Activity requirements for recipients of social assistance

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing Report 2025/26:SoU29 on activity requirements for recipients of social assistance. The Sweden Democrats support the proposal in the report.

We do it because work, self-sufficiency, and participation are important components for both the individual and for society. Social assistance should be a safety net when life temporarily does not work. It should be there when people need help, but it should not be a permanent solution that in the long run becomes a lifestyle that leads to exclusion.

It is therefore reasonable that those who can work, study or participate in activities are also expected to do so. It is not about casting suspicion on anyone, but it is about empowering people.

For many who have lived with social assistance for a long time, it leads to passivity, lower self-esteem, increased isolation, mental ill-health, and an increasingly difficult path back to the labor market. This can be broken by the activity requirement. It can involve internship, work training, language training, social orientation, job seeking, and skill-enhancing measures. The point is that people should come closer to work and self-sufficiency – not further away.

Madam Speaker! We must also speak about the children's perspective in this matter. We know that a long-term dependency on benefits often passes down between generations. Children grow up in environments where they never see their parents go to a job, and the entire family lives on social assistance. Exclusion risks becoming the norm.

That is why it is important that the reform also strengthens the children's opportunities. When parents participate in activities and come closer to work, more children get the opportunity to attend preschool, enter society early, and learn the Swedish language. The municipalities shall provide preschool when the parents participate in activities, and it will have great significance for the children's future. Children who learn Swedish early, gain social community, and are prepared for the start of school also get better conditions to succeed themselves further ahead in life. It is therefore not just about today's maintenance support but also about breaking future exclusion.

Madam Speaker! We also know that today's system is sometimes exploited and abused. There are people who receive social assistance while simultaneously working illegally or are completely outside the labor market's control systems. It is unfair. It is unfair to the taxpayers, to those who work, and to those who actually need the support.

Clear activity requirements will contribute to more people choosing to move from benefits to work – legal work. It strengthens both the legitimacy of the welfare system and the trust in our systems.

In my home municipality, Hörby, we introduced activity requirements in the middle of the last parliamentary period, and we quickly saw very fine results. Some people simply stopped applying for grants when the municipality clearly announced that all suspected grant crimes would be reported to the police. That was good and well, but the most fun and most positive thing was that many who had lived completely passive lives and stood far from the labor market came out of their exclusion by participating in one of the activities that the municipality offered. They regained a sense of belonging and a joy for life and were ultimately able to move forward into the labor market. It was fantastically fun to see this development!

This leads me unexpectedly to the human perspective in this measure. Work is not just about wages, but it is also about community, structure, responsibility, independence, and the feeling of being needed.

When people move from long-term benefit dependency to work, the entire life situation often changes. Children see their parents go to work. People gain greater freedom to influence their lives. The opportunity to become a part of society is strengthened. It is fundamentally positive and socially sustainable.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, it is important that the activity requirement is used wisely. For some, it will yield results quickly, while others will need more time and develop by taking many small steps. People have different circumstances. Those who are ill, suffer from mental ill-health, or are far from the labor market need the right support and the right interventions.

Here it is important that the municipalities take their responsibility. The activity requirement is not just something to be placed in the lap of an unemployed person as a task to take home and solve. The municipalities have requirements on them to help all "their" subsidy recipients to get closer to the labor market in order to become self-sufficient to the greatest extent possible. The requirements on the individual must therefore be combined with individual adaptation, rehabilitation, education, and clear follow-up.

Not all people will be able to work full-time or part-time, and some may not be able to work at all, but everyone has the right to help in identifying the opportunities that exist for each individual, regardless of circumstances. Sweden needs a social policy that helps people move forward and ensures that they do not get stuck in passivity.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats argue that welfare should be based on both rights and responsibilities. Those who need support shall receive support. But society must also expect that people do what they can to move towards their own self-sufficiency. It is good for the individual, it is good for society, and it is, above all, good for trust in the welfare system.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I am proud to live in Sweden. I am proud to live in a welfare state with a common welfare where school, healthcare and elderly care are provided according to need and not according to the thickness of the wallet.

But a welfare state worthy of the name also needs an ultimate safety net that ensures those who fall freely can be caught to get back on track, and that ensures those who lack their own income can eat their fill and have a roof over their heads – a protective wall against desperate people sliding down the precipice of ruin and into prostitution and crime. That safety net is called social assistance.

Knowing that children, regardless of which family they are born into, can be given reasonable opportunities in life is important for all of us. It is about how we see each other and ourselves. Not least, it is about how we see the children in our society.

I am proud of the Swedish social security system, Madam Speaker, but our welfare state is built on the fact that people work. The duty to contribute is a prerequisite for the right to receive support when one needs it. Those who are without means of support have a duty to enter employment. Those who are far from the labor market therefore have an obligation to move closer to employment.

I was there when Magdalena Andersson was elected party chair at the Social Democrats' party congress in Gothenburg in 2021. When she gave her policy speech there, where she outlined the direction for how she wanted to lead the Social Democrats and Sweden, she said the following: ”I said that we shall turn over every stone to break segregation. I shall turn over one already now. The economic assistance. If you do not succeed in finding a first job, then you also cannot join the unemployment insurance fund. And then only economic assistance remains. But with compensation from the unemployment insurance fund follow clear requirements to be at the labor market's disposal. To seek jobs, attend job interviews and, if necessary, learn a new profession – that ensures you maintain contact with the labor market and your competence. But it is just as important for the one who receives economic assistance. If you are fully healthy and capable of working, then you shall meet equally clear requirements for activity regardless of in which form you receive support. That signal is important. All children shall see their parents work and contribute to the building of society. It gives pride, important role models, but also an insight into what is one day also expected of them.”

Madam Speaker! When Magdalena Andersson was Prime Minister, the investigation into the activity requirement in the social assistance was also commissioned, which today is being finalized as legislation here in the Riksdag.

The activity requirement is a requirement on individuals but just as much on municipalities. Those who receive social assistance for more than three months have an obligation to participate in an activity. The municipalities simultaneously have an obligation to ensure that there are meaningful activities to participate in, a large and demanding task that now numerous social secretaries and others out in the municipalities are working intensively on.

An operation that will be expanded due to the new activity requirement is Joar Socia in Enköping. I was recently visiting there and was reinforced in my perception of how important it is that the activity requirement is implemented.

Joar Socia is a municipal activity for persons with various work-related barriers. The activity offers participants work training and a social environment through, among other things, a secondhand shop and a carpentry workshop. The goal is for the participants to enter employment or education.

But the goal is not everything. The path also makes the effort worthwhile. It means so much for a person to break years of loneliness in a work community, to be able to give a valued helping hand to others, or for a woman in a controlling and destructive relationship at home to develop her own contacts and, in the long run, arrange an economy through wage labor that enables her own free choices.

We Social Democrats therefore do not want limitations in childcare to stop people from being able to make these journeys. In our view, it should be an obligation for the municipalities to offer childcare to the extent required for parents to be able to participate in the activities fully. The power of moving from passivity to activity shall not be hindered by a lack of childcare. If the individual does their part, society must back them up. Those who work and have children under the age of eight are not left alone with reduced childcare during employment. This must we also manage during activities within the framework of the social assistance.

What I took away from the visit to Joar Socia was not just all the fine figures on how many people move forward to employment and self-sufficiency. It was the warmth and care in the operations. I particularly remember when one participant walked past us during the tour. Then the labor market consultant Milos placed his hand on the participant's shoulder and asked how it was. He took the time during our tour, not in a hollow, routine way, but sincerely and with empathy.

A hand on the shoulder can make a day, can be the beginning of a new life, can give self-esteem, self-confidence and, in the long run, self-sufficiency.

Madam Speaker! It is important that this pressing reform is correct. There are many of society's most vulnerable people who will be affected by the activity requirement – people who have struggled with mental illness, substance abuse, and crime.

Contrary to what the investigation proposed, the government has chosen to open up for private actors. Now, it must not end up like with the job coaches at Arbetsförmedlingen, you know, those who recruited executioners for the Islamic State with tax money.

We Social Democrats therefore demand that the government returns to the Riksdag with proposals that ensure that the execution of workplace-based activities cannot be exploited by unserious actors or actors linked to organized crime.

We cannot have yet another welfare activity being cut by organized crime. We know what the situation looks like on the private HVB market. So does the government. But one is passive and lets the madness continue.

Madam Speaker! Ivo has tried to curb the skyrocketing HVB market with his far too weak tools. That is not being achieved. Now it is proposed that Ivo should also take over the supervisory responsibility for the activity requirement. This does not bode well. I believe it would be wise to let an authority that has better knowledge of the labor market and a close relationship with the labor market parties be given that responsibility.

The Government should therefore consider letting some other supervisory authority than Ivo exercise supervision over the reform and return to the Riksdag with such a proposal.

Now it is up to the government to act quickly when we receive signals that things are not going as intended with the reform. For jobs, a salary must be paid. Criminals must be kept away from the welfare system. No one shall be exploited. Everyone shall feel respected and needed and be able to get help to come closer to a paid job.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we continue the debate on the Moderates' and the government's benefit reform. It is a reform in three parts: qualification for social insurance for newcomers, a benefit ceiling so that it will always pay to move from benefits to work, and an activity requirement for persons who receive social assistance. These three parts are to be seen as a whole, even though we here in the Riksdag are debating the parts individually.

The purpose of the reform is clear: to re-establish the work principle in Sweden. For far too long, people have been able to get stuck in a benefit dependency without clear expectations and requirements, without sufficient support and without a clear path to self-sufficiency. It is bad for the individual, it is bad for the children who grow up in benefit dependency, and it is bad for the entire society. The Moderates do not accept that people are left behind in exclusion year after year.

Madam Speaker! The activity requirement fundamentally means something very simple, namely that those who live on social assistance and have work capacity shall do what they can and receive the right support to approach work, education, or self-sufficiency. If one has 100 percent work capacity, one shall be activated at 100 percent. If one has 50 percent work capacity, one shall be activated at 50 percent.

The requirements must, of course, be adapted to the individual's actual ability and life situation. It is important to emphasize, as the opposition has repeatedly tried to describe the reform as harsh or unreasonable. But it is precisely the opposite. What is unreasonable is to leave people behind in passivity. What is unreasonable is that young people go year after year without work, education, and clear expectations from society. What is unreasonable is that children grow up in homes where no one goes to work and where dependency on benefits becomes the norm.

We Moderates want more people to move from exclusion to inclusion. We want to take advantage of everyone's knowledge, competence, and experiences. We want more people to be able to take part in the community at a workplace. To do that, we need to give people the right tools to move from benefits to work. This can involve language skills, competence development, or internships. We are now making this possible through an activity requirement.

All people shall be given the chance to grow to their full potential. Leaving people in long-term benefit dependency and exclusion is nothing other than a betrayal. Now we are creating better conditions for people to move from benefits to work so that no children are forced to inherit their parents' exclusion.

Madam Speaker! The activity requirement is based on both rights and obligations. The municipalities will be obliged to offer meaningful activities that strengthen the individual's opportunities to get closer to the labor market. This can involve work training, education, internship, job seeking, or other interventions. At the same time, the individual also becomes obliged to participate. It is a completely reasonable arrangement.

The social assistance is society's ultimate safety net. It should be a support on the way back, not a permanent solution. If one chooses not to participate in activities without valid reasons, the social assistance can be reduced. It is no stranger than that there are requirements in other parts of our security systems.

Madam Speaker! This is also an important integration reform. We know that many people, not least many foreign-born women, stand far from the labor market and have sometimes lived for many years in benefit dependency without contact with working life. That is not right. Therefore, the activity requirement is important, and therefore we also extend the time in preschool and after-school care so that more parents can actually participate in activities and take the step towards self-sufficiency. Children should see their parents go to work, participate in society and be a part of the community. It matters for language learning, integration, and the children's faith in the future.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates believe in people's ability. We believe that people grow when society sets expectations and offers support. We do not believe in passivating people by signaling that society does not expect anything. Here, the difference in the debate becomes very clear. The Social Democrats and the Center Party say that they are in favor of an activity requirement but at the same time take every chance they get to dilute the reform. They say no to clear consequences for municipalities that do not implement the activity requirement properly. They want to weaken the follow-up and reduce the requirements. Then one must ask: How seriously do they actually mean that the activity requirement should be?

We know how it looks in practice when the Social Democrats rule in the municipalities. In Växjö, the Moderaterna introduced activity requirements as early as 2012. There was a clear work line and requirements for full-time activation for young people. Then the Socialdemokraterna took over the government and slowly but surely dismantled the work line. An audit conducted on behalf of the municipality's auditors showed that the social democratically governed administration had deviated from the guidelines on full-time activation and instead introduced methods without clear activity requirements. The result was clear; the proportion of people who moved from benefits to work decreased. We can see a similar development in, for example, Solna. It is a huge failure, and it shows that it matters who is in power.

Madam Speaker! It is difficult to take the Social Democrats' criticism seriously when they here in the chamber claim to stand behind the work line but in practice tear it down out in the municipalities. It is easy to speak warmly about work here in the speaker's chair. It is harder to actually stand up for requirements and responsibility when the decisions are to be made locally. Unfortunately, the Centre Party does the same thing. They say they are for the work line, but when the government presents concrete reforms to strengthen it, they still choose to water it down. They would like to speak about empowerment and self-sufficiency, but when it comes to actually setting requirements, they hesitate.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet does not even want an activity requirement. The Left seems completely satisfied with people being left behind in long-term benefit dependency without requirements for activity or steps towards work. It is a policy that fundamentally builds on very low expectations of people. We Moderates believe that people deserve better than that. People deserve the opportunity to get into work, become part of the community, and be able to support themselves.

Madam Speaker! Work is about so much more than a salary. It is about freedom, community, self-esteem, and faith in the future. The person who goes to work does not just receive an income. They get colleagues, a sense of belonging, and a feeling of being needed. That is why the work principle is important and why the activity requirement is important. It is not about being hard on people. It is about believing in people enough to also set requirements.

Madam Speaker! Sweden can do better than to accept a growing exclusion and a permanent dependency on benefits. With the government's benefit reform, we strengthen the work line step by step. We make it more profitable to work. We strengthen the incentives for self-sufficiency. We clarify that those who can work are also expected to do what they can to get closer to work. It is good for the individual, it is good for the children, and it is good for Sweden. With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Caroline Högström, for the speech! I shared the introduction in large part until the member came to her fabrications regarding the Center Party's policy. One must, of course, reason about why the member wants to try to foist a policy on the Center Party that we do not stand for.

We are very clear that activity requirements are an important part of getting people into work, and we have been since long before this bill was submitted. The work line applies. That it should always pay to work is classic Center politics. We have stood up for that, and we continue to stand up for it.

What could the motive be then, Madam Speaker? Yes, it is clear that it is about hiding the government's and the Moderaternas total failure in the area of the labor market.

During this mandate period, the number of unemployed people has increased by 100,000. Today, we have the third highest unemployment in the EU. The government calls itself bourgeois despite the fact that the policy is not bourgeois. They claim to be business-friendly despite the fact that the policy is not business-friendly. They have not made the reforms that were needed but have instead increased the economic burden on the companies.

The activity requirement in all its glory – it is important, and we stand behind it. But the most important policy for getting people into work is, of course, about creating good conditions for the companies. That is what the Moderaterna have failed to do during this mandate period, with the third highest unemployment in the EU and one of the very highest regarding young people. It is a complete failure.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Bergenblock, for the opportunity to elaborate on my criticism of the Center Party in this specific issue!

In my exchanges with members of the Centre Party, I always welcome them back to the bourgeois side. I know that in many respects we share a common view on many of these issues. Therefore, it surprises me, as I said in my speech, that you choose to dilute the reform by opposing the possibility of sanctions and also that which concerns the supervision of municipalities.

We know that when the opportunity arises, the Social Democratic leadership at the local level sometimes wants to water down reforms like this. We know that, and I believe that even the Center Party can recognize themselves in that. One does not introduce an activity requirement fully and instead invents a lot of new exceptions. In that way, the reform does not achieve the effect that is needed.

This surprises me. The member has not yet given his speech, but I guess he also supports the reservation Centerpartiet had in the Social Affairs Committee. I mean that it strongly risks diluting the reform. One becomes answerable regarding how one plans to achieve this effect.

Speaking of being business-friendly, it becomes a bit comical – I look forward to seeing the type of business-friendly policy that is planned to be pushed through with Vänstern and Miljöpartiet in a potential government. I believe that such a policy would unfortunately be devastating for the companies.

I welcome the Center Party back to the bourgeois side instead. There, we can re-establish the work line, have a crystal-clear corporate policy, and seriously make it profitable to both run companies and work in Sweden.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Prime Minister and the party leader for the Moderaterna no longer even speak of a bourgeois government but have changed the vocabulary to "a blue-yellow government" that is to take office after the election. It is clear that one cannot speak of a bourgeois government if one is to include the Sverigedemokraterna, which is not a bourgeois party but quite the opposite. It is a completely illiberal party.

I understand the Moderates' shift in position, even though I find it sad. I want, Madam Speaker, on my part to welcome the Moderates back to the bourgeois side, to liberalism, to market liberalism and to a business-friendly policy.

We can look at what has happened during the term, Madam Speaker. One of the first reforms for companies that the Moderaterna implemented was to increase the employer contribution for young people in the spring of 2023. It has cost companies billions and has contributed to increased unemployment, not least increased unemployment among young people.

Now, a reduction of the employer contribution for young people has been temporarily reintroduced. The Centre Party wants it to be permanent. We want to expand it to also apply to those who have been long-term unemployed and who are far from the labor market. It is the companies that create the jobs. It is they who make it possible for those who are unemployed today and receive benefits to get a real job.

It is very good that requirements are now being placed on the municipality to arrange activities, but it is important that the activities do not knock out private companies or become sham occupations. If the member has not read the motion from Centerpartiet, which appears to be the case, she should do so. The follow-up we want to see of the reform is about not competing out private companies but ensuring that people get out onto the real labor market.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Bergenblock, for this exchange!

I can state somewhat bluntly that the blue-yellow government constellation probably has significantly greater opportunities to push through truly business-friendly policies than the red-green mess we see on the other side. That is why I welcome the Centerpartiet to the conservative side. There is hardly any conservatism on the other side. We can probably both agree on that.

I shall not precede the member's speech, but I see the reservations. It is clear that sanction fees are neither a reasonable nor a proportionate tool and that they therefore should not be applied. One does not, therefore, want the tool to be able to set hard against hard against those municipalities that refuse to implement the activity requirement.

It says for itself that it is a way to dilute the reform, and it is a reservation that the Centerpartiet is on together with the rest of the opposition. It could mean that one opens the door for municipalities to do something else. It stands in black and white in the committee's position, and I think it is a pity.

We need to ensure that this reform has an effect throughout the entire country. This could result in an injustice. We talk far too rarely about how reforms that strengthen the incentives for work and give people keys to open the door can hit differently in the country. There are municipalities that ignore this and find loopholes to avoid placing requirements on people.

I think it is a pity that C is involved and opening this door together with S, V and MP.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a pleasure to be given a turn to speak to the member for the first time!

I have a background in the business sector, regarding the talk that Miljöpartiet would be hostile towards entrepreneurs. I do not share that image. But I have, above all, a background in municipal politics, before I relatively recently entered the Riksdag.

There is something wonderfully beautiful about being a municipal politician, namely that municipal activities are close to the residents. It is there that we can very easily get out into the operations and meet those who work in practice. I have seen fantastic ways of working in municipalities – social democratically and environment party governed, by the way – where one works with activities for persons with social assistance.

I still have my fingers in the game among all the fantastic colleagues in the social welfare committees around Sweden. One thing I take with me is that there is currently an incredible burden due to all the new propositions, legislative proposals, and a new social services act. They are almost overworked.

To this, a new activity requirement is now added, which expands the specifications for what municipalities are to do. They say: Please, can we not just get some breathing room? They would very much like to work with the right types of activities for these residents. No one becomes happier than they do when someone can leave a life of social assistance.

This was something we reacted to. We support the activity requirement and have not included this in a separate motion. But we have stood behind this reservation because we feel that the government's suspicion of municipalities is so classic. We believe that dialogue is a better way forward. That is what I want to ask the member about. What conditions exist for them to be able to implement this in practice?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks, Member Seye Larsen, for the question and the opportunity to elaborate on our reasoning regarding these issues!

The Speaker is absolutely right that the Moderate-led government has a high pace of reform, especially in the preventive area. The new Social Services Act is an enormous reform that will hopefully make a big difference all over the country. This also applies to the connection to the activity requirement.

I believe that we do a huge disservice to all those people who, year after year, remain stuck in a state of exclusion by saying that we must slow down the pace and stop. They need, on the contrary, this pace of reform, and they need reforms that aim to bring them closer to the labor market.

Some money will come from the state side in the budget for 2026. Actually, already when the Tidö Agreement was written in my hometown Västerås, it was actually announced that an activity requirement was about to be presented.

I believe rather that we must look at the people who year in and year out are stuck in subsidy dependency. It is for them we do this, and it is them we must have in the forefront.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I understand this, and I will return in my main submission and also in the next debate to an image that is sometimes painted by people with social assistance and which is grossly incorrect.

The fact is that we have a historically low number in social assistance. It has never been so low since the measurements began. And it is absolutely not about the large families with children that people are constantly talking about, but that is another matter.

Since then, unemployment has been high, and I agree that one has not really succeeded. But the social assistance is historically low. Many municipalities are already working today to try to find activities. It is not easy.

I can take another example of something that is going to be very difficult. Several of the people I have met who live on social assistance are sometimes active and sometimes not, and that is because they have extensive challenges in their lives. It can be a combination of physical and mental disabilities, mental ill-health and other things, which makes them sometimes not feel well and do not have the strength or are not able to participate. They have fallen between the cracks throughout their lives. There is no clear assessment of their actual work capacity. Does one even exist at all?

In all of this, there are also requirements for medical certificates. It is going to become an enormous administrative burden. Primary care will have even more to work with, with all the medical certificates that must be written if the requirements are to be followed. We initiated the new Social Services Act when we were in government because it was important to work more preventatively, and it was a major reform. All the case officers I have spoken with have hardly even had time to breathe after that before new requirements are being set.

I believe that the will to work is there. That is why the vast majority of municipalities actually work with different types of activities. But they need to get the conditions and the resources. They need to get time to breathe. It needs to settle, and we need to do this in dialogue.

Why did one absolutely want to set these harsh requirements? And then it is to be penalty fees that will lead to harsh requirements all the way out. Does anyone have any understanding of the challenge that the social welfare boards around the country find themselves in?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for this exchange of remarks!

I would say that the member is completely right that the proportion of those living on social assistance has decreased over time. But what is an enormous challenge is that the duration of being on social assistance has increased significantly. Outsiderness has thus become deeper for those who get stuck there. That is the major social problem we need to break.

The activity requirement is in many ways designed and inspired by successful municipalities where this has been fully implemented and great success has been seen. This is therefore not a new invention, but it is designed in close cooperation with successful municipalities.

I think we should focus on what this is. I don't remember if the member said that it is harsh, but perhaps that was what was to be the summary. I mean the opposite, that this is done out of consideration for people. We are not actually leaving them out.

I want to take an example. In Sundsvalls Tidning, we could read about a mother of five who had just moved from financial assistance to work, through support and activation. This is what the activity requirement is about, that more people should get to make that journey and not be left to their fate. We are not going to withdraw support but on the contrary set requirements because we care about them.

She said something important, which I believe more in this chamber need to hear. When she was asked what she thought about the subsidy reforms, she said: The new conditions will make more people wake up. I think that is perhaps what we need. More people need to wake up and take this journey – the journey closer to work and into a social community that actually does not leave people behind.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I am, together with my party, of the absolute conviction that people fare best by having a job, being able to support themselves and feel meaning, coherence, and faith in the future. But we are also of the absolute conviction that a welfare society must have safety nets that are there when life falls apart.

The important thing is that these two things are not in conflict with each other. On the contrary, it is precisely the combination of work and security that has historically made Sweden one of the world's most successful countries. The problem, Madam Speaker, is that the right and the Sweden Democrats are unable to hold both of these thoughts in their heads at the same time.

For a country to flourish, it is required that people can work and contribute – we know that. But it also requires politics that make this possible. It requires investments in education, industry, and transition. It requires a welfare system that works. It requires adult education, folk high schools, and labor market measures for those who need a new chance in life. It requires a labor exchange that works and a security system that people can actually live on. But all of this has been dismantled.

We have today a historically high unemployment. The unemployment insurance is not sufficient, people are being disqualified from benefits, and the thresholds to enter the labor market are becoming higher and higher, especially for those who are already far away from it. And at the same time, the government chooses to place the consequences of its own policy on the social services. Now, the social services are no longer primarily to help people in vulnerable situations. Now they are to control, report, and sanction.

Madam Speaker! We must dare to speak plainly about who it actually concerns. It concerns people who have become ill, people with mental ill-health, women who have fled violence, people with substance abuse, and people who have been affected by grief, trauma, and catastrophes. It concerns people whose lives have not followed a straight line.

There are surely people who have never personally encountered this reality and therefore think that tougher requirements sound reasonable – that the person receiving financial assistance just needs to be a bit more motivated. But the problem is not that people lack will, but that they lack opportunities. The government tries to portray it as if people choose social assistance over work. But there is nothing that indicates that, on the contrary.

Today, the difference between living on financial assistance and working is greater than ever. It is a situation that has been created through a deliberate policy where support has been withheld year after year.

Madam Speaker! Since the Reinfeldt government, the levels in the social security support have been calculated in a way that has practically eroded the support significantly. We are talking about thousands of kronor every month for people who are already living on the margin. We have reviewed this, and we have submitted a report to the Committee on the Constitution (KU) against the government for it. And it turned out that the criticism was justified. The argument that people do not work because it does not pay off is therefore not valid.

Then only the government's second explanation remains, that people do not want to work. But this is not true either. What drives people to financial assistance is unemployment insurance, unemployment, illness, domestic violence, and a welfare system that no longer holds.

The most remarkable thing about all this is perhaps that there are already activity requirements today. Social services already set requirements for activity and participation. The difference is that today's system can be adapted to the individual's situation and needs, but the government now chooses to make it mandatory. They want to introduce a more standardized and stricter control system, where people in very difficult life situations shall be pressured further and social services shall spend even more time on administration, monitoring, and sanctions, instead of on tools for people to regain power over their lives.

Madam Speaker! In practice, this risks meaning that people with very great needs are left completely without financial help. It means increased homelessness, greater vulnerability, and deeper poverty. And for what? Well, because the government needs someone to blame for its own failures.

In the media, we have already been able to read about people who will be affected: severely ill people who are nevertheless judged as capable of working and people with extensive pain and serious injuries who now risk losing their economic security. There is nothing dignified in this. The government needs to answer what will happen to these people if they cannot work and are punished with withdrawn support. Are they to live on the street and go to church with a hat in hand? We do not want to have back the time when Sweden treated people that way.

Madam Speaker! There is also something deeply ideological revealing here. When people who are already well-off are to be motivated to work, they receive tax cuts: the renovation deduction, the service deduction, and the job tax credit. But when people live in poverty, the motivation is apparently to come through even greater economic vulnerability. It is a policy that says everything about which people the government considers worthy of understanding and which should be met with suspicion.

For us, the social services' task is not to be forced to kick people who are already lying down. Its task is to help people back up. That is the difference between solidarity and suspicion. For us, the role of politics is to create the best conditions for our citizens and for society as a whole. That is not done by taking us back to the Poor Sweden we have worked hard to move away from.

Therefore, we say no to the government's activity requirement for social assistance. We move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin the debate by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal and thereby also the rejection of the motions and reservations contained in this report on activity requirements for receiving social assistance.

We are at the end of the mandate period. It is clear that we in the Tidö Government are now implementing the change in many political areas for which we received a mandate and support in the 2022 election. What we Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, are now implementing is a necessary change of course for Sweden. This occurs after that in previous S-governments over several mandate periods, one neither realized the problems nor had the will or motivation to implement the changes that were necessary for our country. Sweden's electorate saw that a new direction in politics was needed, and it is this that we are now ensuring becomes a reality in the cooperation.

Today we are debating an important change in this work, namely activity requirements for receiving social assistance. We Christian Democrats want, together with the other Tidö parties, to increase the incentives to enter employment. We want to provide drivers to take a job and obtain one's own livelihood. This is done to reduce the risk of long-term benefit dependency and social exclusion.

This proposal is part of the government's broader benefit reform, which aims to break the dependency on benefits and increase the incentives to work. The three parts are benefit ceilings combined with a job premium, qualification for the social insurance, and the reform we are debating today, activity requirements when receiving social assistance.

Madam Speaker! The change we are implementing means that those who live on social assistance shall do everything they can to approach a job. But it is important to say that this shall occur based on the ability one has. If one has 100 percent ability, one shall be activated at 100 percent. But if one has 50 percent ability, the activity level shall naturally be aimed at 50 percent. One therefore looks at the individual's possibilities to work based on the ability the individual has.

The municipality also becomes obliged to offer meaningful activity, and the individual becomes obliged to participate in the activity. If one chooses not to do so, the benefit can be withdrawn or reduced. Naturally, the parents need support for preschool and after-school care. As I just said: This is part of a whole that is to promote the work principle and counteract benefit dependency.

Madam Speaker! The proposal we are now debating is therefore about an activity requirement. Today, many people live in social exclusion in the form of unemployment, benefit dependency, and without the possibility of supporting themselves. To break this, it must become more profitable to move from benefits to work and further to self-sufficiency. Therefore, the Christian Democrats and other parties in the Tidö agreement are putting forward this benefit reform to strengthen the work line.

Having a job contributes to increased self-esteem, both for the individual and for their family. The benefit reforms mean that more people will enter the workforce and become participants in the building of our important social community. It is important that this is now implemented. For far too long, it has been possible for people to live on benefits for a very long time without requirements for counter-performance.

Madam Speaker! Financial assistance is not a long-term solution. Financial assistance should constitute the ultimate safety net when people temporarily cannot manage their own livelihood. It is about the society being involved and providing its support when the situation and life are such that one cannot manage alone. But it should not be something that is a permanent and long-term basis for livelihood. We mean that the design of the livelihood support has led to that for many families, for example families with several children, it has not paid off sufficiently or that there have not been sufficient incentives to start working instead of living on benefits.

Madam Speaker! Meaningful employment can break isolation and also promote integration when it is relevant. Those who risk a long-term dependency on benefits and a life of exclusion shall be met with society's support but also with clear requirements to do what one can that is necessary and possible to enter employment.

The activity requirement places demands both on the individual to participate in activities and also on the municipalities to provide meaningful activities for those who receive social assistance, for example through workplace-based activities. The activities shall contribute to the individual's ability to take a job, increase the individual's linguistic prerequisites, and improve the individual's prerequisites to seek a job. In connection with this change, the government and SKR have also entered into an agreement to provide support to the municipalities when the activity requirement is to be introduced.

More children shall get to see their parents go to work. It is right and fair that those who live on benefits also participate in various activities. According to the agreement, SKR shall, among other things, promote cooperation between the municipalities, offer forums for exchange of experience and contribute to the development of digital structures for information transfer in dialogue with the public employment service and other actors. It is important to provide support and help to the municipalities – the 290 we have – in the implementation of the requirements.

Madam Speaker! When we in the Tidösamarbetet ensure that we make changes that both safeguard all citizens' resources and also involve measures that increase incentives, we can still see that there is a divided opposition. It is fragmented, as so often during the last four years.

We are discussing today three proposals that to some extent are connected. There is a common thread between them all, namely that the opposition is divided and scattered. In this specific matter, C, S and MP stand behind large parts of the proposal but have their own reservations, while V clearly rejects the proposal and says no. This is symptomatic of the so-called red-green cooperation, which is to constitute the basis for a government.

One can clearly see what chaos it can be when the opposition does not have a united line here. The same applies to many other matters during this parliamentary term. It is also clear that in some parts, the problems with subsidy dependency are not seen, and therefore, in various parts, our proposals are opposed.

My message to the Swedish people is, similar to the previous matter, that one should try to avoid the red-green constellation in the election in September. It risks turning the development in the wrong direction.

Madam Speaker! There is an alternative in the autumn election. We Christian Democrats and the other Tidö parties have shown that we can cooperate to tackle the difficult and sometimes complicated issues that exist for the future of Sweden.

We now present a comprehensive subsidy reform to strengthen the work line and address the great exclusion in society. We see this as one of the steps toward building a stronger Sweden. As previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions and reservations.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that Ingemar Kihlström praises the own cooperation and is concerned about the opposition. But it is actually the government cooperation that is based on a party that cheated the entire voting system and all other parties. They promised to keep two members away from the vote, but they sneaked in anyway and pressed the buttons.

Now we no longer have a voting system. We have had a member who has run out and vomited in the middle of the voting. A party colleague of mine who was on sick leave had to come here just after she had had a lung removed. What kind of cooperation, what credibility is there to be proud of? How does the member view SD's obvious ability to break entered agreements – does that bode well?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that Member Lantz chooses to take up a completely different subject in the exchange of remarks than what the debate is about. When I try to highlight that we stand united behind the proposals to break grant dependency and promote the work line, Member Lantz chooses a completely different point of attack. I understand it, because Member Lantz has no basis to build his government support on. It is enough to look at the reservations in the report.

To then stand and say that one wants to carry the banner forward for the country and take responsibility rings rather hollow. I can state that there are seven reservations in the report. These range from a part of the government base that Member Lantz says a flat no to, to Member Lantz approving the proposal but considering it too harsh for the municipalities to receive a sanction fee if they choose to disregard the state's requirements and leave those who are to be activated outside. To then say that one has a basis for a cooperation for Sweden during the coming mandate period rings false.

In this debate, I choose to stick to the matter at hand. On the Tidösidan, we have found common ground, despite having had different starting points in many cases and also in this matter. Good luck, Member Lantz, in doing the same on your side of politics!

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I would like to remind that the subject of the debate is activity requirements for recipients of social assistance and that everyone speaks through the Speaker.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request the floor, but the member raised concerns that the opposition would not be able to form a government basis. Since the Social Democrats are the largest party, I felt struck.

We have a reservation concerning caution regarding privatization and letting companies in. We have seen, for example in the HVB area, what catastrophic consequences it has. We do not need to align ourselves with other parties. Had we been in a government position, we would have had those discussions in the Government Offices, and I guess the Kristdemokraterna have been invited to such. It is not strange that the Riksdag functions in such a way that there are several reservations from the opposition parties. We Social Democrats run for election as an independent party, and we account for our policies in this chamber.

The problem is that we have no table of contents. We do not know how the discussions have proceeded. How many traces of Christian Democratic policy are there in the matters we are discussing here today?

I think it is important how the Christian Democrats view handshakes and trust when it comes to government cooperation. When are we going to get to discuss it? It is easy to criticize other parties, but it is apparently difficult to take responsibility for the breaches of contract that the largest and most important party in the government constellation is guilty of. I believe there are many both in here and outside the chamber who want answers: How do the Christian Democrats view deceiving the elected representatives in Sweden's Riksdag?

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

As said, the debate is about social assistance.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to stick to speaking through the Speaker.

It is quite true that every party has its own starting point and makes its reservations, as the member says. It was undoubtedly so also during the previous parliamentary term. I can give the member the right there. We Christian Democrats did not always think exactly the same as other parties. But in this matter, as in the preceding and succeeding matters in today's debates in the chamber, we have a common line. We have sorted that out.

What I spoke about is that there is a lack of unity on the opposition side in this matter. One goes to the election on one's own policy – entirely correct. But if one wants to present a realistic government alternative, one needs to find cooperation. That is also what we succeeded in doing in many reservations during the last parliamentary term, despite being in opposition.

I can state that there is a difference when it comes to what we promise. On our side of the field, we have taken the difficult questions and found ways forward. Are we in agreement on everything? Do we always get the Christian Democrats as we want? No, but we make decisions that move Sweden forward and that are necessary for Sweden.

I place the question of the substitution in my group leader's hands to resolve. It is about a handshake, and the handshake must be given and kept. I have great confidence that the group leaders in the Swedish Riksdag will ensure that both I and Gustaf Lantz can be free in the future when we have need of it.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation 6 under point 6 on the follow-up and evaluation of the activity requirement.

During the mandate period, unemployment in Sweden has increased by 100,000 people. Sweden today has the third highest unemployment in the EU. This is a complete fiasco and a total failure for the sitting government. The lack of proposals and measures to address unemployment has been monumental, and despite the liberal Minister for Employment having been replaced twice in less than four years, nothing has improved. This is, of course, connected to several different things, such as a failed school policy, a failed integration policy, and a failed business policy, but perhaps above all with a failed labor market policy and three ideueless labor market ministers who have failed to prepare people for work.

For the Center Party, it is a matter of course that the work line shall be strong. Fundamentally, we are therefore positive towards the government's proposition on activity requirements. For us, it is a matter of course that those who can work shall work. To set requirements for activity for those who receive maintenance support is therefore an important and correct step to break exclusion and facilitate for more to reach self-sufficiency. We therefore stand behind the proposition's intentions and main proposals. However, for the reform to be successful, it is required that it is implemented in a well-thought-out manner.

What is proposed in the bill is that those who receive maintenance support for more than three months must participate in an activity to continue to have the right to receive support. If one already has full-time employment through labor market policy programs, SFI studies, or other acceptable education, one already meets the requirement. Otherwise, the municipality will be responsible for providing activities.

The purpose of the activity requirement is both to get people into work and to break the social isolation that can follow from long-term unemployment. This is good. But if the reform is to succeed in the purpose of getting more people into work, it is absolutely crucial what kind of employment is offered. Therefore, it is crucial that the activities offered by the municipality are meaningful and truly strengthen the individual's chances on the labor market. It must not become a reform where people are employed solely for the sake of employment. The goal of self-sufficiency through work or studies must under no circumstances be lost. Therefore, Centerpartiet demands that the government allows this reform to be followed up carefully in order to return to the Riksdag with proposals for changes if necessary.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, we in the Center Party believe that one must go further for those who are furthest away from the labor market. We want to invest in the skills required to obtain employment. Therefore, we want to, for example, establish a mandatory "new start year" for those who have been outside the labor market for more than three years. Such a year shall involve intensive job preparation measures, such as internships and job-related Swedish. We want the government to investigate how such a more powerful and result-oriented tool can be introduced as part of the activity requirements.

The proposition allows for workplace-based activities to be carried out both under municipal management as well as by private companies and non-profit organizations. It is a welcome flexibility that can create more paths into the labor market. At the same time, it is of utmost importance that these measures do not distort competition. The regulatory framework must be clear and predictable, and there must be an active follow-up to ensure that competition in the local market is not negatively affected. The Government must therefore, we believe, ensure that this is complied with and, if necessary, return to the Riksdag with proposals for changes.

Madam Speaker! This government has time and again shown how it distrusts Sweden's municipal and regional politicians, even though most of the representatives themselves have a background in local politics. Therefore, a very large amount of time is spent on micro-management and penalties. Alternatively, they push for the nationalization of the municipalities' and regions' core missions, such as schools and healthcare.

Even regarding the activity requirement, the mistrust towards Sweden's municipalities is monumental. Therefore, it is intended to task Ivo, who does not have time for his current duties, with the assignment to review the municipalities' work with the activity requirement and, in the case of deficiencies, issue sanction fees. We in the Center Party, who harbor a greater trust in our municipal and regional politicians, believe that the supervision of the municipalities should be predictable and proportionate. The starting point must be that, through dialogue, the municipalities should be given support and guidance in the work of meeting the law's requirements regarding activities. The Center Party does not see sanction fees as either a reasonable or a proportionate tool and therefore argues that they should not be applied.

Madam Speaker! In summary, the activity requirement is a step in the right direction after nearly four years of failed labor market policy. It can hopefully help to break people's dependency on benefits and instead equip them for jobs. But it is not enough. The Centre Party wants to see a more offensive policy where we make it easier and cheaper for companies to hire – through a permanent reduction of the employer contributions for young, low-paid, and unemployed people, by removing the employer contributions for the first ten employees in small and growing companies, by removing the sick pay responsibility, which the government reintroduced, for small businesses and through a new form of employment with simplified jobs for those who are far from the labor market and who have been unemployed for a long time.

To truly break exclusion and lower the thresholds to the labor market, an activity requirement is not enough. A proper job boost is also required. That policy has been missing throughout this entire mandate period, but that policy is held by the Center Party.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be a country where every person gets the chance to stand on their own two feet. But, Madam Speaker, for far too many, that is not the case today. For far too many, the social assistance has become something other than what it was intended to be.

Economic assistance shall be society's ultimate safety net when life temporarily does not hold up. It shall not be a waiting room where one remains stuck. It shall not be a construction where people are sorted out from requirements, expectations, and opportunities. Therefore, the reform we are discussing in the chamber today was needed: activity requirements for recipients of maintenance support.

The proposal means that those who have received a maintenance allowance for at least three consecutive months and have the ability to participate in activities shall participate in activities during the time that is not spent on, for example, work, job seeking, studies, or other interventions. The purpose is crystal clear: to counter exclusion, to take advantage of one's best self, and to shorten the path to self-sufficiency and independence.

Madam Speaker! It is not about casting suspicion on people. It is not about pointing fingers at those who are struggling. It is about stopping the acceptance that people are left at home year after year without a plan and without a real way back.

Those who can work shall meet expectations. Those who need support shall meet support. Someone who, for example, has half the ability should not be written off as lacking all ability. If one has 100 percent activity capacity, one shall participate 100 percent. If one has 50 percent activity capacity, one shall participate 50 percent. It is respectful towards the individual. The time when society said "You are not needed. We will take care of you" is over. Our firm conviction is that everyone who can contribute shall also be given the chance to do so.

Madam Speaker! The reform also entails a clear obligation for the municipalities. The Social Welfare Board shall ensure that there are meaningful activities. It is an important word: meaningful. It should not be about employment for the sake of it and about becoming a figure in the statistics. It should be about activities that can actually bring people closer to studies or work.

It can be activities that strengthen the motivation to seek work or begin education. It can be measures that improve language skills. It can be activities that make it easier for someone to seek a job. It can be workplace-based activities. Consideration must be taken of the human needs and abilities. There is a simple objective with the activities. It is about ensuring that exclusion is broken, that the power that exists within people is utilized, and that the social isolation which often follows from long-term benefit dependency is broken.

Madam Speaker! We know that exclusion is not only visible in the statistics. It is noticed in one's everyday life – in not having colleagues, in not having routines, in not being able to feel that one is growing as a human being, and in that children never see their parents leave in the morning for a job, an education, or another activity that leads forward. We refuse to accept this, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker! This reform is designed with important exceptions – it is important to mention. This requirement shall, for example, not be imposed on 18–20-year-olds who are in upper secondary school or comparable education. It shall not be imposed on those who work full-time or those who have reached the retirement age. It shall not be imposed to the extent that a person receives sickness allowance, sickness compensation, or other social insurance benefits. It shall also not be imposed on those who are on parental leave with a child under one year old.

This is important, Madam Speaker, because it shows what the reform is and what it is not. It does not mean, as was said, that everyone shall do the same thing. It means that the one who has the ability shall do what they can to approach their own livelihood.

Madam Speaker! There are also sanctions in the proposal, which have been mentioned here earlier. The person who, without acceptable reasons, does not participate in assigned activities may have the maintenance support denied or reduced. But here there is also room for the responsible committee to refrain from reducing or denying assistance if there should be special reasons.

The requirements do not only apply to the individual. They also apply to the municipalities. It is not reasonable that we place demands on the individual but let municipalities get away with it if they do not offer meaningful activities. Rights and obligations must go together. The state must also place demands on the public sector.

Madam Speaker! Some object to this, arguing that the municipalities only need support and guidance instead. Of course they need that. Of course knowledge support and good implementation are needed. That is why we also allocate significant resources: 130 million for extended time in preschool and after-school centers this year. This will be doubled next year. In total, the government allocates 2 billion per year for these measures regarding the activity requirement.

Madam Speaker! A recurring argument against this is that activities sometimes risk becoming ineffective. It is an important objection if the activities are actually poorly designed. Therefore, it is very clear in this bill that the activities, as said, shall be meaningful and aim to strengthen the path towards work and studies. The Government will, of course, follow up on this.

Why is this being done? Well, because we see the effects in the municipalities that are already working with this model today. That is the case, for example, in Linköping, in my home region. There, I was involved in introducing this model four or five years ago. There, the dependency on financial assistance has decreased significantly. Just between January and August 2025, 822 individuals left financial assistance. And in February 2026, the number of such households was down to 1,880. That is the lowest we have measured in ten years. It also confirms a human insight. People do not want to be parked. People want to be seen. People want to contribute and do something that matters. This reform will help with that.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

I became a bit thoughtful when I listened to that and felt that I needed to clarify some things. When I heard the member, I thought like this: We are talking about labor market measures and educational measures and about ensuring that people who are far from the labor market can enter the labor market. This is what Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet, the Social Democrats and we have requested for four years. How many are without work today, we said? It is incredibly many – unemployment is skyrocketing.

What we oppose in this proposal is that we see a rather wrecked labor market policy. We see that cuts are being made on folk high schools, that the allowance is being lowered, and that there are great difficulties in our safety nets. Nevertheless, pressure is to be put on those who are the most economically vulnerable.

If the government had said this: We are going to introduce a real motivation program and do everything we can so that people get into work. We will lower the thresholds, ensure that people can receive an education when they need it, and ensure that they have all conceivable prerequisites to enter the working life. Then we would have stood here and said: Yes, indeed!

What I oppose, and I maintain is a major problem, is that one will make the economically vulnerable even more vulnerable. I do not understand the logic. If the policy had done exactly what it is supposed to do, this would not have been a problem. But now one is doing exactly the opposite. My question is therefore: Why does the government not do all these things without punishing those who are most economically vulnerable?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Maj Karlsson for the question.

I share the view that more needs to be done so that people are equipped to enter the workforce. What the member described as vulnerability, I would rather turn around. Our view of the whole is that it is about expectations. It is clear that society's ultimate safety net must be there when people need it. It is very difficult, and I believe it can also affect all of us in this chamber. It must be secure, and it must be guaranteed that no one is left without support in a difficult situation. At the same time, the safety net must not become some kind of hammock that people lie in and stay in forever because society is unable to offer ways forward.

This government also does not say that people without capacity shall be forced into activity. The government says that if one has activity capacity, one shall use it to the extent one can. As I mentioned: If one has 100 percent capacity, one shall participate to 100 percent. If one has 25 percent capacity, it is 25 percent that applies. If one has no such capacity at all, one is not covered by this either.

The proposal means concretely that it shall apply to those who have received maintenance support for three consecutive months. It shall complement such as job seeking, studies, and labor market policy measures. It can involve language or workplace-based activities, as I mentioned, or strengthening the ability to make the first contact to seek work.

We are injecting money and strengthening vocational training and primary school to achieve results in the long term. A number of different measures are being taken, for example, reduced taxes on labor and other measures to create more jobs and companies, increase consumption, and so on. The entirety of this package will be delivered in due time.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! A small word was used that gave the impression that these are people who, in one way or another, lack motivation. That is not the problem – it is about the conditions.

I have been to folk high schools all over the country that say the government is now cutting back on their activities. Folk high schools are, for example, a very good way into work. We are talking about that there will be exceptions and such, but the problem, as I see it, is that people easily fall through them – that is why they are at the social services.

I read, for example, about a woman who has severe spinal cord pain but who is nevertheless judged to be capable of working. What will happen when she ends up in this situation? Well, she will receive reduced social assistance – a social assistance that several governments in a row have reduced illegally. Resources are already very scarce. It has never paid off as much to work as it does today, but they don't say a word about that. I think that is dishonest.

Of course it would have been a problem if one had done everything possible to get people into the labor market and they still stood and said that they did not intend to take any job, but that is not how it looks today.

My big problem with this is all the people who will fall through. They will be hit extremely hard because they already live on scarce resources today. Where will they go? We will get a new Fattigsverige.

I say this: If one introduces these things, ensures that an active labor market is created and ensures that people have the opportunity to get into jobs, these things will be resolved anyway. My question remains: Why don't you do this first and then see what you need to proceed with?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the follow-up question.

I agree that the issue is complex, because society itself is, but that is also why this reform was needed. People with complex problems are not helped by us simply lowering our gaze, letting the years pass, and letting them remain in the situation they are in.

Those who have a weak educational background need support and not an absence of requirements – they need, for example, education-related interventions. Those who lack knowledge in Swedish do not need more passivity but language training – otherwise, we know what it results in. Those who are in social isolation, as we were touching upon earlier, do not need to be left alone at home – they need more contact with society.

That people have difficulties is not an argument to refrain from activity, but rather an argument for the activity to be adapted, just as this reform says. That the activity requirement shall correspond to the individual's ability is a reasonable arrangement: Those who have partial ability shall be able to participate partially.

Mr. Speaker! I would rather turn the question around, even if it becomes rhetorical. What is the opposition's alternative for the person who has long been dependent on social assistance? Should the person just continue to stay at home as the situation is today? Should the municipalities continue to pay out assistance without being able to offer a clear structure and a way into society? Should children continue to grow up without seeing their parents go towards work and education?

I would not call it consideration but rather capitulation. Our perspective is something completely different, and we demonstrate that through this bill.

(Applause)

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This was interesting, and we will debate the maintenance support further later. I think it is interesting to hear how all these reforms are repeatedly wrapped in a kind of image of consideration for the residents. When one presses clearly, as we just heard in the reply, the image of people lying in a hammock and perhaps not wanting to work emerges. It lies there in the background all the time – we must not forget it.

The fact is that the people on social assistance whom I have met want to work. I understand them. With their low income, I can understand that many of them sit day in and day out with a financial stress that almost eats them up from the inside. That is the reality that many find themselves in, and it is not a reality one wants to be in. One must remember that starting point: People very much want to work – especially in the reality we find ourselves in today. It has never paid off as much to work as it does now. In 20 years, the gap has increased quite significantly.

The people who live on social assistance – the ultimate safety net – are so economically marginalized. There is nothing one wants more than to get into work.

Activity requirements are interesting. I remember when I visited a reuse operation that we had. I have also visited several other operations that work specifically with trying to help people back and with breaking this exclusion. It was a fantastic operation where people were able to come in and have a meaningful occupation and slowly but surely be able to take the step forward.

This reuse activity was very large because it was built once upon a time when quite many were in need of getting into work. Today – as in recent years – it echoes almost empty, and they work with very few. The maintenance support is down to a minimum, and when I met the operations manager, he said that the people they work with – now the municipality has also established other interventions – have complex needs.

There can be several diagnoses. It can be functional impairments, and it can be mental health issues. It can be people who have the energy to be present one day and are happy, but who the next day are not there and don't even have the energy to call and take a sick leave. That is the case for many of the people they meet.

Something he returned to was a reflection on the fact that they are dealing with so many who have fallen through the cracks and who perhaps should actually be on permanent sick leave. They have no work capacity and will never have it, no matter how much they would like to. When it came to other people, one could wonder a bit where the Arbetsförmedlingen and the labor market measures were.

The work that many municipalities are now doing is often due to the fact that the state is not taking its responsibility. The state is not taking its responsibility for educational measures, the state is not taking its responsibility for labor market measures, and the state is not taking its responsibility to make proper assessments of people's capacity for sick leave or work capacity. Then the municipalities are forced to step in.

We should take that perspective with us – because what is the government doing? We have had several ministers on labor market issues, and we have been involved in the lack of work in trying to create interventions. Instead, the government demands this from the municipalities. Everything that one fails to achieve at the national level can be blamed on regions and municipalities. This is something we have heard repeatedly for four years.

The activity requirement is not stupid in itself. Functional activity structures out in the municipalities can have very good effects, and we want to be clear about that from Miljöpartiet, and that is why we do not move for a rejection of the bill. It must, however, be feasible in the right way, i.e., a way where one also cooperates with state agencies – which for once might take their responsibility, but one must say that it remains to be seen. It must be individually adapted and flexible, and one must work to help individuals back to what they dream of: to be able to have meaningful employment.

I want to include some clouds of concern regarding this. A cloud of concern is, as I mentioned in the exchange, that it is the social welfare committees that will have the responsibility, and many of them are incredibly overloaded with the reforms that have been pushed through. Some are well-thought-out – one example is the new Social Services Act, which is very much needed and which we have labored through from our government to the government we have now – but it is a massive pressure.

There is an enormous amount that must change, and we naturally have a concern that the social welfare committees will not be able to cope if this is pushed through thoughtlessly. Then we will not get meaningful activities to those who need it.

Another concern we have is that we risk incurring an administrative burden if this is implemented in an incorrect manner. People must provide medical certificates if they cannot participate fully and medical certificates if they cannot participate for a week or more, and this must be updated. It will become an administrative burden that perhaps would not be necessary. These are some of the fears we have, and therefore we will follow up on this closely.

A third concern we have is linked to the deeply incorrect image of people with social assistance that is once again consistently conveyed. Many of them are people with both mental ill-health and comorbidity, and above all, there are disabilities involved. There is a risk that they fall between the cracks again and perhaps in the worst case cannot take part in the ultimate safety net. This would be very devastating, and therefore we have, of course, also demanded the reservations that highlight what concerns making a proper follow-up.

In conclusion, perhaps one of the most important things is that we need to carry this out in the right way, and for that, we need to involve the municipalities. We need to work together. We need to have a dialogue, and the government needs to take its responsibility. As long as the government does not take its responsibility, it is completely insane to demand and introduce sanctions against the municipalities. We do not believe in that – it is completely the wrong way to go.

There is no one happier than the municipalities when one succeeds in getting people from social assistance into work. We must, therefore, do this together, and we must remove the suspicion that constantly prevails from this government towards municipalities and regions.

We in Miljöpartiet therefore move for approval of reservation 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 May.)

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