Eligibility for social insurance

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The bill today is yet another of the historical legislative proposals that Sweden has long been in need of. What we are discussing should have been in place 20 years ago. The proposal is about those who are newly arrived in Sweden not being given direct access to all the benefits that one receives through the social security system. It is about Sweden stopping being a magnet for economic migrants who come to Sweden to take part in our welfare without contributing. Furthermore, it is about Sweden attracting migrants whose starting point is to work and not live on benefits.

The concrete proposals mean that in order to receive certain residency-based benefits, one must qualify for them. There are different ways to do that. One way is to have a connection to Sweden, that is to say that if one has been resident in Sweden for five years during a period of fifteen years, one is granted access to these residency-based benefits.

The reason there is a framework period of fifteen years, meaning that one can credit five years of residence in Sweden, is that the legislation should be practical and not prevent Swedish citizens from traveling around the world. One can reside in other countries and study or work, as long as one accumulates five years of residence in Sweden during a framework period of fifteen years.

It is a reasonable requirement. If one has not even had five years of residence in Sweden during a fifteen-year period, one cannot claim to have such a connection to Sweden that one should be able to take part in the entire welfare state.

Another way to qualify for the social security benefits in question is through work. If one works, one can qualify faster and not have to wait five years.

There are two qualification conditions here, both for those who have a job with a lower salary and for those who have a job with a higher salary. One can have a salary amounting to at least 0.48 income basic amounts per month, which corresponds to approximately 40,000 kronor. In that case, one can qualify for the relevant social insurance benefits after having had this income for at least six consecutive months. One can also have a lower salary amounting to at least 0.25 income basic amounts per month, which corresponds to approximately 21,000 kronor. In that case, one qualifies after having had such an income for at least 12 of the last 24 months.

There are actually alternatives here for all newcomers working in Sweden to get a fast track to the social security benefits that one needs to qualify for. On the other hand, one has to wait five years if one chooses not to work. This legislation is therefore aimed at people without ties to Sweden who choose to live on benefits. They will no longer have access to the entire welfare system. If one wants to pick out benefits, one actually has to pay in.

The settlement-based benefits in question include, among others, parental leave at the basic level and minimum level. For those who have recently arrived in Sweden, this form of parental leave is a woman trap. Instead of working, many women with a foreign background take settlement-based parental leave. A qualification for such parental leave will result in more newly arrived women choosing to establish themselves in the labor market.

Another settlement-based benefit that one will need to qualify for is child allowance, including the multi-child supplement. The parent needs to qualify to be a recipient of child allowance.

Again: Child allowance is a woman trap for newly arrived women. Instead of establishing themselves on the labor market, many newly arrived women, naturally encouraged by their husbands, choose to have children and thus receive an income. Many of them never establish themselves on the labor market, and instead, the allowance becomes their income. Those people end up in exclusion. But if they need to qualify for the child allowance, many of these people will get a job. Housing allowance and housing supplement are also benefits that one will need to qualify for.

This is a clear signal that Sweden is no longer the world's social welfare office. We expect people to work when they come to Sweden from other countries. We have a welfare system that is entirely based on the number of hours worked. Welfare is built on people working, creating value, and paying taxes. Without work, there is no long-term sustainable welfare. Therefore, it is no strange requirement that one expects those who come to Sweden to actually work. And it is precisely this that we are signaling through this bill.

For most immigrants, this is nothing strange. Most immigrants wake up every day and go to work, and they go to work partly frustrated that there are others who sit at home and live on benefits. Now we are putting a stop to that. To all those who work, we have a message: We value what you do. We see you. And we will begin to make a difference between those who work and those who go on benefits.

Because there is a big difference. There is a group that chooses to come to this country and contribute. They want to build up the country. They are prepared to wake up early every morning and exhaust their bodies so that Sweden will become a wealthier country. Then there is another group. They have made it all the way to Sweden just to receive benefits. There is a big difference between these groups, and from now on they will be treated differently.

Madam Speaker! This proposal is based on a solid foundation which shows that qualification for various social insurance benefits results in a reduction of asylum migration. There are studies showing that an overly generous welfare towards newly arrived migrants results in a higher proportion of migrants with low education levels. For Sweden, this entails several different integration problems. If we continue to give newly arrived migrants access to the entire welfare from day one, Sweden will continue to attract migrants with low education levels who will have difficulty establishing themselves on the Swedish labor market.

I see this bill, together with our citizenship reform, as the most important integration reforms that have been implemented in Sweden's history. What we say to those who come to this country is two things. You will never become a part of this country until you learn the language, learn more about society, and support yourself. And if you do not work in Sweden, it will have consequences.

The social safety net we have in Sweden is for the community and for those who build the country. It is this that creates integration. We set requirements. It will create an understanding of what we require from those who want to become a part of Sweden. Our safety net is not for illegal migrants. Our safety net is not for scammers who thought that Sweden was a country where one can lounge and slack off.

In this country, we have heroes who work day in and day out, without receiving any praise, without being thanked and without receiving any medals. They are people who do what they do because they believe in the Swedish diligence. They believe in the idea that if one behaves correctly, works to the best of one's ability and contributes to the common good, coming generations will live in a better country.

For many of us sitting here in the Riksdag, the Swedish diligence is the very reason we became involved in politics. Through this bill, it can be said that the Swedish diligence is codified into Swedish law.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish welfare model is ultimately based on trust. People must feel that the system is fair and that there is a connection between responsibility and rights. If people perceive that some work, pay taxes, and build up the country while others gain access to the same welfare without contributing, trust in the entire system is eroded. And without the taxpayers' trust, no generous welfare state can survive in the long run.

Therefore, this reform is not just about social insurance and migration. It is also about restoring the legitimacy of the Swedish welfare model. People will feel that the welfare they are helping to finance strengthens society and that the benefits go to people who have a connection to Sweden and who contribute or have contributed to Sweden. Ultimately, it is about the legitimacy of the welfare state.

Madam Speaker! In the investigation report that forms the basis for this bill, there is a proposal that only those who are Swedish citizens shall have the right to social assistance. The Government has chosen not to proceed with that proposal in this bill. The Sweden Democrats want to emphasize that we wish that the proposal had been proceeded with and that we would have had an arrangement where only Swedish citizens would be entitled to receive social assistance.

That is not how it turned out. In a collaboration, one must accept compromises. But the Sweden Democrats will continue to work to ensure that such a proposal becomes a reality. We believe that one should not be allowed to receive subsistence support if one is not a Swedish citizen. Those who are not Swedish citizens and have ended up in a situation where they need subsistence support should travel home to their home country instead of burdening Swedish society.

Madam Speaker! Sweden was not built by people who asked what the country could give them. Sweden was built by generations who went to work, took responsibility, paid taxes, and did the right thing. It is because of that, and only because of that, we have been able to build one of the world's strongest welfare states.

But a welfare state can never survive if the link between work and welfare is broken. It can never survive if people experience that some contribute while others only take part of the system without wanting to bear anything themselves. Therefore, this is not just a reform concerning social insurance. It is also a reform to re-establish the work line, the social contract, and the respect for the Swedish diligence.

We say that Sweden shall still be a country of safety and solidarity but also a country that sets requirements. Those who come to Sweden shall know that work, self-sufficiency, and responsibility are the way into the Swedish community. And those who work and build up this country shall know that we stand on their side.

Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! The purpose of this very large fundamental change for certain social insurances is, according to the Tidö Government, to strengthen the work line and reduce the risk of Sweden being an attractive country for benefit migration. The proposal means that those who settle in Sweden from 2027 onwards will no longer have access to all settlement-based social insurance benefits but must qualify for them.

It concerns a total of eight different benefits, including child allowance, parental leave at the minimum level, and sickness benefit. These are benefits that target you when you have a child, when you are ill, when you have grown old, or if you have had a child with a disability. Common to the residency-based benefits is that they constitute a basic protection. This means that even those who do not work or have not worked are covered by the protection, because it is precisely a basic protection.

Madam Speaker! What does the collective expertise say about this proposal? Once again, the government presents a proposal that meets with massive criticism. Several referral bodies warn about what this will lead to.

We can start with what the government's own investigation says. It is said that with this proposal there is "a significant risk of increased crime." That is serious criticism, Madam Speaker. It is definitely not something that Sweden needs more of.

The investigation also highlights that there is a risk that criminal actors and organized crime will move forward their positions further. This also goes completely against the ambitions to stop the criminal economy.

The investigation assesses that the proposals could lead to more people being forced into undeclared work and thus committing crimes to secure their livelihood. This, in turn, could worsen both integration and establishment.

The government's own expert agency, the Inspectorate of Social Insurance, ISF, considers that there is a lack of support for the proposal that a five-year residency requirement to be eligible for social insurance will lead to positive effects. They reject the investigation's main proposal.

They say: ”We assess that the basis upon which the proposed reform is grounded does not provide support that the expected positive effects are achieved. On the other hand, the proposed reform risks bringing about major negative consequences, especially for groups that are already vulnerable and, in the long run, for society as a whole. Furthermore, the reform would entail a comprehensive change of the Swedish welfare system, something that ISF considers should only be carried out on the condition that there is good evidence for positive socio-economic effects, good legal certainty for the individual, and without risk that Sweden fails to fulfill its international commitments.” It is, therefore, sharp criticism.

We move further along the list of criticisms and see that Företagarna, in their referral response, consider that "the impact assessment is partially deficient and overall the effects could be more harmful than beneficial for both companies and society." They further write: "They could create a difference in rights between people, hinder recruitment, counteract equality and reduce Sweden's attractiveness."

The Red Cross Youth Association and the Swedish Red Cross warn of increased social and economic consequences, especially for children, as well as that there is a risk that the proposals conflict with children's rights.

Sveriges Stadsmissioner argue that this is ”a principled step away from the Swedish welfare and social model”.

Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner and a number of municipalities point out that this proposal shifts costs from the state to the municipalities.

The Children's Ombudsman notes that the proposals may have negative consequences for many children who already live in vulnerable situations.

The University of Gothenburg states: "By creating an order where access to social rights varies depending on residency status, citizenship, and time in the country, the reforms risk creating a stratified citizenship. … Such a differentiated access to safety nets risks cementing exclusion, hindering integration, and contributing to a societal split rather than cohesion."

The Police Authority shares the investigation's assessment that a number of children will be negatively affected by the current proposals. As the investigation points out, children in families that will not be entitled to, for example, child allowance, multi-child supplement, and housing allowance risk falling into social and economic vulnerability. This in turn increases the risk that the children themselves will be drawn into crime. According to the Police Authority, social and economic vulnerability also risks hitting particularly hard on children who are already in a vulnerable situation, for example, children who are victims of crimes in close relationships. The authority also sees an increased risk that children will be subjected to sexual exploitation.

According to the Church of Sweden's assessment, the proposals constitute a principled step away from the structure of welfare that has characterized modern Sweden, while the proposals are expected to increase the economic and social gaps between those born domestically and those born abroad. The Church of Sweden points out that the investigation states that highly qualified labor should be able to qualify for social insurance after six months instead of five years. But according to the Church of Sweden's view of humanity, those with weaker anchoring in the labor market have no less right to protection in the event of illness, injury, children's vulnerability, or other vulnerability than those who are highly qualified in the labor market. The Church of Sweden says that the proposals express a utility-based view of humanity and entail a substantial reforming of the Swedish welfare and social model.

Madam Speaker! What is it then that makes the government, despite this, proceed with the proposal? Well, the Tidö government's primary argument for introducing a qualification for these social insurances is, above all, that lower benefits lead to increased incentives to work, that less generous systems lead to reduced benefit dependency, that it is fair that one qualifies for the social insurances, and that it reduces the pull factor regarding migration to Sweden. These are the main arguments that the government puts forward.

Madam Speaker! What do we Social Democrats think of these arguments? Well, we mean that a proper work line requires jobs, education, establishment, and clear requirements. Sweden has ranked low regarding growth in recent years. There are 100,000 more unemployed now than four years ago. At the same time, poverty has increased. That should tell the government something. Increased poverty leads to neither work nor growth. Poverty hinders establishment. The premises that increased poverty drives people to work lack scientific support, which is also evident from the extensive criticism the proposal receives.

Madam Speaker! Instead of presenting this bill, the government could present bills concerning labor market training, about giving people the right skills to take the vacant jobs that exist, and about an employment agency that is allowed to focus on labor market matching instead of, as it does today, focusing on bureaucracy and administration. Here, the Tidö government has underperformed – they have changed labor market ministers more times than there have been bills presented at the Ministry of Employment.

Furthermore, we argue that the proposal shifts costs and problems and does not solve anything in practice. The state saves – the municipalities pay. This will therefore not reduce the grants. It is also expected to hit welfare directly. Increased costs for social assistance for the municipalities means de facto less money for school, healthcare, and elderly care.

We Social Democrats also do not think there is any direct justice in giving high-income earners fast tracks. It hits low-income earners and part-time workers. It is not fair – it is pure class politics. Why should the boss's children receive child allowance but not the bus driver's? The government's proposal will in practice mean that colleagues at the same workplace have completely different safety nets despite performing the same work and paying the same amount in tax. Which groups are next in line? One might ask that.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to pull factors regarding migration, one must first and foremost look at the weak research support that the government presents, which several referral bodies also point out. It is other pull factors, for example large diaspora groups and the possibility of obtaining residence permits, that are central to migration. Who would in reality choose a country based on whether support is paid out by the state or the municipality? One might ask that.

Something that both the investigation and the referral bodies warn about is the risks of increased crime and fraud. The proposal risks creating incentives for sham establishments, undeclared work, and labor exploitation. They also risk increasing crime among young people, with crimes such as thefts and so on. This is also what we heard on the news this morning regarding the government's proposal on benefit caps. The Danish experiences show the same thing – that is why they backed away from a corresponding proposal.

Madam Speaker! The question boils down to a central aspect: Does the government achieve its objectives with the bill? The answer – to interpret the fierce criticism from the referral bodies – is therefore no. This proposal has no impact on Sweden's attractiveness regarding migration. The government has also not been able to demonstrate how it will increase the incentives for work. Research shows the opposite effect instead.

Maintaining trust in our social insurances is of the utmost importance. Therefore, fraud and errors must be combated. We are completely in agreement on that. There is a great deal to be done there. One should devote oneself to that rather than spending time and effort on tightening the belt for those people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Madam Speaker! We believe that it should be required to have legal residence in Sweden to access settlement-based benefits. If one does not have permission to reside in Sweden, one should also not be entitled to a share of the social security benefits. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1, which entails exactly this. In all other respects, I move for the rejection of the bill.

Madam Speaker! The idea that welfare should be for some, not for all, is a classic right-wing thought. In contrast to that stands the Social Democratic view that welfare should be universal and accessible to everyone who needs it. It is fundamental in our welfare society. We do not create A and B teams. As Per Albin Hansson said in his famous folkhem speech, which by the way is now part of Sweden's cultural canon: "The good home knows of no privileged or marginalized, no pampered children and no stepchildren."

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The strange thing about the Social Democrats' position is that they are essentially in favor of the bill but are nevertheless going to vote no. In their motion to the bill, they write that people shall support themselves through work, that migration shall be strict, and that the Social Democrats are not against any rules regarding qualification for social insurance. Nevertheless, they are going to vote no to the bill. What is actually the Social Democrats' alternative to this bill?

The Social Democrats want to keep the current system. This means that newly arrived migrants will still have access to all social security benefits without having any real connection to Sweden and without having worked. If the Social Democrats mean that everyone should support themselves through work, it is strange that they want to keep the current system, where one gets access to many benefits as soon as one receives a residence permit. This is what has been the problem, and that is why this change must occur. Should people still be granted access to settlement-based benefits almost immediately after arrival in Sweden, despite very limited connection here? This is what the Social Democrats support when they vote no to the most important proposals in the bill.

The government's proposition is based on a simple principle: Welfare shall to a greater extent be linked to work, self-sufficiency, and actual connection to Sweden. Is this something that the Social Democrats are against – yes or no?

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Nima Gholam Ali Pour for the question.

When it comes to certain insurances, there is already a qualification – to some extent, we have a qualification for the work-related social insurances. It is therefore difficult to generally be against all forms of qualification. But one must still ask what this bill will actually lead to.

We think it is important with activity requirements. The person who has come to Sweden should work, enter into society and support themselves. That is why we have pushed the issue of activity requirements. That the government now takes this further and introduces activity requirements, we think is good. More of such stimuli!

However, I want to ask Nima Gholam Ali Pour what he actually thinks about the extensive, massive criticism of the government's proposal. What does he say about the fact that it lacks scientific support? The government's proposal will risk driving a shadow society with more people in vulnerability, and poverty does not lead to work. What does Nima Gholam Ali Pour say about this?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament asked what the bill will lead to. It is important to be clear towards the voters. The bill will lead to a fast track to the relevant social insurance benefits, which are settlement-based.

If you have a job where you receive approximately 40,000 kronor in salary per month, you gain access to these social insurance benefits after six months. If you have a job where you receive only 21,000 kronor in salary per month, you gain access to these social insurance benefits after only twelve months. If you do not want to work at all, you gain an affiliation to Sweden after five years and still gain access to these social insurance benefits. That is what the bill is about.

The party leadership should speak with its own voters. Is an ordinary Social Democratic member in an S-association against working to gain access to these social insurance benefits? Or do the Social Democrats' voters, in any case those who work, mean that one should directly get access to the entire welfare state as soon as one arrives in Sweden? I do not think so.

I believe that the Social Democrats who work and go to work every day do not want people who come here from other countries to immediately get access to all social insurance benefits. It is unfair to all those people who go to work every day, who toil every day, that they should have exactly the same social insurance benefits.

This is what it is about. The Member of Parliament has quite a few answers to give to his own voters as to why one is against a proposition that will create social justice in Sweden.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! Nima Gholam Ali Pour does not answer my questions regarding what he thinks about the strong referral criticism that has come against this proposal. I just want to repeat it. It leads to increased crime, an increased shadow society, increased exclusion among people, and increased child poverty.

We have also heard government representatives who have said that they will not present proposals that increase child poverty. This is such a proposal. It is stated in black and white, among other things, in the referral criticism.

Why should there be a fast track when one is high-paid? Why should a bus driver's children not receive child allowance while the boss's children should? That is what the proposal amounts to in practice, and that is what the proposal will lead to.

It will cause a split among groups in society. It is not about people who work hard getting the opportunity to receive a share of the insurance immediately. It is about people being knocked out. That is how it is. It is written in black and white.

I do not think it is possible to avoid seeing what it will lead to if one reads the criticism. Will the Sverigedemokraterna handle these consequences, and how will they handle these consequences?

When Nima Gholam Ali Pour speaks about justice, I wonder how one actually defines justice. When people arrive as newcomers to Sweden, they are not in as good a position as the Sweden Democrats want to pretend, Madam Speaker.

The Sweden Democrats want to pretend that the benefits are a major attraction for people to come to Sweden. That is not true if one reads the research, nor is it true if one reads the referral criticism. There is very weak support for the government's proposition. That is why we Social Democrats have landed where we have landed.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Every morning, people all over Sweden go to work. It is the construction worker in Skåne, the police officer in Gothenburg, the entrepreneur in Mora, the programmer in Sundsvall, and the healthcare assistant in Haparanda. It is the woman who, after a long period of sick pay, has finally received her first job and her first salary again.

It is these people who uphold Sweden, who set the clock every morning and go to work, take responsibility and do the right thing. It is their work that finances our common welfare.

At the same time, there are people who strive every day to get there. They are children who struggle in school and newcomers who study Swedish late in the evenings after SFI. They are people who want to become a part of Sweden and who want to build their future here.

To you I want to say: The Moderates stand on your side. Work, responsibility and personal effort shall always pay off, both today and in the future, both when the salary arrives and when it is time for retirement.

Hundreds of thousands of people born in other countries work today, run businesses and build their lives here in Sweden. They learn Swedish, support themselves and contribute to our society every day. They are part of and strengthen Sweden.

For the Moderaterna, it is clear that those who make an effort and want to become part of our community should also be met with opportunities.

Madam Speaker! Many years of irresponsible migration policy and requirement-free integration have, however, led to far too many people not becoming a part of our social community. Instead, exclusion has grown. Far too many people have become stuck in a long-term dependency on benefits without being met with clear requirements, proper support, or expectations of self-sufficiency. It is not fair, neither towards those who work hard and finance the welfare or towards those who come to Sweden and want to build a future here.

Madam Speaker! Exclusion is not just figures in the statistics. It is about people who, year after year, stand far away from the labor market. It is about children growing up in areas where far too few adults go to work and about women who become economically dependent and never get the opportunity for self-sufficiency.

It is ultimately about trust in society. If people perceive that the difference between those who work and those who do not work becomes too small, there is also a risk that trust in the welfare system will be eroded.

Madam Speaker! Qualification for social insurance means that we leave behind the requirement-free integration policy. In order to be eligible to participate in Swedish welfare and social insurance, legal residence in Sweden shall be required in the future.

A yes must be a yes, and a no must be a no. The person who is granted a residence permit shall be given good opportunities to become a part of Sweden. The person who is denied needs to leave the country.

Madam Speaker! It is not reasonable that one can come to Sweden and from day one receive full access to benefits and compensations. Therefore, we are now introducing a qualification requirement. For certain social security benefits, it will be required that one has lived in Sweden for at least five years during a fifteen-year period. At the same time, those who work and contribute to our common welfare shall be able to qualify faster. Thus, we ensure that effort pays off.

Those who have a work income of approximately 40,000 kronor per month for at least six consecutive months, or approximately 20,000 kronor per month for at least twelve of the last twenty-four months, shall be able to qualify for the social insurance more quickly.

A strong welfare state is built on reciprocity. It is built on the fact that people contribute according to their ability and know that society is there when they need support. But for people to want to finance the welfare state through their work, the systems must also be perceived as fair. That is why the qualification for social insurance is so important.

Madam Speaker! What we are debating today is part of the Moderaternas larger benefit reform. Benefit ceilings, qualification for social insurance, and activity requirements shall together make it more profitable to work and strengthen the incentives for self-sufficiency. The purpose is clear. It is about breaking a long-standing benefit dependency, reducing exclusion, and re-establishing the work principle.

Madam Speaker! The most remarkable thing in this debate is actually the opposition's stance. The same parties that for a long time pursued an irresponsible migration policy are now saying no to the reforms that are required for integration to actually work.

The Social Democrats are happy to talk about a strict migration policy, but when it comes to concrete reforms to strengthen the work line, reduce benefit dependency, and clarify that the welfare is built on work and legal residence in Sweden, they say no. Then one reverts to the old policy, where the requirements become unclear and where the benefit systems are expected to solve the integration problems.

Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet oppose in principle every reform that strengthens the drivers for work. They seem to believe that integration happens by itself – without clear requirements, without personal responsibility, and without expectations of self-sufficiency. But reality shows something else.

For many years, Sweden has had and seen a growing exclusion, an extensive dependency on benefits, and far too many people who have never been given the opportunity to fully become a part of society. It is the consequence of a policy where the requirements have been too few and the expectations too low.

The Moderates choose a different path. We believe in the work line. We believe that people grow with responsibility, and we believe that integration works better when it pays to work and make an effort.

Madam Speaker! Leaving people in a long-term dependency on benefits is not consideration. It is a betrayal, especially towards the children who risk growing up without seeing their parents go to work. Work is not just about wages. It is about freedom, community, language, and faith in the future.

Sweden does not need lower requirements. Sweden needs higher expectations. We do not accept a society where people get stuck in benefit dependency year after year. We believe in work. We believe in self-sufficiency. And we believe in a Sweden where those who make an effort also get the opportunity to build a better future. That is why we are now strengthening the work line and reforming the social insurance.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The criticism against the government's proposal is massive. Among other things, the Swedish Pensions Agency states that the basis upon which the proposed reform is founded does not provide support that the expected positive effects are achieved. On the other hand, the proposed reform risks bringing about major negative consequences, especially for groups that are already vulnerable and, in the long run, for society as a whole.

I think it is a striking, albeit bureaucratic, summary of this proposal.

Other referral bodies point to the risk that more children will be drawn into sexual exploitation and that more women will choose to stay longer in a violent relationship, simply because, with the government's proposal, they cannot afford to leave the relationship.

Let us say something about women. Women are more numerous among those who do not have 40,000 in salary. The nursing assistant and the assistant nurse become poorer than the doctor and the engineer. The assistant nurse's children are denied child allowance while the boss's children receive child allowance.

I want to ask Caroline Högström how she justifies to the women who work in welfare and who earn between 21,000 and 40,000 why they and their children are not worth as much as those who earn over 40,000 and their children.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Hirvonen, for the question!

I would like to start by stating that I do not really want to buy the picture that Miljöpartiet is trying to paint here. It is about qualification for the social insurance. If you are not working, it is five years. If you have had a salary of 20,000 for twelve months, you become qualified for the social insurance. If you have a salary over 40,000, it is six months. It is not, as people are trying to paint it, some kind of eternity, but it is about qualification precisely so that work shall pay off.

There is something that I oppose. People like to talk about women, but they do not talk about the women who, year after year, become trapped in benefit dependency. Look at the average time – from when a foreign woman arrives in Sweden until she has established herself in the labor market! The real betrayal is that we allow this to continue year after year, generation after generation, and that we do not seriously say: You know what! Here are the keys. We also set requirements. We mean that your effort should pay off. If you learn the language and become a part of Swedish society, all opportunities are available.

But the Green Party, the Social Democrats and the Left Party seem to want to leave them as they are. They do not see the exclusion. They have no reforms to break the exclusion. And when we do deliver proposals for concrete reforms, they say no. That is the real betrayal here.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates are not answering my question. Why is the nursing assistant and the nursing assistant's child not worth as much as the engineer and the engineer's child? This proposal means that the nursing assistant's child goes without child allowance because the nursing assistant's salary is below 40,000, while the children of those who earn 40,000 or more receive child allowance.

It is not possible to place different values on different people more clearly than that? Some get, others do not. The difference is about how much one earns, as if the work that underpaid women in the welfare sector perform every day is not valuable and as if their children do not have the same value. I therefore ask the question again: Why is the nursing assistant's child not worth as much as the engineer's in the Moderaterna's Sweden?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Annika Hirvonen for so clearly showing the difference in Swedish politics.

It is fear propaganda from Miljöpartiet. They do not look at the concrete reforms and do not come up with proposals on how we can break the long-standing exclusion. Instead, it is fear propaganda. They paint some picture that all nursing assistants are now going to lose their child allowance. That is not true.

I wish we could have a reasonable debate on these types of issues, but it is not possible. Immediately, the fear propaganda arrives, and immediately a picture is painted that actually does not match.

But somewhere we must look at what it is that is correct. It is about the exclusion that we have seen for a long, long time. One comes to Sweden, and then one gets stuck. One does not move forward. We read news articles just a few weeks ago. I do not remember if it was a mother of four or five children in Sundsvall who had made this journey. What was it she said to the newspaper? It was about everyone having to wake up, take that step, and get that job. It was about self-sufficiency.

When one speaks with those who have made that journey, it is obvious that they wish they had received help earlier. They wish that someone had said: Here in Sweden, we teach you the language. Here, we seek work and become a part of the community, so that we do not get stuck on the outside.

I believe we can state that the descriptions of reality differ and that Miljöpartiet is primarily engaged in fearmongering here in this chamber.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Members are being accused of fearmongering, so we can well go through what has happened.

The Nordic countries' social safety nets have been founded on the principle of a general welfare, that is, a system where everyone is included. It has over a long period shown to be effective in counteracting poverty and achieving more equal societies. It is that which has built Sweden into the fantastic welfare state that we have been, where a general and inclusive welfare has never been an obstacle to establishment but on the contrary a prerequisite for the same.

In recent years, however, the economic gaps have increased in Sweden. Under the current government and the Sverigedemokraterna, the proportion of poor people in Sweden has doubled. We have had 100,000 more unemployed. The labor market policy is completely absent. Evictions have increased by almost 60 percent, and this also applies to evictions where children are affected.

Now the government and the Sweden Democrats want that those who come to Sweden must live here for five years to be eligible for social security. It will hit the most vulnerable in society the hardest. The government's own investigation points to increased exclusion, increased crime, and largely only negative consequences for vulnerable groups. The proposal has also been met with massive criticism from almost all referral bodies, or to quote the investigation: "Criminal organizations and organized crime can move forward their positions."

The member gave no answer in the previous exchange, so I suppose I must ask if the member is proud of the last four years. You have doubled the proportion of poor people in Sweden, 100,000 more are unemployed, and evictions have increased by almost 60 percent. And now you present proposals that deepen and worsen the vulnerability for people in Sweden.

Is the member proud of it?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Haddou, for the opportunity to speak about what I am proud of over the last four years!

We shall state where we came from. We came from a time when inflation was 10 percent and the economy was in free fall, a time when unemployment actually began to soar.

Then we did something. We took responsibility. Now inflation is down to 2 percent, and we see that it is slowly starting to brighten on the horizon. During these four years, we have ensured that a single nursing assistant gets to keep approximately 3,000 kronor more per month. A police officer and a nurse get to keep 5,000 kronor more per month – actual money, a real difference. We have lowered the food VAT, which has made it cheaper to shop for food. We have lowered the price of fuel so that one can live and reside in the whole country. That is what I am proud of.

I can also state that we are far from finished. The member is right that we have an enormous challenge. Exclusion is still far too great. In my home county of Västmanland, it is approximately 16,000 people, in number equivalent to Hallstahammar Municipality, who are not self-sufficient.

I went and knocked on doors in Arboga a couple of weeks ago and met a woman who described her journey. She has come to Sweden and learned the language, and now she works within the school system and struggles and strives. She sees people who do not do that, who actually do not struggle in the way she has, and she was very clear about what she calls it: She calls it unfair and believes that it is completely right to set demands.

It is completely right that more people should get to make the journey that she has made to work, to community, and to the Swedish language.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Of course, many should be given the opportunity to make that journey. The problem is that the government is presenting a proposal that increases exclusion.

The member stands here and talks about precisely exclusion. I am quite shocked, because the investigation, referrals, research, experiences, and science almost all say that the proposal the government puts forward regarding qualification for welfare increases exclusion. If one wants a serious debate and to take responsibility, as the member speaks about here, I still think that one should listen to the investigation and to the research, experiences, and science regarding this.

If we had had an active and powerful labor market policy that ensures people get into work, if we had great school results and the best, most equal schools and so on, so that people can get the right and actual conditions, I would have understood it. But the member is, therefore, proud of 100,000 more unemployed under this government. That is nothing you can blame the previous government for. For an entire parliamentary term, you have actively worsened the situation. What you have done instead of putting proposals on the Riksdag's table for more job opportunities and measures to create jobs is to lower taxes for the very richest and change the labor market minister. One cannot be particularly proud of that. And under this government, poverty in Sweden has therefore doubled, even though we heard about some reforms.

Madam Speaker! That is not something to be proud of. I would be ashamed.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Of course, one hears what one wants to hear.

The referral process is an important function in our legislative process. The referral responses have been examined; this can be read about in the bill.

Vänsterpartiet seems to forget that it also has consequences to do nothing. Continuing as we have done in recent years also has consequences, and so far in this debate, I do not hear any proposals for change. I hear that there is a great deal of interest in who is the Minister for Employment, and it is well and positive that it awakens such a strong interest from the opposition. But I can state that we others are occupied with substantive politics and reforms.

There is still much to do, as Sweden continues to face great challenges, but after listening to the exchanges and likely the entire debate, I can state that the left side is obviously having difficulty reaching an agreement. Just look at this proposal – the Center Party does see the advantages of this reform. They see what needs to be done.

Then one naturally becomes extremely curious about how your side will put it together after the election if misfortune strikes and you win. Now, I don't believe that, because the Swedish people know that we need to do something about the exclusion we see. We need to turn the economy around, and we continue to need a Moderate-led government.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish people are currently not giving the sitting government a good grade. Of course, there is still some time until election day, but it says something about what has been considered so far regarding the government's ability and policy.

I am also very interested in the research-based track in the investigation and the bill. Therefore, I wonder how the government and Member of Parliament Caroline Högström from Moderaterna reason regarding the Danish experiences of similar proposals. Denmark had to roll back these parts, because such enormous consequences were seen, among other things, when it came to crime development. They rolled back the proposals and concluded that it was not a wise policy.

I therefore wonder what conclusions the Moderaterna draw from the Danish example.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that many of our reforms have drawn inspiration from Denmark; one only has to look at parts of the migration policy. But I can also state that we have different systems.

Above all, Sweden has to some extent a significantly more profound exclusion, and therefore we must dare to try new approaches. It is obvious that what we have done previously has not worked. It has not helped, and above all, it has not helped foreign-born women who to a greater extent are stuck, even though it may be they who most need to enter the workforce. We see what difference it can make in families when just one mother moves from exclusion to work and community.

Therefore, we must address the problems. We see an enormous challenge with social exclusion, and then qualification for welfare is one piece of the puzzle. The benefit reform consists of three parts, and we also have the benefit ceiling but, above all, the activity requirement. We believe that can also make a big difference.

The function of the Riksdag is to take it part by part, but it is a joint contribution reform with three different legs that together help to strengthen the drivers for work and reduce exclusion.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Caroline Högström, for the answer!

When it comes to the Danish example, there is truly a red flag for this proposal. I completely share the government's view that activity requirements are an important part of increasing incentives to work. I do not share the government's view that poverty increases incentives to work. On the contrary, research has rather shown that people who end up even further away from establishment and integration will face an even more difficult journey to jobs and measures.

It is also a major problem that unemployment is as high as it is now, not only in certain groups but very broadly among many. There are 100,000 more people who are unemployed now than before. That is due to the lack of concrete labor market policy proposals.

Unemployment across the country looks different. There is very low unemployment in northern Sweden. There is very high unemployment in southern Sweden. Here, an active labor market policy could really make a difference, but instead, the government chooses to follow the classic right-wing path of letting poor and hungry stomachs hunt a little better. I do not believe in that policy, and I do not share that view. I believe instead that basic security and opportunities to receive language training, education, and labor market interventions lead to jobs.

I have another question for the Moderates and Caroline Högström. It concerns above all what effects this will have on the municipalities. If we want to safeguard the welfare and want to ensure that all young people succeed in school and do not end up in exclusion and crime, the school must also have resources. This proposal risks shifting the payment responsibility from the state to the municipalities. The state saves money; the municipalities pay. How does the government intend to compensate for the municipalities' costs regarding this proposal?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats seem to forget that one of the problems we have had regarding some of the benefits for which we are now setting qualification requirements is that one is not met with requirements as part of the establishment process from day one, but instead gets stuck in the social insurance system and remains there for a long time. That is why, for example, qualification for social insurance is needed, so that from day one one is met with exactly requirements and expectations to become a part of the community. We must not end up in the situation where we have been, where many have lived for a very long time in Sweden without learning the language and without obtaining a job.

I oppose the picture that people are trying to paint of right-wing politics. On the contrary, I believe there is something important here. The Moderates' policy actually implies a belief in people. We believe in requirements for self-sufficiency because we believe that people have the ability to find work, but it does not seem that the left side believes that.

Madam Speaker! I can find it somewhat fascinating that the left, fundamentally, has a view of people as if they would lack ability. We talk about it far too rarely. The Moderates, on the other hand, have high expectations of people who come here and know what drive they have.

In conclusion: Regarding the financing of municipalities, it is of course a budget issue. There are assessments linked to the whole that the subsidy reform is built upon. We are injecting funds for the activity requirement, for example, so that the costs will not increase overall. An addition is therefore made to, among other things, finance the activity requirement.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! In the Nordic countries, the social safety nets have been founded on the principle of universal welfare, that is to say, systems where everyone is included. It has over a long period shown to be effective for more equal societies and for combating poverty. That was what built Sweden into the fantastic welfare state we have been, where a universal and inclusive welfare was never an obstacle to establishment but a prerequisite for it.

Madam Speaker! Here we are at last, after nearly four years with the Tidö parties. On one side, we have the traditional right-wing parties, who are seeking to limit the Swedish welfare state and dismantle the egalitarian welfare model and who see qualification for welfare as a good way to do so. On the other side, we have the Sweden Democrats, who take every opportunity to target people who have come to Sweden. Qualification for welfare, which we are debating today, is a clear combination of the right's hatred of benefits toward the poor and the Sweden Democrats' racism.

By portraying people seeking asylum here as a threat or a burden over the past few years, it is now becoming possible to deny them basic rights and access to welfare. The right wants to cut back on the safety nets for everyone, and the Sverigedemokraterna offer a scapegoat to begin the project where welfare and safety nets are to be further conditionalized.

It is a policy almost perfectly designed to make establishment much more difficult and to create a lawless group that, to an even greater extent than today, will be forced into insecurity and into black market work in order to support themselves. In this way, the attacks on newly arrived people also become a direct attack on the Swedish model, on secure jobs, against the welfare, and against the principles of community and cohesion that we have built up over the years.

Madam Speaker! The consequences of this proposal are devastating for workers, for children, and for society as a whole. For ordinary workers, the consequence is also that colleagues at the same workplace who perform the same work and pay the same amount in tax nevertheless have different safety nets. It is completely unacceptable. It is not worthy of a welfare country like Sweden. Furthermore, we know that the more poor and desperate people there are, the greater the pressure on wages and working conditions for everyone.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet rejects the government's proposal in its entirety. Therefore, I move for the approval of reservation 2 in the report.

The government's proposal would mean a significant dismantling of the Swedish welfare state and lead to increased social vulnerability, increased crime, and more children in poverty. The proposal hits particularly hard those in an early stage of their establishment in Sweden. It is those groups that most often have the greatest need of the safety net's support to be able to build an independent life and establish themselves on the labor market.

The investigation's own impact assessment points to a significant risk of increased crime as a result of the proposals currently on the table. When people are excluded from basic safety systems, the risk of exploitation, black market work, and other forms of vulnerability increases. This, in turn, worsens the possibilities for both social and economic establishment in Sweden.

The police warn of increased vulnerability for children. They warn of crime and sexual exploitation.

The government's own expert agency, the Swedish Pensions Agency, argues that the government's proposal lacks support to achieve positive effects.

In addition to this, the investigation's own figures show that 60,000 children could be negatively affected by the proposal because their parents do not meet the qualification requirements. Consequently, they lose the residence-based social security benefits included in the proposal, such as child allowance and housing allowance. This leads to increased child poverty, mental ill-health, and social vulnerability and is in direct conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that children's rights be strengthened over time and that already achieved levels are not worsened. This government does not seem to care about that at all.

Madam Speaker! Instead of restricting access to the social security systems, the policy should be aimed at strengthening people's actual opportunities for establishment and self-sufficiency. This requires powerful investments in welfare, the labor market, and education. A general and inclusive welfare is not a barrier to integration but the prerequisite for it.

Social construction in the form of investments in the common welfare, the labor market, and the social insurance and security systems is completely absent among the Tidö parties. And when people are affected by unemployment or there is a lack of staff within healthcare, it is once again clear who is made into scapegoats by this government.

Madam Speaker! We will face a situation where many more turn to the municipalities for financial assistance without the government appearing to care at all. They hardly shrug their shoulders. They shift responsibility and costs from the state to the municipality. It will affect the municipalities' finances and, in the long run, more welfare areas such as school, social services, and housing provision. I think it is very irresponsible, quite simply, to shift the costs in that way.

The Left Party's political project is fundamentally different. A strong and robust welfare that gives residents good conditions to succeed in society is absolutely necessary to create a functioning establishment in Sweden. We are convinced that people succeed better with better conditions. It is how we invest in society and the people in it that determines how well we succeed.

This government shows time and again that it has no ambitions whatsoever to build a more equal society. On the contrary, it pursues a policy that hits newcomers and low-income earners. In a few months, we can hopefully vote out that policy and this government and achieve a policy that stands on the side of ordinary people.

Vänsterpartiet will be there for those affected by cuts in welfare and the security systems, those seeking protection from war and oppression, and those who, solely because of their background, are singled out as scapegoats by this government. We are already building a better Sweden today, upholding healthcare and welfare, and ensuring that society functions. General welfare is and shall continue to be a fundamental pillar in Swedish society. We are the guarantor of that.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet goes quite far in its follow-up motion. According to Vänsterpartiet, it should not even require legal residence in Sweden to be entitled to settlement-based social insurance benefits. In other words, Vänsterpartiet wants illegal migrants to be entitled to social insurance benefits. This says a great deal about the principles Vänsterpartiet has as the basis for its welfare policy.

The Left Party talks a lot about rights, grants, and support. But why does the member never talk about work and responsibility? Where do you think the grants come from? It is taxpayers who work hard and pay taxes so that others can receive support when they need it. Then it is reasonable to demand that people who come to Sweden actually work to qualify for certain settlement-based benefits, or that they are at least rooted in Sweden. Sweden is not the world's social agency. It is not Swedish taxpayers who should foot the bill when the Left Party has this strange vision that migrants should be able to receive grants as soon as they arrive in Sweden.

What kind of signals are we sending to the migrants who come to Sweden? Yes, it is said that we in Sweden do not value hard work. It is said that there is no difference between building this country and just sitting at home and receiving benefits.

But there is a difference, because those who work are the ones who finance the entire system. They are the ones who guarantee that we have a welfare state where we can take care of the vulnerable. This is a fundamental principle that Vänsterpartiet still does not want to acknowledge.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The member seems to care about the unemployed. Why then does the member have no labor market policy? That is the only question. That policy is completely non-existent under this government.

Why did the member lower the compensation levels in the unemployment insurance fund for workers in Sweden? Why has the member worsened the situation for Swedish workers? Why does the member not care about all those who have come to Sweden and who uphold the welfare, the healthcare, the care, and so on?

We believe that people who come here should be given the best conditions to be able to become a part of Swedish society. The Sweden Democrats want something fundamentally different. We heard that in the rhetoric earlier, and we hear it here as well.

I believe that the great conflict and difference here, Madam Speaker, is that the Sweden Democrats do not want integration and establishment. I believe that the Liberals, Christian Democrats, and Moderates also know this. They do not want it. It is in the Sweden Democrats' DNA; they do not want other people coming to Sweden at all.

Then it also becomes difficult to have a serious debate regarding this. I think the member can be honest about workers in Sweden. Why has the member not stepped in with powerful investments to create jobs in Sweden? We have had 100,000 more unemployed during Nima Gholam Ali Pour's government. Why has the member done nothing – not even lifted a finger – other than, for example, worsening the conditions in the unemployment insurance fund?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! What is interesting when listening to the member in this debate is that the Left Party seems to assume that migrants are automatically integrated as long as they are given access to more grants and more social security benefits. The Sweden Democrats' starting point, however, is different. We believe that integration occurs through work, language, understanding of the host country's values and culture, responsibility, and self-sufficiency – not by people becoming trapped in grant dependency and long-term exclusion.

What is the signal in the Left Party's model, really, as they present it? Yes, that it shouldn't matter much whether one works or not – that it shouldn't matter much whether one contributes to society or not.

But that is not how reality works. Sweden's reality is built on work and workers. If people perceive that the welfare system lacks requirements, trust in the entire model is also weakened. That is why the government's bill is so important. We are strengthening the connection between welfare, work, and actual ties to Sweden.

I still have to ask the member of the Left Party: Is there any limit at all, in your opinion? Should migrants be able to access these benefits immediately after receiving a residence permit in Sweden, regardless of work, ties, or self-sufficiency?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe the member received an answer to this question earlier, even in my speech.

There is an election this autumn, and we really need a government that stands on the side of ordinary people. But in recent years, the economic gaps have increased in Sweden. During this parliamentary term, with this government and the Sverigedemokraterna, the proportion of poor people in Sweden has doubled. We have 100,000 more unemployed and a completely absent labor market policy. Evictions have increased by almost 60 percent under this government. This also applies to evictions where children are affected.

What do you think this does to children's school results in Sweden? What do the members think this does to the belief in the future, with the social and economic gaps and with the segregation, which this government says it wants to counteract but which in fact only increases and increases, through a conscious and active policy from this government and the Sverigedemokraterna? What do you think this does with the development of our country?

No, Madam Speaker, we need a policy for a society that holds together, which guarantees a strong welfare and which leaves no one behind, where we do not consider parental leave, child allowance, housing allowance and sickness benefit as something ugly but as something that has been a part of the security economy that for decades has built Sweden strong and something that has been central to equality policy. In the Nordic countries, the social safety nets have been founded on the principle of universal welfare. The systems shall be for everyone, we believe. It is only to be regretted that the government is doing something completely different. It is also why they have doubled the poverty in Sweden during this mandate period. It is only to be regretted.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin the debate by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal. This also entails a rejection of the motions made in the report regarding a qualification for social insurance.

When it comes to migration policy, it is clear that we in the Tidö Government are implementing the change for which we received a mandate in the 2022 election. The change implies a necessary course correction for Sweden, after that during several mandate periods of S-governing, one neither realized the problems nor had the will or motivation to implement the changes that were necessary for our country. Sweden's electorate saw that a new direction in policy was needed, and it is this that we now in the Tidö cooperation are ensuring becomes a reality.

For us Christian Democrats, migration policy is about a policy that holds over time, without short-term oriented decisions. It is a policy that safeguards both human dignity and the sense of community.

For a number of years, perhaps primarily during the mid-2010s, Sweden received more asylum seekers than other comparable countries. It was a number that was larger than what was possible to integrate when it comes to language or work. Today we live with the consequences. It concerns a large exclusion for many, a shadow society that creates uncertainty, both for our country and for the people living there, and an integration debt that it will take time to work off. It is against that background that Kristdemokraterna sees a continued need for a strict and responsible migration policy.

Since the change of government in 2022, a number of reforms have been implemented, and the results are beginning to become clear. A difference is noticeable in many areas. But naturally, more remains to be implemented and followed up. Today we are debating an important part of the restructuring. It concerns the qualification for the social insurance.

Madam Speaker! Many of those who have come to Sweden from another country are important people who work and toil in various professions to promote and build the society we call Sweden. That the parents in a family have a job to go to is also an important signal and a support to the children in the family. In that case, access to the social insurances is self-evident.

Today, persons who have settled in Sweden can gain access to settlement-based benefits directly, without prior connection or work. This risks weakening the legitimacy of and the economic sustainability of the welfare systems. Furthermore, it reduces the incentive to take a job and achieve self-sufficiency. It is therefore why we are now moving forward with the proposal on qualification for the social insurance.

This is part of the government's broader benefit reform, which aims to break long-term benefit dependency and increase the incentives for work. The three parts are benefit ceilings combined with a job premium, activity requirements for those receiving social assistance – both of these matters will be debated in a week here in the chamber – and the reform we are debating today, namely qualification for the social insurance.

We Christian Democrats want, together with the other Tidö parties, to increase the incentives to enter the workforce for those who come to Sweden through the changes. We want to reduce the risk of long-term benefit dependency and reduce the risk of social exclusion.

Qualification for social insurance is one of the parts that should encourage people to enter the labor market and motivate them to do so. In today's Sweden, it is a fact that it takes a long time for many immigrants to become self-sufficient. A survey recently showed that among those who have stayed 4–9 years in Sweden, 55 percent have not achieved self-sufficiency, and after 10–19 years, it is still not more than 60 percent who have achieved it.

Madam Speaker! By introducing clearer requirements, the government wants everyone who can work to work and that work should pay off better than living on benefits, and the government wants to counteract the social insurance functioning as a pull factor to Sweden.

What then applies to today's proposal? Much has already been mentioned here. The Government proposes a new requirement for qualification for certain settlement-based benefits. The qualification is met when one has lived in Sweden for five years within a timeframe of 15 years. But there are also two fast tracks when it comes to income from work. When one has a slightly higher salary, it goes a bit faster, and with another salary, it takes twelve months. There will also be the possibility of exemptions if one has a strong and established permanent connection to Sweden.

The Government also proposes that legal residence shall be a requirement. Only persons who have resided legally in Sweden shall be eligible for the residence-based social insurance benefits.

This is in line with our focus on a strengthened work line and a reduced social exclusion. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2027. The Government also intends to follow up on the effects of the reforms.

Madam Speaker! The benefits covered include, among others, parental leave, child allowance, housing allowance, housing supplement, and elderly support. But it is important to say that the qualification in the proposal presented in the bill does not apply to the right to financial assistance. It is also important to say that the new requirements do not apply to those who already live in the country. As mentioned, there will also be an opportunity for exemptions from the qualification for exceptional reasons.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats believe that the requirements to qualify for social insurance need to be raised for those who settle in Sweden. It is reasonable that the link between the right to social insurance benefits and an established connection to Sweden is strengthened. We assess that the possibility of shortening the qualification period through work will result in increased incentives to work for people who come to Sweden. When it comes to the legal requirement for legal residence, we, the Christian Democrats, believe that it is not reasonable that persons who lack a legal basis to stay in Sweden should be able to share in social insurance benefits.

Madam Speaker! We in the Tidösamarbetet ensure that the changes necessary for Sweden are implemented, while the opposition, to varying degrees, want to keep the system that applies today and in different ways have reserved themselves against the change we are now debating. In migration policy, as in this matter, the opposition parties often take different positions. They choose to ignore the problems that exist and the fact that the policy that has been pursued has not led to a solution to the problems. They choose to argue for a system that should continue in the same ruts as before and also act as a pull factor for migration to Sweden. It does not create the necessary motivation required for more people to achieve self-sufficiency.

Madam Speaker! If the red-green chaos coalition wins power in the election this year, we will certainly see a return to that which previously led Sweden in the wrong direction. It will be a return to what prevailed during previous government periods, when there was a significantly more open and less demanding migration policy. It will once again hit our society hard.

But fortunately, there is a better alternative. We Tidö parties have shown that cooperation works. We have taken responsibility in a difficult situation, and we deliver results. We in Kristdemokraterna want, together with the other Tidö parties, to ensure that the order and clarity in migration policy that we are now implementing will endure, so that we can manage to integrate those who are already in our country. We stand for a migration policy that is strict, responsible, legally secure, and humane.

Promoting the work line, which today's proposal does, is the path that Sweden needs to follow. That is how we create justice. That is how we lay the foundation for a strong Sweden.

As I have said before, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The discussion we have here in the Riksdag today concerns a government bill which implies that it shall not be a given that those who come here have full access to the Swedish welfare system from day one.

For us in Centerpartiet, this is no new discussion. We have had it for about ten years in our party. We stand behind the basic principle that one must qualify for entry into the Swedish welfare system.

The origin of this discussion for us was, of course, what happened in 2015, when we in Europe received very large flows of refugees. This led to many parties having a discussion about what was actually important in the view on migration.

We in Centerpartiet landed on the fact that it continues to be important for us that Sweden can receive people who are fleeing for their lives.

It is also important that we welcome people who want to come here to work and pay tax. That is why we react so strongly against what this government is now pushing through – that people who work and pay tax are being thrown out of the country.

It is important for us that families are not split up – hence our strong reactions against the government regarding the so-called teenage deportations. At the same time, it is important that one has access to Swedish healthcare. If one has children, they shall have access to school. On the other hand, one shall not from day one fully enter the rather extensive Swedish economic security systems. That is what makes us welcome this proposal.

However, we were very critical of the investigation that formed the basis for this bill, as it contained two parts that have received very strong criticism during the referral processes.

The first one was about what the Sverigedemokraterna have praised, namely that people who come here should be excluded not only from the housing-based social insurances but also from financial assistance from the municipalities. It would have had completely devastating consequences, with new poor people on Sweden's streets. We are therefore glad that the government chose to remove it.

The second part of the investigation that we were very critical of was that there was to be retroactive legislation, i.e., that this should also apply to people who had already come to Sweden. That has also been removed in this proposal, and that is what makes it possible for us to stand behind the main part of the matters contained in the bill.

This prepares Sweden in a better way to receive larger refugee flows in the event of unrest in our vicinity. It can also remove what is sometimes discussed as pull factors. Do we have too many benefits? Can it lead to people seeking to come here? That was something that certainly existed in 2015. But today, considering the restrictive line we have in Sweden, it hardly has a major impact on where people choose to seek themselves.

The most important thing for us, however, is that these proposals support the work line, that is, ensure that people who come here enter the workforce significantly faster.

There are a number of examples of how we humans adapt to the regulatory frameworks and, not least, the economic conditions that exist. A very clear example from here in the chamber is the changed rules for former members of Parliament. Before 2014, it was entirely possible as a member of Parliament to leave the Riksdag and live well from 50 years to 65 years. Those rules were changed, and suddenly we have received a completely new behavior from former members of Parliament.

Another clear example is the upper secondary school law that has been so strongly criticized. Here in the chamber, we handled the situation that we had a fairly large number of Afghan boys who came here during the years 2015–2016. They were given an incredibly tough set of rules in the form of the upper secondary school law: You may stay here until you have completed your education. If you manage to get a job once you have completed your education, yes, then you are welcome to stay. Otherwise, you must go home.

The result of that law is very clear: This group today has a stronger connection to the labor market than Swedish youth in the corresponding age group. More than 80 percent have a permanent job. They have not obtained academic education, but instead, they work in elderly care.

These are two clear examples of how the regulations we decide on here actually affect the employment rate and the connection to Swedish society. This proposal does not mean that people are being pushed into poverty. It means that instead of receiving the housing-based social insurances, which often are paid out automatically, during the first years, they are referred to the municipalities for financial assistance. In the municipalities, there is a completely different opportunity to set requirements and to support the individual in actually getting into work than there is in the state social insurances, where the money just flows out without any requirements whatsoever. We are quite certain that it will have a clear effect.

There are, however, two things in this government proposal that we have reacted to.

One is that it is so obvious that this involves a cost shift to the municipalities, that is to say that the financial support previously provided from the state social insurance now goes to the municipalities' social services in the form of social assistance. There, we think it would be appropriate to clearly declare from the very beginning that this is something that the state should cover by financially compensating the municipalities for the work they will do.

The second is that we once again have legislation where there are practically no valves, depending on the government having chosen to say that exceptions from this legislation may only occur for exceptional reasons. We all know what consequences that will have – it means practically never any exceptions. We would therefore rather have seen that it was said that exceptions can be made for special reasons. That would have meant that in individual cases there would have been a possibility to look at other conditions than those presented in the bill.

With that said, I would like to request the support of the Center Party for reservation number 3.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals believe in a strong welfare state. We believe in a jointly funded security. We believe that people should be able to feel confidence that society is there when life takes a turn, when illness strikes, when one loses their job, or when the family needs support.

That is why we simultaneously believe in clear rules, the work line, and legitimacy. A welfare state cannot be built on generosity alone. It must also be built on trust, and trust arises when people experience that the system is understandable, fair, and sustainable. A system that is perceived as fair is a system that people want to carry. A system that is perceived as limitless risks, instead, losing trust but above all, carrying capacity.

Madam Speaker! The debate on migration has taken up a great deal of space in Sweden during the last decade. It has been full of nuances, difficult trade-offs, different opinions, and questions where several values must be weighed against one another. It matters why people come here. It matters where people come from. It matters what conditions one has to establish oneself, learn the language, get into work, and become a part of society. It also matters what reception capacity Sweden actually has.

An important balance is this: a permit to stay in Sweden does not always have to mean full and immediate access to all tax-funded welfare benefits. It is entirely possible to say that those who have the right to stay here should also have a clear path into society, but that certain parts of the welfare actually require affiliation, work, and establishment. It is that balance that this bill is about, and it fundamentally says three things.

Firstly, the person covered by residence-based social security must reside here legally.

Secondly, certain benefits should no longer be paid out immediately simply because someone has moved here, but only after certain qualification.

For the third, there shall still be a safety valve in exceptional cases when there is already a strong, established and lasting connection to Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The proposal concerns qualification for certain residence-based benefits in the social insurance system. The starting point is that those who come to Sweden shall qualify through residence or work. Qualification can occur through 5 years of residence within a timeframe of 15 years. It is a clear rule that marks that lasting connection matters. But qualification can also occur faster through work. It is there that the question of obligations, responsibility, and the work principle becomes most clear. When one works, supports oneself, and contributes to the common good, one should also be able to qualify for the safety net more quickly.

The government proposes two paths through work: a fast track where it takes six months to qualify and a broader track where one can achieve qualification by working for twelve months. This corresponds to approximately 40,000 kronor for the faster track and 21,000 kronor for the one that takes twelve months. It is in itself a reasonable order – those who quickly enter work and contribute to the common good should also be able to receive the benefits more quickly.

Madam Speaker! In the underlying investigation, qualification for financial assistance was also discussed, but in the bill, the financial assistance is left unchanged. Those who have a residence permit and lack the possibility to support themselves will therefore still have access to society's basic safety net through the municipalities. This is important, because Sweden must have an ultimate safety net. No one should be left completely without the possibility of basic subsistence.

The economic assistance, however, means something other than full access to all settlement-based benefits. It is means-tested, it is intended to be temporary, and it places requirements on activity and on doing what one can to support oneself.

Madam Speaker! This bill should also be seen together with other important reforms. It does not stand alone, but rather complements the government's work with benefit ceilings and requirements for full-time activation in the social assistance. These reforms are connected. The benefit ceiling is about ensuring that it always pays more to work than not to work, and full-time activation is about ensuring that those living on social assistance meet requirements, routines, education, language learning, and other things that bring them closer to work. All of this strengthens this work line.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for a long time received more people than we have had the capacity to integrate. This is something that the vast majority today agree on. Unemployment is significantly higher among foreign-born people than among domestic-born people, and a large proportion of those who receive long-term social assistance are, as mentioned, foreign-born.

Even though the asylum migration to Sweden today is historically low, we need to build systems that hold up over time. We do not know when the next migration wave will come, but we know that war, conflicts and other things will certainly arise even in the future and that people will then seek out safer countries. Then we, as a country, must be better equipped than we have been previously.

Madam Speaker! There is also an integration policy perspective that sometimes gets lost in the debate. Requirements that are too low do not help people into society, and unclear expectations do not make it easier to build a life in Sweden – on the contrary.

Those who come here need to encounter a society that is clear about what applies: that one must learn the language, educate oneself, work according to one's ability, and take responsibility for one's establishment. In return, Sweden as a country offers, among other things, security, school, healthcare, freedom, and opportunities, because here the conditions exist. Here there is support but also responsibility, and here there are opportunities but also requirements.

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

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating another step in the government's poverty policy. A new poverty line is being introduced in Sweden, and 60,000 children are affected. In a situation where the government's policy has already increased the gaps and the number of poor in Sweden, the Riksdag shall today take a stand on whether additional families with children shall lose child allowance, the right to parental leave, and other basic protections in the welfare system.

It becomes even clearer that people in Sweden are divided into us and them and that some are worth more than others. Human worth is stratified, and the one who has a higher salary is worth more. Children of engineers receive child allowance, while children of nursing assistants have to wait.

The criticism of this proposal is serious and dramatic. The first thing we can state is that both the government's own investigator and heavy referral bodies say that the proposals are not expected to achieve the government's objectives. The objective that more people should support themselves through their own work is therefore not expected to be achieved. What is feared, on the other hand, is that child poverty will increase and that gross organized crime will be given the opportunity to advance its positions. A fear is raised of an increased risk of sexual exploitation of children and an increased risk that women in violent relationships will not dare to leave the relationship for fear of the poverty that will be the consequence.

Point by point, the government's proposal is criticized. It concerns everything from the fact that crime will increase to the fact that the proposal simply departs from the fundamental view of human value – that we all have the same value regardless of our ability to work or how high our salary is – and moves towards a more utility-based human value, that the one who has a higher salary is fundamentally also more worthy.

We in Miljöpartiet turn strongly against this policy on the grounds of human dignity and objectivity. The government is now submitting proposition after proposition with policies that are not expected to lead to the results the government itself wants to achieve. The experts say: No, this doesn't work. The government says: We're pushing on anyway!

Almost four years ago, an agreement was reached with the Sweden Democrats, which means that the policy shall be implemented at any cost – even at the cost of increased crime and more children's bodies becoming commodities in the sex trade. My God! How far is this madness supposed to continue?

I vote for reservation 2 and for the rejection of this proposition.

We in Miljöpartiet want Sweden to safeguard the general welfare where the safety net is for everyone, where every child living in Sweden has the same right to child allowance and where every mother who gives birth can be with her baby during the first period without worrying about not being able to afford the rent and put food on the table. Even the mother who only managed to work as an assistant nurse for half a year before the child was born should be able to be covered by the most basic part of the parental insurance.

We in Miljöpartiet oppose this bill because it will increase inequality. This proposal will hit women hardest because women earn less, and this proposal means that women who have low-paid jobs will simply receive a poorer basic protection in welfare than those who have a higher salary.

When it comes to newcomers, we also know that women have been disadvantaged for years. Women who are unemployed have received poorer help from Arbetsförmedlingen – cheaper interventions that do not lead to employment as often as the interventions given to the men. This is not a coincidence. Those who are closest to the labor market have been prioritized, and the women have been left behind.

The belief that women have better prospects of entering the workforce if they become even poorer and even more dependent on living with a man who earns well has nothing to do with reality. Let us instead invest money in what works! Let us invest in better Swedish language instruction and labor market measures aimed at foreign-born women. Let us have a policy based on what we know works instead of an ideological Sweden Democrat longing to divide people into a we and them – we with a little more value and rights and those with less.

At its core, this policy does not only harm the children who become poor. This policy harms our entire society – trust and cohesion. We all win if no child falls into poverty. Everyone wins from that.

I will never forget when I visited a school in Alvesta, where over 60 percent of the children live in child poverty. There are many whose fathers commute to Stockholm to work and whose mothers take care of many children. The children often risk ending up on the streets in the evening. Society tries to hold together around these children, and on the student council, the children wanted one thing: "Can't we get hot dogs with bread at the school closing so that one doesn't have to leave school hungry on the last day of the term?"

This is a Sweden where the gaps are growing and some are being left behind – a Sweden that I want to change. We in Miljöpartiet want to work for a vision without child poverty. We want to work for a society where all children have the same value and the same rights.

Madam Speaker! In my exchange with the Moderates, I received no answer to the question of why the government thinks that someone who has a low-paid job as a nursing assistant in welfare is worth less than someone who earns over 40,000. But perhaps the answer is still, Madam Speaker, that we in the Tidö parties' Sweden calculate people based on their capacity and contribution.

I come from a family where we know that it is not a matter of will or laziness whether one can work and pay tax, without the lottery of life actually giving us different circumstances. Some are so ill that they need to be carried by us others. Some have good chances of managing, and others are valuable and get to exist solely by virtue of their human value.

When we begin to separate immigrants based on a value based on their ability to contribute, we damage the fundamental human value, and I truly shudder at the consequences. We have seen in history what happens when people are sorted in that way – when the sick and the disabled are assigned a lower human value. Let us change direction! On September 13, there is an election in Sweden, and on one side, there is an alternative to this anti-human policy. That is what we stand for in Miljöpartiet.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! All people are equally worthy in Sweden. It is important to emphasize that, given how the MP's member spoke in the speaker's chair.

This bill is about when one gains access to the entire Swedish welfare system. It is therefore about exempting certain specific settlement-based social insurance benefits from persons who have recently arrived in Sweden. There are two ways to gain access to these social insurance benefits. One can work, and then one gets a fast track. If one does not work at all – if one as a newcomer simply chooses to be unemployed in Sweden – one must wait for five years. That is what it is about, but all people are equally worthy.

The principle that Miljöpartiet puts forward is everything to everyone from day one. It is completely unacceptable. It is that which has created the exclusion in Sweden.

The criticism that the Green Party (MP) directs at the bill is that the proposals will lead to a more divided society where people are treated differently depending on how long they have lived in Sweden or depending on their connection to the labor market. But even today, people are treated differently depending on how long they have lived in Sweden. One cannot become a citizen from day one. The person who comes to Sweden cannot become a citizen on the first day. One also does not get access to all residency-based benefits from day one; there are certain benefits within the pension system that are affected by how long one has lived in Sweden.

This idea that Swedish welfare has always been built on the premise that everyone should have immediate and full access to all benefits simply does not hold up. This bill links welfare to work and actual connection to Sweden.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! All people are equally worthy. All people are equal – and some are more equal than others.

This proposal means that the one who earns more receives child allowance while the children of the one who works as an assistant nurse in elderly care go without. Why do you make that differentiation if you mean that everyone is equally worthy? It is said that it is about people who work should enter these systems, and yet you stratify them based on income.

We have actually had a welfare state where every child has had a right to child allowance – children of the sick and children of the working, children of those who have a high salary and children of those who work part-time. I have not received any answers to the question of how one reconciles the equation that all people are equally worthy and that there is now still a large difference between the children whose parents lose their jobs – due to illness or for other reasons, for example redundancy – and the children whose parents are lucky enough to keep their jobs. There will be a difference between the one who has a high salary and the one who has a low salary.

Madam Speaker! It does not reflect the view that all children are equally worthy. On the contrary, it well aligns with the new "violation" rhetoric that is increasingly heard from Sweden Democrats and Moderates in the Riksdag.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Once again: Everyone in Sweden is equally worthy.

I want to explain what the bill entails. If one is a newcomer in Sweden – this is about newcomers – and receives a higher salary, over 40,000 kronor, one qualifies for the benefits within six months. If one receives a lower salary, approximately 21,000 kronor, one has qualified for all these benefits after twelve months. If one instead chooses not to get any work at all, and thus has no income, one has to wait for five years.

This bill encourages newcomers to work in Sweden. Why do we do that? One only needs to look at the exclusion that the Social Democrats and the Green Party have created in Sweden to understand why we must encourage newcomers to work. Many of them do not do it, and it is not fair. It is not fair that people who receive benefits get the same access to the entire welfare system as people who go to work every day. Why should it be that way?

Of course we must create some justice. Of course we must encourage newly arrived people who are on benefits to get a job.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It pays off very much to work in Sweden. It punishes very harshly to be sick and to not have a job.

We all agree that we want all people to have the chance for self-sufficiency. The difference is what policy we put forward. Sweden has a government that has increased unemployment. Sweden has had 100,000 more unemployed, but the proposals for measures so that these people can get into work are reduced to pamphlets that have no other effect than increased poverty, increased child poverty and an increased risk of children being drawn into crime, so that the gross organized crime gets better conditions to move forward their positions as well as so that children to a greater extent are drawn in and exploited in the sex trade.

The experts do not believe that more people will get jobs thanks to this. It worries me that after such a long debate we still have not received any explanation as to why one ignores all the experts. The Sweden Democrats repeat that those who have low wages will have to wait longer than those who have high wages to receive the same rights, but I still get no explanation as to why we should value children of nursing assistants lower than children of engineers. I still get no answer to the fundamental question.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 May.)

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