Response to interpellation 2024/25:74 on the justice aspects of the quarantine deduction
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers the karen deduction to be a fair and insurance-related deductible that counteracts over-utilization 1. M proposes a uniform karen deduction as well as increased protection for groups with recurring sick leave 1 and emphasizes that the parties in the labor market should negotiate exceptions through collective agreements 2 1. M argues that S does not have funds in its budget for the proposals presented by the working group 3 and notes that V has this in its budget 3. S argues that the karen deduction is unfair and that people with low wages cannot afford to be home sick 4 5. S wants to abolish the karen deduction 5.
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! I have been asked what I intend to do to handle the justice aspects of the care deduction.
On 1 January 2023, the government decided to replace the Karen Investigation with a working group in the Government Offices. The working group was tasked with analyzing the appropriateness of the waiting period deduction and assessing whether there was a need for changes to the waiting period deduction.
On 1 December 2023, the working group concluded its assignment. The 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-utilization but can be burdensome for individuals with recurring sick leave and for individuals with small economic margins.
Furthermore, the working group assesses that it is not appropriate to introduce a differentiated quarantine deduction based on occupation, as there is no simple and comprehensive way to define which occupational groups employees should be covered within. This issue of delimitation was raised to the working group during discussions with the parties in the labor market.
The working group submits proposals involving a uniform quarantine deduction as well as an expanded protection against loss of income resulting from quarantine deductions for groups with recurring sick leave. Proposals are also submitted for measures to make the administration of high-risk protection simpler and more efficient.
The working group's proposal has been subject to consultation during the spring of 2024. The proposals are now being prepared further in the Government Offices.
Regarding the rules for the waiting period for self-employed persons, the government proposes in the budget bill for 2025 that the upper limit, 55 years, for self-employed persons to be able to choose a shorter waiting period in the sickness insurance be removed. Starting and conducting business at higher ages should be encouraged.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It is not the first time we have debated the care deduction, and perhaps it is not the last either.
Madam Speaker! I am actually not understanding what Anna Tenje and the Moderaterna want regarding the sickness insurance and the clearance, and I am probably not the only one. We remember that the Minister has wavered a bit here and there regarding the follow-up of the changes in the sickness insurance and that the inquiry's directive and investigators were changed and now, according to earlier debate today, they have completely scrapped all the proposals. When it comes to the clearance, which is the theme of this debate, the silence is almost total since the working group's proposals were submitted.
Will there be another quarantine day, as the Moderaterna went to the election on? Or will there be differentiated quarantine deductions for different professional groups, which the Sverigedemokraterna have proposed? It seems to be them who are steering the sickness insurance policy these days. What does the Minister think about the obvious injustice with the quarantine deduction, which she herself touched upon in the answer, namely that people with low wages cannot afford to be at home sick? Does the Minister intend to act at all, or hide the working group's proposals at the back of the bookshelf? That the question is being prepared in the Government Offices means, as we all know, that the proposals are lying and gathering dust somewhere. The Minister and the government have proposals regarding the quarantine rules for self-employed individuals in the budget bill. Why then were the proposals from the working group regarding the quarantine regulations for employees not also included?
There are alternatives. We Social Democrats always stand up for a secure and fair sickness insurance that is worthy of the name, and we think it is completely unreasonable that people with low wages are forced to go to work when they are sick because they cannot afford to stay home. This is something we want to change.
Madam Speaker! I have on several occasions earlier in the chamber said that we Social Democrats have no problems whatsoever with the proposals from the working group. If the government agrees, there is therefore a broad majority in the Riksdag for these proposals, and they should be quite simple to implement in practice. It is not a long-term solution to the injustice of the quarantine deduction, but it would at least improve things a little for a group of wage earners. It is good that the person who is often ill gets a lower ceiling on the number of quarantine deductions that can be made, so that the person who has a health issue gets a clearer and simpler regulatory framework for the high-risk protection. If the government finally gets its act together and submits these proposals, I see no reason today why we Social Democrats would not stand behind them. But it is not enough. The quarantine deduction is unjust, and it must be changed.
What does Minister Anna Tenje want with the care deduction? Will the government present the working group's proposal, and why did the government choose not to include them in the budget bill for 2025?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I am pleased to hear that the member has no objection to the working group's proposal and does not doubt its results either. During the debate and previously, and also in the interpellation, I have reacted to the fact that the member has thought it was both unfortunate and unwise that the question was referred to a working group of experts at the ministry. I have, however, not perceived any direct criticism of either the knowledge, competence, or objectivity that the working group's final product contains. Both experts and parties as well as members of the Swedish Riksdag have been given the opportunity to provide input and comment during the working group's work. I am therefore pleased to hear that there are no doubts there.
Among other things, the parties themselves agreed that it was not appropriate to introduce a differentiated sickness benefit deduction based on occupation, partly because there is no simple or comprehensive way to define which occupational groups employees should be covered by. If there is a need to make exceptions from the sickness benefit deduction for employees within specific occupations or industries, the parties in the labor market have the opportunity to negotiate such exceptions through collective agreements. There are several examples of this, and several referral bodies have pointed out giving specific occupational groups and employees sick pay from the first day of illness. There are therefore good opportunities for the affected and relevant industries to conduct this type of discussion in the contract negotiations.
I am somewhat surprised that the Social Democrats, who have expressed a certain concern over the new direction, now want to address this in the chamber and do not want the Swedish model and the consensus between the labor market parties to apply.
I perceive that the Social Democrats have backed away from the proposal and are no longer interested in differentiation of the care deduction, but instead wholeheartedly stand behind the working group's proposal. That would, in that case, be pleasing. Let us leave it to the parties in the labor market to settle these issues and reach an agreement when it comes to collective agreements.
I interpret the member's facial expression, however, as that it was not at all what she said, but that the Social Democrats actually no longer trust that the labor market parties can take care of these issues according to the Swedish model.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! It would be interesting if one means that the parties in the labor market should solve all problems in society so that we do not need legislation. That was a significant misinterpretation by the Minister.
Since January 2023, when Minister Anna Tenje announced that the government is laying down the investigation into the injustices in the sick pay deduction that we Social Democrats appointed, we have been against it and criticized it – just as Anna Tenje says. It was a parliamentary investigation with a mandate to produce proposals that remove the injustices in the sick pay deduction. That is what we fight for and appointed. The Minister wanted something else, namely a small letter-based investigation at the Government Offices. The investigation has come with proposals. We have no problems with the proposals, but they do not solve the problems, which we have been clear about all the way. We stand behind them, but they do not solve the problems.
It is great that through collective bargaining, solutions are found that are good for different industries and professional groups; we have nothing against that at all. The Swedish model and parties making agreements in their respective areas is excellent. But those who have poor working conditions, low wages, and a low degree of unionization, such as retail employees and employees within hotels and restaurants, never have enough strength to both raise their wages, remove the quarantine deduction, and obtain decent working conditions. They are forced to choose. Therefore, we must use the legislative path to ensure that the injustice of the quarantine deduction is removed.
It is our damned duty as elected politicians in Sweden's Riksdag to ensure that we create social insurances that are fair and that help the weakest in society and people with low wages. We cannot say that they have to blame themselves if they negotiate poorly. It is moderate politics; it is not social democratic politics.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have campaigned on abolishing the unfair sick pay deduction, and we intend to try to do so with all available means at our disposal. We prioritize nursing assistants, preschool teachers, bus drivers, warehouse workers and all others who must go to work and who cannot stay at home when they have a cold, which the Minister of State and I often can and continue to work.
Our message is clear: There must be a justice in the health insurance. I think it is a strange view of humanity that the Minister expresses.
We Social Democrats have never advocated for a differentiation of the care deduction. Here, the parties in the labor market have been very clear: It is not possible to implement. It is good that the working group does not propose it; there we are in complete agreement.
We have nothing against the working group's proposal, but it is not enough. Once again, I want to ask the Minister: Does she mean that bus drivers, nursing assistants, and childcare workers who do not have collective agreements where the sick pay deduction has been negotiated out should fend for themselves and continue to go to work even if they are sick because they cannot afford to stay home?
Seven out of ten retail workers report that during the past year they have gone to work at least once while being sick because they cannot afford to stay home when they are ill. This applies to almost half of the LO members. Why can the Moderates and Anna Tenje not realize how unfair this is and do something about the sick pay deduction?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! It was a somewhat confused contribution, but I believe I can still interpret that the member, despite everything, has confidence in unions and employers. I also believe we can agree that the Swedish model has served Sweden well and that many of us would like to see it continue to do so.
Regarding the issue of the period of absence from work (karens), I can respect that the member does not like the working group's assessment that today's period of absence deduction represents a more just and insurance-related deductible than the previous period of absence and that it counteracts over-exploitation. But the working group also emphasizes that the period of absence deduction can be burdensome for individuals with recurring sick leave and individuals with small economic margins.
As has been said, one is very clear that today's care deduction counteracts overutilization. That it is good, I believe most can agree on. Therefore, proposals are now also being submitted in the direction of trying to address precisely overutilization. This, it is proposed, is primarily solved through two proposals which involve an increased protection against loss of income as a result of care deductions for groups with recurring sick leave. These proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices.
If it had really been as the member says and writes in their interpellation – that the deduction for basic needs is unfair, that the risk of over-exploitation is negligible and that the unions and employers are, despite everything, not equipped to handle the issue themselves – why has this not been proposed in their budget motion, which was presented a few weeks ago? Why have the Social Democrats not included it in the budget if this is such an incredibly important issue for them?
According to the working group's calculations, the combined effect of an abolished quarantine deduction is an increase in employers' sick pay costs of up to 24.1 billion. Vänsterpartiet, who are well known for spending other people's money, is the only party proposing an abolished quarantine deduction, but not even they manage to cover what it costs, having only included one-fifth of this in their budget.
It is often said that it is not what one says that matters, but what one does that counts. We can observe that the Social Democrats are not prepared to back up their big words in the speaker's chair today with a single krona in the budget motion they submitted a few weeks ago. I think that is a very important piece of consumer information to the audience and listeners.
The government does not engage in that kind of rather shameless populism. We do what we say.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister is talking about shameless populism. At the same time, she reads the working group's texts as if she were reading the Bible. The care deduction that the SMP government managed to get support for during the pandemic is better, or less bad, than the care day that was before. It was a step in the right direction, and that is why we implemented it. But that doesn't mean that it is good.
That is why I keep harping on about this issue. I believe this is the fifth debate in two years that Anna Tenje and I have had regarding the care deduction and how unfair it is.
We have included the unfair quarantine deduction in our budget motion and our committee motion because we want to remove it. It is true that we have not allocated funds for it. In order to make such a far-reaching change, it must, however, be investigated how it should be done. We commissioned such an investigation when we were in government, but Anna Tenje has scrapped it. There is therefore no proper investigation on how it would be done to remove the quarantine deduction.
When we are in government again, we will investigate this, and we will remove it. That is the message from the Socialdemokraterna. But all those LO workers who continue to go to work when they are sick and furthermore risk infecting colleagues, the users they are there for or the passengers on the bus because they cannot afford to stay home, receive no messages from the Moderaterna and the government. The State Councilor seems fully satisfied with the unfair quarantine deduction we have today.
So once again: What does the government intend to do about the injustice in the quarantine deduction?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I think once again that this was a very important piece of consumer information to the audience and especially those affiliated with LO. It is, just as I said earlier, about what one does rather than what one says. One can listen to the fine words from Åsa Eriksson, but one can also observe that there is not a single krona in the Social Democrats' budget that even moves anywhere near the proposals that the working group has presented.
All credit to Vänsterpartiet, because they actually have this in their budget. They do not have the whole thing, and they only finance one-fifth of it. But they still do what they say.
I can state that this is an interesting debate and a good discussion. We will certainly return to it several times in the future.
These questions are now being addressed in the Government Offices. I will surely have reason to return to them further ahead. However, an important and clear signal was given to the voters tonight: the Social Democrats do not have a single krona in their budget for something that they obviously consider to be very important. That speaks very clearly.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.