Response to interpellation 2023/24:317 on a more equitable quarantine 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 care allowance and whether the government will proceed with the working group's proposals. M argues that the working group has delivered a comprehensive knowledge base and that the proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices 1 2 3. M emphasizes that the reform from care day to care allowance has served its purpose 3. S argues that the care allowance is unfair and that people with low wages go to work despite illness because they cannot afford to stay home 4 5 6. S believes that the government is failing wage earners by not taking action 6. S is positive about the working group's proposals regarding a care ceiling and increased high-risk protection 4.
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 whether I and the government will proceed with the working group's proposal and suggest a ceiling for the pension.
In January 2023, a working group within the Government Offices, at the Ministry of Justice, was tasked with conducting a review of the waiting period deduction (S 2023:A). The main purpose of the review was to analyze the expediency of the waiting period deduction and to assess whether there was any need for changes to the waiting period deduction.
On 15 December 2023, the working group concluded its assignment. The working group's report is a comprehensive knowledge base on the consequences and expediency of the quarantine 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-exploitation but can be burdensome for individuals with recurring sick leave and individuals with small economic margins.
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 surfaces in their professional role and have difficulty working from home. The working group assesses that it is not appropriate to introduce a differentiated quarantine deduction based on occupation. The working group instead submits proposals that involve an increased protection against loss of income as a result of quarantine deductions for groups with recurring sick leave.
The working group also proposes that the current general high-risk protection should be replaced with a cap that means that care deductions shall not be made if such a deduction has been made for an individual on six occasions during the last twelve months.
The working group also proposes an expanded high-risk protection. The proposal aims to give more individuals with illnesses that entail a risk of recurring sick leave the opportunity to be exempted from the waiting period deduction. The working group also submits proposals for measures that should make the administration of the high-risk protection simpler and more efficient.
The Government has not yet taken a position on the working group's proposals. The proposals that have been submitted to the Government will be processed in the usual order.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! When I listen to the Minister, it sounds as if the Minister has no idea what she wants with the quarantine period. That surprises me. I guess that the Minister, just like me, became a politician because she wants to change things and make them better. That is why I have requested this interpellation debate today – in the hope of hearing what the Minister wants. The Minister is ultimately responsible for the health insurance in Sweden today. There are thousands of wage earners who want to know what this government wants to do with the quarantine deduction.
We know, Madam Speaker, that the Minister's own party went to the election on a platform of introducing a second care day. Is this something that the government will proceed with?
We also know that the largest party in the government base, Sverigedemokraterna, wants a differentiated quarantine deduction that applies to certain professional groups. This is what the working group is advised against, as the Minister has explained. But will the Minister listen to Sverigedemokraterna and let them have their way?
Or does the government prefer to hide the working group's report at the back of the bookshelf and let the status quo prevail? That is what I think all of Sweden's wage earners need to know.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats always stand up for a secure and fair sickness insurance. We believe that this is extremely important in a welfare state. We also believe that it is completely unreasonable that people with low wages go to work when they are sick because they cannot afford to stay home and get well. This is what we want to change.
I urge the Minister to be clear on the quarantine issue and therefore think that I myself need to be clear on how we Social Democrats view the working group's proposal. So, Madam Speaker: We Social Democrats have no problems with the proposals from the working group. It is good for those who are often ill that the ceiling for how many quarantine deductions can be made at maximum during a twelve-month period is lowered from today's ten to the proposed six. It is also good that those who have a health issue with recurring periods of illness receive a clearer and simpler set of rules when it comes to the high-risk protection.
If the government presents these proposals before the Riksdag, I see no reason today why we Social Democrats would not be able to stand behind them. But it is not enough. The care deduction is unfair and must be changed.
Madam Speaker! As I have reported previously when I have debated with the Minister, nearly half of the surveyed LO members state that they go to work even though they are sick because they cannot afford the period of sick pay deduction. Seven out of ten surveyed retail workers state that they have gone to work during the last twelve-month period even though they have been sick. So we cannot have that. Even if the ceiling were to be lowered from ten to six sick pay deductions per year, it does not help the person who cannot afford to stay home even for the first time because the salary is so low.
So, Minister, does the government intend to proceed with the proposals from the working group?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! This government is not in the habit of hiding or forgetting people or statistics or, for that matter, hiding investigations of proposals.
But at the risk of being boring in this debate: The working group submitted its proposals on 15 December. The proposals are now being prepared in the usual manner in the Government Offices. We will return to this issue, and there is every reason to continue to have both a good and lively debate on the matter once we have taken a position. But for the time being, we have not taken a position, and therefore there is not much more to discuss here and now, today.
We will return when we have taken a position. The proposal that the working group has now presented is a very extensive knowledge base, which I believe will form the basis for a very good discussion and many good considerations ahead.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! I listened very attentively, but I still heard nothing about what the Minister wants with the care. Does the Minister have no visions? Why has the Minister taken on this portfolio at all, this enormously important assignment, if she wants nothing with the care? I believe that those listening to this debate are wondering that now.
We, the Social Democratic government, appointed the Karens Investigation during our time. The government that Anna Tenje represents laid down that investigation just about a year ago, even though the Minister herself had only a month earlier said here in the chamber: "It is very important that the investigation that we have mentioned here several times continues." We already know that the Minister can turn on a dime when it comes to the health insurance. Who in the government then twisted the Minister's arm so that she would change her mind I do not know, but it could not have been a particularly pleasant experience in any case.
The question is who will turn which arm on the government in the future so that we can achieve a more just care system in Sweden. Sweden is the only country in the Nordic region that has double deductibles in the health insurance, Madam Speaker. No other Nordic country has care deductions in its health insurance. Only Sweden has it.
When the right speaks about the sickness insurance and about sick people, it is always with an undertone that people would cheat or stay home, manipulate, if there were not double deductibles in the sickness insurance. I find that strange. It is a strange view of people, and I wonder what it is based on.
Is it the case that the Minister would not perform her very important assignment if she did not receive a deduction on her fee if she did not go to work? Is that the only reason she has the assignment she has? I do not think so. I know that is not the case for me in any case. I also know that the vast majority of people go to their jobs because they think it is important. They have a responsibility that they must fulfill, and they do not want to leave their colleagues in the lurch, but they want to perform the tasks they are assigned.
We know through a survey from the Swedish Union of Commercial Workers that seven out of ten have gone to work while sick at least once in the last year and that the most common reason stated is that they do not want to put their colleagues in a bind. The colleagues already have too much to do, and they are understaffed. One knows that if one stays home when one is sick, one puts the colleagues in a bind, and therefore one goes to work anyway. This is the reality for Swedish wage earners today. Still, we have double deductibles in the sickness insurance: both a reduction in the sickness benefit and a waiting period deduction.
I and also the Minister, I believe, go to work even if we were not to receive salary deductions because we think that what we do is important. Would there be any difference compared to how other employed people do? I do not think so, and I do not hope so. Does the Minister think that Swedish employees are more prone to cheating and staying home even if they are not sick than Finns, Danes, and Norwegians are? For their labor market seems to work perfectly well. There, people go to work even if one does not have sick pay deductions.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament will not, no matter how hard she tries, succeed in provoking a response with her slightly insinuating tone. I can only state that the proposals that have now come from the working group are being prepared in the usual manner in the Government Offices. It is a solid body of knowledge, and when we have taken a position in the government, I look forward to returning to this chamber for a more thorough debate.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Two straight, simple questions and no answers – I think it is sad for the sake of Swedish wage earners that one does not receive an answer and that the Minister does not want to say what she wants.
That the SD-led government does not want to do anything about the unfair sick pay deduction is nothing other than a great betrayal. It is a betrayal of all those who make our elderly care and childcare function, who drive our buses, and who take care of our apartment buildings and commercial properties. They are the ones who manage the logistics and ensure that Sweden functions. They cannot afford to stay home when they are sick if they have excessively low wages. So we cannot have it! We must change this.
When does the government intend to give them notice regarding what will happen with the quarantine deduction?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! It is not this government that usually hides and forgets either people or proposals. We will return when we have taken a position on the working group's proposals. I think, as I have said, that it is a very good knowledge base that the working group has developed. I think it is pleasing that the reform that was implemented when we moved from daily allowance to allowance deduction has served its purpose and lived up to expectations. Then there are several things to do.
The member of the board claims that on the one hand she is not receiving any information today, while at the same time she seems to know exactly what the government intends to do in this matter. I can only state that this matter is currently being prepared in the Government Offices and that we will return here to the chamber with our proposals regarding the working group's proposals when we are finished with the preparation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.