Response to interpellation 2024/25:100 on the occupational injury insurance
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers that a well-functioning occupational injury insurance is important for the work line and that the investigation contains extensive proposals to create incentives for employers to prevent injuries 1 2. M argues that reduced life annuities are explained by outflows to age pension and fewer applications, not solely rule changes 2. M argues that one cannot cherry-pick the raisins from the cake but must view the regulatory framework as a whole 3. M argues that the government should analyze the investigation's report and take a position on any changes 3. V considers that the insurance should be secure and legally sound and criticizes high evidentiary requirements 4. V wants the time limit for life annuity to be set to day 90 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! Isabell Mixter has asked me if I intend to take the initiative to implement the proposals in A purposeful occupational injury insurance (SOU 2023:53).
A well-functioning occupational injury insurance is important and contributes, together with measures that prevent occupational injuries, to people wanting to participate and remain in the workforce. The occupational injury investigation (S 2021:11) has been tasked with reviewing the occupational injury insurance and analyzing how the financing of the insurance can be changed to create incentives for employers to prevent occupational injuries and counteract long sick leaves.
The investigation submitted the report A purposeful occupational injury insurance - for better economic security, knowledge and legal certainty (SOU 2023:53) on 14 September 2023. The report is very extensive and contains a large number of proposals that span, for the most part, the entire, or at least large parts of, the occupational injury insurance. It has been referred for consultation and is currently being prepared in the Government Offices. I cannot anticipate the work at this stage.
I can however state that the segment on P4 Värmland that the interpellator refers to focuses on the fact that injured persons have been denied compensation from the collective agreement work injury insurance due to Afa Försäkring's interpretation of the concept of accidents at work. It is important to remember – and I just want to remind – that the conditions for compensation from the collective agreement insurance are governed by the parties in the labor market and that the government can only submit proposals regarding the public work injury insurance. The current report, which I referred to, Madam Speaker, contains no proposals regarding a change of the concept of accidents.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! Imagine a society where you go to work every day – as a nurse, nursing assistant, warehouse worker or carpenter – and are secure that the employer does everything they can to prevent injuries at work. If, despite everything, an accident should occur and you are injured at work, you are securely insured. You can continue to provide for your family and stay in your house even if you are injured at work.
Vänsterpartiet considers that the occupational injury insurance should be secure, legally certain, and equal. Those who are injured at work shall have the right to support, help, and compensation. All workers, regardless of gender or occupation, shall be given equal opportunities to have injuries recognized as occupational injuries.
That is not the case today. In just over ten years, the number of people granted a lifelong annuity has become six times smaller. This decline coincided, according to the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, with the change to the sickness insurance that the Moderate-led government implemented in 2008. Over 20 years, the number of people receiving a lifelong annuity has decreased by a full 80 percent.
I can agree with Anna Tenje that the example I used in writing before this interpellation debate perhaps was not perfect, but I have another example from P4 Värmland.
Thomas Martinsson is one of those who has been injured at work. He injured his back at work eleven years ago but receives no compensation from Försäkringskassan and has not been entitled to a life annuity. Today he lives without income. He has constant pain and cannot work. He is just one of many who have been affected by the insufficient protection that the occupational injury insurance provides today. When he was interviewed by P4 Värmland on November 4, he said that it is almost as if our pets have better insurance protection than we have at work. He also said that he is not lazy and that he would gladly have worked if he could, but it is not possible.
The issue of an improved occupational injury insurance became very clearly relevant during the pandemic. Many of those who worked in contact professions were affected by long-covid and were denied life annuity because of the regulatory framework that exists today regarding the occupational injury insurance. The evidentiary requirements are far too high for one to be granted a life annuity.
In 2021, an inquiry was appointed to conduct a review of the occupational injury insurance. The inquiry has submitted its report to the government. There are a number of proposals there that would ensure more people are entitled to compensation and that it is more accurate. The insurance would become more gender-neutral; today, women are primarily disadvantaged by the regulatory framework for occupational injury insurance. The decisions would become more legally secure and uniform. The life annuity would also better follow the income development.
These are long-awaited improvements that we in Vänsterpartiet welcome. We would like to make some adjustments to the proposals that exist, but we will wait with that until they are potentially on the table.
Anna Tenje referred in her response to the fact that the investigation is extensive and that it is being prepared in the Government Offices. I can, however, state that it was proposed in the report that the changes should enter into force on July 1, 2024, so I believe that many are waiting and wondering when the government will get started. Does Anna Tenje intend to take any initiatives so that proposals shall be put on the table?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by again underlining that a well-functioning occupational injury insurance in combination with additional measures that prevent occupational injuries is a very important part of the work line. It contributes to people wanting and being able to work and to them wanting to stay in the working life much longer. It is a very important insurance.
The Occupational Injury Inquiry has submitted many proposals for new provisions in a regulatory framework concerning very important but complicated issues. Among other things, the inquiry proposes that the provisions describing what constitutes an occupational injury should be completely revised. The inquiry also proposes that the basic requirements for life annuity be changed so that more people applying for life annuity can receive an occupational injury assessment. The purpose is to achieve an insurance that fulfills its function, i.e., to provide individuals with financial security in the event of an occupational injury and to ensure that women and men are given equal protection. Very good!
That the number of persons who are recipients of life annuity has decreased in recent years has various explanations. There is, above all, a large outflow from the insurance for persons who have previously been granted life annuity and have had it for a period but who are now entering age pension. The primary reason that it concerns fewer persons is, according to the Occupational Injury Inquiry, that fewer people apply for life annuity. At the same time, the proportion of applications that lead to the granting of life annuity has actually increased since 2016.
This is not an easy question but rather a complicated one, and we certainly will not drag it out unnecessarily. When looking at the proposals, one should therefore consider that the committee's main proposal involves the introduction of a waiting period of 180 days for life annuity. In other words, it is proposed that it should not be possible to grant life annuity during the first 180 days after the date of the injury. Someone who, for example, suffers a serious accident will, according to the committee's proposal, lose life annuity for six months, which is not included at all in today's regulatory framework.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! Anna Tenje mentioned that one of the reasons why fewer survivor pensions are paid out is that few applications are received. This is also something addressed in the proposals in the investigation, namely that Försäkringskassan shall automatically investigate whether one is entitled to a survivor pension. This is something that would be improved if these proposals were implemented.
Then I do not know if Anna Tenje means that I should be critical of the fact that there is a long time limit before one can be granted a life annuity, but I can say that I am. It is one of the things that Vänsterpartiet objects to regarding this investigation. We believe that one should investigate faster whether it is a work-related injury and that that point should be set to day 90. Since Anna Tenje raised that question, I would like to hear the minister's view on it.
I can also state that there is no announcement regarding when the improvements in the occupational injury insurance will be implemented. It is extremely urgent that we get a change in place. For example, LO now argues that the main rule has become that an injured worker does not receive any compensation from the insurance. This is due to the existing rule of evidence and the so-called permanence requirement.
One can also observe that it is a significantly decreasing proportion that is entitled to a life annuity. One effect of this is that the state's costs for the occupational injury insurance have decreased significantly. On average, the insurance has a surplus of 1.8 billion kronor annually. It is a very unreasonable situation - this is an insurance that we collectively pay into and which stands with very large surpluses, while at the same time we know that people injure themselves at work but do not receive the compensation they are actually entitled to.
I therefore see it as extremely important that we come forward with such a proposal, and I also hope that Anna Tenje and the government can deliver a decision.
If the investigation's proposals were to be implemented, it would mean that 1,500 more people per year would be granted compensation. It would be a huge step forward, and it would make a big difference for many of those who are injured at work. I therefore want to ask Anna Tenje again whether there is an intention to implement these proposals.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! The occupational injury insurance and its regulatory framework are, as we have mentioned previously, a very complex area, and the change must be handled with considerable deliberation. I believe the member is aware of this, given that the previous government, which her party supported, did not legislate in this area either. There was another investigation, namely the Investigation on a more equal and legally secure insurance for occupational injuries, which was commissioned under the then S-MP government and which the Left Party was involved in supporting. At that time, there was an investigation underway. It was not as extensive as the occupational injury investigation but had a similar purpose. It also did not result in any legislative product but was left there.
These questions require respect and great consideration, and that is precisely why the proposals now presented in our investigation are being prepared.
It was good that Isabell Mixter came in on the question about the 180-day clearance, as that left me a bit confused. It still seems that Vänsterpartiet in its budget proposal has now embraced these changes in the occupational injury insurance, since they are included in the budget.
A waiting period of 180 days is quite extensive, and it may seem strange that Vänsterpartiet advocates for a rapid implementation of the inquiry's proposals and even included funds for this in its budget motion – but without mentioning the consequences for, for example, the nursing assistant in the segment on P4 Värmland or the person in the example the member took up here. On one hand, one embraces these proposals in its budget. On the other hand, one writes in its budget, I believe it is on page 37, that one wants to abolish the waiting period deduction because it is harmful and involves income losses of 3,000-6,000 kronor, which is a significant amount. To then embrace these proposals in the occupational injury insurance and thereby introduce a 180-day waiting period for people who have suffered an injury would, in that case, be quite significant.
For me, this issue is not so simple. It is also not about being able to cherry-pick the raisins from the cake when it comes to the occupational injury insurance, but it needs to be seen as a whole. It is a complex issue, and it deserves to be discussed and prepared in a correct and responsible manner. It is about an insurance that lays the foundation for creating security in workplaces and for the people who are affected by accidents and injuries.
I am the first to sign on to your visionary narrative about how good it would be, Isabell Mixter. My thought is that employers should work to reduce the risk of accidents. That was exactly why we gave the additional assignment to the investigation. It is about finding drivers for employers to minimize the risks of work-related accidents in the workplace so that they never ever even occur and the insurance is hopefully used even less.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! I urge the Minister to follow the rules of procedure for interpellation debates, which means that it is the interpellator who asks the questions and the Minister who answers.
I would like to have an answer as to whether Anna Tenje considers today's order to be good: that the person who is injured at work is not entitled to compensation, loses income and perhaps needs to move from their home - this because the employer has not ensured that accidents do not occur. One could, for example, have worked as a nurse and caught covid and suffered long-term complications from it. This is what the debate needs to be about.
I will nevertheless answer Anna Tenje's question about our budget and that we stand behind the investigation. In our budget motion, it is clearly stated that we stand behind certain parts of the investigation but that we simultaneously want to change the time limits proposed in the investigation. You are welcome to have it from me so that you can read up on it.
The Social Insurance Inspectorate notes that part of the explanation for why many fewer are granted a life annuity today is the changes that the previous Moderate-led government implemented in 2008. To then bring up what the Left Party did not do during the previous term is not quite fair.
I ask therefore: What is the government going to do so that people can feel safe at work and know that they are insured?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I can state that the interpellator does not want to take responsibility for the eight years the Left Party supported the government at that time. Despite having the opportunity to make changes to the occupational injury insurance, one chose to do nothing on the issue.
For me, this is an important and pressing issue. A well-functioning occupational injury insurance and measures that prevent occupational injuries are an important part of the work line. More people need to be able to work more and longer, which presupposes a sustainable working life with significantly fewer occupational injuries.
The occupational injury insurance and its regulatory framework is, however, a complex area that must be handled with deliberation. It is not possible to cherry-pick the raisins from the cake; instead, it must be viewed as a whole, especially if one does not want anyone to fall through the cracks. The report from the Occupational Injury Inquiry is currently being prepared and analyzed, as stated, in the Ministry of Social Affairs. After that, the government will have to take a position on the need for any changes to the regulatory framework, and we will return then.
Madam Speaker! With this said, I thank you for the debate. Thanks also to the interpellor for an important question. Two times today I have had the opportunity to speak about this, during the question period and in an interpellation debate, and I think that is good and important.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.