Response to interpellation 2023/24:343 on the social insurance protection for pregnant women
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 social insurance protection for pregnant women. M believes it is important to modernize the protection for economic security and equal health 1. M emphasizes that women should be able to work as long as possible during pregnancy 2 3 and argues that the government has already prioritized pregnant women through extended double days and the possibility of transferring parental days 4, as well as by allocating billions to maternity care 4. S believes that pregnancy is not a disease and that it is outdated that women receive lower compensation than sick men 5. S wants the investigation's proposals to be implemented for better economy and the right to relocation 5. S argues that the current protection is inadequate and risks discrimination 6. S argues that the government has not shown in action that the issue is a priority, as there are no proposals in the bill list for 2024 7. S questions the government's priorities 8 9.
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)
Mr. Speaker! I have been asked which proposals in the investigation "A more modern social insurance protection for pregnant women" I intend to move forward with and when this will take place.
A modern and predictable social insurance protection for pregnant women who are working is undeniably a very important equality issue. There must be financial security and also good opportunities for self-sufficiency and for combining work life and family life. A good protection during pregnancy is also important for the equality policy sub-goal of equal health.
In cases where a pregnant woman cannot continue to work because the work is too physically demanding, there are risks in the work environment or, for that matter, that an illness exists, the social security system must be secure and reliable. The employers' work with relocation and adaptation of work tasks shall provide the conditions for women to continue working during the pregnancy, and it is also a task I truly welcome.
The report A More Modern Social Insurance Protection for Pregnant Women (SOU 2023:23) has recently been subject to consultation; I believe it was on December 13 that the last response was submitted. The proposals are currently being prepared in the Government Offices. It is therefore, Mr. Speaker, too early to go into more detail on which proposals we intend to proceed with.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking Minister Tenje for today's debate, which concerns the well-being of pregnant women but also the economy.
Pregnancy is not a disease. It is a statement many of us have heard when we have had ailments related to pregnancy. It can be traced back to a preamble from the 1940s, where it is established that pregnancy is part of the natural course of life, not a disease.
It feels very dated in 2024, of course, to lean on such a guideline. And it is a formulation that has made it easier for non-pregnant women than for pregnant women to be signed off sick. A man who has back pain can be signed off sick. When a woman has back pain, it is natural – she is pregnant, after all.
The pregnancy allowance was designed over 40 years ago, and it is time for a modernization. All women are different. Some want to work right up until the child's birth, while others feel worse already early in the pregnancy and need compensation to be able to stay at home.
There is a fundamental error here. Someone who becomes pregnant and has difficulty working often receives lower compensation than if she had become ill. This is, as the Minister says, about the goal regarding economic equality and also equal health. If we are to achieve that goal, there must be a satisfactory social insurance protection when you have reduced work capacity due to pregnancy.
Some work environments also involve great risks for those who are pregnant. The pregnant woman simply cannot remain at work, sometimes for the entire duration of the pregnancy. It is very important that women can receive help with adjustments to the work or relocation so that the finances balance out and one does not suffer a blow even before the child is born.
Even here, there must be a protection so that the woman can maintain her economic independence. Today, women who are granted pregnancy allowance can have a benefit paid out until at most the eleventh day before the expected date of birth. After that, the pregnant woman is referred to use vacation or parental leave, even though she may, due to risks, be forbidden to work at her workplace. Many women also burn parental days earlier than that and then receive a worse economy when the child is born.
Kristina Nilsson was appointed to review the social insurance protection for pregnant women. Her group reportedly submitted their investigation to the government last spring. The investigation proposes that the benefit period for pregnancy allowance should be extended to the day before childbirth and that the income ceiling within the pregnancy allowance should be raised to the same level as in the sickness benefit. A clarification is also proposed in the law that pregnant women should have an equivalent right to sickness benefit as non-pregnant women. This proposal would make the social insurance protection during pregnancy more similar to the protection that exists if one is ill.
This is important from an equality perspective, and it is also proposed that the Gender Equality Authority be tasked with reviewing a woman's right to relocation, so that she can remain in her job if it is possible.
Mr. Speaker! There are many good proposals in Nilsson's investigation that would make life and finances easier for the country's pregnant women. The proposals have been investigated, and there was a great political consensus here. It is now a new year. I understand that issues need to be prepared and referred in the Government Offices, but that does not prevent the Minister from answering my question: Will the Minister submit any proposals that strengthen the social insurance protection for pregnant women in the coming year - yes or no?
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Regarding the investigation, we can state that pregnant women today have poorer chances of being granted sickness benefit. That was why the previous government commissioned the investigation that has now come forward with these proposals.
It is exactly as the interpellor has described: In the case of difficulties in connection with pregnancy, it is referred to as being part of the normal course of life. It is based on interpretations from the 1940s. A great deal has happened since then regarding the view on pregnant women and the possibility of being able to work.
The investigation proposes, among other things, increased compensation for pregnant women who cannot work and points out the possibility of providing all with maternity benefits during the last days before childbirth. There are many women who lose income because they are pregnant, and we cannot have that. Precisely for that reason, the investigation proposes that it should be possible to receive maternity benefits until the day before childbirth. Today, the right to maternity benefits ends ten days before the expected date of childbirth.
In connection with the presentation of the investigation in the spring of 2023, Minister Tenje said that it is a high priority to ensure that women can continue to work during pregnancy. I can do nothing but agree. But I am still concerned when I see the list of government bills, where the government shows the planning for upcoming legislative proposals during 2024, because there is nothing about this included. There is nothing that is in accordance with the investigation's proposals, not even a small part of it.
So, it is to go a whole year without the government presenting proposals for changes here. Are we to expect that nothing happens in this area – that the government does not even clarify that pregnant women have the same rights as those who are not pregnant?
I do not think one should say that something is high priority if one cannot demonstrate it in action. Is it a priority or not for the government to do something, and why is nothing being done during 2024?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me say that it is pleasing that the members seem to share my view that it is important that we modernize a very generous parental insurance and also enable pregnant women to remain in work for as long as possible.
Economic family policy is an important stabilizing factor and also provides the conditions for a good balance between work life and family life in the form of the generous parental insurance we have in Sweden. The reforms that have recently entered into force, namely an expansion of the double days and the possibility to transfer the parental benefit, can further strengthen the possibility to combine an active work life with an active family life and also strengthen the possibilities for a new mother to receive support through shared parental leave with the partner for a longer period.
The proposals from the inquiry "A more modern social insurance protection for pregnant women" imply, in part, that more women should be able to receive compensation from the social insurance for a longer period. We must then be honest and say that this would increase women's absence from the labor market during pregnancy. A longer absence from the labor market during pregnancy, together with the long parental leave, which is taken more often by women than by men, could have negative effects on women's labor market situation and lifetime earnings. We must be careful to point this out.
It is a serious problem that women are absent from the labor market and do not have as high a labor force participation as men. But it is clear that there must be a secure and predictable support when there are no conditions for one to be able to work.
A reduction in work capacity due to illness does not give the right to pregnancy benefit - I believe Member Lennström was touching on that - instead, it becomes a compensation in the form of sickness benefit. But there is no clear line between when the reduction in work capacity is due to illness and when it is due to pregnancy. There is a clear issue regarding the drawing of boundaries. The investigation has had the mandate to look at exactly these parts and also submits a number of proposals that could facilitate the assessment.
The report has, as I mentioned earlier, recently been subject to a referral process. The last day to respond to the referral was in December. I think that should be respected. One should collect the responses that the referral bodies have made the effort to write – many have responded – and carefully weigh the pros and cons. It can lead to a modernized parental leave and, above all, strengthen women's situation in the labor market and enable them to participate in work for as long as possible during the time they are pregnant and can work. Then they should also be able to have a quick recovery after childbirth and return to work.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer and also for the partial agreement on this important issue! There are many of us in this chamber who have been pregnant. I believe we can agree that even if one has had a good pregnancy, one often does not feel so well towards the end of it. One can be heavy and tired and need to rest before the impending birth.
The investigation mentions that 66 percent of all who were pregnant in 2019 used parental leave before the child was even born. It is not reasonable that one should have to burn parental leave days or take leave and that it should be spent against time together with one's child once the child has arrived. The healthcare profession has also mentioned to the investigation that this can cause some women to push themselves to a limit that is not good for either the woman or the child.
To solve this, the investigation proposes a non-means-tested pregnancy allowance that can be utilized during the last seven calendar days before the expected date of birth.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the major reforms in Nilsson's investigation. I become curious about the obstacles that exist, if there should be any obstacles to proceeding with these important proposals. The investigation is finished, and political agreement is perceived to exist, as said. The referral responses, which the Minister mentions, I looked through a bit earlier today. They come, among others, from LO, SKR and TCO, and they are very positive towards many of the proposals. That should be both good.
But even if there is agreement on the proposal, there may be underlying politics concerning priorities, for that is ultimately what politics boils down to. Then the question is: What does the government want to spend money on?
Do we want to give pregnant women who are feeling unwell the same compensation that men with back problems receive? Do we want to make tobacco cheaper? Do we want to give pregnant women a week of recovery before childbirth? Or do we want cheaper plastic bags? So one can say if one should tighten the whole thing up.
For me, the answer is simple. Politics is about wanting something, and we Social Democrats want pregnant women to have more rights and better finances.
My question to the Minister is therefore: Will the government prioritize pregnant women and in the near future present some proposals that lie within the investigation or outside the investigation regarding the situation of pregnant women – yes or no?
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is not a matter of us, with our questions, not respecting the referral bodies, the referral period or the processes that this requires. Here we have complete agreement. I think that this debate is not about that.
But now this is done, and the proposals are there. The question remains: What does the government intend to do? I do not think it has become clear so far. These are the answers that the minister is still indebted to us for.
I might turn the question around. How important is this prioritization? Is it exactly as the interpellor previously described? What happens when one gets the chance to lower taxes? Is it then still a priority to ensure that pregnant women can have the opportunity not to lose too much in income? Or will the tax cut come first again? It is rather about this.
Does the government mean that this is highly prioritized? Then one also needs to show that other things can take a backseat in the priorities for this to be able to become a reality.
My question remains: Will we be able to see actual proposals being tabled in the Riksdag during the next year?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that we in this government, with all desirable clarity, have shown that we definitely prioritize pregnant women and that we are definitely on the right track to further modernize the parental insurance.
As I mentioned in my previous exchange, we have already moved forward with proposals. It is about increasing the number of double days, which can definitely facilitate things for women, so that they receive help and support during the first period when they are going to take care of their newborn child. It is also primarily about the possibility of transferring parental days, which would mean that women can return to work at a significantly earlier stage.
But when it comes to pregnant women, I still want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this government has definitely prioritized both pregnant women and maternity care.
The government has presented an extended reinforcement of the initiative on maternity care and women's health. During 2023, the government allocated 1.8 billion kronor to the area of maternity care and women's health. And in 2024, the government allocates 1.6 billion for the same purpose.
There is an agreement between the state and SKR that covers a total of 1.5 billion kronor. We have made an agreement with SKR which consists of a number of different areas of intervention. This concerns, for example, the development of the pregnancy care chain and of aftercare, as well as strengthened competence supply and the development of relevant competence and new ways of working. This agreement also includes interventions for more equal maternal healthcare and more equal childbirth healthcare.
Within the framework of the government's initiatives, there are therefore major investments in maternity care. At the same time, we are giving more agencies important assignments. For example, Socialstyrelsen has been tasked with developing a national plan for maternity care, and Inspektionen för vård och omsorg has been tasked with strengthening the supervision of maternal health care and maternity care.
I think it is very important to state that one can work in several different ways. Just as both members have pointed out, the referral responses have now been submitted. We are currently processing them in the Government Offices, and I intend to return to the issue when we have landed on how we shall proceed with it.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answers and the debate today! I naturally think that investments in maternity care are very important. But I was also in this chamber last week when Marcus Wennerström called for an interpellation debate on the healthcare crisis. At that time, there were 21 representatives for different regions who were here and who had a debate with Minister Acko Ankarberg Johansson about the incredible resources that are needed for our regions to be able to function. It is about the sick and about pregnant women who are going to give birth. I think it is very important to also include this in this debate: Our regions are in a major and deep crisis. That is where the government would really need to act, because it also concerns important investments for pregnant women.
But now it concerns the issue that we are debating today. Today we have a social insurance protection for pregnant women that does not measure up. It risks making it so that this group is discriminated against. It is very important that we maintain the image of Sweden as a country where one can both start a family and work, as the Minister mentions. It is important that there is no contradiction between the two. One can do both. It is about women's empowerment and about having a reasonable economy.
I do not intend to conclude this speech with a question, but with an appeal: Proceed with Kristina Nilsson's investigation, as there are very many good proposals there that would increase protection for pregnant women! I look forward to debating those proposals here in the chamber with the Social Insurance Committee.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the interpellator for the question and both members for the debate. For me, it is self-evident that Sweden should be a country where women can continue to work for as long as possible during their pregnancy. And for those women who cannot do so, there must be a secure and predictable social security protection.
Mr. Speaker! I think we have every reason to return to the debate and discuss these issues further once we have landed on how we proceed.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.