Response to interpellation 2024/25:244 on the Social Insurance Agency's treatment of foreign-born individuals
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Försäkringskassan's treatment of foreign-born individuals and the risks of unequal treatment in the processing of sickness benefits. M argues that equal treatment and legal certainty are guiding principles for all public activities 1 2. The Government has received a report from ISF which identified risk areas for unequal treatment, which is concerning for the system's legitimacy 1. M emphasizes that Försäkringskassan is working with measures, training, and methodological support to counteract unjustified variations 1. S argues that women born outside the EU are particularly vulnerable to rejections and passive processing 3. S considers this to be serious and requires clearer guidelines and more resources to ensure fairness 3.
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 what measures I and the government plan to take in view of the fact that all residents in Sweden are not treated equally by Försäkringskassan.
Equal treatment shall be guiding for all public activities and is an important issue for the government. Legal certainty is a self-evident part of our democracy and the exercise of public authority. The basis for all agencies' work is also the state's value base, which applies to all employees in the state.
The Inspectorate of Social Insurance, ISF, has, on behalf of me and the government, reviewed Försäkringskassan's processing of sickness benefit from an equal treatment perspective. The purpose of the review has been to highlight an important issue that is fundamental to the legitimacy of the sickness insurance and thereby contribute knowledge to counter different treatment of different groups. In the report, ISF uses the term unequal treatment, which they define as situations when the processing is not adapted to individuals' needs and circumstances or in an unjustified way treats individuals belonging to different groups differently.
ISF has identified four areas where there is a risk of unequal treatment in the processing of sickness benefit. These are in the assessment of work capacity, in contact with the insured person, in contact with the employer, and in how the case officer handles planning and investigation. The report shows that there are signs of unequal treatment within all these areas. This is concerning and risks reducing the system's legitimacy. A prerequisite for people to have confidence in the sickness insurance is that it is applied uniformly and is legally secure.
Madam Speaker! ISF makes no recommendations in its report but urges Försäkringskassan to continue the ongoing equal treatment work with the identified risk areas in particular consideration. In accordance with Försäkringskassan's instructions, the authority shall, at the latest six weeks after ISF has submitted a report specifically concerning the authority, comment on the inspection's conclusions and report the potential measures that the authority intends to take in light of the report.
The Social Insurance Agency's response shows that the agency is working with several measures to counteract unequal treatment within the processing of sickness benefit. The perspective of equal treatment and objectivity is included in training and methodological support, and the state's value base underlies the agency's work. Within the department for sickness insurance, continuous work is ongoing to strengthen the insurance investigators in their role as law enforcers. In that work, requirements for objectivity and legality are discussed, but also different types of follow-ups and discussions to raise awareness of risks for unreasonable variations in the processing.
I will follow the authority's work to counter unequal treatment of different groups in close dialogue with Försäkringskassan.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! We missed the Minister in the budget debate last week, so it is nice to have her here in the chamber today!
Once again, the Inspectorate of Social Insurance has presented an important report showing what is not functioning well enough in our systems. It is so incredibly good that we have ISF! I really want to advocate for their important reports and often very professional analyses, which make life a bit easier for us opposition politicians and also make it easier to find weaknesses in our systems.
Madam Speaker! Although the Health Insurance Act stipulates that all insured persons shall be treated equally and that legal certainty shall prevail, the IFS's review shows that this is not the case. Women born outside the EU – younger and older women – are particularly vulnerable. They are more often denied, receive less support from Försäkringskassan, and experience a more passive handling compared to other groups, this despite our constitution clearly stating that everyone in Sweden shall be treated equally.
People born outside Europe thus have a higher risk of having their application for sickness benefit rejected. They are given a telephone investigation, a coordination meeting, or a planning for return to work to a lesser extent than people born in Sweden. This is extremely serious, and I expect the Minister to agree with that.
Still, nothing is heard from the government. Where are the thundering headlines? Where are the press conferences? Where are the indignant statements from the Prime Minister? I have heard nothing. Is it only we Social Democrats who think that this is serious?
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe in a society where security and justice are matters of course, regardless of gender, origin, and age. When unequal treatment permeates handling processes, for example regarding the sickness benefit, the entire society's trust in our common security systems is undermined.
It is time for action. Försäkringskassan clearly needs clearer guidelines and more resources to ensure that equal treatment is not just a goal but a given in every case, and I would like to know what the Minister has written in the regulatory letter to Försäkringskassan for the coming years to ensure that all people who apply for sickness benefit are treated equally.
With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to wish a Merry Christmas to the Minister, to the Speaker, and to the entire office. I will waive my subsequent remarks once I have received an answer to my question.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! As I began by saying and as I think it is important to still emphasize: Equal treatment shall be guiding for all public activities. Legal certainty is a matter of course and a self-evident part of our democracy and our exercise of authority. There is no doubt about that. I definitely agree with that, and it is something that I and the government and the entire Swedish people expect shall permeate and be followed by our authorities. There is no other lower requirement that applies to any of our authorities, so neither does it for Försäkringskassan.
The Government recently received a report from the AI Commission which states that AI is already a part of our reality and that it is important for the Government to act so that the spread of the use of AI proceeds quickly and safely and is used in as positive a way as possible for the entire Swedish society. The report is currently being prepared in the Government Offices.
Using new technology requires careful considerations, and there may also be a need to conduct risk analyses from, among other things, an ethical, legal, and security perspective. Försäkringskassan has for many years worked with AI-based tools in its operations, and I assume that Försäkringskassan applies the relevant legislation correctly, including the Discrimination Act. Försäkringskassan also has a routine for legal follow-up intended to ensure that the system does not discriminate against or disadvantage groups. The answer that the authority has provided linked to ISF's report also shows that Försäkringskassan has implemented or plans to implement more measures specifically to refine the system.
There is also an opportunity for an individual who feels discriminated against to report to the Equality Ombudsman, who can decide to investigate the individual's complaint of discrimination and bring the case to court. I want to be clear about this, because it is not utilized to such a great extent. This applies particularly to ageism but also to several of the grounds for discrimination that may be relevant here.
I also know that Nils Öberg, Director General of Försäkringskassan, was in the committee last week to answer questions that the members had for Försäkringskassan in connection with this. I think it is very good that Försäkringskassan has a good dialogue with the committee and that Försäkringskassan is given the opportunity to talk about its operations. It is also very good that we have ISF, just as the member pointed out, whose mandate is precisely to review the social insurance system in order to constantly find any potential deficiencies so that we who write propositions and enact laws have the opportunity to rectify this in order to constantly improve the system.
Many thanks to the member for the discussion and the debate on this issue! I also want to wish a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.