Response to interpellation 2025/26:567 on the government's plans for the occupational injury insurance

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Mr. Speaker! Jessica Rodén has asked me what changes to the occupational injury insurance I believe need to be implemented to strengthen the security for persons affected by occupational injuries, what proposals I intend to work to implement during the next parliamentary period, and how I believe the occupational injury insurance needs to be developed to better capture occupational injuries in female-dominated occupations and other occupations with high physical or mental strain.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the occupational injury insurance is purposeful, legally secure, and understandable for the individual.

In a recently published analysis from Försäkringskassan, it appears that of those who today apply for lifelong benefits, just over 30 percent receive a positive decision, compared to barely 17 percent in 2016, as well as that it has become significantly more common for lifelong benefits to be granted for psychiatric diagnoses despite that the inflow of applicants with that background has not increased. According to Försäkringskassan, this is due to the fact that the authority has gained better access to knowledge bases, primarily through the knowledge overviews that the State Board for Medical and Social Evaluation, SBU, has produced.

The final report of the Occupational Injury Inquiry, SOU 2023:53, was submitted in September 2023 and contains a number of proposals that we have debated previously, and they primarily aim to lower the thresholds for life annuity, increase predictability in the assessment, and clarify the requirements for evidence. During the referral process, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, ISF, rejected several of the inquiry's proposals and called for necessary analyses. According to ISF, a description of what role the occupational injury insurance should play in today's labor market is missing, and whether, or how, it should relate to the sickness insurance, which since 2008 has functioned as a transitional insurance. ISF's upcoming response to the government's assignment (S2024/02157), to analyze the connection between the granting of life annuity and the functioning of the labor market as well as the relationship between the sickness insurance and the occupational injury insurance over time, I believe will contribute important analyses that are missing in the Occupational Injury Inquiry's report.

I can state that Försäkringskassan's analysis indicates that knowledge perspectives on the importance of the work environment for the occurrence of work-related injuries are highly relevant to the proportion of life annuity grants. SBU has been commissioned to carry out a mapping of the work environment's importance for mental ill-health, with the aim of strengthening legal certainty in work-related injury cases (S2025/01683). In a partial report from May this year, SBU notes, among other things, that there is a connection between a work environment where individuals have small opportunities to influence their work in combination with high demands and the development of symptoms of depression. In the ongoing work, SBU will analyze factors in the organizational and social work environment in relation to mental ill-health. SBU has also been commissioned to map the work environment's importance for the occurrence of cancer diseases in firefighters (S2025/02147). The knowledge generated through these assignments will strengthen the basis when examining the right to a life annuity. Furthermore, Arbetsmiljöverket and Folkhälsomyndigheten have been commissioned to analyze the relevance of infectious diseases in relation to the work-related injury insurance and the state personal injury protection.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Rodén (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the opportunity to debate the occupational injury insurance one last time in the chamber during this parliamentary term.

The occupational injury insurance shall be the safety net for those who become ill or injured by their work. Those who go to work, work and contribute should be able to rely on that society is there if the body or health does not hold up all the way. But the occupational injury insurance does not function sufficiently well today. That was also why the Occupational Injury Inquiry was commissioned by the Social Democratic government.

The investigation was completed in September 2023 and submitted concrete proposals for better economic security and a more legally secure work injury insurance. Since then, almost an entire parliamentary term has passed.

Before this debate, I asked what Anna Tenje wants to do in the future. What changes does the minister consider necessary for the insurance to be precisely purposeful, legally secure, and understandable for the individual, as the minister indicated in her answer? What does the minister want to implement during the next parliamentary term, if she is granted a renewed mandate? How will the insurance become better at capturing the work-related injuries that, among others, affect women in the welfare sector? Does the minister want to keep the exemptions or remove them?

I have read the government's response several times. I am told what Försäkringskassan has analyzed, what ISF is to analyze, and what assignments SBU and other agencies have received. But I am not told what the responsible minister Anna Tenje wants or thinks. And I find that to be remarkable.

Politics cannot just be about ordering the next analysis. A government and a minister must want something. One must be able to say: "This is not working. This is what we want to change. This is where we want to get to." Or simply say: "We think the insurance works well."

The investigation has, therefore, existed since 2023. The government has had several years to act, and now the minister refers to further analyses that are to be presented only after the election.

But people who have worn out their bodies at work cannot live on analyses. They need an insurance that works. I therefore want, Mr. Speaker, to give the minister a new opportunity to answer my question. If Anna Tenje is allowed to continue as Minister for Social Insurance after the election, what does she want to change in the occupational injury insurance? What should be better in four years' time than it is today?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Member, for the opportunity to tell and debate the issue further.

I may not have been clear enough in my first answer, but all these assignments and all the ongoing analyses stem from a desire to collectively make the occupational injury insurance more purposeful. We have seen deficiencies in it, and I believe we have been in complete agreement on that in the chamber. Society has changed, but the assessment tools have not been as prone to change.

I must still say that I view it positively that Försäkringskassan has now received a better knowledge base so that the possibility of making better assessments actually exists. It has also led to the proportion of granted life annuities almost doubling since 2016. This is not rocket science, but it still indicates that a better knowledge base leads to wiser and better decisions. It makes a big difference.

The final report of the Occupational Injury Inquiry was not deficient, but a great deal of analysis was missing. I would have liked to see that all the pieces were in place from the beginning.

During this time, ISF has received a mandate, and that work has proceeded. There, they are further looking at the gaps that existed in the investigation so that the occupational injury insurance becomes purposeful where large parts are not missing, which they were in the investigation's proposal.

I believe there is a great consensus in the chamber that it is important for the occupational injury insurance to be purposeful, legally secure and understandable, not least for the individual. That has been a large part of the problem.

The work has definitely not stood still. The approval rate is a clear sign of this, at least. Other parts have also been ongoing in parallel with this. Among other things, Arbetsmiljöverket has been tasked to analyze how sanction fees can contribute to employers taking measures and preventing work-related injuries, as well as differences between female- and male-dominated industries. It is yet another example where we have moved the positions forward.

SBU has also been tasked with carrying out a mapping of the importance of the work environment for mental health in order to strengthen legal certainty in occupational injury cases, given that the mental causes increased significantly. It was seen that they could not handle them to the same extent. There is also a difference between women and men in those issues.

An additional assignment has also been given to SBU for a mapping of the connection between firefighters' working environment and the occurrence of cancer.

The Public Health Agency and the Swedish Work Environment Authority have been tasked to jointly produce an analysis of the relevance of infectious diseases in relation to the occupational injury insurance and state personal injury protection. They are also important parts for making the whole thing hold together. I want to assert that all the measures collectively, not least that Forte, within the framework of its research grant, has received 25 million for the years 2025 and 2028 to finance the formation of centers for return to work, have resulted in us working extensively on these issues. But as mentioned, there are certain gaps and question marks that we do not have time to address now, which will have to be handled after election day. But the plan moving forward is that when we have the answers, we shall take measures to further improve the occupational injury insurance. It shall become more legally secure and, above all, easy to understand.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Rodén (S)

Mr. Speaker! Many times government representatives answer that investigations and reports are being prepared in the Government Offices. But what does that actually mean? I do not know. I have not been a Member of Parliament when my party has been in government. People at home perhaps also do not quite understand what it means.

Does that mean that one selects certain parts that one thinks are good and leaves other parts? What are those parts in that case? Which parts of the investigation does one think are good? Can the minister not give us an answer on that?

Will the exemptions disappear when the analyses give the minister the answers she wants? Will work continue to strengthen the working environment for all women and men in the welfare sector? Which parts of the Occupational Injury Inquiry are being prepared and which are not being prepared?

What do the minister and the government want moving forward? Analysis must also lead to action. One can order analyses, and one can read analyses. But what do the government and the minister want to get out of their analyses? What is wanted moving forward?

Behind every work-related injury is a human being. It could be the nursing assistant who has lifted heavy loads year after year and can no longer manage the job. It could be the industrial worker. And it could be someone who has been under very high pressure. The work-related injury insurance is meant to exist for them. It exists so that the person whose health is damaged by the job does not have to bear that burden alone. It is solidarity.

I believe that my question requires an answer. What does the government want to do with the occupational injury insurance if it is granted renewed confidence?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Mr. Speaker! What does it mean that the government is preparing a matter? It is a rather interesting question, actually. I would say that it can mean many different things. It can probably mean that one prepares just parts, a whole, or for that matter, that one lets it lie. It can probably mean many things.

I have, however, not said even once in my speeches that the government is preparing the matter at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I could perhaps have said that, because that is exactly what we are doing. Certain parts of the occupational injury insurance concern the parts that SBU has been tasked to proceed with and look at and analyze further. And ISF has been tasked to further analyze and close the gaps that are missing in the occupational injury insurance. Also, the Public Health Agency, the Swedish Work Environment Authority, and some other agency that I have surely forgotten now have been given tasks. These are direct assignments that come from the Occupational Injury Inquiry and which have had a direct effect. These are proposals that have been discussed and which are in the inquiry that we have proceeded with.

Not all proposals from an investigation require a legislative change or that it becomes a major government bill. There are good proposals in many investigations that can have a direct effect. One such matter was, in particular, that the knowledge base within Försäkringskassan regarding psychiatric diagnoses, but also work-related injury cases overall, was far too weak in many respects. This led to far too few approvals. Now we see an effect of Försäkringskassan taking that criticism to heart, one could still say. They have significantly upgraded and produced a knowledge base, and now we see a doubling of the number of approvals, even though the inflow actually has not been greater.

I think it is a direct effect of an action that makes it so that one does not need to drag things out in a long bank or for that matter through the Riksdag. One can steer authorities through regulatory letters and direct assignments that immediately have an actual effect for the human being who, as the member says, is behind every work-related injury, who needs help and support, and for whom this insurance actually exists.

I would, however, still like to say that the Occupational Injury Inquiry has had a great effect. It has led to a direct effect in the authorities' actions. It has led to new assignments for continued analysis, precisely in order to achieve what we want: that the occupational injury insurance should be legally secure but also easy to understand.

We are still waiting for answers to some questions. When they finally reach us, I am completely convinced that it can result in new ways of working and – quite regardless of whether one chooses to remove or change certain things – to some extent in legislative changes. Then a debate will be held here in the chamber.

The work has not stood still. It is definitely not a matter of lack of interest, but rather the exact opposite. But it is complicated and difficult, and it is not being done in an easy way. It needs to hold up over time. We are in complete agreement that there have been shortcomings. In that case, it is good if it becomes really good when we now make the changes.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Rodén (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must clarify that the Minister has not said in this debate that it is being prepared, but the Minister has said it in previous debates we have had on the same issue.

This debate is actually about a simple question: What does the current government want to do with the occupational injury insurance? What is the current government's and the responsible minister's message to all workers in the country?

The investigation, as mentioned, has been complete since 2023. It has almost been four years. I still lack a clear statement on what changes Anna Tenje wants to implement. The Minister is very good at answering without giving any statements. I must give the Minister credit for that.

For us Social Democrats, the starting point is clear. Those who work and contribute should be able to rely on the fact that security is there when it is needed. No one should have to have their body or health destroyed first by work and then also have their finances ruined. We want to strengthen the occupational injury insurance. We want more people who have been injured at work or become ill from their work to receive the economic security that the insurance is intended for. And we want an insurance that better takes into account women's working lives and women's occupational injuries. We also want to remove the exemptions.

It should not matter if the body has been worn out on the construction site, in the industry, in an LSS residence, or after 30 years in elderly care. If the job has made you sick or injured, the security must be there.

I thank you for the debate.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Mr. Speaker! I also, of course, want to thank Jessica Rodén for the debate. We have had this debate several times. It is important and good that member after member raises these important issues. Since just this, thank God, affects relatively few people, it is perhaps not many in our society who discuss it, but those who are affected are affected very hard. Then it is important that there are fighters for these issues.

I largely share much of what the member says in their concluding remarks. It is important that we have a work injury insurance that is easy to understand and legally secure, and that is there for those who truly need it.

I also share the view that it has been important to highlight the insurance in terms of, not least, women's work-related injuries. It has been deficient and also biased when it comes to those parts.

We have worked on a broad front to reduce the number of work-related injuries and sick leaves, but also to ensure that the sickness insurance and the work injury insurance are there and are legally secure and strong when they are needed. It is important that we have the whole picture, everything from prevention and avoidance to ensuring that the insurance is there and is strong when the accident has occurred.

That SBU has now been tasked to carry out a mapping of the significance of the work environment for mental ill-health in order to strengthen legal certainty in occupational injury cases is important, given that we see that it has nevertheless increased. Another assignment to SBU concerns the mapping of the connection between firefighters' work environment and the occurrence of cancer, which has been pressing.

Försäkringskassan and Arbetsmiljöverket have also been tasked with developing their cooperation and supervision of the employer's work environment and rehabilitation responsibility. It is also very.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I would like to say a big thank you to the member for this debate.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)