Contribution cap and sanction fee in the social insurance
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S stands behind the bill to protect welfare against fraud 1, but expresses concern that the benefit cap may affect persons with mental illness or disabilities 1. V argues that the proposal risks damaging the social insurance's legitimacy and that sanction fees may cause vulnerable groups to refrain from seeking compensation out of fear 2 3 4. MP argues that the proposal risks making the safety systems characterized by suspicion 5. SD motions for approval and argues that the proposal strengthens trust through clearer responsibility and faster sanctions 6 7 8. M argues that the benefit cap and sanction fee are necessary to stifle the criminal economy 9. KD considers that the measures are fair towards those who behave 10. L argues that administrative sanctions are more resource-efficient than criminal measures 11.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report on the benefit cap and sanction fees in the social insurance system.
The government's proposal includes, among other things, new sanction fees and the possibility of suspending people from benefits for a certain period, a so-called benefit ban.
This is ultimately about how we are to protect the welfare system against fraud and incorrect payments, but also about legal certainty and people's security when life falls apart.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden's security system is built on trust. People must know that everyone's common money is used for what it is intended for. If one deliberately cheats, there must be consequences. For us Social Democrats, it is obvious that the welfare system should be protected against fraud and deliberate incorrect payments, and therefore we support the bill.
At the same time, these are very intrusive measures, which we also write about in our special statement. They can be intrusive for people who already live near the margin, and in that case, the consequences can become very large. This type of proposal must therefore also be seen from the perspective of people's reality. It could be about people with mental illness or disabilities, or about people who have difficulty managing complicated regulatory frameworks.
For us Social Democrats, it is particularly serious that people can be cut off from benefits for as long as three years. We also see risks with the fact that sanction fees can be decided even without requirements for intent or negligence.
Mr. Speaker! The social insurances are one of the cornerstones of Swedish society. When people become ill, when the body gives out and when life changes, society must be there. It is not charity; it is solidarity. What has made Sweden strong is that people know that they do not stand alone when life takes a turn. The social insurances are, ultimately, about human dignity and about what kind of society we want.
Mr. Speaker! I am genuinely concerned about the developments within the social insurance area if this government and the Sweden Democrats are given four more years, because during the current term we have seen a clear pattern: more control, stricter rules, and increased suspicion.
Do not misunderstand me. Of course, we must have order and clarity in our security systems. Fraud must be combated. But it must never occur at the expense of safety, legal certainty, and human dignity.
When the government wants to implement changes, it happens quickly. We see new control systems, stricter rules, and increased sanctions. But when it comes to strengthening the security for people who become ill or injured, the will is lacking. The occupational injury insurance has been investigated, and the problems are well known. Yet, nothing happens. People who clearly lack the capacity to work are still stuck year after year on sickness benefit. The government knows this, but still, we see no reforms. That is why the priorities become so clear.
On Friday, I debated the exception at day 180 with the responsible minister, an exception that was introduced by us Social Democrats precisely because people are not machines. Sometimes more time is needed for rehabilitation so that people can return to their work. But despite the fact that the issue is crucial for many on long-term sick leave, we receive no information regarding the government's path forward.
The same applies to the occupational injury insurance. Investigations exist, and the problems are well known. Far too many people still do not have their occupational injuries recognized. Many who have worn out their bodies in their working lives fall between the chairs, and the insurance is outdated.
Mr. Speaker! It is not enough to talk about control. Policy must also be about people being able to trust that security actually exists when work life makes them sick or injured. The vast majority of people in Sweden want to do the right thing. They want to work, support themselves and contribute to society. Then the systems must be built on legal certainty and respect for people. The legitimacy of the social security systems is not only threatened by fraud. It is also threatened if people perceive the systems as unfair, cold or inhuman.
Mr. Speaker! Yes, we shall fight fraud and incorrect payments. But we must never build a social insurance system where people feel greater fear than security. The purpose of social insurance is to give people security when life falls apart and to give them the opportunity to get back on their feet. It is that principle we Social Democrats will continue to defend.
Tony Haddou (V)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden is fantastic when it works as it should. Safety and trust are everything when it really matters. We must nurture and strengthen what is good about Sweden, and certainly, this is possible.
Cuts are not predetermined, but they are a result of political priorities. With different priorities than those the sitting government and the Sverigedemokraterna have made during this mandate period, we could have protected welfare and households, and we could have better protected those who are ill or have lost their jobs.
Swedish households have had it really tough in recent years. We have seen doubled poverty and over 100,000 more unemployed, and in that situation, the government and Sverigedemokraterna have prioritized the absolutely richest.
What we are debating today – a contribution cap and a sanction fee in the social insurance – says a lot about the government's priorities. It will lead to an unreasonable order in the social insurance system where there is a risk that people who both have the right to and are in need of our social insurance systems do not dare to apply for fear of making a mistake.
I think it is important to have order and clarity in the welfare systems and that incorrect payments are countered. This must, however, happen in a way that safeguards legal certainty and that does not risk affecting people who have not committed themselves to intentional fraud. It must also not open up for arbitrary assessments or jeopardize legal certainty.
Mr. Speaker! The government's proposal does not contain sufficient legal safeguards and risks damaging the legitimacy of the social insurance system. A sanction fee can have significant economic consequences for individuals, disadvantage vulnerable groups, and reinforce existing inequalities, which in turn can lead to people refraining from applying for compensation for fear of providing incorrect information. It is difficult regulatory frameworks that one must navigate, often during life's most difficult stages.
The introduction of such fees also risks having discriminatory effects, among others for persons who have a disability or suffer from mental ill-health. The most vulnerable shall have to manage difficult regulations and risk being punished if something goes wrong. Instead of the government doing something about welfare crime and the criminal actors within welfare, innocent persons now risk being punished as if they were criminals. It is not a reasonable legal order, Madam Speaker.
The government's proposal should be rejected against this background. I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.
Daniel Persson (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU26 Contribution cap and sanction fee in social insurance. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.
This is an important report, with proposals aimed at strengthening trust in our common welfare system, which we jointly finance. But for it to work in the long term and for there to be confidence in our social insurances, the system must be used in a respectful manner.
We must ensure that it is those who are in need of help who receive Sweden's various supports within the welfare system. Incorrect payments and benefit fraud erode trust in our welfare, and it also costs society large sums of money.
Madam Speaker! The proposal we are debating today means that we will have faster and more efficient sanctions. Instead of long and resource-intensive legal processes, authorities can now decide on sanction fees directly. This means that society can react faster and more clearly when errors occur. This is crucial because few violations lead to prosecution today, even though people have incorrectly received support from our welfare system.
Madam Speaker! The proposal implies a clearer responsibility for each individual. When incorrect information is provided, whether it occurs intentionally or through negligence, it leads to money being paid out incorrectly. Through sanction fees, clear incentives are created to do things right from the start. It is not about punishment, but this should lead to the support reaching the right people and to it becoming correct and fair.
Madam Speaker! One of the greatest gains with the proposal is that it strengthens confidence in our entire welfare system. When people experience that rules are followed and that abuse has consequences, the willingness to contribute and to follow the regulatory framework also increases. It is absolutely crucial for a system built on trust and confidence that tax funds reach those who are entitled to support.
This is an important tool against persons who deliberately or grossly negligently exploit the system. Being able to be shut out from a specific benefit for a limited period ensures that the system can be protected against recurring abuse. It is a balanced and effective measure.
Madam Speaker! An important strength of the proposal is that it also contains possibilities for adaptation. Fees can be lowered if they become unreasonable, barriers shall be assessed individually, and consideration shall be taken of the individual's situation. If an error occurs, the person shall not be hit by a sanction fee if the error, for example, is due to illness or a disability that has made it difficult to take in information in the correct way. Here, an individual assessment shall be made, where such things as speak for a reduction are considered, and a low burden of proof shall apply.
The authorities have a responsibility to inform about the social insurance and what information the individual needs to provide. Certain targeted information initiatives may need to be undertaken towards specific groups. This means that the proposal combines clear sanctions with legal certainty and reasonableness.
Finally, the changes mean that the authorities will have better tools to work more efficiently. When more cases can be handled administratively, resources are freed up from the judicial system that can instead be used where they are needed most. The grant block and sanction fee in the social insurance will lead to faster processing, better control, and more accurate interventions.
Madam Speaker! The proposal is fundamentally about something important: to safeguard a system that we all depend on, to ensure that support goes to those who are entitled to it, and to strengthen trust in our welfare system. Through clearer responsibilities, effective sanctions, and better control, we take necessary steps in the right direction.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!
When the Left Party negotiates with a government, we see, for example, to it that the sickness insurance is improved, developed in the right direction and not weakened and dismantled. When the Sweden Democrats negotiate with a government, they see to it that such a development is rolled back. They have not wanted to see any improvements, only harsh assessments and ever-spreading poverty. All responsibility is placed on the individual, just as in the proposal on sanction fees and blocks in the social insurance that we are debating today.
It may sound very good when the member delivers their speech and talks about strengthening trust and confidence and so on, but the heavy criticism of the proposal has not been long in coming. The Crime Prevention Council, the Gender Equality Authority, the Equality Ombudsman, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, that is, the government's own expert agency, the Central Student Aid Board, SKPF Pensionärerna, SPF Seniorerna, and the National Association for Children, Young People and Adults with Intellectual Disabilities all point out that the government's proposal on sanction fees with strict liability would damage the social insurance's legitimacy, disadvantage vulnerable groups, and reinforce already existing inequalities. In the long run, this could lead to what I was touching upon earlier, namely that certain groups risk refraining from seeking the compensation they are entitled to out of fear of providing incorrect information.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO, states that the suspension of social insurance and the sanction fee constitute a double punishment and may also conflict with legal principles and the European Convention. Furthermore, it has not been established how the Pensions Agency and Försäkringskassan shall assess whether a person has acted intentionally or with gross negligence, which opens the door for arbitrariness.
Does the member think the proposal is responsible and analyzed at all? Does the member think it is a good rule of law?
Daniel Persson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for your question, Member Tony Haddou!
This proposal means that Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten will be given tools to decide on sanction fees and benefit blocks in order to counter benefit fraud and incorrect payments. With these tools, the consequences can become tangible for those who attempt to cheat themselves into money. It is about both protecting the taxpayers' money and preventing benefit fraud from occurring.
It is an important part to remember that it is appreciated that half of all the money that disappears in incorrect payments goes to criminals. We must stop the criminals' opportunity to acquire money in completely wrong ways. By introducing a benefit block and a sanction fee, we strengthen the protection against incorrect payments, and we hereby counteract benefit crimes.
It is, as said, important to counter abuse of our welfare systems. At the same time, as I emphasized in my speech, an individual assessment shall be made as to whether there are underlying reasons why an error has occurred, for example a disability. The authority shall assess whether there are reasonable grounds for errors having occurred and thus not issue a sanction fee. A low burden of proof shall apply there. But it is, as said, important that we address the abuse.
We propose these tools to step up the work against benefit fraud. The Sweden Democrats and the government will continue to take a firm stand against welfare crime, and the proposals we are debating today are important steps in that work.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! We agree with each other that we need to counter fraud, that we must curb welfare crime and all these points.
The problem here is that the Sweden Democrats and the government are putting forward a proposal that primarily affects individuals, not criminal actors who have eaten their way into the welfare system. Criminal actors are running health centers today, under this government. The Sweden Democrats have not lifted a finger to seriously do anything about it, but instead, they are putting forward a proposal that affects individuals. There is no greater focus on criminal actors.
It is a completely unreasonable legal order in the social insurance system that SD and the government are now creating, and it could lead to people who are entitled to and in need of support from the social insurance systems not daring to apply for it because they risk being punished.
As we write in our motion: ”We agree with Försäkringskassan's criticism that it is not reasonable that a sanction fee should be able to be imposed when the individual's incorrect submission of information cannot be judged to have been made with intent or gross negligence. If a student is granted housing allowance during the spring but then works a summer job and therefore has had too high an income in the final settlement, it could, with the government's proposal”, which we are to vote on here, ”result in both a repayment demand, a sanction fee, and a possible suspension from the housing allowance for a period ahead.”
Sorry, but what does this have to do with criminals? This proposal has not been analyzed at all and risks affecting individuals. Does the member think this is a reasonable prioritization and order in the social insurance system, despite all the heavy criticism I highlighted earlier?
How, for example, will the assessments by Pensionsmyndigheten and Försäkringskassan be conducted here? There is a risk that this opens up for arbitrariness, and nothing is done about that in the proposal.
Daniel Persson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for your question, Member Tony Haddou!
These tools target individuals who exhibit a palpable nonchalance regarding the purpose of the social insurance and the regulatory framework that exists. It should not be enough that the individual happens to be careless or make a mistake on any single occasion; rather, repeated instances are required, or that it is discovered that this individual truly wants to cheat the system.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that one would not dare to seek support and benefits in the social insurance system because one is afraid of making a mistake. I do not share that view or description.
We have, as we have said, also taken several measures during this parliamentary term to address grant fraud and stop feeding the criminal world with grant money. Up to 15–20 billion is estimated to be spent in incorrect payments, and half goes to criminals.
We have removed confidentiality barriers between authorities so that they can better share information with each other and detect incorrect payments. We have also made it possible for authorities to receive information from a wider circle to ensure that they receive the correct underlying data and pay out the correct support.
Last year, we made it possible to withdraw social security benefits for persons who have been remanded in their absence as well as for persons who do not report to serve a custodial sentence. This may seem like a self-evident matter, but it was only last year that this became a reality.
Now we are, as we have said, introducing additional tools to address these problems. Step by step, the Sweden Democrats and the government are countering the possibility that criminals can cheat their way to benefits.
Mohamed Yassin (MP)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin with what should be obvious: Our collective security systems must be used correctly. Deliberate benefit fraud is serious. It damages trust in the welfare state and erodes people's confidence in the systems.
Of course, society should have tools to stop organized and deliberate subsidy fraud. But today's debate is about something larger than the fight against fraud. It is about the relationship between people and the welfare state, about what kind of society we are building, and about how the state chooses to view people who need support when life falters.
Madam Speaker! The Government describes the proposal as a way to strengthen control over the social security systems. But behind the wording lies a policy that risks making the safety nets harsher and more characterized by suspicion. The proposal entails administrative sanction fees and the possibility of a benefit block. This means that people can be cut off from compensation and punished financially through administrative decisions from authorities. Sick and unemployed people who receive support from the social security systems can thus be left completely without compensation and safety nets. Miljöpartiet argues that the consequences here are underestimated.
Madam Speaker! Behind the legislation are real people. It is the person on sick leave who is trying to cope with everyday life and the single mother who counts every krona. It is people with mental illness, disabilities, and insecure employment. Many try to do the right thing in systems that are often complicated. Social security systems are not simple. Rules change, information is difficult to understand, and people often have contact with several authorities simultaneously. When life is already difficult, mistakes happen. That does not automatically mean that people are trying to cheat.
Miljöpartiet argues that the fight against subsidy fraud must be accurate. We want to see better agency cooperation, clearer information, and a greater focus on organized crime and systematic fraud. It is there that we believe society's resources do the most good.
Madam Speaker! The distinction between intentional fraud and human error must be maintained. But the government's proposal risks blurring that line. That is where legal certainty becomes crucial. When the state uses its power against individuals, legal certainty must be strong, especially when the consequence can be that people lose their livelihood. It is not about small, administrative matters. It is about people's ability to pay rent, buy food, and support their children. Therefore, Miljöpartiet is critical of authorities being able to impose far-reaching administrative sanctions and make decisions based on a proposal that is not properly thought through.
Madam Speaker! There is also another dimension in this proposal that is missing from this debate and which is talked about far too little. It is trust. Our safety systems do not function only through control but also by people feeling confidence in the systems and daring to seek support when they need it. Even today, however, many refrain from support they are entitled to because they are afraid of making a mistake or being hit by clawbacks. The risk is that the government's policy reinforces that development.
What happens to a society where people begin to feel fear toward the welfare system instead of security? What happens when the state primarily sees people as potential fraudsters?
For Miljöpartiet, welfare is about security and solidarity – about the society being there when people become ill, lose their jobs, or need help to get back on their feet.
Madam Speaker! We believe in safety systems based on both responsibility and humanity, where the state meets people with legal certainty and respect and where politics never forgets that behind every regulatory framework there are real people and real lives.
It is possible to combat subsidy fraud without dismantling trust in the welfare system. It is possible to protect taxpayers' money without building policy on suspicion. That is why I move for the rejection of the government's bill and for the approval of reservation 1.
Caroline Högström (M)
Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be a country where it pays to work, to behave correctly and to contribute to our common society. People who go to work every morning, pay taxes and take responsibility should also be able to trust that society is there when they themselves need support. It is the very core of the social contract.
For all too long, however, our welfare systems have been exploited by people who deliberately cheat and commit crimes. It is not about mistakes. It is about people who time and again appropriate money they are not entitled to, money that should have gone to the elderly, to those who are ill, or to families with children.
Every year, an estimated 15–20 billion kronor disappear in incorrect payments from our welfare systems. About half of these are assessed to be pure benefit crimes. It is therefore billions of the taxpayers' money that risk ending up with criminals, money that can be used to finance gang criminals' lifestyles, status items, drugs, and violent crimes.
The Moderates do not accept this.
Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government has, since day one, acted with united strength against organized crime. We have tightened the penalties. We have given the police better tools. We have broken the secrecy between authorities to stop crimes and incorrect payments. We have made it possible to freeze assets of subsidy criminals who refuse to pay back money. We have withdrawn social insurance benefits for those who hide away from detention or imprisonment.
The results are already starting to be seen. The deadly gang violence has more than halved, and the shootings have decreased. We Moderates get things done. We are on the right track, but we are far from finished.
Now we take the next step. In order for us to be able to break the gangs, we must choke the criminal economy. This is estimated to turn over several hundred billion kronor every year, of which a part is subsidy crime. It feeds the criminal gangs, finances violence, and contributes to creating a parallel economy that threatens our society.
What we are dealing with today is about exactly this.
With this legislation, a benefit bar is introduced within the social insurance system. This means that those who deliberately and repeatedly cheat to obtain benefits or grants can be disqualified from social insurance for a period of time. Additionally, a sanction fee is introduced for those who provide incorrect information or fail to report changed circumstances.
This is important for several reasons. For the first: Crime must have consequences. For the second: Our common tax money should go to those who actually need the support. For the third: We strengthen trust in the welfare systems by showing that society reacts when rules are abused.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has long had a welfare system built on trust. We have started from the premise that people do the right thing. But that trust has unfortunately been abused, sometimes systematically and organized by criminal networks. Therefore, we must move from a naive, trust-based system to a system where control and responsibility also play a larger role.
And let me be clear: This is not about people who are ill or have a disability and need society's support. Of course, the welfare should be there for those who need it. It is about those who cheat and commit crimes.
Madam Speaker! It is remarkable that parts of the opposition oppose several of the government's reforms to stop benefit fraud. The Social Democrats' future coalition partners Vänstern and Miljöpartiet say no to several important measures to stop welfare fraud and the criminal economy. They say no when we want to strengthen the exchange of information between authorities. They say no to more tools to stop benefit fraud. They also oppose reforms that ensure that tax money can no longer go to criminals. It is difficult to understand. For the vast majority, it is completely obvious that those who cheat and commit crimes should not be able to live on the taxpayers' money.
Every krona that ends up in the wrong pocket is a krona that does not go to the elderly woman waiting for care, to the single mother or father who needs support, or to the person who, due to illness, cannot work.
Madam Speaker! We Moderates will continue to work to crack the criminal economy. We want to see a broader and more general benefit ban. We want those who commit serious crimes, such as violent crimes or terrorist crimes, to be unable to finance their lifestyle with benefits. It is not fair that hard-working people's money goes towards financing criminals' lifestyles, status items, and in the worst cases, acts of violence.
We will continue to provide the authorities with better tools to detect and stop the fraud. Welfare is for those who need it, not for those who exploit it. Hard-working people should be able to trust that their tax money is used for what it is intended for. It is fair. It strengthens the social contract.
In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.
Ingemar Kihlström (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin this debate by moving for approval of the committee majority's proposed decision and rejection of the motions being addressed in the report regarding the bill on the contribution bar and sanction fee in the social insurance.
Life can involve many different situations where we as citizens need support from society. In our society, we have welfare systems that are meant to exist for those who need them most, precisely in situations that we cannot foresee or plan for – a safety net that catches us when we need it.
But for acceptance and justice, it is important to counter that they are abused. The welfare systems shall exist for those who are in need of and have a right to them, not for criminals and for those who cheat. People who behave correctly must be able to trust that their tax money is used in the right way. The Government therefore puts forward in this matter proposals for a benefit block and a sanction fee to counter incorrect payments and to combat the criminal economy and benefit crime.
In order to maintain confidence in the social insurance system, the authorities must be given tools to counter incorrectly paid benefits. Providing the opportunity for Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten to decide on benefit blocks and sanction fees is therefore an important measure against an incorrect exploitation of the social insurances.
Madam Speaker! Every year, 15–20 billion kronor are estimated to be paid out incorrectly from the state welfare systems. About half of these payments are judged to be due to intentional errors. These funds risk ending up with criminals and strengthening organized crime.
Therefore, we, the Christian Democrats and other parties in the Tidö cooperation, propose an administrative sanction fee and a grant block. The purpose is to reduce incorrect payments and strengthen the protection of the welfare systems.
With a sanction fee and a subsidy ban, the consequences become tangible for those who attempt to obtain money they are not entitled to. It is about protecting the taxpayers' money and countering subsidy fraud that feeds the criminal economy. It is the right approach and fair towards everyone who behaves correctly and expects us to protect society's resources.
Madam Speaker! The proposals mean that the person who has caused an incorrect payment by providing incorrect information or by failing in their reporting or information obligation shall be able to be subject to a sanction fee. In many cases, the sanction fee replaces a criminal penalty for less serious grant offenses, which leads to faster handling and a relief for the justice system. Naturally, a police report shall continue to be made in cases of serious grant offenses or if special reasons exist.
The proposal also suggests that Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten shall decide on a benefit ban for a certain period for those who have deliberately or through gross negligence attempted to exploit the social insurance. This concerns instances where incorrect information has been provided or where there has been a failure to comply with reporting or information obligations. These changes are proposed to enter into force on 1 July 2026.
Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats and other parties in the Tidösamarbetet believe that an action that has caused an incorrect payment should receive a swift and tangible reaction from society. By introducing administrative sanctions, conditions are created for incorrect payments to lead to a sanction for the action and the omission that is currently covered by the grant crime law, more quickly and in a significantly larger extent than today.
Madam Speaker! Does the proposal then mean that subsidy crime is decriminalized? No, that will not happen. I just mentioned that in the case of serious violations, a police report will nevertheless be filed. It means that there will be a faster handling for crimes that are not so serious.
Does one, as a regular beneficiary, then need to be worried about running into a benefit block or a sanction fee? Those who are entitled to a benefit or a support do not need to feel worried, provided that the individual has submitted correct information and fulfills their reporting and information obligation.
Even if an error happens, a person should not be hit with a sanction fee if it is, for example, due to an illness or a disability. The only ones who should be worried about being blocked are those who, intentionally or through gross negligence, provide incorrect information in order to be able to get, or do get, money they are not entitled to. It is only those who intentionally and through gross negligence exploit the social insurance who can be blocked, no one else.
Is a single error enough to be barred? A decision on a benefit bar should only cover situations where there is a special reason to prevent someone from receiving a benefit. The benefit bar thus targets individuals who exhibit a palpable nonchalance in relation to the purpose and regulations of the social insurance. It should not be enough that the individual at some single occasion has been careless or missed taking part in information about their obligations. Significantly more is required than that.
Madam Speaker! When the Tidös agreement ensures changes that both safeguard all citizens' resources and rights and also involve measures that counteract fraud and abuse, we can observe that in this matter, as so often during the last four years, there is a lack of unity on the opposition side.
The red-green chaos coalition does not want to uniformly follow the government's direction of safeguarding the taxpayers' money. The Center stands fully behind the proposal and is not even part of the debate today. The Social Democrats stand behind the proposal but have objections in a special statement. The intended coalition partners Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet reject the proposal and choose to ignore the cash flow and the abuse that exists today. One can wonder what red lines will be drawn in just this area in the upcoming chaos negotiations.
What is to constitute the basis for a government does not have a unified line. It is as it usually is in many other matters during this mandate period. My greeting to the Swedish people is that one should avoid choosing the risky path in the election in September.
Madam Speaker! There is an alternative in this autumn's election that, through practical action in this and many other important matters during this mandate period, has ensured that promised changes are realized. It is the Christian Democrats who, together with the other Tidö parties, have achieved a different direction for politics in Sweden.
Now we see with this proposal to give Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten relevant tools to counter abuse of the welfare systems. It is the stability that Sweden needs and that the Swedes voted for in the 2022 election. It is important that that stability continues when we parties can cooperate to move the work forward even in the next mandate period.
Promoting welfare systems and countering abuse, as today's proposal does, is the path that Sweden needs to follow. It is about justice. That is how we build trust. It is one of the steps toward building a stronger Sweden.
As I have previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's decision and rejection of the motion proposals.
Patrik Karlson (L)
Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be a country where security is there when people need it. It shall be there when a person becomes ill, when a parent needs to be alone at home with a child, and when life suddenly changes and one's own income is not enough. No one shall be left alone when life strikes.
That is why, at the same time, our security systems must be protected, because welfare is not free. It is carried by entrepreneurs who invest and take risks and people who set their alarms, go to work, pay taxes and do the right thing. All of them have the right to demand that what they pay in as tax actually goes to what it was intended for.
Madam Speaker! The proposal being raised here in the chamber today regarding the benefit cap and sanction fee in the social insurance is an important part of the government's broader benefit reform. The government is now putting forward several reforms that collectively strengthen the work principle, reduce exclusion, and increase respect for our common welfare systems.
We will later today discuss contribution ceilings and activity requirements. We have already moved forward with qualification for certain social insurance benefits and also the job premium. These are not isolated measures but parts of a larger whole.
Madam Speaker! The bill contains two central reforms. Firstly, a sanction fee is introduced for anyone who causes a compensation to be paid incorrectly or in an excessively high amount by providing incorrect information or by failing to fulfill their duty of disclosure or reporting obligation.
It shall apply to both physical and legal persons according to the Social Insurance Code and also to healthcare providers according to the Act on State Dental Care Support. It is important. Social insurance is not just about individual benefit recipients. It handles large flows, many actors, and significant public funds.
Secondly, we are introducing a benefit bar. This means that an individual can be barred from the right to a benefit under the Social Insurance Code for a certain period if the person has intentionally or through gross negligence provided incorrect information or failed to fulfill their duty of disclosure or reporting obligation.
Madam Speaker! Common mistakes should not lead to a grant ban. Misunderstandings should not lead to a grant ban. Those who, for various reasons, have had difficulty understanding information or communicating with the authorities should not be treated as someone who deliberately exploits the system. We shall be tough on fraud, but fair to those who want to do the right thing.
Madam Speaker! Several actors have pointed out the need for tools that are more accurate than the current order. Today, the step is often large between demands for repayment and criminal justice measures. Not everything fits into the same box. Not everything should have to go through the police and prosecutors. At the same time, the state cannot simply shrug its shoulders when incorrect payments occur.
That is why we are moving forward with these administrative sanctions. They will be clearer and faster and become more resource-efficient. We simply need a system where the consequences come closer to the rule violation. The person who provides incorrect information shall know that it has consequences. It strengthens justice and trust.
Madam Speaker! The social security system already relies on the individual providing correct information and reporting changes that affect the right to compensation. It is a fundamental prerequisite for the system.
At the same time, it is crucial that the system does not become too rigid. Therefore, there is a possibility for a reduction of the sanction fee when the full amount would be unreasonable. In that case, the authority shall, among other things, consider circumstances such as age, health, and similar conditions. The authorities shall also, on their own initiative, consider factors that speak in favor of a reduction. It is an important balance to keep in mind.
Therefore, it is also important that the bill is clear that misunderstandings and common negligence shall not lead to a grant ban. It is also important that the authorities have responsibility for information, guidance, and targeted measures for those who need it.
Madam Speaker! This proposal is, as stated, also part of a larger task: to re-establish the work line, the responsibility line, and the trust line in Sweden. For far too long, we have seen how the welfare systems have become increasingly complex. Many authorities handle large sums. The regulations are extensive. Criminal actors and unscrupulous operators seek out where the money is. In that case, it is not enough for us to stand passive.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.