Response to interpellation 2025/26:146 on a safe working environment in the recycling industry
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a safe working environment in the recycling industry. L argues that the employer has the primary responsibility for the working environment 1 and that the government has already taken measures by providing Arbetsmiljöverket with more resources for risk-based supervision 1 2 3. L emphasizes that safety representatives are crucial 1 4 and that the government is working to ensure that Arbetsmiljöverket has the right tools 3. S argues that the government exhibits passivity and lacks concrete initiatives for structural problems 5 6 7. S argues that the government must take responsibility for governance and follow-up 5 8. S wants national follow-up of chemical exposure 9, stronger preventive work 9, and that the quarantine deduction be abolished 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.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Arber Gashi has asked me if I intend to take new initiatives to ensure that the recycling industry offers a safe and secure working environment for its employees.
I would like to begin by thanking the member for the question.
No one shall die or be injured as a result of their work. It is the employer who has the primary responsibility for the work environment according to the Work Environment Act (1977:1160) and the Swedish Work Environment Authority's regulations. In connection with a 2024 report on a government assignment (A2023/01237), both the Swedish Work Environment Authority and the labor market parties emphasized that measures to get more people to engage as safety representatives are best handled by the parties themselves and out in the workplaces.
Arbetsmiljöverket has received a mandate from the government in a regulatory letter to carry out development work for a more accurate and risk-based supervision. In order to achieve a stricter and more effective supervision against fatal accidents and other serious work environment risks, Arbetsmiljöverket's administrative grant was increased by 50 million kronor for 2025. It is proposed that the grant be increased by 75 million kronor for 2026 and 100 million kronor from 2027 onwards. We have thus also clarified that question – what the trajectory for the grant looks like.
I can also mention that the government is working on a new work environment strategy that meets the challenges of the future labor market. The government intends to return to the Riksdag with a communication on this.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
This interpellation debate is about something very fundamental: the right to go to work and come home without being sicker, without having sustained injuries, and without having been exposed to substances that can have lifelong consequences.
It is about the recycling industry, an industry that is absolutely crucial for our society to function and for us to be able to manage the climate transition. It is people who every day handle materials that others have thrown away: metal, electronics, and residues from production and operations. But precisely there, at the intersection between waste, chemicals, and dust, major occupational health and safety risks arise.
In Halmstad, this has become very concrete. P4 Halland's investigation and SVT's reporting show that employees at a large waste and recycling company testify to years of heavy dust with dangerous substances. One of the employees describes that every morning he coughs until he vomits. It is a reality that settles in the body and in life.
In the conducted review, several employees recount that they have for a long time worked in dust full of heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic, without having been properly informed about the risks. One of them says: You only see a curtain of dust. It is an expression that the dust is so widespread that it is not even possible to see the other workers.
Experts are now warning that the levels have been grotesque. The figures are far above what is acceptable according to occupational health and safety standards. Several inspections by Arbetsmiljöverket have shown that there are serious deficiencies. Dust has spread to common areas. Staff have not received relevant protective equipment. Occupational health care and blood tests have not been followed up to the extent required.
The European Environment Agency, European Environment Agency, states that Sweden stands out in this regard and reports significantly elevated levels of heavy metals in the blood, plasma, and urine of workers who work with recycling of electronic waste.
This is, therefore, a problem at the system level, Mr. Speaker. This is serious. When we talk about dust with heavy metals, such as lead, we are talking about substances that can affect health profoundly – in the airways, in the nervous system, and in the kidneys. Long-term exposure can cause severe and sometimes permanent damage. When the Work Environment Authority simultaneously notes deficiencies, such as that medical checks and blood tests are not followed up, the picture becomes even clearer: the protection systems are not functioning as they should.
Here we must be able to say two things at the same time.
Yes, the employer has primary responsibility. It is stated in the Work Environment Act, and no one should dodge it.
When the state of research and reporting indicates that dangerous substances and exposure risks are something that exists at several recycling facilities, the government cannot respond by pointing in another direction. It is about risks and problems at a systemic level. In that case, the government must step forward and show leadership.
My question to the Minister is very simple, but it requires a clear answer. What actual measures does the government intend to take in light of the situation that has now been documented? Does the government intend to follow up more closely on the working environment in the recycling industry, and if so, in what way, with what focus, and within what timeframe? The employees in Halmstad deserve to know that.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for Employment.
I actually had not intended to sign up for this debate, but after the minister's answer, I simply feel motivated. This is particularly relevant in light of the events that have occurred in Halmstad which P4 Halland has reported on and which have also prompted the interpellation.
It is true that it is the employer who has the primary responsibility for the working environment. My question is how the government lives up to its responsibility, Mr. Speaker. The statement from the Minister for Employment here seems to be that he is not ready to take any further measures. That is an answer in itself.
Furthermore, it is very clear that this highlights the passivity that has characterized the government's labor market policy during this parliamentary term. It will have very serious consequences for the individual and for society as a whole.
Mr. Speaker! It is still my hope that the Minister, during the debate, can return with clearer information on what is intended to be done to ensure a safer working environment within the recycling industry specifically. It is about ensuring that what happened in Halmstad does not happen again. Just as Member Arber Gashi explained, this is a structural workplace environment problem. I hope that the Minister takes this most seriously.
Mr. Speaker! I will be brief and summarize the core of my question. What does the Minister for Employment intend to do so that what happened in Halmstad does not happen again?
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that all of us who have seen SVT Halland's reporting are deeply moved by the picture being presented. We agree that no one should be harmed or lose their life at work.
I have also expressed in this context that in this case, based on what can be assessed from what has emerged in the media, the workplace has been dangerous for the employees. Arbetsmiljöverket is responsible for the supervision here.
I want to point out some of the measures that the government is implementing. I mentioned safety representatives in my opening remarks. Safety representatives are crucial for a safe working environment. Since the government is taking action against work-related accidents, we therefore tasked Arbetsmiljöverket in September 2023 with developing proposals that will make more employees want to engage as safety representatives. It is an important measure to address a poor working environment.
In April 2024, the Swedish Work Environment Authority submitted its report. In dialogue with the parties in the labor market, support, time, and knowledge were highlighted as particularly important for strengthening the conditions for safety representatives. I also want to emphasize that both the parties' and the authorities' view is that these issues are best handled directly at the workplaces as well as by the parties.
The government has sent an important signal that we need more safety representatives who can point out when things do not seem to be right.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It is precisely in the answer that the problem becomes clear.
The Minister says a lot about how the responsibility is distributed on paper, but far too little about how the government intends to ensure that it actually works in reality. The Minister returns to the point that the employer has the primary responsibility and what task the Arbetsmiljöverket has. That is correct, and no one should get away with it.
Mr. Speaker! We have an industry where risks do not appear to be limited to a single company, but where both reporting and the state of knowledge indicate that dangerous substances are present widely. In that case, it is not enough for the government to be content with referring the matter further. In that case, the government must take responsibility for governance, prioritization, and follow-up.
The Minister also highlights that Arbetsmiljöverket has been tasked with conducting more risk-based supervision and has received more resources. That is good, but what I requested was what it means in practice for the recycling industry and when. What does the prioritization look like? What is being followed up? How are we to know that it won't just become a departmental paper while workers continue to stand in dusty environments day in and day out?
Mr. Speaker! The Minister also said a few words about safety representatives and the parties. One does not need to convince a Social Democrat of the importance of the parties out in our labor market. But the government cannot use that as a reason to step aside.
It becomes particularly strange when we have a liberal party joining forces with the Sweden Democrats within the framework of the Tidö agreement. It is a party that has actively worked to abolish regional safety representatives and so on. The safety representatives' position in the debate therefore becomes even stranger.
Safety representatives are one of the employees' most important lines of defense. But when the risks are chemical, long-term, and difficult to feel in the moment, the safety representative's position and opportunities to act also become completely decisive. If the system fails, the government must be prepared to strengthen the conditions and not just refer to the fact that others must solve it.
In the recycling industry, you cannot work from home. I want to raise another perspective here that is forgotten when we talk about the work environment. It concerns the quarantine deduction. As was said, you cannot take your work home if you work within the recycling industry.
The sick pay deduction causes people to lose money directly. It creates a pressure on people to go to work anyway despite illness and symptoms and even though the body is already affected. In an environment with heavy tasks, machines, dust, and chemical risks, it is dangerous. It is dangerous for the individual, and it is dangerous for coworkers. We Social Democrats believe that no one should be forced to choose between health and wages. Therefore, we push that the sick pay deduction should be removed for everyone regardless of industry.
Mr. Speaker! I have a clear question for the Minister in direct connection to what he said about the distribution of responsibility and supervision. Is the Minister prepared to work towards the abolition of the sick pay deduction so that occupational health and safety policy is not undermined by an economic system that pressures people to work while ill, especially in industries where one cannot work remotely? If not, what concrete measures does the government intend to take to ensure that people do not go to risky workplaces while ill due to economic distress?
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Employment, for the debate! This is my final speech in it. It is also the third Minister for Employment that I am debating against during the parliamentary term.
Now that the parliamentary term is nearing its end, I can only state, Mr. Speaker, that the government has pursued a labor market policy that strikes directly against workers in Halmstad, in Halland, and in the rest of the country. They face record-high unemployment, worsened welfare, and a reluctance and inability to abolish the unjust quarantine deduction, to name a few examples. The result of the government's policy during the parliamentary term is beginning to become very clear.
To return to the question of the working environment within the recycling industry, I would like to once again emphasize that there is a lack of concrete initiatives, decisions, and proposals from this government. I would like to urge the Minister to use the time remaining of the mandate period to change that and deliver decisions that are actually noticeable in workplaces across the country, not just refer to strategies or documents that are to be prepared at some point in the future.
Mr. Speaker! The Government has a responsibility to act to the highest degree, and I hope that the Minister for Employment also does. So do workers all around Halmstad, Halland, and the rest of Sweden. Thank you very much for the debate!
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! I still want to assert that the government is doing much of what is being requested here. It is not the government that is the correct body to assess exactly in which industries the greatest risk exists, but it is the Work Environment Authority. Therefore, it is important that the Work Environment Authority has good conditions to fulfill its mission. It is about giving the authority the tools and the support that are required to create a safe working environment for everyone.
It was not in a "departmental paper" but in the regulatory letter for 2025 that Arbetsmiljöverket was tasked to develop a more accurate and risk-based supervision, as well as to ensure uniformity and legal certainty in the application of sanction fees. It is precisely this type of accuracy – more accurate and risk-based supervision – that shall be used to identify and monitor companies belonging to an industry, perhaps the waste industry, where the risks to the working environment are extra large.
On 31 August 2025, the authority submitted an interim report on the assignment. It is to submit the final report no later than 31 December 2025. It is clear that we will have reason to return to how the authority can ensure in a more accurate way that supervision takes place where it does the most good.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers so far in the debate. But I must say that I do not think they are sufficient. It is not sufficient to return later, when people are already testifying of coughing, vomiting, and concern for long-term damage. It is not sufficient to speak of development work without simultaneously being able to point out what is happening here and now in the industries where the risks are highest. It is obvious that the Minister is not willing to take a single extra measure or lift a single finger in light of the reporting in the media about the situation in Halmstad.
This is a trend that we see with the Minister for Employment but which I do not understand: Both the work environment and unemployment are best just solved by themselves. Let me instead give the minister a little help along the way! I want to conclude with three clear demands on political direction and not just principles.
Firstly, it is necessary to ensure that we have a clear national follow-up of the recycling industry's occupational environment risks with a focus on chemical exposure to dust and heavy metals and with clear reporting back. This is a measure that the Minister can choose to take.
Secondly, stronger preventive work and pressure in supervision are needed, not just reactions after revelations but a clear focus on detecting risks before people become ill.
For the third, the quarantine deduction must be abolished for everyone, so that no worker is pressured to work while sick and thereby risk both their own health and safety in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker! The recycling industry is important for Sweden. But its activities must never be conducted at the expense of people's health. This debate should lead to a bit more than just waiting. It should lead to measures that are noticeable on the floor where people work.
I thank the Minister for the answers I have received so far and will curiously follow the question further.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! I want to object to the description that this would be about us drawing up principles and not implementing real measures. The mandate for Arbetsmiljöverket to become more accurate and work more risk-based is aimed precisely at being able to identify activities such as the one reported in the media in order to exercise supervision there. It is about working effectively. We have also allocated funds to Arbetsmiljöverket, that is, provided more money, precisely for the purpose that they should have a sharper and more effective supervision.
I think this debate is very important. No one should have to be harmed or die at their workplace. Employers' responsibility for the work environment needs to be constantly highlighted. I believe fundamentally that we have exactly the same ambitions in this matter. The work environment is very important. We must constantly remind employers of their responsibility, have this discussion, and ensure that Arbetsmiljöverket has the resources and tools required to do its job. I think this government also does that.
With that, I would like to thank you so very much for this important debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.