Response to interpellation 2022/23:72 on fair maternity leave deduction
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the fairness of the sickness benefit deduction, particularly for occupational groups that cannot work from home. S argues that today's deduction hits these groups hardest and creates economic injustice as well as health risks 1. S wants a more solidary and equal sickness insurance 2. M emphasizes that the sickness benefit deduction functions as a deductible to counteract unjustified short-term sick leave 3 4. M argues that changes require a careful analysis of the consequences for societal development and work incentives 4 5 6. M highlights that the sickness benefit deduction is already an improvement compared to the sickness day 6. M wants the investigation to continue to analyze the situation before decisions are made 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Zara Leghissa has asked me if I intend to take any initiatives, and if so which ones, to change the care deduction and make it fairer for occupational groups that do not have the possibility to work from home. The interpellor has also asked me whether I and the government intend to continue working with the proposals from the inquiry on the care deduction and sick pay that is to be reported next year.
The waiting period deduction fulfills an important function as a deductible to counteract unjustifiably high short-term sick leave. It has been in place since the beginning of the 1990s. During the extraordinary situation that covid-19 has entailed, however, deviations have been made from the principle of a deductible in the sickness insurance by the state temporarily paying out compensation for the waiting period deduction to facilitate for individuals to stay home during illness.
It was a justified measure. Under normal conditions, however, the issue needs to be carefully considered. It is important to assess the consequences for sick leave and the risks of fraud and incorrect payments when considering changes to the karens deduction. This is included in the special investigator's mandate.
I also want to remind that it is already possible, within the framework of current law, for the parties in the labor market to negotiate away the karens deduction through collective agreements.
Zara Leghissa (S)
Madam President! I would like to begin by thanking Minister Anna Tenje for the response to my questions. The Minister has in previous answers to interpellations stated that the sickness insurance shall provide financial security for those who cannot work due to reduced work capacity and that the policy must be designed to prevent and counteract long sick leaves and to support the individual.
The Minister's commitment and will to maintain a secure sickness insurance pleases me. Every day, people go to work and make Sweden function: nursing assistants, nurses, doctors, childcare workers, preschool teachers, bus and train drivers, shop assistants, construction workers, forestry workers, electricians - yes, the list of those who cannot work from home can be long. At the same time, for white-collar workers, more and more methods for working from home have developed.
The carens deduction is a deduction on sick pay or sickness benefit that is made in connection with sick leave. As the deduction is designed today, it hits hardest those who go to work every day and cannot work from home. The occupational groups that cannot work remotely during, for example, a mild cold are punished financially, while it is also a health risk. Going to work while sick can cause a medical condition to be prolonged or injuries to be aggravated. Furthermore, there is a risk that one infects colleagues, who are also needed for society to function. It is time to rectify the unfair carens deduction.
Madam President of the Presidium! The Minister mentions the measures during the pandemic that the previous S-led government, in agreement with the Riksdag, made decisions on. We take a small look back in time to the month of March in the year 2020. It was a time when we stood naked and vulnerable before a virus that we knew so little about, the coronavirus, and the elderly and the sick were hit hardest. The deficiencies in elderly care were highlighted—deficiencies that existed already before the pandemic broke out and deficiencies that still exist.
The decisions that were made then came to save lives. The spread of infection was limited, the quarantine deduction was eased, and several other measures were taken to maintain a protective barrier, so that society could be kept running while people who could not work from home received relief in their finances.
Madam President! Today, the spread of infection regarding covid, influenza, and RS virus is increasing, and for those who work in healthcare, school, and elderly care, this is nothing new. It is normal. Wage earners are exposed to infection and risk infecting others, and it is within healthcare and elderly care professions that the number of illnesses is highest, primarily among nursing assistants working in home care, home nursing, and elderly care homes, but also nurses, preschool teachers, and social workers are groups with many illnesses. These are occupational groups where mostly women work.
I want to ask the Minister: Does Minister Anna Tenje think that the injustice in the quarantine deduction should remain?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam President! Yes, major changes have been implemented in the health insurance over the recent years. We discussed this, among other things, in the previous debate.
We have not seen the full effect of these yet. I can still state that sickness absence is expected to increase again when the economy turns upwards again. At that point, it is expected to increase quite significantly.
The waiting period deduction fulfills an important function as a deductible to counteract unjustifiably high short-term sick leave. It is part of the sickness insurance system, and there are other parts that mitigate or completely remove the effects of the waiting period deduction in certain situations. I am speaking then generally and specifically about the high-risk protection and the rule on relapse, both of which involve a reduced deductible in particularly justified situations.
I am fully aware that the risk of infection and the possibility of working from home differ greatly between different occupational groups. But in the considerations regarding changed self-risks in the sickness insurance, one must also take into account the risks for societal development that diminished work incentives entail. The temporary compensation for quarantine was justified during an extraordinary situation such as the covid-19 pandemic. It was a virus that not only hit Sweden but the entire world very hard. But under normal conditions, however, the question of changes in the regulatory framework for quarantine must be carefully considered. In that case, I think that the work on the legislation should still proceed as planned.
Zara Leghissa (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Minister, for the response! It is of the utmost importance that the investigation is completed, because in the best of worlds we do not get sick. Reality, however, does not look like that.
In reality, Madam President, people are injured and die due to work-related illnesses and accidents. In the Palace Agreement and in the government's budget, the necessary investments in safe working conditions – welfare workers need more colleagues, healthy schedules, time for recovery, and a reinforcement of the safety representatives' important role – are missing. High workload, demands, and responsibilities without having the conditions to perform their work tasks make people sick, and in that case, investments and funding are required.
Swedish health insurance shall be of high quality and be available for those who need it. It must never be the case that rules in a security system are unfair.
The government's policy, where high-income earners are favored at the expense of low-income earners, we Social Democrats will never stand behind. The sickness insurance is a fundamental pillar in our social contract.
Over the years, right-wing parties have advocated for deteriorations in the sickness insurance. The introduction of the "stoppage" (stupstocken) is a clear example, which did not make people healthier. On the contrary, many ended up on sick leave again, according to the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, ISF. The Moderates also want an additional waiting day, and one does not get healthy by being poor.
I therefore repeat the question: Does the government think that the injustice in the quarantine deduction should remain?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me be clear. The measures that the interpellor raises require very careful consideration and cannot be implemented through rapid changes. They need to be carefully analyzed, and the legislative process must take its course. The whole matter also needs to be seen from a broader perspective given the consequences it could have for society as a whole.
It is very important that the investigation that we have mentioned here several times continues. The interpellator has also highlighted it in his speeches. We should not preempt it. It will present its report next autumn, in September 2023, and it would be wrong for both of us to preempt what that investigation will come to.
It is important to analyze what consequences the latest change in the sickness insurance system has had. After that, we can – given the economic climate we find ourselves in, how it looks regarding sick leaves and any changes in the world at that time – assess the situation.
I am therefore not anticipating that discussion, nor the investigation that will be presented next autumn. I maintain that the sickness insurance must be designed in such a way that it contributes to preventing and counteracting unnecessarily many sick leaves. It shall also provide security while simultaneously promoting the work line.
Zara Leghissa (S)
Madam Speaker! May I interpret it as that the Minister intends to have the investigation, according to the committee directive that the Social Democrats have given, completed and presented in the autumn of next year? I am pleased with the Minister's position and take it as a promise. We will also follow up on this so that it does not become yet another broken election promise from the government.
The Corona Commission confirmed in its final report what those employed in health and social care already knew: Low staffing, insecure sick leave, low education levels, and insecure employment had a major impact on the spread of infection. This crystal-clear call for where investments should be made could not have gone unnoticed by the government.
The purpose of the review is to ensure that the rules for periods of restriction and sick pay are designed in a way that contributes to the loss of income during illness being borne in a more solidary and distribution-politically accurate manner, as well as counteracts the risks of sickness absence.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to strengthen the health insurance by making it more solidary, equitable, and equal. I hope the Minister is of the same opinion. Together, with our combined forces, we can counter sickness absence, prevent the spread of infection, and counter poverty. We can also provide people with better conditions for good health - for a fair care deduction and for a stronger Sweden!
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! When the waiting day was replaced with the waiting deduction in 2019, the primary purpose was to achieve a more equitable deductible in connection with sick leave. The waiting day could affect certain occupational groups with irregular and concentrated working hours, which is, for example, common not least within health, school, and care. The waiting deduction was a better solution than the waiting day for these groups.
In addition to this, there is, as I have mentioned, a general and a specific high-risk protection as well as a recurrence rule. All these provisions involve deviations under certain conditions from the main rule on deductible deductions and a reduced deductible in specially justified situations.
In the considerations regarding changed deductibles, one must take into account the risks for social development and for diminished work incentives, as well as what that would entail. Now we have a situation where sickness absence can be expected to increase when the economy turns upward again, and such an increase can therefore be substantial. In that situation, one should carefully analyze the consequences of the changed quarantine deduction.
The interpellator asks me whether the investigation will be allowed to continue. I can only state that I have said that its report will be presented next autumn, 2023. I may not be able to say that it is the exact committee directive that remains, but if one looks more broadly at the issue, it should not be anything negative. Now, more things have to be looked at a bit more closely.
These are important issues. It is important to carefully analyze and follow them before making drastic decisions.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.