all be taken to rectify the injustice in the labor market?

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not receive an answer to my question. I wondered why it was chosen to abolish the compensation for high sick pay costs in the situation that small business owners found themselves in. It is important precisely because it seems to be the small businesses that are prioritized by the government's representatives in the chamber, which I think is completely correct.

We will, of course, support the country's small and medium-sized enterprises. That is precisely why, from the day the compensation was abolished, we have opposed that type of policy. We see that the situation is strained. Therefore, I wonder why it was chosen to abolish the compensation in the middle of a recession, regardless of whether Elisabeth Svantesson and Ulf Kristersson said that things are brightening on the horizon. It is just as gray as it has been for the country's small business owners over the past month. I want an answer to that question.

Just when it comes to small businesses, it is still important to mention that the justification behind the government's removal seems to have been that it reduces the incentives for measures that would significantly reduce sickness absence.

We know that the absolute smallest companies have the lowest rate of sick leave, because they work very well with preventive work. But they are also extra sensitive to sick leave, so the high-cost protection is therefore incredibly important.

I maintain my question: Why did the government choose to abolish the high-cost protection for sick pay costs for small businesses in the budget for 2024?

Thank you for the debate!

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I also want to thank you for the debate as this is my final statement.

I will start where Member Vencu Velasquez Castro finished. Why did we abolish the compensation for sick pay costs? Given that the Social Democrats voted yes to this reform in May 2024, I recommend the Member speak with his colleagues sitting next to him in the bench. You can whisper in the benches, so the Member can get the answer to that.

I also want to remind the Chamber that the Social Democrats have budgeted 500 million for a high-cost protection and say that it replaces the previous compensation for sick pay costs, which is therefore estimated to cost 2.6 billion. We constantly hear in the debate the Social Democrats say that they are spending millions on things that cost billions. This is populism; it is not sustainable. Those who will receive the final bill are the workers on the floor – we know that. That is why the reform, unfortunately, is not right and proper.

Other reforms are more important. How can we reduce sick leave? How can we reduce absenteeism? How can we ensure that people become healthy and are healthy at their workplace? Work environment work, systematic quality work, and a reinforced rehabilitation chain – that is what this Moderate-led government actually carries out, and that is what makes a difference for those who are at work.

In conclusion: Some of the things said from this rostrum are remarkable. One is simply to sit with a laptop on their lap and be sick, one hears here. If one is sick, one should have the right to be off work and recover. That type of argument, I think, is mocking towards all workers, regardless of whether one can work from home or not. If one is sick, one should not have to work. That must be the basic premise, but it does not seem to be for the Socialdemokraterna.

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Madam Speaker! I find it remarkable that the Minister devotes an entire speech to reviewing the opposition's policies without mentioning in a single word how the Minister, the government, and the Sweden Democrats will increase equality in the labor market.

When I hear the Minister's answer, I am struck by how much it is about behavioral effects and how little it is about the people who are affected by this class legislation. Reality is not a department report; reality is the carpenter standing in the wind with aches in his body, the plumber crawling under kitchen sinks, the livestock keeper taking the morning shift, the bus driver, the police officer, the assistant nurse, the teacher, and the truck driver – people who keep society running. It is in these professions, where one always must be on-site, that one is hit hardest by the quarantine deduction.

Madam Speaker! It is not difficult to see who bears the risks here; it is only difficult if one does not want to see. The labor market is divided. Some can work from home, and others cannot. A modern work line cannot be built so that half of the labor market escapes the cost of becoming ill while others take the entire hit.

It sounds to the Minister as if all of Sweden will stop if we remove the quarantine deduction, because then everyone will stay at home. What kind of view of humanity is that? We want to increase equality in the labor market for real. But the Sweden Democrats and the government have no labor market policy at all, and this debate also shows that.

Thank you for the debate!

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very interesting to listen to the members of the Social Democrats. We hear their great commitment regarding a reform that has become so incredibly important for the Social Democrats that they have not even bothered to finance it in their budget proposal, neither now nor during the eight years they had to do something about the matter. They chose to do nothing.

Perhaps it is because the previous government looked at how it works in Norway, which has no quarantine deduction. Member Olle Thorell, who seems to have disappeared from the chamber, highlighted Norway specifically as a good example of how it could work if the quarantine deduction were abolished.

Let me then remind the House that the Norwegians are the world's healthiest people with the Western world's highest sickness absence rates. Companies in the same industry that have operations in both Sweden and Norway have higher sickness absence at their Norwegian workplaces than at their Swedish ones, despite performing exactly the same work. This applies to both manual jobs and white-collar jobs.

Add to that, Madam Speaker, that the Swedes – and there are quite a few – who have worked in Sweden but then move to Norway to work get as high a sickness absence as the Norwegian workers. It is therefore not something that is in the air in Norway, Madam Speaker, that makes one get sicker, but the Norwegians are the world's healthiest population. It is simply the social security system that does it.

This is not only I who say as a minister in Sweden's government, but it is also said by NAV, the Norwegian equivalent to Försäkringskassan.

To safeguard the work line, the welfare, and the colleagues who work hard within the welfare, it is important that one does the right things. Let me return to the most important question and the reason why we question this. We do not question the debate, because it is important for the Swedish population to know how it will be and what differences exist within Swedish politics. But it is, again, deeply unserious when the Social Democrats are now drumming out that they want to abolish the care deduction when they do not lay down a single krona.

We can argue about which calculation applies, but let us stick to your own party leader. Magdalena Andersson says that this will cost at least 5 billion kronor but has zero kronor budgeted in her own budget. Then my question is very clear: Who is going to pay? Is it hard-working people who will pay for it in their pay range with lower wages? Is it hard-working people who will have to pay for it through increased taxes, as usual? Or is it hard-working people within the welfare sector who will have to pay for it through increased stress and pressure when sick leave costs increase for the municipality and region or, for that matter, when colleagues do not come to work? They will need to work double when it becomes like in Norway and sick leave costs and short-term sick leave increase.

It is not something I want to see, and that is exactly why it is so important to emphasize what Caroline Högström points out: This government works in a completely different way.

Firstly, we are financing our reforms, which we consider important, and secondly, we are proceeding with a number of different measures to both strengthen the working environment and enable a better and faster return to work. It is also about working preventively to prevent illness.

If you are ill, you should be on sick leave. This applies regardless of which profession you have.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by stating that Minister Anna Tenje just stood here and lied. She said that the Social Democrats did nothing regarding the care deduction during our eight years in government. That is wrong!

During the pandemic, compensation was provided so that one could stay home when sick. Compensation was received for the quarantine deduction. It has been changed from a quarantine day to a quarantine deduction. We also commissioned an investigation to completely remove the quarantine deduction, but Anna Tenje effectively shut it down during her first months as Minister.

I will answer Caroline Högströms question. She started by asking how we can reduce sickness absence. We have the answer. Remove the care deduction! I promise that sickness absence will decrease drastically. It will not disappear completely, but it will decrease drastically. When all the LO workers who today state that they cannot afford to stay home when they are sick and instead go to work can stay home, sickness absence will decrease. The periods of sickness will also, according to the government's own investigation, become shorter, because one recovers faster.

Madam Speaker! I return to the point that when the right speaks about the deductible and the health insurance, it is always about people being lazy and cheating. We Social Democrats do not believe that. We look at Denmark and Finland, which do not have deductible deductions, and it works perfectly well.

I think this is a strange view of human nature, and I wonder what it is based on. Is that how the Minister sees her own work? Would the Minister not go to work if it were not the case that she received a deduction on her fee when she is at home and reports herself as ill? I do not think so. If not, is there then a difference between the Minister and people who are employed?

We Social Democrats believe that it is high time to remove the unfair quarantine deduction. It is one of our election promises, and the workers who agree with us should think about how they vote next year.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to wish both the Speaker's Bureau and the Minister a Merry Christmas – without any tax deductions!

(Applause)

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

Lena Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

The Minister said that we show a great commitment to the issue. It felt a bit mocking; I don't know if that was it. I want to say that we have a huge commitment to the issue, and I hope that the Minister feels the same commitment.

It is about direction. Do we accept a system where manual occupations bear more than all others, as the minister and the government do? Does the minister agree with me that there is an injustice between manual and white-collar occupations and that it is the state that decides on these issues? If so, I do not see why the minister does not want to change the situation. Or is it populism?

If the Moderaterna, as Caroline Högström says, make so many efforts and do so many good things to reduce people's sick leave, perhaps we can abolish the care deduction, because then it won't be as expensive as you claim it would be.

We Social Democrats believe that the sickness benefit deduction needs to be abolished. It is blunt and unfair. Illness should never lead to poverty. It is time to remove the sickness benefit deduction for the sake of justice, for the sake of the bus driver, for the sake of the nursing assistant, for the sake of the shop assistant, and for the sake of decency. It is not populism; it is solidarity, and that is how we build our society strong.

I wish everyone in the presidium, the minister and Caroline Högström a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks for the debate to all participants!

I definitely do not think I was arrogant. I am sincere in my statement that the members show a great commitment, and I share it. I think it is very important that it becomes clear for our voters before the upcoming election where the dividing line lies between believing that the tax credit will benefit hard-working people, growth in Sweden, or for that matter hard-working entrepreneurs, or if it will cost them very dearly.

Then I rely on the experience that I think the Social Democrats should definitely take part in, that is, how it turned out during the 80s when the waiting day was abolished and how it looks in Norway. Norway, therefore, has the healthiest population in the world and also the highest sickness absence rates in the Western world. The authorities in Norway and also politicians testify that it is because they have a social insurance system without waiting day deductions.

One can be fine with that. One can think that it is okay with higher sick leave costs. One can think that it is not a problem and that one can just hire more to cover for all those who will be away. That is also fine. But then one must be honest enough to also finance it.

Again: It was not long ago that Magdalena Andersson stood out in the city and said that this will cost at least 5 billion kronor. If we look at the Socialdemokraternas budget now, we see that there are zero kronor budgeted for this, and we know that other investigations show that it will cost so much more. Then it is the wage room, high taxes, and the entrepreneurs who will bear the cost of this.

When we now need growth most of all to build Sweden stronger and safer, it becomes more uncertain and definitely more dangerous.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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