Improved living conditions for foreigners with temporary protection

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! One of the moderate-led government's primary priorities is to support Ukraine economically, politically, humanitarily and militarily.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Sweden has delivered 17 support packages totaling 48.1 billion kronor in military aid to Ukraine. This ranges from protective equipment in the first package to tanks, advanced weapons systems, and ammunition in later packages.

The Moderate-led government has presented a multi-year economic framework for the military support to Ukraine amounting to 75 billion kronor for the period 2024-2026. Sweden has additionally contributed over 9 billion kronor to civil and humanitarian support. This includes increased aid through support to humanitarian organizations, support to promote the rights of women and girls, and donations of medical equipment, fire protection, tents, etc. Ukraine is now Sweden's single largest aid recipient.

Let us collectively be clear that Sweden will support Ukraine for as long as is required.

Madam Speaker! Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine meant that the EU's Mass Flight Directive was activated for the first time in March 2022. Thanks to the directive, the EU's member states had the opportunity to receive a very large number of Ukrainians fleeing in a very short time. In total, more than 60,000 Ukrainians have been granted residence permits in Sweden according to the Mass Flight Directive. Without this regulatory framework, it would not have been possible. Over time, however, it has shown that our Swedish systems in connection with the mass flight regulations have needed to be reformed.

The persons with residence permits with temporary protection who are not registered in the population register in Sweden are covered by the Act on Reception of Asylum Seekers, LMA, which means that they largely have the same rights as asylum seekers. This has applied since the Mass Immigration Directive was implemented into Swedish law in 2003.

Ukrainians have, among other things, the opportunity to receive a daily allowance if they lack sufficient funds but, for example, do not have the right to assistance according to the Social Services Act. The right to care for adults is also limited to care that cannot be postponed, maternal healthcare, care during abortion, and contraceptive counseling.

The Moderate-led government is working to improve the living conditions for Ukrainians who are in Sweden and create greater opportunities for them to establish themselves on the labor market. We have previously expanded the opportunities for Ukrainians to study Swedish for immigrants and Swedish as a second language at komvux. With the proposal from the Moderate-led government that we are debating in this chamber today, we take a major step to improve the living conditions for Ukrainians in Sweden.

A number of benefits in Sweden are in one way or another linked to the population register. When the Mass Exodus Directive was implemented into Swedish law in 2003, it was decided that a person covered by the directive and who is granted temporary protection here shall, as a rule, not be registered in the population register if the person can be assumed to stay here for a shorter period than three years with the support of the permit. We think, however, that it is reasonable that registration in the population register can occur earlier than that.

Today's regulatory framework therefore assumes that the activation of the mass flight directive will be continuously extended for several years ahead, and at present, it is unclear whether this will occur. Today, the directive is activated until 4 March 2026. The Ukrainians who came to Sweden after 4 March 2023 will therefore only be able to be registered in the population register according to the existing regulatory framework if the mass flight directive is extended for further years. Therefore, we now propose that Ukrainians who are here with temporary protection should be able to be registered in the population register earlier than what today's regulatory framework allows. It is about improving their living conditions.

Madam Speaker! It is, after all, reasonable that those who receive temporary protection are not eligible for population registration immediately upon moving to Sweden. Our proposal therefore means that population registration shall occur only twelve months after temporary protection was granted. It is also important that those who are soon to leave Sweden are not registered here, and therefore it is proposed that only those who can be assumed to remain here for an additional six months shall be able to be registered.

Through the decision that I hope the Chamber adopts this afternoon, we enable Ukrainians with temporary protection under the mass flight directive to, among other things, participate in the establishment program, in order to facilitate and accelerate establishment in work and social life. We also ensure that those who participate in the establishment program can receive establishment compensation of 308 SEK per day, which is significantly more than the daily allowance according to LMA, which amounts to at most 71 SEK per day.

One also gets the right to work-based parental allowance and temporary parental allowance, that is, vab. One also gets the same access to health and medical care as well as dental care as other residents, and in the event that one cannot meet one's own needs, one will also be able to be granted financial assistance and other interventions according to the Social Services Act. These are points long-awaited by the Ukrainians, and now more of them will come, some faster than today.

Madam Speaker! The starting point is that the protection according to the mass influx directive shall be of a temporary nature. It is therefore reasonable that the benefits for those who have temporary protection are limited somewhat in relation to what applies to those who live here permanently. There are also a number of different investigations currently reviewing the right to various compensations and benefits. One has been tasked with proposing a new model for qualification for welfare, which is an important issue for the Moderate-led government.

The now proposed regulation means that Ukrainians are generally not insured for so-called residence-based social insurance benefits, for example, child allowance, assistance allowance, elderly support, and housing allowance. Pending a new model for qualification for the social insurance benefits, it is proposed that persons with temporary protection also continue to be excluded from these benefits. This shall, however, not apply to persons who have been granted a refugee status declaration or a travel document, nor to those who have been registered in the population register according to the rules that apply today. It is therefore not a question of any deterioration for them.

Mr. Speaker! During 2023, the Moderate-led government tasked the UN's migration organization IOM with investigating the situation of Ukrainians in Sweden. An update was made this spring, and it is very pleasing to see how well many Ukrainians have established themselves in Sweden. This spring, 66 percent of the Ukrainians who are of working age stated that they participate in the labor market, and 47 percent stated that they can speak Swedish. It is my hope that the improvements we implement today will result in even more Ukrainians being integrated better into Swedish society.

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that the Moderate-led government, in yet another proposal, shows its unwavering support for Ukraine and that we are now improving the living conditions for Ukrainians in Sweden. I hereby move to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates have great self-confidence when it comes to the war in Ukraine. In some cases, such as in the issue of support with war materiel, it is justified. But when it comes to aid to those who have fled Putin's bombs, the high-handedness is not as justified.

The Prime Minister speaks about how we should help Ukraine in every way possible, and we heard the member initially boast that this is one of the primary priorities for the Moderate-led government. At the same time, we have received reports for a long time about how Ukrainian mothers are forced to queue at soup kitchens to feed themselves and their children. We have heard reports of mothers who have not been able to afford sufficiently warm clothes for their children.

This is not just a question of humanism and a dignified life in Sweden, but it is also a question that affects the absolute front. Knowing that one's children and wife are doing well in the country they have fled to affects the morale of the troops. It affects the combat capability.

The Moderates have on several occasions had the opportunity to improve the conditions for the Ukrainian refugees who are in Sweden, and they have voted no several times. Therefore, my question to Viktor Wärnick is very simple. I simply wonder if one is satisfied with how the situation has looked for the Ukrainian refugees who have now been in Sweden.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The one with the high tail-wagging in these matters is probably standing in the speaker's chair opposite me.

We are not only making many important efforts for the Ukrainians who are here – fleeing the war and Russia's full-scale invasion – but we are also helping, which the member also acknowledges, Ukraine on the spot in a very large way with various types of support efforts and large packages.

What we have now put forward concerns improving the living conditions for Ukrainians who are in Sweden. Compared to today's regulations, which mean that one needs to wait for further extensions of the mass flight directive, we shorten the process so that population registration can take place at an earlier stage. This gives people the right to different types of support and measures at a much earlier stage than has been the case until now. We also ensure that we are not as bound by the EU's decisions on temporary extensions of one year at a time.

Swedish society's support for the Ukrainians is great and will continue to be so; that is why I began my speech by saying that we shall support Ukrainians and Ukraine for as long as it is needed. This is a part of that, and it is about people being able to enter Swedish society, and into work and self-sufficiency, in a faster way.

It is in the sense that the mass migration directive is fundamentally about temporary protection. That is, so to speak, the starting point. Now we are looking to improve this regulatory framework, which has existed since 2003, and it is something I am absolutely very proud that we are ensuring to do. We naturally need to keep our eyes on this in the future as well, but this is an important first step to further improve living conditions.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Is it to be interpreted as that the Moderaterna are proud that Ukrainian refugees go hungry in Sweden? Is it to be interpreted as that the Moderaterna are proud of the fact that Ukrainian refugees choose to go to other European countries, where they have it better? For me, it is not to stand up for Ukraine in every way and manner. For me, it is to betray Ukraine.

When it comes to high tail-wagging: Yes, I can have a very high tone, because the Center Party has voted for improvements for Ukrainian refugees every time we have had that opportunity in this chamber. We have voted for higher daily allowances, and today we will vote for Ukrainians to have more security opportunities than the government proposes - for example, child allowance - because we always stand on the side of the Ukrainians. It is not the case that one needs to choose between war materiel, economic support, and good living conditions in Sweden. It is possible to carry out and stand up for all of it.

I did not receive an answer to the question. Is Viktor Wärnick proud of the situation that the Ukrainian refugees have had in Sweden until today?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! These are such important issues that we need to keep the tone somewhat more subdued than what the member is using here in the debate.

We now see that this provides opportunities for economic assistance for those who cannot support themselves. We shorten the process of being registered in the population register. If people do not have the possibility to support themselves in ways that are necessary, they will be able to receive that help.

60,000 residence permits have been granted to Ukrainians during this period. A number of them have naturally returned to Ukraine during the period. But 60,000 in total still shows that Sweden is a good country to come to and a good country to receive help from while Russia's invasion continues. It is something that we hope will end as soon as possible.

Then I also mention IOM's review of the situation for Ukrainians. It notes that many who are capable of working have entered the labor market. These efforts are also about ensuring that people can enter the labor market faster and support themselves during the period they are in Sweden with temporary protection. That is also very good.

We are now gathering a majority in the chamber for those proposals. I do not see anything corresponding on the other side that could win a majority even if you had the opportunity, but they are different disparate proposals. We are now doing many good things to improve the living conditions for Ukrainians.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that we in this chamber have been united in our support for Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia's illegal invasion. But it is deplorable and it pains me that we in this chamber in October 2024 are still to make decisions on legislation that discriminates against the Ukrainian refugees who have come to our country.

At the same time as we provide military economic support to those fighting at the front, we are discriminating against their children and family members economically. The Ukrainian refugees have lived below the poverty line ever since the start of the invasion. Now, the Ukrainian refugee children are the only children in Sweden who, according to law, do not have the right to child allowance.

Families are not entitled to housing allowance. Children with disabilities will not receive the financial support that all other children receive for assistive devices. Children who have severe disabilities and would need support and service according to LSS will be the only children residing and registered in Sweden who do not receive those rights.

Viktor Wärnick speaks about how he is improving the conditions for the Ukrainian refugees. But what the government is doing is establishing by law an order where the Ukrainian refugees have worse rights than exactly everyone else living in our country. It is shameful.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not agree with Annika Hirvonen regarding the description she is now painting. It is a blackening of Sweden's support for Ukraine or for Ukrainians who are in Sweden.

What we are doing now is ensuring that we can, in a shorter time, ensure that we can register the Ukrainians who are in Sweden. It concerns the fact that we do not have the three-year rule as a basis, which means we need to ensure that there are further extensions of the mass flight directive.

Those who arrived after March 2023 would have to wait until next year before they can be registered in the population register. Those who arrived before then have had the opportunity to be registered in the population register, provided that they appear to be staying here for a period of three years.

This legislation is about shortening the processes. It has been developed in a very complex situation where EU legislation and the mass flight directive have also played a role and have had an influence.

We are now ensuring that people who have been in Sweden for twelve months, if they then also stay for six months thereafter, shall be considered to be resident in Sweden and be registered in the population register.

What we do with this, and what Annika Hirvonen speaks of as discrimination, is that in accordance with what we otherwise consider reasonable, namely qualification for welfare, we ensure that it is primarily the work-related benefits in the social insurance that they have access to. They also have the opportunity to receive financial assistance if it should be required if they cannot support themselves in any other way.

We are improving the situation with this. We are shortening the times. We ensure that they can enter Swedish society in a faster way and enter the working life and social life in a faster way. That is what we do with the proposal. I do not agree with the gloom and doom.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There are two parts to the proposal. One concerns when one is allowed to register one's residence if one is a Ukrainian refugee. I agree that that proposal is an improvement. But then comes the fine print, that which Viktor Wärnick does not want to pretend about.

The government has written entirely new paragraphs that only concern exempting Ukrainian refugees, women and children, from the right to child allowance, housing allowance, extra cost compensation, LSS, dental care support, etcetera. The list is long.

This will be the only group of children and families in Sweden who do not have those rights. The child benefit, which applies to all children living in Sweden, will from and after this law apply to all children living in Sweden except for the Ukrainian refugees. A completely new law has been written about that.

Do not pretend that it comes from the EU. Do not pretend that one was forced to write new laws that only concern that Ukrainian refugees should not have the right to child allowance, housing allowance, additional cost compensation for persons with disabilities, etcetera. It is a choice that has been made.

I think that one should explain. Explain to the fathers who fight at the front why their children are worth less than all other children living in our country and why their wives should have a harder time paying the rent for a home of sufficient size and standard. I do not understand this.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is necessary to write new laws. We need to write new laws to ensure that the population registration can take place at an earlier stage than what applies today. It is to open up for the various measures and benefits that come with this. It is absolutely necessary.

The government has already ensured that measures to learn the Swedish language and other types of support measures are in place. What we are now doing with the legislation that we have on the Riksdag's table today is to open up for people to be able to be registered in the population register already after twelve months in Sweden. Through that, they have access to the establishment program, parental leave and temporary parental leave, i.e., being able to take "vabba".

All of this is to facilitate the possibility for people to enter and stay in the working life during the time they are in Sweden. These are no small things. These are important reforms that we are now implementing in order to facilitate and to improve.

And with this, we also ensure that people have access to the same health care and dental care as other residents, just as I mentioned in my speech. In cases where they cannot meet the needs, they can also apply for financial assistance. These are important matters.

Basically, this is about the fact that the starting point for the mass flight directive is that it is of a temporary protection character. People are temporarily protected because a war is currently ongoing in Ukraine, and they are therefore seeking protection in Sweden. Therefore, we think it is reasonable that the benefits for the temporary protection are limited somewhat in relation to what applies to those who live here permanently. I maintain that. It is reasonable, and it is reasonable that we need to have a discussion about how one qualifies for the welfare system. It is something that I know the Miljöpartiet also opposes.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think Viktor Wärnick should be honest like this after two exchanges instead of doing these pirouettes. You are excluding Ukrainian children from, for example, the child allowance. It is better to admit it as a government party and say that you are excluding these children from the safety nets than to keep talking about other things. Say it as it is!

Mr. Speaker! As a migration policy politician, I meet many asylum seekers. The constant questions that are raised concern the economic conditions. That was also the case when I met Maria from the city of Mariupol, which is occupied by Russia. The city consists today largely of bombed-out houses. It is not possible to return. Still, the government party stands here and treats these people as if they were here temporarily. Many cannot return. Ensure that they get long-term and sustainable lives here in Sweden!

Maria fled to Sweden, and here she and her daughter receive 98 kronor in daily allowance to share. They cannot manage on that. They have to turn to the church and to aid organizations that have food distributions and various other things.

It is terribly difficult as a refugee in Sweden. One is impoverished and ends up in vulnerable situations. It is often traumatic, not least for children, when one has fled a war and comes here and does not know if one will get food for the day. And here stands Viktor Wärnick and says that one is proud! You turn a blind eye to what is happening. One does not have money for food, and one has no money to buy Alvedon if the child gets sick. One does not have money for diapers.

The level of the daily allowance has not been raised in 30 years, and now the government does not want the refugees to be able to receive the child allowance and other parts of the economic safety net. I do not understand this. It is completely incomprehensible, but it is also a conscious policy. Why are you impoverishing the people who have fled the horrors of war and sought protection here?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think that Vänsterpartiet is the party that needs to be most humble in the issue of Ukraine and the support for Ukraine and Ukrainians.

Let us just go back to the days after the invasion at the beginning of 2022, when we were to make the first decision in this chamber to send support to Ukraine. Vänsterpartiet was then the only party that voted no. They had full steam ahead in the internal processes but did not succeed and said no.

This is still an important thing to keep in mind when Vänsterpartiet takes on these tones. The support then concerned armored plates, bulletproof vests, helmets, minefields, and 500 million kronor in direct support. This is what Vänsterpartiet said no to. I think one can still demand a bit of humility from Vänsterpartiet regarding support for Ukraine.

I also think that we need to keep separate what applies according to the provisions and basis of the social insurance. It concerns the residence-based benefits, and it concerns the work-based benefits. What we are now doing by shortening the process and the time before one can be registered as a resident to twelve months instead of having it as it is today, where one is supposed to be in the country for three years, means that we are opening up for the work-based benefits in the social insurance. We are opening up for the support that is required to be able to enter the labor market.

I return to the point that I think it is reasonable to keep these separate and that those who are in Sweden for a temporary period do not have direct access to the settlement-based benefits. We will return to this when it comes to qualification for the welfare system.

We will, of course, need to address the long-term perspective, and we do so jointly in the European Union.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I began my reply by saying that the member in two previous posts has stood and performed pirouettes and has not answered questions. And so he does it again! It shocks me something so terribly.

The member continues with his pirouettes and is doing everything except the questions I asked. Why doesn't he answer the question? Is it that the member does not dare to talk about these deteriorations? You are excluding Ukrainian children from, for example, child allowance. The member has not answered the questions earlier, and now he is doing pirouettes.

Why do you exclude Ukrainian children from, for example, child allowance and other economic safety nets? It is completely deliberate on your part, but it is also incomprehensible. The daily allowance has not been increased in 30 years. I also asked a question about that. Why do you not increase the daily allowance if you are going to provide full support to Ukrainians?

People from Ukraine are living under very poor conditions in Sweden and run a terribly great risk of falling into severe exploitation, trafficking, exploitation on the labor market, and so on. This is something that police, women's shelters, and municipalities in Sweden have warned about for a long time. When people live with such small economic margins and when we now also have a government that excludes Ukrainians from economic safety nets, the consequences are terrible.

But the government just blinks and performs pirouettes instead of answering questions. Sweden has the lowest settlement rate among comparable countries. It is the lowest in the entire Nordic region. This is nothing new for the government. I think that one should provide full support to those who flee the horrors of war. One should fully improve their living conditions so that they can live in safety here.

The question that the member does not answer is: Why do you choose to impoverish Ukrainians and shut them out from important systems?

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Tony Haddou claims that these would be deteriorations. They are not deteriorations, but rather improvements. One will have access to the work-related benefits in the social insurance systems at an earlier stage. They are not deteriorations. Nor do any deteriorations occur for those who have already been registered in the population register according to the current regulations. They are entitled to the support that one has according to the current regulations.

What we are doing now is ensuring that a large group has the opportunity to enter the social insurance at an earlier stage through the population register after twelve months, and then regarding the work-related benefits.

As I have returned to in many exchanges of remarks, I think it is reasonable that we distinguish between the work-related benefits and the residency-based benefits, which we will also return to when it comes to qualification for welfare. I know that Vänsterpartiet is against this, but we will return to it. I have answered this in all exchanges of remarks, and I am happy to continue doing so as well.

In addition to what I have mentioned regarding social insurance, one will have the opportunity to participate in the establishment program and receive the establishment allowance, which is significantly higher than the daily allowance. One will have access to parental leave and be able to take parental leave (vabba). One will have access to health and medical care and dental care and, if required, have the right to financial assistance or social assistance. These are no small things. These are improvements for this group that we ensure they will enjoy at a much earlier stage than today.

Vänsterpartiet takes the opportunity as usual to propose increased grants for all asylum seekers when they get the chance. The daily allowance should be raised for everyone. Vänsterpartiet sees no concerns that the pull factors to Sweden would increase further if we make it even more favorable for those who are in the asylum process. We know that is what will happen.

When we now speak about the situation of the Ukrainian migrants, the Left Party cannot refrain from speaking about the situation of all other asylum seekers and about increasing the pull factors. I think that is wrong.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The support for Ukraine is based on the question of international law. We shall follow international law. When Russia illegally violates international law and invades Ukraine, our support in this chamber is, of course, rock-solid.

I am pleased to hear Viktor Wärnick's description of the process, and I share much of it. Both the Social Democratic-led and the Moderate-led governments have been steadfast in their support for Ukraine. It is nice that we can agree on something for once, and when it concerns life and death, it is particularly welcome.

In the same breath, when we talk about international law, I can only regret that the Moderates are not as inclined to support international law when it comes to what is happening in Gaza and when it concerns receiving the sick and injured from Gaza who need help from our country in the extremely tragic situation ongoing there. They do support, with all their heart, with all rights, the Ukrainians. I think it is a stain on Sweden that we do not help the people in Palestine who need help here and now.

We fundamentally think that the proposal on the table is good. I think it is too late. This should have happened earlier. It has been a very strange process. It has dragged on in a way that has been difficult for someone who is not in the Government Offices to understand. This could have gone faster. The government should be criticized for this.

We think that the question of the settlement-based compensations is complex. I think on one hand that there is a basis in what Viktor Wärnick argues for, regarding the temporariness, and also that there are some other parts to this. It is about, for example, that the Ukrainian refugees have freedom of movement and the question of whether internal flight always takes precedence over international flight. I think it is complex. I think on the other hand that one must follow this issue much more closely.

When it comes to the issue of social assistance, I can say: If you receive child allowance and are on social assistance, it will still just be deducted. This means that it becomes a question of the cost distribution between the state and the municipality. There, I can think that we need to have an awareness and a very large focus on that the municipalities should not bear the costs for this, if they were to escalate, which I hope they do not do. The establishment of Ukrainians in the labor market is going very well, but there is, of course, a class dimension in this. Those who establish themselves are often those who come from a stronger class background than the people who are potentially subjects for social assistance, who then also become poorer even here in Sweden, which I can think is regrettable.

We need to follow that question. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 4 - then it is entered into the minutes.

Since then, the issue of dental care support has been strangely handled. The government is moving forward with a direct deterioration. One removes the free dental care support for all 19-23-year-olds next year without implementing any improvements whatsoever for anyone next year. Furthermore, one deteriorates it even further for 24-29-year-olds. One halves the support for that group. They also get it worse without the slightest improvement occurring next year for any group.

Then one is to carry out some form of major reform of the dental care support. You set an upper time limit linked to an investigation that we don't even know if it will deliver. We think that is a bit of a strange handling of that issue. We do not think there should be any upper time limit for the issue of dental care before we have a new system in place.

Otherwise, I have nothing more to add, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to thank Ola Möller for shedding light on the appalling injustice and the government's handling of the situation in Gaza and in Palestine. I agree. Sweden should do much more there.

But now I move on to the matter concerning the rights of Ukrainian refugees. I previously tried to get an answer from the Moderates' Viktor Wärnick as to why one is now proceeding with these deteriorations of rights in the Social Insurance Code. New legal paragraphs are being written in that exempt only Ukrainian refugees from the general welfare - from child allowance, housing allowance, extra cost compensation for persons with disabilities and LSS. And one sets an upper limit for the dental care allowance.

I note that the Social Democrats, in their motion, have certain arguments and want the government to reflect. I think the government has reflected. They have landed on the fact that precisely Ukrainian refugees shall have worse rights than all other children and families living in Sweden.

I wonder which of these rights the Social Democrats think should apply to everyone. And which rights – if the Social Democrats were allowed to decide for themselves – do you think that specifically Ukrainian children, women, and families should be exempted from?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Imagine if the Social Democrats were allowed to decide for themselves. Then it would have been a wonderful Riksdag, I think. It would have made things significantly easier. But it is clear that child allowance and housing allowance are those that are absolutely closest at hand. Then there is, of course, the question of dental care, which we also agree on.

When it comes to LSS, it is significantly more complicated, precisely due to its temporary nature. I do not know if the government has thought it through. I think that if one has thought it through, one rarely ends up in the conclusions that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna reach. But if I am to interpret it reasonably, I think that housing allowances and child allowances are those that are absolutely closest at hand.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that someone else from the governing parties wants to explain how they have intended this, because there is no logic in saying that one wants to give Ukrainians full support while the children of the soldiers on the front who have fled to us here in Sweden continue to be affected by increased child poverty and be discriminated against compared to all other children living in Sweden.

No answer has been given to this. People just want to talk about the timing of the population registration. It is a very important question. It has taken a very long time for the government to move forward there. But it concerns two separate questions.

I am glad that the Social Democrats can still take a stand that child allowance and housing allowance shall apply equally to all children living in Sweden. I wish that we could agree that residency-based rights, which we have in the Swedish welfare system, should be general and apply to everyone. I wish for the same regarding rights for persons with disabilities within LSS. I believe that it should apply equally to everyone living in Sweden.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Fundamentally, there is the temporary parameter, i.e., how long one is to be here. It is that parameter that we are working with. Therefore, it states in our reservation that we want this to be followed closely. If it becomes more long-term, I hope that the government will come to the conclusion that we must further strengthen these individuals' opportunities to truly become a part of Swedish society and to enter Swedish society.

In my world, these people shall return to a free Ukraine, which we have liberated together. Then it shall be of a temporary nature. That is why we arrive at that conclusion.

Then there is one thing, purely rhetorically, that I object to hearing. It is precisely the word deterioration. They haven't had this privilege. It is not that it is deteriorating and being taken away from them. Then I agree that in relation to other children with permanent status in Sweden, they have a worse situation. But it is not an active deterioration; rather, it becomes a de facto improvement in this proposition. I still think that one must balance between Miljöpartiet and the government. I think that the Social Democrats have landed very well, as usual, on this issue.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats write in their reservation that the state dental care support, which will cover foreigners who have a residence permit with temporary protection, shall not be time-limited. Instead of being clear and telling the target group when their right to state dental care support expires, one should describe this in a completely different bill, which will come later.

This in itself is strange, because there is no reason to be unclear when granting a certain group access to dental care support when they did not have this previously.

The mass flight directive itself is about a group having temporary residence permits in Sweden. Consequently, the social security benefits for this group must also be temporary.

I want to ask the member if this reservation and this position do not reflect a pattern in Social Democratic policy, where the focus lies on unlimited benefits and where foreigners are lured into the benefit trap. I also want to know how the member views limitations on access to the welfare system for foreigners.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! To the question of patterns, the answer is no.

When it comes to subsidy dependency, it is interesting that we have a Sweden Democrat who stands here and takes free dental care from 19-23-year-olds, worsens it for 24-29-year-olds, and then speaks about subsidy dependency. Who are the ones who will need to apply for subsidies because they cannot afford to pay the rent or put food on the table? Is it the Lena Andersson paradigm then: Oh, they can just eat porridge!

Nima Gholam Ali Pour, the students are already eating porridge - if they are eating. When Handels conducted a survey among its members, they were asked what an additional 2,000 kronor per month would mean. The answer was to eat until full, have children, and go to the dentist.

It is stomach-turning of the Sweden Democrats, who are thus removing free dental care for 19-23-year-olds and are not introducing a single improvement to dental care next year, to talk about people becoming dependent on subsidies. No one will be better off when it comes to dental care next year. The Sweden Democrats are only offering deteriorations.

When it comes to the question of qualification for welfare, we already have that. There are parts of the social security system, for example guarantee pensions, which mean that you qualify through years in Sweden. Here, it is about what limits we should have, and we have clearly put on the table that we think the bill that the government is presenting is a reasonable balance in the part regarding settlement benefits. But we want it to be followed, because we see that a temporary situation can become more permanent, and then we need to change.

I find it so difficult that the Sweden Democrats are now trying to smooth over the fact that they themselves are now creating more benefit-dependent people in Sweden. In that case, we are not talking about refugees, but we are talking about Swedish citizens.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It was very mocking, but let us talk about your reservations again.

The Social Democrats write in their reservation that the government should review which settlement-based social insurance benefits those foreigners who have been granted residence permits with temporary protection shall receive. Among other things, the Social Democrats mention that foreigners who have been granted residence permits with temporary protection shall be entitled to child allowance and housing allowance.

It is obvious that the Social Democrats still have the same old thinking they have always had: People who come to this country shall be given access to the entire welfare system, whether they need it or not.

The government has presented proposals where they facilitate the lives of those persons who have residence permits with temporary protection. The Social Democrats respond by offering that same group more benefits. What does it look like today among all foreigners who have lived in the welfare society, and what does it look like among those immigrants who have said no to benefits and started working? Why do the Social Democrats never learn that those who are temporarily in Sweden need support in order to be able to get a job and not be lured into a benefit trap?

My question to the member is the following: Which other groups that today lack the right to residency-based social security benefits shall, according to the Social Democrats, be granted the right to these? Illegal migrants? Asylum seekers? Which other groups shall, according to the Social Democratic member, be granted the right to social security benefits? How much will it cost the taxpayers?

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! For the Sweden Democrats, it is laughable when people talk about 19-23-year-olds losing their free dental care and thereby being sent into increased dependency on benefits. It summarizes their view of humanity quite well.

The tone is also interesting: The Ukrainians are actually such illegal immigrants who are actually here and want to grab for themselves!

I think that Jonny Catos' contribution regarding the safety of the front-line soldiers hits the nail on the head regarding what it is about. We naturally want the Ukrainians to feel welcome so that their brave soldiers can fight against the Russians at the front. But perhaps it is the case that the Sweden Democrats have not quite landed on who is going to win that war. Nima Gholam Ali Pour, the party leader, actually said that there is an upper limit to the support for Ukraine. It is that we are starting to approach and talk about now: the Ukrainians should not have it too good, because then they become lazy. Then they become subsidy-dependent and illegal.

I find it very, very difficult to look at the Ukrainians in that way, and therefore it becomes a post that sort of has nothing to do with the matter.

Now it is about the bill regarding the rights of Ukrainians. The Social Democrats say that since this is of a temporary nature, we accept the government's view that one should look at the settlement-based benefits through those glasses. But if it were to become permanent and we see large cost increases for the municipalities, yes, then we must look at this. It is an extremely objective and pragmatic approach from the Social Democrats, where we take the development and reality into account and are in agreement with the government. We also say that we must follow the issue and look further into it.

When it comes to the upper limit for the dental care subsidy, it is because we do not trust that the Sweden Democrats will carry out major reforms, as we have seen that you have already broken a lot of promises. When you deliver that, we can also set other time limits.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a bit of a strange debate. It is very clear that the two major parties want to tone down the debate, keep the tone low, and point to a broad consensus. I understand that it is tough to be a Moderate or a Social Democrat and not stand up for the support for Ukraine, but for me, this is truly important.

What, however, does not seem to be as tough is being a Social Democratic migration policy maker, because one only votes exactly as the government proposes. I may have been naive, but I truly believed that the limit for the Social Democrats was solidarity with the Ukrainian refugees who are in the country, in order to stand up against Russia and Putin and stand up for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

I thought that a cornerstone of solidary social democracy was that all children should have the right to child allowance. I thought that the Social Democrats wanted to treat all refugees equally.

The Social Democrats have had the chance earlier in this chamber to improve the living conditions for Ukrainian refugees, for example when we have discussed and voted on the housing. But then, time and again, the answer has been no.

My question is simple: Why should Ukrainian refugee children not have the same rights as other refugee children?

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! One should not set a C member to interpret Social Democracy; that is absolutely certain. As regards Jonny Cato Hansson's assertions about Social Democracy, he obviously has incorrect conceptions of things, and that is why he is not a Social Democrat.

It is not the case that all refugees have exactly the same, as Jonny Cato rhetorically points out. Regarding the reason, I have answered previously: It is about the temporary nature, and we are absolutely prepared to review this if it becomes more of a permanent nature. I therefore think that the member has received an answer, and I wish that the member also listened to it.

We also feel that it is important to balance. On one side, we have the Center Party with everything for everyone, something that is sometimes attributed to other parties, and on the other side, we have the Sweden Democrats who say that we want to give everything to all refugees. Therefore, we have probably ended up just right - the Sweden Democrats over there and the Center Party over there, and so Social Democracy stands firmly in the middle, slightly to the left.

I am satisfied with that position.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! There we got the answer. One must balance between SD and other parties. One adapts one's policy according to the Sweden Democrats; that was exactly what the member said!

Unfortunately, that is how it is. The Social Democrats have here in the chamber voted one hundred percent in line with the Sweden Democrats' migration policy.

That is how it is! You can read DN. If you say that I am bad at listening, you can get better at reading.

If we are to be truly honest, I did not think that one would choose to keep the voting record with the government regarding Ukrainian refugees. That is what it is about. I genuinely believe that all Social Democrats who vote today think that the Ukrainian children should have tolerable conditions in this country. They do not have them today, and the Social Democrats have acknowledged that.

The chairman and I have known each other for a long time – and that is probably why Jonny Cato Hansson came forward here from the old days in the municipal council. I know that Ola Möller fundamentally has the right attitude when it comes to giving all children the same opportunities. But here it goes wrong.

Yes, I hope that we will at some point get the honest answer that it is just about adapting to the Sweden Democrats. That is what one does. Or is it that the Social Democrats truly think that Ukrainian children should not have the right to child allowance and that Ukrainian children's parents should have to queue in soup kitchens? Is it that the Socialdemokraterna do not think that one should be able to afford to buy winter clothes now that it is getting cold outside?

I shall make an attempt to interpret social democracy. I do not believe it is the social democracy your members chose to become members of.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit funny to talk about membership recruitment. I believe I have won the membership recruitment for the Social Democrats for two years in a row in the internal measurements because I sell exactly the social democracy that I represent.

Once again, it is a member of the Centre Party interpreting Social Democracy. It would have made a good YouTube clip, and it would have received many views because the interpretations were so absurd.

Of course, we do not adapt to the Sweden Democrats' policy. We pursue a Social Democratic strict migration policy. I have no problem with that. I think it is perfectly reasonable, and I have no problem with that position. We will continue to do so.

Why Ukrainian children should not be entitled to child allowance, the member and others here in the chamber have received answers to a number of times. We mean that it is of a temporary nature, but we see the same problem that member Cato points out. If this becomes a permanent situation, further reinforcements will be needed. Then we are prepared to do that, and we show that through our reservation.

It is liberating to be a Social Democrat in this chamber; to be accused time and again from all sides and corners of being this and that. But I can state that in this debate, the only one who knows what the Social Democrats are is the member in this speaker's chair.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a dark time in Europe's history. On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its full-scale and brutal invasion of Ukraine. It was an attack not only on an independent country but also on the values that are important to us in Europe, namely peace, freedom, and self-determination.

The people of Ukraine have shown incredible courage and determination as they defend their sovereignty and their home. They are not just fighting for their own freedom but for the security and stability of all of Europe. A consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was that the EU's mass exodus directive was activated for the first time.

The Mass Flight Directive aims to ensure that persons from a country outside the European Union receive immediate protection in a mass flight situation and access to certain social rights, and aims to promote a balance between the efforts of the Member States.

Those covered by the mass flight directive in Sweden receive a residence permit with temporary protection. One also receives a work permit. According to current legislation, a person with a residence permit with temporary protection shall, according to the main rule, not be registered in the population register. It is only after two years of residence in Sweden that a person with a residence permit with temporary protection can turn to Skatteverket to apply for population registration. Until then, persons with a residence permit with temporary protection are covered by the Act on Reception of Asylum Seekers, where there is an opportunity to receive daily allowance.

In June last year, IOM, the UN's migration organization, published a report where it emerged that precisely the lack of civil registration and the consequences of this were a major problem for Ukrainians with residence permits with temporary protection in Sweden. A third of the Ukrainians in the survey stated that they could not open something as basic as a bank account. 38 percent of the respondents had traveled to Ukraine since the start of the war just to be examined by a doctor. This is due to a very tedious regulation that should have been corrected by previous governments. It is obviously unsustainable and unreasonable that Ukrainians with residence permits with temporary protection should live under such conditions in Sweden.

That is why the government, in the bill being debated today, proposes that the population registration of a foreigner who has been granted a residence permit with temporary protection can be carried out after one year. A child born in Sweden and granted a residence permit with temporary protection may be registered together with its parents if the guardian is registered.

The idea here is to create a simpler life for those Ukrainians who have been forced to flee their country and come to Sweden. It is about showing solidarity not only in Ukraine through civil and military support but also here at home in Sweden. At the same time, we must not forget that Sweden has embarked on a new migration policy direction.

On 19 October 2023, the government appointed an inquiry with the aim of reviewing the qualification for social insurance and financial assistance and to take a position on in what way newcomers and non-citizens shall qualify for the Swedish welfare system. This is part of the paradigm shift that the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna are working for. We want to reduce the risk that social insurance benefits and financial assistance shall attract irregular migrants to Sweden. The reception of economic migrants shall simply cease.

At the same time, we want to send clear signals that those who come to Sweden shall work from day one. They should quickly enter the workforce and support themselves instead of becoming a burden on society. In order not to go against the migration policy direction that the government and Sverigedemokraterna have established, it is important that this bill is in line with the overall political direction. Therefore, the previous population registration of persons with residence permits with temporary protection will not lead to them gaining access to settlement-based social insurance benefits. Such benefits would not be compatible with the limitation of the welfare system for foreigners that the government advocates for. It would be unjustifiable to give a certain group greater access to welfare while we are trying to limit access to welfare for all non-citizens and newcomers.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are moving towards a clear direction where immigration will be very restrictive, and those who arrive in Sweden will be focused on work. We will not let emotional arguments and events outside of Sweden adjust the migration policy direction. There are parties here today that will have a different direction, and they will argue that foreigners need benefits. They have said that for a long time, and we know what their Sweden looks like. That can be seen by traveling to Rosengård, where quite a few immigrants live on benefits.

We will not turn back. We will not go back to the Social Democrats' Welfare Sweden. The migration policy direction stands firm. If you come to Sweden, you shall work, not go on benefits. On the other hand, life for those Ukrainians who have fled their homeland will be eased by the fact that, with the government's proposal, they will, among other things, be covered by the rules on the regions' responsibility to offer health and medical care. This means that they will get the same access to health and medical care as everyone else in Sweden. No Ukrainian should have to return to a country at war to get something as fundamental as healthcare. That healthcare they shall receive in Sweden.

The Ukrainians who have left their country and are registered here will also be offered the same dental care as other residents in Sweden. Furthermore, they will be able to participate in state dental care support. More Ukrainians can participate in the establishment program, which accelerates their integration into working and social life.

The Ukrainians who have left their country will also have the opportunity to apply for financial assistance according to the Social Services Act after being registered in the population register.

Many Ukrainians want to learn Swedish as soon as possible. They move to where the jobs are – whether it is on Öland or in Skåne, one meets Ukrainians who work hard and contribute to our society. Many from Ukraine who fled the war work in healthcare and elderly care. That this group is granted access to financial assistance should not be seen as an increased risk that the municipalities will be burdened by recipients of benefits.

Persons with residence permits with temporary protection will also be granted access to work-based parental benefit and temporary parental benefit. Even here, work is at the center. Those who work need temporary parental benefit to take care of a sick child. It is a benefit for those who work.

The proposal that the government has put forward will not make Ukrainians who have fled from their homeland a part of the Swedish welfare system, but it will facilitate the situation for Ukrainians so that they can enter the workforce and stand on their own feet.

At the same time as Ukrainians with residence permits under temporary protection do not have access to the entire welfare system, we must also remember that this group has not had to go through the asylum process that one usually goes through, where the outcome could have been something other than granted residence permit.

This will be Sweden's way forward. When you come to Sweden from another country, Sweden will not shower you with grants, but you will contribute to Sweden, and you will have the opportunity to do so.

What the opposition wants is to go back to the old order, where all the world's economic migrants came to Sweden because we were considered the world's social bureau. This will not happen. That time is over.

Sweden will become a country where you do your duty and demand your right. The time when migrants came here and lived on benefits and formed slum areas is coming to an end. It will be over when this parliamentary term is concluded.

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

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! In a time when a wave of cuts is sweeping across Sweden, healthcare is entering a full-scale crisis, unemployment is increasing and is at catastrophic levels, households are pressured, poverty is increasing and single women are particularly affected, the Sweden Democrats have pushed for enormous tax cuts for those with million-dollar incomes. The Sweden Democrats have not come up with a single solution to the problems I just mentioned.

What is happening out there is that people are being impoverished to a terrible extent. Those whom the debate is about today, Ukrainian refugees, you have completely let the wind out of the sails when it comes to their economic conditions and security. You are deliberately shutting them out from important economic safety nets. The government is shutting them out from being registered in the population register directly, and you are shutting them out from economic security.

Every time the Sweden Democrats get to choose, they choose to pour money onto the very richest instead. At the same time, the queues for the food distribution become longer for the Ukrainians who are forced to live on a next-to-non-existent daily allowance. The Sweden Democrats do not care about them.

When the Sweden Democrats get to choose, it always results in money for the richest and impoverishing others, such as the Ukrainian refugees whom the member does not want to lift a finger for. Why do the Sweden Democrats impoverish this target group when there is obviously plenty of money for tax cuts?

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One becomes a bit upset. It seems as if the member from Vänsterpartiet has not read the bill. Here we have a group that will get access to healthcare, which they did not have before. They will get access to financial assistance that covers the incidental costs that the families have. They did not have access to that previously. They will get access to dental care.

All this they will get access to after they have been registered in the population register, which is to happen more easily than today.

What one hears from the member from Vänsterpartiet is that this government is not investing. We have just presented the most expansive state budget in a long time, where people who are older receive a high-cost protection regarding dental care that they have not had before.

Tax cuts are about working people getting more money in their pockets. Sweden becomes richer. Working people become richer. There is nothing wrong with that.

This fact that we are to constantly provide subsidies to people does not work. I think the member should take a walk to Sweden's areas of exclusion. There are people there who live on subsidies. That is what Vänsterpartiet is begging for today. They want to give even more subsidies to people. It does not work!

What we need are people who work, and this government is doing everything to ensure that people work. When they have worked and received their wages, they should be able to keep more of that wage in their pockets.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member said two things: One presents an expansive budget, and the working people get more money.

You are tapering off the job tax credit, which does not give a single krona to those who earn less than 65,000 kronor a month, but those with million-income get several thousand kronor! The working people, says Nima Gholam Ali Pour.

As usual, it is those at the bottom of the ladder who have to pay for the party when the member here lowers their own tax. But Ukrainian refugees who have sought protection here and live far below the poverty line shall not get a penny. This was what I wanted an answer to: Why should this group continue to be poor? You are shutting them out.

You exclude them from, for example, child allowance. Why does one deliberately and actively choose to exclude Ukrainian children from child allowance? Why does one exclude Ukrainians from housing allowance?

Can I get an answer to this? It is being done deliberately, but it is completely insane and incomprehensible.

I believe that Sweden should be a good country for those who are fleeing Putin's bombs. Why do you not want to ensure that those fleeing the horrors of war receive this economic security fully? Instead, you choose, through separate legislation, to shut them out from the safety net. It is completely incomprehensible.

I have not received any explanation for this. Here, everything else that the Sweden Democrats want to talk about is discussed, but not the impoverishment of this target group and why they are being excluded from housing allowances, child allowances, and so on.

A safe reception for Ukrainian refugees and reasonable living conditions for them should be a matter of course. Then we cannot separate and say that they should not receive benefits. Then people say that they do not want them to become dependent on benefits. But why should Ukrainian children be punished? I do not understand it. They have a right to economic security, don't they?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I used my time in the speaker's chair to explain that we are moving towards a new direction, where it will not be self-evident that one gets access to the welfare systems if one is not a citizen. One must be a citizen to qualify for the welfare systems. Then we will see what the investigation concludes, but the new order looks like that.

When one comes to Sweden, it is not self-evident that one as a migrant and non-citizen will have access to the welfare systems. Then, people in the election can decide if they want to support the order that the Vänsterpartiet wants, where from day one one shall receive benefits and the daily allowance shall increase so that asylum seekers shall receive more in benefits and we attract more asylum seekers to Sweden.

Is it this that the people want? Or do they want their tax funds to go to the citizens in Sweden, i.e., those fellow human beings who live in this country together with them and are part of the same community? Or should the tax funds go to migrants who come to our country?

When it comes to the Ukrainians, what we are discussing here today is an improvement. To have access to healthcare and dental care, like everyone else in Sweden, is an improvement. But it does not apply to just anyone, but to those who register their folkbokföring here, and that can be done after one year.

The idea that Sweden should attract all the world's migrants by constantly increasing the benefits is not something many people stand behind.

I do not like the painting of a bleak picture regarding impoverishment. If one gets access to healthcare, one is not impoverished but enriched. One becomes wealthier. If one gets access to dental care, one becomes wealthier.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! With Nima Gholam Ali Pour's last remark in the previous exchange, this debate suddenly became a debate about views on humanity. Should support go to our fellow human beings or someone else? The Ukrainian refugees who have fled to our country are my fellow human beings. I want the children who have fled here from Ukraine to have the same rights not to be poor or overcrowded as all other fellow human beings' children in Sweden.

The government's proposal contains several parts. One part is a new law on population registration for persons receiving protection under the mass influx directive, i.e., Ukrainian refugees. But the proposal also contains amendments to the Social Insurance Code which mean that precisely this group and only this group are exempted from the foundations of the Swedish welfare system. Under the government's proposal, Ukrainian refugee children will be the only children in Sweden whose families are not entitled to child allowance, housing allowance, and additional cost compensation for disabilities. The argument I have heard from the Moderaterna, Socialdemokraterna, and Sverigedemokraterna is that they are here temporarily. But the question is how our fellow human beings are to fare during this temporary time. I say: no poverty.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One can give such a speech and look very kind, but this is the reality: If Sweden were to give grants to every person who set foot in this country, we would not be able to finance it. We must therefore draw a line for whom the welfare is for, and I and my party believe that it should be for those who are citizens of Sweden. But the member says that as soon as a person comes here, she should receive a higher daily allowance and proposes that asylum seekers should receive twice as much compared to today. But that does not work. We cannot give everyone access to the welfare system and thereby attract more migrants. It does not add up economically, and morally, the taxpayers would not accept it. Those who pay tax do not accept that we give grants to every migrant who comes to this country.

What we are doing today is an improvement for the Ukrainians. But when it comes to the principled question of whether we should give money to all migrants who come to Sweden, as the Green Party proposes, my answer is no, we absolutely should not do that. Sweden's welfare system is primarily for the country's citizens, and those who are not citizens should not be given access to the entire welfare system. The Green Party proposes, however, that we should also give those who have temporary protection access to the entire welfare system, which is completely unacceptable.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have not seen any opinion poll, but I would very much like to ask the Swedish people: Do you think that Ukrainian children should be the only children residing in our country who do not have the right to child allowance? Do you think they should be the only children whose families do not have the right to housing allowance? That is exactly what will happen with the government's bill. It is only Ukrainian refugees who, with the government's proposal, are exempted from the welfare that applies to all other children and adults in our country.

I think it is shameful that a government that says it wants to fully support Ukraine's struggle at the same time tells the soldiers fighting at the front: Your children who are in our country will have it worse than all other children, refugee children as well as Swedish children. I do not think that adds up. Let me nevertheless say that so far in this debate, only Nima Gholam Ali Pour has been clear and honest about the fact that one actually thinks it should be so. It is, after all, honorable not to pretend to be anything else.

This legislation means that after one year in Sweden, one can register their residence here. It is faster than today, but slower than what Miljöpartiet wants. However, a completely new law is introduced at the same time that causes Ukrainian families to be discriminated against regarding the social security system, and their children become the only children who do not receive child allowance.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first clarify something: With this legislation, Ukrainian families will receive more support than they do today. Miljöpartiet wants to give everything to everyone, but it is not possible to do that and simultaneously keep Sweden economically sound.

Let me also address an incorrect statement. There are other groups in Sweden who also do not have access to the full welfare: asylum seekers and illegal migrants. It therefore does not only concern those who have temporary protection.

From the speaker's chair, I explained that since we are moving towards legislation where non-citizens will need to qualify to participate in the welfare system, it would be wrong to give another group access to the entire welfare system. We cannot have contradictory directions. That non-citizens shall not have access to the entire welfare system is a fundamental pillar in the Tidö Agreement. For those who have voted for our parties, it is very important that not everyone who comes here gets access to the welfare system because it has been harmful for Sweden and Sweden's economy. It is one of the reasons why many are critical of migration. Many of those who have come here have indeed become a burden through the welfare system. This is what we are going to change now, and we will not adopt legislation that contradicts this principle.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! As a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, around 8 million people have fled the country. Of these, nearly 5 million have been granted temporary residence permits according to the EU's mass influx directive.

More than 50,000 Ukrainians received protection in Sweden in 2022. A further 11,000 came here last year, and around 4,000 have arrived so far this year. But of these, barely 40,000 are judged to remain in the country, i.e., registered in the reception system. It is highly unusual that so many refugees have left Sweden. Viktor Wärnick said earlier in the debate that Sweden is a good country to come to. I do not believe that the Ukrainians who have left Sweden agree with that. Many have left the country because the economic conditions here are so bad.

The Sweden Democrats were at least clear earlier here in the debate. They think that Ukrainians should be poor. They simply do not want to open the welfare state for them. They do not want people to come here. They pit groups against each other. It was the most honest so far when the Sweden Democrats actually said that they do not want refugees to come here. It is shameful.

We differ in a European comparison. Our total reception of Ukrainians is very low. It sounded a bit like the Sweden Democrats [Sverigedemokraterna] as if as many Ukrainians and so on as possible are coming to Sweden and that we cannot open welfare further for them. But it is very few who are coming here to Sweden. In relation to the population, it is only Italy, Greece and France that have received fewer Ukrainians than Sweden. If we compare with the other Nordic countries and per capita, Sweden has received the fewest number of Ukrainians who fled the war. Even Iceland has taken greater responsibility in this regard! I think that is a bit embarrassing for Sweden's government.

It is perhaps not so strange that the number is small, considering that both the previous and the current government have chosen to provide those Ukrainians seeking protection here with worse living conditions than in other countries. Furthermore, the conditions are worse than in other Nordic countries on several points. The daily allowance is lower. It has not been raised in Sweden for 30 years. We heard previously from the Moderaterna that if it is raised, everyone will come here. But even when the daily allowance was introduced, it was very low. At the same time, the prices of everything have only risen.

Language teaching has proven to be worse in Sweden, and the right to healthcare has been limited to care that cannot be delayed, while refugees in other countries have the right to the same care as citizens. I return to the living conditions but want to say already now that the government's policy is neither fully solidary nor fully supportive of the victims of war. I can only regret that.

I am relieved that the EU has used the mass exodus directive. It had never been used before. It should be obvious to provide collective protection. One must remember what it was about from the beginning, when the mass exodus directive was negotiated over 20 years ago. It was a reaction to what happened in Kosovo in 1999. It was just outside the EU but close enough. The Member States were to check what capacity and what redistribution possibilities they had. The whole thing was based on solidarity among themselves and that the countries actually took responsibility for the reception together.

We wanted the EU to activate the mass exodus directive earlier. This was debated, for example, when it concerned Syrians. At that time, we thought it would be activated, because the redistribution would have become much better and a safer existence would have been created for the people who came here.

Just as Putin today drops bombs over Ukraine, he dropped bombs over Syria together with one of the world's most brutal dictatorships. Had the same political will existed then to activate the mass flight directive, we would have had both a better reception and a better distribution now. We could ensure that people do not get stuck in long asylum processes and put all the focus on giving people protection and safety. That people receive protection and safety – preferably long-term safety – is indeed the basis of the reception.

The government says that this is temporary, but we do not buy that. We think that one should act long-term so that people can establish themselves and be told that they can end their flight here and get to stay.

I have met many Ukrainians who do not have the possibility to go back. Their children have learned Swedish. They want to stay here. They want long-term security, and I think that is what they deserve. I am, as I said, relieved that the mass flight directive was activated, but it is regrettable that it has not been done for other groups.

The migration laws in Sweden and other EU countries are so harsh and inhumane today that I do not believe the reception would have worked for Ukraine if the EU had not activated the mass flight directive. If Sweden's migration laws had been applied, Ukrainians would first likely have been referred to calmer parts of Ukraine, as is done with other refugees. Secondly, asylum seekers might have ended up in limbo due to deferred deportation or possibly in detention. Thirdly, if the wheel of fortune had hit residence permits, the requirements would be among the EU's strictest to obtain them permanently or to be reunited with their family and their children. That is how it looks for other groups.

The selectivity that has been applied to the right of asylum, I do not think is worthy. We can manage a reception for everyone, especially when the government boasts that very few come here. In that case, I actually think that the conditions should be improved much more. But the selectivity of the right of asylum has instead become a kind of sorting, which is an ambition of the government.

The Foreign Minister expressed in DN the other day that there would be good and bad immigrants. There is a word for over- and under-ordering people in that way; it is called racism. But the decisive and central point is that people who flee need protection. It is not more difficult than that. One does not need to sort. One does not need to talk about good and bad immigrants and so on. The basis is that people have fled and need protection in Sweden. I think that is what they should be given.

Mr. Speaker! We have many lessons to draw regarding Ukrainian refugees. We can ramp up the registration capacity. We saw that the Swedish Migration Agency was able to manage that. We can find accommodation and have preparations in place. We can do it without private looters coming in and making a lot of money on it. That was demonstrated here. We can, if we want, create security for children when they arrive here, but despite that, the situation for Ukrainian refugees has been difficult. Despite the fact that we were able to register them very quickly, they are struggling financially.

The economic challenges are great. Parents' access to language instruction has been lacking, and they have difficulty entering the labor market while children's right to meaningful leisure time is sidelined in many municipalities. The need for psychosocial support is great, while the availability of just this support has been lacking across the country. This has been proven, among other things, by Save the Children's reports.

Vänsterpartiet has long pushed to improve the living conditions for Ukrainian refugees. Almost two years ago, we submitted a committee initiative demanding that those who have fled the war in Ukraine and received protection under the mass exodus directive should be able to register their residence in Sweden.

The government is now coming - almost two years too late - with partly a proposal, partly some kind of lock-in effect with a waiting period of one year between granted residence permit and population registration. It means that many newly arrived Ukrainian refugees - they are still coming here - also after the legislative change, will have to live for up to a year with this low daily allowance of 71 kronor a day despite today's high prices. They will have to do that without a personal identity number and everything else. It is not just remarkable; it is an inhuman arrangement.

I do not know if you have met Ukrainian refugees. Among the first things they say is that they need to get into the system and get a mobile BankID. They bring up the economic difficulties immediately. Ukrainian refugees are queuing at soup kitchens! What are you doing? What is wrong with you? Are you turning a blind eye, or? The government is, therefore, still introducing a locking effect. It is an inhuman arrangement. I do not understand it. It is a totally unnecessary consequence of the government thinking that the person who has been granted a residence permit with temporary protection should simply wait. There should be a waiting period.

I would say that the population registration is a central and important measure, as a person who is registered in the population register receives a personal identity number, which in turn enables access to Swedish society in a more inclusive way.

We in Vänsterpartiet are critical of the government's design - that they are putting in a blocking period and so on. It is completely incomprehensible. I also think that a clear justification is missing. We have also not had it justified here in the debate by the government why there should be a twelve-month limit and a block. It is incomprehensible.

Mr. Speaker! We have also pushed for that one, on the one hand, should increase the daily allowance for Ukrainian refugees and other asylum seekers, and on the other hand, give those who receive temporary protection under the mass flight directive the right to participate in the establishment program. Now the government comes with a proposal where Ukrainian refugees will indeed be allowed to receive certain benefits, but through separate legislation, they are denied the right to other benefits.

The Government further assesses that the living conditions and the possibility of establishing oneself on the labor market should be improved for Ukrainians who are here with temporary protection. We share the Government's assessment on that point, but the problem is that the Government's proposal is not sufficient. As the proposal is designed, the target group will still receive an inadequate reception, not least regarding the low daily allowance as a basis for subsistence during the first twelve months in Sweden.

The low level of the allowance is one of the absolute biggest problems for Ukrainian people in need of protection and one of the things that creates the greatest concern among the target group. Families and single parents with children have particular difficulty meeting basic needs. Vänsterpartiet considers that this needs to be addressed immediately to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the target group.

The compensation has not been raised for 30 years, and it speaks for itself that it is low. I will be completely frank and honest: There are hideous people in our country who in different ways want to exploit people on the run and exploit them once they have arrived here. Many have alerted to this since the Ukrainian refugees arrived here.

It is about the fact that 90 percent of those who came to Sweden initially were women and children, and they are still in the overwhelming majority. When they are forced to live under poor conditions and in economic vulnerability, they risk falling into severe exploitation, trafficking, and exploitation on the labor market. There has constantly been an obvious risk for this, and everything from women's shelters to municipalities and the police have sounded the alarm.

Even the former Director General of the Migration Agency warned in Ekot's Saturday interview that there are nasty people here in Sweden who exploit these people, but still, not much is being done about the housing.

Those who live with very small economic margins can be forced into desperate actions to provide for themselves and their children. This is not something new for the government, I hope, but despite that, one continues to have a very low daily allowance, the lowest among all comparable countries. You shut these people out from important economic safety nets.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the allowance for both Ukrainian refugees and other asylum seekers should be raised to the level of the national standard for maintenance support, and Ukrainian children should not be the only ones who do not receive child allowance. It is a completely incomprehensible arrangement.

Mr. Speaker! We further consider it good that those who are given the opportunity to be registered in the population register are given access to labor market policy programs. This applies to the establishment program, which the government has also highlighted. The only problem is that it only covers persons between 20 and 66 years of age who are available to the labor market.

There are no proposals for persons who are under 20 years old and studying in upper secondary school, who are not granted student support by CSN and who do not have the right to financial assistance according to the Social Services Act.

The government also does not present any proposals for persons over 66 years of age, neither when it comes to elderly support (äldreförsörjningsstöd) nor when it comes to other compensation. It is remarkable. Here we believe that the government must return so that we get full coverage.

The government's proposal also means that Ukrainians who have been granted residence permits with temporary protection are exempted from the right to settlement-based benefits. A number of arguments have been put forward regarding this here in the debate. These are benefits that usually follow from population registration, such as child allowance, housing allowance, and so on. Here in the Vänsterpartiet, in like with several referral bodies, we are strongly critical of the government's proposal.

Firstly, the proposal will lead to economic vulnerability for many Ukrainian refugees. The residence-based benefits constitute an important and fundamental safety net in our welfare society. Being excluded from these benefits will have severe consequences for the target group, especially for persons who do not have the possibility to work or support themselves in other ways and thus have a greater need of the society's safety net.

These persons will instead be referred to the social services to apply for financial assistance, which will lead to an increased workload for the municipalities with a risk of longer processing times and long waiting times regarding processing routines and the calculation of maintenance support, as a normal situation assumes that the applicant is covered by the settlement-based benefits. The proposal will hit the target group hard and worsen the conditions to provide for the children's rights and security.

Secondly, the proposal will have significant economic consequences for the municipalities, which SKR has been very clear about. The government is shifting a large part of the responsibility for the support of the Ukrainian refugees from the state to the municipalities.

For the third time, the proposal conflicts with the prohibition against discrimination and the principle of equal treatment. In the opinion of the Left Party, persons who are resident and registered in Sweden should have the right to social benefits on equal terms. It is not reasonable to exempt a group from the right to certain compensations. That type of special legislation, I believe, does not belong in Swedish law. We believe that the government should return with proposals that rectify this. We believe that Ukrainians should have that right.

The government is not content with excluding the group from important economic safety nets but also considers in the proposal that they should not have the right to interventions according to the Act on Support and Service to Certain Persons with Disabilities. This is completely incomprehensible. We in Vänsterpartiet are, in like manner with several referral bodies, strongly critical of the government's proposal. This means, once again, a special regulation for an already very vulnerable group.

LSS is a rights-based legislation covering interventions such as personal assistance, companion services, and specially adapted housing for individuals with special functional disabilities. When they are denied the right to these interventions, it risks leading to even greater difficulties in participating in society on equal terms, not least when it comes to the possibility of working or supporting oneself in other ways. For example, the possibility of working is hindered for parents who have children with disabilities.

The proposal also risks conflicting with the principle of non-discrimination in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but also several parts of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which grant children with disabilities the right to a full and decent life as well as assistance to actively participate in society.

That being referred instead to applying for support according to the Social Services Act, as the government's proposition implies, results in a significantly lower level of support since the social services committee is only obliged to provide interventions for a reasonable standard of living, which differs from the rights that LSS provides.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the government's policy is a continued betrayal of Ukrainian refugees. I see it as the government welcoming them with the elbow. I believe the Sweden Democrats have made this very clear in this debate.

We in Vänsterpartiet are clear. We believe that we have the opportunity for a good reception, and we believe that we shall improve the conditions for Ukrainian refugees. This government is not doing enough. When something does come, they settle for a minimum level. There is very much more to be done.

Given the points, the criticism, and the proposals for improvements that have been raised during the debate here today, it is directly embarrassing how the government handles the issue of Ukrainian refugees who have sought protection in Sweden. It is only to be regretted that the Swedish government does not pursue a policy that is fully solidary and that fully provides real support to the victims of the war.

I am convinced that Sweden can do better than to impoverish in this way and, through special legislation, decide that Ukrainian children, for example, shall not have the right to child allowance. I do not agree to that.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservations 6 and 8 in the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I point out that the member exceeded their declared speaking time by more than 50 percent.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party writes in its reservation that the residence-based benefits are an important and fundamental safety net in our welfare society. It is argued that a foreigner who has been granted a residence permit with temporary protection should be granted the right to residence-based social insurance benefits.

So, here we have a group that does not have the right to residency-based social security benefits and which, according to the Left Party, should be granted these rights. Then one must still ask: Which other groups that lack residency-based social security benefits should be granted these, according to the Left Party? Is Sweden a rule of law state where social security benefits are distributed after careful considerations after one has somehow qualified into the system, or is it "all for all" that applies for the Left Party?

This is financed with tax money, and if everyone who came to Sweden were given access to the social security system from day one, it simply would not add up financially. Is there even any group that Vänsterpartiet wants to exclude from the Swedish welfare system?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is very difficult to have a substantive debate with the Sweden Democrats because they are so blinded by their hatred towards refugees. This also applies, as we have heard in this debate, to Ukrainian refugees.

It is incomprehensible - there is, so to speak, a war going on on the continent, and everything is being done to ensure they do not come here. People are actively working to ensure that Ukrainian refugees do not get to come here, and when they do come here, the Sverigedemokraterna spend all their time talking about how they should not be allowed into the systems. They should not receive benefits. They should not get a share of the security systems or the safety nets.

The Sverigedemokraternas colleagues do not speak in this way, but they tried to hide that they do not want to give Ukrainian children child benefits or housing benefits. They tried to hide it in several exchanges because it is directly embarrassing, but the Sverigedemokraterna are going to hold - I don't know what - some kind of speech for their core voters about that no one should come here. It is incomprehensible.

The question I am getting is whether we think people should be excluded. It is a very strange question. What should I say? No, we do not think that people should be excluded from society's safety net. It is an incomprehensible thought. We do not think so.

According to the system that we are debating today, you are entitled to certain benefits when you are registered in the population register, and what is happening here is that the Sweden Democrats' bill implies special legislation that specifically Ukrainians shall not receive child allowance, housing allowance, and so on. We do not agree to that. It is an incomprehensible and inhuman arrangement to select a group and say: You shall not get this.

I understand that the Sweden Democrats do not have a problem with discrimination; it is, in a way, their entire basic idea, and now we see it in politics. They discriminate against Ukrainians. I don't buy that - never, not a chance! Then I get the question: Who do you want to exclude, then?

What kind of debate is this, Mr. Speaker?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that the Speaker noted that Member Haddou does not want anyone to be excluded from the Swedish welfare system - no one! Those who come to Sweden shall therefore, from the first day, regardless of whether one has a permit or not and whoever one is, have access to the entire Swedish welfare system. That is what Member Haddou says. He says: No one shall be excluded.

I asked the question of whether anyone should be excluded from the Swedish welfare system, and Member of Parliament Haddou says that no one should be excluded. That is an extreme position, and it makes one wonder. This is the party that the Social Democrats are to cooperate with. How is that cooperation going to work?

If no one is to be excluded from the Swedish welfare system, a person who is currently sitting in Afghanistan is part of the Swedish welfare system, according to Member of Parliament Haddou. It is radical. One wonders how long that would hold together economically and socially. If people knew that they were included in the Swedish welfare system – even if they sat in another country, because according to Member of Parliament Haddou, no one is excluded – how many would then come to Sweden? How many would plan their journey to Sweden right now if they knew that they were included in the Swedish welfare system?

Someone must be excluded, because if no one were excluded, Sweden would attract all the world's economic migrants. One wonders if Member Haddou is thinking of Sweden's best interests when he expresses himself in that way.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Here comes a clear confirmation of what I began the exchange with the Sweden Democrats with: One is so blinded by their hatred towards refugees that it is impossible to have a factual debate. They ask who should be excluded and then say that the Left Party includes someone in Afghanistan.

We are talking about the special treatment that exists in the law here; that is what we are debating. It is completely incomprehensible that the Sweden Democrats are drifting off to other parts of the world and bringing up something that the debate is not about. It is not possible to have a substantive debate. I do not even believe that the member has read the bill and understands what he is debating. It is a substantive problem that the member does not seem to know at all what he is debating.

I spent almost 20 minutes on my speech, and what I said was that I think people who come here as asylum seekers, regardless of whether they receive immediate residence permits according to the mass flight directive or not, should be given security and protection. They are judged to need protection in Sweden; that is the assessment that the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts make, that is to say whether one should be granted protection or not. I have no problem with people who are granted protection in Sweden receiving economic security. I do not exclude them in the way that the Sverigedemokraterna do. I would never do that.

Have the Sweden Democrats visited the soup kitchens around the country where Ukrainian refugees stand and wait to get food for the day? There, mothers have to tell their children that they have to sleep hungry tonight. Has the member visited those soup kitchens? There are soup kitchens all over Sweden where Ukrainian refugees are impoverished, and the Sweden Democrats still cannot restrain their hatred towards refugees.

I think that the Sweden Democrat, after he has read the bill we are to vote on, should visit Ukrainian refugees and soup kitchens to understand their economic situation in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine's cause is ours. For over two and a half years, Ukraine has fought frantically and bravely day and night for its freedom and independence - and in the long run also for Europe's security - after being subjected to a brutal attack from Russia.

For us Christian Democrats, the consensus on the issue that exists in the Swedish Riksdag is positive and encouraging. This also applies to the broad international support. There is support for Ukraine's cause and, naturally, for the ambition to achieve peace as well as that borders shall not be moved by force. Sweden must not yield from the position that we shall support the Ukrainian women and men who, with their lives at stake, defend their territory and their country's existence.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Sweden has increased its humanitarian and military support in several rounds. We are providing financial support, civil crisis management, and support for Ukraine's reform work and reconstruction moving forward. This amounts to a total of over 57 billion.

Mr. Speaker! Due to the attack, many from Ukraine have had to flee both within the country and to other European countries. This has resulted in the EU's mass exodus directive being activated for the first time. This occurred in March 2022, on the grounds of the invasion from Russia. The regulation has largely functioned well and enabled Sweden and the EU to receive many people in need of protection from Ukraine in a short period. The starting point is that the protection according to the mass exodus directive shall be of a temporary nature.

It is also an enormous strength that Swedish society and many passionate individuals in civil society have supported the Ukrainians both in Ukraine and here in Sweden.

A person who is granted a residence permit with temporary protection but is not registered in the population register in Sweden is covered by the Act on Reception of Asylum Seekers, which means that the rights correspond to those that apply to asylum seekers. This provides the possibility of receiving a daily allowance, but the person is not entitled to assistance according to the Social Services Act for benefits of a corresponding nature. It also means that adults can only be offered care that cannot be postponed, maternal health care, care for abortion, and contraceptive counseling.

The government has, since taking office, improved living conditions through various decisions and measures. Among other things, the opportunities to study SFI and Swedish at komvux have been expanded. It is with great pleasure that I note that we are now debating a proposition with proposals for further measures for persons with temporary protection in Sweden according to the mass flight directive.

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that the Ukrainians are integrating well. A survey shows that 66 percent of them are already active in the labor market, and almost half of the Ukrainians state that they speak Swedish. The Ukrainians themselves, however, highlight in the survey the lack of population registration as an obstacle in everyday life. A number of benefits are in one way or another linked to population registration, including the right to health and medical care.

When the mass flight directive is now extended, many Ukrainians will be able to be registered in the population register, but not all. Today, one needs to have stayed in Sweden for at least two years, and be expected to stay here for at least three years, to be able to be registered in the population register. Therefore, the government is now presenting a bill which means that more Ukrainians can be registered in the population register and that this can happen earlier. Without the implementation of what is proposed in the bill, many Ukrainians risk having to wait much longer to be registered in the population register or to not be able to be registered in the population register at all. That would be unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker! Supporting Ukraine is one of the highest priority tasks for this government and for our country. The proposals now presented therefore also aim to improve the living conditions for the Ukrainian group living in Sweden and to give these people greater opportunities to establish themselves in the labor market.

We can observe that a number of benefits, for example labor market measures, healthcare and parental leave, are in one way or another linked to being registered in the population register or being considered a resident here. The Mass Flight Directive has been activated for two years. It is required, as I said earlier, that one is assumed to be here for three years in order to be registered in the population register. The Government thinks it is reasonable that the population registration can occur earlier.

At the same time, it is intended that the protection shall be of a temporary nature, and it is reasonable that those who receive temporary protection are not eligible for population registration immediately upon moving to Sweden. The proposal therefore means that population registration occurs first after twelve months, i.e., with a certain waiting period. It is also important that the person who is soon to leave Sweden is not registered here. The assessment shall also be that the person will remain for at least an additional six months in order to be registered. This creates significantly greater predictability for the Ukrainian group in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned, the hope is that these measures will lead to a greater establishment of this group in the labor market. The proposals mean that the Ukrainians will be covered by Arbetsförmedlingen's establishment program. This provides the opportunity to participate in establishment measures and to receive establishment allowance, provided that one belongs to the target group. The establishment allowance amounts to 308 kronor per day, which is significantly higher than the daily allowance available today.

Being able to care for children is a prerequisite for being able to work. In order to strengthen the work line and ensure that children's needs for care are met, rights to certain work-based parental leave benefits are therefore granted, for example for parental leave or temporary parental leave, so that one can take parental leave for childcare (vabba).

Mr. Speaker! Those who have been granted a residence permit with temporary protection and have been registered in the population register will be offered the same health and medical care as others residing in Sweden. They will also be offered the same dental care as those residing here and be able to participate in the state dental care support. If they cannot meet their own needs, they will also be able to apply for financial assistance and other interventions according to the Social Services Act.

The problems with electronic identification are something that has been raised in the dialogue held with organizations from civil society. BankID is one of several different electronic identifications provided by a number of different private actors. There is no explicit legal requirement that one must have a Swedish personal identity number to be able to use electronic identification, but in practice, the population registry will likely mean that contacts with banks and with the children's school will be facilitated.

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned, the starting point is that the protection according to the mass influx directive is of a temporary nature. It is therefore reasonable that the benefits for those who have temporary protection are limited somewhat in relation to what applies to those who live here permanently. There are also investigations that speak of qualification for welfare.

The government's proposal will, unlike the current regulation, mean that the population registration takes place continuously. It will therefore take place earlier for individuals from Ukraine who are in our country.

To summarize, the bill we present today means earlier population registration for the Ukrainian group in Sweden. This, in turn, means that Ukrainians will not only gain access to significantly more generous benefits than they are entitled to today but will also gain access to benefits that correspond to the needs they themselves have expressed. It is not just about additional compensation but also about more extensive access to health care and dental care as well as the possibility to care for a sick child. The population registration will also facilitate everyday life by simplifying contacts with authorities and other actors.

Mr. Speaker! The issue of Ukraine is and must continue to be one of the government's most important priorities. The support for Ukraine and for the Ukrainians who have been forced to flee their country must be strong and unanimous. Through the bill we are now debating, Sweden takes another step to show its support.

With this, I move for approval of the government's proposition and rejection of the reservations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Hans Eklind (KD) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ukrainian refugees have, during the years they have lived in Sweden, been relegated to a life far below the poverty line. The allowance for asylum seekers has not been increased in 30 years, but the price of milk, diapers, bus tickets, and winter clothes for the children has.

That is why it was completely full of Ukrainians at the activity organized by the Red Cross when I visited it. There, Ukrainians were able to collect bags of onions and potatoes as well as used clothes for women and children. One could also eat some cooked borscht - a classic Ukrainian vegetable soup. Cosmetics stores had donated makeup whose best-before dates were about to expire, so that Ukrainian women could restore some more of the dignity that comes from being able to choose how one wants to look.

At the same time, a mocking debate was held in Sweden about how one should eat oatmeal if the money does not suffice. Oatmeal could also be collected at the Red Cross food distribution.

I met a doctor from Ukraine whose husband is staying behind and taking care of the injured. She said that she had borrowed 100 kronor to afford a little cooking oil, so that her son could have fried potatoes as a variation to the boiled ones.

That Ukrainians are allowed to live below the standard of decency will, with the government's proposal, still apply during the twelve-month blocking period. I wonder how Ingemar Kihlström justifies the low standard of living.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Hirvonen very much for her description of the reality. That reality is one of the main reasons why we propose and implement the changes we are making now. We see the Ukrainians who have found refuge after the horrific attack from Russia. According to the mass exodus directive that exists, one can seek protection in another country as well as receive support and protection in various ways. When it now becomes permanent, over a much longer period, there is a need for additional measures.

We can observe that there is a large majority here in the Riksdag for our proposal that there should be an initial quarantine, i.e., that one should not receive this from the first day, and that it should apply on the basis that it is temporary. If the war were to end, tomorrow if it were possible or within a reasonable future, we all have the hope that the Ukrainians who have fled their country to seek protection will be able to return and help rebuild the country that is in their hearts.

We can also observe that with the change we are making now, when one enters the establishment allowance system, one will receive 308 kronor per day instead of the 71 kronor, and in addition, be able to apply for various supplements. This means that the situation improves for the Ukrainians who are here when they are registered in the population register, and also that they are registered earlier, as it is included in the change that they can be registered significantly earlier related to the extension of the mass flight directive. This means that we create a much brighter situation for the Ukrainians who are in our country.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! But what then is the purpose of the twelve-month clearance? Why do the Christian Democrats not want that one should be able to directly enter the establishment program and receive a compensation that it is possible to live on? Is the purpose, as SD pointed out, that they want to deter refugees from coming to Sweden by having it be so poor and miserable for twelve months first?

It is not the case that Ukraine wins the war against Putin faster because the soldiers' children in Sweden live in poverty or because their mothers and wives have to beg for food from charities, potatoes and oatmeal, just to not go hungry. Why do you want to have twelve months until one becomes registered in the population register?

We in Miljöpartiet have long proposed a simple solution where it is stated that everyone who receives a one-year residence permit should be able to be registered in the population register immediately. We know that what it is about now is how one is to live during the time one is in Sweden. We all hope that the war will be short, but how poorly shall the children live in the meantime? We think it is wrong that one should live on a daily allowance that actually is not enough - 71 kronor a day is not enough to feed a family's stomachs. We think that one should be able to be registered in the population register immediately.

We also think it is unreasonable that Ukrainian children, once they are registered in the population register, should be the only children registered in Sweden who do not have the right to child allowance or housing allowance.

Even though we agree on the support for Ukraine, a fundamental disagreement remains regarding how we should treat the Ukrainian refugees in Sweden.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that the tone in the debate we have had has been at a rather high level in some parts. It has been said that the Ukrainian children are the only ones who do not receive child allowance.

What none of the debaters who have highlighted this fact have pointed out, discovered, or known is that in connection with receiving establishment allowance, one can apply for an establishment supplement that is distributed based on how many children one has. If one has a child between 0 and 10 years old, one can apply for 800 kronor per month. From over 10 years to 20 years, it is 1,500 kronor per month. For these children, who Annika Hirvonen says are subjected to discrimination, it means de facto that their families can receive support. It is also the case that one can apply for housing allowance if one receives establishment allowance.

I believe it is important to keep the debate at the level we want it to be. We are not making any children poorer. As debaters have said previously, we are creating additional opportunities to meet the needs that exist. I think it is important to say that. We are creating a much better situation for the Ukrainians who have fled their country, and we hope that the flight is of a temporary nature. There are many who are fleeing within the country. There are many who have fled to neighboring countries. It is important that they return to rebuild the country again, because it should not be a pile of ruins but a fertile land.

We are a majority who think this. We can state that in the government coalition that Annika Hirvonen belongs to, there are very different approaches and views on this issue. It is reassuring to know that we who are in the government cooperation are creating a future where one knows what the rules are.

We can also note that many Ukrainians, just as someone said in a post, have been here for a while but have since returned to their country. I think it is appropriate to have a waiting period of twelve months.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for approval of reservation 3.

Russia's and Putin's horrific and illegal invasion of Ukraine is a brutal darkness. My thoughts are with all those who have lost their husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. The invasion is unforgivable.

Sweden has in many ways shown its support for Ukraine - humanitarian support, support with war materiel and economic support. It has many times occurred with broad support in the Riksdag, which has been a great strength. The government has done well.

However, it is no secret that we in Centerpartiet have been disappointed by the government's inability to provide tolerable conditions for the Ukrainians who are in Sweden. Time and again, when we present this criticism, most recently in the exchanges here today but also earlier with the Deputy Prime Minister, the government hides behind terms such as high tone, that unity is required, and so on.

I understand that it is difficult for the government to be criticized in such an important issue. But I will never give up in the fight for the Ukrainian refugees to have good living conditions in Sweden, because it is unacceptable that the men at the front should have to worry about whether family members who have sought protection in Sweden have a roof over their heads and food on the table. It affects the war-fighting capacity.

Even though we are taking a good and important step forward today, it has taken too long, and too many Ukrainian refugees have suffered. At the same time as many are getting better, they are not getting well enough.

The Moderates and the Social Democrats have repeatedly shown that they stand up for Ukraine in some ways but not in all. If the government is serious about wanting a low tone in this debate, one can do as is done in many other parts regarding support for Ukraine, namely have a dialogue with the opposition. Then one can achieve consensus.

I can simultaneously state that the mass flight directive, which many others have touched upon, is and has been difficult and unusable material. To be honest, it is perhaps not optimally designed to function in the best way in this time and with the legislation we have here and now.

That is why this is good. I will be honest and say that I share the government's and the Social Democrats' view there. It is not a deterioration but an improvement - even if I do not think it is good enough.

However, I unfortunately believe that we need to acknowledge that there is an imminent risk that the war will be protracted and long-lasting, and an imminent risk that women and children will need to seek protection in Sweden for a long period ahead.

The long-term solution is spelled jobs. It is good that the proposal on our table today creates greater opportunities to establish oneself on the Swedish labor market. It is good that it becomes easier to create a more dignified everyday life for oneself and one's family and at the same time be able to contribute to our common society. We must also be honest and say: There are many Ukrainians who already today go to work, work and contribute to our common Sweden.

It is also good that the opportunities for health and medical care are improved and that people gain access to certain economic security systems. But unfortunately, it is not enough. It is directly sad that the government does not take the chance to stand fully on the side of the Ukrainians. This applies, for example, to the full right to child allowance, housing allowance, maintenance support, and elderly care support.

Let me also be clear. The Centre Party has for a long time highlighted the importance of ensuring that those who have fled from Ukraine are given long-term conditions to stay in the country. The current proposal implies more rights compared to today, but fewer rights compared to all other residents in Sweden.

The proposal also assumes that the mass refugees will be granted a so-called residence permit after temporary protection, which in the long run is based on a return to the home country. The solution is therefore not permanent. I believe that a considerable number will want to return to Ukraine and help rebuild a free and liberal democracy again. But we must also be honest in saying that it could become long-term.

Madam Speaker! The Government has itself pointed out that the proposed legislative changes are in line with the reform that it intends to implement in the long run, which means that persons who move to Sweden shall qualify for the welfare system.

Let me be clear here. It is no secret that the Center Party has for a long time advocated for qualification into the welfare system. We think it is good that certain benefits which today are residency-based should instead be based on having worked and contributed for a certain period of time in Sweden. We have motioned for such an arrangement in this chamber for eight or nine years. But such an arrangement does not exist today.

When it is finally introduced, it must be clear from day one what is required of the individual for them to be considered qualified for welfare. The Ukrainians have already been here for two years under very limited conditions. They are likely significantly more limited than those who have moved to Sweden and who could be covered by a qualification in the future. Therefore, it is unreasonable to hastily introduce some form of qualification system into welfare. In the long run, it is good, but it must take place in an orderly manner and be clear from the beginning.

More than half of all those who have moved here from Ukraine and who have been granted residence permits have a job. We have therefore long maintained that we think it would be a better solution that those who already have a job are given the opportunity to change tracks and become labor migrants instead. Then they could have been registered in the population register faster and been given the opportunity to stay in Sweden permanently. Those who do not already have a job should be given significantly better integration measures to quickly enter the labor market and then be able to receive residence permits as labor migrants. We believe that in this way, the system could have been bypassed in a much better way.

Sweden needs to stand on Ukraine's side in every way and not just in some. Ukraine must win this war and push back Putin and Russia. For that, it is required that Sweden continues with humanitarian support, support with war materiel and economic aid. But let me be at least equally clear that it is important that we treat the Ukrainians who have fled Putin's bombs in a dignified way. It is also about the war capacity that exists at the front of the war line.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party writes in its reservation that it supports the government's initiative where the government has appointed an inquiry to develop proposals on how newly arrived persons and non-citizens shall qualify for social insurance benefits and financial assistance.

Regarding the committee directives, the investigation's proposal will limit the access of newly arrived persons and non-citizens to social insurance benefits and financial assistance. The Center Party supports this. But at the same time, the Center Party argues in its reservation that those coming from Ukraine and receiving residence permits with temporary protection shall have access to settlement-based social insurance benefits.

The Center Party argues that it is so that some foreigners should qualify for the welfare state while other foreigners should not have to do so. How does that add up? That is a question.

Apart from those coming from Ukraine and receiving residence permits with temporary protection, which other groups should be granted access to settlement-based social insurance benefits if the Center Party gets to decide?

What country of origin must one have to qualify for social security benefits, according to the Center Party? The only way one can interpret the Center Party's reservation is that the Center Party makes a distinction as to which third country the foreigners come from.

The Center Party wants foreigners to have to qualify for welfare, as the speaker told from the rostrum. But it does not apply to all foreigners. Which foreigners do not need to qualify for welfare, and which ones do need to do so, according to the Center Party?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Then let's take it one more time. I took it right in the speaker's chair. I hope that the member pays attention to what I say this time.

Centerpartiet was one of the first parties in the chamber to be in favor of qualification for entry into the welfare state. We have pushed for this very hard for a long time. The members and parties who were in the parliamentary migration committee know that Centerpartiet perhaps pushed for it the hardest, together with Moderaterna.

That time it was other parties, such as for example the Liberals and the Social Democrats, who tried to stop it. But we do not have such a system in place today. We mean that it cannot be that a group should qualify for welfare while no other group needs it. That is what we mean is the problem.

When the government's investigation on qualification into the welfare system reaches the Riksdag, we will gladly receive it and examine it. We believe that there should then be the same conditions for everyone, except for those who come here through UNHCR's quota refugee system.

That is exactly the problem. The Ukrainian refugees have lived in uncertainty since they arrived here. They have had no opportunity to know what conditions are required for them to receive, for example, settlement-based benefits.

Therefore, I would not want to say that we make a distinction between refugee and refugee. What we are saying is: Introduce a system for qualification into the welfare state so that we have it for everyone.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is where it becomes strange. We have a government that has a direction where they are trying to limit welfare for foreigners and newly arrived people.

Instead of supporting this when a question arises where one has the chance either to limit the welfare system for certain foreigners or not to do so, the Center Party chooses to join the group to the left that wants to give everything to everyone.

We have an investigation on site where the direction is to limit welfare for foreigners. Then Centerpartiet chooses to support proposals to give even more benefits to precisely that group. It becomes strange. Then one contradicts oneself.

When the investigation is finished and the rules are in place, it will be the same rules for everyone. Why does the Center Party now want to work against the direction that the government has and join a group that says we should give everything to everyone and that everyone should have the same social benefits from the first day they come to Sweden? It is that group the Center Party joins in this debate.

And if the opposition, against all odds, were to win an election – how would they then be able to cooperate? The Left Party says quite plainly here that one should have access to the entire welfare system from day one, while the Center Party says that one should qualify for the welfare. You do not have the same direction when it comes to qualifying for welfare as a foreigner.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I must honestly say that I do not quite know what to answer to the question. The consequence of this would be that the government begins an investigation and that we then bypass it by starting to introduce a lot of other things through a lot of other legislation. That is not how the Swedish state apparatus and public administration work; instead, one investigates something which then comes to the Swedish Riksdag, where we subsequently make decisions about it.

I mean that qualification for welfare is not a simple issue. I believe that many parties in here, regardless of whether one is for qualification for welfare or not, will have many difficult questions to discuss. It is about which systems people should qualify for and which they should not. We will return to the question, because there the Center Party shares the Moderates' and the Christian Democrats' view on how such a system could look.

Ukraine's independence and the war in Ukraine is for me one of the absolutely most important things we have here to work with. I mean truly that the decision we make today affects Ukraine's ability to win the war. Instead, the member of the Sweden Democrats wants to talk about the political opinion and what it will look like in 2026. It is quite symptomatic of the Sweden Democrats that they never want to talk about Ukraine. The only time they talk about it is when they talk in terms of there being a limit to how large the support can be.

I wonder if the government parties are in agreement on this. Are the government parties in agreement that the focus should be shifted from what this is actually about - Ukraine's opportunity to defeat Russia? There, at least I am convinced that seven parties in this chamber think the same thing, that is to say that Ukraine must win at any cost.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! The bill we are debating today concerns an exceptional situation caused by Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It was the reason why the EU's mass exodus directive from 2001 was activated for the first time through a decision of the European Council on March 4, 2022.

The brutality of the Russian war of invasion and the need to temporarily receive Ukrainians seeking protection in the European Union have unfortunately not diminished since then. Therefore, the Council has extended the mass exodus directive three times. Most recently, this occurred on 13 June 2024, which is to say after the government's submission of this bill to the Riksdag on 23 May 2024.

That means that those persons who have come from Ukraine and have had a residence permit with temporary protection for at least two years can now be registered in the population register with Skatteverket and be considered residents in the country, with all the rights that normally accrue to those persons who are legally resident in Sweden.

Already during June and July of the current year, just over 13,000 Ukrainians applied to be registered in the population register. Everything indicates that that figure will continue to increase during the subsequent months, especially considering that almost 50,000 Ukrainians sought protection in Sweden between March and October 2022 and that just over 30,000 of these have applied for extended residence permits during 2024.

These circumstances mean that there is great uncertainty regarding how many people will be affected by the bill we are discussing today. Furthermore, we have a continuous influx of new Ukrainian citizens seeking protection from us through the mass flight directive. Between January and August 2024, 7,821 Ukrainians sought protection in Sweden, but the situation in Ukraine is so serious and unpredictable that there could be significantly more asylum seekers ahead.

Furthermore, it is unfortunately not entirely unthinkable that other crisis situations in our immediate vicinity will force new decisions to activate the mass exodus directive. This means that the need to reform the current regulatory framework is just as great as it was before the European Council's decision in June 2024 to extend the mass exodus directive.

Better conditions must be created for those who come to us, but it must be done without deviating from the very basis of their residence permits, namely that it concerns a temporary protection and not a more permanent form of settlement in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! It is important to point out that we are in the middle of a process of significant migration policy changes that will lead to a completely new order in the area. The direction of that work is important to know in order to fully understand the content of the current bill, not least with regard to the availability of the so-called settlement-based benefits.

Today, a person with a residence permit gains access to these benefits almost all at once, but as is known, work is currently underway aimed at establishing a regulatory framework based on a successive qualification for these benefits or rights. This entails a decisive difference compared to today. The previous unreasonable and counterproductive order will be replaced with a ladder of rights, where the immigrated person's own integration efforts will be of central importance for which benefits or rights he or she will gain access to.

Madam Speaker! A commonly occurring slogan in the labor movement's youth was "Do your duty - demand your right!". It can be said to be the motto for this new integration policy order, which creates an adequate balance between duties and rights as well as strong incentives to invest in a rapid integration into Swedish society. We will have the opportunity to return to the details of this in the future, but it is important to mention this new direction in this context to understand the meaning of the current proposition in the issue of the settlement-based benefits.

Madam Speaker! Certain parties, such as the Left Party and the Green Party, still hold to the idea that all rights should be available from the very beginning. Or to put it another way: the right should not only come before the duty, but it should come regardless of the fulfillment of the duties.

These are essentially the same parties that want immigration to return to the uncontrolled levels that prevailed before the current government began implementing the migration policy paradigm shift – that paradigm shift which we have discussed a number of times in this chamber and which has a large parliamentary majority, including the Social Democrats, behind it.

It is the same parties that demand full rights from day one that want the present proposition to be rejected. It is not the least surprising given that some of these parties propose a regularization of all persons who have been in Sweden for a certain period, even if they have ultimately stayed completely illegally in our country from the beginning. These parties also want to return to the migration policy regulations that applied until 2016, with permanent residence permits as the main rule, and abolish the carrier responsibility, grant asylum seeker visas to everyone who wants to come to Sweden and seek asylum, expand the right to family reunification, and more.

This path, that is to say, in principle free immigration with full rights, would lead not only to a very large immigration, which we cannot manage and which very few would perceive as legitimate or acceptable, but also to the very large integration and segregation problems that we have today growing exponentially.

Madam Speaker! This is definitely not the way to a more humane immigration policy, but rather to the opposition against immigration in all its forms growing and to even more serious social tensions and conflicts gaining a foothold in our country.

The Liberals are positive towards both immigration and diversity and therefore see a great need to combat today's growing exclusion and separatist tendencies, as well as to create conditions for a sustainable integration of both old and new immigrants. This presupposes a new migration and integration policy order with clear requirements for those who come to us and strong integration incentives. But today, that is not enough. After more than two lost decades from an integration perspective, a very strict migration policy has also become an absolute necessity.

Madam Speaker! More than 20 years ago, the Liberals proposed a radically different integration policy in order to counter the already growing exclusion among significant immigrant groups. It was our firm opinion that this was the only way to make it possible to conduct a generous migration policy. However, there were not many who were willing then to acknowledge, let alone address, the integration failure that was about to occur.

We were right. But we did not get it right, and that is what is decisive in politics.

Today we all pay the price for the ostrich mentality that characterized the migration and integration debate at that time. Now we are forced to both change the foundations of the integration policy and, at least for a certain period, tighten the migration policy. This is a central part of our current government cooperation and a decisive effort for Sweden's future. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by correcting Mauricio Rojas on the last point: Now it is the most vulnerable people, people who come to Sweden fleeing war and persecution, who are paying the price for the Liberals to gain power.

I now move on to the matter. The bill is titled Improved living conditions for foreigners with temporary protection. I asked the Christian Democrats why the living conditions for Ukrainian refugees are not improved during the first twelve months. Why should Ukrainians fleeing for twelve months live on subsistence minimum and be forced to turn to charitable organizations to afford clothes, potatoes, and onions?

I received no answer as to why this twelve-month rule is important, only that it is wanted. I therefore also pose the question to Mauricio Rojas: Why should Ukrainians, when they flee from Putin's bombs, live in Sweden for a year far below the subsistence minimum?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! It would be appropriate if other parties reflected on their own responsibility for what has occurred, what is forcing us to change both migration and integration policy. The Green Party's responsibility, but not only the Green Party's, is very great in that regard. You did not want to see what was about to happen.

Today we stand here and pay the price for it. All of Sweden pays the price: conflicts, tensions, bad conditions for everyone and crime - but not least also a party that is growing because of your ostrich mentality of not wanting to see this, namely the Sverigedemokraterna. It was you who made it possible for such a party, which protested against your ostrich mentality, to grow. It would be good if you started thinking about that.

The committee members asked about the twelve months. And it is not just about them; we can take the daily allowance directly. We could raise it, and then much of this would change. But then I wonder: When you sat in government with the Social Democrats, which you did for seven years if I remember correctly, why didn't you change this? Did you forget humanity and all that you are saying right now?

You had an opportunity. You sat in the government for a long time, many years after this very low level of the allowance had been decided. You did nothing then. Can you explain why? If you do, you can also understand why we propose what we propose today.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I must remind that we address each other by first and last names and not with "you".)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates do not answer why it is now decided that Ukrainian refugee children shall be the only children who do not receive child allowance in Sweden. The Christian Democrats do not answer why there should be a twelve-month grace period where one lives on subsistence minimum as a refugee from Ukraine. The Liberals' Mauricio Rojas does not answer that question either.

These three parties are in the government. They are the ones who have submitted this proposal. But none of them want to explain why these assessments are being made.

I am very happy to answer questions about the Green Party's policy. But I demand that the representatives of the government parties, who hold the power in Sweden, answer my questions. I promise that if Mauricio Rojas answers this, I will answer when he takes the floor after my speech.

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! The member does not seem to understand that the same reason that caused you not to change the daily allowance during seven years in government is also the reason for what we are doing today. Despite the member's party being in government for such a long time, she does not seem to have reflected on why one did not do what is now being proposed and considered very important, namely to increase the daily allowance. One sat in government for seven years, and now one asks completely innocently why we do what we do.

Then one should reflect on why one is in a government. And one should reflect, Madam Speaker, on the responsibility for what has happened. That is the most important thing. If one does not reflect on that and if one does not understand what has happened with Sweden and why the Sverigedemokraterna are in this Riksdag, one will never be able to propose a policy that works for everyone in this country.

It is very important to be self-critical. We are self-critical. When we proposed everything we proposed 20 years ago, we failed to convince the other parties. It was a major political failure on our part. We take responsibility for that. That the others do not say a word about this is not becoming. It is not humane. It is not honest.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I think this debate from the government parties' side has been below all criticism. One presents a bill but refuses to explain their motives.

Today we are debating the conditions for refugees from Ukraine. We in Miljöpartiet think it is shameful that Ukrainian refugees have lived below the poverty line since they arrived in Sweden. They have lived on a daily allowance of at most 71 kronor a day. It has not been raised in 30 years.

Only during the last two years have the prices of many food items increased by over 20 percent. The Ukrainian refugees have been referred to charity. I have personally visited the Red Cross's operations in Stockholm, where Ukrainian refugees can receive food items as basic as potatoes, onions, and oatmeal.

We say unanimously from the Swedish Riksdag that we fully stand behind Ukraine in its rightful struggle against Russia's illegal invasion, while the soldiers' mothers, wives, and children live as refugees under subsistence minimum in Sweden.

From the Green Party's side, we protested against this already during the early stages of the war. We saw this coming. The implementation of the Mass Flight Directive into Swedish law left much to be desired in other respects. Every time we proposed the right to Sfi, faster population registration, increased daily allowance, and the right to healthcare, the governing parties—both when it was a Social Democratic government and now when we have a Tidö government—said: No, this is only temporary.

We in Miljöpartiet do not think that Ukrainian refugees should temporarily live below the poverty line. We do not think that one should wait for a year to get the right to go for a gynecological examination if one is a Ukrainian refugee in Sweden.

We believe that one should be registered in the population register immediately upon receiving a one-year residence permit. With that come these basic rights – the right to healthcare, the right to an establishment allowance that it is possible to live on, and the right for those who cannot work to receive support at least at the subsistence level.

The bill that the government has presented and which we are to vote on today ensures that one can register one's residence a bit faster, after one year instead of after two years, as applies today. That part is a step in the right direction. But at the same time, a law is introduced which says that refugees who receive protection according to the mass flight directive, i.e., Ukrainian refugees, shall be the only ones residing in Sweden who do not have the right to the general welfare.

Ukrainian refugee children will be the only children registered in our country who do not have the right to child allowance. Ukrainian child families will be the only child families in Sweden who do not have the right to housing allowance despite being residents in our country.

This will mean that Ukrainian children will continue to live in greater poverty and overcrowding than other children living in our country. In what way does that contribute to solving our societal problems? In what way does that contribute to Ukraine getting better opportunities to defeat Putin?

Madam Speaker! I think it is indecent. I think it would have been decent to say: We stand behind Ukraine fully. We treat Ukrainian children in the same way as we treat all other children who are residing in our country. They have the same value as Swedish citizens and as the refugees who have received protection in Sweden from other countries.

With the government's exception law, only for Ukrainian refugees, it is only these families who will lose the right to additional cost compensation for disabilities. It concerns aids that, for example, a child may need. It is an additional cost compensation so that one can afford a wheelchair or other aids. These will be the only families residing in Sweden who do not have the right, for example, to interventions according to the Act on Support and Service for Certain Persons with Disabilities, LSS. A special law is also being introduced that sets an upper limit on how long one is entitled to dental care support.

This will have economic consequences for these families. But it will also have economic consequences for Sweden's municipalities. More families where the wages are not sufficient will now need to apply for maintenance support, what is called social assistance. They might not have needed it if they had had housing allowance and child allowance, which all other families receive. With the government's proposal, therefore, more will need to go to the municipalities with their hat in hand than if the government had simply left this alone. This will also mean that the persons who need maintenance support need to receive more money from the municipalities.

The proposal has been very strongly criticized by Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner because it also violates the law concerning how municipalities may be burdened with new tasks. There is a principle, the financing principle, which means that municipalities must be compensated when the state gives them new tasks or increased costs. That will not happen here.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet believe that welfare should apply equally to everyone. We are, therefore, talking about everyone who is registered as a resident in Sweden. This is the first time that a group of registered children is being excluded from the Swedish child allowance, which since it was introduced has been general, equal for all.

Madam Speaker! It is said in the debate that there should be some kind of qualifying ladder, but we see no ladder. The door is slammed shut for good. Who knows? Perhaps the government will come up with something new, perhaps not.

Since we still have not received an answer to the fundamental question of why it is not desired that Ukrainian children should be able to receive child allowance, we also do not know what the intention is in the long term.

I still wish that representatives from the government parties would dare to stand here in the speaker's chair and explain why one still wants Ukrainians to live on subsistence minimum during the first twelve months in Sweden and why one wants specifically Ukrainian children and families to have worse rights than everyone else living in Sweden. This has been dodged, Madam Speaker. One has talked about everything else, even far outside what the question concerns today, but not about that.

I will conclude by moving for approval of our reservation 1, which means that we accept the proposal that Ukrainians shall be allowed to be registered in the population register earlier, but that we, on the other hand, do not approve the restrictions on the right to child allowance, housing allowance, and other benefits that the government wants to make solely for the Ukrainian refugees.

I also move for approval of our reservation 5, which concerns precisely the lack of compensation to the municipalities.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also argues in its reservation that foreigners with residence permits with temporary protection should receive residency-based social security benefits. This should not surprise anyone. Miljöpartiet is, just like the Socialdemokraterna, a contribution party, and even here one can ask the same question that is asked to certain other opposition parties: Which other groups that today lack residency-based social security benefits shall be allowed to share in these now that Miljöpartiet wants that foreigners with residence permits with temporary protection shall be allowed to share in these?

Sweden is moving towards a direction where welfare for newcomers and non-citizens shall be restricted. One shall no longer be able to receive benefits as soon as one arrives in Sweden. We do not want economic migrants in Sweden.

The Green Party does not seem to have understood this but lives in the past, where Sweden was the world's social office. Does the member from the Green Party not understand that there must be a balance between the opportunities we create for foreigners in Sweden and reducing the incentives for economic migrants to come to Sweden? Does the member from the Green Party not understand that Sweden can no longer, in any case, give foreigners access to the welfare system and that foreigners' access to the welfare system must be limited? Why does the member from the Green Party believe that benefits lead to integration when all experience shows the opposite?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Simply put, our proposal means that all persons who are registered as residents in Sweden shall have the right to the residence-based benefits. It means that we say no to the government's discriminatory proposal, which exclusively excludes the Ukrainian refugees. It is therefore no other change that we propose.

Should I then understand it as that the Sweden Democrats want to make these restrictions on the rights of Ukrainian refugees because they do not want more Ukrainians to flee to Sweden? Is that correctly understood?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I just want to correct the member and say that Ukrainians will receive more rights with this bill. Anyone who reads the bill understands that one gets access to healthcare like everyone else in Sweden, one gets access to dental care like everyone else in Sweden, and one gets access to financial assistance. It is quite a lot that one gets with this bill, but time and again the opposition has given incorrect information to those listening to the debate.

Just as the Left Party, the Green Party wants to double the daily allowance for asylum seekers. It is nothing other than a signal to all those migrants moving towards Europe to come to Sweden. For some reason, the same party that created the conditions for the previous migration crisis wants to create the economic conditions for a new migration crisis.

Then one wonders: Has the member not learned anything from the previous migration crisis? Has the member not understood that there is a limit to how many Sweden can receive and that it is not good for migration policy to create economic incentives for asylum seekers to make their way to Sweden?

We are aware of the suffering that many had to endure during the previous migration crisis - tragedies, lives that were destroyed, lives that will actually never heal. Hasn't Miljöpartiet done enough damage with its policy?

One also wonders how this fits in with the Social Democrats' so-called restrictive migration policy. Will more or fewer benefits be paid out to foreigners if a red-green government were to take power? Furthermore, one wonders why the Green Party wants to create economic incentives for asylum seekers to make their way to Sweden. Is it not enough asylum seekers to Sweden already today?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Sweden Democrats abstained from answering the question of whether they were afraid that more Ukrainian refugees would come to Sweden. But perhaps it is because Nima Gholam Ali Pour said it, albeit in other words. He may really mean that by letting Ukrainian refugees live on subsistence levels and have worse conditions in Sweden than in all other neighboring countries and around Europe, one wants to deter them from seeking protection just here.

It is, in that case, the most straightforward and honest answer to the questions that I have repeated to the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna during this debate. One introduces a new paragraph in the Social Insurance Code which explicitly states that just Ukrainian refugees shall not have the same rights as everyone else who is registered in Sweden.

For me, it does not add up that Sweden says that we fully stand behind the Ukrainian people's struggle against Russia's illegal invasion. For me, it is decent that the soldiers who fight at the front should know that with us, their parents, wives, and children live in safety, not in poverty.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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