Response to interpellations 2023/24:579 and 594 on the grace period rule for self-employed individuals
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M wants to promote rules that facilitate for more people to start companies 1 2 and believes that the entrepreneur themselves should make the assessment of their waiting period 3. M wants entrepreneurs to have good social insurances 3 2 and emphasizes that the basic insurance should be secure and safe 4. M argues that the issues sometimes fall into the shadows due to a lack of knowledge among those who start companies 4. S believes that the current rules are old and that self-employed individuals have a poorer protection than others 5. S wants to change the non-selection option to 1 day for an equivalent insurance protection 5 6 and believes that the 55-year rule is age-discriminatory 5. S believes that policy is needed in the area of security for entrepreneurs 7.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Mathias Tegnér has asked me what I intend to do to improve the grace period rules for self-employed individuals. Mathias Tegnér has also asked me what I intend to do to address the age limit for switching to a shorter grace period for self-employed individuals.
According to the current regulations, sole traders and others who have income from other gainful employment than employment and who pay self-employed contributions have a basic waiting period of 7 days in the sickness insurance. They can choose a waiting period of 1, 14, 30, 60 or 90 days. The choice of waiting period affects the size of the sickness insurance contribution. Those who have reached the age of 55 cannot switch to a shorter waiting period.
The then government decided on 25 June 2020 that a special investigator should submit proposals on how entrepreneurs' security systems can become clearer, simpler and more predictable (dir. 2020:71). As Mathias Tegnér mentions in his interpellation, he was appointed as special investigator. In the partial report 55 years and notice period (SOU 2020:65), the investigation proposed that the age limit of 55 years as the upper limit for the possibility to choose a shorter notice period should be removed. In its final report, the investigation also proposed that the basic notice period for self-employed persons should be 1 day (SOU 2021:98).
The government has not taken any legislative measures regarding the proposals that Mathias Tegnér mentions. But with that said, I want to emphasize that the government wants to contribute to more people choosing to start and develop companies and realize their ideas. Rules that facilitate this should be promoted as far as possible. Companies and entrepreneurs should be able to focus on their core activities to the greatest extent possible. This is a starting point that the government has in its continued work regarding social insurance.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister! I have written two questions to the Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance: What does the Minister intend to do to improve the rules for period of absence for self-employed individuals, and what does the Minister intend to do to rectify the 55-year rule?
I will try to explain this in 30 seconds. It is about self-employed people who have rules that are old and all too general, which means that the self-employed have a worse protection than others on the labor market during illness. That is bad, because these entrepreneurs have a worse protection. It is bad for society, because there is a risk that fewer companies are created. And it is actually a bit embarrassing for Sweden that we have rules that are possibly age-discriminatory. It is bad, bad, bad.
Unfortunately, it seems that the minister does not want to do anything about this, and I regret that.
I can elaborate on the text a bit more for those who are not familiar with the background. The background is, in short, the following:
Sole traders who operate a sole proprietorship pay, just as the minister said, self-employed contributions instead of employer contributions. These contributions finance, among other things, their health insurance. Just as the minister said, one can choose the number of days, that is, 1, 7, 14, 30, 60 or 90 days. Depending on the choice, the self-employed contribution is adjusted.
Just as the Minister said, I was given the opportunity to investigate this issue. On the one hand, one might perhaps think that I am in some way biased. On the other hand, I want to say that I am not a sole trader. But I am passionate about us having a good security system for our entrepreneurs in Sweden, because they are extremely important for both growth and welfare.
Basically, I believe it is good that entrepreneurs or sole traders have the possibility to choose their own period of notice. Unfortunately, most are not aware of that possibility. One starts a company because one is driven by an idea – one burns to realize something. This means that the vast majority actually do not know that they have a 7-day notice period, the non-selection option.
In my investigation, I advocate that the non-selection option should be changed to 1 day. But it is actually not just me who advocates it. Those who were experts linked to the investigation, that is to say all business organizations, also advocated a change of the non-selection option.
As I just said, there are very many who, despite information efforts, do not know that they have a 7-day waiting period. I therefore think there are good reasons to change this to 1 day as a basis. It is a fairly simple adjustment. Therefore, I wonder why the government is resting on its laurels.
The second question concerns the 55-year rule. It means that self-employed individuals can no longer choose a grace period once they have reached the age of 55. This is problematic from several perspectives. Above all, it is problematic from the fact that the old structures that made the age of 55 a turning point no longer exist, and this then indicates that the rule is currently, in fact, pure and simple age discrimination. There are no other reasons to set this limit at exactly 55 years. The question then becomes: Why should 56-year-old self-employed individuals not have the freedom to choose a grace period?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I must say that I find it pleasing to feel this genuine commitment to the conditions of entrepreneurs, not least from a Social Democrat. This has obviously permeated the member's commitment both as the responsible investigator and as an interpellant in this matter.
The basic waiting period of 7 days and the possibility to choose a waiting period of 14, 30, 60, or 90 days was introduced in 2010. The motives then were that the self-employed person should be given a greater opportunity to choose the level of their insurance coverage and in that way be able to lower the sickness insurance fee. It was a major discussion at the time.
Until then, the basic waiting period was 1 day for self-employed persons, and they could also choose 3 or 30. The possibility to choose a waiting period of 1 day was introduced in 2013. The self-employed person can therefore already today choose a 1-day waiting period in exchange for a higher sickness insurance contribution. That possibility exists.
This creates a flexibility for the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur can, of course depending slightly on what type of company one has, choose the waiting period themselves. It is then also a matter of what deductible one is willing to have. The flexibility in the waiting period rules for entrepreneurs is also judged to be very important.
It is true as the member says that self-employed individuals make an active choice of the waiting period. I believe, just as the member describes in their post, that it is not always known that the possibility exists. I believe there are many things that could be done by different authorities but also from the industry organizations to be able to inform about that part. But the ultimate responsibility for having a correctly adjusted waiting period lies, of course, with the entrepreneur themselves, and it is both good and reasonable that one is allowed to make that assessment oneself.
Regarding the age limit for the change of the period of residence, which the interpellor is touching upon, I completely share the view that everyone who can and is able should work longer into their later years.
That the number of jobbonärer, that is, retirees who continue to work either as self-employed or as employees, is increasing is very good and positive, of course for one's own wallet and pension but above all also for the taxpayers, the municipalities, the regions and the state. This I welcome and encourage wholeheartedly.
There is quite a lot in the reasoning surrounding the proposal on the 55-year rule. It should actually be completely logical to view that matter positively.
For the government, it is important that entrepreneurs and contractors shall have good access to good social insurance in the event of sick leave.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I would also like to thank you for the kind words regarding the commitment to entrepreneurship. I shall then acknowledge that the Minister, in her answer, indicates that she sees the connection between a robust security system for entrepreneurs and growth. I perceive that not all Moderates always see that.
I have, therefore, asked the minister about two rules. One concerns the pension for self-employed persons, that is, the pension choice, and the other is the 55-year rule. Fundamentally, I believe that if we have a poorer insurance protection for entrepreneurs than for the rest of the labor market, there is a risk that it leads to fewer companies being created. It is negative for our growth, besides the fact that it is actually also negative for the entrepreneurs themselves.
We Social Democrats have seen the point of having flexibility in these systems, so I agree with the Minister that it is good that there is a flexibility. The challenge is that very many entrepreneurs are not aware of it. Then the important question is: What should the non-selection option look like? There we appear to have different opinions, because I believe there is an advantage in that the rules for the security systems linked to entrepreneurship are as similar as possible to those in the rest of the labor market. In that case, it would have been advantageous if the non-selection option had been 1 day instead of 7 days.
I am pleased that the Minister expresses that there are problems with the 55-year rule. It should be simple to remove. Instead of urging the Minister to act once again, I simply look forward to what comes next in this matter.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! The Government has not taken any legislative measures regarding the proposals that Mattias Tegnér mentions, especially in the first interpellation. That being said, I nevertheless want to emphasize that the Government wants to contribute to more people choosing to start and develop companies and realize their ideas.
I believe it is incredibly important, not least after having listened to the previous interpellation debate here in the chamber which was about the fact that we need to get Sweden on its feet, reduce unemployment, increase labor force participation, get more companies to flourish and not least achieve increased growth in the country. In that regard, it is not least the small and medium-sized enterprises that are the foundation for this. It is also there that the vast majority of jobs are created. Rules that facilitate this should therefore be promoted as far as possible.
There is also much else that needs to be done to facilitate and promote entrepreneurship in Sweden, even outside of the social insurance system. It is easy to see the companies' role and what measures can be taken to facilitate things for them in different silos. In my case, one easily ends up in the social insurance system. I definitely do not want to either deny or downplay the great importance of the parental leave rules for entrepreneurs.
During my time as Minister for Social Insurance, and perhaps even more during my time as former chairman of the municipal executive board in Växjö, I have actually not once during all my many study visits heard any business owner who considers that 1 day of quarantine would be good to have as a standard.
When I travel around the country and meet business owners and entrepreneurs, I often hear that we must reverse the development of crime and violence in society. The reason is simple. Safety has indeed become our greatest issue of freedom. The serious organized crime is a threat to the system and deeply entrenched throughout our entire country and threatens our free and open society.
As is known, a reorganization of the justice policy is being undertaken by the government in almost all areas towards more police, harsher penalties, more resources and tools for the justice system and law enforcement agencies, so that we can get more solved crimes and more criminals behind bars. This concerns everyday crime, which hits small business owners in the countryside very often, but it also concerns the system-threatening organized crime.
It must clearly be possible to conduct business in all parts of the country. We are now conducting a responsible policy that shall steer Sweden out of both the recession and inflation. The most important thing is that we can return to a normal situation and more favorable conditions.
Another part that affects entrepreneurs very much is the procurement rules, which it is important to review. My colleague Erik Slottner has now given a mandate to review the law on public procurement - public procurement turns over 900 billion annually - which is undoubtedly very important so that not least small business owners can win more procurements and to simultaneously clear out the unserious actors.
In addition to this, the government is reviewing the 3:12 rules, which will lead to us improving the conditions for entrepreneurs. We are strengthening rut and rot, which are of great importance for creating more white-collar jobs but also strengthen many companies within various industries, something that the Social Democrats unfortunately oppose.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! We agree with what the Minister said at the beginning of his speech. It is, of course, the case that four out of five of the new jobs will be in small and medium-sized enterprises, so growth and entrepreneurship policy is extremely important. I intend to return a little to the connections between safety systems, trade, and for example our EU membership in the next interpellation debate, which deals more generally with how SGI is determined for entrepreneurs. We agree that these are extremely important issues.
When it comes to whether the Minister for Pensions and Health Insurance has met with entrepreneurs who have raised the issue of 1 day of quarantine, I allow myself to guess that what may have happened is that the minister, both in the role of minister and as KSO in Växjö, meets with entrepreneurs who are still running their companies. The problem is that quite a few of these entrepreneurs who have become ill have not known that they have 7 days of quarantine. It is clear that if entrepreneurs have become ill and realize that they end up in a rather difficult situation and perhaps are forced to close down their companies, it is not so strange that the minister has not met these entrepreneurs.
These entrepreneurs exist. They definitely called me when I was a special investigator in this matter. The issue is therefore not unimportant, even if it is not the absolutely most important when it comes to growth.
Questions about crime and punishment are also extremely important. We could talk about how the old Moderate government closed down police academies and ensured that we got fewer police officers. But I think we should try to stick to the business side. I hope the reason the minister changed the subject was not that there is no policy on the security area for entrepreneurs, because it is really needed.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I can definitely emphasize that is not the case. I have been clear that I really do not want to either downplay or deny that not only the quarantine rule but also the 55-year rule can be quite important to discuss.
As the responsible Minister for social insurance issues, it is important to emphasize that the basic insurance covering both employees and employers must be reliable and secure and lead to feeling exactly reliable and secure. One should be able to go to and perform one's work but, of course, also be able to start a company and realize one's dreams.
I would like to thank you for the debate. It has been very rewarding. I think I see great consensus and many wise arguments from the interpellant's side, and I believe we agree on much of the policy being pursued and that will be pursued.
I view it positively that the questions are nevertheless being raised. It is not always the case that they do, and it is perhaps because they come in a bit of the shadows that the knowledge and information is not always the best among those who choose to start and run companies.
I thank you for the debate, and I look forward to the next one.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.