Response to interpellation 2023/24:577 on the SGI investigation
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 SGI-investigation's proposal for a new regulatory framework for sickness benefit-earning income. M agrees that the regulatory framework needs to be reviewed to increase predictability and reduce incorrect payments 1 2. M argues that the investigation's proposal is very extensive and complicated, and that referral bodies such as Försäkringskassan reject the proposals as they may create problems for the processing and reduce predictability 3 2. M therefore awaits the analysis of the referral responses before taking a position 1 2 4. S considers the investigation's proposal to be important for increasing security for cultural creators, freelancers, and gig workers who are currently disadvantaged by the system 5 6. S argues that these groups need better access to the security systems 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)
Mr. Speaker! Åsa Eriksson has asked me what I and the government intend to do with the SGI investigation's proposals.
The then government decided on 20 October 2021 that a special investigator should review the regulatory framework for SGI, that is, the income basis for among other things sickness benefit and parental benefit (dir. 2021:90). The assignment included investigating how the regulatory framework for sickness benefit-based income should provide increased security and predictability for the insured as well as lead to strengthened quality and efficiency in the processing and reduce incorrect payments.
The Government agrees with the view that the regulatory framework for sickness benefit-qualifying income needs to be reviewed, not least to increase predictability for individuals and reduce the risk of incorrect payments.
The final report of the investigation A security system for everyone - new regulatory framework for income qualifying for sickness benefit (SOU 2023:30) was submitted on 20 June 2023 and was subject to consultation until 22 December 2023. The issue is complex, and the proposals are extensive and complicated. The analysis of the proposals and the consultation responses is now ongoing within the Government Offices at the Ministry of Social Affairs where I am.
I want to await the result of that work before taking a position on the continued handling of the investigation's proposals.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
"In the democratic society, the human being is the goal. Social Democracy wants to shape a society based on the ideals of democracy and all people's equal value and equal rights. The human being shall be free to develop as an individual, rule over their own life, shape their existence according to their own desires and influence their own society. This freedom shall apply to everyone."
Mr. Speaker! Thus begins the Social Democratic committee motion in the Culture Committee. I wanted to start by quoting it because this debate is about the safety nets, sickness benefit-earning income, and security for everyone – including cultural workers and others, such as freelancers and gig workers. But it is also, in the long run, about what type of cultural society we are to have and about the possibility for cultural creators to be brave because they are secure.
Mr. Speaker! For us Social Democrats, culture and education are about human personal freedom and the development of society. Culture provides perspective and understanding of one's own life and the world around us, as well as the opportunity to meet across class boundaries and different backgrounds. Culture's liberating power is a crucial counterweight to authoritarian forces' strive to take power over thought.
This is extremely important. I therefore believe that the SGI investigation's proposals on how we can increase safety for, among others, cultural creators and other freelancers are extremely important.
For a vibrant culture, courageous and secure cultural creators are needed. That the social security of professional cultural creators is deficient has been established by several reports and investigations over the years. It can, for example, be difficult for many freelance cultural creators to obtain a reasonable sickness benefit-based income because one often jumps between different short assignments and does not have any steady income that can be established at Försäkringskassan.
As I hope everyone in the gallery and everyone listening knows, SGI, sickness benefit-generating income, is that which forms the basis for the assessment of, among other things, sickness benefit if one has reduced capacity for work due to illness or if one applies for parental benefit when becoming a parent.
Mr. Speaker! Just as the Minister said, the investigation was commissioned by the Social Democratic-led government in 2021. The investigator has submitted their proposals. They are quite clear. I wonder if the Minister thinks the proposals are good and if the Minister and the government will therefore proceed with them.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I just want to emphasize that I think it is very good that the member has an interest in the issue of SGI.
This is a very important issue. Sickness benefit-generating income is the amount that is calculated, just as the member pointed out earlier, by Försäkringskassan and which forms the basis for compensation if one were to become ill or if one has the great fortune of becoming a parent and is to be on parental leave. Thus, SGI affects almost everyone, I would like to assert, and it is an important issue.
The proposals that the member of parliament raises in his interpellation and in his speech are part of an investigation. The investigation was subject to consultation until December 22 last year. It can be stated that the issue is very complex and that the proposals are extensive and also very complicated.
The analysis of the proposals and the consultation responses, which have now begun to come in, is ongoing within the Government Offices. Since the issue affects the vast majority of people for large parts of their lives, as I mentioned, it is important that any changes to SGI that we may make simplify and clarify and make it easy to do the right thing. It shall be easy to do the right thing.
A central part of the assignment concerned utilizing historical income in the determination of SGI. Even though such a proposal has been presented, there is recurring criticism from most of the referral bodies that I have been able to review so far. The criticism is that it is a very extensive, and above all complicated, system that is proposed in the investigation.
For example, it is proposed that the income during the reference period, i.e., the period whose income forms the basis for the calculation, shall in certain situations where the income has decreased be calculated as if such a decrease had not occurred. To determine whether the income has decreased in a given month, it is proposed that the income the individual had that month shall be compared with the income he or she had the same month one year earlier or with the income per month that has or could have formed the basis for SGI as the current income that month.
You hear it yourselves! This is very extensive, and it affects many people. Above all, it is quite complicated. This is just one of several proposals that would have far-reaching consequences and affect everyone who pays or wants to pay SGI today. That question should, of course, not be taken lightly.
Now I look forward to receiving more consultation responses and to deliberating the issue carefully. When one makes such large changes that affect very many people and form the basis for many different benefits that can affect a person throughout their entire life, it is very important that it is done correctly.
Now we will look closely at the proposals, and then I promise to get back to you as soon as we have taken a position on the different parts.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! That was an account of how complicated it could become. It is fortunate that we have skilled and competent case officers at Försäkringskassan, I think, who are the ones who will assess this. Neither the Minister nor I shall do it – fortunately, at least as far as I am concerned.
I heard nothing, however, about whether the Minister thinks this is a good proposal. And if the Minister means that this is too complicated, I hope that the Minister and the Government intend to present other proposals. I hope, namely, that the Minister and I agree that culture workers, freelancers, and other gig workers also need to have better security and access to our common security systems, which they also pay into.
Mr. Speaker! Since the cultural labor market is characterized by short-term jobs and freelance assignments, the commission's proposals are particularly important for cultural workers. Today, many of them cannot obtain a reasonable and fair SGI because they do not have steady incomes and cannot point to future incomes. It is simply not possible in the current system, and they are disadvantaged. I believe, however, that the Minister knows that even cultural workers and gig workers get sick and have children and therefore need to have access to our collective security systems.
Mr. Speaker! This debate is, as said, about SGI, but it is also about the conditions for a vibrant culture. I believe that they are unfortunately under threat. Day after day, we see clear signs that, above all, the Sweden Democrats' view on culture has gained influence both over the government and locally in many parts of the country, for example, the dismantling of study associations, political steering of culture, and attacks against public service and against journalism in general. That the government has not lifted a finger to move forward with the proposals for increased security for cultural workers and other freelancers may be because the government is sitting in the lap of the largest party in the government coalition, the Sweden Democrats.
Mr. Speaker! My suspicion is strengthened by the fact that in the Culture Committee, the Minister's Moderate Party comrades have truly stepped forward in this issue. There, they have repeatedly spoken about the importance of increased security for cultural creators. During the pandemic, we could hear and read in the media how Moderate representatives came out and promised to invest in self-employed individuals and other cultural creators who were hit hard by cancelled performances and jobs and therefore received no income. Despite that, nothing has happened. So who is it really that is in charge in the government base?
Mr. Speaker! I wonder what the timetable looks like. When does the government intend to return with a proposal? And does the Minister believe that cultural workers should have better security than they have today?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! As I said earlier, the proposals from the investigation are both extensive and complicated. That being said, I was also clear that the government agrees that the regulatory framework for sickness benefit-qualifying income needs to be reviewed, not least to increase predictability for individuals but above all to reduce the risk of incorrect payments. There is no doubt that we are in complete agreement on this.
Since the proposals are, as stated, both complicated and very extensive. It is therefore very important to take note of the views that are now emerging from the referral bodies.
One of the primary objectives of the review was that the regulatory framework for income qualifying for sickness benefit should increase predictability and reduce incorrect payments, as we were discussing. The investigator argues for their changes, but as mentioned, there is very great concern among some referral bodies who express fears regarding several of the proposals.
As the member himself was in, we have, thank goodness, capable case officers at Försäkringskassan who can decide these difficult and complicated matters. However, it is precisely Försäkringskassan and Inspektionen för socialförsäkringen that, in their referral statements, reject the investigation's proposals. Among other things, Försäkringskassan considers it uncertain how much the processing can be automated, that the regulatory framework is complex and can create problems for the processing, and that the regulatory framework leads to reduced predictability for the insured, which would be contrary to what was one of the primary purposes when the investigation was commissioned.
Therefore, I believe there are good reasons, just as I have pointed out several times earlier, to further analyze the referral responses in good order so as not to rush into something that risks having the opposite effect of what everyone, I believe, in this chamber would sign off on as the purpose of the investigation when it was commissioned and also much of what the member himself describes. Therefore, I will await the result of this work before taking a further position. The continued handling is now taking place in the Government Offices, and I will return when we have landed on how we intend and think.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I am glad that the Minister says that we are in complete agreement that security needs to increase for cultural creators and other freelancers and gig workers. The sickness insurance is a fundamental pillar in the Swedish security system, just like the parental insurance. It is extremely important that everyone who pays into the systems also gets the opportunity to participate in them when they have a need. We Social Democrats are constantly working to repair the gaps in the insurances so that everyone receives the compensation they are entitled to.
If the Minister now rejects the commission's proposal on how one could improve cultural creators' opportunities for a fair and reasonable sickness benefit-based income, what proposals does the Minister have instead?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Many thanks for the debate and for the interpellation that the member has submitted! I think, as I have said, that these are very important issues.
I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that the member and I are in complete agreement that the issue of SGI is very complex and broad. That is perhaps the reason why nothing has been done on the issue previously. It has far-reaching effects for many people and deserves to be handled in good order, with a careful analysis of both desired and undesired effects - not least when it comes to these proposals.
This work is currently ongoing, as said, in the Government Offices, where the investigation's proposals are being prepared. We will return shortly once we have landed on how we stand regarding the various proposals.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.