Reformed social assistance - benefit caps and increased opportunities for work

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Several years ago, I came into contact with a social worker with many years of experience in, among other things, processing social assistance. She spoke enthusiastically about various assignments and meetings she had had over the years. She had both a broad experience of the profession and a very human attitude toward all the life stories she came into contact with through various assignments around the country.

Of all the situations and meetings she told about, one in particular has stuck in my memory. At that time, she had an assignment as a social services caseworker in a suburb and spent this day answering the phone. Suddenly, a young man called and declared that he was turning 18 on this very day and that it had therefore become time for the social services to establish a separate case for him.

What did he mean then by his own act? Well, now he was of age and would therefore need his own income from social services and not live on his parents' income from social services.

Mr. Speaker! One can laugh at this somewhat comical story, but it is actually sad in every way. It reflects both a dependency on subsidies and how this, in turn, has become a culture where this has been normalized to such an extent that a healthy, young man lives in the delusion that it is the social services that are to provide for him.

What did the aid officer do then? Well, she actually did him the great service of explaining that he must get a job or study in order to be able to support himself in the future. That is how it is in Sweden – or at least, that is how it should be.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a new direction in the benefit policy. For far too long we have seen how people have become stuck in a long-term benefit dependency, how exclusion has been inherited, and how the difference between working and living on benefits has in some cases become non-existent.

I am going to tell you about another meeting. A while ago, I met a couple of women who had come to Sweden six and eight years ago, respectively. Thanks to a third woman who was in the company and who had learned very good Swedish, we were able to have a very interesting conversation about everything between heaven and earth.

Like all mothers, they spoke passionately about their children, about the future, about joy and sorrow and so on. They were two very lovely women. They also had some things in common. They spoke very broken Swedish, they had no education to speak of and they had had three children each since they came to Sweden. They did not like the new requirements for SFI that are now being introduced, and they thought they should get more money from social services.

Mr. Speaker! We can talk about equality, empowerment, and the opportunity to steer one's own life, but as long as we continue to pay for women to stay at home with children without being able to support themselves and without any requirements for education, integration, or employability, it echoes very hollowly. It is not sustainable, dignified, or fair in a society whose welfare is fundamentally built on work, responsibility, and cohesion. Therefore, we are now reforming, among other things, the subsistence support.

Why do we do this then? Do we do it to punish people? No, that is obviously not the case. We do it to restore – or perhaps one should say introduce – the work line and help more people move from benefits to self-sufficiency. The truth is, work is not just about wages. It is about freedom, integration, empowerment, and faith in the future. And it is actually about justice: The person who dutifully goes to work simply should not have to support someone who is capable of working but does not – someone who is capable of working but refuses to make themselves employable.

That is why the government, together with us Sverigedemokrater, is now presenting the proposal for a reformed social assistance with a benefit cap and clearer incentives for work. We are modernizing the national standard so that it better reflects real costs and actual basic consumption. We are introducing a benefit cap for larger households because the systems must be long-term sustainable and fair to those who work and pay tax. We also limit the possibility of routinely paying out higher social assistance than the national standard, while exceptions can still be made when there are special or extraordinary reasons.

Mr. Speaker! This is about balance. It is about the social contract. Society must always be there for those who truly need support, but the benefit systems must never be designed in such a way that they passivize people or make it less profitable to work.

We also see how the welfare systems have for many years been subjected to fraud and abuse. Fake separations and incorrect payments are a constantly growing problem. Therefore, several reforms are now being carried out to strengthen control, improve the exchange of information between authorities, and stop benefit crimes. Every tax krona that goes to fraud is, in fact, a krona that is taken from elderly care, healthcare, or people who actually have a right to support.

Another important change is that financial assistance is more clearly linked to legal residence in Sweden. Those who stay illegally in the country shall not be able to establish long-term subsistence through the money of Swedish taxpayers. Acute help can be provided in certain emergency situations – it is both reasonable and necessary to maintain respect for Swedish legislation and a sustainable welfare system – but we cannot continue to reward illegal residence in Sweden.

Furthermore, we strengthen the requirements for activity and rehabilitation. Those who can work shall work, and those who are ill shall receive support back to work capacity. Therefore, requirements for medical certificates are introduced for longer sick leave and increased opportunities for work-oriented rehabilitation. We no longer accept that people are left in passivity year after year without any way back.

This is a decisive difference in perspective between us and the opposition. Some parties want to scrap the reform entirely, and some say no to central parts. There is often talk of subsidies as the solution, but we speak of responsibility, work, and empowerment. We believe, in fact, in people's ability. We believe that most people can stand on their own feet, support themselves, and create a better future for their children. The task of politics is not to cement dependency but to create paths into work and community.

We must be honest here: Sweden cannot afford a further growing permanent exclusion. As we have seen for a long time, there are large areas where the dependency on benefits is extensive, unemployment is high, and integration has failed. If we do not dare to reform the systems now, the problems will only grow even larger. Therefore, this reform is important. It is a step on the way. It marks a shift from the benefit line to the work line, from passivity to activity, and from lack of requirements to responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a country where those who need help receive support, but also a country where people are expected to do their best to become self-sufficient. That is, among other things, how we build a stronger, safer, and more cohesive society.

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

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Jessica Stegrud!

I have a simple question. I am curious: Do Jessica Stegrud and the Sverigedemokraterna see this proposal – that children with more than two siblings will have significantly worse opportunities in life – as part of the Swedish migration policy, that is to say, that more would come to Sweden because we take this measure?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Gustaf Lantz! I didn't quite understand it, if I'm being honest – would more come to Sweden because we introduce stricter requirements? I didn't understand the question; you have to take it again. You might have said it wrong, but it became confusing.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know, but I will take it again.

I am, therefore, curious about whether the proposal now being put forward – that children with more than two siblings shall have significantly worse opportunities in life – is part of the Sweden Democrats' migration policy. I think, in fact, that the Sweden Democrats have shifted: From having talked about that we should have low migration so that people do not come to Sweden and overburden the welfare systems, that is to say that one wants to protect the welfare against migration, I think that the Sweden Democrats are talking more and more about worsening the welfare in Sweden so that the migration shall be low.

That is why it is important for me to know whether the proposal being put forward – that children who happen to be born into families where they have more than two siblings will have significantly worse chances in life – is part of the Sweden Democrats' migration policy.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the member forgot a "not" and that is why it became so confusing.

The proposal is rather part of an integration policy. First and foremost, I must correct the member on one point: One can have three children up to 21 years of age in the household. The opportunities are therefore not worsened very much – if one calls the grant an opportunity.

Just as in the example I gave in my speech, children are growing up in Sweden today who believe that on their 18th birthday they should call the social services to get their own allowance. They believe that it is the social services that provide for their maintenance. That says a great deal about the system we have had until now. If this is to be seen as a better integration policy, in Sweden people can have as many children as they want and are able to, but they must also be prepared to support their family. It is, like, a fundamental attitude.

If we are now going to talk about integration policy: The second example I mentioned in my speech is that one can live in Sweden for six to eight years and not learn the language, but during that time have three children and think that one should receive even more resources from social services. The Swedish welfare system is not built for that. It is a completely unsustainable situation – which also cements these women in an exclusion that is completely unreasonable. But it seems to be Social Democratic policy: more benefits and more benefits. That is all.

Then it is fascinating that we sometimes hear this about how crime is due to reduced benefits. It is something that is flourishing a lot now. But if that were the case, I wonder why, for example, Poland, which has lower benefits and purchasing power as well as a weaker welfare state than Sweden, has significantly lower figures when it comes to robberies, violent crimes, and murders. Why? Is it not also about culture, norms, and values? Is everything linked to the benefit levels? In that case, we would have the world's lowest crime in this country, and we do not, Mr. Speaker.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to start by thanking the Speaker for the fact that we have received an excellent AI tool in the Riksdag's computers. To those of you who have not played with it, I can say that it is fantastically fun.

I couldn't help but ask the AI robot in the parliamentary computer how to create a good magic trick. I received the following answer: The basis for a good magic trick is not just the trick itself but also how it is presented. The most important thing is to create an illusion that feels credible and fascinating for the audience. A trick must be performed smoothly and without hesitation – otherwise, the audience risks seeing through it. At the same time, misdirection is crucial. It is about directing the audience's attention away from what is actually happening. By talking and gesturing, the magician can make the audience focus on the wrong thing at the right moment.

We have half a million unemployed in Sweden. The number of unemployed has increased by 100,000 since Ulf Kristersson took office as Prime Minister. It is a tragedy for every single individual who is affected, but also for Sweden. It is a monumental waste of resources.

This is the government's great failure. People stay at home when we have queues in healthcare and when we have brilliant opportunities to be at the forefront of the wave of the time in the explosive technological development. Green transition is met with a passive attitude by the government. Where are the labor market trainings? Where are the extra services? Where are the night shifts at the Ministry of Employment? The government is not working for jobs.

Mr. Speaker! According to the government, the solution is to sit still in the boat. Do not fight unemployment – go after the unemployed instead! Worsen the benefits, and people will become so desperate that jobs will sprout like mushrooms from the ground! Hungry wolves hunt best, the right wing has often said. Best of all is when the wolf cubs are hungry, so go after the maintenance support for children who have more than two siblings! Their growling stomachs will make jobs rain down on mothers and fathers with difficulties in life. What does it matter that both the government's own investigator and the Fiscal Policy Council saw this as a way to create more jobs? The main point is that the government presents it smoothly and without the slightest hesitation.

The heading of what we are debating today is "the subsidy ceiling." The Government knows how to use the Government Offices in its tricks. It is not a ceiling we are discussing today. No amount limit is proposed for when social assistance is to be paid out. What is proposed is that children who have more than two siblings will have significantly worse conditions in life than other children. 75 percent of the social assistance disappears for these children. It is a support that is intended for toothpaste, food, shoes, and Alvedon.

Mr. Speaker! The best trick is still that the government has created an illusion that it is possible to stack grants on top of each other. It is not possible to stack the maintenance support on top of grants, no matter how many times Ulf Kristersson says this. The whole idea with the maintenance support is that it is to fill up to a reasonable standard of living when income from work, insurance, child allowance, and housing allowance is not sufficient. Once and for all: The grants are not stacked on the maintenance support, but they are deducted from the maintenance support. Everything else is fake news, tricks, and a damned lie.

All this is done to divert attention from the government's unparalleled failure with unemployment and to polarize and incite. Sweden needs a new leadership.

The proposal to punish children with more than two siblings will increase child poverty. This is good news for organized crime, which recruits ever younger children. It is, however, bad news for exactly everyone else – for those of us who risk being exposed to crime. No taxpayer is spared either from the placement cost for criminal children. Remember that it can cost 13,000 kronor per day to place a child who has entered into crime. If you multiply that by 30 and then multiply by 12, you understand that we are talking about several million every year for a single child.

The government notes weakly that its proposal will increase cheating. Sham separations will become more common, and that is no small matter in my ears. Simply put, it works out so that a couple claims to be divorced. They can then rent out an apartment illegally and extract more rent from the subtenant than they themselves pay. Then they can continue to live together and claim more social assistance for alleged double housing costs. To that is added compensation for higher living costs. These cheaters are unaffected by the government's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! I genuinely dislike such heartless exploitation of our system and of others' tax money. I am a duty-and-rights S. I do not want to coddle organized crime, corrupt companies or fraudsters of any kind.

Imagine if the government had come forward with sharp proposals on how we should tackle these fraudsters! What comes from there, however, is just as unimaginative as when it comes to tackling the criminal HVB homes. The flow of money just continues. It is easier to grease the palms of children who happen to have many siblings than criminal adults who cheat on the social assistance. The government is "tough on kids" but "soft on crime." The Social Democrats want the government to return with sharp proposals on how we should tackle sham separations and other fraud.

Mr. Speaker! We must not have a maintenance support that creates incentives for those who are far from the labor market and cannot support themselves to have more children. A reasonable standard of living shall be exactly a reasonable standard of living. It shall be equal for all children, regardless of whether one is an only child, has few siblings, or has many siblings. All systems must be reviewed and adjusted from time to time, but the government goes far beyond balancing the compensation correctly so that all children receive reasonable upbringing conditions.

But this proposal has never been about reality. It has been about how the government wants to describe reality. The government is building a backdrop for Kristersson's Almedalstal.

Mr. Speaker! I believe more and more people understand that lies have been piled upon one another when the government describes the social assistance. I believe voters see that the extent of the problem has been exaggerated. For several decades, we have seen how the figures for how many receive social assistance have fallen. It is only now, when the government has lost its grip on unemployment, that we see an increase in the number of people receiving social assistance again.

The truth that everyone can see is that we have 100,000 more unemployed than when the Prime Minister changed color from red to blue. This is a figure that the government can never magic away.

This is what the election campaign should be about – for the sake of the unemployed, for the sake of the children and for the sake of Sweden.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Gustaf Lantz for the speech, even though there were very many platitudes in it.

The opposition takes up crime again, and the Social Democrats argue that it is about the size of benefits. If it were that simple, Sweden, with one of the world's most generous welfare systems, should have Europe's lowest crime. But we do not. Let me mention a fine example: Poland has lower benefits, lower purchasing power, and weaker welfare than Sweden, but significantly fewer robberies and violent crimes and lower murder rates. This does not mean that economy lacks importance, and of course, society should help people who are struggling. But the Social Democrats' big mistake is that you believe that benefits always solve the problems, when it is actually about integration, responsibility, norms, and faith in the future.

Much focus is placed on jobs in the presentation and that the current situation is catastrophic. Yes, it is difficult, but one must remember that this has been built up over a very long time. C claims that the problem is that it is expensive to hire, and it is in some cases. But that is not the big problem, rather it is that parts of the population are not employable – this despite that we are the country in the Western world that spends the most money and time on integrating people and retraining people. Sweden also offers tuition-free school, which makes the path to education totally open for everyone. We also invest enormous resources in trying to get people who today are not employable into the labor market. The reasoning therefore does not hold together.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Jessica Stegrud belongs to the new generation of Sweden Democrats who speak more contemptuously about subsidies and society's social safety net. Before the election, SD promised broadly and clearly to defend the welfare system, but that quickly fell away.

I want to assert that resources and how we distribute them in the country matter. That the child allowance has not been increased during the entire parliamentary term and that it is worth less in diapers and food than it ever has been matters. It is not possible to live on norms and values; one actually must have money for rent and food.

With the government's proposal, there are children who have happened to be born into families with many children, and for them, one is now removing 75 percent of the social assistance that is intended to guarantee these children food, clothes, shoes and paracetamol.

It is not only I who assert that these children risk being recruited into gang crime. Stadsmissionen, the Red Cross, and others also say so. But we have less time to be out and meet the Red Cross and people affected by this now that the Sweden Democrats have destroyed the notification system. Now we are locked here in the chamber. We will have to invite them here and try to manage to see them between all the votes we have to be at.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, what shall I say?

The opposition says that we are soft on crime. It is fascinating, because there is probably no government in modern times that has implemented so many changes, increased penalties, and so on, to truly tackle all types of crime so that people can finally be safe in Sweden again. Socialdemokraterna voted against much of this for a long time, but now, a bit like five out of twelve, they are signing off on it. I must say that it is a bit strange.

The committee members raised the issue of sham marriages, which is a growing problem. But it is absolutely no new phenomenon and has existed for decades. What did the Social Democrats do about it during their time in power? Absolutely nothing! Yes, they ensured that even more came to Sweden who took advantage of this opportunity. Now we see, at least, that one must have an approved rental contract before receiving any housing compensation, and that is a step in the right direction. Furthermore, we have a lot of reforms to combat welfare crime.

The Social Democrats like to talk about resources, future building, and green transition. But what do they do? Well, they contribute to the biggest crash – bigger than the Kreuger crash – after having poured billions of the taxpayers' money into a project that didn't even produce anything. All these billions could instead have been spent on an industrial policy that actually would have given jobs and innovation in the end and not just disappeared to the state capitalists that the Social Democrats are so incredibly fond of.

Again: The Member of Parliament says that the subsidy levels determine the level of crime in our country. If that were the case, Sweden would be the world's safest country. But it is not. That is also why the Social Democrats should never come to power again, because the Social Democrats have not understood the cause and connection here.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am very pleased that requirements for permits to sublet are being introduced. This was something that my party colleague Boel Godner pursued legally in Södertälje, and I have myself submitted a motion regarding it in the Riksdag. It is a welcome announcement from the government that they have listened to the Social Democrats on this point.

Can Jessica Stegrud really be satisfied with how the government has handled the organized crime's primary recruitment pool for murder missions, grenade throwing, and extortion? It is about the HVB homes that are allowed to be operated by criminals. In this way, organized crime is given a buffet of vulnerable youths that it can pick from to have missions carried out.

Throughout the entire parliamentary term, we Social Democrats have demanded that these HVB homes be closed and that the public sector should regain control. But apparently, that is not possible. And we are also not receiving any table of contents regarding the Sweden Democrats' policy in this cooperation. Obviously, someone in the governing group is holding back because the ties to the private market are too strong. It is quite painful to see that much of the crime we see in Sweden is driven by legal entities and criminals who own companies.

This tap must be tightened, and I hope that it happens after the election. We Social Democrats have long been clear that this must be done.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! We now continue the debate on the Moderates' and the government's subsidy reform and move on to the third part.

We Moderates stand on the side of hard-working people. The one who sets the alarm every morning and goes to work should feel that it pays off. The one who exerts themselves and studies to one day get a job should also feel that it pays off. It is fair that the one who works gets to keep more money in their wallet than the one who can work but lives on benefits.

That is why we are debating today one of the reforms to break exclusion in Sweden, namely what we call the benefit ceiling. It is part of the government's broader benefit reform, together with qualification for social insurance for newcomers and activity requirements for those who receive social assistance. These are reforms that are connected and which ultimately are about restoring the work principle in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! A society does not hold together if the difference between working and living on benefits becomes too small. A country does not function if people, year after year, get stuck in passivity, benefit dependency, and exclusion without clear requirements, expectations, or paths forward.

During the Socialdemokraternas eight years in power, exclusion grew. We saw the consequences of an irresponsible migration policy combined with a lack of requirements in integration policy. The number of people who became stuck in long-term benefit dependency increased. And even though the proportion of households with social assistance decreased, the time on benefits became longer for those who had indeed become stuck. Exclusion became deeper.

Mr. Speaker! Exclusion is never just statistics. It is about children growing up in areas where far too few adults go to work. It is about women who become economically dependent and never get the opportunity for self-sufficiency. It is about people who, year after year, lose faith in their own future.

Ultimately, it is about the trust in our society. The person who works hard, gets up early, leaves children at preschool and takes the bus to work must be able to feel that work pays off. It is a fundamental question of justice. The person who works should always have more left in their wallet than the person who can work but does not.

Today, there are situations where households living entirely on benefits can receive incomes that are very close to, or in some specific cases higher than, what a household with low work incomes has left after tax and other costs. This is not reasonable, and it risks weakening the incentives to work. Therefore, we are now introducing a benefit ceiling. This means that the social assistance for larger households is limited, in order to strengthen the incentives to work and self-sufficiency.

What we are formally doing is reforming how the national standard is calculated. When the national standard was introduced, the intention was that the government should annually calculate the levels based on the Swedish Consumer Agency's consumption surveys, but the development over time has meant that the levels have changed differently for different households.

The new model means that the government, just as before, makes a careful assessment of reasonable costs for households and produces a reference value for the annual calculation of the national standard (riksnormen). Thereafter, the national standard shall be developed based on the price developments in society. The purpose is to achieve a more just and long-term sustainable development of the social assistance while simultaneously strengthening the incentives for work. The purpose is not to punish people, but for Sweden to once again become a country where the path to self-sufficiency is clear and where policy strengthens the incentives for work.

Mr. Speaker! The opposition tries to describe this as a cold reform, but what is truly cold is to accept that people remain in exclusion year after year. What is truly harsh is to see generations of children who grow up without seeing their parents go to work and who inherit their parents' exclusion. What is truly irresponsible is to let the benefit system cement segregation and passivity.

The Moderates do not accept this. We believe in people's ability. We believe that more people can work, support themselves and build a better future if society sets requirements, offers support and makes work more profitable. That is why the benefit ceiling is combined with activity requirements.

Those who have the capacity to work shall be met with clear expectations and support to get closer to the labor market, through language instruction, internships, education, or socially useful activities. No one shall be left alone in passivity.

Mr. Speaker! The opposition also claims that the reform risks increasing crime. But if high benefits were the solution to crime, how then could gang violence explode during the Social Democrats' time in power? Between 2012 and 2022, the fatal shootings in Sweden tripled.

During this government's time, lethal violence has more than halved and shootings have decreased significantly. The truth is that crime is not fought by people getting stuck in benefit dependency. Crime is fought through work, language, education and clear requirements as well as a good crime policy where criminals are imprisoned so that the hardworking dare to be out.

Mr. Speaker! Several other Nordic countries already have reforms that strengthen the work line through various forms of benefit ceilings and requirement systems. Experiences from Denmark show that strengthened economic incentives can contribute to faster entry into the labor market and higher employment. At the same time, the government is clear that economic incentives alone cannot solve exclusion. Therefore, the benefit ceiling is combined with activity requirements, education, language initiatives, and support so that more people can get into work.

The difference between the government's policy and the opposition's is that we both set requirements and offer paths into work. For a long time, Sweden moved in the opposite direction. We see the consequences today in the growing exclusion of hundreds of thousands of people who stand far from the labor market. It is not sustainable. It is not fair to either those who work and finance the welfare or those who get stuck in exclusion.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates refuse to accept that people are hidden and forgotten in the benefit systems. We refuse to accept that exclusion is inherited. And we refuse to accept a Sweden where work does not pay off. The benefit ceiling is therefore not just an economic reform, but it is a values reform and a reform for the work principle, for integration, for cohesion, for justice, and for a Sweden where more people get the opportunity to stand on their own feet.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the speech, Caroline Högström!

I am curious to hear the member elaborate on the government's and the Moderaternas labor market policy. It has not been successful so far: There are 100,000 more unemployed now than there were when we replaced a red prime minister with a blue one. It must be characterized as a major failure. Is the answer to the high unemployment, where half a million people go without work, to worsen things for children and remove 75 percent of the maintenance support from the fourth child onwards in a larger family?

I would have liked to see an offensive labor market policy where people receive education and internships and where there is an opportunity to develop for the future needs of the labor market. I have colleagues who sit in the Committee on Employment who say that nothing is coming. It is very soft and lazy to sit in the Committee on Employment here in the Riksdag because the government has no labor market policy.

I wonder therefore: Is Caroline Högström as satisfied as she sounds here today with the unemployment in Sweden? Is she satisfied that 100,000 more are unemployed now compared to when the government took over?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Lantz for the opportunity to speak about this government's labor market policy!

I still want to remind the members and the House of where we came from when we took over government power in 2022. It was skyrocketing inflation. Sweden became both poorer and more dangerous. The companies were squeezed between high inflation and a recession.

Now we have taken the fight against inflation and brought it down and can begin the work of tackling the recession. And what is interesting is that over the last nine months we have seen that unemployment is decreasing. The government's policy is making a difference, because it is a policy that does not start from the premise that if we just increase the benefits and compensations, it will be solved. It is a policy that puts its finger on something important.

It is about a restored work line and reinforced drivers for work. But it is also about a business-friendly policy that allows the companies, which are the ones that seriously hire and carry our welfare, to grow and expand. That is what this government is doing and has done, and we can actually see the effects of it.

One eventually also becomes answerable from the Social Democrats' side. What is your answer to this? You say that nothing is happening at the same time as you criticize our cash register reform, which is not a small issue. At some point, the opposition has to decide – either we do things, or we do not do things.

My assessment is that this government has an important policy forward for Sweden to become both wealthier and safer, and I think we are already beginning to see the effects of that.

Then all politics are connected. Today we are debating the subsidy reform, which of course is connected to the work to reduce and counteract unemployment. Everything is connected. Our policy is a whole. But I know that it might not always be so for the Social Democrats.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that for many voters, the Social Democrats are felt as a party that stands for exactly the whole.

I am somewhat impressed by the Trump-like self-confidence that wants to attribute all the importance to the government for the fact that inflation has now gone down. It was the war in Ukraine – which I do not believe anyone claims Magdalena Andersson is behind – that caused prices to spiral, and we still have to deal with those levels. Even though the inflation rate is going down, we still have the enormously much higher prices, which mean that real wage increases have been eaten up decades back in time.

What has been the government's response to this? Besides worsening the housing allowance, you are now worsening the supply support, aimed at those children who happened to be born into large families. It is as if you think that if you just make it difficult enough for people, the jobs will automatically appear.

Now the member asked what the Social Democrats' answer is. I say: Be offensive! Invest in labor market policy measures! Ensure that people can educate themselves! Ensure that they get the chance through an internship or a vocational training!

A Minister for Employment who is willing to work hard so that we get more jobs in this country would have been much more fortunate. Now we have the third highest unemployment in Europe. We have half a million unemployed. We have 100,000 more unemployed than when the government took office.

Now they are putting everything on one card at the eleventh hour before the election. Voters are expected to buy that just because we go on children who happen to be born into families with many siblings, their parents, often with difficult problems, will automatically get jobs. I do not believe that.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that having this self-confidence when belonging to a party in a governing position is something unfamiliar for the Social Democrats. But for the Moderates, it is obvious, because we actually get through what we go to the election for. When we form a government with our coalition partners, we have a clear agenda to work through, and that is what we have also done. I understand that it is unfamiliar for the Social Democrats.

I would like to conclude by listing a few more things that we have done to counter unemployment and start getting Sweden on the right course.

We have reformed the unemployment insurance fund. We have focused on educational initiatives that lead to jobs. Vocational college education is a typical such example. In our budgets, we have allocated money to the municipalities for youth jobs. We have made changes to the subsidy system, which we are debating today. We have strengthened the matching. We have issued sharp mandates to Arbetsförmedlingen.

We also have this important detail that I notice the Social Democrats often forget: the companies, the real engine, those who are actually going to hire and often hire our young people. There, we have done several different things to simplify, strengthen the opportunities, and reduce the cost pressure.

I can state that we are absolutely not satisfied, because we are not finished. It takes time to correct many of the mistakes we have seen in recent years. It takes time to reverse the development. But we can actually see that it is slowly starting to brighten on the horizon, and that is thanks to moderate politics together with our coalition partners.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I will take some time to address some of the member's claims about people living on social assistance, but I will do that in my speech.

I want to add that the new calculation basis that the government is implementing is the one that they have illegally done previously and for which we reported six governments for having done. It can be simplified defined as that one does not calculate what it actually costs but on what it generally can cost. It is a quite large difference, just as an addition.

But my question to the member is this: What will happen to the children whose parents one fails to pick up through the ambitions that the government says it has, that is to say, those children whose parents will fall through this entire system and thus live far below what society has set as a reasonable standard of living?

We know that civil society is extremely overburdened. Today, there are grocery stores in Sweden that sell cheaper food so that pensioners can afford it. Now comes a reform that is tricky to understand, where children are punished. But not even once have I heard the government answer this question: What will happen to the children who fall through the cracks of this entire system and thus will be subjected to an extremely difficult situation?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Maj Karlsson, for the question!

I think this puts our political differences a bit on the line. For me and for the Moderaterna, there is not just one path. That is what it ultimately boils down to: One carries a rhetoric where the only alternative is subsidies and where one does not see people's abilities. That is not what we do. We do not buy that worldview, because we have seen the alternative. We have seen people who actually rise up, get themselves out of exclusion and make these class journeys.

I return to the article in Sundsvalls Tidning, where a mother of five described her journey. What was it she said? Yes, that more people must wake up. It may be time for even Vänsterpartiet to wake up.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for, well, the contribution. There was no answer there.

It is very true that we differ extremely much when it comes to the view on people and, above all, on children.

It is in no way the case that people are to be left alone. There is nothing in our policy that supports that. This is a slogan you use to say that we in some way would want people to live on benefits. But what we want, and it is something I am so proud of, is that people should have a bearable life. We have had a Poor Sweden. We never want to go back to that.

I am not getting an answer to my question, regarding Fattigsverige. What will happen to the children who will fall through this system?

One thing one should know, and I think it is somewhat strange about this reform: The most common recipients are actually single men, but those they are targeting are families with children. It is strange to me.

I ask the question once more: What is to happen to those who will fall through this entire system in a way that has not been seen in Sweden for a very, very long time? Where will they go? How will their rights be met?

And I actually want to take the opportunity to say one thing: This is not about crime. That is not the ultimate question here. It is dignity. It is that children should not grow up in poverty in a wealthy country like Sweden. I just want to add that.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the supplementary question!

I want to say again that our benefit reform must be seen as a whole together with the activity requirement and the qualification for social insurance. The member is completely right that single men are the largest proportion, which makes it even clearer why the activity requirement is so important together with the other part of the reform.

It is not entirely uncommon that we see people with different forms of disabilities or an NPF diagnosis who have fallen through the cracks of the system and ended up on social assistance, outside, alone, often living with their parents. They are people that we have no information on, but who pop up after a while, and then we implement interventions.

This reform helps to ensure that it does not happen. From day one, the municipalities must have better oversight so that this does not happen and we do not get these stories about people who live in the shadows of society year in and year out.

In conclusion: It is very clear in the bill that the social committees can also continue to decide on higher levels than the national standard when there are exceptional reasons, for example in the case of illness or disability. It can also be about vulnerability to violence. There is therefore a safety valve for the social committees.

What you are opposing is to even set these requirements at all and to even put in efforts. You are saying no to our reforms.

I mean that there is a safety valve in the bill to specifically address this and ensure that no one falls through the cracks.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

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

I got stuck on one thing that the member raised, namely this issue of combating exclusion. I am starting to get a few years old anyway, and I remember when the Moderaterna at the 2006 election very successfully managed to repackage themselves from a party that wanted to lower taxes for the very richest to a new workers' party – essentially the same policy but in a slightly different guise.

The great mantra when the Reinfeldt government in 2006 was to combat social exclusion was: It shall pay to work. The interesting thing was that when that government went to a re-election in 2010, social exclusion was never mentioned. It had disappeared. It was no longer interesting.

Now, 20 years later, I have almost lost count of the job tax credits. Are we on the seventh, eighth, or ninth? Several hundred billion have gone to the mantra that it should pay to work. Since that apparently is not enough, we are now also to ensure that we reduce the social assistance.

Despite this, Sweden differs from other European countries. We have a poorer labor development. We have a higher unemployment. There is something that is not right.

Can the members see that there is a problem in this reasoning?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Seye Larsen for the question.

I also remember the 2006 election. Above all, I remember the 2010 election. I remember the posters that clearly spoke about how many we had actually taken from exclusion into society. We had the mantra, and we still have it today, that we must not hide and forget people in either the social security system or our benefit systems. It is something we are still working on.

It is completely correct that we now have nine or perhaps even more employment tax credits. It is a bit funny to note that one says no to them when we introduce them but does not remove them when one has the chance in a government position – perhaps because this policy is right and proper. It must pay to work.

I do, however, agree with the member regarding the deeply problematic fact that we do not have the corporate development we perhaps should have. There is a somewhat humorous song from the Moderate Youth League about starting a new ABB. We perhaps have not quite seen this new ABB yet.

But it is also about the fact that we in Sweden for a fairly long time have had a completely unreasonable amount of red tape. We also sometimes have a tax burden without equal. What we have done this mandate period is to reduce this so that we now actually have the lowest tax burden since 1975. So things are happening, and we also hope to be able to see the effects of this.

I believe that we need to work on several different fronts. We need to be at the top of the growth league. We have good conditions and see good examples, but we must do more. This government is convinced that this work must continue.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Exactly, but the fundamental question was about this, that it should pay to work. As Reinfeldt explained the job tax deduction: I can get a teenager to do something for 100 kronor that they otherwise would not do. The mentality is that if it simply pays to work, unemployment will go down.

Perhaps there is something to the idea that if some do not want to work, it is because they are lying in a hammock. But I wonder: One has had the mantra that it should pay to work. You increase the incomes for those who work, and everyone who does not have a job, you keep down. Over time, you decrease and decrease sickness benefits, social assistance, and all such things – because that is what you have done. It has, on the whole, not kept up.

But even though this gap is larger than it has ever been during the 2000s, unemployment is still higher. Something is not right in this theory, and I wonder if the member can see that.

One thing that has also happened is that society has become significantly more unequal. In many municipalities in the south where we have had bourgeois rule, we have also seen increased segregation.

There are alternatives that can be worked with. Here I want to highlight my beloved Umeå, because it is the only large city and municipality without marginalized areas. We have worked very clearly. We have higher taxes, but we have also worked very actively with both labor market initiatives and mixed housing forms. We have ensured a strong municipal welfare and school, and we do not have this social exclusion. We have record-low unemployment and great trust. There are, therefore, other ways to go.

My question remains: Does the member not see that there is a problem in this logic? Why is one not investing in labor market measures, education, and a lot of other things that could help people back into work?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for this exchange of remarks!

If we first look at youth unemployment and the Swedish figures for this, we can see that these figures also include young people who are studying. The question then becomes how good they are to use as a reference point linked to the idea that it should always pay to work. I believe that connection is shaky. I simply do not buy the reasoning that the member of Parliament is putting forward – perhaps because we have slightly different views on society.

I also want to return to the fact that this is constantly presented as the only thing we do. I want to mean that we actually also do a lot of work linked to, for example, labor market initiatives. As someone who works a lot within the social insurance area, I can see that the coordination unions make important efforts for people who are far from the labor market. I would say that one must work with a broad palette to get people into work.

If we look at all the people who are stuck in exclusion, we can probably see just as many different stories about how and why one ended up there. But there is a group that repeatedly comes with the same story: When one first came to Sweden, one did not move forward but got stuck from day one in the benefit system. One never got out of there. Year in and year out, one was stuck in exclusion.

I return to the woman in Sundsvall who had made that journey and said that more must wake up. Before the 2022 election, we could read about a mother of six who had also made this journey and who also stated: I wish that someone had shaken me up a bit and helped me all the way – not left me in the lack of requirements, not left me in the exclusion.

It is this that this collective subsidy reform aims to tackle.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! This government is about to implement one of the greatest deteriorations for economically vulnerable children in over 20 years. In fact, few governments in modern times have pursued a policy that risks hitting children's economic security as hard as this one. The Moderates, the Liberals, the Christian Democrats, and the Sweden Democrats are now taking yet another step in the dismantling of children's rights and the ultimate safety net. Children risk not even being guaranteed the minimum economic standard that society previously considered absolutely necessary.

The Reinfeldt government already began to significantly reduce the subsistence support in 2006. According to us and the KU, this went against the law's intent that people should be able to live at a reasonable level. Our calculations show that a single person has received approximately 2,000 kronor less and a family with children approximately 6,000 kronor less per month to live on than what they are actually entitled to. This cut has been carried out covertly by several governments over a long period.

Now the government takes the next step in the dismantling through a strong, exaggerated and misleading image of people living on social assistance. The government wants to make people believe that those who need support lack drive or do not want to work and that harder economic pressure would therefore be the solution. At the same time, the picture is painted that people live well on benefits at the expense of hard-working people. The government speaks of the benefit systems having become too generous, that people must be pressured harder to be motivated to work and that it should pay to take a job.

Reality looks completely different. Let us instead look at how it actually looks!

2.5 percent of Sweden's population live on social assistance. It is historically few. The most common recipient is a single person between 30 and 39 years old. The largest group is single men without children, followed by single parents with children. The reasons why people seek social assistance are not laziness or a lack of will to work. They seek help due to unemployment, illness or mental ill-health, or because they have fallen out of our insurance systems, often as a direct consequence of political decisions that have dismantled our safety nets.

In summary, we can state that the most common recipient of social assistance is a single person who, for concrete reasons, is without work. This group is followed by single women with children. These women are often in similar situations. Not infrequently, they are affected by violence or exhaustion and are forced to bear the entire responsibility for their children.

Living on social assistance is not living in abundance. It is by law to live on the subsistence minimum. The national standard shall cover food, clothing, hygiene, telephone, leisure, and other absolutely necessary expenses. In addition, one can receive help with reasonable costs for, for example, housing and electricity. It is therefore exactly about what a person needs to be able to live, not a crown more. However we turn this statutory amount, it offers no life in luxury.

When the government speaks of households that can receive up to 46,000 kronor per month, it is primarily a mathematical example. If a family with very many children lives in a large residence and receives all the grants that the law allows, it can theoretically be possible. In the government's own calculations, they also calculate as if different grants are stacked on top of each other, even though all incomes are deducted crown for crown against the maintenance support. One can receive housing allowance and child allowance, but these are deducted from the norm that has been granted.

No one can even say with certainty how many families according to these examples actually exist, because the number is so small that it risks becoming a violation of privacy to report them. What we do know, however, is that this is not common. Nevertheless, it is with these extreme examples that the government tries to legitimize a bill that in practice will primarily affect children financially. With aggressive rhetoric, the government has pitted people against each other. Working people are told that others live well on benefits, even though the reality for people with social assistance often involves stress, anxiety, and a struggle to make ends meet.

Not one word does the government say about the fact that it has never been more profitable to move from social assistance to work, since the support has been heavily eroded over a long period. Not one word is said about the fact that it is harder to grant support today or about how difficult it is to get work when unemployment is high and people are far away from the labor market. Not one word is said about how their own policy creates such cracks in the safety nets that people fall through and eventually end up with social services. Nor does one want to say an honest word about which people one is actually talking about or what reality they live in. But that is what I shall do here today.

Mr. Speaker! I am, in fact, one of those who has lived on social assistance. When we had our first child, we were too young to receive parental leave benefits. We had no financial resources around us and were therefore helped by society's ultimate support. I am enormously grateful to have grown up in a country where that help exists, but I can also say that it was not a bed of roses. It was a very tough time, so stressful that, quite honestly, it is still a bit difficult to talk about.

I am one of those who have sat month after month in the municipality's waiting room with bank statements and receipts in hand, ready to account for every aspect of my finances. I have had to explain, defend, and justify every small expense. I have left meetings with worry that something would be wrong and that the income would be withdrawn. I have many times turned over every krona to make the finances balance. I have refrained from going to the dentist or from buying myself a pair of proper shoes. I have stood in the food queue at the local store with a rising pulse and realized that the money still was not enough. With immense shame, I have had to put items back in front of my neighbors in the queue and apologize for simply not having the means. That terrible feeling, I can admit, remains even today, almost 30 years later, despite education, work, and a good income.

I can therefore say with all certainty that social assistance does not provide a life of luxury. It is a support for survival. I can thank my lucky star that this happened before the social assistance began to be eroded.

In this life, there was no lack of drive. I was at home with a newborn child. When we then became eligible and gained access to the parental insurance, our situation changed drastically. What provided motivation and the opportunity to build a life was not economic pressure or poverty, but security, opportunities, and a society that gave us the chance to pull ourselves up.

Today I stand here as a member of the Swedish Riksdag with an academic education and a professional life I am proud of. I can say with full certainty that it was not poverty that brought me here, but the opportunity society gave me to leave it.

Mr. Speaker! Despite my own experiences, I do not base my arguments on emotions but on facts, statistics, research, and professional assessments. Poverty does not create drive. Poverty creates vulnerability, stress, and in many cases, lifelong consequences for children.

In the waiting rooms I sat in 30 years ago, I saw what this government refuses to see: a human suffering that few would say has been a free choice. Today, it is people in the same predicament that I meet when I, as a politician, visit the country's social services and all those organizations and congregations that are forced to be at hand when society is not enough. It is them the government wants to punish.

But the most remarkable thing about the government's proposal is perhaps who will actually be affected. Although the largest group receiving maintenance support consists of single men without children, it is not for them that the government chooses to set the hardest ceiling, but instead for families with children. The more children a family has, the harsher the consequences become. This means that the ceiling the government introduces will, in practice, be a reform to create child poverty. It will be a paradigm shift that ensures that mothers and children are no longer guaranteed a minimum economic standard.

But the government does not stop there. Today, municipalities can in some cases strengthen support for families with children, for example before the Christmas break or summer break. The government now wants to completely remove that possibility. It is about small but important things in children's lives: opportunities for something extra at Christmas, for a summer break with a bit of extra flair, or to feel like all other children. The little glimmer of light will now be extinguished outright by the government. A government that claims to stand up for children's rights can never act this way.

Mr. Speaker! The criticism against the entire government's reform is massive. Referral bodies, researchers, and organizations warn of increased social problems and greater vulnerability for children. Experiences from other countries also show that severely worsened conditions for families with children can have serious consequences for the entire society. When the ultimate safety net is weakened, people risk falling terribly hard. This causes not only enormous suffering for those affected but an insecurity for us all. People in social vulnerability may not be politics' strongest voting group, but they are citizens with the same human value and the same right to security as everyone else.

We who sit in this chamber are elected to defend people's rights and in particular children's. This also applies to people who do not have strong voices or great resources.

This reform risks deepening child poverty, increasing vulnerability, and creating greater divides in our society. It will have very serious consequences for the children who are affected.

For these, each one of us will bear responsibility. Therefore, I urge the members of the Riksdag to vote no to the reform. I move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! After a few hours of refreshing debate in the chamber, we have now reached the third part of the subsidy reform that the Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, are implementing.

I want to begin the debate by moving for approval of the committee's majority decision. This also implies a rejection of the motions made in the report regarding contribution ceilings and increased opportunities for work.

The bill we are now debating is about providing support to break a dependency on benefits and increasing incentives to work, and it is closely linked to the change that we have debated in other matters during the day and also last week.

It is part of the extensive subsidy reform that the Christian Democrats, together with other parties, are now implementing to strengthen the work line and address the large-scale exclusion in society.

The changes mean that a grant ceiling is introduced, an activity requirement regarding the economic maintenance support, and a qualification for certain social insurance benefits.

All this is done so that it pays more to go to work than to live on benefits, and so that more children will see their parents go to work every morning.

It is right and fair. There are many who struggle and who set the alarm and wake up every morning during a work week. They work and struggle, seek employment and do right by themselves. They too should feel that their effort pays off.

During the Socialdemokraternas years in power with the support of the often-clamoring supporting parties, Sweden received over 300,000 asylum applications, and also asylum seekers to that extent. This occurred without a plan for how those who came to our country would become a part of our society.

It was an irresponsible migration policy, in combination with a lack of requirements in integration policy, that resulted in us now having extensive social exclusion. It was allowed to grow in Sweden.

The left's answer to many questions is increased subsidies. The Christian Democrats' and the rest of the government base's answer is that people shall get into work.

It should pay to move from benefits to work. Society sets clear requirements and expects you to start supporting yourself and your family as quickly as possible.

Far too many people have become stuck in a long-term dependency on benefits with a weak connection to the labor market. Unemployment among foreign-born individuals is almost three times as high as among domestic-born individuals.

Mr. Speaker! In order for it to be more profitable to work than to live on benefits, the government will introduce a benefit ceiling. The economic assistance, the social assistance, is intended to be the ultimate safety net when people, for various reasons, cannot support themselves.

It should not be a long-term way to have one's daily livelihood. But for many families with many children, it does not pay off enough to start working instead of living on benefits.

The contribution ceiling implies a modernization and tightening of the national standard, a limitation of the maintenance support for larger households, and that the national standard constitutes a ceiling for how much financial assistance the municipalities may grant for this part of the assistance.

The contribution ceiling will collectively result in a reduction in the level of the maintenance support for most household types, and the reduction is particularly large for the large households.

It needs to pay more to move from benefits to work and self-sufficiency. Everyone who can work shall work according to their ability. We are therefore implementing a benefit reform so that more children will see their parents go to work and get the opportunity for a class journey instead of inheriting the exclusion that their parents are in.

Mr. Speaker! When the Tidös agreement ensures changes that both safeguard all citizens' resources and also involve measures that increase incentives for both work and participation, we can observe that it is polarizing on the opposition side.

C supports the proposal in many parts, but there are reservations from their side. The Social Democrats reserve themselves against large parts of the proposal, but despite that, cannot reach a compromise with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. They say, true to their habit, no to proposals in this area from the government's side. We can therefore state that the opposition is totally split.

It is symptomatic of the cooperation that claims to constitute the basis for a future red-green government. They do not have a unified line, and for large parts, they want to promote a subsidy model instead of the work principle.

Mr. Speaker! I want to repeat my message. There is a better alternative in the autumn election that, in this mandate period, has seen to the implementation of promised and necessary changes for our country.

It is the Christian Democrats who, together with the other Tidö parties, have achieved a different direction for politics in Sweden. We are presenting, as said, a comprehensive subsidy reform to strengthen the work line. We are now placing it on the floor of the Riksdag for a decision. It is about addressing the great exclusion in society.

The subsidy reform clarifies the individual's responsibility to do what he or she can to approach the labor market. Do your duty, demand your right, if one wants to summarize it in a few short words.

A functioning integration requires an activity requirement. If you can work, you should participate in activities that bring you closer to employment and self-sufficiency.

The left's answer is increased benefits. Our answer is that people shall get into work. It must pay to move from benefits to work. Society sets clear and relevant demands and actually expects that you start supporting yourself and your family as soon as possible.

Believing in the individual's ability with relevant requirements that create motivation to change their situation is one of the steps toward building an even stronger Sweden.

As I have previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for decisions and rejection of the motions.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ingemar Kihlström, for a speech that is good in many respects!

I really like that part about rights and duty. I think that is important. I like what the member said about the activity requirement. It is very welcome.

The government members are boasting a bit again about how united they are on the government side. You have a government cooperation. We don't really see the minutes from the negotiations that take place behind closed doors at the Government Offices. I am a bit curious about the Christian Democrats' position in this.

I come from a city where it is not always easy to be a social democrat when there are so many organized Christian Democrats. In 2006, we were standing and rolling up the banners at Vaksala torg on May 1st. Suddenly, a train larger than ours with Christian Democrats arrives. The Member of Parliament might have been there. They played Internationalen, and they played Här kommer Pippi Långstrump, with a brass band at least as good.

I still feel that there is a hope that the Christian Democrats safeguard children's rights. It is you who are that voice in the government cooperation.

Now there is a proposal that does not only follow the logic that hungry wolves hunt best, but that hungry wolves with hungry children hunt for new jobs best, even if a person is poorly equipped to take a job.

What do the Christian Democrats actually think about such an approach to children and families?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker and Member Lantz! Unfortunately, I was not part of this first May Day march, even though I might have wanted to be. I live a bit further away, so we organized something on our own front that time.

I think it is pleasing that Gustaf Lantz in many ways shares the view on what I consider important – duty and right. It is, in some way, about this. Society shall provide support, and the individual has the opportunity to demand support from society when it is needed. It is, therefore, about the maintenance support.

It is also pleasing that Gustaf Lantz sees the value of the family – the important building block that takes care of the development of a small individual into a human being, into a part of our society, and conveys norms, values, and direction. We unfortunately know that not all families function in this excellent way, and in those cases, society needs to step in and provide support. But the family is the core.

Member of Parliament Lantz asks for my image and my party's image of the negotiations. I can state that an important part of a child's development is to see their parents go to work, participate in society, and participate in the language of the country we live in.

It is completely correct that we are reducing the economic margin for the large families to provide this incentive and so that these children do not get stuck in the benefit dependency that the parents have. For us, it is important to provide good role models for all children and for the children who are in our society, and I think that this benefit reform – all its three parts – does this in a good way.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! A good test to see if one's train of thought holds up is, for me, to talk with children.

I imagine Ingemar Kihlström entering a family sitting at the kitchen table, calculating how the finances will work out now that the rules are soon to change. The parents are allowed to leave the room, and Ingemar Kihlström is to explain how good it is for the family that pressure is now being put on the parents. It will, of course, result in broken shoes, and it will be difficult to participate in leisure activities and in association life, but one does it for a greater cause.

I believe that this is a very difficult discussion to have, and I believe that there are other ways to break the exclusion than to remove 75 percent of the maintenance support for child number four and upwards.

One way is to conduct an active labor market policy that puts people to work. In that palette, one can include extra services, internships, vocational training and folk high schools – it is really only imagination that sets limits.

Here, the activity requirement is a very welcome contribution. But I must still say that I am surprised that the Christian Democrats have not only entered the discussion but also seem to emphasize that they are proud that they are now giving children worse – significantly worse – conditions in life on the sole basis that they happen to have many siblings.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker and Member! We can state that during this government's mandate period, many changes have occurred that concern all families.

Through the VAT reduction, it has been significantly cheaper to go and buy food for some time now. It is also cheaper to fuel the car, if one has a car. The family in the example might not have it. There is also a measure called the leisure card. The leisure card gives all children a simplified opportunity for leisure activities, and precisely those children that Member Lantz speaks about have an expanded opportunity within the scope of the leisure card.

One must be clear in saying that the 75 percent that is removed is a somewhat constructed calculation, which in any case I cannot make sense of. The reduction that occurs in the level of the maintenance support as a result of the reform would for a family with five children mean somewhere just under a 20 percent reduction, thus not 75 percent. That is what it becomes when one looks at the figures.

The basic economic support is there to ensure that the safety net remains intact. But I still maintain that a continuous exclusion and a continuous building on benefits for a family is not promoting children's integration and development in our society.

Moving from benefits to work is a clear message from this government. I hear what Gustaf Lantz says, and I see that with the intended partners it can be difficult to go that way. I still believe that the path we are now choosing is the best path for all families, even for the vulnerable.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker and members! When there was talk of duty, right, and such, I felt that I needed to clarify some question marks in the debate.

First and foremost, it is actually you who are raising benefits. This constant talk about us engaging in some kind of benefit-seeking does not hold up; instead, what we are doing is securing security. That is what has been a success story for Sweden – that we invest in and invest in jobs and that we ensure there is a security system when one, for one reason or another, falls out of this. That is the difference between us and you.

We do not say no to massive reforms, which we have been waiting for for several years, specifically four years. Now I hear here that they are to come. It would have been very nice if we had waited until all these reforms are set in motion. Then we can, as said, start talking about what we should take as the next step, so that no one gets stuck in a long-term subsidy dependency. There is no talk about that matter.

What we say no to is punishing children. We in Vänsterpartiet want to invest in children; we do not want to punish children. We are not saying no to reforms, but to punishment. One only has to look at our policy. Vänsterpartiet is a workers' party, and that says it all! That is our foundation.

I want to ask a question that I did not receive an answer to earlier. What happens to those who fall out of your system? Where are these children supposed to go? We know that the church, for example, has already alerted that the burden on civil society is starting to become too heavy. There will be families who will fall very hard through your very strange reform. What is going to happen to them? I would very much like to have an answer to that.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Left Party for a number of years was a direct or indirect support to the government that has created the situation we have just now.

Sweden had a large asylum reception, and we have had a system where benefits have not entailed any requirements. It sounds great that Vänsterpartiet has now woken up from its Sleeping Beauty sleep and wants to see further requirements – motivating and relevant requirements: If you receive the society's support and receive help from the municipality, you must also be active yourself!

Let me turn the question around. Where in the proposal does it say that we are to remove all support for the children? We are reducing the benefit support, especially for those who have many children. But it says nowhere that they receive zero kronor.

The government has done things, as I mentioned in the previous exchange. We have ensured that the leisure card absolutely helps precisely those children who are furthest from leisure activities. We have ensured that the food VAT has been lowered. We have ensured that families get more in their wallets regardless of what salary one has, and we ensure that we focus on getting people into work.

We can observe that Vänsterpartiet for eight years was part of the support that existed for the government at that time. We can also observe that the exclusion was still great. Where were the proposals then? Nowhere. Now this government ensures that Sweden's economy is in balance and that relevant demands are made. It promotes the development of children and families.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that I will finally be able to tell the member what was written in a newspaper headline when we were involved in the negotiations. I cannot quote it exactly correctly, but it said approximately something like this: With the red-green budget, the single mother gets more than the white, rich man.

It was the first time in x years, so I think it went quite well. I just wanted to interject that. Then I don't understand the member, because it is just a matter of reading the referral bodies' responses: that families with children will be hit very hard by this.

Speaking of duty and doing the right thing, I want to return to the fact that you have calculated the maintenance support incorrectly since 2006. If we were to first and foremost pay back what these people are entitled to, we would come a little bit of the way. The fact is, however, that this, whether it is 20 percent or 75 percent, will result in a sharp deterioration of the economic situation for children who already live in vulnerability.

I believe I have asked the question four times now about what will happen to the children who will fall through this system. I just want a simple answer.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that we are talking past each other. We are not listening. I said in a post that it is not about removing the economic maintenance support but about reducing it. I can state that a family with maintenance support today has 46,500 kronor, and it is lowered to 38,300 kronor. That does not mean it is empty of compensation, but it is correct that it is reduced.

We will ensure that the economy balances. Member Karlsson mentioned that nothing has happened since 2006. We can state that the Left Party during eight years – despite this headline – in a way was part of and supported the government base, and nothing happened then.

We took over a situation with extremely high inflation. We have ensured to stabilize it, and we have ensured that people – even those with low incomes – have more to move with.

I return to the leisure card. It did not mention Member Karlsson because it somehow removes the image one wants to create of where the evil is and where the good is.

We ensure that people who are in need of support from society receive it, but we also turn this into a situation where we set the demands that have been missing in this country for eight years with a red-green government. Now we ensure that we tighten the requirements and provide opportunities for children to see their parents go to work and to see parents take advantage of the opportunities that exist.

That is how we create a just and safe Sweden. I and the member do not share the view on this – that is why we have politics – but that is what we work for.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to move for approval of reservation 5 under point 4 regarding the follow-up and evaluation of the proposal.

For the Center Party, the work line is one of the most fundamental principles for a strong and prosperous society. Work is more than just income. It is a path to self-sufficiency, social community, and personal development. That every individual is given the opportunity to contribute according to their own ability and to support themselves is crucial both for the individual's freedom and for society's cohesion and our common prosperity.

A long-term dependency on benefits risks becoming passivizing and locking people into an exclusion that is difficult to break. For children growing up in families outside the labor market, the exclusion can be inherited. It is therefore central that the safety nets are designed to be a temporary aid and function as a springboard back to self-sufficiency. They should not be a permanent solution.

To break the dependency on benefits, however, it is not enough to merely adjust compensation levels. At the same time, active and effective reforms are required that tear down the obstacles that stand in the way of a job. It is about lowering the costs of hiring, offering the right education, and ensuring a functioning matching. The government has succeeded in none of these.

Centerpartiet fully supports that a clear and functioning activity requirement should be a natural part of the social assistance. We debated this recently. Requirements and support must, in fact, go hand in hand.

Mr. Speaker! Against this background, we support the main directions of the committee report. For the work line to function in practice and be fair throughout the country, the reforms must, however, be well-balanced and accurate. It is in this light that we view with concern those parts of the proposal that risk missing the mark, reducing the municipalities' opportunities to provide the right support, and having unwanted consequences for children, young people, and the most vulnerable.

In the preparatory works, it is proposed that the national standard shall be calculated based on a reference value based on price surveys of basic consumption of households. Furthermore, certain changes are proposed to the cost items of the national standard and limitations in the possibility of granting social assistance exceeding the national standard.

In the preparatory works, it is explicitly proposed that the social welfare committee shall not be allowed to calculate social assistance at a higher amount than what is specified in the national standard. The Centre Party opposes this and, based on the knowledge that Sweden's municipalities vary greatly, considers that the municipalities should have the possibility to calculate higher support.

A rigid national norm does not take into account the varying costs of living in our country. Costs for, for example, food and other necessities can differ significantly between a large city and a rural municipality. The municipalities, which are closest to the citizens and have the best knowledge of local conditions, must also be given tools to be able to make reasonable assessments. This is particularly urgent because the calculation of the new national norm in practice risks resulting in reductions in social assistance that may not reflect the actual costs of living everywhere.

We therefore consider that the Social Services Act should allow municipalities to make decisions on a higher level of support than what the national standard prescribes. The social welfare committee shall be able to calculate these costs at a higher level when there are special reasons for it, just as is the case today.

The support for livelihood is proposed in the report to be limited for households with more than three children at home and school-aged youth under 21 years of age. This aims to strengthen the work principle and break the dependency on benefits, which we in Centerpartiet fundamentally support. We oppose, however, that the municipalities are also here explicitly limited in the possibility to make individual exceptions from the ceiling.

According to the proposal, the social welfare committee shall decide that a household shall be exempted from the limitation if there are exceptional reasons. Limiting the social services' room for maneuver in this way risks leading to unreasonable situations where children and families in particularly vulnerable positions are caught in the crossfire.

Centerpartiet therefore considers that the possibility for the social welfare committee to exempt a household from the limitation should be changed to apply in cases of special reasons instead of exceptional reasons. This provides greater opportunity for the municipalities to, if necessary, adapt the support for large families with children, which becomes particularly important since the consequences of this proposal regarding the grant ceiling are not yet fully known.

Mr. Speaker! As many referral bodies have pointed out, the changes in the Social Services Act and the proposal for a benefit ceiling risk leading to increased child poverty. The Centre Party takes this most seriously. We are particularly concerned about how the proposal will affect children and young people, large families with children living in vulnerability, single mothers, and other groups who already today have difficulty making ends meet.

It is therefore of the utmost importance that the government promptly follows up on and evaluates the consequences of the benefit ceiling. Such an evaluation must specifically analyze the effects for children and vulnerable groups and result in an assessment of whether the benefit ceiling needs to be adjusted or reformed to avoid negative social consequences.

Mr. Speaker! The Center Party's starting point is that work must always pay more than benefits. If the difference between benefits and work becomes too small, there is a risk of locking people into exclusion, isolation, and unemployment. At the same time, it is important that the ultimate safety net truly catches those who need it so that they both receive the support required for a decent standard of living and are equipped to enter the labor market.

Demands, however, cannot only be placed on the individual but must also be placed on society, Mr. Speaker – on us in the Riksdag and on them in the government. I note the totally contentless labor market policy that has been conducted by no fewer than three ideologically empty liberal ministers during this parliamentary term. Under the leadership of the Liberals and the Tidö parties, unemployment in Sweden has increased by 100,000 people, and today we have the EU's third highest unemployment. It is a failing grade, if anything.

A reasonable measure would have been to set a clear activity requirement even for the government's ministers for labor market policy – perhaps, Madam Speaker, associated with an appropriate sanction fee.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet demands a rejection of this poverty reform, that is to say, of the bill on a contribution ceiling and reformed social assistance. This is not a reform that in a serious way brings people closer to work, but it is a reform that risks making poor families with children poorer and hitting hard against people who already live with small margins.

To understand why the reform is so problematic, one must start with the description of reality. The government often speaks of a growing dependency on benefits, but the receipt of social assistance is currently at historically low levels. According to the National Board of Health and Welfare, the number of people receiving financial assistance is the lowest they have ever measured.

Is it easy to get and live on social assistance? No. Financial assistance is society's ultimate safety net, but the Poverty Report from Sweden's City Missions highlights in a striking way how difficult it has become to get social assistance in Sweden. I personally had the privilege of meeting an example: Tobias in Umeå, who is featured in the Poverty Report. He had worked for several years, but after a major slump in his life, he ended up in unemployment and a financially vulnerable situation.

Tobias applied and was rejected. He became homeless and survived thanks to the help of relatives and Stadsmissionen. This happened, therefore, in Sweden. Tobias is one of all the cases around Sweden who believed that there is at least one final safety net if everything goes to hell, namely the social assistance. But just like so many other cases that Sweden's Stadsmissioner have identified, he had to learn the hard way that it is not easy to receive financial assistance in Sweden.

Another prejudice is that one can live well on social assistance by stacking benefits on top of each other and that it would not pay to work. Is this true? No. I know it, because I have met so many who live in a nightmare-like situation where the economic stress is eating them up from the inside.

This is about people who want nothing more than to have a real job and live a life of dignity, with an economic situation that makes it possible to actually live and not just survive. To quote the Poverty Report: To have social assistance means having to stretch every krona, choosing to forgo dental visits, clothes, and sometimes also food. It means being forced to ask for help and not always being believed. That is what it is like to live on social assistance.

Who is it then that has social assistance today? Because there seems to be a skewed picture of it. The absolute majority are single adults without children. Here are people with mental ill-health and physical or mental disabilities. These are people whose sickness benefit or activity compensation is not sufficient. Here are also people who are on sick leave but do not receive sickness benefit. It is about people who obviously lack work capacity but who have fallen between the cracks, and about people with co-morbidity where mental health and substance abuse interact in a devastating way.

None of these people have the possibility of stacking benefits on top of each other. Everyone lives with incredibly small economic margins – often living hand to mouth. We are talking about people who, in all honesty, however much they would wish it were not so, stand very far away – sometimes even impossibly far away – from the labor market.

The large proportion of people who receive social assistance, admittedly a record few in Sweden, are thus these adults without children. After that, we have the next group, and that is single women with children. Why do I bring this up? I bring it up because throughout this year, the government has presented a completely different picture of who receives social assistance – a distorted picture of large families with children stacking benefits on top of each other. The government does this deliberately, to spread a picture of reality that clearly does not match.

That is also why the government's argumentation regarding very high subsidy levels has met such extensive criticism. Dagens Nyheter's editorial has noted how the government is dodging in its communication about the subsidies and stated that 95 percent of the five-child families who receive maintenance support in Sweden did not receive the support that the Prime Minister claims – and now not only he but also a member here in the chamber earlier. According to a review from the newspaper Syre, the levels that the Finance Minister has referred to concern only eight households in the entire country.

Still, these extreme examples are used to justify legislation that can have devastating consequences for children. It is important to include who it actually concerns and what image the government is trying to convey. Legislation should be based on real societal problems and serious consequence analyses, not on symbolic politics or generalizations that do not correspond with reality.

Madam Speaker! It is the children who are hit hardest by the government's subsidy ceiling. The government referred to economies of scale – that families can share more and buy cheaper. What reality is the government living in? Do they even know the people in the large families they talk about, that is, people who live with this economic pressure? I have, in fact, met them, and if there is anyone who knows how to do their absolute best to manage the few kronor they have, it is them.

I can tell the government that people living on social assistance are already living on extremely small margins. Even when digging into the figures for the extreme examples that the government tries to highlight, one sees that it concerns very small margins – far below the Consumer Agency's guidelines.

The referral criticism is also clear. Rädda Barnen, Socialstyrelsen, and several other agencies warn that children's right to social security risks being weakened. We are simultaneously in a situation where Sveriges Stadsmissioner's poverty report shows that economic vulnerability has increased sharply in recent years. Stadsmissioner and churches all over the country testify that more and more people are seeking food distributions and emergency support to make ends meet. It is in this situation that the government chooses to weaken the protection for the families who already have the least.

Madam Speaker! The proposition also risks hitting women hard. 92 percent of the single recipients of assistance with more than three children are women. That is a very clear warning signal. When a reform almost exclusively hits a group of women with children, the gender equality analysis must be very strong, but it is not.

The Gender Equality Authority has warned that limitations in the maintenance support can increase women's economic dependence on a partner. This is particularly serious when it comes to violence in close relationships and economic violence. Economic independence is often a prerequisite for being able to leave a destructive or violent relationship.

People with disabilities also risk being affected. The bill contains stricter requirements for medical certificates, increased opportunities to demand work-oriented rehabilitation, and greater opportunities to deny or reduce support.

The Agency for Participation has pointed out that there is a lack of a consolidated analysis of the consequences for persons with disabilities, even though almost two out of ten unemployed benefit recipients have a disability that entails reduced work capacity. Funktionsrätt Sverige has also warned that many people apply for social assistance because other safety nets, for example the sickness insurance, have become more restrictive. This is an important objection. If people end up with the social services because other systems fail, the solution is not to weaken even the ultimate safety net.

Madam Speaker! We need a policy that actually makes it easier for people to get into work. It is about education, language, functional establishment, rehabilitation, accessible workplaces, a proper labor market policy, and safety nets that work. We need investments in people's opportunities, not reforms that deepen poverty.

That people get stuck in long-term economic vulnerability is a real problem, but the government's solution does not address the causes of it, but instead attacks people's margins.

Madam Speaker! The ultimate safety net must be exactly that—a safety net. It must not be made so thin that people fall through it. I move for the rejection of the bill and for the approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! In some households, it pays off little, or not at all, to move from benefits to work. In those cases, the policy fails both the person who stands outside the labor market and the person who gets up every morning, leaves the preschool, travels to work and pays tax. This reform contains several different measures to tackle this.

The national standard is being modernized. It shall better reflect today's consumption patterns and build on a clearer reference value for the basic consumption of different households. This involves, among other things, making the system more understandable.

At the same time, a limitation is introduced for larger households. It is primarily in households with many children that the maintenance support can reach levels that significantly weaken the incentives to work. We clarify that the national standard shall generally be a ceiling. Municipalities shall not, through general local supplements, create different levels in different parts of the country. It is reasonable that the maintenance support is nationally coherent.

Madam Speaker! Those who claim to have reduced work capacity due to illness shall be able to substantiate it with a medical certificate. This is not about suspicion, but about being able to provide the right support to the right person. Those who are ill shall receive help to regain their work capacity, and those who can be available to the labor market shall do so. The Social Welfare Board will simultaneously have a clearer opportunity to demand participation in work-oriented rehabilitation. Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan shall, when necessary, be able to participate in a coordinated individual plan and provide a clear path back.

Madam Speaker! Support for second-hand housing should, as a general rule, only be granted when the rental is approved. The welfare systems must not finance insecure and illegal housing solutions that feed a black housing market. At the same time, there is an opportunity for exceptions when special reasons exist, for example, when children risk falling into an acutely vulnerable housing situation.

Economic assistance should, as a general rule, go to persons who stay legally here in Sweden. Acute situations can still be handled through food, emergency assistance and so on, but the welfare's long-term support system shall not be open to those who lack the legal right to stay in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We shall let people grow. We believe that language, education, work and self-sufficiency are a way into the community. We believe that every child, regardless of the parents' background, can become their best self.

Sweden shall be a society that helps those who need help but also sets requirements on those who can contribute. Sweden shall be a society where work pays off, where welfare is fair and where children do not inherit exclusion.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! Suddenly it happens! I suddenly see – in one respect – an enormous advantage with the Liberals having come out so strongly with talking about the blue-yellow cooperation and that one is now letting the Sverigedemokraterna into the government. The questions that I did not get answers to from the Sverigedemokraterna's Jessica Stegrud, I can now with advantage pose to the Liberals' member.

I have heard many Sweden Democrats talk about how the substantial deterioration of the maintenance support for children who happen to have many siblings is part of the migration policy. Fewer people with large families should want to seek their way to Sweden; it is part of the government's migration policy.

I was thinking of asking if we can get some clarity on this from the Liberals' member Karlson. Is that the way?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gustaf Lantz for the question and for giving me the confidence to answer on behalf of another party in this matter.

That is for them to decide. For our part, I can say that this is not a part of the migration policy; it is handled in a completely different area. This is a reform so that children do not have to grow up in a lifelong exclusion. It shall apply regardless of background – regardless of whether one's family has immigrated here or if one is born here. Whether one is a first, second, or third-generation immigrant is totally irrelevant for our part.

Now we are debating the social assistance and not the migration policy. Social assistance is the ultimate safety net. It should be there when people temporarily cannot support themselves, but we do not want it to be a permanent support model.

When the system in practice makes it not worthwhile for some households to move from benefits to work, we have a responsibility to act. That is also what we are doing, among other things with this bill. As has been said in previous speeches and exchanges of remarks, this is part of a larger whole to address the problem. It is problematic that people – especially children – become stuck in social assistance for a long period. That has never been the basic principle.

This proposal does not just consist of lowered levels. It also contains a modernization of the national standard, a limitation for larger households and a clearer national ceiling to, through requirements and support, offer a way back to the regular labor market via various interventions.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! Now I am not quite following. The Liberals and the other parties in the Tidö cooperation have devoted a large part of this debate to explaining how divided we are within the opposition. I asked about the government's policy, and when it became a bit sensitive, the Liberal member suddenly started saying that he cannot answer for the Sweden Democrats' policy. If one has now put forward a blue-yellow cooperation and that it is so incredibly fantastic that the Tidö group is so harmonious that even the Sweden Democrats are to be able to take a place in the government, then one must also be able to answer for the government, regardless of which party one belongs to.

In Uppsala, we see a leap of faith from the Liberals. Many believe that the Liberals are no longer liberals. What is the strength in liberal ideology – what appeals to me – is the foundation, which concerns human rights and that we are born as free individuals. We are blank slates. The state shall not oppress or limit us. Instead, we should receive help to reach our full potential, regardless of who our parents are and regardless of how we have arrived here.

How does it feel for a liberal to enter a room where there are children with parents who have mental health problems and are very far from the labor market and from wage employment, and say "We are doing this because it is a warm and good proposal, because in the long run it will result in children having parents who are out in the labor market"?

For me, this is the opposite of liberal politics. It is harsh and heartless politics against society's most vulnerable children.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the follow-up question, even though I must say that this is probably among the most dizzying exchanges of remarks I have been involved in.

It goes without saying that we who belong to the government stand behind the proposal in a bill that is on the table. I do not understand how the member can make it so that this should belong in migration policy. In my first contribution, I said exactly that this has nothing to do with his background. It is about lifting people from benefit dependency and exclusion to self-sufficiency and empowerment. I understand nothing.

Our line is crystal clear in several of these parts. I absolutely think it is crystal clear liberal policy. In this country, it should pay to work. There must be requirements for activity and personal effort, which the Social Democrats also say they stand behind. We also say that there must be rehabilitation for those who are ill. And there must be education, language initiatives, and paths back – depending on what needs the individual has. If anything, that is liberal policy.

At the same time, there must be a social service out there that sees the human being and not just the month's payment. To betray these people is harsh, if anything.

Madam Speaker! I do not agree at all with the member regarding what has been presented. This reform, together with many others, will do good in the long term.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I have a question for the member.

As I said in my speech earlier, I find this entire reform deeply uncomfortable. But there is a part that is extra difficult to understand. It concerns this matter of the municipalities themselves being able to make decisions on whether one can receive a small extra compensation, which often concerns a small supplement to the social assistance just at Christmas or summer holidays. Most often it concerns 1,000 kronor or something of that sort. These are not huge sums, but it is so much for people living under such hard economic pressure that they can buy Christmas presents for the children or ensure that they get a little extra highlight during the summer holidays.

This is what you choose to remove, Patrik Karlson. How do you justify punishing children so harshly, so that they cannot even receive a small relief at Christmas?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Karlsson! I do not wish to flatter, but I appreciate the commitment and the honest argumentation that the Member presented here in the chamber. It is the first time we have debated with each other. I appreciate it.

I do not agree that it is a poverty-inducing reform that the government is proposing. We are proposing a reform to reduce benefit dependency. We want to strengthen the work principle and maintain the role of the social assistance as the ultimate safety net. That in itself does not mean that economic consequences are insignificant. They certainly are not. But the government is clear that certain households, especially the larger ones, will receive lower levels than today.

The government simultaneously assesses that the assistance shall continue to ensure a reasonable standard of living. It is a fundamental principle. It is also decisive that the reform does not stand alone. It is part of a broader line of work.

I believe that systems that weaken the incentives for work harm children in the long run. I heard the member's speech earlier and could relate very much to what was said. I grew up in a similar situation, even if it cannot be translated completely. Our answer is what I wish had been available a bit more at that time: that parents should receive support to enter the workforce, learn Swedish, participate in society, and become self-sufficient. It is simply how I believe children's life chances are truly strengthened.

We must not become a society that settles for merely paying out grants and hoping for the best. We must work broadly to find methods and ways forward, similar to the proposal we have now put forward so that parents can have a real path to work.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the kind words. It is good when we can have a good debate in the Riksdag.

Vänsterpartiet and the Liberals have cooperated very closely on just children's rights, at least during the eight years of the time I have sat in the Riksdag. But for the last four years, it has not been so. I feel some concern that the Liberals have backed down when it comes to children's rights.

I am thinking of precisely the part that I raised. I understand that we have fundamentally different views of what reality looks like for people living on social assistance. But we must still correct the debate; it is not effortless to live on social assistance, and it should not be.

We mean that one must create the conditions for people to get into work. That is what is not being done. The social services have been under heavy pressure for a very long time. We have already gone through everything regarding unemployment and that there are actually large cuts being made on, for example, folk high schools and so on, which can provide the opportunity to move forward. There is, therefore, a small gap here.

We do not believe in punishing people in a non-functioning system because they have a difficult life. And it is primarily children who are punished. That is what is so difficult to understand about this reform.

It is about the possibility for the municipality to say: "Now it is Christmas, and here we have a family with children who have had a tough time." All of us in this chamber know that an extra 1,000 kronor is not even much money at Christmas. It is a little, little extra so that they can buy that Christmas tree, the Christmas gifts, and the Christmas ham. But there you – absolutely not us – should just put a stop to it. It really hurts me. I do not understand it.

I think that you as liberals actually have a different view. How do you justify saying yes to this anyway?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the follow-up question!

I do not agree. I believe we see the same problem. I believe both of our parties see that reality and understand what circumstances these people have. But it is obvious that we land on different conclusions on how to solve the issues.

Politics, after all, has the responsibility and must act on what is happening in society. We have landed on the fact that far too many people in this country are stuck in long-term social assistance. This applies in particular to persons with a weak connection to the labor market. We do not consider it humanity if politics says: "We do nothing. We change nothing and let the system continue as it is." It is a form of resignation that does not do these people any good.

The members of the board speak about human needs and prerequisites. I want to assert that we also do so through this reform. But as was said, it must not stop at just one payment every month. It must be about language initiatives and education and that people enter work and our social community. That is the whole point.

The financial assistance shall continue to ensure a reasonable standard of living. There is nothing to discuss there. And there is still room for individual assessments, especially when children are affected. It states clearly in the bill.

In acute situations, assistance shall still be able to be provided even to persons who, for example, do not have a legal right to stay in the country. This unfortunately also includes children in many cases.

Madam Speaker! Our alternative, which we fully support and can justify, is to reform the system so that more people obtain their own livelihood. I would not say that it is a form of harshness, but it is a responsibility and a promise towards them.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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