A new order for asylum seekers' accommodation

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Before the 2022 election, we promised the Moderates that we would get immigration to Sweden in order. Together with our coalition partners, we received a clear mandate from the voters to implement a paradigm shift in migration policy.

We are now overhauling the entire Swedish migration legislation. To get the migration policy in order, a solid piece of work with very many reforms and legislative changes is required. Such work takes time. We can, however, at this point in the second half of the parliamentary term, state that our work is yielding results.

A couple of weeks ago, Migration Minister Johan Forssell presented statistics on migration to Sweden during 2024. Last year, the number of asylum seekers was under 10,000 people. This can be compared with over 160,000 asylum seekers in 2015.

Our work is bearing fruit, and Sweden stands out. Since this government took office in 2022, the number of asylum seekers has decreased by 42 percent, while the number across the entire EU has increased by 4 percent during the same period. When it comes to granted asylum-related residence permits, the number of those granted protection and their relatives is the lowest since 1985, that is, as far back as there is statistics for this.

Immigration to Sweden is decreasing while more and more highly qualified labor migrants, researchers, and students are granted residence permits. 58 percent of the granted residence permits due to work go to highly qualified labor migrants. The proportion has increased by 11 percent since 2022. The composition of immigration has thus changed. Sweden has moved from primarily being an asylum immigration country to once again being a country primarily for highly qualified labor.

We Moderates are not satisfied yet, however. Immigration needs to decrease further so that more people can get a chance to leave exclusion, become a part of the community in Sweden and contribute to our society.

Mr. Speaker! Today we take further steps to get migration to Sweden in order. Today we take the first step towards abolishing own housing for asylum seekers, what is commonly called EBO. The Moderates and the government consider that asylum seekers should, as a starting point, live in Migrationsverket's accommodations.

The arrangement that has prevailed in Sweden for far too long, which means that asylum seekers have largely been left to arrange their own accommodation, has led to significant problems with, among other things, overcrowding and segregation. Children in particular risk being harmed and are negatively affected by this. Asylum seekers in their own accommodation occur in Sweden to an extent that has no equivalent in other comparable countries. It is associated with significant negative consequences both for the asylum seekers and for society.

In order for more asylum seekers to live in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations, we now propose in a first step, among other things, that an asylum seeker shall, as a starting point, only have the right to daily allowance and special allowance during the asylum period if he or she lives in an accommodation arranged by the Swedish Migration Agency. We also propose that the Swedish Migration Agency be given a new power to, under certain conditions, verify that an asylum seeker is actually living in the accommodation by, for example, inspecting rooms, cupboards, and suitcases.

Furthermore, it shall become mandatory for asylum seekers to undergo so-called social introduction to receive information on how Swedish society functions. It is a necessity if one is to be able to live in Sweden.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the Swedish Migration Agency shall be able to request assistance from the police if an asylum seeker refuses to move from one accommodation to another.

By the asylum seekers not living in their own housing but instead in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations, it can be ensured that they live under orderly conditions and that they receive relevant information and different types of interventions. Furthermore, it means that the Swedish Migration Agency knows where the asylum seeker is located, which is a prerequisite for the asylum process and the return work to function effectively and for the processing times to be able to be shortened.

We also propose that if an asylum seeker does not live in an asylum center and does not inform Migrationsverket of their residential address, the application for residence permit shall be considered withdrawn. This means that it can be struck out and thus does not need to be examined on its merits.

The proposals constitute an important step in the measures that the Moderate-led government is now implementing to reform the reception system, with the aim of enabling a more efficient asylum process and more efficient return work.

Mr. Speaker! Despite these proposals, we can state that the work to reform and streamline the reception of asylum seekers is not complete. This is only a first step, as I have previously mentioned.

In the final report on an organized initial reception of asylum seekers, a number of proposals regarding the reception of asylum seekers are presented with the aim of ensuring a legitimate and long-term regulatory framework. It is proposed that further obligations be placed on asylum seekers, including participating in presence checks at the accommodation, only staying in the county where the asylum accommodation is located, and fulfilling a reporting obligation to Migrationsverket if the authority makes an individual decision on that. The asylum seeker shall receive a reduced daily allowance if they stay outside the county or do not follow their individual reporting obligation.

We are now continuing our work on these proposals for reforms. I look forward to having the opportunity here in the Riksdag to contribute to moving the process from proposal to law.

Mr. Speaker! For a long time, Sweden has had far too poor control over migration. This has resulted in asylum seekers, after their asylum applications have been rejected, remaining in Sweden and becoming part of the so-called shadow society. No one knows exactly how many are in the shadow society here in Sweden, but it is estimated that it could amount to as many as 100,000 people or even more. In the shadow society, people risk suffering very badly, and there is a risk that people who pose a security threat are hiding here.

The Moderate-led government is therefore working intensively to take control over who is in Sweden, in order to increase security in the country. It is right, and it is reasonable.

Mr. Speaker! We see once again an enormous split within the red-green opposition. The Social Democrats now say they are very keen on abolishing own-housing, EBO. This is in line with the government's outlined reforms, and I welcome it.

But even in this matter, I want to give the voters a consumer information. During 2021, when the Social Democrats were in government together with the Green Party, the then Migration Minister Morgan Johansson stated that he would gladly abolish EBO with all its problems. But he did not abolish the system, because the Green Party said no to it. Morgan Johansson said: "We are dependent on the parties we cooperate with."

Do you know what? If the Social Democrats were to get power today, they would still be dependent on the Green Party. And the Green Party still says no to abolishing EBO. So do the Social Democrats' allies in the Left Party. The Left Party actually says no to all proposals in the government's bill. And the Green Party says no to everything except the proposals on social introduction. They also want the Migration Agency's accommodations to be reformed into smaller units or individual apartments, which are said to be integrated into the ordinary housing stock.

Mr. Speaker! It is easy for the Social Democrats to vote yes to the proposals that the Moderate-led government puts forward. But to put forward and push through the proposals together with the Green Party and the Left Party is an impossibility. Since the Social Democrats are completely incapable of pushing through their policies together with their coalition partners, it actually matters less what they want.

If the Social Democrats had been in power, we would not have had these proposals on the Riksdag's table. It is a fact that even former Social Democratic ministers have confirmed.

I actually believe that the Social Democrats are quite happy that it is we who are governing migration policy now. The Social Democrats have never been able to and will never be able to implement the changes they claim to want to see, because they are completely tied by their intended partners in cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally want to approve the government's proposition, that is to say, approve the committee's proposal. Step by step, reform by reform, we are now getting the Swedish migration policy in order. Now the Moderate-led government is solving the problems that the Social Democrats failed to manage during their eight years in power.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Member mentioned that he wants to do something about overcrowding. The overcrowding is enormous today in the asylum centers that are offered. One can start there, I think.

The Social Democrats were first; we have had legislation similar to this, for example the one from 2020. It has as a general rule that asylum seekers who arrange their own accommodation in an area considered to have social and economic challenges do not have the right to daily allowance or special grants. That legislation has not had the intended effect. One can state that economic sanctions against asylum seekers have been tested previously. There are also similar proposals from 2005. The effect we now risk having with the government's proposal is the same as before: that asylum seekers will have poorer living conditions and live in greater vulnerability.

It is known that conditions and economic sanctions against asylum seekers absolutely have a limited effect. I want to ask the members factually: Why do you refuse to understand why asylum seekers choose their own housing? Investigations and reports indicate that asylum seekers choose their own housing, among other reasons, because the housing offered is too poor and because one gets closer to the housing and labor markets. Among the primary reasons for choosing to opt out of asylum housing are also the overcrowding and that it is unsafe for one's children. Families with children have it terribly difficult in asylum housing.

If the government wants asylum seekers to live in these accommodations, the government should reasonably focus on improving the situation there. One solution, besides that we could build cheap rental apartments and ensure that we have an active labor market policy, is to improve the asylum accommodations and the conditions for asylum seekers. Why does the government not do that? Why is the focus not on what works?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is now broad support for reforming the system of own housing. We are now taking a first step, and we will return with further proposals to completely phase out own housing. The main rule shall be that one is located at the Swedish Migration Agency's housing, because we are convinced that it streamlines the process enormously. It shortens lead times and makes the asylum process and the processing much simpler. All of this is, of course, a step toward ensuring that migration functions in Sweden, that those who seek to come to Sweden receive a correct processing as quickly as possible, and that the return work functions for those who are denied their application.

The overcrowding, which Member Haddou mentions, is often a fact in the private accommodations that the asylum seekers have sought out. The problems we see linked to private accommodation – the segregation that flourishes and the exclusion that spreads – is something that we need to address, but which unfortunately neither Vänsterpartiet nor Miljöpartiet seem to see. We now have the opportunity to do something about this to streamline the process. To make this work, the economic parts are naturally needed, and that includes making the grants we pay out conditional.

When one comes to Sweden, it is natural to seek out one's compatriots, to the diaspora, if one has that possibility. Of course, it is so. One must have full respect for that people want to do this. But here, it is now about ensuring that the asylum process works. We shall have good accommodations, fast processes, and short lead times. This is an important part in ensuring that Migrationsverket has functioning reception and accommodations and that the process is streamlined.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The fact remains - overcrowding is a norm today in asylum centers. It is regrettable that the government is not doing anything at all about the causes or the situation. The government has no ambition whatsoever to improve for asylum seekers or improve their housing conditions. I do not think anyone believes that either, for that matter. It is the opposite - what the government is doing is worsening the living conditions for asylum seekers. I think that is regrettable, because it in itself damages what the member is referring to, namely integration. Similar proposals regarding economic sanctions have been put forward previously, and they have not had the effect that the government now desires. What is being done now is to continue in the same direction.

The problem here is that one is not doing anything at all regarding the housing situation of asylum seekers, which is the main underlying problem. Instead, there are economic sanctions. No improvements are being made for integration. It is said that one does not want asylum seekers to seek out their own housing, but one does not improve the housing situation for them. One is absolutely doing nothing to improve integration in Sweden. It is the opposite. Historically, we have never had a government in Sweden that has damaged integration more than this government does. One has more or less ensured that the housing situation has crashed in Sweden. What is being requested are cheap rental apartments. This government has ensured that exactly that crashes and that those who build are unemployed today. Unemployment is at a record high and is catastrophic. What does this government do then? Exactly nothing.

The integration argument fails. The argument that something would become better for asylum seekers in this process also fails in most cases. The only thing that works is to ensure that we get good asylum housing. Why does the government not focus on what works?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I find it difficult to take lessons from the Left Party on how to conduct migration policy. It is the party in Sweden's Riksdag that wants to go the furthest. Just in this case, they want status quo - change nothing! But besides that, the Left Party's alternative is to go back to the legislation that applied before 2015 and which made the pull factors to Sweden such that during the worst years, when we had the highest pressure, there were over 160,000 people seeking asylum in Sweden. It is this party the Social Democrats need to hook their government support on. It is a fact.

When it comes to this issue of overcrowding, Tony Haddou, the norm today is that between 60 and 65 percent have their own housing. We see that it does not work. We see that it leads to segregation and protracted asylum processes.

This is part of getting control over the migration policy and migration in order to streamline the processes and ensure that the reception and return work functions. We do this in harmony with everything else we do in the migration area to alleviate the pressure on Sweden and ensure that fewer people seek out Sweden specifically. What has caused the processing times to be so enormously long is that we have simply had the most liberal reception process and the most liberal regulatory frameworks. This makes Sweden stand out. We have welfare benefits and other pull factors that have made people choose just Sweden - in addition to the fact that we, of course, have a fantastic country.

We are, therefore, conducting a comprehensive review of the migration policy. That was what I tried to describe in my speech. Vänsterpartiet says no to practically everything. The Social Democrats are mumbling back there in the benches, but if they had been in government themselves, they would not have been able to do this. That is a fact. The Swedish people deserve to know that it is Tony Haddous's Vänsterpartiet and Annika Hirvonen's Miljöpartiet that will set conditions for Magdalena Andersson's government.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Breaking segregation is a central challenge for Sweden. For very many years, the discussion on how we can achieve a more mixed composition in our residential areas has centered on the question of asylum seekers' housing.

There is a notion that if asylum seekers live with Migrationsverket during the initial period, segregation will decrease. I believe that one must have more active politics against segregation than that if one means business. I am convinced that economic issues, the possibility of obtaining a job and the possibility of obtaining a home in the same location, are the key factors.

To believe that if we concentrate all asylum seekers in cramped housing it solves the problems with segregation is incredibly short-sighted. What happens the day that people have received their residence permits and are to move out of the Swedish Migration Agency's housing? What happens then?

Then we still have the same housing shortage for people who do not have the opportunity to buy a condominium. Then we still have the same high unemployment in the places where people today may not even have the opportunity to get a roof over their heads.

The government needs an active housing policy if it is serious about breaking down housing segregation.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The report we are now dealing with is based on the government's proposition. It is a first step towards abolishing own housing. It is therefore about asylum seekers' housing, where the asylum seekers shall live during the asylum process.

Here we are, in a broad majority, I would like to say, in the Swedish Riksdag in agreement that substandard housing has led to major problems, overcrowding, segregation and vulnerability. This applies especially to children who have had to live in this overcrowding and vulnerability.

Therefore, we believe that it is better, not only for the asylum process but also for the other reasons, to ensure that the asylum seekers are located at the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations. It shortens the lead times, and one obtains the information needed so that one can see and can help to support the asylum seekers during the process when the asylum application is to be processed.

The purpose is to make it better and more efficient. It is not a strange bird around the world, nor is it among our Nordic neighboring countries. We can, for example, look at Denmark to see how it works. We simply want to make it better and safer.

The problems we have seen in these vulnerable areas indicate that EBO is not working. It is regrettable that Miljöpartiet cannot see this. What I would like to ask Miljöpartiet is: If you are so opposed to this reform as we are currently doing and also the next step, will it be a requirement from your side to undo the reforms and the removal of own housing when you vote in Magdalena Andersson, if it were to become so?

It is also relevant to know, because you are now resorting to the chest tones that you resort to and think it is so appalling.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! All government questions are referred to replies to my speeches.

Now I wanted to speak about the issue of housing for asylum seekers. How do we organize housing for asylum seekers in the best possible way to counteract segregation?

We have a proposal that goes in a different direction than the government's and which addresses the challenges we have had today when asylum seekers have not been helped to find housing in places other than, for example, where they already know people and perhaps already have relatives.

It is about what the Swedish Migration Agency should do instead of building large camps where everyone is to live or just saying: Solve it yourself! That has been the case to a large extent, if we are to simplify it today.

Instead, one could actively work with strategically having apartments – real, good apartments to live in for families with children – in different areas so that they are not very many concentrated in one place but spread out. Then I believe we would give families the best opportunity to enter society.

I myself grew up in a residential area where a Bosnian refugee family moved in during the 90s. All of us who lived there became part of integrating together precisely because there were many of us who could help. My mother took care of the homework reading. The Bosnian father helped my grandmother with her bad back. We found a community together.

I believe that an active policy for asylum seekers to be able to live in many different areas would counteract segregation better than your concentration policy where everyone is to be in one place.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the government question is uncomfortable not only for the Social Democrats but also for the Green Party and the Left Party. Those parties know that it will be put to the test after the 2026 election if misfortune were to strike and a government could be formed.

We will continue to ask these questions. It is relevant for the voters to understand that what the Social Democrats say is not what they will be able to do. What you say is what one will have to abide by.

We on our side, the four coalition parties that now have a majority in the chamber, are pursuing the line that I am completely convinced the absolute majority of the Swedish people think is right, correct, and reasonable.

Mr. Speaker! I think the description that the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations would be camps is a dishonest argument. I urge Annika Hirvonen to visit the accommodations that the Swedish Migration Agency has had anyway. It is not a question of camps, but they are organized accommodations.

We shall now ensure that these are the main track, the main rule. It is so that we can shorten the processes and to make it safer and better. We do this in combination with the fact that we are now reducing the pressure on Sweden in order to shorten processing times.

It is much more efficient to decide at a faster pace than what has previously been possible regarding whether to grant the asylum seeker a residence permit on the grounds for protection they have stated or whether to reject and deport the individual. It will work better both regarding the asylum reception and regarding the return work.

We can look at the rest of the Nordic countries and observe that Sweden is the odd bird. Sweden has had an arrangement that was not intended from the beginning, with 60-65 percent of the asylum seekers having lived in their own accommodations in overcrowding, segregation, and exclusion. It has also been for a long time, because the processing has taken a very long time.

We will get that sorted out now. This is a first step. We will return to completely phasing out own housing.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The government is now finally taking a step in the right direction to tighten the legislation on private accommodation for asylum seekers, and that is welcome. But we Social Democrats do not think it is enough.

We have long proposed that the entire idea of EBO should be abolished. It is an idea that should receive broad support in here. We mean, as you understand, that the government's measures are insufficient.

The government expects that around 50 percent of all asylum seekers will still choose their own housing. This is admittedly a reduction from today's 60-65 percent, but it is far from sufficient. If we are serious about breaking segregation and improving integration, we must dare to go all the way.

The EBO Act was introduced in 1994 by the then conservative government with the Moderaterna at the helm and has since contributed to an ever deepening housing segregation. By letting asylum seekers choose their own housing, we have seen how areas in Sweden have developed into parallel societies where we have reached a situation where few have contact with the rest of Swedish society.

The consequences are well known: overcrowding, which has been mentioned here earlier, schools with low results, and a labor market where language skills and social contacts are lacking. Furthermore, asylum seekers risk falling into the hands of criminal actors on the black housing and labor market.

None of this is solely EBO's fault. There are many other market experiments that have contributed to this. But EBO is a major contributing cause, similar to other liberalizations that the right has long argued for. It is about a market mindset and a weaker society being the solution to all problems. The bourgeois EBO legislation has been extremely liberal. It stands out compared to other EU countries. In the same way that we see that the Swedish right has created an unregulated market system regarding free schools and labor immigration, we now see the consequences of the reception system and that the liberal ideas do not work.

Mr. Speaker! We have had the Riksdag's investigation service examine whether other EU countries handle the housing situation of asylum seekers in a similar manner. In six other EU countries - Estonia, France, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Germany - asylum seekers must live in designated locations during the waiting period. These countries have realized that a controlled placement not only favors integration but also counters shadow societies and insecurity.

The Social Democrats' proposal to abolish EBO should therefore be able to gather a broad majority in here, but for it to become a reality, it is required that the government and the Sweden Democrats dare to make decisions based on facts. We know that EBO has failed. We know that other countries manage to have an asylum reception without EBO. Why is the government hesitating? I actually do not understand that.

In the autumn budget policy debate, the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats claimed that it is not compatible with EU law to require that asylum seekers live in designated accommodations. The tone from the government parties was also very high in the interpellation debate that preceded the budget debates. In this case, the government and the Sweden Democrats are simply wrong.

In the government's own investigation, it is stated that decisions regarding asylum seekers' housing can be made based on public interest and public order and if it is necessary. That the government and SD still cannot manage to make the decision that is required shows that they are not prepared to do what is actually required to break the segregation in this country.

If we are to reverse the development in our socially vulnerable areas, it is not enough to just talk about the problems. It is not enough to assemble a council and sit and talk when we have records in explosions.

The Löfven government was attacked with words about having coffee with the business community. You don't coffee away problems. The Löfven government delivered jobs. This government does not. One does not deliver jobs and stop the explosions.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish integration policy has for all too long been characterized by short-term solutions. If we want newcomers to enter the workforce and into the community more quickly once they have been informed that they are to stay, we must provide them with the right conditions from day one. This means scrapping EBO and instead ensuring that asylum seekers live in places where there are jobs, education, and a real chance to become a part of Sweden. This means that Sweden must leave behind naive market solutions and bad liberal ideas—that asylum seekers should be allowed to choose for themselves where they should live.

Mr. Speaker! If we are serious about creating a functioning integration, which in turn leads to safety in the entire society, the choice is simple: Abolish EBO for real!

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are now, in opposition, very insistent on abolishing own housing for asylum seekers, EBO. They are even so eager - for this to be implemented - that they have a specific reservation regarding it in the committee's report.

That the government has referred proposals on this and intends to return to the Riksdag in the near future with a sharp proposition on the matter - and take the next step - is apparently not enough for the Social Democrats when they are in opposition. Now it is supposed to go fast, they think.

But it is a fact that the Social Democrats did not phase out the EBO legislation during the eight years when they last governed the country, when they were in power. We all know why. The then Migration Minister Morgan Johansson said at the time: We are dependent on the parties we cooperate with. Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed it was and is so. The question that must therefore be asked, and for which one would like to have an answer, is: How do the Social Democrats see the party being able to abolish EBO or implement similar important reforms of migration policy together with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet or Centerpartiet, for that matter, which are completely absent from today's debate?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I apologize for not focusing on Member Viktor Wärnick when he was speaking. I was actually retrieving my phone, as I had a note in it.

Already in 1994, when the bill was submitted, Social Democratic representatives - Börje Nilsson in one motion and Georg Andersson in another motion - motioned that the then Invandrarverket should have full responsibility for the reception system. The Social Democrats have, from day one for the legislation, wanted to remove it.

Therefore, it is a bit stomach-turning for a Moderate representative to stand here and speak about the issue as if it is the Moderates who have led the way. It is local Social Democratic representatives - Boel Godner in Södertälje, Ilmar Reepalu in Malmö and others - who have pushed across the entire political spectrum so that we have been able to reach a point where we can begin to discuss this with a broad consensus in the Swedish Riksdag. I think the member should nevertheless have respect for that, given that his own party is responsible for the legislation and largely responsible for the fact that it has not been abolished earlier.

I am also a bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that Viktor Wärnick spends so much time on how the opposition should form a government. Has he already given up? I understand that when one sees in today's measurement that there is a difference of 7 percentage points and that two of the right-wing parties are below the threshold, one has a bit of difficulty dealing with how one is to win government power in less than two years.

It would be interesting if Viktor Wärnick could answer the question of whether the Moderaterna intend to form a government with the Sverigedemokraterna. It is a requirement. That question is actually more interesting, I think, than sitting and worrying about whether the opposition parties will be able to form a government.

Viktor Wärnick must start, if he is to have any credibility in this discussion, by answering whether the Moderaterna intend to let the Sverigedemokraterna in to retain government power. Otherwise, perhaps it is time to be more humble regarding the fact that we are to have an election result before we form a government in this country.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Only Social Democrats can perform Social Democratic pirouettes. There are about-faces that only the Social Democrats believe they can make.

Just yesterday, I believe it was, it was stated that they thought practically all of southern Stockholm would become one single large security zone - from a few months ago when they said that security zones are on the edge of being unconstitutional. Only Social Democrats can perform Social Democratic pirouettes and sharp reversals.

The Social Democrats, of course, are familiar with the legislative process. The legislative process means that we take this in two steps. We will return with a second step where we completely phase out EBO. But it is de facto the case that we have had an investigation on the table, which, when we took office as the government, we supplemented with additional directives to completely remove the EBO legislation. That is what makes it necessary for this to occur in two different stages.

Ola Möller and the Social Democrats know this, but they are not pretending. They still submit follow-up motions and say that we now, very quickly, must remove the EBO legislation. It is not serious or even credible.

There is a reason why I bring up these consumer information, as I want to call them. I will return to them during the time until the next election - it is just over a year and a half. The reason is that it is the issue politics that governs. It is that which unites us coalition parties on this side and which has made it so that we have formed a majority to reform the migration legislation. Issue politics makes it so that we can get something done. We therefore do not just want government power for government power's sake. We also want to do something better for Sweden.

That is why I ask the Socialdemokraterna - and I understand that it is troublesome for them - how they imagine they will be able to implement these important changes, which we are making, if they are to cooperate with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, who want something completely different. That question, I think, Ola Möller and the Socialdemokraterna should answer before the election, not after.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! In the investigation that Viktor Wärnick refers to, it states clearly and distinctly that "according to the reception directive, Member States may decide where asylum seekers shall reside for reasons of public interest, public order or, if necessary, for a prompt examination and effective follow-up of the asylum application". That is to say that the issue is prepared entirely in accordance with the requirement of preparation in Swedish legislation.

Had the Moderates been able to settle accounts with their own history regarding migration policy and look their own voters in the eye and say that "it was we who introduced the legislation that led up to 2015, and it is we who have opposed the abolition of EBO, a piece of legislation that we introduced in 1994," had the Moderates also been able to go all the way this time. It is in the investigation, Viktor Wärnick.

Regarding the security zones: If one had accepted the Social Democrats' proposal as presented in the Committee on Justice, no security zones would have been needed. Then such legislation would have applied equally throughout the country, and the police would have had a tool. But the Moderates do not want to offend voter groups in Danderyd and Täby so that they can be stopped on their way home on a Saturday in the spirit of party-cracking; instead, they want to be able to stigmatize and single out residents in Rinkeby, Rosengård, and in other places. That is the basis for the security zones: to undermine all people's equal value.

When we now find ourselves in a moderate record of explosions that we have not seen the likes of, we mean that the police shall, of course, use the tools they have. It is not so strange that one argues that we must create safety in this country, even with a moderate regime that limps precariously.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! From the Social Democrats' reservation, one can read that the possibility of own housing should be abolished and should only exist in exceptional cases.

First, I want to say that I think it is a good proposal. If one comes to Sweden as an asylum seeker, one should not be allowed to settle anywhere but must stay at the asylum accommodation. It is precisely that purpose that the bill we are discussing today promotes.

I am therefore not interested in the member's argument that owner-occupied housing should be phased out. We are in agreement.

However, both EU law and the European Convention prevent Sweden from prohibiting asylum seekers from obtaining their own housing. What can be done is what Denmark and many other countries have done, which is to cut off all forms of support if the asylum seeker obtains their own housing. It is precisely that process we begin today by adopting this proposition, and we will build on this.

I would therefore like to know which European country has prohibited private housing for asylum seekers. How would such an arrangement work in Sweden? Would asylum seekers be imprisoned when they arrive in Sweden, or would there be a general ban on landlords renting out housing to asylum seekers? I am really curious about how the Social Democrats' proposal would work.

I also want to know if the Social Democrats are prepared to leave the EU and the European Convention in order to realize their proposal.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is interesting. We have, therefore, asked the Riksdag's investigation service to look into this. Given the member's line of reasoning, I have also read in the reception directive, Article 7:2: "Member States may decide on where the applicant shall reside, for reasons of public interest, public order or, if necessary, for a prompt examination and effective follow-up of his or her application for international protection."

That is what it says, and the investigation SOU 2022:64 repeats this.

In the investigation service's report, it states that six countries have done so, and since the member wanted an example, we can take Estonia. It says as follows in the report: Asylum seekers in Estonia are, as a rule, required to live in a special center during the period while the examination of the asylum application is ongoing. Asylum seekers living in a reception center shall stay at the center at night, but they can, if certain conditions are met, apply for permission to temporarily leave the center.

I must say that I believe more in the Sweden Democrat member than in repeating old notions as if they were truths. I believe more in Nima Gholam Ali Pour, because I know that he is at least trying. Then it doesn't quite seem to work in his own party to claim that the Social Democrats now stand for a stricter migration policy in this regard than the Sweden Democrats do. I understand that it is very difficult to admit to oneself. But we must stick to the facts, Nima Gholam Ali Pour.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am sure that the member reads all the investigation reports that come regarding migration policy. An investigation report called the Reception Act has been submitted, and in that report, there is an analysis of how other countries do when one tries to reduce own housing for asylum seekers.

When it comes to Estonia, asylum seekers are assigned to a location, but it is not forbidden to secure their own accommodation. What they do is exactly what Sweden is starting to do now: to worsen the material reception conditions when the asylum seeker does not turn to the location to which he or she has been assigned.

That is how it works, and it is because Article 5 of the European Convention does not allow the countries that have ratified the convention to deprive people of their liberty in general. Then perhaps the member says that this is not deprivation of liberty, and the member may think so. But there are different judgments from the European Court of Human Rights. There is case law on what deprivation of liberty is and what it is not. For example, placing an asylum seeker at an airport is deprivation of liberty, according to the European Court of Human Rights.

So there is practice, and EU law prevents us. Therefore, it would be interesting to know if the Social Democrats are prepared to leave the European Convention and the EU in order to realize their proposal. Or is this something one just says to win over voters?

I would also like to know why the Social Democrats did not implement their current proposal or abolish the EBO Act during the eight years they were in power.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of the audience and so that everyone is up to speed on this regarding the facts, we had an interpellation debate here in the chamber in November last year. In that debate, Nima Gholam Ali Pour said: "Asylum seekers had the right to secure their own accommodation even in the time of Per Albin Hansson."

Everyone who knows a little about facts knows that Per Albin Hansson passed away in 1946. The Geneva Convention and the right of asylum were adopted in 1951 - five years after Per Albin Hansson's death. Nima Gholam Ali Pour therefore does not even have a grasp of when different legislations that we in this chamber adhere to were adopted and when our former Prime Minister lived and passed away. Therefore, perhaps one should also be slightly skeptical regarding Nima Gholam Ali Pour's various arguments.

Furthermore, the Reception Inquiry speaks primarily about those who have been granted residence permits, linked to the Settlement Act. In that regard, Nima Gholam Ali Pour is correct, as one cannot demand that someone who has been granted a residence permit must live in an exact specific place.

The fact is, however, that we have countries in the EU that do what we Social Democrats propose, which are still in the EU and will continue to be in the EU. For Nima Gholam Ali Pour, this is uncomfortable, because the parties he is now sitting and cooperating with are the ones that stopped us from abolishing EBO. He cooperates with the parties that introduced the legislation that led us to 2015, but he must attack the Social Democrats, who ensured that an agreement was reached with the Miljöpartiet to reverse the development and overhaul Swedish migration policy so that today we are down to very low asylum numbers.

I understand that it stings for Nima Gholam Ali Pour. But that does not make what he says any truer.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is always interesting to listen to Ola Möller - and any Social Democrat, as Viktor Wärnick was pointing out - because what the Social Democrats do and will do is always the best, even if they perhaps have not done so historically. One hears that it is the former opposition's fault that the migration policy had the wrong direction and that nothing happened, and that now that we are in government, it is our fault that not enough is happening. But perhaps it is time for a little more self-awareness - perhaps even self-criticism? I can quote a former party leader and Prime Minister who in 2015 said: My Europe builds no walls. We help each other.

Ola Möller says that the government that governed in 1994 is the background to the problems. But one can observe that already in 2019, i.e., a little bit into the mandate period, there was a broad basis here in the Riksdag to change the EBO Act. It was during those eight years when the Social Democrats governed. One can wonder why nothing happened. Why did the Social Democrats not take the opportunity in 2019 to start the bill work?

An investigation was started shortly before we took over government power. Why did the Social Democrats hesitate?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must thank the member Kihlström for thinking it is interesting to listen to me. But it was apparently interesting to listen to all the Social Democrats, so I do not know if it was a compliment or a slap in the face.

The Riksdag is Sweden's legislative assembly. It is here that budgets are decided. It is here that laws are passed. And since 2006, Ingemar Kihlström's side in politics has held the majority here. They have had it for nearly 20 years. If the Kristdemokraterna are dissatisfied with the legislation in Sweden and with the budgets that have passed through Sweden's Riksdag, they must nevertheless see their own responsibility in this?

The Christian Democrats have not eased the work, because they were involved in introducing the legislation that led to many of the problems that EBO exacerbated by adopting the world's virtually most generous migration legislation on both the asylum and labor market sides. It is the Christian Democrats' legacy in this.

We changed the policy. But the Christian Democrats had, according to the members themselves - in speeches about pirouettes - suddenly started turning in migration policy in December 2014 when they realized that they would not be able to take over government power. Then it would be tougher measures. Then one knew everything.

When it comes to 2019, 2020 and 2021, I believe that Ingemar Kihlström and Kristdemokraterna have completely forgotten about the pandemic. I notice how they treat healthcare. The applause was there, but the resources and all the support for healthcare that was supposed to come have disappeared in Kristdemokraterna's budget.

Firstly, not everything could be done at once. Secondly, it is easy to say that one changed one's mind in 2019 and wonder why the law was not changed then. Yes, because politics takes time, and Ingemar Kihlström knows that.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! "Politics takes time" - and Sweden is really noticing that. Eight years with the Social Democrats is now mostly about empty words and no workshop. One can state, just as Viktor Wärnick did in his speech, that Morgan Johansson in the newspaper Sydsvenskan - who I believe Ola Möller might even read - stated in 2021 that he would gladly see a change of the EBO Act if Miljöpartiet agreed to it. Is it more about retaining power than about implementing necessary changes?

I can agree with Ola Möller that further back we had an orientation on migration policy that differs from what we now advocate for. But before 2019, and even earlier, we evaluated the situation and concluded that we need to change orientation. Since then, we have acted accordingly.

It would be interesting to know what red lines the Social Democrats are setting for the future governing party. Power is, after all, the most important thing. Is it a red line to maintain a ban on EBO in order to, against all odds and against my own wish, take office as a government in 2026 – or is it as Morgan Johansson says, that if the Green Party allows it, we can maintain the direction of the migration policy?

We need to get clear answers, Ola Möller. What is the situation? Are they just empty words, or do the Social Democrats want to implement the policy they are now speaking so warmly for? It would be praiseworthy if Ola Möller could come to a conclusion and a final point there.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am from Helsingborg, so of course I read Helsingborgs Dagblad. I think the member Kihlström should have a handle on that.

It is interesting when Member Kihlström quotes the Social Democrats' statements from 2019 and says that an evaluation was made when the Christian Democrats realized they had made a mistake and were going to change the policy. In that case, we can only say: Welcome to the stage! We Social Democrats changed the policy in 2015 because we saw that the Christian Democrats' and the Moderates' policy was heading in the wrong direction. It took four years after the Social Democrats and the Green Party changed the policy, even though we didn't even have a majority in the Riksdag. We managed to get parties that had previously caused a lot of trouble in politics—namely the Moderates and the Christian Democrats—to join in changing the policy. Still, Member Kihlström thinks it is the Socialists' fault. I really cannot make sense of that.

There is an investigation on the government's desk now, which has been quoted extensively in this debate, which enables the government to remove EBO. Still, they say they will look at it a bit further ahead. One can wonder what that is due to. It is something for the conspiracy theorists to sink their teeth into, because here a dog is clearly buried. There is a chance to abolish EBO today, but it is not being done. It is very strange.

Regarding red lines, I am just a simple Member of Parliament. That question must be asked to the party board or similar in negotiations ahead. But as a Christian Democrat, there is another red line that one might be a bit more concerned about than the Social Democrats', namely the four percent threshold. As it looks right now, the Swedish people are clearly saying no to the Christian Democrats. I have deep respect and all understanding for that.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are phasing out what has in popular parlance been called the EBO Act.

When the Act on the Reception of Asylum Seekers was introduced in 1994 by a conservative government, it meant, among other things, that asylum seekers were granted the same right to daily allowance regardless of whether they lived in Migrationsverket's accommodations or arranged housing on their own. A general right to housing allowance was also introduced for those who arranged housing on their own. The EBO Act has since been maintained by several Social Democratic governments.

Shortly after the introduction of the EBO Act, more than half of all asylum seekers lived in their own accommodation. The proportion of asylum seekers in their own accommodation has since varied between 30 and 65 percent of all asylum seekers. This has, of course, resulted in Sweden having areas with high concentrations of immigrants with social problems and crime. A consequence of these areas with high concentrations of immigrants having emerged is the failed integration.

It is important in this context that asylum seekers have had the right to their own housing since the first half of the 1800s. There is therefore a difference between having the right to one's own housing as an asylum seeker and receiving compensation when living in one's own housing as an asylum seeker.

The EBO Act means that one receives compensation when, as an asylum seeker, one secures own housing. It is this that we are phasing out today. We are thus returning to the order that prevailed before 1994, before the EBO Act was introduced.

The state will therefore not provide any financial support whatsoever when asylum seekers obtain their own accommodation. The asylum seeker will be allocated a place at an asylum center where they are expected to reside, and if the asylum seeker does not do so, the state will not provide any financial support.

This legislation will later in the term be supplemented with legislation that restricts asylum seekers' right to work in Sweden, and it will prescribe that asylum seekers shall not be able to work in Sweden until six months after the asylum application has been submitted. This means in practice that the allowance that asylum seekers receive by staying at the asylum center will become the asylum seeker's only legal income. Consequently, all asylum seekers will be forced to live in asylum centers.

Of course, asylum seekers can choose to work within the illegal economy and in this way support themselves when they live in their own accommodation. But such criminal activity will be handled by law enforcement authorities, and it will of course have a negative effect on the asylum seeker's asylum process.

However one looks at it, it is clearly evident that the Tidö parties ensure that asylum seekers end up where they belong, namely in asylum centers.

According to the bill, asylum seekers who choose to live in their own accommodation and waive all financial support will need to report their address to the Swedish Migration Agency. If an asylum seeker does not report their address to the Swedish Migration Agency, the person's asylum application will be considered withdrawn. It will be entirely the asylum seeker's own responsibility that the Swedish Migration Agency always has up-to-date information regarding his or her residential address and that he or she shall notify the authority within a reasonable time when the residential address changes. Even those who, for various reasons, live in their own accommodation will therefore be checked.

As I said earlier: Before the parliamentary term ends, legislation will be adopted that restricts asylum seekers' access to the labor market and thus makes it practically impossible for asylum seekers to live in their own accommodation.

The concept of being able to live exactly where you want in the country as an asylum seeker and do a bit as you want, we will abolish through this bill. As an asylum seeker, you are expected to live in an asylum center. You receive no compensation if you live in your own accommodation. And if you still choose to live in your own accommodation, the Swedish Migration Agency will know where you are located. If you lie about your address, your asylum process will be interrupted. When the asylum application is considered withdrawn and the asylum process is interrupted, the asylum seeker will be deported. If one does not account for their address when living in their own accommodation, one is therefore deported.

This is the first step toward establishing order and clarity in the handling of asylum seekers, and I really want to emphasize that this is only a first step. The Tidö parties intend to build on this reform later in the mandate period by introducing geographical restrictions for asylum seekers. One of the proposals presented in the investigation report Mottagandelagen is that asylum seekers shall only stay in the county where the asylum housing is located. Asylum seekers simply will no longer have freedom of movement throughout Sweden.

The message is clear. Asylum seekers shall not have the same freedom of movement in this country as citizens or those who have residence permits. The only reason asylum seekers are in Sweden is to await the decision on their asylum process - period.

A repeal of the EBO Act is something that the Social Democrats and their coalition partners failed to achieve during the eight years they were in power. The Tidö parties are implementing this after two years in power. It is important to remember that. The Tidö parties deliver when it comes to a restrictive migration policy, while the Social Democrats prioritized residence permits for young Afghan men who had no grounds to stay in Sweden.

Part of this bill will also prescribe that the Swedish Migration Agency shall be permitted to inspect the asylum seeker's living space at the asylum accommodation. If the Swedish Migration Agency's staff should suspect that the asylum seeker is not solely residing at the asylum accommodation, the living space can be inspected to assess whether the asylum seeker is living there or not. These controls are important for assessing whether the asylum seeker is entitled to financial compensation, as the asylum seeker must reside at the asylum accommodation to receive financial compensation.

We do all this for several reasons. Firstly, it is important that the Swedish Migration Agency can easily get in contact with the asylum seekers so that the asylum process can be concluded as soon as possible and so that the asylum seekers can receive a decision. Either one receives a residence permit, or one is required to leave Sweden. There must be an end to the long processes during which asylum seekers make our societies insecure.

Secondly, asylum seekers shall not take root in Sweden until they have been granted a residence permit. It is a clear indication that if you have not been granted a residence permit, you shall remain at the asylum center and await the conclusion of the asylum process.

That compensation is not paid out to asylum seekers who live in their own accommodation will also attract fewer asylum seekers to Sweden. As we all know, Sweden does not border Syria or Afghanistan. Many asylum seekers have come to Sweden via other safe countries because Sweden has offered generous reception conditions. Now we are ensuring that the asylum process is tightened and the asylum seekers' freedom of movement is restricted so that asylum seekers do not feel as welcome in Sweden.

This is a restrictive migration policy. This is what the Social Democrats refused to do during the eight years they were in power. We show that it is possible to actually implement this. We show that it is possible to abolish the EBO Act, if the will exists. We can do it because the Tidö parties have a common direction. We agree that order and discipline in migration is good both for those who live in this country and for those who want to come to Sweden on legitimate grounds.

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

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to clarify a factual error. We are not phasing out EBO today, as the member initially stated.

I believe it is very important to stick to the facts when it comes to own housing and to understand why many choose own housing. Investigations and reports that have been made, and such as appears in a majority of referral responses regarding asylum seekers' housing, show a different reality than the member is speaking about here.

In the public inquiry *En ny ordning för asylsökandes boende* (A new order for asylum seekers' housing), it was established, among other things, that newcomers who settle on their own during the asylum period have fared better on the housing and labor markets than newcomers who have been assigned to a municipality that has arranged the housing.

Another public inquiry, Active Waiting - asylum seekers in Sweden, finds that many choose their own housing due to matching with the labor market and opt out of Migrationsverket's housing due to the geographical location far from the labor market.

Both investigations also point out that the accommodations offered are far too poor and overcrowded. The referral bodies highlight exactly this and point out that overcrowding is the norm in the accommodations. There are many investigations and reports on just that. Boverket has, for example, repeatedly addressed overcrowding as the biggest problem in reports and that families with children must share rooms with others and so on. It becomes unsafe for the children, who need security when they flee from war and persecution.

This is just a selection of investigations and reports about a different reality than the one that the Sweden Democrats and the government express.

My simple questions to the Sweden Democrats are:

Why are you doing nothing about the deficiencies that have been investigated and that we are aware of if you want asylum seekers to choose Migrationsverket's accommodations?

Economic sanctions have not worked in the past. We already have such legislation today. Why do you think it would work now?

Why do you not tell the truth about the actual reason why asylum seekers to such a large extent today choose their own accommodation?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly – and I have repeated this many times – the EBO Act is about compensation to asylum seekers when they secure their own housing. This was introduced as part of the Act on the Reception of Asylum Seekers in 1994. We are therefore not talking about own housing here, which Sweden has had for a long time, as I mentioned in my speech – since the first half of the 1800s. Another member, Member Möller, said many things that were not correct, but I want to repeat this again: the EBO Act is about those who live in their own housing receiving a financial compensation. We have had this since 1994. Own housing is a completely different matter.

The Chairman asked quite a few questions, but I will try to answer them all.

When it comes to asylum seekers and their integration, we from the Sweden Democrats do not want asylum seekers to be integrated, but rather they shall await a decision at the asylum center. They shall not become a part of society until they have been granted permission to stay in Sweden. There is talk about it being a pity for asylum seekers; they do not enter society, they do not get housing and so on. But they shall await a decision at the asylum center. There is an asylum process. As long as they have not received this decision, they shall simply wait. And when they receive a residence permit, the integration process shall begin.

Then the member spoke about the Swedish Migration Agency's facilities. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we want fewer people to come here. We do not want them to choose the Swedish Migration Agency's facilities. We do not want those who are asylum seekers to choose Sweden at all. We want fewer asylum seekers to come to Sweden. I believe this has been evident when the government holds press conferences and says that fewer asylum seekers have come to Sweden and presents this as something positive.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we know that. The core of the Sweden Democrats' policy is, as was also stated in the presentation, that asylum seekers should not feel welcome in Sweden and should not come here at all. It is nothing new.

But the surprise for the member is that we have asylum seekers in Sweden. If we want people to enter society, as a majority in the Riksdag want, one can reason as follows: We have people here - we improve the situation so that they become part of the labor market or the housing market and so on.

I understand that the Sweden Democrats do not want this. But to do as the Sweden Democrats do, limit asylum seekers' freedom of movement and point to a number of repressive proposals and so on, means that people end up as far from society as possible. It will not be good for anyone. It will not be good for society as a whole, and it will not be good for asylum seekers.

I absolutely understand the rhetoric and the Sweden Democrats' policy. I believe all of Sweden has understood this. But to squeeze out people harms this society something terrible.

Now we have legislation here. I actually do not know if the member has understood the bill. We essentially have economic sanctions today, if one, for example, moves to their own housing in an area with socio-economic challenges. Then one does not receive daily allowance and so on. But do you know what? People choose this anyway. It shows that the pressure in the form of economic sanctions does not work because asylum seekers want it to be good for their children and want to enter the labor market and the housing market.

My question is, therefore, again: Why are you doing nothing about the housing situation at the reception centers, if you want the asylum seekers to be there?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the Social Democrats' minor revision of the EBO Act, the member is completely right: The outcome has been catastrophic. It has not worked at all. Asylum seekers are still obtaining their own housing.

But we will now start by completely withdrawing the daily allowance for those asylum seekers who secure their own accommodation. A second step is to restrict access to the labor market so that the daily allowance becomes their only legal income. That means they are no longer given any choice. If they then begin to promote the illegal economy and work illegally, it is something for the law enforcement authorities to take action on, and in practice, it will result in them receiving a rejection in their asylum process.

What we are doing now has a greater effect. One looks at the whole and ensures that all paths out to a private residence are closed. As I have said before, there is EU law that prevents us from prohibiting it entirely.

I also want to bring up this issue regarding asylum seekers and the Swedish Migration Agency's facilities. Asylum seekers should not be able to make demands in Sweden. They are to come here and undergo an asylum process. During that process, they shall live where they are assigned to live. With this legislation, they will be assigned an asylum residence, and they shall live there. Even if the residence does not meet the highest quality, they shall accept it. They claim to have fled from war, and then a simple residence should suffice. That is our position regarding that matter.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it became quite clear when we just heard Nima Gholam Ali Pour speak that the ambition with this proposal, at least from the Sweden Democrats' side, is not to break segregation or make life better for people living in overcrowded conditions. It was very clear that for SD it is about making life worse for people who have come to Sweden fleeing war and oppression. This duality in the communication, I think, has characterized a great deal of the discussion on how asylum seekers should live in Sweden during the first period.

We in Miljöpartiet want to give people who are granted asylum in Sweden the best possible conditions to become a part of our country. Therefore, we have worked to ensure that we have more social introduction, Swedish from day one, for those who are waiting in the asylum process. We know that this wait has sometimes become illegally long – over a year and sometimes significantly longer than that. This may be the only thing that we and Sverigedemokraterna see the same way on in migration policy: that it is important that it goes fast.

But during the asylum process, we in Miljöpartiet want people to enter the workforce and support themselves - if they want to and have the opportunity to get a job. That is best for Sweden and for the people who come here.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is absolutely true that EBO has created social problems. But the main purpose of this bill is not to counteract these social problems. It is part of the purpose, but the main purpose is that asylum seekers shall stay at the asylum centers.

When it comes to integration, that they should enter society and so on, as an asylum seeker, one is still not finished with the assessment of whether one should be granted a residence permit in Sweden and be allowed to stay here. So I do not think that the integration process should begin when one is an asylum seeker. It often leads to that one somehow takes root and enters a society, and then there are protests when one receives a rejection and actually lacks grounds to stay in Sweden. It is therefore important that asylum seekers understand that they have not really entered society as long as they are asylum seekers. One must first go through an assessment and show that one has grounds to stay in Sweden. There we simply disagree.

I have also heard Member Haddou speak about how asylum seekers should be integrated. We do not believe in that. If one is an asylum seeker, one is in asylum housing until one receives a residence permit. Then the integration process can begin. But when the authorities do not know if a person has grounds to stay in Sweden, it would be strange to give that person false hope and start some kind of integration process.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A trial normally takes at least half a year and often up to several years. The children in a family obviously need to have their right to schooling met, and the parents may still have relatives in the home country and are very worried about how things are in the place they fled from, where there may be war or where there is a regime that wants to get to them through their family members. That they then – day after day, week after week, month after month – are to sit idle in an asylum center, where they perhaps cannot even retreat into a private room, risks severely deteriorating their mental health. It risks deteriorating the individuals' opportunities to then, when they finally receive their asylum decision, enter society and get that job which we know is so important for them to be a part of society and so that the children do not grow up in poverty here.

To sit idle as an asylum seeker is a terrible situation. When I visited Poland just after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I met many who had fled. In some cases, they had arrived in Poland only a few days earlier. But everyone said: I want to get a job! It can be anything - I was a doctor back home, but I want to get a job, any job! Just sitting idle and following what happens at home is wearing me out!

One wants to contribute and become a part of society. Even if it is only for a short time and one receives a rejection decision, it is better that one actually gets that opportunity.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can also feel sympathy for people. But I will not let this shape the legislation and the migration policy.

Somewhere, one must consider all interests in society. First and foremost, it is about the interests of the Swedish people and not about someone who comes to Sweden and wishes for a job. I can certainly feel sorry for that person and feel some empathy, but I do not let this be the basis for the country's migration legislation. I see, however, that Miljöpartiet does, and that is unfortunate.

The proposition will lead to faster processing of asylum cases. It will result in a shorter distance to those who have come here and sought asylum, so that one can interview them faster and reach them faster, instead of them obtaining their own housing and becoming harder to reach. It will therefore lead to faster processing.

Something else that will also lead to faster processing is that we receive fewer asylum seekers to Sweden. When many arrive, processing times are extended, and people have to wait far too long. We must receive so few that Sweden can process the applications quickly and give rapid decisions.

Part of the bill is about providing quick decisions. The individuals are at the asylum center awaiting their decision. It should not take longer than six months, because EU law says that after six months they can gain access to the labor market. We shall build on this and ensure that they get limited access to the labor market - they shall first get access to the labor market six months after the asylum application has been submitted. The goal is that the processing should take less than six months.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party's policy for asylum reception, establishment, and inclusion in society aims to ensure that those people who have sought refuge in Sweden from war and oppression are given the conditions, rights, and opportunities to enter society. That policy includes, among other things, permanent residence permits and a strong right to live with one's family and that one is allowed to be reunited with one's children here. It is an order that creates security for the future and facilitates for people to enter society.

Then, of course, there are integration barriers; that is crystal clear. It is absolutely obvious that this government and the Sweden Democrats and their policies and rhetoric are Sweden's absolute greatest integration barrier. We see this, not least in the growing unemployment, which is at a record high and which is left completely without measures by the government. We see it in how the government actively increases and deepens the economic and social gaps. And we see it in the racism and how the government wants people, even persons who have lived their entire lives in Sweden, to feel unwanted at all costs. It is a shameful attitude from the government's side, and it damages social cohesion to a frightening extent.

It is past the halfway point now. After more than two years in power, the priorities of the government and the Sverigedemokrater are clear. Instead of making things easier for households, healthcare, schools, or elderly care, they invest in tax cuts for the very richest and attack and pressure asylum seekers. In the issue we are debating today – a new order for asylum seekers' housing – it will mean economic sanctions against asylum seekers if they choose to live somewhere other than the asylum housing assigned to them. They simply condition the daily allowance and special grants on the assigned housing location.

It is very difficult to see how extended sanctions against asylum seekers who choose their own accommodation will improve the situation for them. But improvements for asylum seekers have never been the government's goal. They do nothing other than worsen the situation for asylum seekers, without any insight at all into why people who come to Sweden choose their own accommodation.

The debate over own housing in recent years has focused on the shortcomings and risks of the housing form, and the policy has aimed at pressuring asylum seekers and newly arrived people to opt out of the option instead of trying to understand why many choose it. The debate and the policy have been dominated by an unnuanced and negative image of own housing and a lack of understanding for it.

The investigations that have been conducted regarding asylum seekers' housing show a different reality than what we have heard here in the debate today. This applies in particular to several state public inquiries and Boverket's reports and referrals. It is stated time and again that asylum seekers who have lived in their own housing during the asylum period succeed better in the housing and labor markets than those who have been assigned to housing arranged by the municipality. And the most important reasons for choosing to opt out of asylum housing are that it is far from the labor market, it is overcrowded and has poor standards, and it is so bad that one cannot live there with their children.

The asylum accommodations that Migrationsverket offers have also been criticized year after year in investigation after investigation. The criticism has concerned the standard of the accommodations, that they are insecure and overcrowded, and that they all too often are located in inaccessible places. If the government wants a larger proportion of asylum seekers to choose to settle there, the government should reasonably focus on improving the situation at these accommodations.

The majority of the referral responses are on the same track and point out that if asylum centers are not improved, the reform we are voting on today can only result in negative effects for asylum seekers in the centers. Among others, Rädda Barnen writes: "Since overcrowding is the norm in collective asylum centers, we question the intention to create more collective asylum centers while stating in the report that one wishes to counteract precisely overcrowding."

It is as if the government is deliberately shooting itself in the foot.

It is, as said, difficult to see how extended sanctions against asylum seekers who choose their own accommodation will improve the situation for them, or for society in general, and thus we can state that it has never been the government's purpose. That is what we heard, above all, from the Sweden Democrats here.

For example, previous reforms in the same direction have not had the intended effect. As several referral bodies note, the housing allowance for asylum seekers that the government wants to withdraw for those who choose their own accommodation is so low that the withdrawal will likely have no major effect on asylum seekers' choice of accommodation or chance of entering the labor market. Instead, it risks having the effect that asylum seekers receive even worse living conditions and live in even greater vulnerability because they opt out of the facilities they are referred to.

That this government and previous governments have not wanted to increase the daily allowance, which amounts to a maximum of 72 kronor and has not been increased since 1994, also says a great deal about how they safeguard the living conditions of asylum seekers. That attitude is simply regrettable.

Mr. Speaker! When the Swedish migration policy was changed in 2016, it was justified by the need for a "second space" for asylum reception which was to be used to improve the capacity in the reception. Now, nearly nine years later, we cannot see any improvements in the reception. Instead, the reception capacity has been dismantled, and Migrationsverket's resources have decreased during periods, with longer processing times and uncertain waiting as a result.

One is completely shocked when hearing about the processing times from the Sweden Democrats. Investigations can take a long time, that's true, and then it becomes a terrible wait for asylum seekers and their children in reception centers that are not safe for them.

I have been very critical in every debate against this development, which has only led to worsened reception and poorer integration - steered by politicians who would not survive a single day in the shoes of an asylum seeker.

Vänsterpartiet will vote against these repressive proposals. We are presenting forward-looking alternatives, namely improvements to both reception and housing for asylum seekers that are based on security for the future and good conditions and opportunities to enter society.

We do not believe in a policy dominated by economic sanctions and lack of freedom. We believe in creating opportunities so that people can start their new lives in Sweden.

Many reports and referrals have pointed out what we already know, namely that above all the children pay a high price when one pressures asylum seekers instead of understanding why many choose their own housing. If one is a parent, one thinks primarily of one's children. Asylum centers are rarely a safe place for children, and it is generally an incredibly stressful situation for families with children.

One also chooses their own housing in order to approach the labor market, and as said, the housing that is offered has been criticized year after year in investigation after investigation. The effect of the proposals right now is even worse living conditions and even greater vulnerability. We cannot accept that.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I assume that the member followed the debate I had with the Social Democrats.

The Social Democrats do not only want to phase out the EBO Act, which we are doing today, but the Social Democrats want to violate EU law and the European Convention and in some way prevent asylum seekers from obtaining their own housing. In that case, one would have to confine asylum seekers to some area and prevent asylum seekers from coming out and obtaining their own housing, or else one would have to have some prohibition against asylum seekers renting or buying housing.

It is this that the Social Democrats promise today. Is the Left Party prepared to accept the abolition of own housing in order to gain influence in a Social Democratic government? If the Left Party could under no circumstances whatsoever accept the abolition of own housing for asylum seekers, then what the Social Democrats say becomes an empty promise.

Could the abolition of own housing become part of the Socialdemokraternas and Vänsterpartiets migration policy if the opposition, unfortunately, were to win government power?

What does Vänsterpartiet think about the Socialdemokraternas promise to prevent asylum seekers from obtaining their own housing? Can the member answer this, or will there be total silence regarding how divided the opposition is on the issue of migration policy?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know what news has just emerged from the Sweden Democrats.

I believe it was DN that did a report on how the Social Democrats have voted one hundred percent in line with the government on migration policy issues. That has not been done by Vänsterpartiet. In that case, I think the member can only conclude that Vänsterpartiet and the Social Democrats stand far apart in migration policy.

It is very difficult to withdraw this government negotiation now. I believe everyone here understands the situation within the migration policy. It is not more than that, and I am not standing here and negotiating the government now.

If we are to get to the core of this, I believe the member here is so sweaty because he saw this morning that the Liberals and Christian Democrats are below the threshold and that it will be very difficult to form governments on that side. Could that be the case?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That is not the case, I can answer. I have focused on the debate since I arrived here this morning.

In my reservation, Vänsterpartiet advocates that the EBO Act shall not be abolished. What Vänsterpartiet wants is that asylum seekers shall secure their own housing and receive financial support for this.

We know that the EBO Act has created areas with high concentrations of immigrants in Sweden where cultural exclusion prevails. There is no doubt that the EBO Act has been harmful for the asylum seekers but also for the country as a whole, but Vänsterpartiet still wants the state to pay asylum seekers who secure their own housing.

It is not quite clear why Vänsterpartiet wants foreigners without residence permits to linger around in Sweden, but I nevertheless want to ask the member the following.

Will the member and Vänsterpartiet work to reintroduce the EBO Act if the opposition, unfortunately, were to gain government power? Is there a risk that the EBO Act would be reintroduced if Vänsterpartiet gains influence over a Swedish government through the Socialdemokraterna?

We Sweden Democrats said what we would do together with our coalition partners. We were honest with the voters. Can the member answer a simple question about whether Vänsterpartiet will use any potential future influence over a Swedish government to reintroduce the EBO Act?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear to the member! We do not believe in a policy dominated by sanctions and withdrawn grants for not only asylum seekers but also poor people, which this government has long kicked at.

The Speaker may not have understood what I said in the first exchange of remarks, but I made it very clear that future government negotiations are not something I take to the rostrum.

I must say that this is very irresponsible of the member in the situation we are in today and with the responsibility the Sverigedemokraterna have for Sweden. They just look away and have already said what they think about integration.

Shall we look at the labor market? Unemployment is terribly high, record-high, and the Sverigedemokraterna are leaving it completely without any measures. On housing policy? You have crashed the housing market. Construction workers are going without jobs. On welfare? You are rolling out cuts across all of Sweden.

It makes me so terribly frustrated that such an irresponsible party stands here and kicks at asylum seekers - and not just at asylum seekers. You have completely abandoned the households in Sweden.

This government negotiation debate, drop it! Take responsibility! You are sitting there and governing Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a bill concerning a change in the direction regarding housing for asylum seekers.

The government's bill takes a first necessary step to address the problems that exist in today's system where many asylum seekers choose their own accommodation and where a number of problems have been shown to arise.

As early as 2019, we Kristdemokrater were clear that EBO was a problem. I want to quote a few lines that my representative in the Social Insurance Committee, Hans Eklind, said in a speech in the chamber in the autumn of 2019, which also today describes the situation well.

Hans Eklind said: We need to replace EBO with ABO. That is the Christian Democrats' message. Own housing for asylum seekers must, in the long run, be replaced by residential centers. An important measure is to phase out EBO to address the shadow society that people have ended up in. In the wake of the shadow society follow social vulnerability, illegal work, and crime. No other country uses the housing form EBO to such an extent as Sweden. It contributes to cementing the segregation in Sweden.

The Christian Democrats are clear. Sweden must have a migration policy that takes into account our ability to integrate. When this does not happen, we get overcrowded suburbs, parallel societies, and exclusion. An integration policy that increases our integration potential cannot bypass the fact that the housing situation for asylum seekers is a fundamental part. We need to have a more even distribution and better planning for our asylum seekers.

Today we can state that a large part of those who come to Sweden end up in EBO in already heavily strained suburbs or cities. There, they are exploited to buy black contracts and are affected by overcrowding and segregation. But if segregation in Sweden is to be broken, which we Christian Democrats are passionate about, the trend must be broken. We believe that the right to own housing as soon as it is possible, and in the way it can occur, shall be abolished and that rental housing in the future is the form of housing that shall be offered by the state.

This post from 2019 describes the situation and where we stand today quite well. It was followed up with a joint reservation from Kristdemokraterna, Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna. There was therefore a majority in this chamber for a change already in 2019.

Mr. Speaker! The current arrangement with own housing was, as mentioned, introduced in the mid-1990s. The idea was that the reception of asylum seekers should be characterized less by care and more by increased personal responsibility. At the time of introduction, it was estimated that approximately 10 percent would arrange their own housing.

It soon turned out, however, that significantly more of the asylum seekers chose their own accommodation. Over the last four years, the proportion of asylum seekers in their own accommodation has amounted to between 60 and 65 percent. As mentioned, this occurs to a much greater extent in Sweden compared to other comparable countries.

This entails negative effects. It leads to overcrowding and segregation, and the children in particular risk being negatively affected. Several municipalities have also for a long time pointed out that the current arrangement for asylum seekers' housing is not sustainable. In addition to it causing negative consequences for the asylum seekers themselves, it has made it more difficult for municipalities and regions to plan for, for example, school and healthcare. It is therefore important that this is changed, and now the government is taking the first step in this change.

Mr. Speaker! The proposals mean that asylum seekers shall, as a rule, only be entitled to financial assistance during the asylum period. The Swedish Migration Agency shall be given the opportunity to inspect asylum seekers' housing and storage spaces for the purpose of verifying that the asylum seeker is living at the assigned residence. An application for a residence permit may be considered withdrawn if one is not living at an asylum center and has also failed to keep the Swedish Migration Agency informed of their residential address. An obligation to participate in social introduction is also proposed.

The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on March 1. The effect of this first step will be a more efficient asylum reception that promotes a shorter asylum process, which benefits both the individual and society.

Mr. Speaker! The government is now taking a first step towards changing EBO. But what does it look like on the opposition's side? As usual, I must say. The Social Democrats speak passionately both in this debate, in their reservation, and in interpellation debates during the end of last year about the acute need to remove the EBO option. They think and say that the government is doing too little and that it is happening too late.

As I said in the exchange, one should perhaps have a bit more self-awareness and perhaps also a bit more self-criticism. One says to have been against the EBO possibility for a long time, but it is strange that eight years in a government position did not lead to a government bill or even a basis for a government bill, despite being aware since 2019 that there was support for it in the Riksdag.

But it was perhaps as simple as the then Migration Minister Morgan Johansson expressed it in 2021. He said that he would gladly remove the possibility, but despite support in the Riksdag, the cooperation with Miljöpartiet prevented it.

So that is probably how it will look going forward as well. The Social Democrats promise and think, but because they do not have a consensus on their side in the government options, it will probably not happen. Today's debate and reservations show that. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say no to the change. In this case, C seems to agree to the change in its reservation, but we do not know because they are not part of the debate.

The grand words from the Social Democrats ring noticeably false if one looks at the actual policy they pursue in a government position. To maintain power rather than implement necessary changes is rather the mantra when the Social Democrats are in government.

I will probably have to disappoint both Ola Möller and Tony Haddou, because they can probably expect to see the Kristdemokraterna in the Riksdag after the next election as well. We have previously been ruled out, but we have managed to gather our forces and gain voter support. This is one of the reasons why we have the government we have today. We will probably see each other again even after the next election.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats claim that we in the government are not acting sufficiently. However, it does not stop with today's bill. The Tidö government started a supplementary investigation which, to the greatest extent possible, shall provide the authorities with the tools needed to ensure that asylum seekers live in asylum centers. It has been presented, and the government now continues the work of implementing step two.

Mr. Speaker! This government delivers. There is more work being done now regarding changes, even within the area of EBO, than there was during the previous government's eight years. The paradigm shift in migration policy continues. During 2024, there were a record-low number of asylum applications to our country, as a natural consequence of Sweden's migration policy having received a changed direction.

To create a successful integration, the strict migration policy currently being implemented by the sitting government must continue. Unfortunately, the future looks more uncertain if, against all odds, there is a change of government. The situation is that the opposition parties' policies vary greatly and in some cases are totally contradictory.

I therefore wish to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision, which entails support for the implementation of the bill and rejection of all reservations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Hans Eklind (KD) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström speaks in his statement that the motive for prohibiting asylum seekers from receiving daily allowance if they choose to live somewhere other than at the Swedish Migration Agency's facilities is that it would improve the situation regarding segregation in society. I must say that for me, this is not even a logical puzzle, but it becomes a stomach ache.

It is said that it is a problem that many newcomers live in the same areas and that these people then do not get to meet enough people who, for example, speak Swedish as a mother tongue, or whatever it may be about. It is said that one solves this instead by concentrating all asylum seekers in different accommodations that are to be located in a few places.

But, Ingemar Kihlström, then these children will only live with other asylum seekers. The schools in these areas will have a very high proportion of asylum-seeking children in their classrooms.

Would it not be better to replace the system we have today with a system where the Swedish Migration Agency actively works to find accommodations that are spread out in many different locations – real, good accommodations where children do not live in overcrowded conditions and where people who may have fled because they are homosexual do not get lumped together in the same collective housing with people they may be afraid of or who, in the worst case, expose them to discrimination and harassment?

The solution that is now being presented will only lead to one thing, and that is that those who choose their own housing will become poorer and those who do not will have a worse chance of being integrated.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the questions and the statement, Annika Hirvonen!

One can observe that asylum seekers are precisely asylum seekers. It is a process where one is evaluated against the regulatory framework we establish in this Riksdag. Who shall be given the opportunity to stay in Sweden, and who will have their grounds reviewed with the result that they do not qualify, which means that they must return?

It is more efficient for both the individual and society to have a situation where one knows where the persons live and can try to work to ensure the process is as short as possible. It is because it is about subsequently integrating them as Swedes, according to the decisions we make in this chamber, giving the notice: You have the right to a residence permit in our country.

We can observe that the approval rate for the asylum seekers who come here was 25 percent last year. This means that it is a matter of quickly reaching a decision on whether someone has the right to stay or should return. We can also observe that the model we have had until now, where people have chosen their own housing, has not promoted the possibility of, among other things, protecting those who have converted. They can also risk ending up in vulnerable situations. Children can be forced to live together in very cramped spaces, and as I mentioned, the municipalities are in a situation where they have difficulty providing both school and healthcare.

We will, of course, set requirements for the Swedish Migration Agency's housing so that they promote people's rights to a dignified home and space. I believe it is much better to do that – as well as ensuring that the process leading up to a decision becomes as short as possible.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It would be much better to improve the Swedish Migration Agency's housing than to say that everyone who does not live there will become poorer, so why doesn't Ingemar Kihlström do that? Why do we not receive proposals to the Riksdag concerning how the government should improve the Swedish Migration Agency's housing so that they become safer for children and people who have converted or are discriminated against, for example because they are hbtqi persons?

There are two completely different arguments as to why this bill is a good idea. One is what we heard from SD, and one is what Ingemar Kihlström spoke about from the rostrum. Then Ingemar Kihlström spoke about how this is to reduce segregation, but when I now ask – and question – how it reduces segregation to gather all asylum seekers at certain facilities in a few locations, Ingemar Kihlström chooses instead to go back to the argument that SD had, namely that they should not even enter society.

I think that perhaps one doesn't even understand oneself that these are, like, two incompatible arguments. Either one wants to counter segregation, and then one must pursue a policy that ensures that people who come to Sweden as refugees quickly receive all the tools they need to be integrated. They should receive the language from day one and the opportunity to work from day one instead of ending up in passivity. It is often terribly mentally breaking to just sit idle week after week, month after month, without knowing when one will receive their decision, without being able to do anything and without being able to work.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It can be observed that the system we have today has not achieved what Annika Hirvonen advocates for. As has been mentioned earlier in the debate, segregation arises because owner-occupied housing causes people to end up in areas that are already heavily burdened and where integration has not functioned.

Just as I said, it is important to have a short process - a short process where one sees if one has the right to stay in Sweden or if one should return. If one has the right to stay in Sweden, all resources to integrate into society shall be deployed. We can state that the policy that Miljöpartiet wants to return to, and which we had for many years, has created the situation we have today, with segregation and various social problems.

When we say that one should live in a residence, it is also about us, through the directives and the management we have of Migrationsverket, being able to ensure that the residences live up to the standard they need to have. This applies to both the protection of individuals and the possibility of support. Just as the proposition says, one shall also receive a social introduction from the very first day. Society's resources shall be used in an efficient way. We shall ensure that the individual receives a decision as soon as possible and that they are integrated.

We can observe that the system we have in Sweden, where 60-65 percent live in their own housing, differs from virtually all of Europe. We can also observe that it has not led to success. Here in the chamber, there is a broad majority for changing to a system where one lives in a residence until one has received a decision. I believe that it is the right path precisely so that both children's and other individuals' rights will be met to a much higher degree.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a bill where the government wants to remove the possibility for asylum seekers to receive daily compensation if they choose where they live themselves.

The allowance amounts to at most 71 kronor a day, which is too little to live on. 71 kronor a day is not enough to eat enough to be full, buy SL tickets and medicines, pay for doctor visits and buy winter clothes. It is something we have discussed many times in this chamber.

When we now talk about this legislative change, it is important to understand that most believe that it will not work. When the previous government introduced a similar model and said that one should not be able to settle in certain areas where there is already significant social exclusion and receive benefits if one is an asylum seeker or a refugee from Ukraine, it led to people moving there anyway, but becoming poorer. That risks being the effect of this legislative change as well.

We have heard two different ways of arguing that it would be good to change the regulations for where asylum seekers are allowed to live. One is that today's system, where many asylum seekers have chosen to move to their own accommodation, has led to many having moved home to relatives. People have moved to places where they simply become more overcrowded, or they have moved close to many people they have contacts with – for example, because they know each other from their home country.

The argument is that this has contributed to increased segregation and that segregation will decrease if it is instead decided that asylum seekers shall live in Migrationsverket's collective housing, i.e., different types of accommodations.

That reasoning is flawed. If it is decided that all asylum seekers shall live in very few locations, the schools in these areas will inevitably have a high proportion of children coming from other countries who have not yet learned Swedish. It will also lead to it becoming much more difficult for adults to find jobs. This is due, not least, to the fact that Migrationsverket often has accommodations where it is cheapest to live, that is, where no one else wants to live and sometimes where no one else lives – i.e., out in the middle of the forest, at various campsites or at camp grounds.

I believe we must move away from this mentality. We must move away from it either being about this type of collective housing, where Migrationsverket finds the cheapest solution, or it becoming that people themselves have to solve it all in a housing market that is extremely difficult. It is already extremely difficult today for many families with children - for those who cannot afford to buy their own condominium or villa - to find sufficiently large apartments.

I believe that the Swedish Migration Agency must work more actively and find housing in many different places. The agency must find real apartments, especially for families with children and young people. If you have moved to Sweden because you have been persecuted for your faith or for your sexual orientation, you should not have to share a room with people who are prejudiced against people just like yourself. The Swedish Migration Agency must ensure that people get their own safe place.

That is why we in Miljöpartiet have presented a completely different proposal, which we truly believe would lead to improvements both regarding segregation and for the security of asylum seekers here and now and their opportunities to work and support themselves.

We know that one feels better if one receives meaningful employment immediately upon arriving in a new country. It reduces the risk of depression and other challenges that cause the individual to suffer more and find it more difficult, after a long asylum process, to manage Swedish for immigrants or to get a job or an education.

The government's rhetoric has two different tracks, as I said earlier. One is about segregation. The other becomes very clear when we listen to SD. It is about worsening the material conditions, making people poorer and making life worse for people who flee to Sweden so that they will not want to flee just here.

More and more often we hear people talking about people fleeing as if they were criminals. Now, house searches are to be conducted on refugees to check where they live, so that they have not chosen to live somewhere else where they feel safer or can get jobs. Soon, people will not be allowed to go wherever they want, but they will only be allowed to be in a certain county.

One should not be allowed to do as a woman I met, who moved from Ukraine, did. Her mother received an apartment in Gävle, but she herself lived in Stockholm. She used to take the train with her five-year-old son and visit her mother as often as she could. Such trips would become criminal with the policy that the Sverigedemokraterna talk about the government wanting to introduce. As if asylum seekers would stay away from the asylum review they - many times with risk to their own lives - have traveled across half the world to get! There is no problem with very many who seek asylum in Sweden staying away and hiding from their interviews at Migrationsverket.

This rhetoric is about demonizing and criminalizing some of society's most vulnerable, namely the people who come here and say: Hello! Can I get protection here? Can I be allowed to live?

Mr. Speaker! On behalf of the Green Party, we move for the rejection of almost everything in this proposal. However, there is a small part that we believe must be worked on more. It concerns receiving a social introduction from day one. It is very important that everyone knows their rights. We know that women who know their rights to a greater extent will be able to take advantage of them. The same applies to children. The same also applies to men, youth, and the elderly. Social introduction is very important.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 2 in the committee report. I hope that more and more of us will take it as our task to stop casting suspicion on the most vulnerable in our society and stop speaking about people on the run as if they wanted to come here to commit crimes. Unfortunately, that rhetoric and mindset permeates much of this debate, and I regret it. That is not how we build a strong sense of community and trust in our society. On the contrary, it polarizes when groups are pitted against groups.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! In a previous exchange between Annika Hirvonen and me, I received a promise that I would be able to get answers to all questions regarding the government issue and the forms of cooperation for Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna if I took the floor on Annika Hirvonen's speech. A knowledge-hungry Member of Parliament never forgets, so I am now standing here and want to ask questions about this to Annika Hirvonen.

What requirements and conditions will Miljöpartiet have in order to let a Social Democratic government through if the accident should occur after the next election? It is a relevant question that the voters need to have answers to.

Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet essentially say no to all the reforms that we are now implementing in the migration area. As I said earlier, the Socialdemokraterna pretend that they have always been in favor of what we are now implementing. They nod along in the benches and say that it is good and that they want to go even further. Miljöpartiet, however, wants to stop this.

What are the conditions and requirements to allow a Social Democratic government after the next election? That is what I would like to have an answer to, Mr. Speaker.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now I did not realize that the question was limited to only this matter, so I take the liberty of answering it as it was formulated.

One of the absolutely most important demands for Miljöpartiet will be that we in Sweden achieve a just climate transition where we transition society in a way that ensures we reach the climate goals we have set, but which also meets what research says is absolutely necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! One must still see it as that this debate, to some extent, is about migration policy. In this case, it is about the housing of asylum seekers and the reform we now want to implement. It is in that context that I want to ask these questions. I will give Annika Hirvonen the chance to concentrate on the area of migration policy.

I want to know: Which parts of what we implement during this mandate period will Miljöpartiet demand be reversed, that is, taken back or changed? When it comes to the reception of asylum seekers, we take a first step today, and we will take a second step at a later time. We are essentially phasing out the EBO legislation and the possibility of independent housing. We are also taking a lot of other measures in the area of migration policy, because we must get the immigration to Sweden in order.

It is in this context that I wish for Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet to answer the question: What requirements will there be to let Magdalena Andersson into the position of Prime Minister, should the misfortune occur?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! You will have to forgive the perhaps slightly humorous interpretation, but we get these questions in every debate on migration. Just this time they were not specified.

It is clear that every time we have a migration debate, we can have a discussion about what demands Miljöpartiet will set on the day we get the opportunity to regain power after 2026. But we in Miljöpartiet are not in the habit of specifying a list of demands and sharing it in the chamber so far ahead of the election. With one and a half years left until the election, our starting point is to tell about our policy, and our policy when it comes to asylum seekers' housing is what I have just described.

We think that the best thing now would be to task the Swedish Migration Agency with finding accommodations that are spread out in many places so that people get the best opportunities to find jobs, so that children get good opportunities to get into a school where they can quickly learn Swedish, and so that people are not passivized in large facilities.

If there is anything that I think distinguishes the Moderates and the Tidö parties from us in the Green Party and the Social Democrats, it is the ambition to truly counteract segregation.

The Tidö parties talk about how integration should become better, but then time and again they put forward proposals that shatter integration and worsen the possibility of being integrated. They even abolished the agency that was supposed to work knowledge-based to counteract segregation. That was among the first things they did.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! According to the Green Party's reservation, the government's proposal leads to the possibility for asylum seekers to choose their own housing being restricted by the withdrawal of the housing allowance.

Miljöpartiet further argues in its reservation that the proposal entails restrictions for asylum seekers in the right to move freely and choose a place of residence, the right to private and family life, as well as the right to an adequate standard of living and suitable housing.

I perceive that Miljöpartiet is very critical of the Tidö parties now phasing out the EBO Act. But now it is the case that the Socialdemokrater say they want to go one step further. In some way, they want to ban private housing entirely for asylum seekers, either by locking them up and preventing them from obtaining their own housing or by introducing a general ban on asylum seekers obtaining their own housing.

If the Green Party is now so critical of today's bill to abolish the EBO Act, what is the Green Party's position on the Social Democrats' proposal to ban private housing for asylum seekers? Is the Green Party prepared to support a red-green government that wants to go even further and ban private housing for asylum seekers entirely? Where is the Green Party's limit, if one even exists at all? Will the Social Democrats have the Green Party's support to ban private housing for asylum seekers?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Green Party's position is that asylum seekers should have safe and dignified housing, i.e., housing that is not cramped and where one does not concentrate everyone in different types of accommodations where asylum seekers live together, perhaps even in the same room as people they do not feel safe with.

We think that the Swedish Migration Agency should be tasked with finding housing that is integrated into completely ordinary residential areas. This is completely opposite to what the Sweden Democrats and the government are now proposing.

I am convinced that if the Swedish Migration Agency were able to find attractive housing solutions in places where people who come to Sweden and immediately want to start working also have the opportunity to find a job, we could truly counteract some of the negative effects that many of us probably agree have existed with the current system.

I believe it is this basic ambition that unites both Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. Then we have different views in many parts, but Miljöpartiet's ambition is to ensure that people who have moved to Sweden and seek asylum here have dignified conditions from the start and the best opportunities to become a part of our country.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I understand it, the Green Party is against a ban, which means that the Social Democrats will not be able to implement the proposal they are presenting today. That says a lot.

I have great respect for the member, who has the same values today as she had yesterday. Some politicians swing wildly and adapt to political trends, but the member and Miljöpartiet continue to doggedly fight for a liberal migration policy. Even though I do not agree with the member, it is good that there are politicians who stand up for what they believe in even when the wind blows hard. I wonder if the member will continue to do this.

Today we are phasing out the EBO Act. We will then build on this and in practice make it impossible for asylum seekers to live outside of asylum centers. Geographical restrictions will be introduced for asylum seekers later in the mandate period. Attendance controls will be introduced. Legislation will be adopted which means that asylum seekers cannot work in the country until six months after the asylum application was submitted. Asylum seekers will simply know their place when they arrive in Sweden.

Will the member stand up for their values and work to roll back all these reforms and reintroduce the EBO Act if the red-green opposition, unfortunately, were to win government power? Will Miljöpartiet reintroduce the EBO Act if they gain influence in a government?

I think the voters have a right to know this. What will Miljöpartiet do if they gain influence in a government? Will they withdraw all reforms? Will they reintroduce the EBO Act? Given that this is what we are discussing today, I think the member should be able to answer the questions.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will continue to distance myself from that way of speaking about asylum seekers. "Know your place," says Nima Gholam Ali Pour, as if it were some kind of training of a dog. I think it is a terribly unworthy way for a Member of Parliament to speak about people in the chamber. Really! The Sweden Democrats speak in that way about some of society's most vulnerable. These are people who have left everything behind and fled, often at risk to their own lives.

We were both on site and visited a refugee center on Samos in Greece, and just as we arrived there, there was a whole row of families who had just crossed the Mediterranean. The children were soaked, their jeans were wet, and some had lost their shoes. Know your place – no, that is not a way one speaks about people, not in Sweden's Riksdag.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Annika Hirvonen is welcome to convert to the Christian Democrats if she finds the right path in politics in that way. The Speaker happened to indicate the wrong party when he gave her the floor.

I just want to make a few reflections and ask a few questions to Annika Hirvonen. Does Annika Hirvonen think we have a good system today? We can state that Sweden distinguishes itself from all other countries in Europe. Here we have EBO, as it is called, at 60-65 percent while other countries do not have it. One can wonder if Annika Hirvonen means that the other countries are doing it wrong.

We can also observe that many municipalities, certainly with partial governance by Miljöpartiet, say that there are problems with owner-occupied housing. Owner-occupied housing is not some paradise, and many investigations have shown that it often involves overcrowding. Many people live in apartments, and children have small opportunities to study and have other needs met.

I wonder therefore: Is the Environment Party's analysis, despite everything, that EBO is the answer to all questions? The important thing is, as I said in an exchange of remarks, that the asylum process is short. Despite that, what Annika Hirvonen says about coming here as a refugee or alternatively as someone in need of protection, we can state that 75 percent of those who have applied for asylum in Sweden receive a no. They do not meet the requirements to be counted as a refugee or alternatively as someone in need of protection.

I therefore see a benefit in reaching a decision quickly and that the asylum process becomes short. Is it not better that people are in an accommodation that meets the requirements that we naturally should have for an accommodation? This is an accommodation that can also mean a short analysis time and a way for people to be able to get information on what applies. Would that not be a better solution than a private accommodation, which ultimately causes problems today?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by addressing the question of converting to the Christian Democrats, which the Speaker in a sense initiated.

It makes me think back to a time when I sat on the municipal board in Sundbyberg. Back then, it was the Kristdemokraterna who circulated a paper with a call to protest against the deportation of a Christian family who had been denied their asylum application. It was with the Kristdemokraterna that several people found their sanctuary and a roof over their heads. I do not know if the people who then represented Kristdemokraterna in Sundbyberg are still active or even members. But it was a different Kristdemokraterna than the one we meet in the Riksdag in 2025.

Mr. Speaker! I will now move on to the question. It is not because people have chosen a specific apartment to live in that the waiting times and processing times at the Swedish Migration Agency or in the courts are long. The time could perhaps be shortened by a couple of weeks for some parts, but on the whole, this policy risks meaning that people become stuck in a place without the possibility to work or engage in activities.

This also does not mean a single step closer when it comes to being integrated into Swedish society for all those who are to become a part of Swedish society. On the contrary, the passivity often leads to people having a harder time getting a job or starting to study.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can reassure Annika Hirvonen regarding the Christian converts. This year is actually the first time this is mentioned in the Swedish Migration Agency's regulatory letter. The Government Offices' report, which specifically highlights Christian converts and the rights of LGBTQ persons, is now included. Annika Hirvonen can thank the Christian Democrats and the government for that. We are focusing on an issue that, unfortunately, was not quite in focus during the seven years that the Green Party was involved in and supported the S government.

One can observe that the analyses we make are completely different. Just as many municipalities and authorities say, there is a big problem with EBO. Also regarding housing, as we had up in the previous turn of the floor, I can reassure Annika Hirvonen. The Government intends for asylum seekers to live in reception centers, and that means that Migrationsverket needs to adapt its housing stock. The Government has tasked Migrationsverket with preparing this, and the assignment includes analyzing needs and rights in the reformed reception system for, for example, children, but also for other vulnerable groups such as hbtqi persons and Christian converts.

Annika Hirvonen can be reassured. We stand firm and hold fast to this. But we also make another analysis. The situation we have now shows that for a number of years, Sweden received far too many migrants to be able to integrate them successfully. We have changed our position based on that situation; I stand by that. I would be grateful if Miljöpartiet also made an analysis to see what things need to be implemented so that we can achieve an integration that works. What we decide and discuss today is a step on that path.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I mean that what we decide today is a step towards worse integration. What is being decided today is not that newcomers shall receive apartments in different places so that there will be less segregation, as we propose. You propose instead that everyone should be concentrated in few places in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations, and that will not contribute to improving integration.

We have heard from the Sweden Democrats earlier today that newcomers during the asylum period shall not be allowed to work during the first six months in the country. This will not improve integration; on the contrary, it will worsen integration. It will delay entry into the labor market, and it is often at work that one learns Swedish. It will lead to many becoming passivized, which increases mental ill-health and suffering among individuals. To become passivized and sit week after week, month after month, and think about and worry about one's own and one's relatives' future can also lead to depression, which further complicates for people to start their lives in Sweden when they finally receive asylum.

So no, we are not in agreement. This proposal leads, just like many other proposals that the government puts forward, to poorer integration. Possibly it leads to what SD talks about: that it becomes harder to seek asylum in Sweden and that it becomes a bit more difficult for people on the run - in the hope that fewer will choose to flee here.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We stand here today in the chamber and talk about an incredibly important issue, namely how we can better receive and support asylum seekers during their first time in Sweden. As so many others have said here in the speaker's chair previously, we face great challenges when it comes to precisely the reception.

For a long time, we have had a system where asylum seekers have largely been able to arrange their own accommodation. This has obviously had negative consequences both for the asylum seekers themselves and for society as a whole. Therefore, the government and the coalition partner are now proposing a reform of the system to create a more orderly and efficient reception.

Mr. Speaker! When the legislation was put in place during the 90s, the assessment was that approximately 10 percent would utilize the opportunity to choose their own housing. The conditions were completely different from what is applicable today. It is therefore important that, over a period of 30 years, one reflects on what the legislation has for an impact on our society, and it then becomes, as I said, obvious that we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that today's system is not achieving the outcome it was intended to have when it was introduced. It has largely contributed to segregation, overcrowding, and an exclusion that is extremely harmful, primarily for the individual but also for our society.

It is not sustainable for us to have this arrangement. Therefore, it is important that the government's proposal that asylum seekers shall, as a rule, live in Migrationsverket's accommodations is implemented. Only those who have special reasons, for example family ties, will be able to be exempted.

This is a model that is already used in several European countries. Above all, we are now harmonizing with our Nordic neighboring countries.

I am also completely convinced that the change will give our asylum seekers a more stable existence during the waiting period. They will have closer access to social information and support, which will facilitate integration.

Mr. Speaker! The fact is that one of the biggest problems with today's system is that many asylum seekers who choose their own accommodation end up in environments where they are isolated from Swedish society. They live in cramped conditions, move between different addresses, and live under insecure housing conditions where it is not at all uncommon to be exploited and pay unreasonably high rent.

Furthermore, the Swedish Migration Agency has limited control over where the asylum seekers actually are. It is common for an address to be provided but in practice someone lives elsewhere, which makes it more difficult to carry out asylum investigations and follow up on decisions regarding rejections and returns.

By ensuring that asylum seekers live in Migrationsverket's accommodations, we can counteract these negative things that contribute to the shadow society and improve our reception. It is a prerequisite for the asylum process to function in a legally secure and efficient manner.

Mr. Speaker! One of the goals of the government's proposal is, as mentioned, to shorten the waiting times in the asylum process and streamline the handling of cases. By now collecting asylum seekers at the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations, better conditions are created for this. This allows the Swedish Migration Agency, for example, to conduct interviews faster, handle identity checks, and ensure that all asylum seekers receive correct information about their process. This means that those who are entitled to protection can receive a decision significantly faster and that those who are denied can return to their home countries in a more orderly process.

Another important part of the proposal is that asylum seekers shall now be able to participate in a mandatory social introduction. This exists today but has functioned far from how it has been requested. The asylum seekers shall receive basic knowledge on how Sweden functions, what rights and obligations they have, and what is required to become a part of our society.

By linking the housing to this mandatory social introduction, we ensure that the asylum seekers receive the knowledge and information they need right from the start, when they arrive in our country. It creates a more efficient integration and allows more people to enter and become a part of Sweden.

The government's proposal implies a comprehensive reform of the asylum reception. It creates a more orderly and legally secure system, strengthens integration, and counters parallel societies.

With that said, I would like to conclude by moving to approve the committee's position.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Patrik Karlson said that the problem with the current system is that asylum seekers become isolated from Swedish society. What is the point, Patrik Karlson, of concentrating all asylum seekers at the Swedish Migration Agency's facilities, which are often located far from communities, sometimes out in the forest? How does that solve the problem that Patrik Karlson spoke about, that asylum seekers become isolated from Swedish society?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

Specifically, it is about the fact that when one arrives in the country as an asylum seeker, one should have their grounds for asylum examined, whether one has the right to be in the country or not. In that case, it is extremely important that we have an orderly process under the Migrationsverket's flag.

What the EBO legislation has resulted in is rather, just as we heard earlier, that people move to municipalities where their diaspora is already large and that they then additionally get stuck there if their asylum application is granted. It has been an extremely negative consequence of the legislation that currently prevails until March 1. We will vote on this later this afternoon.

Part of the problem is that we have a housing situation in the country that at this moment does not allow for any other possibilities. I would have liked to see that we had a housing market that functioned well and where there were homes that one could quickly move into between different municipalities depending on one's individual circumstances and needs. But that is not how it works today.

I heard the representative of the Miljöpartiet standing here in the speaker's chair and talking about their proposal to, so to speak, blast asylum housing into the ordinary housing stock. How has Member Annika Hirvonen imagined that it is supposed to work? There aren't even any apartments available. In politics, we are already today discussing how we can succeed with that method for Swedish citizens in need of housing – the homeless, women and men exposed to violence, the economically disadvantaged, and overcrowded families. We must legislate based on current conditions.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is appropriate that there will hereafter be a debate on the housing market.

I really would have wished that the government and the Tidö parties had chosen a different housing policy. The housing policy they have chosen has crashed the construction industry. Construction workers are going unemployed while people lack housing. It is a huge failure for this government.

The solution to the problem that asylum seekers, as Patrik Karlson said, become isolated from Swedish society is not to isolate the asylum seekers from Swedish society in refugee centers. The solution is based on actively working to change the situation on the housing market and ensuring that more affordable rental apartments are built so that low-income earners, newcomers, or for that matter, women who have been victims of violence and have left a violent relationship, have the means and opportunity to demand them.

The Green Party's policy for asylum seekers' housing aims to ensure from the very beginning that people come into contact with Swedish society, that they are included in school, and that the adults who can actually take a job immediately and support themselves are able to do so.

The government's policy is the opposite. The Sweden Democrats are talking about even wanting to ban asylum seekers from working for six months. Talk about the work line 2.0!

Mr. Speaker! For me, it has become clear that none of the representatives for the Tidö parties can truly explain the logical mess that has led to this debacle. How is this gathering of all refugees and asylum seekers in one place supposed to contribute to better integration and reduced segregation? It simply cannot.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have had the honor and privilege of being included in the next debate as well. That is something to look forward to – to spend even more hours in this chamber.

Jokes aside. The consequences that the member highlights as negative in the proposal are those that already prevail today. The isolation is already there; it is just that it does not exist in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations but out in the socioeconomically segregated areas that exist today. When we make this change, we will be able to make much earlier and more accurate interventions towards the asylum seekers than what is a fact today. That is where the focus must be, not on where they live during the first months. In my world, that is insignificant. What is significant is that they receive a legally secure asylum process and important interventions such as the social introduction, not whether they live in an asylum accommodation or, for example, in Rinkeby. Then it is more important that they receive the former. Or is it? That is at least our opinion.

Housing policy can wait until the next debate. It is a fact that more housing was needed across the entire country, but it was also needed during the time Miljöpartiet sat in the government. Not much was done about the structural problems in that area, other than introducing a national investment support. Despite negative interest rates, the construction demand was still not met - but that is a question for another debate.

It is extremely important to focus on the right things. Initially, it is not important where the asylum seekers live, but rather that they are instead given access to adequate measures that ensure their process of becoming part of the country starts early, as opposed to them being allowed to decide for themselves where in the country they should live during the first months.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is with great interest that I, as a resident of Södertälje, have listened to the debate today, and I have done so with growing surprise.

I note that there are those who in the debate have claimed that we are abolishing the EBO Act today. I assert that this is a misconception. We are not abolishing any EBO Act today, but we are making certain changes in the reception which mean that the compensation for those seeking asylum will be withdrawn if they choose their own accommodation. It is a big difference.

From the perspective of the floor, the reality I come from in Södertälje, the proposal lying on the Riksdag's table cannot be viewed in any other way than that Södertälje is being betrayed by the government, just like other municipalities that have been forced to take much greater responsibility for the reception of refugees than can be considered proportionate, when other municipalities have done nothing.

With eyes wide open, the government now allows 50 percent of asylum seekers to arrange their own accommodation. It thus drops from 60-65 percent to 50. It is admittedly a step in the right direction, but it does not abolish EBO. The empirical evidence suggests that experimenting with withdrawn daily allowances does not lead to the desired effects, and the own accommodation continues nonetheless.

From my perspective as a resident of Södertälje, I wonder why the government is failing Södertälje, Malmö, Norrköping, Stockholm and other cities? EU law has been discussed today, and that argument falls flat. It is entirely possible for Sweden to abolish EBO for real already today, if a majority in the Riksdag wants it. Other countries can and do do it in the way we propose. It is entirely possible.

I cannot draw any other conclusion than that the right-wing government - it may feel harsh and mean - thinks it is convenient that certain municipalities get to continue to take the main responsibility and thus take their hands off them; Södertälje, Stockholm, Malmö, Norrköping and a few additional municipalities. The problems already exist there. It is there that segregation, overcrowding, vulnerability, unemployment, and crime prevail. All the downsides of the parallel society are there, and it is just as well to lock the problems in there. I truly hope that I am wrong on this point, but since I am a Södertälje resident and have experiences from the refugee reception we have taken responsibility for, I cannot suspect anything else.

When I think about the government's high ambitions when it comes to limiting the tedious effects of segregation, I realize that it apparently does not apply to everyone in the whole country but only to certain parts of the country. That the government does not abolish EBO for real today, despite the knowledge of the segregating effects, is the ultimate proof that the government actually does not care about how things are going in Sweden's most vulnerable areas. It is incredibly remarkable.

Since the government is unable to abolish the EBO Act today but instead makes some minor changes to the allocation, the government is forced to prove itself during the remainder of the mandate period. Given how the government has handled the issue so far, I believe that Södertälje, Stockholm, Norrköping, Malmö and a few more municipalities in the country that have carried the heavy burden of refugee reception in Sweden should expect that the EBO Act will not be abolished during this mandate period. The right-wing government will not be able to handle it - or perhaps does not even want to.

I move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is strange that a member who comes from Södertälje cannot distinguish between EBO and the EBO Act.

The EBO Act means that one receives compensation for acquiring own housing. I explained in my speech that the law was introduced in 1994. Before 1994, one received no compensation if one acquired own housing. After that, many acquired own housing as a result of receiving compensation.

We are phasing out the EBO Act today. It is good news for the members who did not know about it. We will phase out the EBO Act today.

I explained in my speech that we will build upon the reform and in practice make it impossible to acquire own housing. The Green Party has criticized this and believes that it will result in a restriction of access to the labor market. If one does not receive a daily allowance when acquiring own housing, and thus cannot work, it becomes impossible to acquire own housing. If we simultaneously introduce geographical restrictions for asylum seekers, it becomes practically impossible to acquire own housing.

The good news is that we are abolishing the EBO Act today, which the member did not know, and during the mandate period we will make it practically impossible to obtain own housing as an asylum seeker.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions - if one is to consider them so - from Nima Gholam Ali Pour.

After having followed the politics in Södertälje for nearly 35 years and been involved in all the turns surrounding the EBO legislation, I feel that I do not need any lesson from Nima Gholam Ali Pour on how the EBO law works. I am well aware of how things stand.

I also belong to a party that has advocated for the abolition of the EBO Act since 2009, and I therefore feel that I am not obliged to answer Nima Gholam Ali Pour in any way. On the other hand, Nima Gholam Ali Pour and the Sverigedemokraterna, together with the other right-wing parties in the Swedish Riksdag, are the ones responsible for the answer regarding how and when the EBO Act shall be abolished. What we are doing today is not to abolish the EBO Act, but we are implementing a change in the compensation for asylum seekers, which means that they cannot go to their own housing because they would then lose the compensation. This will reduce those choosing their own housing from 60-65 percent down to 50 percent. It is a difference that is good, but it does not abolish the EBO Act. The Sverigedemokraterna and the rest of the right-wing parties in the Riksdag are responsible to my home municipality Södertälje and to Stockholm, Norrköping, Malmö, Örebro and some additional cities that have borne the heavy responsibility for the Swedish refugee reception throughout all the years. It is you who must prove when you will truly abolish the EBO Act, and that is not happening today.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I did not ask any questions, but I explained how the EBO Act works. And what I am explaining is common knowledge. It even states in the bill what the EBO Act is. It is precisely that one receives a housing allowance when one secures own housing, nothing else.

It is not that asylum seekers were given the right to secure their own housing in 1994. They had it before then. What happened in 1994 was that they received the compensation. Today we are phasing it out, and then the EBO Act will disappear. That is what I am trying to explain, nothing else.

If the member believes it is something else, there are copies of the bill to read, or perhaps some of your officials have read it and can explain it to the member. The EBO Act is nothing other than what we are phasing out today: the compensation that asylum seekers receive. It is that which has led to the number of asylum seekers in their own housing having increased. One only needs to read the bill or the investigation report that preceded the bill. Then the member will understand this.

It is wrong to spread incorrect information from this rostrum, especially to voters who may be listening to us to understand what the legislation is about.

Today we are abolishing what has been referred to as the EBO Act.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to emphasize once again that Nima Gholam Ali Pour does not need to teach me how to read legislative texts or propositions, or for that matter, follow the developments in the areas that are severely affected by the downsides of the EBO legislation. I believe I have a pretty good grip on it. The member does not need to be worried.

A new order for the housing of asylum seekers

Above all, the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates had a high tone before the election about that they would now abolish the EBO Act. With that, very high expectations were set in these municipalities. People thought: Yes, now a government is coming that actually wants to abolish the EBO Act. They were perhaps angry that we had not done it earlier.

Is the right-wing government doing it now? No, today we are making a decision to reduce the number of those who choose EBO from 60-65 percent down to 50 percent. This is evident from the government's own basis and the Swedish Migration Agency's forecasts.

From a Södertälje perspective, it is not about abolishing the EBO Act. We know, in fact, that the change that the Riksdag is now going to make a decision on is completely insufficient. The heavy responsibility for Sweden's refugee reception will, even if it is at lower levels, fall on exactly the same municipalities that have taken the responsibility until now. It is a betrayal of those municipalities, and we will assert that as long as the EBO Act is not truly abolished. And this government cannot handle that right now.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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