Withdrawn or reduced social security benefits for those who evade the execution of detention or custodial sentences
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M wants that persons who are remanded in custody, sentenced to imprisonment or sentenced to closed juvenile care but who are evading justice should have their compensation from social insurance withdrawn or reduced in the same way as those who are deprived of liberty 1. SD considers it a self-evident matter that benefits are withdrawn for these persons since the current regulations are a flaw that can facilitate the escape of criminals and erode trust in the justice system 2. KD argues that the change is required to avoid overcompensation and that it is a difficult-to-justify difference that those who evade justice get to keep their benefits 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Viktor Wärnick (M)
Mr. Speaker! For far too long, Sweden has coddled criminals. Persons who have committed a number of serious crimes have received discounts on their sentences, and foreign citizens who have committed crimes as serious as rape have not been deported from our country. Furthermore, criminals have been able to continue receiving benefits even if they have hidden from the police and the courts and thereby evaded their punishment.
This sounds like a farce, but it is the reality in the Social Democrats' Sweden. The criminals have been protected. In the Moderates' Sweden, we protect the crime victims instead.
According to today's regulations, the person who has been remanded in custody or deprived of liberty to serve a prison sentence or has received a custodial sentence at a special youth home shall have their benefits from social insurance withdrawn or reduced, because the state, so to speak, covers the person's living expenses. But the person who has been remanded in absentia or has been sentenced to prison or closed youth care but is evading justice shall retain their social insurance benefits.
It is a completely absurd situation that the person who hides from the police and the courts, and thereby evades justice, is treated more favorably in our social security systems than the person who has been deprived of their liberty. This means, for example, that social security benefits can facilitate or even finance the flight of the person who is suspected or convicted of a serious crime, and that the taxpayers foot the bill when someone evades investigation, prosecution, and punishment.
Mr. Speaker! Now, it is finally over for those who commit crimes. The Moderate-led government is implementing paradigm shifts in both criminal justice policy and migration policy. Step by step, the Moderate-led government is bringing order to Sweden – for a safer, more just, and better tomorrow for our country.
Today, the Riksdag votes on the Moderate-led government's proposal that persons who are remanded, sentenced to prison, or sentenced to closed juvenile care but are evading justice shall have their compensation from social insurance withdrawn or reduced in the same self-evident manner as those who are already deprived of liberty. This is something that should have been addressed a long time ago.
Today, all parties in the Riksdag agree on the government's proposal, and that is positive. But it is clear that a Moderate minister and a Moderate-led government are required to tackle the problems that have existed for a long time. It is the Moderates who will get Sweden in order.
Mr. Speaker! I naturally wish to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.
Daniel Persson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU21 Withdrawn or reduced social insurance benefits for those who evade execution of detention or a custodial sentence. I move for approval of the committee's proposal. The report means that compensation from social insurance shall be able to be withdrawn or reduced for persons who evade detention or a custodial sentence, which should be a matter of course.
Mr. Speaker! According to the current regulatory framework, the compensation from the social insurance is withdrawn or reduced only when the individual in question is detained or serving a custodial sentence in prison or closed youth care. It may be perceived as a flaw in the legislation that those who have been detained in their absence or have evaded a custodial sentence are allowed to retain their social insurance benefits. It may be a small flaw in the law, but it has major consequences as benefits are granted to suspected criminals who have not yet been apprehended. These benefits can facilitate further evasion of justice.
Mr. Speaker! This undermines trust in the state, the welfare system, and the justice system. We must do the opposite, that is, strengthen trust in these institutions so that those who pay taxes and finance our welfare know that benefits are given to those who are entitled to and in need of them. It is, to say the least, provocative that tax funds can enable criminals to evade justice. What must apply in Sweden is that the person who has been convicted shall serve their sentence and the person suspected of a crime shall report as soon as possible and cooperate with the justice system.
Mr. Speaker! There is a gap in the law that is now to be closed so that even those who hide will have social insurance benefits withdrawn. When the proposals in the report come into effect, compensation can be reduced or withdrawn for those who are remanded in custody, are convicted, keep out of sight, or are deprived of liberty. This will strengthen both the social insurance system and the credibility and legitimacy of the justice system.
Mr. Speaker! This government's ambitions are to truly combat crime on a broad front, whether it concerns benefit fraud or other types of crime. There has been a varied weight in the proposals that have been put forward during the mandate period, and all have aimed at addressing benefit fraud and incorrect payments. Proposals have also been put forward that shall ensure that benefits are given to those who have need of these.
The proposal that we are now debating may not be the heaviest being handled in this chamber, but the proposal is important in several respects. We must strengthen the public's trust in both the social security system and the justice system. It also constitutes an additional tool to ensure that tax funds are handled with greater respect, so that one knows that support is given to those in need.
Grant crime and incorrect payments are priority issues that the Tidösamarbetet has worked intensively on during this mandate period to counteract. But more needs to be done to ensure that tax funds go to what benefits Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! At the previous major change of the regulatory framework concerning the coordination of social insurance benefits during institutional stay, the assessment was that the benefits would not be reduced until the insured person had been detained or was serving a custodial sentence in prison or closed juvenile care.
Mr. Speaker! The proposals in this report will only affect a few individuals once they have come into effect. But it is still difficult to justify the difference that has existed in the regulatory framework between the one who has begun their institutional stay and the one who evades it. The Government believes that the current regulatory framework is neither a reasonable nor a just order. Benefits should be given to those in need and not to criminals.
Once again, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
Ingemar Kihlström (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin this debate by moving to approve the government's bill and the committee's proposal for a decision.
In order for citizens to have confidence in the social security systems, it is required that we have a system where those who need to receive support get it and where one is exempted from receiving the support when it is not relevant – that is, a management based on common sense. That is what the now proposed amendment is about.
In the Social Insurance Code, there are provisions regarding social security through the social insurances we have in our country. There are also provisions regarding when a benefit according to the code shall not be granted. This can apply when someone who is insured is staying in an institution at the public's expense. The provisions were introduced to avoid elements of overcompensation, i.e., where an insured person could receive social insurance benefits while his or her living costs are covered by the public through the institutional stay.
In the proposition Withdrawn or reduced social insurance benefits for those who evade the execution of detention or custodial sentences, the government proposes that a social insurance benefit, in the same way as for those who are admitted to a prison, shall be limited to its amount, or not be granted at all, for an insured person who is detained in their absence.
Mr. Speaker! The Government and I note that the legislature, at the last major change of the regulatory framework, judged that the benefit shall not be reduced until the insured person has commenced their institutional stay. A consequence of this is that the insured person, who should rightfully have had their compensation from the insurance reduced or withdrawn due to detention or a custodial sentence, gets to keep their compensation only for the reason that he or she has not commenced the institutional stay. There is therefore a difficult-to-justify difference between those who have commenced their institutional stay and those who have refrained from doing so.
In light of the societal developments that have occurred, and the government's ambitions to meet organized crime, this is not a reasonable and just order here. I can see that both in the individual case and in order to maintain the legitimacy of the social security system, it is important that the coordinated purpose of the regulatory framework does not result in benefits being able to facilitate things financially for those who are suspected of or convicted of a serious crime. There are therefore, as I see it, strong reasons to propose that social security benefits should be withdrawn or reduced for those held in custody in absentia and for those convicted who do not report for execution.
Mr. Speaker! It is a clear signal from society that one loses their right to social security benefits if one evades detention or punishment. This is in line with what applies to those who are detained or deprived of liberty. It is also in line with the general sense of justice.
One can also ask why the previous S-government did not take this step when we can now state that they, together with the entire opposition, stand behind the change. This shows that we Tidö parties as a government base have agreed on a political action program that, in many areas, provides a new direction for Sweden and truly tackles the problems that exist. This also applies to the area of social insurance issues. It is a change that is occurring and which is necessary to address the deficiencies that we can see in our country after eight years with an S-government.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.