Response to interpellation 2023/24:206 on the future of the security pension
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 future of the security pension and the evaluation of rule changes for sickness benefits for the elderly. M argues that the sickness insurance should focus on rehabilitation and counteract long sick leaves through clear assessment points 1. M emphasizes that they want to avoid a system where people are hidden in the statistics or are granted sickness pensions on an assembly line 1 2. M argues that it is too early to draw conclusions as several analyses are ongoing 3 2. S argues that the security pension is important for economic security for those who have worn themselves out 4 5. S expresses concern that the government will remove the possibility of the security pension 4 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! Åsa Eriksson has asked me if I and the government plan any changes to the regulations for sick-leave elderly or if the guaranteed pension can be considered secured.
On 1 September 2022, special provisions regarding sickness benefit for older persons of working age entered into force. The work capacity of insured persons who have at most five years left until they reach the age at which they can no longer receive sickness benefit and who have experience of such work as is normally occurring on the labor market shall, according to the provisions, be assessed in relation to these jobs. If other suitable work is available for the insured person, the work capacity shall be assessed against that.
The Inspectorate of Social Insurance, ISF, has, at an early stage and on its own initiative, followed Försäkringskassan's implementation of the reform with so-called age rules in the sickness benefit in order to identify any problems that may exist with applying the new provisions. According to ISF, the preparatory works and the legal text are unclear and open up for different interpretations of the provisions. According to ISF, it is not clearly stated how Försäkringskassan should assess the content of different gainful occupations or how long and to what extent a person should have worked for it to be counted as experience of a job.
The Government considers it important to closely monitor the developments and evaluate the effects of the rule changes implemented during 2020-2022.
The Government therefore decided on 9 February 2023 on additional directives for the investigation Sjukförsäkringen i förändring - en utvärdering (S 2022:07). The investigation may also submit necessary legislative proposals if the evaluation shows that sick leaves are not concluded as intended but become unjustifiably long, or if other negative consequences for society or the individual arise (dir. 2023:20). The assignment shall be reported by 1 March 2024 at the latest.
Försäkringskassan shall, according to the mandate in the agency's directive letter for 2023, also analyze the consequences of the provisions for older people of working age in sickness benefit and sickness compensation that entered into force during 2022. The mandate shall be final reported to the Government Offices (Ministry of Social Affairs) no later than June 14, 2024.
The sickness insurance shall provide economic security for those who cannot work due to reduced capacity for work. For the government, it is a priority that people should, first and foremost, return to the working life, and the focus shall be on rehabilitation and clear assessment points. The government will take a position on the need for changes regarding the age rules for sickness allowance when ongoing evaluations are complete.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! It is pleasant to stand here in a debate again.
The Social Democratic government introduced the right to a security pension to increase the economic security for those who have exhausted themselves during their working lives. Those whose bodies do not hold up all the way were previously forced to take out their age pension prematurely.
I hope we all agree that the sickness insurance shall provide security in the event of loss of income when one lacks capacity to work. It is an insurance that we all pay into, and we must be able to trust that we receive support from it when we need it. We Social Democrats know that the risk of poverty does not make anyone healthier.
Madam Speaker! Taking early retirement because the body can no longer cope results in poorer finances for the rest of one's life. Before we introduced the guarantee pension, Försäkringskassan took no account of age, which meant that a 64-year-old was assessed in exactly the same way as a 34-year-old. It is unreasonable, we think.
The reform of the safety pension has had an effect, especially for those with wear-and-tear injuries, an analysis showed that Försäkringskassan presented this spring. The largest increase was in the group of people who have diseases in the skeleton, joints, and muscles. But statistics that the newspaper Kommunalarbetaren has requested show that more are also receiving compensation for mental diagnoses. Nearly one in ten who have received a safety pension has stress-related diagnoses, such as exhaustion syndrome.
Madam Speaker! Minister Tenje has, as she told, changed the directives for the investigation that reviews the improvements to the sickness insurance that we Social Democrats implemented during the last parliamentary term. That makes me worried. Since the Moderates have previously claimed that we Social Democrats abandon old people when we enable those who are worn out with a few years left until retirement to receive a security pension, there is reason for concern. And I am far from alone.
When the trade union Kommunal asked 63,000 members if they were worried about not being able to work until the statutory retirement age, a full 67 percent answered that they were worried about it. In the group of bus drivers, 62 percent were worried that their bodies would not be able to manage all the way. Among nursing assistants within elderly care, a full 77 percent stated that they were worried about not being able to work all the way until the age pension.
All these people need to know that they have financial security the day that the body can no longer endure, because they have served, cared for, lifted, looked after, and driven us and our children throughout their entire professional lives.
Madam Speaker! In the answer to my interpellation, the Minister states that the government considers it important to closely follow the developments and evaluate the effects of the regulatory changes that have been implemented. That does not make me any less concerned.
For all those municipal employees who wonder what will happen to them if the body cannot endure all the way to retirement age, I ask the Minister to answer the question: Will the Minister ensure that the guarantee pension remains?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! In the sickness insurance, the focus shall be on rehabilitation, and the design shall counteract unnecessarily many and long sick leaves, among other things through clearly defined review occasions. It is a sickness insurance that has the human being at the center. Return to work, reduced suffering, and a society that sees ability instead of inability are for me completely central for a humane sickness insurance that helps and does not hinder. An effective and good sickness insurance provides security while simultaneously promoting the work line and providing purposeful support to the person who has been ill so that they can also return to work.
We have seen the opposite of this system. It prevailed for several decades. Then, one chose to hide and forget people in the statistics. One hid and forgot people in early retirement. It was an undignified system that affected thousands of people with abilities and dreams that never got to be expressed. I never want to end up there again.
With that said, we shall follow the rule changes that were made during 2020-2022. Then we will simply return to what improvements can be made.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! That answer did not make me any less worried – on the contrary. Those who are ill must have the right to support and rehabilitation. That much we agree on. There is more to be done there, as many testify that they are left alone in their sick leave without receiving adequate help. That is not sufficient.
But we must have fair rules for elderly people who have worked throughout a long and strenuous working life. Not even the Moderates can surely think that the construction worker who every day for 40 years has drilled, nailed, lifted, dragged, and poured in all types of weather conditions and who has joints that ache and a back that screams, which makes it no longer work to work on construction sites, should have to go to the municipality and apply for social assistance after he has sold the house and the car to be eligible for it. Or should the alternative be that he, as it was before we introduced the guaranteed pension, shall have to withdraw his hard-earned pension money prematurely, which affects him financially for the rest of his life? Is that Moderate health insurance policy?
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats prioritize our common welfare, where security systems built on the idea of duty and right are an important part. We are proud of all the changes we made during our eight years in government to improve the health insurance. But we are not satisfied. There is more to do. Now we and many of our friends in LO, TCO and Saco are very concerned about the future of the important security pension.
Madam Speaker! I believe the Minister owes a clear answer to all those people who are truly worried about their future. That the government "is following the issue" only increases the anxiety. What does that mean? Will the fact that worn-out people have now been granted the right to a security pension through the elderly rules in the sickness benefit mean that the government will remove that possibility?
For all the construction workers who wonder what happens to them when the body is worn out and no longer fit for working on a construction site, I ask the Minister to answer the question: Will the Minister ensure that the security pension remains in place?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I understand that the hour is late. The Riksdag has adjourned and gone on Christmas break. But I still want to be clear that I did not say at all that the only thing we did was follow the issue closely.
I believe that in my opening statement I was very clear in stating that ISF has indeed evaluated the reform. Försäkringskassan is also, according to the agency's regulatory letter, to analyze the consequences of those provisions for older people of working age who have received sickness benefit and sickness compensation according to the rules that entered into force during 2022. ISF has submitted its evaluation and sees various deficiencies in the regulatory system that was introduced, but Försäkringskassan's assignment is to be reported on June 14, 2024.
In addition, we have indeed added a supplementary assignment to the investigation Health Insurance in Change - an evaluation. That work is in full swing and is to be reported in March next year.
I very much look forward to taking part of Försäkringskassan's own analysis, adding it to ISF's analysis and, of course, also taking part of the investigation's proposals on various improvements to strengthen the sickness insurance system.
Against that background, it is far too early to reach different conclusions about this reform. I look forward to receiving the adequate, thoroughly worked-out analyses in order to then take a position on whether the rules are unclear and need to be tightened, or if they have, in that respect, led to unwanted consequences.
I do not find that strange at all. That is precisely the way we must work to have a health insurance where those who are ill and cannot work for various reasons also receive support and help and do not need, as the member says, to go to the municipality to receive social assistance.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! I have not gone on Christmas break, but I stand here to try to get an answer from the Minister to all those people who are worried about their financial future when the body is worn out. Can they rely on the guarantee pension or not?
I and the Social Democrats do not oppose adjusting the regulatory framework if something is unclear – absolutely not. It is only good if it is done better. What we oppose is what the Moderates have previously said: that the Social Democrats are giving up on older people when we are providing an opportunity for worn-out people to receive a security pension while waiting until they reach the age for an old-age pension.
We still live in a class society. One of our greatest injustices is quite obviously how illness and disability affect people economically. The sickness insurance shall attempt to remedy some of that. Many are those who have experienced firsthand what moderate sickness insurance policy has previously meant for those who are too ill to work.
I hope therefore, Madam Speaker, that the Minister will now take the final chance today to promise all the municipal workers, construction workers and others who have exhausted themselves at work that there will be a security pension left the day they need it.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by pointing out that I have never claimed that the Social Democrats are giving up on the elderly. Never. I can, however, think it is a pity that one prefers to focus on the disabilities rather than the abilities, which often results in one getting it a bit wrong.
I have, however, asserted, and I stand by it, that previous Social Democratic governments and Social Democrats have advocated a system where one hides and forgets those on sick leave in the statistics and retires people on sick leave on an assembly line. I find that regrettable, and I believe we should never, ever end up there again.
I would like to thank you for the interpellation and for the debate. I note that the sickness insurance is an extremely important part of the Swedish social insurance and shall provide financial security to those who, for various reasons, cannot work or have reduced capacity for work.
As I have previously mentioned, a number of different analyses are underway regarding the changes that were implemented in 2020-2022. ISF has had an analysis ongoing regarding exactly the question we are discussing today. We have an investigation underway that is to submit its proposal in February next year, and Försäkringskassan also has a specific mandate in its regulatory letter to look specifically at the question of the security pension. Therefore, we simply have to come back to it. We will certainly have every reason to continue to discuss and debate the issue.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.