A language requirement in elderly care

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a great day today when we are finally going to decide on language requirements in elderly care. We Christian Democrats protect Sweden's elderly, and we prioritize elderly care. When one is at their weakest, society should be at its strongest. For us, it is also actually a fundamental value that elderly people should be treated with dignity and respect.

People who have fought and struggled throughout an entire life to be able to give their children and grandchildren a better future and to build a better society for us all should, of course, be able to rely on being met by fellow human beings with time to show consideration and to provide security on the day their strength wanes and they realize that they are in need of elderly care. Therefore, we Kristdemokrater will continue to prioritize the security for Sweden's elderly.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to speak of safety or dignity if there is no opportunity to talk about everyday life or life with the person who is appointed to manage the care and the welfare. It is also not possible to speak of respect if the elderly cannot understand or make themselves understood in their own language in their own country.

Britt Persson in Malmö told Sveriges Radio how her husband Kurt, who lived in a senior housing facility, became insecure when he was not understood and could not convey what he wanted. She said: He was insecure. It was me he trusted the most.

Kurt did not always feel like trying to explain how he was feeling or what he wanted. Britt told that he answered yes to most things even if it was sometimes supposed to be no. The staff were certainly friendly and tried to do their best, but there was a lack of communication. Britt felt powerless.

Mr. Speaker! Imagine that you are dependent on help every day but cannot make yourself understood by the person who is supposed to take care of you! For far too many elderly people, this is everyday life.

According to the Swedish Social Board's survey on social cohesion, nearly every fifth person did not state that everyone or the majority can speak Swedish well enough for people to understand each other. So, we cannot have that.

We are now introducing strict language requirements for staff in elderly care. The Government shall be authorized to issue regulations on what language proficiency in Swedish is relevant within elderly care. We are also introducing an obligation in the Social Services Act for those who provide elderly care to work towards ensuring that staff have the required knowledge. It is about ensuring that those who work closely with the elderly have sufficient knowledge of Swedish – corresponding to a level where one can communicate clearly, understand instructions, and conduct conversations.

The Government allocates 90 million kronor in the budget bill for 2026 for the municipalities' work with the language requirement and an additional 165 million in 2027 and 150 million in 2028 and onwards.

I note that many parties are now prepared to support the government's proposal. That is good, but the Social Democrats had eight years to introduce a language requirement for staff in elderly care. Despite the fact that a majority of the municipalities already then conceded that staff in elderly care needed better knowledge of Swedish, this was not done.

A bourgeois government was required to move the issue forward. And it is thanks to the cooperation between Kristdemokraterna, Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna that we are now introducing a language requirement in elderly care that applies equally for everyone in the entire country. For several reasons, this represents a major step toward increasing the security for Sweden's elderly.

It goes without saying that when the staff at our elderly care homes do not master Swedish, it leads to a poorer work environment for the staff and to fewer people wanting to work in elderly care.

But the lack of language skills also poses a security risk for the elderly because the staff risk misunderstanding instructions. Not being able to make oneself understood in Swedish means that symptoms may not be detected in time and that one may not be able to convey the information required for a full medical assessment to be made.

It can also be about security risks in acute situations – with lives at stake. We have seen several examples of this, including in Västerås where a demented woman with suspected blood poisoning at a nursing home could not receive sufficient help when the ambulance arrived because the staff at the nursing home almost completely lacked knowledge in Swedish and could not answer simple questions.

So, it is about the safety of the elderly. But for us Christian Democrats, today's proposal actually concerns at least as much the elderly's right to feel security, belonging, and community in everyday life – in the residential home or at home. It should be self-evident that as an elderly person, one should be able to make oneself understood when one is in pain, is afraid, or just wants to talk about one's day. Being able to speak Swedish will therefore, from now on, be a given for those who want to work in elderly care.

I am convinced that it is completely right to set higher demands on Swedish elderly care so that more people will want to work within the care sector. But above all, it is right to raise the ambitions for elderly care to ensure that people receive the secure care they deserve.

For us Christian Democrats, it is a priority – but it is also a value – to particularly protect those who are ill and to show respect for those who are elderly.

You should be able to rely on the fact that your mother or grandmother will be able to get a place in a nursing home the day she herself feels she needs it, but also that she will then be met by people who are capable of giving her warmth and security and treating her with dignity and respect. No one should have to feel the powerlessness that Britt felt when her husband Kurt was not understood by the staff in elderly care.

The lack of language skills within elderly care is a great betrayal of Sweden's elderly. Therefore, I am proud that we can move forward with this proposal today and that we will introduce sharp language requirements for staff in elderly care this summer. Now we are putting the elderly's safety first.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

For us in Vänsterpartiet, the supply of skills today and for the future is one of the most fundamental political priorities that we must invest in at the national level. Language competence is such a thing. The Swedish language and other languages will be important to develop within elderly care.

But the staffing is also fundamental. Our elderly lack staff to talk to and who can provide them with care and support in time when they need it. The staff do not have time to comfort the elderly when they feel sad and do not have time to take their statutory break due to the hunt for minutes and constant stress.

There is a shortage of 50,000 employees in elderly care. The question that needs to be addressed regarding competence and staffing for the future is therefore: How are the government and Sverigedemokraterna going to conjure up 50,000 new employees in four years? Because that is what the Socialstyrelsen has recently stated is needed.

I understand that the government's and the Sweden Democrats' biggest initiative for this parliamentary term is language requirements in elderly care, but there are also other things that we need to address. My question to the member is therefore: How are the government and the Sweden Democrats going to conjure up 50,000 new employees in elderly care within four years so that our elderly have someone they can talk to, who can give them comfort, care and support in time, and so that our staff have enough colleagues so that they have time to take their statutory break?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that more hands are needed in elderly care. One thing is very clear, and that is that we will not manage the staffing requirements if we believe we can do it through low ambitions or by in some way compromising on the quality within elderly care.

I mean that what we do today is an important step on the way to making it more attractive to work in elderly care. Many patient safety risks that the staff struggle with today will disappear if we ensure that the staff can speak Swedish. That means we have better conditions to provide elderly care with good quality. That one as an employee feels a pride in their profession and what they are able to do at work is perhaps one of the most important things.

I am completely convinced that we will create both greater professional pride and better well-being and working environment if the staff can talk to each other during the coffee break. More, not fewer, will want to work in elderly care with today's proposal on language requirements in elderly care.

This is an important initiative. We are injecting 90 million already this year and then further funds so that this initiative can be carried out. One must, however, remember that we have also extended the Äldreomsorgslyftet, which aims precisely at getting more people to work in elderly care. In doing so, we create better conditions so that more elderly people can experience being treated with dignity and respect in their encounter with elderly care.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member says that we will not manage the staffing and competence supply in elderly care if we have low ambitions. It sounds like the member means that it is our nursing assistants, healthcare assistants, and other staff in elderly care with immigrant backgrounds who have low ambitions. That is not true, and I will not accept such language from the member or any other representative from the Tidö parties.

We should be proud of our staff in the welfare sector, regardless of whether they have an immigrant background or not. They work day in and day out to provide the care and support that our elderly need. They are on sick leave more than any other professional group, and they receive extremely low wages as thanks for it. They cannot manage to work full-time, and their bodies are worn out.

This is how it has sounded throughout the entire parliamentary term from the Tidö government's side when we talk about elderly care – all the problems we see in elderly care with staff and competence shortages, cuts and savings in welfare are about staff with immigrant backgrounds. That we have such a low quality in elderly care seems to be about them and not about the government and the Sverigedemokraterna having lowered the taxes for themselves, the billionaires and the multi-millionaires, raised their own fees and thereby delivered cut budgets to the municipalities and regions, which have had to lay off staff. They cannot raise their wages enough, and they cannot shorten the working hours so that the staff can manage to work full-time.

My question to the member is therefore: When will the government and the Sweden Democrats take responsibility for what elderly care looks like today and stop blaming staff with an immigrant background?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Now we must be allowed to clear up one thing or another here, I feel. It is naturally not the staff in elderly care who have had too low ambitions. On the contrary – they are crying out for more investments in elderly care.

Those who have had low ambitions are, for example, Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet – those who had the opportunity to, for example, set sufficient requirements on Swedish language skills within elderly care but chose not to do so.

It was an entirely too low ambition. Now we are raising the ambition regarding what the elderly should be able to expect from their care. The lack of language skills in elderly care is a betrayal of Sweden's elderly.

What should we do then to improve elderly care? Better conditions for the staff are needed. Many times, increased wages are required. But it is also about more resources for elderly care and that people should be able to work with what they are trained for. Schedules that can be influenced are needed, which make it possible to combine work and family life, and also scheduling and management that provide time for the elderly and provide opportunity for reflection and further education for the staff.

For all of that to fall into place, leadership is not least extremely central. It is also a matter of having a manageable number of employees under you as a manager so that you can manage to both be present in the operations and be a good manager.

We need to invest in elderly care to improve the conditions, and the Christian Democrats will be involved and contribute to that.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! When Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson gets older, he will be able to buy the elderly care he needs with his own staff who clean his home, cook his food, and act as a chauffeur. With his private health insurance, he can buy the care he needs, and he can also buy expensive aids. If he needs to move to a nursing home, it will resemble a senior resort.

I understand that the government and the Sweden Democrats are deprioritizing elderly care, because they and their rich friends will be able to buy the care and services they want and will not need Swedish welfare. I also do not believe that after their time as politicians they will choose to work within elderly care. Low wages and sick leaves do not exactly attract them there. These politicians prioritize tax cuts of billions of kronor, because that benefits them.

Due to the policy's prioritization of tax cuts for the country's billionaires and multi-millionaires, we therefore stand here with elderly care in crisis. We will need to hire 50,000 people by 2030. How are we to find 50,000 new employees in just four years, when wages are too low despite working full-time, stress is increasing more and more, they are on sick leave more than any other professional group, and cannot manage to work a full career because there is already a staff shortage?

Our elderly are losing their home-cooked lunch and are forced to eat microwave meals. They need to negotiate how many showers they can get, and each shower is allowed a maximum of 15 minutes. And if, in the worst-case scenario, they alert about a stroke, they do not get help in time because the staff is somewhere else giving insulin.

But according to the government and the Sweden Democrats, there is a crisis in elderly care because their colleagues have a background other than ethnic Swedish. That is how their rhetoric has sounded in the media, in debates, and at press conferences. It is deeply problematic to discredit the hard work that every worker in elderly care performs and to portray immigrants as the cause of all the societal problems we have in Sweden.

The question of language requirements is an example of when this comes into expression. I am a language teacher by profession. I loved teaching languages and developing my students' language skills. And the students loved the Swedish lessons, because they got to learn how they could convey opinions, feelings, facts, and stories. They received tools and support and could therefore feel that they succeeded. But the Tidö government has, unfortunately, had language become a punching bag in its right-wing rhetoric in order to be able to portray a villain.

If it has now been identified that there is a general need for competence development in languages, can we not invest in that as the welfare issue it is? It will be important to make reinforcements within the Swedish language and other languages. This concerns sign language, minority languages, and healthcare Swedish.

We have an increasingly ethnified elderly group. We know that cognitive decline leads to one falling back into one's first language and losing other languages acquired later in life. Therefore, we need to invest in language-boosting measures in elderly care.

However, it does not mean that the Tidö government and other politicians should make healthcare and care personnel feel vulnerable or that they should try to convince the rest of the Swedish people that it is the fault of the immigrated welfare staff that elderly care is in crisis. It is completely wrong and unacceptable.

We are politicians, and one speaks well of their entire population. If one is unable to refrain from a racist and class-contemptuous rhetoric towards one's people, one should not govern. Then one is highly unsuitable to do so.

It is good, Mr. Speaker, that the government has now chosen to follow the investigator's proposal, which can be summarized as that one should not punish the staff with requirements that can exacerbate the already enormous staff shortage. The proposal is to expand the employer's responsibility to identify language competence needs and address them. It is good that the government landed on this proposal, even though I understand that the Sverigedemokraterna might have preferred to see something more repressive.

For almost four years, we have missed, requested, and also demanded other very fundamental measures from the government. Our elderly lack staff to talk to, staff who can provide them with care and support when they need it. The staff do not have time to meet every elderly person or even take their statutory break due to the hunt for minutes and constant stress.

Börje, 86 years old, constantly meets new staff in the home care service and says: "They don't know who I am." He meets too many different staff members every day, and it feels insecure. I understand him, because that is not how relationships can be built. It must feel safe in the most intimate parts, such as the changing of incontinence pads or a shower.

A nursing assistant has had enough and chooses to leave the profession she actually loves. She says in an interview that Agda needs to talk, but they only have ten minutes. Sometimes Agda is sad, and what she needs most is to be able to sit and talk for a while, because she is so terribly lonely. But there isn't enough time.

It is devastating, Mr. Speaker, that it looks like this in today's Sweden. Where are the Tidö government's initiatives to ensure that staff can keep up and do not have to stress as much? Where are the initiatives that make our elderly feel secure with the elderly care they need?

Abolish the minute-management! Introduce a reduction in working hours so that people can manage to work full-time! Improve working conditions! Give more state resources to the municipalities so that they are not forced to cut back on elderly care! At least 130 municipalities have done so now.

We submitted a completed proposal on a crisis commission in elderly care for the Social Affairs Committee to direct to the government, something that the entire opposition stood behind. But there was no announcement as Minister for Elderly Care Anna Tenje referred to the Tidö Government's enormous investment in language requirements. How do language requirements solve these problems?

The National Board of Health and Welfare notes that the quality of elderly care has not been worse over the last ten years. In several places, elderly care today is worse than before the pandemic. It is a result of cuts and market experiments in care that the government and the Sweden Democrats are absolutely responsible for.

The 46 richest people in Sweden have received tax cuts from the government and the Sverigedemokraterna. At the same time, at least 130 municipalities in Sweden are bleeding money, so the elderly's toilet visits are timed in minutes. The elderly are allowed to meet over 20 employees in two weeks. The elderly have to wait for over three months to get a place in special housing. Savings are made on good and nutritious food for the elderly. And nursing assistants are the most frequently on sick leave of all due to a terrible work environment, but they cannot afford to get sick.

The government and the Sweden Democrats also allow our tax money to disappear into profits that become CEOs' salaries and shareholders' dividends instead of staying in the elderly care operations.

I can mention a CEO as an example. Mark Jensen is the CEO of Ambea, one of Sweden's largest healthcare and elderly care companies. He earns 550,000 kronor every month. We are talking about over half a million kronor. That is as much as the salaries of his 22 care assistants combined.

We know at the same time that wages and pensions are worse and the staff fewer within just profit-seeking healthcare and elderly care. This is a result of our tax money not staying in elderly care but being allowed to disappear from the staff's wages and from the elderly's right to a place in special housing, and instead becoming profits for CEOs and dividends to shareholders.

Furthermore, these companies and corporations get away with fraud and neglect and are allowed to continue establishing themselves all over the country. And with the government's and the Sweden Democrats' rules, skilled nursing assistants and healthcare aides are additionally being deported on an assembly line in the midst of a staff and competence supply crisis.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Swedish people expected more and different initiatives from the government and the Sweden Democrats than just language requirements. It sounded very different from these right-wing parties before the election.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Left Party demands that a crisis commission be appointed to review the entire elderly care system, from resource distribution to working conditions, the work environment, and the pursuit of profit. It must no longer be possible to turn a blind eye to the crisis that the Tidö Government has deepened.

We are also very happy and proud that the entire opposition stood behind the proposal for a crisis commission. The trade union Kommunal and the organizations PRO and SPF Seniorerna also demand a crisis commission.

When we replace this government, Vänsterpartiet is ready to take responsibility for rebuilding elderly care – for the staff, for the elderly, and for a society that holds together. I move for approval of reservation 1.

In this speech, Nils Seye Larsen (MP) agreed.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are, as said, debating tightened language requirements within elderly care.

Let me begin with the obvious that language is crucial for elderly care. The elderly need to be able to make themselves understood, be able to express their needs, and receive the right care and support. It is about security, dignity, and safety. For the staff, it is naturally about being able to perform their work with quality and at a safe level. We Social Democrats therefore stand behind the proposal for stricter language requirements within elderly care, but we also have a specific statement.

Mr. Speaker! It is not enough to state that language is important. In this case, it is about how this reform is designed and what consequences it will have. We Social Democrats believe that it would have been desirable to have clearer requirements that cover all staff groups within elderly care, as the quality of care is not determined by a single professional role but by the whole.

Mr. Speaker! There are also larger systemic problems that must be highlighted. When elderly care is underfunded, the operations are pressured. The colleague from Vänsterpartiet described in an exemplary manner in their speech what challenges Swedish elderly care faces. It becomes a bit strange, I think, when the Kristdemokraterna member in their speech beats their chest and says that they are investing in elderly care. Throughout the entire parliamentary term, the Tidö parties have not prioritized elderly care at all. They have come up with some single reform. Most of the reforms were those that the S-led government initiated.

The fundamental problem in Swedish elderly care is that it is underfunded. This has resulted in savings over several years, primarily regarding the staff. The schedules have been made worse and the staffing levels lower, and the stress is increasing. Naturally, this has had consequences, including in the form of the status regarding working within elderly care having fallen. Language requirements are an incredibly important part, but the Tidö parties seem to lack insight into the fundamental problem.

Elderly care must be prioritized financially – especially since we have 290 municipalities in Sweden, of which approximately 130 have an operating budget that does not balance. This means that money is saved on, among other things, staffing because personnel costs are the largest expense – while at the same time, the staff is one of the municipality's greatest assets, which I want to emphasize.

Mr. Speaker! It would be interesting to hear concrete promises from the government and the Sweden Democrats about investing substantial money in this area. What has happened now is that this group – especially healthcare and care-related staff, primarily healthcare assistants and nursing assistants – has a sickness absence rate that is often higher than in many other work groups. They experience that they cannot influence their jobs and that they have poor schedules with minute-management and stress. It is fundamentally a funding issue.

Then, naturally, one must work on developing the work environment. It is about leadership, content, and opportunities for influence. We Social Democrats have seen this clearly, and have also allocated funds. Now it is time to prioritize elderly care when it comes to the economy.

The problems naturally make it more difficult to recruit staff. If approved knowledge of Swedish is to be required – which is adequate – it will put further pressure on the municipalities when it comes to finding labor. Therefore, it is extremely important that, in parallel with this reform – preferably it should have been done earlier – more money is given to this sector.

It is clear that we all want to see an elderly care where the staff can work with quality and dignity, where the working conditions are good, where the bureaucracy is reasonable and where the profession has the status it deserves. Naturally, the language requirements are part of this, but they can never replace correct staffing, correct competence and good working conditions.

Mr. Speaker! At its core, this is about something larger, namely that elderly care needs to be reformed and strengthened. That is why we Social Democrats have, since the beginning of the parliamentary term, proposed significantly greater resources for the welfare sector. In the years 2023 and 2024, we had, for example, twice as high appropriations for welfare compared to the Tidö parties.

We also have in this year's state budget a special investment of 2 billion, which is to be seen as a first step and where we have joined forces with, among others, the union Kommunal to prioritize elderly care. These 2 billion are, among other things, for increasing and strengthening staffing. It is not enough, but it is a first step. We have the ambition to ensure that this underfunded sector receives more. It is clear that if the staffing density increases, the work will eventually gain higher status and the competence improves, which increases the quality within elderly care, which our elderly will benefit from. That is the most important thing. Our elderly, who have worked hard their entire lives, deserve world-class care and support.

(Applause)

In this speech, Dzenan Cisija (S) concurred.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by turning to all those I have come to know who have come to Sweden and who now work in elderly care. Mohammad, Endalkachew, Sarah, Silan, Daniel and Yohannes are just some of the thousands of foreign-born people who, with heart and commitment, knowledge and experience, do a fantastic job and are passionate about taking care of our elderly. Thank you for being there! Thank you for your invaluable work! You deserve our full respect and appreciation. If there is one thing we should focus on here in the Riksdag, it is to give you better conditions to perform your work. It is about better working conditions, a good and sustainable work environment, more colleagues, less stress, time for recovery and investments in regular competence development and further education.

Mr. Speaker! Our elderly deserve an old age with dignity. They have lived their lives to shape a better future for us all. Elderly care shall provide security, dignity, and care when people need it most. Then communication must also function. The one receiving care must be able to understand and be understood. Relatives must be able to feel security. Staff must be able to cooperate, document correctly, and act in pressured situations.

Language is important; Miljöpartiet is in complete agreement with the government on that. But, Mr. Speaker, the decisive factor is not introducing a requirement. The decisive factor is how one does it. If one does it wrong, there is a risk of worsening the problems that already exist. We cannot afford that.

Elderly care today has major problems with the supply of competence. It is difficult to recruit, difficult to retain staff, and often there is too little time for induction and development. Therefore, every new reform must both raise the quality and function in reality.

There are parts of the bill that are good. The government does not propose a language requirement at employment but places the responsibility on the employer, and that is good. But it is not enough, because without the right support and resources, it will in practice still become a barrier. Then the requirements will be shifted backward. Then the language requirements will start being used already at recruitment. We see that already today. People are sorted out before they have even had the chance, despite the fact that the recruitment needs remain, and elderly care loses people who could have become good and valuable employees.

A language requirement without proper funding for quality language development, based on the needs of the operations, is not a well-executed reform. It is not enough to tell municipalities and operations that they should solve this without reasonable and long-term sustainable funding. Miljöpartiet therefore believes that a language requirement presupposes a long-term state commitment for skills supply and language development and that there are sufficient resources for language development initiatives within elderly care. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 2.

Mr. Speaker! The second thing I want to highlight is that language is important but not the only quality issue in elderly care, far from it. The problems with communication are linked to how the operations are structured – with staffing, continuity, the work environment, and opportunities for continuing education.

Elderly care is today under severe pressure, underfunded and understaffed. There are many quality deficiencies that need to be addressed. We must get rid of the constant minute-hunting within home care and in our elderly care homes. We need to invest in the staff and make professions within elderly care more attractive so that more people seek employment there.

Yes, language is an important part – but far from the only thing needed to improve the quality of elderly care.

Mr. Speaker! We also want to raise the question of the level. The level discussed in the proposal, B2, is relatively high. Several referral bodies have warned that it may be difficult to reach in practice. This risks hitting the staffing directly, and we therefore want to see a follow-up on what consequences the law has had after it has entered into force.

We also mean that it is wrong that it is the government that itself sets the language level. This is not a question of signaling decisiveness but a question of achieving the right level in practice for all different care professions within elderly care. Therefore, an expert agency, for example Socialstyrelsen, should be responsible for this.

In conclusion: Miljöpartiet does not say no to strengthening the language in elderly care. But we say no to doing it in a way that does not work and risks affecting elderly care across the country. We must take a state responsibility for language development, ensure that other quality issues are not pushed aside, follow up on the consequences, and let expert agencies set the levels.

Elderly care does not need symbolic politics, it needs reforms that work in reality – investments, more staff and a better working environment.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Social Affairs' Report 26 A language requirement in elderly care. I would like to begin by saying that we Sverigedemokrater stand behind the committee's proposal for a decision.

Mr. Speaker! Certain subjects touch me extra deeply, and this subject is one of them. Ten years ago, I found my own mother crying and desperate in her bedroom. She was severely ill with Alzheimer's. A few meters from her stood a woman who spoke very deficient Swedish. My mother understood nothing, but after a while, I managed to figure out that the woman, who was from the home care service, wanted my mother to shower. My mother, as I said, understood nothing. "Don't want to, don't want to," she sobbed while simultaneously hiding her face with her hands. The situation was heartbreaking and completely unreasonable, for both of them.

The year was 2016, and I wrote an op-ed after this incident and a couple of further incidents where I warned of a very worrying development. I warned that elderly care, in the wake of the large refugee wave, would be transformed into an integration tool. There were so many simple jobs, it was said, and furthermore, more hands were needed in elderly care.

But is it really such a simple job to take care of a person with dementia, interpret changes in health status and respond to people in the final stages of life if one cannot speak the language and understand the cultural codes or perhaps has been forced into care via a labor market program?

They were rhetorical questions, Mr. Speaker. I simply wondered if my mother really was an easy job? The answer was, of course, no. Since this happened, my mother has passed away and I myself have become a politician, with a slightly extra large commitment to precisely this issue.

This was, so, ten years ago, but what has happened since then? I can illustrate the development with one more anecdote. I was in Västerås some time ago and was speaking. There, a young guy came up to me and said: "Jessica, I am worried about my grandfather." "Oh, what do you mean?" "Well, my grandfather lives in a special residence, and he has been robbed twice. And he doesn't understand the staff, because they don't speak Swedish. He feels unsafe and wants to move home again but cannot manage to live alone. And Jessica, I am also afraid of the day my parents get old and will need elderly care. I will probably take care of them myself."

Mr. Speaker! I felt a pain in my stomach. The boy was only 16 years old. I think that his head should have been filled with school, girls, and perhaps hobbies. He should not have to worry about either his grandfather or his young parents. He wondered, of course, what we are doing about the situation of the needy elderly.

These testimonies from reality say very much about where Swedish elderly care finds itself today. The elderly and their relatives feel a great insecurity, not least due to language deficiencies. It is about quality of life and perceived insecurity, but also about pure patient safety. It is about being able to give the right medicines, read and write medical records, and communicate with healthcare staff. It can even be a matter of life or death.

There are currently around 210,000 employees in elderly care. It is one of our largest and most important welfare areas. At the same time, we know that the language is lacking. Investigations show that 97 percent of the municipalities have staff who lack sufficient Swedish skills. Seven out of ten relatives experience that the staff do not understand what they say. And almost nine out of ten nurses see patient safety risks linked to the language.

Mr. Speaker, elderly care is now also characterized by another, newly emerged phenomenon, namely that more and more elderly, vulnerable women are subjected to sexual harassment and even are raped. It is an increasing trend with a feared large number of unreported cases.

We are not talking, Mr. Speaker, about details in the margins but about systemic errors – systemic errors resulting from an irresponsible immigration policy and an extremely ill-considered, often requirement-free, integration policy. Elderly care has, as I mentioned earlier, to an ever greater extent been used as an integration tool or as a labor market measure and budget regulator.

This does not only affect the elderly and their relatives, but also the staff, who all speak so well of it. In a working group where the language level varies greatly, an imbalance arises. Some have to take on greater responsibility than others, not because it is in the job description, but because it is required for the operation to function at all. It is they who have to take care of the contact with relatives, handle documentation, interpret instructions, and ensure that everything is done correctly. This often happens informally, in silence, but the consequences are clear: the workload increases, the stress mounts, and the risk of sick leave rises.

Mr. Speaker! Is this worthy of a welfare state? No, of course not. What determines the value of a welfare nation is how it treats its most vulnerable – children, the sick and the elderly.

So what actually happened? How did we end up here? To quote a couple of former prime ministers – none mentioned, none forgotten – Sweden was supposed to be a moral or humanitarian superpower. But how moral or humanitarian is it to expose elderly Swedes, often defenseless people, to this insecurity? Not at all. It is rather a shame – and a major misprioritization.

So, to quote the young boy in Västerås: What do we do then? Well, on July 1st this year, this reform finally enters into force – something we Sverigedemokrater have fought hard for. Language requirements in elderly care finally become a reality. It will take time, but the goal is clearly that everyone who works within Swedish elderly care shall have the right qualifications. One important part of that is precisely sufficient Swedish skills.

To further increase safety, we have already made it legal to request extracts from criminal and record registers for those who are employed. The next step will be to make this mandatory for all employments. Criminals simply should not work within elderly care.

To reduce the risk of abuse, we want it to be optional to choose the gender of the staff who will assist with intimate hygiene – and by that, we mean biological gender and nothing else.

Mr. Speaker! One should not have to suffer for one's old age. Sweden should be a country where one looks forward to it. That is why we, together with the government – besides language requirements – are investing in the elderly via the Elderly Care Boost, the introduction of fixed elderly contact, and the possibility for municipalities to hire their own doctors. It is also, of course, why we have just launched the century's dental reform, the so-called ten-dollar dental care.

Mr. Speaker! Elderly care shall be characterized by dignity and security. Then we must be prepared to set demands. In the end, this is a very concrete issue. It is about being able to say as an elderly person that it hurts and being understood. It is about being able to ask a question and get an answer. It is about feeling secure in one's own home or in one's residence. It is not asking for too much. It is one of the most fundamental things one must fulfill if one wants to be able to call oneself a welfare nation.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Jessica Stegrud for the clarity regarding the Sweden Democrats' policy.

Swedish elderly care is today completely dependent on immigrant labor. Our nursing assistants consist of 53 percent immigrant labor. Our assistant nurses consist of 37 percent immigrant labor. In just the last ten years, starting with the refugee flow from the war in Syria, we have employed 33,000 people within health and elderly care at the assistant nurse or nursing assistant level within municipalities and regions. We have very many immigrants and people with foreign backgrounds who seek out the welfare sector because they are interested in health and elderly care professions. Without all these people, who work in Swedish health and elderly care or seek out these educations, Swedish elderly care would collapse.

We have been able to see how the Sweden Democrats at the municipal level have tried to stigmatize our immigrant staff by demanding that they do not wear a veil in elderly care or by introducing requirements for language tests in order to be able to get employment at all – in the worst cases, it can even be a matter of losing one's employment.

Now, a proposal regarding a language requirement within elderly care has been tabled in the Riksdag. It is a well-considered proposal; it is important to be able to make oneself understood and to be able to understand. But this is not quite the proposal that the Sverigedemokraterna have championed. The Sverigedemokraterna have also said that they want to take an additional step after this. Which step is it that the Sverigedemokraterna want to take?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I never ever hear you in the Center Party talk about Swedes. It is quite fascinating. You never stand here in the Swedish Riksdag and talk about Swedes. When one listens to you, one gets a very clear picture of your vision of Sweden. I would describe it as containing taxi drivers from Pakistan, engineers from India, berry pickers from Thailand, nursing assistants from the Philippines and healthcare assistants from Afghanistan. That seems to be the most important thing. Once you have set foot in Sweden, you should stay.

I would, however, like to point out that there are many capable people who have an immigrant background or who have come directly as labor migrants who work in healthcare.

One must also not forget that a large part of the immigration has contributed with an increased need for healthcare. We had functioning operations before the large-scale mass immigration. The idea that Sweden would totally collapse if we suddenly ceased mass immigration falls on its own absurdity. What we are doing now is cleaning up after Center Party irresponsible immigration policy and completely demand-free integration policy.

It is fascinating to hear that you actually want to reduce resources in just this area. Furthermore, you are to govern with Vänsterpartiet, who want to increase them. I do not quite know how you are going to make that work. The member can answer that later.

When it comes to the work environment, we are in a vicious spiral. Today, there are many qualified people who choose to leave elderly care because it becomes too much of a burden when they constantly have to make up for colleagues who do not meet a sufficient level when it comes to, for example, the language. This becomes an enormous burden for those who have the right qualifications and can speak the language. This is a major problem.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member's representative as social policy spokesperson was Linda Lindberg. She said in 2023, during the work to introduce legislation on language requirements in elderly care, that the goal was to be able to dismiss staff who do not meet the language requirement and prevent people who do not meet it from being employed. Now, the proposal does not look like that, thank goodness. If we started dismissing all immigrated staff, elderly care would collapse, Jessica Stegrud. But I understand – from the perspective of the Sweden Democrats' vision – that it actually doesn't matter to you how Swedish elderly care manages and how it goes for our seniors in need of home care or special housing. That is not the important thing. What is important for the Sweden Democrats is the ethnicity of those who work there.

The member says that we in the Center Party do not talk about Swedes. Yes, we do. The people who come to this country, pay taxes, contribute to the welfare, and want to be integrated into society, which an enormous number of those who work in elderly care today want to be and are becoming, we see as Swedes. We also see that Sweden has a need for them. For us, it is not derogatory to say that someone comes from Afghanistan, Syria or India, but the member expresses themselves in a mocking and derogatory way about these people. Instead, we see that we need everyone.

Furthermore, the National Board of Health and Welfare recently released a report stating that we need 50,000 new employees in Swedish elderly care in the coming years. Where are those employees supposed to come from with the Sweden Democrats' exclusion policy, where it is said that there are certain employees that one does not want in Swedish elderly care?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member has actually not understood our policy at all. What Linda Lindberg said, I thought was very wise. The objective must still be that one should be able to speak the Swedish language if one works in Sweden? Is it not an absolutely excellent objective that we should only be able to employ people who can speak the Swedish language? Does that have anything to do with ethnicity? I know very many people with an immigrant background who speak an absolutely excellent Swedish. Here, I rather get a feeling of the racism of low expectations.

No, it is not condescending to speak about care assistants from Afghanistan, but they must meet the requirements. And it is for the sake of the elderly that one must meet the requirements, not for my sake. It is the elderly who need this.

What the member says is quite the opposite. I hardly know what to answer.

Again: The work environment becomes enormously demanding for those who are qualified, regardless of ethnic background. Do you have the right qualifications? Can you speak the language? Are you good at your job? Then today you have to pull an enormous load. Many cannot manage to go further. Then the solution cannot be even more labor immigration.

The Center Party also does not want a wage floor but wage dumping and private operations. Those are the Center Party's solutions to this, Mr. Speaker.

How can we have a country that holds together if there aren't even requirements that we should speak the same language? The Centre Party does not want a Sweden with the Swedish language at its core. It is as I mentioned in my previous speech: They want people from all corners of the earth. No one speaks Swedish. That seems to be the Centre Party concept. And who suffers from it in the end? Yes, naturally, the elderly who need help in a difficult time in life. It is completely unjustifiable.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think we can do a bit of a pedagogical review of what the situation is like in Swedish elderly care. I think I will ask some questions to the member, and she might be able to help me answer those questions to enlighten those listening to us about what the situation is like in elderly care and what the situation is regarding political priorities of this government. I think the member might be able to take notes along the way.

My first questions are: How high is Jessica Stegrud's salary? How many times have her salary and Jimmie Åkesson's salary been increased? How much has Jessica Stegrud received in tax cuts?

How much have those who earn over 66,000 kronor every month received in tax cuts from this government with the help of the Sverigedemokraterna?

Now I am going to ask a lot of questions here, so I am also giving the member of Parliament time to write them down in order to be able to answer them later.

How many municipalities in the country have cut back on elderly care? How many employees meet an elderly person within a period of two weeks? How many municipalities are forced to cut back on the elderly's food? How long is a shower or a toilet visit allowed to take, according to the minute-management?

How often does a nursing assistant go on sick leave? Is it more than any other professional group? What is the average salary for Sweden's healthcare assistants? How many new people do we need to hire in the welfare sector by 2030? How many more hours does welfare personnel work in comparison to any other Nordic country?

How much do the CEOs of Sweden's healthcare and care companies earn every month?

How many workplaces within home care does Arbetsmiljöverket inspect due to sick leave, workplace accidents, and poor working environment?

How long do elderly people have to wait to get a place in a special housing facility? Illegally long?

And how many skilled nursing assistants and healthcare assistants have been deported because of low wages?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to remind the members that this is the Swedish Parliament and not the Left Party's youth wing. I object to the condescending tone in this debate. A bit of restraint there, if I may.

I can answer one of the questions, the one about how much I earn and how much I have received in tax cuts. It is exactly the same as you, Nadja Awad. Exactly the same as you.

It is true that Magdalena Andersson has received a tax cut, but those who have primarily received tax cuts during our time are ordinary people. We can look at the example family, a nurse and a police officer. They now have 5,000 kronor more per month to move with. It pays to work and not go on benefits when we are in power, quite simply.

Since then, it has been the municipalities' responsibility. Now we are talking about language requirements in elderly care. Elderly care is primarily the municipalities' responsibility. It is left-wing rule in the vast majority of municipalities. That says quite a bit.

Regarding the issue of priorities, we can take Malmö city, one of the largest municipalities in the country, where you are involved in governing. Am I wrong now, Mr. Speaker? Okay. You are usually involved. But it is a typical left-wing municipality. It receives 7 billion per year in municipal equalization grants. At the same time, the municipality spends half a million on sound identity, on recording sounds in libraries, and half a million kronor on a music video about the sounds of trees. 2 million have gone to imported granite, which sat there for several years, and 100 million kronor are spent on communicators.

This is not a question of a lack of resources. It is a question of misprioritization. It is simply a matter of keeping track of the money one actually has.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! That the member chose to only answer one of my questions regarding what elderly care looks like across the country and what political priorities this government, with the help of the Sweden Democrats, has made shows that one does not want to take responsibility for how it looks in elderly care. But one is fully responsible for it.

I understand that one does not want to take that responsibility. That makes it a bit difficult for the Sverigedemokraterna ahead of the election this year, 2026, considering what your voters expect. When Åkesson said before the 2022 election that they wanted to make Sweden for all elderly, they expected it to result in a completely different elderly care and a much better welfare for them. But it actually became even worse.

The Sweden Democrats, the largest party in the Tidöre government's basis, have caused the quality of elderly care to be the worst in ten years. And then one is supposed to try to blame everything on immigrants and Muslims. I can understand that the Sweden Democrats think it is the easiest way out. It is easier to use racist and class-contemptuous rhetoric than to prioritize elderly care with real money, kronor and öre. It would mean that Jessica Stegrud and Jimmie Åkesson and others would not get their tax cuts or salary increases.

We in Vänsterpartiet have stated that we do not want this. We do not want tax cuts for us politicians. We do not want salary increases for us politicians. We want the money to go to ordinary people, to workers, to those who are part of the social security system, and we want to invest in elderly care, healthcare, and schools. These are our priorities.

What responsibility does Sverigedemokraterna Jessica Stegrud want to take in all of this?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! These enormous problems that we see within elderly care are very strongly associated with language barriers.

I have not mentioned the word Muslim or the word immigrant, so it must be the member's own prejudices that are shining through here. I think that one can set requirements for everyone who works in elderly care, regardless of background. But I understand that the member thinks that one cannot do that to those who have a different ethnic background. I think it is the racism of low expectations, and it does not help the person who needs care either.

I am once again hearing that we Sverigedemokrater do not take responsibility. I can then only point out again that it is the municipalities that govern elderly care.

A lot of important things are happening, such as the municipal equalization grants and the Äldreomsorgslyftet. And, as I mentioned in my speech, we are implementing the dental care reform of the century. Everyone from the age of 67 now has the means to go to the dentist. It was something that you never managed to get through. Just one such thing! It is an incredible increase in quality of life for all those who now have the means to go to the dentist.

We are also cleaning up after the totally irresponsible immigration policy, which you have been involved in driving. Your solutions are always more immigration – no requirements, just more immigration. That is supposed to solve everything. It is completely outrageous. We are cleaning up in full swing.

Yes, what shall I say? All these questions, I mean, they are ridiculous. I am actually speechless, Mr. Speaker. I think I will stop there.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! When I requested the floor, I intended to have the Sverigedemokraterna representative answer why elderly care is not being prioritized financially during this parliamentary term. That will also be one of my questions.

But – the member may excuse me – I was a bit surprised by the member's speech. I have been involved in politics for many years, and I see a pattern and a clear trend where populism flows, where generalizations take over the language and where facts are less important. One can have different opinions and values, absolutely. But, Jessica Stegrud, I still think it is important that we talk about the same truth and then have different ideas.

Forgive me now, member, if I have misunderstood your statement! But to claim that Swedish elderly care and healthcare did not have challenges before the refugee crisis of 2014–2015 and that everything is due to "the irresponsible immigration" I find strange. But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have misunderstood the statement.

Language requirements are an important reform, and we Social Democrats stand behind it. It is clear that for both safety, quality, and care, one must be able to make oneself understood. However, we only see it as a small part of a complete package. That the status in the profession is declining is a reason why the language is becoming worse, and that has to do with, among other things, underfunding.

My question to the member is: Why have the Sverigedemokraterna not prioritized Swedish elderly care financially during these last four years?

In this speech, Dzenan Cisija (S) concurred.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member has misunderstood my reasoning. I did not mean that the crisis arose after 2015, but rather that the irresponsible migration policy, which the Social Democrats in particular have been involved in promoting, has been ongoing for decades. Increasing a population by approximately 2 million in a few decades puts enormous pressure on the public sector, including elderly care.

What I said was that before the era of mass migration began, we managed to provide the public sector with the resources and competencies that we needed then. That is what I am saying. One must remember that it is not just that a lot of people with an immigrant background work within elderly care and other care areas, but we also demand more. One simply has a higher care need, and that takes its toll – and in this country, we treat everyone equally. Everyone has the right to equal care and nursing, quite simply.

Now I do not remember what the member asked for, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps there was nothing. I yield the floor and will answer in my closing remarks, if any questions arise.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! I actually only asked one question. It was why the Sweden Democrats have not been involved in taking responsibility for the financing of Swedish elderly care during the mandate period when they claim to safeguard the welfare and its cornerstones.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the refugee crisis is blamed on the Social Democrats. I do not know if it is a deliberate strategy from the member or if it is simply a matter of ignorance. The basis for the legislation we had was surely laid by the Alliance government and the MP together? Those are the parties you cooperate with today! As I said at the beginning of my speech, I think it is good to have some facts when one asserts a lot of things.

When it comes to the so-called irresponsible labor migration policy that we have, we think alike, and we have done so for many years. We Social Democrats have said it ever since Palme's time. There are even motions on this regarding the fact that we must have a responsible labor migration and a responsible migration. There is, however, a difference in how we view this. For us, it is about that if one has grounds for protection, one truly has a need to come to the country. It is also about the equal value of people.

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting when one hears representatives from the Tidögänget, especially from the Sverigedemokraterna. They give great examples of what it looks like in Swedish elderly care and speak about needs and priorities – and then they do not spend an extra krona!

It was actually my question. It is possible to describe things in beautiful words, but why does one do nothing in reality?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, but then we will take it a second time, because it seems to be difficult to understand this.

This totally irresponsible migration policy has been ongoing for decades, and we are not just talking about labor migration. We are talking about the fact that we have increased the Swedish population by more than 2 million in a couple of decades. It is an enormous burden for the public sector. Is that clear and distinct? Good!

When it comes to this, the Social Democrats have been the absolute most insistent, and now the Social Democrats suddenly claim that they stand for a strict migration policy. It has truly been a complete about-face. How will the Social Democrats manage that together with parties that in the next mandate period want to increase immigration? We shall see how it goes. There is a very clear government alternative on my side, where we will truly keep immigration to a minimum, because the Swedish society cannot handle more right now.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about priorities. We have truly prioritized the elderly. We have indeed implemented the century's dental care reform, something that the Social Democrats were unable to achieve, Mr. Speaker. I receive emails and messages daily from people who now finally have the means to go and get their teeth fixed. It is absolutely fantastic – talk about prioritizing the elderly!

Speaking of priorities, this is primarily a municipal responsibility. Regions and municipalities also receive significant grants during this mandate period, and our Sweden Democrat priorities are very clear: We prioritize those who have built up this country and who have paid tax.

With our policy, we would not have burdened the Swedish treasury and Swedish society with this mass immigration. Now we have 700,000 or 800,000 illiterates who will probably never become productive. It is no addition to the welfare, but it will constitute a burden. We are in an incredibly difficult situation now. We are trying to sort out the policy so that something will remain for our elderly in the future as well.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The member has stood here for a good while, so I do not intend to burden with any more time but go straight to the point with a very simple question. I heard the member mention several times that elderly care has been an integration program. What does the member mean by that?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Nils Seye Larsen, for the question! I mean that many municipalities have used elderly care as an integration tool. People who are far from the labor market and often have deficient knowledge have been taken, and it has often been newly arrived people. I noticed myself already during the time when my mother was ill and I had my travels with both healthcare, elderly care, and home care that is what has been done.

There are also municipalities that have explicitly said that they have to tidy up the labor market figures and that they have to tidy up the integration figures and so on. What has been done to bring in people who, for obvious reasons, have not been able to have the right qualifications in the form of, for example, language requirements, is to nevertheless take them in into, among other things, elderly care.

It is the elderly who have paid the price. That is what I mean.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I wonder if I understand correctly now. Does the member mean that municipalities have deliberately chosen to employ people with a foreign background, who perhaps had deficient competence, and that they have done so over Swedes who had competence and wanted to work? Is that what the member means by integration programs?

My view, however, is different, and that is why I am asking. I have been a municipal politician for quite a long time, and our great challenge in Umeå is, as in very many other municipalities, that we have an aging population, because we are getting older and living longer – thank goodness! But we have had a shortage of and lacked people who have been able to come in and work.

Above all, the covid pandemic worsened the situation, as it was a very tough effort for the healthcare workers. Then, many times, one stood in a situation where one had to choose between either hiring a person with deficient language skills but who very much wanted to help and work with caring for our elderly, or not hiring anyone.

I am thinking, for example, of an assistant I had. I mentioned his name, Endalkachew. He had not been in Sweden for very long when he started working. Now, fortunately, it is the case that I, just like Member of Parliament Nadja Awad, love to teach languages, and we worked on language skills. This assistant had a fantastic attitude toward work and has since studied all the way, can speak Swedish very well, and has also studied to become a nursing assistant and specialized in dementia care. Endalkachew now works 120 percent within dementia care and loves his job and cares about his elderly.

This is just one example. Another example is Silan in Jörn who risks deportation but who works 50 percent in home care while she studies at the high school. Many of the inland municipalities are truly lacking employees.

From that, my question: What do we do? What are the Sweden Democrats' solutions regarding the supply of skills?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member; there are, of course, fantastic employees who initially may not be so good at the language but have all the other qualities that one actually needs. I spoke a bit about that when it concerned my mother, that is to say that it is also about having feeling, empathy, and a will to do a good job. There are many of those employees.

That is why it is good that the language requirement is designed as it is. We are not saying that you must be able to speak a fairly advanced Swedish from day one, but we simply say that you shall learn. That must be the end goal, after all. Regardless of what fantastic qualities you bring, the end goal must be that we can all speak Swedish, communicate with each other and make ourselves understood – not least when it concerns children and the elderly, I think.

I also believe that the situation looks very different depending on the municipality. In their areas, it is very difficult to get hold of staff, but it has also become a vicious spiral. Some people have received jobs through labor market measures, and there have been wage guarantees and so on. In that case, the municipality – it might be about municipalities with slightly worse finances – has benefited from hiring that type of labor instead of someone who demands a bit more.

As I said: When there are too many who cannot speak the language or perhaps do not have the right qualifications otherwise, it creates such a pressure on those who actually do and can that they cannot endure to stay, and then we are in that vicious spiral. I do not believe that lowering the requirements and the wages further is a way forward. That is also why we are now setting this wage floor – so that it is worthwhile to work even in these professions. Wages must go up, directly and indirectly.

We simply must maintain this level of ambition. I believe this is the only way to raise the status and get people to stay in the profession. We have 12,000 nursing assistants, or whatever it is, who choose not to work in health and social care for various reasons. The work environment and colleagues are important, and language is one of the most important factors.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating an important proposition: A language requirement within elderly care. The proposal aims to strengthen the quality within elderly care by introducing a clear language requirement for the staff.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! This is a fundamentally important issue. It is about safety. Our elderly should be able to feel secure in their contact with care. They must understand what is being said, be able to express their needs, and feel that they are being met with respect. When the language fails, then safety also fails.

We know that language problems in elderly care exist in large parts of the country. We also know that it is not just about isolated cases but that it is a widespread problem. Lack of language skills can lead to misunderstandings and incorrectly performed interventions, and in the worst cases, patient safety is also at risk.

Mr. Speaker! This is not worthy of a welfare country like Sweden. Our elderly deserve care where communication works, every day and in every meeting. That is why the government's proposal is so important. By introducing a language requirement in the Social Services Act, it is clarified that staff within elderly care shall have sufficient knowledge of Swedish. The level that is proposed – B2, according to the European framework – means that one can understand and make oneself understood in both everyday and professional situations.

Mr. Speaker! As a Moderate, I consider this to be a good and necessary step. We must dare to set demands on welfare. Quality does not arise by itself, but it requires clear expectations and accountability. But it is also important to emphasize that this is not a proposal aimed at shutting people out. On the contrary, the government has been clear that the language requirement shall not be an absolute requirement for employment. It would have been unrealistic in an operation that is already struggling with skill supply.

It is instead about developing the language skills of the staff who already exist, which is a more responsible way forward. Here, the investment in the Swedish lift plays a decisive role. Through state funds, the municipalities are given the opportunity to work actively with language development. Staff can receive training during working hours, language representatives can be trained, and managers can get better tools to support their employees.

Mr. Speaker! This is a wise policy. We combine requirements with support. We have expectations but also give people the opportunity to reach them, and that is exactly how welfare policy should function. At the same time, we must be realistic: There are challenges. Language takes time to learn, and it requires the right pedagogy and the right conditions. If the reform is implemented too quickly or without sufficient support, we risk creating unrest in the operations.

Mr. Speaker! That is why it is crucial that the introduction occurs in stages and with careful follow-up. The investigation also proposes exactly this, that is, that authorities shall follow up on how the language requirement works in practice and how it affects the quality of elderly care. That is good. Policy must not only be decided; it must also be followed up and improved.

Mr. Speaker! We must also not forget the perspective of the staff. Many who work in elderly care do a fantastic job every day. Many also have a foreign background and have entered one of the most important professions that exist in our society. For them, this language requirement must become an opportunity, not a threat. It must become an opportunity to develop, strengthen their competence, and feel greater security in their work.

If we do this correctly, we can achieve more, and important, goals simultaneously. We can strengthen the quality of care, improve the working environment for the staff, and increase the security for the elderly. This is particularly important in a time when more and more people are living longer. The need for functioning elderly care will only increase. Therefore, we must ensure that the system also maintains high quality.

Mr. Speaker! As a Moderate, I also want to highlight the importance of responsibility and clarity. Welfare is built on us using our resources in an efficient way and on us having high demands on quality. Language is a fundamental part of this. It is not about being harsh, but it is about being serious. This government proposal is good for the elderly. It strengthens their right to a secure and safe care. It ensures that they can make their voices heard and that they can be understood in an often vulnerable situation, which is what this is fundamentally about.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that this is a step in the right direction. It is not a simple reform, and it will require work. But it is a necessary reform, and as a Moderate, I welcome the proposal. We stand up for quality, responsibility, and respect for our elderly.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Malin Höglund, for a speech that I nevertheless perceived as more humane than the speeches that have so far been delivered by representatives of the Tidö parties! I can partly thank you for that.

One thing I did react to, however, is that the member says we must dare to set demands on welfare and welfare's staff. Right now, however, welfare's staff – I hear this every day in various statements – experience that the government and Sverigedemokraterna have set so many demands on welfare's staff that they are breaking down right now. They are breaking down! Their bodies are breaking down, and their hearts are breaking down. They love their profession, but they are unable to provide care and nursing in time and in the way they would have wanted to do. This is due to cuts that are a result of prioritizing completely wrong from a national level.

This leads to more minute management, fewer staff, and fewer resources in elderly care. A consequence of that is that the staff break down. These people are on sick leave more than any other group. Arbetsmiljöverket is currently investigating 700 workplaces within home care, where it is toughest, due to workplace accidents, a large number of sick leaves, and a poor working environment.

I am trying to understand why the Government does not have more empathy for the workers all over the country who are struggling. They are not investing in them. Does Malin Höglund think that they have invested in them?

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Nadja Awad for the question, even though I actually do not know what the question was. Perhaps it was about the last part, i.e., whether we are investing in the staff within elderly care. I believe that we are.

Now we are debating a language requirement within elderly care. That also concerns being able to understand one's colleagues. I have often been an intern in various operations, and I hope and believe that my colleagues in here are doing exactly the same thing. Ten years ago, I believe, I came to a workplace where the staff said: There is no point in you talking to that person, because she understands nothing. How collegial is one when saying such a thing? It would have been better if the person had been equipped so that she could understand Swedish when she arrived at the workplace.

I think it is collegial that one can participate together with colleagues and that one can sit and have a coffee and chat about family or about activities one is going to engage in. I did not think the people at the workplace I just mentioned were collegial.

The language requirement that we are now introducing ensures that everyone understands, so that one can sit and have small talk. There should be no complications in healthcare. I believe that is taking responsibility for both the elderly, for colleagues, and for the people who are at the workplace.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is fair to ensure that there are more colleagues who can relieve others, so that there are more hands and feet in elderly care and so that everyone can take their statutory break and have time to make a toilet visit between visits to care recipients.

It is fair to ensure that the employees have a wage they can live on. It becomes difficult when the municipalities and regions receive fewer state resources and cannot invest in raising the lowest wages within, for example, elderly care, especially for care assistants and nursing assistants.

It is also decent to ensure that they do not get sick by making investments in their work environment so that they get better working conditions. It could, for example, involve a reduction in working hours or that they get more colleagues beside them.

Language is one thing. As I said in my speech, we in Vänsterpartiet consider competence supply in elderly care to be a priority issue. However, I do not think this should be used as a whipping boy in the debate to point out a "us" and a "them" and to create division and mislead the Swedish people, who listen to us responsible politicians, into believing that it is a certain group's fault. I am not saying that the member is trying to do that – I experience, as I said, that the member has been much more humane in her rhetoric than previous speakers in this debate have been – but she should still be able to acknowledge that it has not sounded that way from the Tidöre Government when they have spoken at press conferences and in the media.

We now have a group of staff who feel exposed because of this. Can the member understand that this rhetoric has subjected these people to an enormous betrayal from the political side?

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Nadja Awad for her supplementary questions.

This is exactly what we do from the Moderaternas side and within the Tidösamarbetet. We are talking about the staff within elderly care. Both I and other representatives have done so. However, I have not heard it from the opposition parties; rather, it is the opposite.

I have always spoken incredibly well of the staff within elderly care. As former chairman of the social welfare committee in Mora during two terms, I have always spoken well of these people. It is them we should speak well of. If we do not do that, there is no one who will want to seek work within elderly care. How are we to get more people to start working within elderly care if we do not speak well from politics?

We must start speaking well. We must start opening up workplaces early – not when one enters grade 9 or grade 1 in upper secondary school, but even earlier. We must get more people to seek employment in elderly care. Then, from a political standpoint, we should not speak ill of elderly care, but rather the opposite.

It is a free job. You work weekends, absolutely, but you are also off in the middle of the week. You might work evening or night, but you are also off during the day.

I believe we must turn this around and instead speak well about elderly care. I believe we gain significantly more from that.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Höglund, for your speech!

I can sign the report and the introduction to the bill on stricter language requirements that we are discussing today. That is the case. This was also what I highlighted in my speech.

However, the government representative here, and also her colleague Anna Tenje, have a somewhat different view of the funding situation within Swedish elderly care compared to, among others, us Social Democrats.

I assert that the language requirement and the challenges linked to this are part of the fact that the status of elderly care has declined over many years. I myself have a background in health and medical care, so I know quite well what I am talking about. Back then, the highest grade was required to get into the health and care program, and it gave status to go there. Today, they do not even fill the places.

Malin Höglund said that we must speak well about elderly care. I agree with that, but at the same time as we speak well about elderly care, we as politicians must provide tools so that elderly care can get better conditions and higher status and, above all, so that Sweden's elderly can get better care and support.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have prioritized welfare more than the Tidö parties have during this entire mandate period. We doubled the appropriations for 13 and 14. In this year's budget, we have an extra 13 billion, of which 2 billion are earmarked for increased staffing within elderly care.

My question to the member is: Why have the Tidö government and the Moderaterna not prioritized elderly care during this mandate period?

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mikael Dahlqvist for the question.

I think the government has prioritized elderly care. What the previous government started, for example Äldreomsorgslyftet, this government has extended and strengthened. It is good now, but I was not as hopeful when Äldreomsorgslyftet was introduced by the previous government. Then, my friends, it was about getting as many as possible into elderly care for educational purposes for a period of time so that they would then hopefully seek to become assistant nurses. That was not the case with that initiative. I would have wished that it was so.

This government has changed and extended the Elderly Care Boost, and I believe it has become significantly better.

I am pleased that we agree on the language requirement within elderly care, because a language requirement is needed. All of us sitting here will grow old, and one day we may perhaps need home care or a place in a residential facility. Then we want to be understood by the people we meet and be able to sit and chat. But even the colleagues should be able to talk to each other about what they are going to do this weekend, how the family is doing, and so on. It is incredibly important.

The Speaker also mentions that the health and social care program now has a lower status. That is true. I was born in 1969, and during my upbringing, it was my smartest friends with the highest grades who went into health and social care. But earlier today I was told that in my neighboring municipality, only two people have applied for the health and social care program for the autumn.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Höglund for the answer.

I feel that the member is avoiding answering the question about prioritization. By prioritization, I mean physical money directly to the municipalities. We know that over 130 municipalities in Sweden are bleeding. We also know that a major reason why many municipalities in Värmland and Dalarna, where I and the member live and work, have had to cut unreasonably much on, among other things, staff in elderly care is that they are not managing the financial situation. Therefore, it is interesting to hear about the Tidö government's and the member's priorities.

It is good that the member refers to various S reforms, including Äldreomsorgslyftet. At first, this government did not want to introduce it, but when the pressure became too great, they came to their senses, which I welcome. We Social Democrats, moreover, want to make Äldreomsorgslyftet permanent, because we believe it gives the municipalities a sense of security to be able to plan more long-term for the skills enhancement.

I note that we and the government have different views on how the municipalities should finance elderly care moving forward. We Social Democrats have chosen to prioritize this sector which for many years has been underfunded – even under our previous government, if I am to be honest. But now we have taken it upon ourselves to give elderly care better economic conditions. It absolutely does not solve all problems, but it is a good foundation to build upon to raise status and quality so that all employees in the welfare sector can feel pride, which they deserve.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Mikael Dahlqvist for the speech.

This is a municipal responsibility. The municipalities are responsible for both their elderly and their younger inhabitants. The municipalities are responsible for preschool, school, and elderly care. The government has provided state grants, but the municipalities have a responsibility themselves. The member mentioned that many municipalities are bleeding. But the municipalities must budget so that the different boards receive the correct resources. I consider this to be entirely a municipal responsibility. The government makes its investments, but then it is the municipalities' responsibility.

Generally, Sweden's municipalities are doing well; they are not running deficits. But the municipalities choose how much money should go to elderly care. It is entirely a municipal responsibility, so it is your and to some extent also my colleagues' responsibility.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish elderly care today is completely dependent on immigrant labor. If we did not have all the employees who were born in other countries, elderly care would collapse. Among our nursing assistants, 53 percent were born abroad, and among our assistant nurses, 37 percent were born abroad. The most important thing we have in care is, of course, the staff – all the hands that help our elderly with food, medicine, dressing and hygiene, and who clean and wash dishes, comfort and warm.

A great deal can be conveyed simply through the work of the hands, but naturally not everything. Therefore, it is also important that communication works so that the care staff and the elderly can make themselves understood by one another. It is also what we are debating here today in light of the proposal to introduce a language requirement within elderly care. It is an important and well-considered proposal that now lies on the Riksdag's table.

Failures in communication can lead to both stress and anxiety as well as medication errors and incidents. Therefore, it is reasonable that the staff who meet our elderly build up sufficient language skills to understand and make themselves understood both in speech and in text.

Unlike the proposals in many of the motions that have circulated at the municipal level in recent years, this is not about sorting out and stigmatizing staff with a background other than the Swedish one. Instead, the proposal is about helping employees with their language skills and thereby increasing their competence and strengthening the quality within elderly care.

Mr. Speaker! The responsibility for ensuring that employees who are hired and who are already employed have the language skills that are needed lies exclusively with the employer, which is important. It is the employer who must ensure the level of language skills and offer the measures that may be needed to raise the language level. Thus, the language requirement also risks not hindering the staffing of elderly care.

There is, therefore, no obstacle whatsoever to employing a person with insufficient language skills, but the employer must ensure that the employee receives help to reach the language requirements that are set. It is both reasonable and important.

Mr. Speaker! I believe everyone in here agrees that it is important with security for the elderly, both when it comes to understanding and when it comes to being able to make oneself understood.

It naturally concerns all our elderly, and not only those who have Swedish as their mother tongue. Many of our elderly today were born in other countries and have a mother tongue other than Swedish. Even among those who have learned Swedish during their time in Sweden, there are many who, in the autumn of their lives, not least in connection with dementia, lose the new language and fall back on the old one. It is naturally just as important for these elderly to be able to understand and be understood.

Arabic, Finnish, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Kurdish and Persian belong to the larger language groups alongside Swedish. Therefore, it is important that we have staff who can speak these languages, and for that reason, it is extra positive with all care staff who are born in a country other than Sweden and who are already carriers of another language. It is an enormous resource that we should be both happy and grateful for that we have. I also know that many care groups around Sweden work actively with scheduling so that multilingual staff are paired with elderly people who have a need for and joy in it.

In this context, Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention that we have elderly people who are deaf or hearing impaired or who have deaf-blindness. These people too must have the right to communicate in their language, which is sign language or tactile sign language. Sign language is not just a tool that can be replaced with other communication, but sign language is its own cultural language. Therefore, one must, of course, be able to communicate in sign language as well when one gets older.

Since access to interpretation services is limited, it also applies here for municipalities and care companies to try to pair staff proficient in sign language with elderly people who have a need for it. Even though this lies outside the requirements in the new language act, there is nothing preventing municipalities and care companies from further educating staff in sign language as well.

Mr. Speaker! When one gets older and needs help from society at home or in a nursing home, one should be able to feel secure – secure that one receives the help one needs and secure that one understands and is understood. Even as staff, one should be able to feel secure – secure that the work one does is appreciated and that one receives the help and the support one may need to develop one's language skills if necessary.

Through the new law on language requirements, we increase safety within Swedish elderly care, both for the elderly and for the staff. Outside of the law lies the safety that our multilingual staff can contribute with for all the elderly who have a mother tongue other than Swedish.

Language is important, but it is not everything. The most important thing is always the hands – the hands that pick up, feed, wash dishes, shower, clean, dress, undress, warm, and comfort, regardless of what color they are.

(cont. § 11)

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