A new reception act

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates went to the election in 2022 to get Sweden in order, and during these nearly four years we have implemented a paradigm shift in migration policy. Sweden has moved from primarily being a country for asylum migration to now being a country for highly skilled labor migration. Our policy has had an effect, and now we see the result.

During the Socialdemokraternas eight years in power, 2014–2022, Sweden received 320,000 asylum seekers. Now, Sweden has the lowest asylum-related immigration since 1985, that is, since the measurements began. The previous year, the number of asylum seekers had decreased by 60 percent compared to the Social Democratic government's last year in power. Migrationsverket has assessed that approximately 5,000 people will seek asylum in Sweden this year. It is a significant difference compared to the 16,825 people who sought asylum in Magdalena Andersson's and Morgan Johansson's Sweden in 2022. Furthermore, the return rate has increased by 60 percent. It matters who is in power.

By reducing asylum migration, we improve the opportunities both for those who are coming to Sweden now and for those who are already here but have not yet been integrated and become a part of the community. We Moderates get things done.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates want those people who have grounds for protection and are granted residence permits to be given good conditions to become a part of our community. Those who, on the other hand, do not have grounds for protection and therefore have their asylum application denied shall leave the country as soon as possible.

In order for us to be able to maintain this basic order, we need to have an organized reception of asylum seekers. The asylum and return process needs to be improved and streamlined, among other things so that asylum seekers can receive a decision more quickly on whether they are allowed to stay in Sweden or not.

Last year, we implemented the first part to improve the reception of asylum seekers. We effectively abolished EBO, that is, the possibility of private accommodation for asylum seekers. Since March 1 last year, asylum seekers are expected to stay in an asylum center.

Now we are implementing the second part to streamline the asylum and return process and reduce exclusion. It is partly about ensuring that asylum seekers, while awaiting a decision, live under better conditions, are reachable for authorities and can receive the support they need, and partly about having an efficient system for those who are not granted asylum.

The so-called EBO law, which made it possible for asylum seekers to choose their own accommodation during the time they waited for a decision, led to major problems, not only with increased overcrowding, segregation, and exclusion but also with people disappearing into the shadow society. There are examples of children who have been forced to do homework in the stairwell because a dozen people are already crowded into a small two-room apartment. It is not an environment that children should grow up in. EBO has also complicated the contacts between Migrationsverket and the asylum seekers, which has made the asylum and return processes less efficient.

Mr. Speaker! We are also streamlining the system for those who are not granted asylum so that people do not end up in the shadow society. According to the Swedish Tax Agency's assessment, between 110,000 and 185,000 people are in Sweden without valid permission. In this shadow society, people risk suffering very badly, for example by being exploited and working under very poor conditions. There is also a danger that people who pose security risks can be here in the country. It is therefore very important that we address the shadow society.

With the new rules, an asylum seeker shall be assigned a place at one of the Swedish Migration Agency's residences. In order to receive daily allowance and special contribution, the asylum seeker shall reside at that residence. The same shall apply to an asylum seeker who has been denied their application. In case of misconduct, or if an asylum seeker does not follow their obligations, the daily allowance may be reduced.

In order for asylum seekers to be available to the Migration Agency, they shall participate in attendance checks at the asylum accommodation. A geographical restriction is also introduced, which means that asylum seekers and foreigners with removal decisions shall be located in the county where the assigned asylum accommodation is situated. One shall also participate in community introduction, just as today.

We are also changing the rules for when asylum seekers shall be given the opportunity to work. Today, asylum seekers can work already from day one. With the new rules, exceptions from the requirement for a work permit can only be made after six months from the time the asylum application was submitted, if the Swedish Migration Agency has not already made a decision in the asylum case and if the delay is not due to the asylum seeker.

Mr. Speaker! Unlike us in the blue and yellow team, the red-green mess is as usual in disagreement about most things within migration policy. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say no to all our proposals. Centerpartiet has, as usual, objections. The Socialdemokrater want to make some adjustments and claim to want to go further in abolishing EBO, which is actually being careless with the truth regarding the regulations.

Let me begin by reminding the Social Democrats of how it looked when they governed together with the Green Party. At that time, the then Migration Minister Morgan Johansson said that he would gladly scrap EBO if the Green Party agreed to it. If I am to be honest, I believe that the Social Democrats are very happy that it is now we Moderates who govern migration policy. The changes we are now implementing would never have been possible to carry out together with the Green Party and the Left Party; that is perfectly clear to everyone who follows the migration debate.

I also want to mention the fact that the Social Democrats, who claim to be in favor of a strict migration policy, have now reached an agreement with the other left-wing parties to erode regulated immigration.

The Social Democrats previously voted with us to abolish track-switching, that is, the possibility of coming to Sweden as an asylum seeker and then switching tracks and instead applying for a work permit. Now, when we want to abolish the possibility for asylum seekers to work from day one – in order to reduce the pull factors for those who do not actually need protection but would like to come to Sweden to work – the Social Democrats say no. They then coordinate with the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Center Party to try to stop this. It is a completely incomprehensible position for voters who expect the Social Democrats to live up to the promises of a strict migration policy.

Do the Social Democrats want it, or do they not want order and discipline in the migration policy? Do they want regulated immigration? When it comes down to it, it seems as if the Social Democrats can very easily sell their so-called strict migration policy in order to reach an agreement with the Left Party and the Green Party.

We know how the Social Democrats act when they govern with the left-wing parties. Then it becomes a more generous migration policy. One of the clearest examples is the so-called upper secondary school law from 2018, which we all remember as a prime example of the Social Democrats' and the left-wing parties' monumental incompetence in government.

The Green Party obviously wants to go even further than the Social Democrats but also proposes that the Swedish Migration Agency's housing be reformed into smaller units and individual apartments integrated into the ordinary housing stock. The question one therefore asks is: Is this how the left-wing parties imagine that the forced mixing should occur in practice? The proposal risks creating disorder in well-functioning areas. Is this a requirement that the Social Democrats will agree to in a government negotiation with the Green Party and the Left Party if the left side, God forbid, wins the election this autumn? The Social Democrats want to forcibly mix the population but naturally do not support it publicly since their integration policy proposals have been so criticized.

To get the migration policy in order, there is only one alternative: a Moderate-led government and a blue-yellow law. Only we can continue this important work. Sweden must not take a dangerous left turn in the area of migration policy.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of the reservations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mikael Damsgaard and Magnus Resare (both M) agreed.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democratic-led government appointed an inquiry in September 2021 into a new reception act. Such an act was needed so that the issue of EBO could be resolved. That people without residence permits in the country can be offered housing within the Migrationsverket's responsibility and care is good and a prerequisite for us to be able to address the segregation that EBO has led to.

To understand the full extent of the problem with EBO, one must remind oneself that 15 municipalities have received 60 percent of the asylum seekers over the last decades. It is not because these municipalities have asked for it, but because liberal laws, introduced by right-wing politicians, have allowed it. For the Social Democrats, the question of abolishing EBO is a completely decisive piece of the puzzle to succeed with integration. In light of this, we are pleased that the government, five out of twelve during this mandate period, takes a step forward. Unfortunately, the government does not go all the way.

The law still allows a large group of asylum seekers and others without residence permits to live in private accommodation, and therefore the law is not complete. The latest statistics show that just over 60 percent of asylum seekers still live in EBO, while barely 20 percent live in facility accommodation. Many choose private accommodation even though they no longer receive daily allowance. Therefore, it is surprising that the government, in its proposal for new legislation, does not choose to go further and clearly abolish private accommodation and retain the possibility only in exceptional cases.

We Social Democrats believe that EBO should be abolished completely and that the possibility of living outside a residential facility should be minimized. We also believe that municipalities with vulnerable areas should be exempted entirely, especially when the influx of people is large. The government enables limitations in this regard, which is good, but we believe that it must be expressed in law that these municipalities shall be exempted.

We also mean that the housing that comes into question, both in normal situations and in more strained situations, should be operated by public or non-profit actors.

The system of reception and return centers is correct. It is the right way to organize the Swedish reception. However, we have seen that there are problems with the organization of the whole thing. Everyone has heard and many of us have seen with our own eyes what the facilities look like and what conditions are provided there to handle children, their families, persons with functional variations, and other vulnerable groups. The staff do as well as they can given the conditions provided, but resources, premises, and opportunities for good operations are insufficient. The system is, in other words, correct, but the execution is lacking.

I can say nothing other than that this reminds me somewhat of the Swedish national football team's performances this week. I am, however, convinced that with the right leadership and organization, the problems in both can be rectified well in time.

Mr. Speaker! Those who can work shall work. Such is a fundamental principle for us Social Democrats. Without such a principle, the work line breaks down. Work is also that which creates value. It sustains our society. Therefore, we believe that people should be given the opportunity to take jobs when such jobs are available. In light of this, it is regrettable that the government chooses to exclude the possibility for certain people to work and contribute to our society.

We mean that it should be possible for asylum seekers to work from day one. That principle has applied within the mass influx directive and has worked well there. Furthermore, it is not as the member from Moderaterna claims that one would change the grounds for permission, which is what the change of track is about, but rather that one will be forced to leave the country despite having been allowed to work a few hours during the asylum process. Nor will one be allowed to work in the cases that have lasted longer than six months – which will not be excluded from the new procedure being developed. The argumentation from Moderaterna is therefore worryingly shaky.

The government also highlights the need for employment at the residences. We believe that if one can go to work, even if only for a few hours a day, it would provide added value for both the individual, the residential environment, and society as a whole – not least because the person with their own income will be able to pay for their housing. They will also be able to pay for dental care in the future. This creates value both in the work process itself and by reducing the cost for the public sector. We save tax money through this arrangement. This is surely just another piece of evidence of the Moderaternas waste, in line with chicken houses and crispbread statues. But of course, we should only accept decent conditions and wages – otherwise, the work will not be approved.

It is also worth noting the risks of crime, illegal work, and worsened integration that the referral bodies highlight regarding the government's proposal. That the government chooses to ignore what the police, the Crime Prevention Council, and several others are saying is remarkable and telling of how this government works. It is more important to squeeze immigrants than to prevent crime, to have people work, and to improve integration.

Mr. Speaker! In the issue of reception and settlement, we have seen that certain municipalities disregard the laws and regulations enacted in the Riksdag. One such example is my former home municipality, Staffanstorp Municipality. There, the issue ended up in court because the municipal executive board acted in an obstructive manner. This is deeply provoking. Therefore, the issue of the municipal executive board's and the municipal council's responsibility to ensure that laws and regulations are followed needs to be highlighted and investigated. We cannot have an order where municipal politicians urge administrations to disregard laws and regulations. A "lex Staffanstorp" is simply needed.

Mr. Speaker! As I have mentioned, this legislation is primarily welcome and good. But important questions remain, such as a real abolition of EBO. Details regarding operation and exceptions also need to be handled, as well as the question of how the system is organized. This must be resolved in a more sustainable, purposeful, and humane direction, and it is a task that we Social Democrats will take forward after an election victory this autumn.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservations 2 and 4.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It certainly warms one's heart when a Social Democrat speaks about the work line, even if it is only in passing. Ola Möller represents a party that all too often otherwise only speaks about the benefit line and focuses on everything other than strengthening the value of work and ensuring that effort pays off. But Ola Möller is completely wrong.

We see a shift among the Social Democrats regarding migration policy. Several times during the spring, the Social Democrats have actively sought out Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet to collaborate on alternative proposals to the government's paradigm shift in migration policy. These are parties that want an amnesty for everyone who has hidden illegally and long enough in Sweden. These are parties that want us to return to the regulations that applied before 2015, when we had the major crisis with over 160,000 asylum seekers in a single year. These are the parties Ola Möller's Social Democrats will be forced to form a government with after the election this autumn, if God forbid they do not get a majority. This is the alternative.

The Social Democrats have now joined forces with the left-wing parties regarding the view that asylum seekers should not have to wait six months. But it is also a part of us adapting to other European countries, and it is about Sweden not sticking out and becoming particularly attractive to come to to seek asylum for those who actually do not have grounds for protection but just want to enter the Swedish labor market.

Ola Möller and his Social Democrats think, inexplicably enough, that we should maintain the order that applies today and ensure that the attraction factors to Sweden are maintained. How is it that Ola Möller's Social Democrats have landed on that position? Is it reasonable that Sweden stands out compared to other European countries?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly, we can observe that Viktor Wärnick has not read the motions that have been raised. We have not actively co-authored with V, MP and C on this issue, but it was our motion that proposed that people should work if they can work.

Viktor Wärnick needs to answer the question of why he wants people to live on benefits. Why does he want people who can work to be supported by the state? That is the question here.

Since then, Viktor Wärnick has taken a rhetorical detour where he tries to pretend that it is a new track change. It is not, because the question of status will not be handled here. The basis for status will therefore not be changed, rather one is an asylum seeker. Either one has a need for protection, or one does not have a need for protection. In substance and form, Viktor Wärnick is wrong.

It is regrettable that a Moderate is standing here and arguing for increased public spending in an already strained state budget and for people to go on benefits. How does this add up, Viktor Wärnick?

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! What I referred to was what we saw during the spring, namely that the Social Democrats are actively seeking a lowest common denominator together with their intended government partners Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet and their intended support party Centerpartiet.

We know what it means if members of the Green Party and the Left Party hold government posts and occupy Rosenbad together with Magdalena Andersson's Social Democrats after the election this autumn. It will result in increased immigration to Sweden and more generous migration legislation. This is what the asylum activists in the Left Party and the Green Party will demand in order to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister. That was one thing.

The second point concerns track-switching and about establishing a logic in how you Social Democrats act. You say that track-switching was wrong and that one should not be able to come to Sweden, have their asylum application rejected, and then switch tracks to start working. The arguments for this are, as we all know, that those who do not actually have grounds for protection should not come to Sweden to receive a rejection and then start working.

The same applies to the regulatory framework that we are now proposing to tighten migration policy and reception. It should not be extra advantageous to come to Sweden and, unlike how it is in other European countries, gain access to the labor market through an exemption from a work permit from day one. We believe that at least six months should pass from the time one has arrived until one receives an exemption for a work permit. During those six months, the ambition is, of course, that the Swedish Migration Agency should have time to reach a decision. That is the order.

The Social Democrats, together with the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party, therefore want Sweden to stand out on this point. They want the flag to be raised higher and make it more attractive for those who do not have grounds for protection to come to just Sweden to seek asylum. They do not want any harmonization with the rest of Europe.

The question that the Social Democrats and Ola Möller need to answer is: Why do you not want to reduce the pull factors to Sweden, if you – as the Social Democrats claim you do – stand up for a strict migration policy?

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! That order is, as said, incorrect. It is we who believe that people should work and not receive benefits, and after that, the other parties have joined us. It is positive that we in the opposition can agree that the work principle shall apply.

It is interesting that Viktor Wärnick thinks the government's exceptions are acceptable; then it is not a problem. That is how it is all the time. The government is allowed to make exceptions. The government is allowed to enact special laws to solve problems, for example with the teenage deportations, but if someone else suggests it, it is a failure.

The Moderates do not live as they preach, instead they are swinging wildly around because they are desperate and because they have not understood what a strict migration policy is about. A strict migration policy is not about us making life as damn difficult as possible for people who are here.

If we have people who are here and who can work, they should obviously be involved and contribute to society. I thought this was a moderate position, but it clearly is not. This may be based on what the police and Brå have brought up, that it reduces the risk of black market labor. Then there will be less cheap labor that some Moderates might be able to take advantage of.

This perhaps is actually about the fact that the question of the shadow society is not so important, only the shadow society is correct. It is also why Viktor Wärnick uses the same figure to describe the shadow society now as he did at the beginning of the parliamentary term. Viktor Wärnick does not know how much the shadow society has decreased. The shadow society is quite good sometimes, because it might contribute a little black market work for some vulnerable person, for example an asylum seeker who can clean or something else. It is the basis for the Moderate policy: an exploitation of people who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves. It is tragic.

We stand, as said, for the work line, with fair conditions where people shall do right by themselves. I thought that the Moderates also did that, but Viktor Wärnick shows that is not the case.

(TALMANNEN: I remind you that we should avoid words that can be perceived as swear words in the chamber.)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The entire purpose of the reform is that fewer people should choose to come to Sweden as asylum seekers. It is an ambition that I experience the Social Democrats to have, at least to some extent, as well. That party has also, for example, spoken about a more even distribution within the EU and that we have taken a disproportionately large responsibility. Several Social Democrats have pointed this out.

The number of asylum seekers has decreased significantly during the term. I believe even the Social Democrats agree on that. The figures are quite unambiguous in that area. I pointed out on my Twitter that this is a success for the work we have done, whereupon Morgan Johansson, who is a party comrade of Ola Möller, said that it is equivalent to ethnic cleansing. The fact that fewer people are seeking asylum in Sweden is therefore the same as ethnic cleansing. Is that a reasonable comparison, Ola Möller?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I unfortunately do not have X and have not read this, so I cannot follow the question.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, I can understand it. Given that one sometimes sees one's party comrades' posts on X, it would be quite embarrassing. This is such an example.

But if we say that Member of Parliament Ola Möller takes me at my word and assumes that I have not made this up, which I haven't – the tweet is still up – then it is about the fact that Morgan Johansson, foreign policy spokesperson for the Socialdemokraterna, thinks that a reduced number of asylum seekers to Sweden is equivalent to ethnic cleansing. It is a direct quote. Could Ola Möller not give his assessment – is it really a reasonable comparison?

I do not think it is entirely reasonable. I also think it is a bit strange, given that the Social Democrats, at least partially, have expressed the same ambition. Is one then engaged in ethnic cleansing oneself? What does Ola Möller think about this?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The reason I am not on the platform X is Elon Musk. That also explains why Ludvig Aspling is hanging out there with pleasure. He said that I should take his word for it and that the tweet is up, but even there he has proven that it is not true. Twitter no longer exists, it is called X. Thus, we can conclude where the rest of his nonsense comes from.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Part of the paradigm shift being carried out during this parliamentary term is that Sweden is now seriously beginning to realize how reception conditions affect the drivers for asylum seekers to seek out Sweden.

Previous governments have worked from the starting point that those who flee have no choice. This means in principle that our rules do not matter, because regardless of what we do, it will not affect the number of people who seek to come here – because they simply have no choice. A logical consequence of this assumption is that the reception conditions should be as generous as possible because it will help in the famous integration, which we have heard about even in this debate.

We know today that this assumption is not correct. What makes people want to seek asylum in Sweden and Europe is not primarily the situation in the home country. Those who are affected by insecurity there can generally find a place of refuge significantly closer to their home country and definitely, in 100 percent of cases, closer to their home country than Sweden, which is also what the vast majority of refugees do.

What makes people come here to seek asylum – and furthermore are willing to pay quite a lot of money to do so – are the extremely generous reception conditions that Sweden provides. There is no doubt about that. There are interviews conducted with migrants on their way across the Mediterranean to Europe where they are asked: "Why are you coming here?" Most answer: "For economic reasons – I want a job." That is, in itself, easy to empathize with – I cannot rule out that I would have done the same thing in the same situation. But that is not what the asylum system is for.

In other words: there is nothing that has created as many refugees as the generous reception system we have. And we know that it is the case because of the collapse, almost, in the number of asylum seekers that we have seen during this parliamentary term. We now have the lowest number of applicants in modern times, and it is not because the number of people who want to move to Sweden has decreased. Probably it has increased. Probably also the number of people who could make an attempt has increased along with the economic development in many of the countries these people come from. It is primarily a cost issue how many who make it here. But the number of asylum seekers has at the same time decreased sharply, which naturally is due to the policy that this government is driving. There is no other reason for us to see this development, and it is further evidence that the hypothesis "the one who flees has no choice" is simply not true.

We will continue with this work. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are attacking this on several levels.

We are introducing a benefit cap and qualification for welfare for newly arrived migrants. We have new rules on detention, which are partially linked to the report we are debating here. We have full implementation of the migration pact's rules on screening and border procedures. We are abolishing the possibility for social democrat-led municipalities to expand the shadow society by providing social assistance to illegal migrants. We are abolishing the right for persons with deportation orders to bring relatives here. Now, we are also tightening the reception conditions with a new reception act. It is the new law that we are debating here today.

What does the new reception law contain then? Yes, in short, it can be described as a significantly tightened regulatory framework for asylum seekers, and this with two main purposes that are partially linked: One is that Sweden shall become less attractive as an asylum destination and the other is that it shall become more difficult for the person seeking asylum to obstruct and delay the asylum investigation or use the asylum system to get here for other purposes, which most often – at best – is to work or work illegally. There are also other purposes that are significantly more problematic.

The most important part of this bill is that the exemption from the requirement for a work permit, or AT-UND as it is called in agency language, is abolished.

Today, it works in such a way that asylum seekers are regularly granted such an exemption if one can prove their identity. This has led to travel agencies in various parts of the world having established systems to sell job-seeker trips to Sweden for those who want to work here but do not meet the requirements for a work permit. Part of the setup is that one is to seek asylum. These agencies, therefore, sell tickets to Sweden and say: "We arrange the residence permit, absolutely. We'll fix it, as long as you pay." When the individuals then show up here, they are told: "We solve the residence permit by you going into Migrationsverket and seeking asylum." It is completely bizarre, but it is, therefore, very commonly occurring – or at least it was. We have partially started to tackle this. In light of the fact that we abolished the track switch, the job-seeker trips have become a bit trickier, and now we are taking the next step.

The rule will be that a person shall be granted a work permit after six months as an applicant unless the reason that the case is not settled within six months is that the person themselves is not cooperating. In that situation, one will therefore not receive a work permit at all.

This six-month limit is not due to an exception that we ourselves have chosen, as Ola Möller claimed earlier in the debate, but due to a mandatory EU rule that we must comply with. Had it been up to me, it would not exist either. There would be no way at all to obtain exceptions from the requirements for work permits.

Today, it is normal for an asylum investigation to take a couple of months to about half a year. That is usually the maximum. With the new regulation, we will soon not have any asylum seekers working in Sweden, at least not legally, and that is a big step forward.

In this part, the opposition has a joint reservation with the meaning that today's order shall be maintained, with reference to the fact that the new order could lead to worsened integration. It is a rather bold statement considering that precisely the establishment that these parties belong to has ensured that we have the absolute worst integration of all comparable countries regarding school results, unemployment, and actually everything one can encounter.

But if one considers that this exception is so important for establishment, one can look at it empirically. One can, for example, look at the report from the Konjunkturinstitutet by Liljeberg et al., which concluded that among refugees or relatives who arrived in 2008–2019, 65 percent of the men and 55 percent of the women had some form of earned income after ten years. Only 40 percent of the men and 20 percent of the women had reached an income that even came close to the median. It therefore does not even reach the median, but comes close to the median.

Hansson and Tjernberg at Entreprenörskapsforum have stated that people with a refugee background, on average, never become self-sufficient in Sweden during their lifetime. This is not news. Everyone who follows the migration issue knows this.

I do not, therefore, believe that these first six months are a particularly critical period. One could also think that if it actually concerns a refugee who has fled from a traumatic experience or something of the sort, it would perhaps not be entirely normal for that person to step straight into the labor market in a completely foreign country. A human being who knows anything about how other people function should understand this.

Furthermore, all applicants will be assigned a reception center by the Swedish Migration Agency, and the applicant must live there to receive support in the form of a daily allowance.

A geographical restriction is also being introduced, meaning that the applicant may not stay outside the county where the reception center is located. The reason for this is that it is not uncommon for people to submit unfounded asylum applications and then simply disappear and do something else. Perhaps they have planned this together with someone from their own country who lives in Sweden.

A duty to cooperate with attendance checks at the accommodation is also introduced so that the Swedish Migration Agency can confirm that the person is actually there. If it is necessary for the sake of public order and safety, or if there is a risk that the asylum seeker will deviate, the Agency may decide on a specific place of residence and that the applicant shall have a reporting obligation so that he or she must report presence a few times a week – this is to check that the obligation to reside is actually being followed. This will also apply to persons who have a decision that they shall leave the country.

Regarding the comment from the Social Democrats that we are still leaving an opening for residence in another location: That depends on how EU law is structured. The Social Democrats in the European Parliament have voted for these legal acts. One cannot vote for a legal act and then complain about the consequences of the legal act when it is implemented by their own government and the Swedish Riksdag. It is complete idiocy.

The consequences of the new order that may affect applicants if they do not follow the rules stipulated can, for example, involve a reduction of the unemployment benefit entirely or partially.

I will also mention another upcoming consequence, namely storage, but that is in a different consideration. Storage is addressed in a different proposition than this one, but it is almost an even more important consequence.

Last but not least: If a person repeatedly fails to fulfill the reporting obligation or does not keep in contact with the Migration Agency, the Agency can make a decision that the application is implicitly withdrawn. This is very important, because then one can stop processing the case and simply write it off. This is something that I wish we had been able to do more easily ten years ago. We really could have used that.

If the applicant then returns with a new application, it will be treated as a so-called subsequent application. It is a bit technical, but they are treated quite summarily and can be rejected very easily.

These are, of course, very strong incentives not to try to delay and complicate the asylum investigation by making oneself unreachable, which is not uncommon in the current situation.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Government proposes a new Reception Act which, among other things, means that asylum seekers shall, as a rule, be forced to live in Migrationsverket's accommodations. They shall only be allowed to stay within a limited geographical area and shall be punished if they violate this. Asylum seekers' right to compensation shall be more heavily conditioned, and the number of controls of asylum seekers and their accommodation shall be increased. In addition to this, a number of consequential changes are proposed.

Mr. Speaker! We are in need of a more modern, legally secure, and coherent regulatory framework for the reception of asylum seekers. But the proposals that the government presents are so restrictive and controlling that we cannot stand behind them. The government wants to restructure the reception in Sweden in a way that is based on control, sanctions, and restrictions. It is a lack of freedom and restrictions that I do not stand behind. One does not treat asylum seekers in this way.

The proposal as a whole risks worsening the living conditions of asylum seekers, undermining legal certainty, and counteracting integration. It is the government's basic ambition, I must say. This government has never wanted to have integration, and I think that is very clearly apparent. It appeared in the exchange of remarks just now that one is not to be allowed to work and so on. I did not think that the Moderaterna represented the leisure line instead of the work line. But the measures here lead to less contact between asylum seekers and the rest of society and reduce the opportunities for asylum seekers to work or find connections in the rest of society.

The Left Party's views are shared by a majority of referral bodies, including Civil Rights Defenders, the Swedish Red Cross, and Asylrättscentrum, all of which have directed extensive criticism towards the bill. It is simply difficult to see how a proposal that so unilaterally focuses on controls, sanctions, return, and exclusion, and completely ignores integration, can bring about anything good either for society as a whole or for individual asylum seekers.

Mr. Speaker! I visited the Netherlands just over two years ago and familiarized myself with the country's asylum housing and reception system, which resembles that which the government now wants to introduce in Sweden. Asylum seekers are only allowed to move within a certain geographical area, there are attendance checks and so on.

The organization Defence for Children has evaluated such a system. They concluded, among other things, that the living situation for children in such residences is harmful to their development. The system makes continuous development impossible and is catastrophic for children's mental well-being. There are great risks for long-term stays under strict conditions, which is dangerous for children's development. There is also a risk that children isolate themselves. The recommendation was to shut down and reform the system.

Mr. Speaker! Instead of restrictions for those who already have the absolute smallest margins, I believe that a secure and strong welfare state with strong interventions is a better path to choose if one wants to achieve good integration and reduce exclusion, which the government states is one of the purposes of the legislative changes.

Mr. Speaker! I believe, however, that we must create a more coherent and regulated system for the reception of asylum seekers through a new law. That the reception is gathered into a clearer regulatory framework can in itself contribute to increased predictability and better structure. We therefore see a new piece of legislation as an opportunity to strengthen the protection of rights and modernize the reception system. Given that Sweden has received recurring international criticism regarding asylum seekers' access to rights, there is obviously a clear need to reform the system.

We believe that a new reception act must be based on legal certainty and dignity. It is necessary to aim at strengthening legal certainty, guaranteeing dignified living conditions, respecting the individual's human rights, respecting children's rights in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and promoting early establishment and the possibility of integration from day one, why, among other things, the possibility of work and self-sufficiency should be strengthened in a reformed reception system.

The government's proposal fails on all of these points. Against this background, the Riksdag should reject the government's proposal. I therefore move for the adoption of reservations 1 and 10.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet advocates for a migration policy line that implies a total return to how the systems looked before 2015. They say no to all proposals that the government puts forward in the migration policy area. Vänsterpartiet does not think there are any problems with the migration policy that Sweden has pursued for decades and which has entailed a great exclusion, a large segregation and a criminality that has flourished. Vänsterpartiet closes its eyes and says no.

I want to ask a simple question to Tony Haddou and Vänsterpartiet: Do Tony Haddou and Vänsterpartiet believe that the conditions for those seeking asylum in Sweden, regarding which grounds one can obtain a residence permit on and so on, can affect how many people seek out Sweden specifically? If the rules Sweden has stand out compared to, for example, other European countries, can it mean that more will come to Sweden than would otherwise have been the case? Does this mean that there can be attractive factors, pull factors, and do they in that case have any significance?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by saying that I do not view asylum seekers in the same way as the Moderaterna do. You speak of crime flourishing because we have a reception, Viktor Wärnick. You should, above all, look at your own company before making such statements. This is deplorable, Mr. Speaker.

What matters is, above all, what connection people have to a country. That is the first thing one looks at. One might have compatriots who have moved to a certain country. One might have relatives there. There is a whole range of things that influence this.

The purpose of this proposal is, as the Sweden Democrats said earlier, that fewer people should come to Sweden. We have also heard the Moderates repeat several times that they want fewer – a record low – to come here. In that case, I must ask some counter-questions to the Moderates, who are proud that a record low number of people are seeking asylum in Sweden.

What has improved during this government? Have we received more cheap rental apartments? Have we received more jobs? Has healthcare become better? Has the school received more resources? Have workers received strengthened and better conditions?

No, Mr. Speaker. The rich have become richer and the poor poorer. The Moderates use asylum seekers as scapegoats for all of this. I do not share their view. I am not proud that a record low number are coming to Sweden, because obviously everyone has fared worse.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! That Tony Haddou becomes indignant and outraged when someone comes and points out that his policy does not hang together is not surprising.

Sweden has received very many asylum seekers over a longer period. During the eight years with a Social Democratic-led government – Tony Haddou and his Left Party passively supported Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister and Morgan Johansson as Migration Minister – 320,000 asylum seekers came to Sweden. In one year, 2015, over 160,000 asylum seekers sought refuge in Sweden. If one does not believe that it has consequences for society – for how integration works, for how many who live in a shadow society and do not leave the country even though they should, and for crime – and sees no problems at all, one does not see reality for what it is.

This government sees reality for what it is. That is why we have worked actively with migration policy. We have implemented a paradigm shift that ensures Sweden does not stand out compared to other European countries. We have also worked actively with crime policy. When it comes to gang crime, we have achieved a halving and more than that. There have been significantly fewer shootings and other acts of violence.

It matters who is in power. If the Left Party is to enter the government, if Tony Haddou is to become migration minister in Magdalena Andersson's government, we know that more people will seek to come to Sweden and that the problems will recur. That is why it is so important to ask these questions. This is about informing the consumers, the voters, that is to say what it means if one votes for any of the left-wing parties. Then we get a total blindness towards the problems.

Tony Haddou does not answer the question of whether the conditions for seeking to come to Sweden have any significance for where people turn. Do the pull factors play any role in people's choices? Tony Haddou does not answer that question. And it is about the fact that Vänsterpartiet does not care about this.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must clarify what I became angry about. I became angry at the deeply racist tone when Viktor Wärnick says that crime flourishes because of asylum seekers.

I think that Viktor Wärnick should first look at his own company. The absolute first thing the Moderaterna, as well as the Kristdemokraterna and the Liberalerna, should do is look at the Sverigedemokraterna. News after news comes out every day about what kind of party it is. It is not a party like all the others.

Then it is about the fundamental question. I actually think that Viktor Wärnick received an answer to the question of what it is that influences when asylum seekers seek out Sweden or other European countries. It has, above all – priority one – to do with the connection. It is among the first things one looks at. Is there anyone from the home country in the country? Does one have relatives there? Can one quickly enter society?

I am, just like Viktor Wärnick, a parent. Among the first things one looks at is whether the children will live safely in the country. It is no more difficult than that.

I think it is completely reasonable that asylum seekers look at what the conditions are for children to grow up safely in the country when one flees from war. I have no problem with that, but I am saddened that the Moderaterna have that view on asylum seekers.

I think they should have the right to international protection, and they should have the right to freedom. It should not be as the Moderaterna advocate, namely that one is proud that a record few will come to Sweden – but everyone has had it worse, except for the very richest.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin this debate by moving for the approval of the committee's majority proposal for a decision, which naturally implies a rejection of the motions made in the report A new reception act.

The proposal we are debating today, namely a new Reception Act, is an important link in the government's extensive work to transform Swedish migration policy, in order to increase integration and, in the long run, build Sweden stronger. The proposal is about improving the conditions for an orderly asylum reception and a more efficient return process, as well as reducing exclusion.

Let me first say a few words about the background to why we Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, are now implementing this reform. The previously high asylum reception in Sweden during the S government's mandate periods has led to major problems with social exclusion in our country. The exclusion has been exacerbated by the EBO Act, which has made it possible for asylum seekers to choose their own housing while they waited for a decision in their case. It should be said that this possibility is lacking in other comparable countries.

The intention was certainly good from the beginning, but over the years it has shown that EBO has had significant negative consequences in the form of, among other things, overcrowding and segregation. There are examples of children who have been forced to live in overcrowding because a dozen people are squeezed into a small two-room apartment. The children themselves have been particularly vulnerable. One can, as a parent, wonder about what difficulties and problems can arise when trying to do homework and complete one's education when it is so crowded in an apartment.

At the same time, the areas of exclusion have grown larger. This is simply not good, neither for the asylum seekers nor for Sweden as a country. The EBO system has also meant that contacts between the Migration Agency and the asylum seekers have been hindered, which in the long run has led to a less efficient asylum and return process.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden now has the lowest asylum-related immigration in 40 years. That is good! And it is a prerequisite for us to address the integration challenges that exist in our country. But the need for a well-organized reception of asylum seekers remains. Sweden needs an organized reception that streamlines the process and increases returns.

It is about facilitating the contacts between the applicants and the authorities and about giving the asylum seekers the support they need, but it is also about having a well-functioning system for those who are not granted asylum. For the fact is that only around one-third of those who seek asylum in Sweden are judged to have grounds for asylum. It must be ensured that those who do not have the right to stay return and do not disappear into a shadow society without permission, becoming even more vulnerable and being exploited in various ways.

It is against this background that we Christian Democrats and the rest of the government base are carrying out a reform of the reception system.

Mr. Speaker! Already last year, important steps were taken towards a more organized reception when the old order with own housing for asylum seekers was abolished. Asylum seekers were therefore expected to live in an asylum center.

In the proposition, a new law is therefore proposed, and it replaces the previous law. Parts of the old regulatory framework will be found in the new law. In many parts, however, the new law contains provisions that involve novelties. They involve, among other things, the following.

Persons who are in a return phase will be covered by the law, and thus by the rights and obligations that follow from it, in significantly more cases than before. New measures are introduced that aim to achieve better control over where the asylum seeker stays and lives.

The current rules have in several respects meant that the responsibility of the involved actors has been unclear. This is now being rectified. The purpose of the new law is to ensure that the regulatory framework is modern and purposeful, to rectify ambiguities and loopholes in the regulatory framework, and to create a long-term sustainable regulatory framework. Through the new law, the Swedish reception is adapted to the minimum level of EU law.

Mr. Speaker! The main rule in the new law is, as it is today, that everyone who has applied for a residence permit on the grounds of asylum or with the support of the mass flight directive is covered by it. The law applies during the entire application process, that is, until the person has a residence permit and has been registered in the population register. The law also applies during the entire return phase for those who do not receive a residence permit until the person in question leaves the country.

Mr. Speaker! A prerequisite for a regulated and orderly immigration is that the state has control over where persons seeking protection in the country are located. It is therefore proposed that those who seek asylum or are in a return phase shall only be permitted to stay in the county where their accommodation is located. Which county the foreigner is permitted to stay in will therefore be governed by which asylum accommodation Migrationsverket has assigned.

Through the recently introduced rules on asylum housing, asylum seekers are, as a starting point, only entitled to daily allowance and special contribution if they live at the asylum housing assigned to them by Migrationsverket. The condition also applies to foreign citizens in the return phase. In order to be able to monitor that the housing condition is followed, additional measures need to be usable. The Government therefore proposes that asylum seekers shall participate in attendance checks at the asylum housing. For persons in the return phase, a reporting obligation is proposed instead. The measures now mentioned apply generally. Individual decisions may involve a more restrictive obligation. Naturally, temporary exceptions can be made in individual cases.

Mr. Speaker! The starting point for the proposals is that the right to assistance shall correspond to what follows from the minimum level of EU law. The assistance that may become relevant is the right to housing, daily allowance, and special grants. The assistance shall be means-tested, which means that those who have their own assets shall use them in the first instance. We are introducing clear and tightened rules for the right to grants. Which conditions shall apply depends on where in the asylum process a person is located.

Mr. Speaker! As mentioned in the debate, asylum seekers today are, according to the rules, granted exemptions from the requirement for a work permit to a large extent. This means that asylum seekers have the right to work in Sweden in a way that clearly deviates from the minimum level of EU law. We Christian Democrats and the rest of the government consider this to be inappropriate. Therefore, we propose that asylum seekers should, as a rule, not be granted a work permit during the initial phase of six months, that is, during the time we estimate that the Swedish Migration Agency needs to process the application for a residence permit.

Mr. Speaker! Another reason why the reception is being reviewed is that it has been unclear who is entitled to assistance and who is responsible for providing the assistance. The demarcation against other regulatory frameworks has been unclear and created implementation problems. This is being rectified now. With the proposal, it will be clear that those covered by the Reception Act shall be entitled to assistance only according to that Act and not according to other regulatory frameworks. Asylum seekers shall therefore not be entitled to financial assistance according to the Social Services Act or have the possibility of receiving settlement-based benefits.

Mr. Speaker! When the Tidö cooperation ensures that changes are made to create order and clarity in the reception in Sweden, the opposition stands aside. As usual, they cannot agree on what the reception should look like. The Green Party and the Left Party generally say no to the changes and the tightened requirements. In their own dream world, they want to return to the policy that applied a number of years ago and which has created today's social problems. Admittedly, the Centre Party and the Social Democrats approve of different parts of the proposal, but they sometimes reserve themselves, sometimes on their own and sometimes in diverse constellations, against parts of the bill.

We can observe that empty barrels make the most noise. From the Social Democrats, it sounds in this chamber and in the debate as if they have all the answers to all the problems that exist, even though it is they themselves who have created them. Over eight years, they actually created the situation that the Tidö government is now having to manage.

Is it not somewhat symptomatic that it was only when one was released from the Green Party's straitjacket that the investigation in this matter was initiated? One can stand here and say that one intends to conduct a strict migration policy. But in reality, for five of eight years, one chose a significantly more dangerous path for Sweden's future. It was thus when the Green Party left the government that one could carry out the proposals one wanted to carry out. It gives a clear foretaste of the chaos that will arise if a red-green constellation is allowed to lead Sweden.

My greeting to the Swedish people is still that one should avoid the chaos option in September. The results show that it most likely means increased problems from an unconditional migration policy when everyone has pulled back and fought for their red lines.

Mr. Speaker! In the autumn election, there is a better alternative, which during this mandate period has ensured the implementation of promised and necessary changes for our country. It is we Christian Democrats who, together with the other Tidö parties, have achieved a different direction.

Mr. Speaker! With this bill, Sweden will receive a more predictable and orderly asylum reception. It is something that benefits both the asylum seekers and Sweden as a country.

I move, as I have said, for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and for the rejection of the motion proposals.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström began his speech by stating that many children grow up in overcrowded conditions because they have moved to Sweden with a large family that has been given a small apartment or has moved in with a relative. These are naturally not good upbringing conditions for children.

But the government's new proposal, which is what we are talking about today, implies no improvement for children living in overcrowded conditions – on the contrary. Those children will now be squeezed together in even smaller rooms in these residences. There, children will also share accommodation with people with substance abuse problems and with adults who have different types of mental illness.

Alarm reports from voluntary organizations working for children's rights warn that the housing conditions are harmful to children. Reports of concern have been submitted in large numbers, among others to Sigtuna municipality, where one of these reception centers is located.

If one wants a system where children are given good reception conditions, where they simply get peace and quiet to do homework and so on, one must ensure that real apartments are provided where children can actually be in safety.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I listened for a question but note that Member Hirvonen shared a reflection on the situation. It is a situation that Member Hirvonen seems to be satisfied with.

I can, just as many speakers have said, state that the situation in Sweden is due to the fact that a few years ago we had an extremely large asylum reception. Compared to many other European countries, we received very many asylum seekers, whom we have not yet managed to integrate.

Through the EBO system, a situation has been created where children and many others are squeezed and exploited. People live in overcrowded apartments and are not given the opportunity for education in the way that can be expected. It has also led to long processing times. People have remained in it.

With this change, there will be a clear decision. One comes to the country and receives their assessment within a reasonable time. One is provided with accommodation; it may be correct that not every room in the accommodation meets the requirements. But here, there is a control system. Here there is – just as Member Hirvonen points out – an opportunity to raise it, and there is someone who is responsible, which is not the case when one lives in a cramped apartment, where perhaps ten people share two rooms.

I think this means that we improve the processing time so that a decision is received quickly, so that children know what will happen. At the same time, we ensure that there is an organized accommodation and that one has control over whom one shares a room with.

My question back to Member Hirvonen is based on the fact that it is noticeable that there are different opinions within the government base that Hirvonen intends to join. Will it be a requirement from Miljöpartiet, when they sit in the government negotiations, that the EBO Act shall be introduced again?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that many have overestimated the significance of asylum seekers being able to receive 71 kronor a day. When the possibility of receiving those 71 kronor a day has been abolished if one settles in places where there is, for example, a lot of vulnerability, it has not affected people's choice of where they settle.

We in Miljöpartiet present a completely different path forward. We do not want to go back to what was. We also say no to the Tidö parties' proposals and policies which actually involve restrictions on freedom. It will not counteract overcrowding but institutionalize it.

It is unfortunate that Ingemar Kihlström has not read our proposal that the Swedish Migration Agency should offer housing that is completely in line with what is good for families with children, in places where the conditions for integration are good and where there are good conditions for the parents to find work. I am completely convinced that if asylum seekers are offered such good housing, they will choose it over living in overcrowded conditions with a relative.

The Tidö parties, on the other hand, want to force families with children to live in facilities that are not always perceived as safe for the children. There, they must crowd into small residential rooms and share spaces with adults who have different types of substance abuse problems or other problems. In that case, you are forcing people into a completely impossible situation, which is not good for children.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the question I asked remains hanging in the air.

I will willingly say that I have not read all the details in the motion from Miljöpartiet, but I can state that Miljöpartiet, together with Vänsterpartiet, says no to the change. They say yes to continuing in the tracks we are in today – the tracks that put children in a vulnerable situation, which lead to people both being exploited and disappearing into the shadow society, and which lead to processing times becoming even longer because Migrationsverket, for example, cannot maintain contact.

It is a Sweden that I do not want. I want a Sweden where it is clear and distinct that these are the rules that apply. There should be short processing times when one's asylum case is being examined.

When it comes to the speech on integration, we can state that today, two-thirds of those seeking asylum do not receive a yes on their application. To then be integrated into society during that period means that one pulls the children out of a situation, but that is what the Green Party wants to do, because the Green Party wants to increase immigration to Sweden.

I assess that there will be a demand in the government negotiations where the Social Democrats, with a loud voice, say: We have changed the migration policy, and we will ensure that it is strict.

I can state that the Green Party steered migration policy in a completely different direction during the eight years that the S-government ruled this country. I can see that we are now doing what is good for asylum seekers, who receive an organized accommodation where one has control over whom one shares a room with. That is not the case in an apartment where ten people live and an eleventh moves in.

We will ensure that there is order and clarity regarding both the housing and the situation for all of Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! When listening to this debate, it is interesting to hear the historical accounts that are given. Most recently, the Christian Democrats said that it was the eight years between 2014 and 2022 that created all the problems we have in migration policy and integration.

I have had the privilege of following this issue since 2006. I was first for four years at the Government Offices and have since been for 16 years in the Swedish Parliament. I must say that my view is somewhat different from the one that the Christian Democrats give the impression of.

During the eight years of the Alliance government, there was a constant discussion in which there were two parties – the Liberals and the Christian Democrats – who were constantly pushing for a more liberal refugee policy and a more liberal migration policy. It was also this that caused the Alliance government to contact the Green Party to discuss how they would jointly shape the migration policy. In much of the regulatory framework that the Alliance government left behind, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals had therefore been pushing, and there was a close cooperation with precisely the Green Party.

Mr. Speaker! It is therefore a bit exciting to hear that from the current government it is said that what happened in 2015, that is, the crisis in the Middle East – which gave enormous refugee flows towards Europe and where 160,000 ended up here – would have been due to the newly appointed Social Democratic government. It took office a year before this situation arose.

I remember that the then Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said that he did not see this coming, and I can say that it was probably none of the politicians during the preceding years who had foreseen the situation that arose as a result of the crisis in the Middle East.

The party that then took its responsibility, I must say, given the situation Sweden ended up in with enormous flows of refugees towards our country, was Miljöpartiet. In conflict with its entire ideology in these issues – that is, largely open borders – the party dared to take the step and, within the government, reach an agreement with the Socialdemokraterna regarding a total overhaul of the Swedish migration policy.

What happened then became an awakening for all parties, and in all parties, it led to a reassessment. I would therefore like to say that the major paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy did not come in 2022, but rather with what happened when reality changed in 2015–2016 and which the government at that time responsibly, I must say, handled. It was not because the Kristdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet – or for that matter Centerpartiet – pushed forward in the Swedish Riksdag, but it was extremely painful decisions for that government.

After that, the Centre Party has stood for a strict migration policy, where there must be order and discipline, but this must also be reconciled with humanity.

The paradigm shift that possibly occurred in 2022 was that a new component was added to this policy, and that is to make life as miserable as possible for people who are born in other countries. Here, we are to deport teenagers whose parents have come here as guest researchers at Karolinska Institutet – because when one turns 18, one is thrown out of the country. We are also to deport those who have come here as labor migrants and who are of great use, pay taxes, and mean a lot for the public sector, healthcare and elderly care, the tourism industry, and important parts of the Swedish business community. The paradigm shift is well to pinpoint them and say: You are not welcome in the country.

The proposal that we will later decide on today, namely a new Reception Act, is something that we from Centerpartiet welcome. It means that the state gets a clearer responsibility for the asylum process, and it means that we get an efficiency gain on a number of points. Therefore, we are fundamentally positive towards the proposal that is presented. We do, however, have three reservations.

The first concerns that one completely stops the municipalities' possibility to provide financial assistance in crisis situations. We have, Mr. Speaker, an ultimate safety net in this country that should be able to step in when exceptional events occur. That is to be closed now, meaning that the municipalities shall not be able to step in and provide financial support if those who are asylum seekers are affected by severe crises, violence, or something else. This will have severe consequences for the small number of people it concerns.

I heard the Sweden Democrats' member say that the municipalities are so eager to pour out maintenance support to people seeking asylum, but then one does not have much knowledge of what the municipal economy looks like or how the discussion about the maintenance support is going in the social welfare committees around Sweden.

We think there should be a valve that allows municipalities in crisis situations to be able to intervene in a way that the state, via the Migration Agency, cannot.

The second reservation, Mr. Speaker, concerns the area restriction. We think it is reasonable that one should be at the asylum center if one is seeking asylum. Therefore, we think it is good that there is presence control and that there is a duty to report, but what is said about the asylum seekers not being allowed to travel across the county border will have serious consequences. If one is at an asylum center in Gävle and parts of the family living on the other side of the county border in Skutskär have a family holiday, one should not be allowed to go there, and if there is an acute case of illness with a family member living in another county, it shall be forbidden to go there and provide support. We think that the presence control and the duty to report that this proposal entails is sufficient.

The third and final reservation concerns the possibility of working. For us in Centerpartiet, it is not a problem if the person who is in Sweden and has the opportunity to get a job with a salary and pay tax can actually do so. It is clear that one can discuss whether this has an attractive factor, a so-called pull factor, but I believe it is very small in relation to other strong forces that determine where one chooses to seek asylum.

Our basic idea is that it is not a problem but an asset for Sweden with all the people who are in the country and who in some way can contribute by working and paying tax.

Mr. Speaker! I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not often that I stand up and request a reply from the Centre Party these days, but today I do so, because I want to thank Anders W Jonsson for the opening three minutes of his speech. It was something of the absolute best I have heard during the migration policy debates in this chamber during the entire parliamentary term.

I also want to thank Anders W Jonsson for the fantastic job he has done here in the Riksdag. There are many times when I have not agreed with Anders. That is how it should be in a democracy. I think it is beautiful. When a member of honor leaves the Riksdag, I want to say thank you in any case. The initial three minutes truly prove what Anders W Jonsson stands for as a truly fine democratic champion with deep roots in the center movement. Thank you, Anders W Jonsson!

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ola Möller, for the kind words!

When one has followed politics for a longer period, one can actually still contribute with a number of things. It is about the historical perspective.

When reality changes, we as politicians must be prepared to reassess the conclusions we have previously reached. Migration policy is a typical such area.

For my party and also for others, the events of 2015 meant major changes in the view on migration policy. It is also why I react to the image that all the problems we have in migration policy are due to what happened between 2014 and 2022.

It was honorable and very strongly done by the Löfven government, and not least by the Green Party. Historically, it has been the case in migration policy that the Social Democrats and the Moderates have been the parties that have been most resistant to liberalizations of the policy. That the Social Democrats could take that responsibility in 2015 was understandable, given the experiences of government work.

What Miljöpartiet did then was still significant, Mr. Speaker. We all remember how painful it was for the representatives of that party to be forced, as part of the government, to make decisions that they definitely did not run for election to make. Nevertheless, it could be seen that in the situation that Europe and not least Sweden ended up in, a responsibility was required from the government's side. Then Miljöpartiet showed, I think, that they were able to take a government responsibility.

Thank you for the kind words!

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I take the opportunity to first express my approval of the committee's position.

Sweden shall have an asylum reception that holds together. Those who flee war and persecution shall have their grounds for protection examined. Those who are allowed to stay shall meet a society that gives a real chance to start over, learn the language, get into work and become a part of Sweden, and those who are denied shall return. The new Reception Act is an important step toward creating just such a reception – more organized, more predictable and more responsible.

Mr. Speaker! The law that today regulates the reception of asylum seekers is over 30 years old. It is older than the current Aliens Act, older than today's EU cooperation in the migration area, and written for a different Sweden, in a different time and under different conditions.

Since then, the laws have been patched and mended. New rules have been introduced, reality has changed, and the reception has repeatedly been tested by crises, high pressure on the asylum system, and major integration challenges.

It has led to a system that is no longer sufficiently clear. There have been uncertainties about who is covered by the law, who is responsible for which parts, how long one is covered, and what obligations each one has.

That is not what we want. The one seeking protection should know what applies. The authorities should know what responsibility they have. The municipalities should be able to plan their operations.

That is precisely why we are moving forward with the legislative change. The purpose is simply to improve the conditions for an orderly asylum reception, for a more efficient return process, and to reduce exclusion.

Mr. Speaker! One of the major problems in the old reception, if one is to be completely honest, has been the possibility of independent housing. For a long time, asylum seekers have been able to arrange housing on their own. It has often been in already heavily burdened areas, often with overcrowding as a result, and often far from the authorities' support and contact.

It has simply contributed to segregation and an exclusion. It has made it more difficult for the Swedish Migration Agency to keep in contact with the asylum seeker and more difficult for municipalities to plan their operations.

The new Reception Act therefore makes the asylum accommodation the hub of the reception itself. As a general rule, asylum seekers shall live in the accommodation where they have been allocated a place in order to be entitled to daily allowance. The State takes a clearer responsibility for the reception. The Swedish Migration Agency receives a clearer responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! It is also an integration reform. Why is that? Yes, because a first step begins with society knowing where people are, that children can be reached by the support they need, that the person who then receives a residence permit can quickly move on to establishment, and that the person who receives a rejection does not disappear into a shadow society.

A system where people largely arrange insecure housing for themselves, where authorities have difficulty reaching them, and where rejection decisions cannot be enforced is not more humane just because the state sets fewer requirements. On the contrary. In reality, that freedom can result in people ending up in overcrowding, dependency, and vulnerability.

Mr. Speaker! According to the proposal, asylum seekers and persons with deportation decisions shall be subject to area restrictions. As a general rule, one shall stay within the county where the assigned asylum accommodation is located. Asylum seekers shall participate in attendance checks. Persons with deportation decisions shall be subject to a reporting obligation. The Swedish Migration Agency shall, in certain cases, be able to decide on individual accommodation and reporting obligations. These are, in themselves, important tools.

The new Reception Act also means that the conditions for daily allowance are tightened. Daily allowance shall continue to exist for those who lack their own means and meet the conditions. But those who receive support from society shall also participate in the process.

It is reasonable that the daily allowance can be reduced if a person does not follow the area restriction, does not fulfill the reporting obligation, stays away, or seriously misbehaves at an asylum center.

At the same time, the sanctions shall be applied proportionately. If someone has been ill, if something unforeseen has happened, or if there are special reasons, this shall be taken into account. Basic needs such as food, clothing, and hygiene products shall always be guaranteed at the residence.

Mr. Speaker! Those who flee from war, persecution, and oppression shall have their need for protection assessed in a legally secure manner. But for that very reason, we must also be careful that the asylum system is used for what it is intended for, namely protection.

The asylum system should not be a parallel path into the Swedish labor market. The government therefore proposes that asylum seekers should be able to receive exemptions from the requirement for a work permit only after six months after the asylum application was submitted. This shall furthermore only apply if the Swedish Migration Agency has not yet made a decision in the case and if the delay is not due to the asylum seeker themselves.

Mr. Speaker! It is, among other things, about the government choosing to use the time limit that EU law permits. Sweden shall not settle on a more generous level than what is required. It is also about obtaining a faster and more orderly asylum process. During the initial period after an asylum application has been submitted, the focus shall be on assessing the need for protection. If the person is entitled to protection, the path into society shall be clear.

It is therefore reasonable that access to the labor market is not opened immediately. If the case is still not settled after six months, and it is not due to the applicant, the possibility to work may exist. But during the time when the asylum case is normally to be examined, the main task shall be precisely the examination.

Mr. Speaker! The new Reception Act takes steps in the right direction. It provides clearer rules for who is covered by the reception. It strengthens the state's responsibility for housing. It links support to participation. It gives the municipalities better conditions. It gives the Swedish Migration Agency better tools to maintain contact and drive the process forward.

An organized reception is better for Sweden. But it is also better for the asylum seeker. It provides clearer decisions, better contact, better opportunities to identify needs, and a better way forward – either into Sweden, if grounds for protection exist, or back, if grounds for protection are lacking.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a new reception act – a law that severely restricts the freedom of those who have fled and sought protection in Sweden. It restricts the freedom to support oneself, the freedom to move freely, and the freedom to visit a grandmother who lives on the other side of the county border. Refugees' freedom is being curtailed.

At demonstrations for a more humane refugee policy, the slogans are sometimes chanted: Those who flee have no choice, no human is illegal! But we see how the Tidöregeringen is criminalizing refugees step by step. More shall be locked up for ever longer periods, even though they have not committed any crime. The only thing they have done is to say: Help me, for I need protection!

The government speaks of making things better for children and says that now, when the state provides a collective housing facility for the families, there will be order and tidiness. It is said that it will be safe, and that we will combat overcrowding. But instead, we are institutionalizing the overcrowding. Families are squeezed together in cramped housing units and forced to share facilities with adults with all kinds of different problems, criminal history, substance abuse issues, etcetera. Children's rights organizations are sounding the alarm that children are suffering.

The responsibility falls on the minister. When the Minister for Migration debates issues regarding the government's return centers, which function in a similar way, he shifts the blame. Then he does not know, and then he does not believe that this is what he has decided. But the responsibility actually falls on the Minister for Migration, and the responsibility falls on the members of Parliament who vote for this new deprivation of liberty.

The government's proposal means that asylum seekers are not allowed to work during the initial period in Sweden. They are therefore not allowed to support themselves. This obviously means that the state's costs increase because the state must pay for food and housing for people who could otherwise have worked and paid with their own wages. But it also has far-reaching consequences for the people, who are forced into passivity.

At the beginning of March 2022, I and some pro-environment colleagues from the European Parliament and the Polish parliament traveled to Warsaw and to the border with Ukraine. Russia's full-scale invasion had recently begun, and millions of Ukrainians had fled to Poland.

In a house in Warsaw, I met one of seven Ukrainian refugees who had been moved in with a family. She was a doctor, and she said: I want to work! I have taken a job as a bartender, because I have to think about something else. I cannot sit passively and wait for news about what is happening with my relatives in eastern Ukraine. I want any job at all as long as I get to contribute – as long as I get to do something. I don't want to be a burden to anyone. I can work!

I also met an art dealer who had taken care of a Ukrainian author. They had organized a lecture tour, because as they said: This is what this person in flight needs in order to be able to preserve their humanity and their human dignity.

We humans need to be needed. We need to be able to contribute. Depriving people of the opportunity to work, the opportunity to contribute, and the opportunity to show that they want to be part of a community has consequences for refugees' mental health. In the long run, it risks leading to people becoming passivized for a long time ahead. It risks leading to them becoming depressed, or more depressed, and that is not good for integration.

We in Miljöpartiet want to ensure that all meetings with Sweden contribute to integration from day one and language from day one. The best place for a child to learn the Swedish language is, of course, preschool and school, and for an adult, it is the workplace. Very many testify to this. The entire opposition has therefore agreed not to agree to the proposal to forbid people from working when they come to Sweden as asylum seekers.

Madam Speaker! Many referral bodies warn of an increased risk that people will be drawn into black market work and exploited by criminals when they are not allowed to work. When the government chooses between preventing crime and making life difficult for immigrants and people on the move, it has on several occasions chosen precisely to make life difficult for immigrants and people on the move, even when it increases the risk of crime.

The previous debate we had on this theme was about limitations in financial support to immigrants. There, referral bodies warned of very serious consequences, for example that more children could be drawn into the sex trade. Still, the government proceeded with reducing the benefits for immigrants. This, I think, is an incorrect prioritization. The most important thing is still that we ensure that we do not increase the risk of children being drawn into sex trade or that people in a vulnerable situation are exploited by criminals.

I also think, however, that the very fact that all people are equally worthy should suffice as an argument for not restricting children's rights and nor adults' rights, for example, the right to work.

Children's safety is negatively affected by these proposals, as is schooling in the municipalities where asylum seekers are now to be concentrated in the accommodations. There will be a great rotation of children who begin their schooling in these municipalities to then, perhaps after a short period, move somewhere else. The possibilities for teachers in the classrooms to plan their teaching and to build a sense of community in the class will be worsened. It will also affect all children's education in the places where these camps will be located.

Madam Speaker! On behalf of the Green Party, we therefore move for the rejection of the entire bill. We propose instead that the Swedish Migration Agency and the government be tasked with finding a completely new way to organize the housing of asylum seekers. It should be dispersed in neighborhoods and municipalities where there is not already a high proportion of the population who have recently moved to Sweden. Care should also be taken to ensure that the asylum seekers receive proper housing that is adapted to how many children there are in the family.

This promotes integration. It gives children a secure upbringing and good conditions to succeed in school. It gives us all a much better society, where we do not return to what was abolished on good grounds in the 1990s, not least after violent arson attacks against such refugee centers.

I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 1 and reservation 10.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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