Improved conditions for municipalities to counter incorrect payments from welfare systems

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that society has lost democratic control over welfare. Unserious actors and profit-driven corporations have advanced their positions with profit-seeking and increased inequalities in welfare as a result. Economic crime and corruption have become increasingly common.

Welfare crime covers far more than the welfare systems, and it is about criminal actors systematically obtaining benefits and compensations on incorrect grounds and also about them themselves conducting welfare activities in order to access public funds.

Organized crime targeting the welfare state involves large amounts every year, and it weakens the welfare and our safety nets. Therefore, it is good that we established the relatively new authority Utbetalningsmyndigheten, and we are pleased that the operations are functioning. We have previously highlighted that the authority should be given a crime-prevention mandate, which the SD-government has not responded to yet, but we think it would be important to do so in order to be able to pinpoint criminals.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats will vote yes to the bill. We do so because welfare should go to people who need it, not to fraudsters, not to criminals, and not to organized schemes that exploit our common systems.

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the welfare system is under pressure. Our security systems are being targeted. Incorrect payments are made through false information, shell companies, incorrect population registrations, and advanced setups where several systems are used simultaneously. It is not about small matters, nor is it about small amounts of money, but it is about money that should have gone to elderly care, to school, social services, and support for people who actually need the help.

The proposal we are discussing today means that municipalities' payments of financial support to individuals, for example, social assistance and other person-related compensations, shall be able to be audited by the Payment Authority through data analysis and risk selection. It is fundamentally good.

The municipalities often see their part of the picture, for example a maintenance support, but a state agency can see the whole. That is precisely why better coordination is needed, and that is why we are positive towards the proposal.

Let us be honest. The municipalities' possibilities to exercise control vary greatly. Some municipalities have well-developed control functions to identify welfare crime. Others, not least smaller municipalities, have limited resources and limited competence for advanced audits. Therefore, it is reasonable that the state adds an extra layer of control.

This is not about the state taking over the municipalities' work, but it is about strengthening the work. If incorrect payments are reduced, resources are also freed up for what the welfare is for, namely society and the people.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, there are legitimate objections. This entails new administrative requirements for the municipalities, and several referral bodies have requested better impact assessments, clearer legal certainty for individuals, and clearer boundaries for the handling of personal data. This must be taken seriously. It is clear that if the state sets requirements, it must also provide funding and the means to fulfill this.

Mr. Speaker, now I come to what we Social Democrats consider the major flaw in the government's policy. Once again we see the same pattern from the SD government. When it comes to welfare crime, the spotlight is almost always directed at individuals but almost never at the large sums of money, almost never at the private actors operating in the welfare sector.

The government chooses here with surgical precision to limit the mandate to payments to individual entities, despite several referral bodies having explicitly pointed out the need for a broader perspective. Among others, the Public Procurement Authority has pointed out that payments to individual principals within the school sector should also be included. They are right. What are we talking about here? We are talking about billions of public funds. Individual principals, i.e., independent schools and preschools, receive very large compensations every year from municipalities and the state. These are our common tax dollars. When billions are paid out, the control must also be strong.

Authorities have repeatedly pointed out significant risks for incorrect payments and deficiencies in the control systems. There are documented examples where this has affected state grants and compensations. Then the question remains simple. Why should the state analyze suspected inaccuracies of a single mother applying for social assistance – don't get me wrong, even I think one should not engage in fraud or inaccuracies – but not fully audit large welfare corporations that receive enormous public amounts? Why does the strict control always apply downwards but so rarely upwards?

We Social Democrats believe that the welfare system should be characterized by democratic control, order, and accountability for every tax krona. Every wasted tax krona is a theft from the people.

Cheating must be combated regardless of who is cheating. The same principle must apply to everyone. Therefore, we regret that the government did not proceed with the referral bodies' proposals to also include payments to individual principals, for example in the school sector. It would have been socio-economically wise, it would have been fair, and above all, it would have been to truly take on the fight against welfare crime.

Mr. Speaker! We support the bill because the fight against welfare crime must be strengthened. But we do not accept a policy where the control stops and does not scrutinize large private actors in the welfare sector. If one wants to protect the taxpayers' money, one must dare to scrutinize where the money is. That is Social Democratic welfare policy.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report number 43, which concerns improved conditions for municipalities to counter incorrect payments from the welfare systems. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Mr. Speaker! This bill is long-awaited. We Sverigedemokrater have for a long time seen how individual gang criminal organizations of various kinds have cheated their way to tax money by attacking not only the state but also municipalities and regions. This issue, just like many others during this mandate period, must be linked to how the state and the municipalities and regions work differently, not only now but also historically. I would therefore like to take a historical look back in connection with what the Sverigedemokrater and the government have achieved today.

I will begin with the historical background, primarily focusing on what the state has done to reduce fraud and incorrect payments. This can involve different types of support, for example, student support and activity grants. CSN and Försäkringskassan are examples of agencies that have cooperated and countered the payment of different grants that should not be possible to receive simultaneously. This has been able to be stopped when systems have been cross-referenced, which is good. This is important work that has been carried out by precisely these agencies.

For some years now, there has been the Swedish Payments Agency, which both streamlines the state's work and reduces the risk of money being paid out incorrectly. It must be stopped in time. The earlier the state can act, the lower the risk that the money goes to criminals. It is also then the case that the state's processes with reports, investigations, and so on to get the money back and get people convicted can be reduced.

Unfortunately, I must say that in many cases the municipalities have been more sluggish in acting on these issues. I do not know if it is a coincidence, but historically, municipalities and regions have to the greatest extent been governed by red-green parties, primarily the Social Democrats, a party that has rarely acted in time or simply has lacked the political will required to locally in municipalities and regions follow up on what one says one stands for at the national level. Unfortunately, there is a common thread – when it comes to cracking down on organized crime, the state acts first while municipalities and regions unfortunately lag behind.

To make a connection to another issue during the parliamentary term, we have the example that the Riksdag has given municipalities the possibility to evict gang criminals from residential areas, something that many Social Democrat-led municipalities have been slow to follow up on or have not done at all. This can be linked to the issue we are debating today. If one wants the municipalities to prioritize these issues fully, it matters how they are governed and by which parties they are governed.

Mr. Speaker! To return to the issue in today's report, it is entirely correct and proper that we now take the next step and link state payments with what occurs within the framework of the municipalities. It is only when different parts of public society cooperate that we can truly address inaccuracies and organized crime and stop people from exploiting our public society to finance their criminal activities.

The bill means that from July 1, 2029, it will be mandatory for municipalities to provide information to the Swedish Payments Authority, even without a request from the authority, to enable data analysis and selection. It is a fully reasonable restriction on municipal self-government, as municipal payments should also be covered by the same control system. I and the Sverigedemokraterna think, however, that the mandatory part should start applying earlier.

Mr. Speaker! In many respects, it is no secret why we have ended up where we are today. It is the result of an all too weak view on crime and punishment among previous governments and the old parties, but also the result of an irresponsible migration policy that has created exclusion, unemployment, and segregation with consequences such as poor economy, lack of language skills, and increased vulnerability to precisely crime.

That is why it is important that we have changed the migration policy and the criminal justice policy and that society now, to a greater extent, condemns crime, tightens the penalties and puts the crime victim in focus. We are on the right path in Sweden now, but more remains to be done. A red-green victory in the autumn election would mean a return to the policy that created many of the problems that we are trying to solve today.

The election this autumn is therefore ultimately about which direction Sweden should take – a return to a policy with higher migration and insufficient crime policy or continued Sweden Democrat influence with a restrictive migration policy and a sharpened crime policy that makes Sweden safer and better. For me, the choice is clear. Sweden needs continued Sweden Democrat influence so that we can continue to restore safety, the rule of law, and trust in the welfare systems.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to request a reply to Mattias Eriksson Falk. But when a member stands and presents pure forgeries in the speaker's chair here in the Riksdag, one must react. This is something I cannot let go unsaid.

Mattias Eriksson Falk says that it matters how the municipalities are governed and who governs them. Yes, it is enough to look here in Stockholm, where they have truly taken action against welfare crime. But when fraud and irregularities are found, the government and Sverigedemokraterna ride to the defense of the corporations that have cheated when they have taken out profit or that have received incorrect payments.

If the Sweden Democrats really mean business in this area, why do they continue to think it is okay for taxpayers' money to disappear into fraud or criminal exploitation when it concerns corporations or companies? That is my question.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

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

I would like to begin by saying that I do not share the member's view and the overall picture that the member is trying to describe regarding, above all, the Sweden Democrats' policy. However, I am not familiar with the specific example raised in the question, so I cannot answer that.

However, I can state that there is an ongoing investigation that the government appointed in 2025. The investigator is to look at whether one can counter incorrect payments to companies and civil society and shall deliver its report on June 11, 2027. I very much look forward to seeing what proposals the investigation submits regarding the parts that the member requests.

What surprises me is the high tone that the member and the Social Democrats choose to take in this issue. In the committee report, there is only a special statement. The member's own party, therefore, does not even choose to put forward proposals in this committee report on how it should be done in the way that is requested. This makes me want to ask the counter-questions: Do the Social Democrats not believe in their own proposals? Why do they not say yes to what they claim they want to fight for?

It is no secret that we Sweden Democrats – both I in my home municipality and my party comrades – in many cases have tried to get the municipalities to quickly start work to counter incorrect payments of social assistance, grants to various organizations and so on, but that our proposals have mostly been voted down by a majority government led by the Social Democrats.

This shows that the Social Democrats say one thing nationally but do not follow up on it in municipalities and regions. I do not believe that the Social Democrats believe in their own policy. This is a way to try to win votes. One claims to stand for a policy that one is, in fact, not prepared to implement.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are now putting forward proposals which, in this case, primarily target crimes according to the subsidy crime act, and there is an investigation that is now looking at payments to civil society and companies.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! These are just frivolous claims. It was we who initiated the Swedish Payments Agency. We are very clear that we do not accept welfare crime. One must be careful with the taxpayers' money. It should go to welfare, not into criminals' pockets. Nor do we want profit-seeking in welfare.

Furthermore, it seems that the member listened poorly to what I said in my speech. We do not oppose this proposal, because we think it is good to strengthen the control to combat welfare crime in both municipalities and regions. In that case, it is also good if the Swedish Payments Agency is tasked with doing this.

What we are saying is that one should not stop there. Here is our criticism. Why do the Sweden Democrats not think that we should audit the large corporations, where there is a large share of fraud? It does not concern everyone, but it is about billions of kronor. We believed a few years ago that it was about 150 billion. I hope that the member has read the latest report, where it appears that this has only increased.

It is clear that we must put a stop to it. The big money is where the billion-dollar dealings occur. Why not say yes to auditing that?

Why don't we say no to the proposal? We think it is a good proposal to also review in municipalities and regions. They are already doing it, but if one can support and strengthen that work, it is good.

I hope and believe that we will win the election this autumn. Then we can strengthen what we feel is missing in the proposals that are coming now. But we do not say no to the parts that the government presents which we can also support.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that in the report we have before us and which we are debating today, there is no other proposal than the committee's proposal for a decision. The Social Democrats therefore have no reservation in which they present any of their own proposals that go beyond what is from the committee. I think that is a rather clear signal that they do not mean what they say when they say what they say.

I mentioned earlier that there is an investigation commissioned by the government, the Investigation on countering incorrect payments to companies and civil society, which is to deliver a report in 2027. One must see it as a chain.

The Payment Authority has started its operations. Now, the proposal is to attach an audit of a part of the municipal payments. In connection with this, an investigation will follow later to see which other parts can be attached to follow up on the crime directed against the welfare system.

I assume that all municipalities and regions are working continuously on this issue even during the time that questions are being investigated. Even if it were not a direct state responsibility for the Swedish Payments Agency at this moment, I assume that they are doing that work. However, I do not believe, as I mentioned earlier, that they are doing it to the extent that is needed.

It is the Social Democrats who govern the vast majority of municipalities in Sweden. I have also in my home municipality seen that they do not take this issue seriously. They try to shift it onto the state, precisely because it is the Social Democrats who, to a large extent, have the municipal responsibility.

There is an investigation looking at the parts concerning payments to companies and civil society. I look forward very much to what it delivers in terms of conclusions and how one can choose to proceed with them.

What I believe we agree on is that the incorrect payments must be stopped. Then we need to have the investigation in order to be able to determine how it should practically work to counteract this. But municipalities and regions must also do the work continuously during the time that questions are being investigated and continue to do so.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are discussing the Committee on Finance's report no. 43 Improved conditions for municipalities to counter incorrect payments from the welfare systems.

This is an immensely important matter. It is about trust in the welfare systems and about the citizens' confidence that the taxes they collectively collect are actually used in the right way.

It is also important for dual privacy reasons: that the state should not collect more information than necessary at the individual level and that we as taxpayers should not contribute to fueling organized crime or other waste.

For the Moderaterna, the starting point is clear: Welfare shall go to those who have a right to it – not to organized crime, not to fraudsters and not to those who deliberately exploit the systems.

Mr. Speaker! For a long time, society has lagged behind the criminal economy. Crime has become more organized, more digital, and more advanced. Criminal networks today use companies, identities, and the subsidy system as tools to finance their activities.

At the same time, authorities and municipalities have often worked in silos, where secrecy rules and inadequate systems have meant that important information could not be shared despite the existence of clear warning signs.

The result has been that incorrect payments have been able to continue, sometimes for a long period, even though different parts of the public sector actually sat on different pieces of the puzzle. It is not sustainable in the long run.

Mr. Speaker! That is why this report is so important. The proposals mean better opportunities for cooperation between municipalities and authorities and better opportunities to share relevant information in order to detect and stop incorrect payments.

It is not about abolishing secrecy. It is about modernizing the regulatory framework so that secrecy does not protect criminals and embezzlement. When public sector actors suspect that tax money is being misused, society must be able to act quickly and effectively.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates argue that society must now use the same modern tools that the criminals already use. We live in a time where modern technology, data analysis, and digital information management provide completely new opportunities to detect patterns, identify anomalies, and stop incorrect payments before the money leaves the systems.

It is a decisive change. Previously, society has often worked reactively. Fraud has been discovered long after the money has been paid out. But with better information exchange and modern technology, we can work to a greater extent in a preventive manner.

We can detect unreasonable arrangements early. We can identify systematic abuse faster, and we can prevent the money from leaving the systems at all. It is better for the taxpayers, better for the welfare, and better for the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker! This is, of course, also about money. Every krona that goes to benefit fraud, welfare crime, or is otherwise embezzled is a krona that does not go to school, elderly care, healthcare, or safety. But it is also about something greater than economics. It is about the legitimacy of the entire welfare system.

The Swedish welfare model is ultimately based on a social contract. People accept paying tax because it goes towards the common welfare and to people who actually need support.

If people experience that the system is being abused and that fraud occurs and is not stopped in time, trust risks being eroded. Without trust, welfare systems do not function in the long term. Therefore, the fight against welfare crime is not just an economic issue. It is also a matter of defending the social contract.

It is at the same time important to establish that the work shall be carried out in a respectful and legally secure manner regarding personal integrity. Information sharing shall be clearly regulated and proportionate, and it shall be used where it is needed to protect the common good.

But integrity must never become an argument for accepting organized crime or systematic abuse of the welfare system. Protecting the taxpayers' money is also a responsibility of the state.

The Moderates therefore welcome this proposal which strengthens the municipalities' and authorities' possibilities to cooperate, share information and use modern tools to counteract incorrect payments.

We need a society where the systems are smarter, faster, and more coordinated than the criminals. We need a welfare system that people can trust.

We need to clearly show that the one who cheats with welfare is not cheating against the state in an abstract sense, but against all those people who work and pay tax every day.

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

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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