Integration and equality

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are to begin a very important debate, one of our country's true issues of destiny. It is a question that can almost be described as the greatest political failure in our country in modern times. Now we are to speak about integration.

Integration is a concept that has been used by irresponsible politicians to impose a mass immigration on us Swedes that the majority of the population did not want. Integration has been used as another word for acceptance in order to give our Swedish population a collective bad conscience and accept the madness that has been occurring. When the Sverigedemokraterna speak about integration, we mean: Adapt to where you come! We also mean: Do your duty before you demand your right!

Mr. Speaker! I must say that this is going to be a very exciting debate. To listen to representatives from parties that, at the time they were in power, conducted a totally uncontrolled immigration without any analysis whatsoever of how this would come to affect our society is actually going to be quite interesting.

Whether the coming hours will feel like being in the middle of a horror movie, an episode of The Emperor's New Clothes, or a farce remains to be seen.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has not always looked like this. We shall therefore begin by taking a small look back at Sweden's policy regarding immigrants. In the 1968 proposition regarding the guidelines for the immigration policy, it stated as follows:

"If the immigrant intends to settle in Sweden for good, it is important for both him and society that he integrates into the population to such an extent that he does not feel like a stranger in society in the long run. It must be a clear and conscious goal for society to contribute to ensuring that immigrants of different national origins do not become isolated population groups that are shielded from the rest of the population."

At that time, the Social Democrats were in power. It is good to have a bit of history education, because children are not allowed to learn such things in school these days.

In 1970, two years before I was born, the proportion of foreign-born people residing in Sweden was approximately 0.2 percent. Last year, when I turned 50, that figure was almost 20 percent. Today, every fourth preschool child has a foreign background. There are today schools with 100 percent foreign-born students.

Already in 2010, Botkyrka became the first municipality in Sweden where a majority of the inhabitants had a foreign background. There are today approximately 450 so-called vulnerable or particularly vulnerable areas, where the majority of the inhabitants are foreign-born. They are characterized precisely by being isolated population groups that are shielded from the Swedish population and from the - for the time being - Swedish majority society. In these areas, fewer children go to preschool than in the rest of the country. The dependency on benefits and the unemployment is higher than in the rest of the country. The parallel society structures are obvious, as are the gang crime and the segregation.

How could it have become like this? Well, the Social Democrats abandoned the idea of assimilation and came up with the idea that multiculturalism would be good for Sweden. This seems to be the basis for, through a collective sense of guilt, steering the Swedish people to accept the change to a multicultural society. At the same time, leading politicians have thought that Swedish culture is tacky.

All of us others, who have actually been proud of our Swedish culture and who, instead of participating in the joy and acceptance, have warned about what the multicultural project will lead to, have had to endure mockery and ridicule, especially from the left.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been a fantastic country in many ways. Here, one has been able to be offered a better life. For decades, we have offered a multitude of different opportunities for people who have come to our country. There are people who have taken advantage of these opportunities and truly contribute to our country in a positive way. All honor to their efforts for our common good and well-being!

But with wide-open borders and without control over who is present here in Sweden, our country has unfortunately also been filled with individuals who neither want nor can take responsibility and integrate. I am speaking about individuals who, year after year, engage in some meaningless activity that only aims to provide for people without any counter-performance whatsoever. I am speaking about individuals who have lived in our country for more than 20 years but still cannot understand or make themselves understood in the Swedish language. These are individuals who will never set foot on the labor market and individuals who have created parallel societies based on the world's most backward cultures. The own will to become a part of society simply does not exist.

Mr. Speaker! In just 50 years, our country has been transformed into something completely unrecognizable. It is an enormous betrayal of the Swedish people. The previous government's clumsy efforts to do something about the chaos they themselves created were called integration measures. Other measures, such as stopping the influx of newcomers, have not been relevant, and the problems have only escalated.

Integration measures, yes. I am thinking of all these integration projects that have been initiated to no benefit whatsoever and all these billions of kronor - probably unimaginably large sums - that are poured over individuals. In the vast majority of cases, they have been completely wasted and have often resulted in nothing other than segregation, burnt cars and - now - daily shootings. This is the so-called bang we have received for the money.

How much money is actually involved is unclear today. The Sweden Democrats have long pushed the issue of compiling the costs for the headless migration, and now this will be investigated. The Swedish people have the right to know how a certainly significant portion of its tax money has gone up in smoke. Without anticipating the investigation, we can already say with all certainty that all this money could have been used to maintain the Swedes' school, healthcare, and care at world-class standards.

The entire integration policy goal is also under investigation right now. The goal establishes the direction for how integration policy shall be handled, and right now a paradigm shift is occurring. It is absolutely necessary for us to get order in Sweden again.

When the Sweden Democrats are involved in driving policy, it becomes productive. If Sweden is to be able to turn the ship around, it is required that we are involved in governing this country. A large part of the voters agree with us on this.

From now on, it applies that we establish a strict immigration policy. From now on, it applies that we set requirements on people, set requirements linked to citizenship, set requirements for benefit payments, set requirements for language learning, and set requirements for a civilized and honest behavior. This constitutes the backbone of an integration policy based on common sense. Those immigrants who choose to opt out of this simply have to move to another country.

It is therefore pleasing and absolutely necessary that we have now succeeded in pushing through the establishment of return centers. They have now started their operations at five locations around Sweden.

In negotiations with the government, we have begun the journey towards something better. We thank the coalition partners for the willingness to implement good politics for Sweden. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision regarding the government's submitted budget.

The Sweden Democrats are the guarantee for the continued journey towards a Sweden built on principles such as personal responsibility, justice, and cohesion. It is a journey towards a Sweden that feels good again.

In this speech, Sara Gille and Michael Rubbestad (both SD) concurred.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have negotiated the budget and emphasize that when it comes to integration, there are a number of decisive factors for integration. One of the factors emphasized in this report is housing, and it is naturally reasonable given the housing segregation and the class divides we have in Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats have had successes with their talk, but now it is about doing things. It is probably not as much workshop as the member here says. When it comes to housing, not much is happening at all.

What is happening out there is that construction in Sweden has practically collapsed and construction workers are going without jobs. At the same time, the need for more affordable housing has never been so great. Many live in municipalities where there is a housing shortage and housing segregation. This is one of the biggest problems for the Swedish social economy.

What do the Sweden Democrats do then? They present a budget that not only turns a blind eye to the housing crisis and housing segregation but worsens the situation by, in a situation where massive investments are needed, withdrawing investment support and letting the state withdraw. Then they enter into new negotiations with the government and open up for market rents.

Before the election, the Sweden Democrats said they were against market rents. Now they are prepared to negotiate on shock-increasing the rent for 3 million tenants across the country at a time when prices are rising and far too many are struggling to make ends meet.

What is your message to all those who are already facing increased rents and cost shocks today and who are expected to face even higher rents if the Tidö parties intend to return to the Riksdag with proposals on market rents that increase the rent for 3 million tenants?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, member!

Market rents and housing construction do not belong in this committee. The responsibility for that lies with the Committee on Civil Affairs, which the member is very well aware of. But the Left Party rarely denies itself in the debate. One mixes in what one feels like for both right and left.

It is no secret that Vänsterpartiet and my own party are not exactly in agreement, to say the least, on issues in integration policy. Vänsterpartiet is happy to tax the Swedish people to the bone in order to be able to spend an extra 1.9 billion in this expenditure area. When one chooses to increase taxes for the Swedish people, it is not difficult to invest almost as much money as one wants in any area whatsoever. I am not so sure that the Swedish people are really happy with that. They might want to keep a bit more of their hard-earned, dearly acquired kronor.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to increase the number of people resettled in Sweden. That is not what we want.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! In the report that the Sweden Democrats, who govern this country, stand behind, it is emphasized very clearly that housing is a crucial integration measure that is being reviewed. It really shines through that you do not want to take responsibility when you say that this is being debated elsewhere. You have responsibility for Sweden now. You stand here and spend ten minutes talking about immigration, Ann-Christine From Utterstedt. I am talking about 3 million tenants who will receive shock-increased rents, up to 50 percent increased rent, because of the Sweden Democrats. You do not even answer what message you have to give to them. I think that is deeply serious.

It is not exactly anything new from the Tidö parties that one says one thing before the election and does something else afterwards. You were against market rents. You said very clearly that it will raise the rents. Now you are cooperating on them. I do not know what you will get for it; you get whatever from the other Tidö parties.

So you want to raise the rents for 3 million tenants. This, if anything, complicates integration, primarily for young, newly arrived people with low incomes. But do you know what? Ordinary Swedes also get very high rents. You have spent ten minutes shielding your responsibility for that by talking about immigrants, but now it is about 3 million tenants. I think it shows through.

If we had, for example, an active housing policy from this government, we would have strengthened the possibilities to break the segregation in the long run. But what the Sweden Democrats are doing now, besides wanting to shock-increase the rent for 3 million tenants, is that in this situation, with inflation and a housing crisis in Sweden that affects everyone, they are backing off and withdrawing investments so that no more will be built. And what they are negotiating for are shock-increased rents. You should really take responsibility for that.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a report on expenditure area 13, which concerns integration. To debate and give speeches on a report on integration is, for me, quite difficult without talking about immigration. I think the two issues go quite well together. Vänsterpartiet obviously does not think so, as the member here wants to talk about housing policy.

I would very much like to debate, for example, elderly care, something that is close to my heart and where we have a shortage of people who master the language. We have foreign men working in elderly care and women and ladies who have gone out and shown concern and did not want to be showered by them, for example. I would very much like to debate such things, but I choose to stick to the current area.

I will nevertheless give a small comment on what Tony Haddou brings up. What he says about market rents is completely correct. There, our housing policy spokesperson has stated that one might possibly consider discussing them. There is nothing finalized in that, so what the member claims about this would raise rents for so and so many tenants simply does not hold up.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind Tony Haddou that we do not use the form of address "du" in the chamber.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I intended neither to speak about housing policy nor migration policy. The speech contained a lot about just migration policy, and I get a flashback to the migration policy debate we had last week when we talked about return centers and so on.

There is a lot of talk about what the Swedish people want, but what the Swedish people actually want is a functioning integration policy. It is clear that one can think that migration and integration are connected. One can also think whatever one wants about how many people should come here and not. We can, however, state that regardless of what the Sverigedemokraterna think, there will continue to be many people with a foreign background who will be in Sweden.

There were some Disney-like metaphors here earlier. The Sweden Democrats' integration policy is a bit like Pinocchio. One says that one has an integration policy, but it doesn't exist at all. We are not allowed to use props in the speaker's chair, but it is enough that I strike out my hands. No props were needed to describe that the Tidö parties' list of propositions on the area of integration is completely empty.

I have previously given the member the opportunity to describe what measures the Sverigedemokraterna have so that more people will learn the Swedish language and get a first job to go to. It is very good with requirements, but one cannot just say "You shall" and then not give people the opportunity to do it in practice.

I believe that language and jobs are the key to a successful integration. Therefore, I ask: What is the Sweden Democrats' integration policy for all those people who will continue to be in the country, even if the Sweden Democrats do not want it?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the questions, Jonny Cato!

I assume that Jonny Cato, just as I myself and, I assume, also the rest of the committee, have actually read the report on the expenditure area, everyone's motions and the government's proposal. I don't really understand the question. It is quite obvious that the government is investing money in, for example, exclusion and integration measures.

Then I know that the Centre Party and the member want to increase the appropriation by on the order of 455 million. For example, they want to invest extra money in the municipalities. Like the Social Democrats, they place the responsibility for immigration and its costs for integration measures and other things on the municipalities. There we are simply not in agreement.

Jonny Cato also knows that the government is doing this with the support of the Sweden Democrats. I think we should be careful there, because the Sweden Democrats are not part of the government, just as the member knows. On the other hand, we have a cooperation in and with the Tidö Agreement, and there the Sweden Democrats have had a good deal of their integration policy pushed through. We are very happy about that, for Sweden's sake.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I could address this all evening, it feels like. There is much to choose from.

I understand that the Sweden Democrats cannot take responsibility for everything the government does. Labor market policy is not included in the Tidö Agreement. That is almost a problem, because now there will be no labor market policy at all. But it is migration and integration that this agreement is about. And it is completely empty on integration policy. Everything is about migration.

It is also noteworthy to say that since some parties are pushing for the municipalities to receive increased responsibility for the refugees, one is shifting the responsibility onto them. It is quite the opposite; it is if one does not invest in the municipalities that the municipalities are left standing there and need to take from other parts of the welfare system. I have myself been a municipal politician and know what it looks like. If the money does not come, you have to take it from somewhere else. That is what the Sverigedemokraterna are responsible for now.

Återigen: Yes, the budget is one thing. It does not contain that much integration policy. But the list of bills is completely empty. We have had a single bill on the labor market and integration area during the entire autumn, and it definitely was not about integration.

Now I give the member the opportunity again to answer the questions: How shall more people learn the Swedish language? How shall more people get their first job to work out in the morning? Having good opportunities is just as important as requirements.

If the member does not want to answer the broad question, let me make the question even narrower. How do the Sverigedemokraterna want to develop sfi?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Jonny Cato once again.

It is obvious that Jonny Cato does not want to read the report on the expenditure area or the government's budget bill properly. There are integration measures in there. As I spoke about, there are investments in the municipalities for refugee reception, investments in integration measures, and investments against exclusion. Jonny Cato knows that. He just doesn't quite agree with us. That can be the case. I have full respect for that.

When we talk about integration and integration measures, it is, as I touched upon in a previous exchange, Jonny Cato's party, Centerpartiet, that has been most proactive and positive towards having especially Afghan unaccompanied so-called refugee children work within elderly care. When it then came out that ladies did not want to be showered by foreign men, they were portrayed in Swedish media almost as racists at prime time, even in the news. So that is how one treats one's elderly Swedish ladies in this country, because one is so eager to find integration measures.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats take every opportunity they get to suspect, belittle, mock, and ridicule people with a different background and faith. We just heard it from the rostrum, and we heard it from the Sweden Democrats' national conference where Jimmie Åkesson did his best to try to blur the line between Islamists and ordinary honest Swedish Muslims.

The Sweden Democrats clearly do not want to break segregation and improve integration - if anyone had doubted that. We just heard the member flat out rail against integration policy as such. They simply do not want everyone who lives in our country to be a part of the Swedish community.

Mr. Speaker! I assert that it is because the Sweden Democrats are not against immigration but against immigrants. I also want to assert that it is why they deliberately exacerbate segregation and ignore integration. They want division. They want a polarized and brutalized public debate, because it benefits them in public opinion. It is political cynicism at a socially harmful level.

I wonder if Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt agrees with me that the Sweden Democrats do not want to improve integration. Or does the Sweden Democrats have some integration policy that the member forgot to account for in her speech?

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Teresa Carvalho, for your questions, or should I rather say allegations?

I have already accounted for the integration policy that is on the table in the budget today. If one does not want to take in the information that is there in black and white, I cannot do much more about the matter. I leave it to the member to take care of it themselves.

When it comes to integration, I want to assert that it is we in the Sweden Democrats who see reality. The Sweden Democrats as a party are not at all against immigrants. The members know this very well. The Sweden Democrats have representatives and members who are immigrants. It would be strange if they would want to represent us if we were against immigrants. It would be strange if they were against themselves. These are, therefore, arguments that do not hold.

The government is allocating nearly 7 billion kronor in the budget for the remaining mandate period, i.e., for 2024, 2025, and 2026, for municipal compensations for refugee reception - 7 billion kronor just on the area of refugee compensations. But that is not enough, according to Carvalho. The Social Democrats have also, in their budget motion, stated that they want to allocate extra money. And they want to receive more immigrants. That is also stated in black and white in the document.

I am therefore posing a counter-question to the Social Democrats: How much are the Social Democrats actually prepared to spend? How much can integration cost?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member says that she has already accounted for her integration policy. The problem is that no one else has perceived it. That is why several of us are asking questions about it.

Recently we heard that the government and the Sweden Democrats are indeed investing in the municipalities' refugee reception and in the work against social exclusion. The problem is only that the government and the Sweden Democrats are cutting back on exactly that. So it is not true.

It is also not true that the Social Democrats want increased immigration. We say clearly that there needs to be a strict migration policy going forward. I suspect that what the member is referring to regarding the quota refugees is that it states clearly and distinctly in the committee motion that we do indeed take into account a few additional quota refugees, but on the condition that the rest of the asylum immigration is kept at a low level.

It is not the total level of immigration that distinguishes the different options. The big difference perhaps applies if one looks at the labor migration. The Sweden Democrats have thrown the Social Democratic initiative on means-tested labor migration into the wastebasket. They want to continue to keep the power in the hands of the employers.

Mr. Speaker! This is an integration debate, not a migration debate. Therefore, I want to try to return to integration. It becomes clear in the debate and this exchange of remarks that the major line of conflict in Swedish politics primarily concerns whether we are to bring everyone into Sweden under the common folkhem umbrella, or if some are to be left out in the rain. That is what it is about.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it has been a very long time since the Social Democrats gave any thought to the Swedish people's home. But they are trying to reclaim it, because they see that they are losing some voters to the Sweden Democrats.

It is clear that one resorts to the means at one's disposal. The Social Democrats are not afraid to resort to outright lies. That has been done before in different contexts, for example during the last parliamentary term when it concerned market rents. Just a few days ago, they came out with lies about how the Sverigedemokraterna wanted it.

I and my party believe that money does not solve everything. One cannot continue to just pour out money. Just look at Arbetsförmedlingen! How well does Arbetsförmedlingen function as an agency, despite a fairly large appropriation? It still does not work.

It is the same thing here. The municipal compensations are, as stated, 7 billion kronor during the remaining mandate period. The expenditure area for exclusion is at 429 million and for integration measures 220 million. These are small pots but enormous amounts of money that lie here.

Thank you very much for the clarity that the Social Democrats do not have any other solutions now either! You did not have it during the previous mandate period and not during the mandate period before that when you were in a governing position. The party still has no solutions other than integration measures. Thank you for the clarity!

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The member did not mention a single concrete integration measure in his speech. I believe that the purpose of integration must nevertheless be to improve people's life situation, enable them to participate in society and equip them in different ways.

The chairman spoke for a long time about how it was in 1968 and said that there were 0.2 percent immigrants in Sweden then. Then I think you said that you are 50 years old and that there are 20 percent immigrants in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Extremists have for some reason a fondness for nostalgia, but there are many things that are much better in society today. I am thinking of gender equality and the rights of LGBTQ people, which are significantly better than in 1968.

The Speaker also spoke about how we would have a world-class welfare without immigration. But the fact is that without immigration, we would have no welfare in Sweden. It is actually immigrants who maintain the welfare that exists here.

I want to ask a concrete question to the member. In what way do the Sweden Democrats want to facilitate integration and improve the life situation for people in Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for your questions! I seem to be forced to repeat something I took up in my speech. I therefore choose to clarify some things.

The Sweden Democrats set requirements linked to citizenship and during the payment of benefits. We set requirements for language learning. One should not be able to receive financial assistance without a counter-performance. We set requirements for civilized and honest behavior here in the country, among other things.

I can assure the members that in 1970, as I spoke of, Sweden was a prosperous country. Half a century later, we are not. That is naturally because those who have governed this country previously have not had any analysis at all of what will happen if one fills a country with people without then taking care of them. It is not good for those who come here and not good for those who already live here. That is the result we see now. It is no surprise.

Naturally, one would have needed to stop immigration completely in order to be able to take care of those who were already here and so that we, the whole people, would get a good situation here. That was chosen not to be done. But now the Sweden Democrats are included through the Tidö Agreement and can try to change this. We all have hopes that our politics will make a difference.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! SD and the SD government use lies as a political method, and it is very difficult to counter.

We have no unconditional grants in Sweden. People cannot just sit at home and rake in money. The ultimate safety net in the welfare system is financial assistance, and even that does not come without obligations. What you are talking about, that there are grants that people just rake in, is a pure lie.

I asked you what you specifically want to do to facilitate integration for people living in Sweden. I do not think I have received an answer to that question. The only thing I hear here are lies and suspicion. Again, I am asking in what way the Sverigedemokraterna want to improve integration in society.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When the member speaks about the fact that counter-performance is required to receive economic assistance, I do not agree. I remember some years ago when we stood here and discussed a minister who raked in Swedish economic assistance without even living in the country. He was somewhere else entirely and was a minister, but received Swedish economic assistance. It shows that this does not work at all. The member is therefore wrong.

The Speaker also calls the government a bit carelessly "the SD government." But the government is bourgeois and has the support of the Sweden Democrats. We cooperate through the Tidö Agreement.

Miljöpartiet wants to increase the appropriation by 753 million kronor in its budget motion. They want to increase the appropriation for municipal compensations for refugee reception and so on. Miljöpartiet also proposes three new appropriations. That Miljöpartiet wants to invest so much money in integration measures shows that even Miljöpartiet seems to think that integration is not working particularly well. They themselves realize that segregation is an enormous problem.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind Leila Ali Elmi that we do not use "you" as a form of address in the chamber. It is easy to forget.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since we Social Democrats had a budget alternative with a higher appropriation for expenditure area 13, which concerns integration and equality, we do not have the possibility to reserve ourselves, but I would like to refer to our special statement where one can read more about our priorities in this policy area.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be an equal and egalitarian country. Everyone who lives here shall be able to be part of society on equal terms, regardless of background, faith, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Discrimination and racism in all its forms must always be combated.

We shall all meet equal rights, duties and opportunities. Sweden shall be a society that holds together. We shall not have any parallel societies. But today, segregation is tearing our country apart. I can state that many of the great dividing lines in Swedish politics bear on the policy area of integration, which we are now debating.

No matter how much the Tidö parties want to let it shine, the dividing lines between us do not exist, primarily regarding whether we should do more to lock up gang criminals or whether we should have a continued strict and orderly migration policy. I want to argue, on the contrary, that we are quite in agreement when it comes to the broad strokes. That's good. The great conflict is rather about whether we should pull society in a direction toward stronger social cohesion or more fragmentation.

The conflict is about whether we should work to reduce the integration debt through active measures and get more people to become part of Swedish social life, or whether we should leave people to the mercy of the waves and suspect, exclude, incite, and mock groups based on their background or belief.

I do not claim that all government parties want this divisive politics, but if one has helped Jimmie Åkesson up onto the throne, it will inevitably become the consequence. I guess that this realization hits more liberals, Christian Democrats, and Moderates with each passing day.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats' firm view is that a fundamental prerequisite for breaking segregation is that we have continued strict migration.

We changed the policy during our time in government, after the refugee crisis in 2015, and we did so in broad consensus. But Sweden has previously over time and under several governments, especially during the 00s and 10s, had an immigration that has not been in parity with the country's integration capacity, which, after all, is limited. During the same period, society has withdrawn and inequality has increased. This has collectively strongly increased segregation and created many vulnerable areas where social control is often low and where unhealthy norms and honor culture have taken hold.

Segregation and the insufficient integration have also cemented a sense of alienation and hopelessness that the criminal gangs have been able to capitalize on by offering an alternative community, both life-threatening and dangerous to society.

Sweden has major integration problems.

Those who do not have the right to be in Sweden shall leave the country, but those who are granted a residence permit shall be quickly integrated into Swedish society. There shall be high and clear requirements for the individual to make themselves employable and to learn Swedish. But the requirements must be accompanied by support and tools so that people are equipped to be able to take the jobs that the labor market offers and be able to function as citizens in our country.

Even though the establishment time was significantly shortened during our time in government, society's ability to offer housing, education, jobs, social introduction, and social inclusion has been lacking. The consequence manifests in segregation, overcrowding, exclusion, and social tensions.

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Sweden Democrats are dictating the terms for the government, which so far has placed exactly zero proposals on the floor of the Riksdag regarding better integration. On the other hand, the examples of how the Sweden Democrats and the government are fueling segregation can be added to an already long list.

Let me take some examples!

The authority that has had the unified responsibility for the work against segregation is being abolished.

Important investigations and initiatives commissioned by the S-government have been thrown in the trash. Examples are the one on tightened and means-tested labor migration and the one on stopping social dumping, that is, well-off municipalities dumping social problems into the laps of other municipalities with poorer integration opportunities.

The government has furthermore signaled that the Settlement Act shall be dismantled so that wealthy municipalities can escape their share of the responsibility to receive newcomers, who will instead be concentrated in other municipalities with poorer conditions.

And with next year's budget, one also reduces the support to those municipalities that have taken a disproportionately large responsibility for the reception of refugees, which in this situation becomes a double blow for the affected municipalities that are already on their knees as a result of the cost crisis and the government's completely insufficient money for welfare.

Furthermore, the SD government has scrapped the investment support for building new rental apartments, which had been needed to physically build away the segregation.

It is particularly noteworthy that massive cuts are being made to the individually tailored labor market interventions, because one of the most obvious underlying causes of segregation is that far too many who have come to our country have not succeeded in establishing themselves in the labor market.

The last thing one should do in this situation is to slaughter the labor market policy, but that is exactly what the SD government is doing. Not only in crowns and öre, it should be added – they were also quick to use an old Tippex bottle to magic away what previously existed in the regulatory letter to expand foreign-born women's opportunities to enter education and work. This will make it harder for them to obtain their own income, which is the basis for freedom and equality.

As if all this were not enough, the government is now cutting the state grant to municipalities with vulnerable areas within the budget allocation that we are now debating.

For the last three years, 250 million annually has been spent on building strategic cooperation between the police, social services, schools, and leisure activities, and on outreach activities with field assistants and family counselors to break the recruitment of new members into the criminal gangs.

The SD-government's targeted cut of this is astonishing. It is a downright life-threatening prioritization in the crisis situation our country finds itself in to cut back on these measures in order to afford a lower tax on plastic bags. I actually cannot comprehend the tone-deafness. I hope that someone from the government base dares to respond to this and explain how they intended to proceed.

We Social Democrats naturally say no to this cut, Mr. Speaker, and we do so with emphasis.

If the government parties seriously believe that one can conduct effective integration-promoting, segregation-breaking, and crime-preventing policy with the Sweden Democrats' good memory, yes, then I appeal to them to think again and take their senses to heart.

The Sweden Democrats want neither to break segregation, lift people in and out of vulnerable areas, nor equip foreign-born people living here to become a part of the Swedish community. They show this time and again.

I assert, Mr. Speaker, that it is because the Sweden Democrats are in fact not against immigration but against immigrants. I also want to assert that it is why they deliberately exacerbate segregation and disregard integration - simply because it benefits them and because they want a divided, polarized and brutalized public debate.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker: The great conflict in Swedish politics is not about whether strict migration is needed or whether we should cage gang criminals. The great conflict in Swedish politics is about whether we should divide or unite, fuel or calm down, join forces to create a "we" or point disparagingly at "them".

We Social Democrats know what we want and what we stand for, while large parts of the respectable bourgeoisie are constantly fumbling in a Tidö Agreement darkness. Let us hope that it clears up soon, perhaps even after a calmer Christmas break with a little time for reflection.

With that said, I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Speaker, the Riksdag Chancellery, the committee secretariat, and all the members of the committee a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party and the Social Democrats agree on a lot, and I also think that there was very much good said in Teresa Carvalho's speech. But I want to talk a little about S's new social analysis.

I think it is good that the Social Democrats are now deeply self-critical of their integration policy, as the problems have been at their greatest during S's years in power.

Through the January agreement, the Center Party pushed the Social Democrats forward, I want to assert, with the intensive year, reinforced Sfi, expanded social introduction, reforming of Arbetsförmedlingen, and lowered employer contributions.

But there was also, in parts, a terrifying rhetoric that I believe approaches that which the Sverigedemokraterna have regarding people fleeing. All working groups on social problems pointed out that Sweden helped too many who fled war and oppression. At the press conference, it was said that extreme liberal small parties had been allowed to govern migration policy for too much. Even that sounds like something the Sverigedemokraterna usually say. I assume it is meant that C and L have had too much influence and have been too good negotiators.

But when it comes to migration policy, S and C are very much in agreement, except when it comes to the view on labor migration and the humanitarian basis - I thought so, until I started reviewing the Social Democrats' budget and noticed a difference.

Last year, the Social Democrats said that they wanted to accept 5,000 quota refugees. In this year's budget, it says that they want to accept something more than the government. My question is very simple: How many quota refugees do the Social Democrats want to accept?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to express my joy that so many are taking part in the Social Democrats' ongoing policy development work. It is naturally as it should be that the sun revolves around social democracy. Since we are the largest party, it is not strange that other parties follow our internal development work. I am pleased that Jonny Cato has devoted time to this.

I happen to be one of the Social Democrats who has led a working group that has produced one of the reports, so I can speak for that one. But it is important to emphasize that this is in no way a new reform agenda that the Social Democratic Party has put forward, but rather it concerns an analytical work. It is individual Social Democrats who stand behind the reports.

One thing we can certainly state is that Sweden stands out in one respect when it comes to migration in recent decades: Sweden has had a very extensive reception.

We are not saying that we do not have a will to help people fleeing. That remains firm. But we observe that the reception Sweden has had, which stands out compared to other countries in terms of both scale and nature, in combination with the incredible inequality that has grown in society during the same time, has led to a segregation that is not good for our country. This now places even higher demands on us to improve integration. I am pleased that Jonny Cato and I seem to be in agreement on that.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! A large part of the quota refugee policy falls within the Labor Market Committee's area of responsibility. I would like to have an answer on how many quota refugees the Social Democrats want to accept.

I have tried to figure this out by looking at both committee motions and budget motions. I can state that the Social Democrats in their budget for the current year invested 440 million kronor on quota refugees. It was also said that they wanted to receive 5,000 quota refugees. They mentioned quota refugees three times in their budget for the current year.

In the budget for next year, quota refugees are not mentioned even once, and one has to go to the committee motion on migration just to find the sum. It is 200 million kronor that the Socialdemokraterna want to invest in quota refugees.

Then I wonder: What has happened during this year? One has, so to speak, gone from 5,000 to a significantly lower figure. I want to know how many quota refugees the Social Democrats want to receive and what it is that has happened that has caused one to have shifted policy during 2023.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! If Jonny Cato has found the figures in our budget, he can surely also figure out approximately how we have landed on this issue. The reason we do not write out any exact figure is that no one knows exactly what the immigration to Sweden will look like. We actually know nothing about how many who will come to Sweden next year. We can guess at an approximate amount.

We have said that on the condition that asylum migration is kept at the low level that we believe it will remain at today, we will make room to receive some more quota refugees than the government has indicated. It will not be as many as 5,000 - that is correctly estimated. What has happened is actually nothing other than that we state that we need to have a strict, restrained attitude towards migration to Sweden for the foreseeable future in order to work off the integration debt we see today.

But with that said, it is important to emphasize that we are not saying no to accepting quota refugees. It is very important that we continue to do so, not least to pressure other countries that are not taking their responsibility. One must keep in mind that quota refugees constitute a small part of those who come to Sweden. But they are those with the greatest needs, and they are also those who arrive most orderly. It is important that there is order and clarity and that we stand up for this so that, for example, child soldiers and girls who have managed to escape a life as sex slaves can come to Sweden as well as to other countries.

Other countries are not taking their responsibility, so therefore Sweden must continue to do so. But we still need to have a reception in parity with the integration capacity we have.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the speech!

Olof Palme was of the opinion that people seeking protection in Sweden should know that they were allowed to stay so that they could directly enter society, be with their family and build their future here. During his time as Prime Minister, permanent residence permits were introduced as a general rule, for the sake of integration.

Much has happened since then, but in modern times, the Social Democrats were, despite everything, first with the paradigm shift in migration policy – one must give them that. The clearest example of this shift is the subsistence requirements for the right to live with one's family and children, measures that we know with absolute certainty and knowledge lead to insecurity and poorer integration, but which also create a power imbalance in the labor market.

The newly arrived wage earner is many times at the mercy of the employer because one does everything, on any terms whatsoever, in order to be with one's children and one's family. One thus becomes easier to exploit, underpay, cheat, replace and silence. This is also a losing strategy for the colleague working alongside. The wage earner collective is never stronger than the most insecure one on the labor market.

How is it then that the Social Democrats continue to hold fast to these rules for residence permits, which are designed in a way that leads to an undesirable balance of power on the Swedish labor market to the employer's advantage? And how is it that one holds fast to these rules even though it is obvious that integration becomes worse when children and parents are kept separated?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member quoted Palme to, I assume, in some way pretend that we Social Democrats do not stand up for the politics that we once stood up for. That was how I interpreted it; the member is welcome to correct me if I misunderstood it.

I have quickly looked up something I have been inspired by that comes from Olof Palme. He said that an equal welfare society presupposes an immigration that is adapted to society's ability to provide immigrants with work, housing, and social care on the same terms as the rest of the population.

This is the reason why we Social Democrats have the line we have in migration policy. I see the member wrinkling his nose – he probably thinks I strayed a bit off-topic. It is very possible that I misunderstood the question, but I perceived it as being about the Social Democrats' migration policy, quite simply. I then wanted to counter by quoting the same person that the member referred to in his reply.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! One can perform a clever maneuver when one receives questions that one does not want to answer.

It is obvious that the requirements for livelihood we have today have shifted the balance of power so that the employer has a significant advantage. Parents who want to be with their children are prepared to take any jobs whatsoever, quite simply. It has shown that this is obviously not particularly good for integration either.

The reason I brought up Olof Palme was that there was a reason why permanent residence permits were made the main rule. It was to remove the power imbalance in the labor market by letting people know that they could build their security here.

Another reason I brought it up is that the labor movement has historically faced such oppression. But in the struggle for everyone's freedom, equal rights, safety in the workplace and so on, the path to success has been the trade union promise not to let the collective of wage earners be split and to create the best possible conditions for all workers.

With these subsistence requirements, people will do whatever it takes to be with their children and their family. Then I wonder: In what way do the Social Democrats want to improve the conditions for immigrants? Is it not better that the Social Democrats start seeing people who come here primarily as workers on the same terms, who deserve rights and security, instead of immigrants being met with requirements and pressure, which obviously leads to poorer integration and is to the employer's advantage?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The basis for us to be able to have a society that upholds equality is that we have an orderly migration policy. These things are connected.

We do not believe that Sweden can have a regulatory framework that stands out compared to other European countries. That leads to an unsustainable migration situation in Sweden. It makes it more difficult for us to manage the integration.

That is why we have adapted the regulatory framework. That was why we restructured the integration policy, in order to adapt it to the level that applies in the rest of Europe.

But with that said, it is an incredibly important matter that everyone who is in Sweden, who lives here and has the right to live here, enters the Swedish community. This we shall do with an active integration policy.

An important matter is also that we get order and clarity regarding labor immigration. A needs assessment is clearly needed here, so that it is not driven by the employers' will to import labor and exploit people on unscrupulous terms, but rather the need shall prevail. This is also an important basic prerequisite for maintaining equality in society and bringing everyone who has the right to live in our country into the community.

Migration and integration are linked, as many have pointed out here. We need a regulatory framework for migration that does not stand out compared to the rest of Europe, so that we can achieve the best possible integration in our country.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member said in his speech: We know what we want. But in ten minutes we did not hear particularly much about the Social Democrats' integration policy, but it was very much about the Sweden Democrats and the so-called SD-led government.

I have, however, enjoyed looking a bit at the Social Democrats' integration policy. It must be admitted that there is actually quite a lot to read. I enjoyed putting it into ChatGPT and letting the AI summarize the Social Democrats' policy, so that one can go through it in 30 seconds.

I received the answer that it is "natural that those who immigrate to Sweden promptly adopt the Swedish culture, partly so that they can understand how society works and become a part of it."

Creating incentives and opportunities for people with a background other than Swedish to adopt the norms, values, and lifestyles that characterize Sweden is the key to a successful integration policy.

A fundamental principle for the objective is that rights are granted in relation to the effort and the expectations on the individual to want to become a part of the majority society and contribute to the welfare.

The number of individuals shall be adapted to the country's conditions.

My question is: Is this the Social Democrats' integration policy 2023? Is it a paradigm shift we are seeing even from the Social Democrats, or what is it that is actually going on?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am sorry, but I did not understand what the question was. The member read out claims from Chat GPT about the Social Democrats' integration policy and wants me to answer what is happening within the Social Democrats. I am sorry, but the member must ask a question about the policy we have presented a bit more concretely if I am to be able to answer it.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The reason I asked Chat GPT to summarize is that when you read the text, there is a very large amount of snow and fluff. I therefore asked Chat GPT to simply summarize what it is concretely that the Social Democrats want. Then it became only half an A4 page. But when I read it out, the member does not even seem to recognize their own policy. That may be why one spends so much time in the speaker's chair talking about other parties' policies.

I could send along some tips. I know that the Social Democrats are now changing their policy and are going to overhaul it. It usually happens that we eventually hear from the Social Democrats that they have been naive, and then they change their minds. Then one starts to recognize quite a lot of things that we talked about five or ten years ago.

I can conclude by sending some tips from the Sweden Democrats, so you do not need to wait until 2030 but can start driving this already now. It could be that foreign rapists should be deported on a larger scale. It is something one can raise, as well as abolished sentence reductions and putting the crime victim first and such things.

There were also some questions regarding the Delegation against segregation in the member's speech. I just want to point out the fact that we probably do not solve particularly many integration problems by simply having more agencies. Had it been so, we probably would not have had any problems at all, especially not when it comes to segregation. The distribution that was made by that agency can be managed by other agencies. The segregation barometer has moved to Boverket.

The Social Democrats probably need to come up with something new and a bit more concrete if they are to have any credibility in the issue of integration.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! There were many oddities that came from the Sweden Democrats.

Michael Rubbestad first makes it sound as if gross criminals cannot be deported today. Secondly, he makes it sound as if Delmos - the agency that the SD government abolished - was the only thing I spoke about that would break the segregation. It was one of perhaps ten things that I highlighted that the SD government has done in just one year to fuel segregation and worsen integration. But it was not the only one.

My point in my speech was that the SD government has managed to do very much in a year to fuel segregation, but they are doing nothing to improve integration. That was my point.

I don't need any tips at all from the Sweden Democrats regarding integration policy. We Social Democrats want an offensive integration policy. We see that it has fallen short. The Sweden Democrats do not want any integration policy. That is what we heard in the previous exchange of remarks.

I don't need any tips on integration policy from a party that has a party leader who is doing their best to blur the line between Islamists and ordinary, honest Swedish Muslims who are involved and contributing to our society and have integrated.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have obviously started writing both reports and books about their own failure to govern the country. It is not at all just internally, but obviously also externally.

It is completely obvious that the Social Democrats are a party in the midst of a major identity crisis right now. One does not know which foot to stand on. One does not know how to act in order to win back the voters' trust.

But I will be specific. In this expenditure area, the Socialdemokraterna have two appropriations that differ from the government's budget. It concerns 570 million kronor for both appropriations. It is quite obvious that the Socialdemokraterna are fairly in agreement with the government regarding the budget.

My question to the member is: In what way would integration be improved with these 570 million kronor?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Then I shall answer that question. It is very true that it is primarily two things that distinguish our budget options.

One thing is about the SD government cutting the grant to the municipalities, which have taken a very large responsibility for the reception of refugees. When this becomes a reality, these municipalities will be hit by a double blow, because the SD government at the same time does not provide the money to the municipalities that is needed in order to be able to maintain a good quality in welfare. I can say that the municipalities are on their knees, if the Sweden Democrats have missed that.

That in this situation directing this double blow against the municipalities which have also taken a disproportionately large responsibility for the reception of refugees, we Social Democrats consider to be wrong.

The second thing is that we think it is completely horrible and crazy that the SD government, in the crisis situation that prevails, linked to gang crime, is cutting back on precisely that grant which finances the activities that municipalities with vulnerable areas have had to build up to counter the new recruitment to the gangs. It is a strategic cooperation between police, school, social services, and leisure. It is perhaps the most concrete thing available right now for municipalities with vulnerable areas when it comes to breaking the new recruitment to the gangs. In this situation, the Sweden Democrats and the government choose to cut back on that state grant. We think that is wrong.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The report states: The Social Democrats further argue that Sweden should be able to receive some more quota refugees.

The message is, therefore, that the Social Democrats want to increase immigration, migration, to the country. This is also found in a committee motion. But the member asserts, certainly, that is not the case.

The big question is: How on earth are the Social Democrats going to succeed with this in a social democratic government with its governing base? The member and the Socialdemokraterna know that it will be completely impossible.

The Social Democrats are, as mentioned, not particularly dissatisfied with the government's budget. There are only two expenditure items that differ, and they only differ when it comes to increased investments to the municipalities.

This is a clear message from the entire opposition side - I must take it as such, because in that case it is about an S-led government with the opposition parties behind it. What can be guaranteed to happen with such a government is that migration will increase. Segregation will increase, and integration will cost enormous sums of money. The fact that the Social Democrats have not succeeded in solving in eight years shows that they will not succeed now either, when it comes to this budget bill.

The Social Democrats choose to run in the same hamster wheel that has been done year after year, and there are no solutions from the Social Democrats to present.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was a pity that Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt did not listen to my speech, for then she would have heard some of the proposals that I put forward.

It is quite true that it is not the case that the Social Democrats want to increase migration. We also discussed this in a previous exchange of replies. We Social Democrats have an alternative where we say that provided that asylum migration to Sweden is kept at the low level that is believed it will be, there are opportunities to instead receive some more quota refugees.

Let us say it is 500, 900 or 2,000 - now I am only mentioning a few figures. It is not that which determines how well we will succeed with the integration in Sweden or if we succeed in breaking the segregation. One must look at the whole, and the whole includes the fact that the Sverigedemokraterna have bowed to the bourgeois government when it comes to the labor migration.

The large part of immigration to Sweden is labor migrants, and the situation is that Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedts party has thrown the investigation that we Social Democrats initiated into the trash. It was about achieving a sustainable and regulated labor immigration where the need takes the lead. That is how it should be, instead of it being about the employer's will to bring in labor from the other side of the world when there is labor in Sweden. This is the truth.

Then Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt speaks about my government alternative. I have no agreement with any other party. The Sweden Democrats do - with the Liberals. After listening to Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt, I am, frankly, not sure that the Liberals will remain in that agreement. I wouldn't bet on it in any case.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Carvalho gave a speech for ten minutes. There wasn't much wisdom to be gained from it. The great conflict is not about migration. The great conflict is not about gang crime. But it was this that you lost the election on. It was not about your SD-Tourettes that has arisen. The Social Democrats can engage in whatever they like. They can engage in talking about the Sweden Democrats 24 hours a day, but the Swedish people are not stupid.

This may be very easy for a Member of Parliament who lives a comfortable life, who has a good salary, who does not have to worry so much, and who can afford to move to a safe area. But I am thinking of ordinary people, people with a foreign background. You can go out and meet those who are exposed to gang crime. It is they who say: Increase the penalties! Deport the immigrants who do not behave! But for eight years, you did nothing.

A report has been released. I will read the conclusion of that report: The economic, ethnic and linguistic segregation needs to be broken at a structural level, which requires that the population be mixed.

After eight years of social experimentation, you want to continue to treat the Swedish people as the Social Democrats' experiment in your crazy engineering. For ten minutes, we did not hear a single measure and not a single apology for what the Social Democrats have caused.

Now it sounds like this: No, but we have always been for it. We have no responsibility. This is something completely different.

What concrete measures do you want to take to rectify integration? Now the member Carvalho has the floor, Mr. Speaker.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! That the Social Democrats did nothing during eight years simply is not true.

Firstly, it was we who were in government when we reformed the migration policy. Secondly, we launched a historic investment in the police. We tightened a long series of penalties.

Then I am the first to say that we have done too little. I also state this in a report. It is not the report that Arin Karapet refers to, as I have not been involved in preparing that one. It is another report where we state that we have done too little. It has not gone fast enough.

The chairman can decide which angle of attack he wants to take. Is it that I don't acknowledge that more should have been done? Or is it the opposite? Now it sounds like we are being accused of both. One can choose which angle of attack to take. The truth is that very much was done, but not enough.

My point was that it is not a question of whether we should imprison more gang criminals or whether we should have a strict migration policy that sets us apart. I contend that is not what sets us apart. I contend that what sets us apart is that we also want an integration policy where we bring everyone who has the right to live in our country into the community, while the Moderaterna have chosen to cooperate with the Sverigedemokraterna, a party that lives on division. That is the difference.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats would not have changed Swedish migration policy if it were not for the pressure that existed in society and in this chamber. It is very easy to stand in a speaker's chair and say that one has changed, but then one has to negotiate with the Center Party.

It is no secret that the Center Party is for a generous immigration policy and that the Left Party is for a generous migration policy. It is the Green Party as well. These three parties sit in this chamber, and all can nod and say that they are for that policy, in contrast to the Social Democrats. In the end, you Social Democrats will have to negotiate with the three parties sitting here in the chamber, and they will fight for their voters, who have voted for their policy.

When we talked about language requirements, you said it was racism. When we talked about livelihood requirements, you said it was racism. We say that we are going to remove the penalty discounts and the quantity discounts. You had eight years to do all of this. The Moderate-led government has been in power for a year, and all investigations are underway. The Social Democrats talked away eight years.

People talk about division and about how certain parties are trying to divide Sweden. The Social Democrats divided Sweden for real. This was not done with words but with actions. My question is therefore: What distinguishes today's Social Democrats from the Social Democrats who sat in Rosenbad a year ago?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now the member stands here and says that I said something in my speech that I did not say. What I said was that we changed the policy during our time in government after the 2015 refugee crisis, in broad consensus. Then the member stands here and tries to accuse me of taking the credit and that it was not at all us who did anything, that we did it because of something and so on.

I note that in 2015, Sweden ended up in a situation where it became clear to very many that we needed to reform the migration policy. It is a fact that it was we Social Democrats who were in government then and that we reformed the migration policy. It is a fact, Arin Karapet.

If one now demands humility from one's opponents, one can also test a little humility oneself. It was, after all, not the Socialdemokraterna who, together with Miljöpartiet, changed the migration policy during the previous decade and introduced a more liberal migration policy, especially when it comes to labor migration.

I can only state that we Social Democrats have not had the political conditions required to change back the labor migration so that it became organized and regulated. We would have wanted to do it. We fought against the wind, and when we finally had the power on our own, we appointed an inquiry to establish a needs-based labor migration. Arin Karapet and his colleagues in the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have thrown it in the trash.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country, both culturally and nationally. And I actually like the weather. Maybe not many do, but I like our seasons, even if it is slippery outside right now.

Sweden is a country that enables the class mobility that people talk about in the USA - the American dream. I would say that in Sweden, one can achieve a real class mobility. It is not just like in a Hollywood movie, but one can succeed if one gets the right conditions and opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, Sweden has enormous problems. For a long time, we have had very high immigration that has been well-intentioned. People have wanted to help people in need. People have wanted to reach out a hand in the great world and take their responsibility. But we have not had a single thought or idea about what comes next. What is plan B when people are already here?

The idea has been roughly that if people just land at terminal 5 at Arlanda or at Landvetter, they automatically become Swedes. We are not to have any expectations or requirements. They will become Swedes. They will adopt our Swedish traditions. They will understand the social culture, how we speak in social conversations etcetera, that we in Sweden take in information on our own - read papers or go to a website - and that we engage in the parents' association, the football club, the housing association etcetera.

In many other parts of the world, it does not look like that, and if no one tells you from day one, you fall behind, especially when it comes to the Swedish language. Swedish is an interesting language. You speak in one way and write in another. It is not like Finnish, which we might think sounds very different and difficult.

I always ask people of the same ethnicity as I am – Armenians – who live in Finland how they learned Finnish. They answer that it was very easy and that even though it sounded a bit strange at the beginning, you write as you speak. In Sweden, it is not like that. My mother, who has lived here for over 40 years, still thinks this is a bit of a problem.

What I want to get across is that the self-written truths that one encounters outside this house are very difficult to talk about in the chamber. But now we finally have four parties and a government that is tackling the real problems.

Migration to Sweden has decreased, and it shall decrease even further. Those who come to Sweden shall adapt to how we live in Sweden. We shall not adapt to how others have lived in other countries. In Sweden, one must learn Swedish. If one is to receive permanent residence permit and citizenship and become a part of Swedish democracy, one must master the Swedish language. Therefore, we are introducing language requirements.

But this is not enough. One must also be able to support oneself, because what has built Sweden and the Swedish welfare state is that the majority go to work and pay their taxes so that we can take care of the common good. When someone falls, there is a safety net that catches that person. This is the whole idea of the welfare society.

It is like an insurance system. Money does not fall from the sky. It is produced somewhere, and that people go to work is what has built Sweden strong. This is the Swedish tradition – that one does one's duty and demands one's right, and that the help is there when one is in need of it. One should not be told no and hear that the help went to someone else.

Mr. Speaker! Children of immigrants shall not inherit their parents' exclusion. They shall not have to live in an exclusion. They are a part of Sweden; they are Swedes. Almost every single one who is born here will live here, live here and die here. Therefore, it is unacceptable that we should have segregated areas.

They are not segregated only when it comes to socioeconomics, but it is about access to the Swedish language and Swedish society, that one can grow by one's own power and that one does not inherit one's parents' exclusion. It is enough to look at oneself in the mirror and understand that one does not look like people in the majority society. There it should be a stop. In everything else it should be equal. One should have the same opportunities.

The government also wants to ensure that a benefit ceiling is introduced. It should always pay to go to work. Benefits should go to those who are most in need, but today we have a situation where people who have the capacity to work are living on our benefit system. If one does not want to talk about this or do anything about it, one is actually in favor of a segregated society.

The government also wants to introduce Sweden courses on values, how we live in Sweden, and that we respect equality between women and men. These are not self-evident in many other countries, but in Sweden we have had a hundred-year struggle for equality. For a hundred years, Swedish women have fought for their freedoms and rights and universal suffrage. We have come very far, but we are not there yet. We must be humble enough to acknowledge this.

Many girls and also boys are subjected to honor oppression and honor-related violence, but it has been argued that we should not overstep by talking about honor-related violence and honor oppression, because then it is racism; then we are singling out a specific group.

It is the collectivist thought that has been dangerous. Every time there is a victim, an individual. In Sweden, girls have the same rights as boys. In Sweden, we do not perform virginity tests, and we do not issue certificates of virginity. We now forbid that. Women have the same rights as boys.

The fight against honor-related oppression is not the same as the fight against men's violence against women. Honor-related oppression and honor-related violence occur in a different context where it is collectively sanctioned, where even women in the collective are part of exercising the violence against the victim.

We are always told that we were naive, anxious, did not see it coming, were afraid of conflict. How many times must the Swedish people hear these excuses every time the politics fails? That is where the government puts its foot down.

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to prolong the debate much further - I see that replies to my speech have been requested. I hope that the Speaker and our faithful officials have a wonderful Christmas and a wonderful New Year and that they still like us after the long budget debates. It always ends with them having to work overtime, evenings and nights. Thank you!

(Applause)

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that! I can assure you that we like you all; from all of us to all of you, so to speak.)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! That was a very inspiring opening to the speech.

If one understands integration for what it is, that people who come to Sweden from other countries approach the majority population in terms of income, working conditions, and housing situation, one sees that the Moderaterna consistently have a strong policy to increase what we call segregation and decrease what we call integration. It is clear that we have a government that makes segregation worse and integration less possible.

The people who come to Sweden find it significantly much harder to approach the majority population in terms of work, economic conditions, or housing situation with your policy. It is the core of your policy. It results in increased gaps for people who live here, and it results in increased gaps for people who come to Sweden. The obstacles are crystal clear.

The policy that the Moderaterna continue to insist on is lower taxes and privatizations as the solution to everything. It is also supposed to create jobs.

The problem is that we have tried this for 30 years in Sweden, and it has only led to increased inequalities and a welfare state on starvation rations. Quite honestly, we are not flooded with jobs.

The member also touched upon the gangs. The gangs in Sweden start welfare companies to launder money. Personally, I think that health centers should be for caring for the sick, not money laundering. How does the member themselves think that works?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I received no clear question, so it shall have to be some form of reasoning.

Criminals should be locked up. They should not be doing anything out in free society. The problem is follow-up and control. I will be honest. Let us see how it looks in the Stockholm region. Now the Moderates do not rule, but we are in opposition. The people of Stockholm wanted a different government, and I congratulate the Left Party, which now sits in power.

I was at the emergency clinic myself this weekend, at Hötorget, which is threatened with closure. I am not saying that it is perfect or the best clinic, but it was either to go to Hötorget or to sit at the emergency department at S:t Görans sjukhus.

Then I turn back to Tony Haddou: How are you going to solve this? Where are the people of Stockholm supposed to go when they want to see a doctor on a Saturday? Is everyone supposed to go to the emergency department at the emergency hospital, where heart attacks, elderly people with multiple illnesses, and traffic accidents come in? Is the emergency department to be overpopulated by citizens?

The problem is not that there are private alternatives. The point is that the citizens who pay taxes and go to work want freedom of choice in healthcare. We see now what happens when they are removed one by one, back into public administration and into the bureaucracy. Remember, Member of Parliament Tony Haddou, it is not the number of nurses that increases, but the number of bureaucrats that increases when one moves over to public administration.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! My question was simple: How does the member himself think it is going? Obviously not well, because the member talks about everything except his own budget. Instead, he refers to the Stockholm municipality, of all municipalities in all of Sweden.

We might talk about the state budget. That is what this debate is about. When the member is already on the topic of welfare, we can state that 20 billion is missing. We know that much goes to private pockets.

The occupational groups working within the welfare sector are crying out for resources and more colleagues, skilled people. There is a lack of money in the welfare sector in Sweden, and it is the Moderaterna who are in power. The first thing they did was to roll out a cut shock across all of Sweden.

No, there is no good control; the gangs are laundering money through health centers. It is the government's responsibility to fix it. Privatizations may not have gone so well in the welfare sector.

I am convinced that we must make investments that strengthen our society rather than tear it apart. Have the Moderates ever asked themselves what it would be like to invest for the people instead? There is a shortage of almost 20 billion across the country's municipalities for welfare. There has not been a single investment. It is completely incredible. Now, they do not want to take responsibility, but instead turn to the Stockholm municipality and a "where-are-we-headed" discussion.

If there is anything this debate must address, it is the economic inequality, which is increasing faster in Sweden than in some other countries. We must reduce the economic gaps, and then politics must take responsibility. Politics cannot stand back. There is no accountability whatsoever. Nothing is being done, instead, a wave of cuts is sweeping across all of Sweden.

How does the member think it is going?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Tony Haddou is fully aware that the government has allocated 16 billion to Sweden's municipalities and regions. We have high inflation, and many are on their knees. Interest rates are increasing, and the krona is weak. There are high fuel costs. No one has missed this.

But somewhere it is not just a question of more money. 16 billion is injected. Then every municipality and region must ask themselves if the right things are being done. Are ten administrators needed, or can it be reduced to five? Can it be increased by two nurses? If more money is injected into the wrong things, it is wasted money. More funds are injected, and the right things must be done. Regardless of which party is in power, whether it is the Moderates, the Left Party, or the Social Democrats, in a region or municipality, every politician also has the ultimate responsibility on the ground.

If we are to solve the welfare problems, we must ask ourselves if we are doing the right things, if we have the right knowledge, if the staff receive the right training. The answer is no. For many years in a long Swedish tradition, it has always been a question of more money.

I have no problem at all with spending money on good things, but I have a problem with spending money on bad things. The government is injecting 16 billion, but it must be clear to Sweden's municipalities and regions that they must go through their costs and prioritize the core mission. Welfare is our core mission.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We landed straight in the culture war. I heard nothing from the member that concretely concerned what policy the government is pursuing in order to facilitate people's integration.

The members of the committee spoke about norms and culture as if they were static things. I would argue that culture and norms are living; it is something that changes all the time. Immigrants have influenced Swedish culture, and immigrants have been influenced by Swedish culture. I assert this because I consider myself both Swedish and an immigrant.

The government parties have changed their integration strategy. They have straight up taken SD's non-existent integration policy. Therefore, I want to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, to the member. He spoke about the Sweden dream. It absolutely exists, but I want to understand how one is to achieve the Sweden dream.

What the government is doing now is that they want to introduce a benefit ceiling, they want to introduce a reporting obligation and they want to lower the establishment allowance. They do not want newcomers to be able to participate in the welfare. They are removing the preventive measures. In what way will these measures lead to the Sweden dream?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to the debate! Member Leila Ali Elmi asks me what the Moderate government is doing for integration.

I said it from the rostrum: language requirements from day one. If one is granted a temporary residence permit, one shall learn Swedish and secure their own livelihood. If one masters the Swedish language and fulfills the requirements for self-sufficiency, one can be granted a permanent residence permit. If one is to become a Swedish citizen, one must still be able to support oneself and one's family - if one has such - and have approved results in the Swedish language.

Yes, Swedes have learned very much from us with foreign backgrounds. But we must not forget that we have, after all, come to Sweden, and higher requirements are placed on us, those of us who have a different background, to become a part of Sweden. The welfare that Member Leila Ali Elmi is worried about – who is it that built it up from the beginning? And no, the welfare does not just depend on the immigrants. The immigrants are part of and contribute to the welfare, but the immigrants are not in the majority in Sweden.

It is this twisting and turning of words that it is about. In MP Leila Ali Elmis's post, one can directly hear about the obligation to provide information. It is clear that you are for free immigration. Just say that from the beginning, and do not hide behind fancy words! If we are to achieve acceptance in our society and if Sweden is to become one, we must also ensure that those who come here become a part of Sweden - period. It is not harder than that.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party is for human rights, we are for the right to asylum and we are for people being able to seek protection when needed. What the member claims, that we are for free immigration, is not correct.

There is no conflict regarding the Swedish language. It is obvious to everyone that the Swedish language is the key into society. But beyond the Swedish language, the member could in no way explain how one is to achieve the Sweden dream. I do not believe that people reach the Sweden dream by being met with resistance and suspicion, which the SD government is providing now.

I also do not believe that people become better established in society if they become poorer. One does not get a job because one becomes poorer. I also do not believe that one gets less segregation in society by removing preventive measures.

Again: Besides the reporting obligation and the fact that you are removing the preventive measures and all the bad things you are driving - is there any good concrete policy that actually improves people's life situations and enables integration?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! There is nothing better for a newcomer than to learn the language of the majority society. How is one to take in news? How is one to become a part of the democratic society? How will the children manage their education? How will the parents help the children when they come home with homework? Will one need to call an interpreter in order to visit a health center when one has lived here for 15-20 years?

These are questions that Miljöpartiet should ask themselves. Every time this issue is discussed, it is shouted: Racism! Society is being split! Permanent residence permits from day one! Just give people access to the entire welfare system and they will integrate by themselves!

The answer is no. We have tried this for 30 years. How are we going to get acceptance from those who have paid into the welfare system when someone new arrives? I believe that if one qualifies step by step, the one who gets to share in the welfare will realize that it cannot be taken for granted. But also the one who has built and been involved in financing the welfare can feel: You know what - you have been involved and contributed. Thank you for coming to Sweden! Of course, you should also be a part of the welfare. You are also a part of society. I want to socialize with you, and you are my neighbor. There is no difference between us even if we have different appearances.

It is the Green Party's policy that has built the segregation we see. But it is I who am asked for answers. When it comes to language screening at BVC - why should children with a foreign background not speak Swedish as well as children of those born domestically? Is it racism? If I say that we propose it - and we do - it will be met with allegations of racism. Then you say that we are singling out a specific group.

But in this group, there are many individuals – talented boys and girls with dreams. But when they were not able to acquire good Swedish, they did not manage the education. Then the Swedish dream cannot come true. That is what we begin to do now; we ensure that the Swedish dream can come true for all children.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Karapet, for an engaged speech! I noted that the Member touched briefly on the later part of the debate's areas, namely equality and honor-related violence and oppression. I take the opportunity to also ask about that because the Moderaterna do not have any speaker registered for round number two.

Integration is also largely a question of equality. I would like to ask a few questions about the group within the target group that perhaps faces the greatest betrayal, namely foreign-born women. They have 20 percent lower employment than Swedish-born women and 13 percent lower employment than foreign-born men. We know that this is not solely due to these women having insufficient or lower education, because that is not the case. Some have low education, but many times it is higher than what the men have. Still, the women are further away from the labor market.

Despite this, there is no systematic plan today to reach just this target group. The question is whether the general measures are sufficient. I would like to ask the members to reflect a bit on how one best reaches just this specific target group.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker and Member Helena Vilhelmsson! It is true, it is the women with a foreign background who stand furthest away. When it comes to issues of honor-related violence and oppression, it is the girls with a foreign background who are the most vulnerable.

The Chairman speaks about women's situation in the labor market and long-term unemployment. It is true that many women from certain countries have much higher education than their men.

That is why it is important that we start talking about norms and values, not just adjustments in the parental leave or in some tax rate. As a man with a different background, I say that we must be clear from day one, because I have myself discussed this with other men with different backgrounds. I have said: Your sister can study wherever she wants. She can study in Gothenburg, not just apply to the medical program in Stockholm. If she wants to apply to Poland, she has the right to do so. She can also move out of home and live by herself and have a boyfriend - or a girlfriend. It doesn't matter. In Sweden, people are allowed to choose freely.

We must start talking about this. It is not enough to just have knowledge of the Swedish language. If one has unhealthy values, one has them, and we must fight them. It is about ensuring that there are clear consequences. Many with a foreign background think that Swedes are flat and conflict-averse and can be tricked with a small smile, and if one becomes a bit half-sour and angry, the Swede backs down. But no, we must dare to show that in Sweden, girls and boys have the same rights and obligations, period, and that we simply have to start acting based on that.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is obviously important to talk about norms and values. We have talked about social introduction, and most parties in the chamber have probably done so for many years. The Centre Party was involved in pushing through both the intensive year and the establishment reform during the last parliamentary term, so in many respects we agree.

The Member of Parliament talks about jobs, consequences and so on. But the Center Party thinks it is a problem and a betrayal that foreign-born women often get stuck at home because they have children. They have small children when they arrive, and well, here they have more. The Member of Parliament did not say much about the parental insurance. Of course, it is not enough just with that, but when it is now the case that the compensation in the parental insurance can be higher than a future compensation in the establishment reform, what incentive does that give?

For foreign-born mothers with children up to six years old, it can take four years before they enter the workforce because it is easier to stay at home with the children, even though they often have higher education than the fathers. The government speaks of general measures. Does the member not see a point in reviewing how the parental insurance works in this context? Is it okay to be away from the labor market for so long?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree with much of what Member Vilhelmsson says. We also know that if it goes well for the mother, it goes better for the children because the mother spends most of the time with them. It is about, among other things, removing the multi-child supplement, which is a very small part of the parental insurance. We are also moving forward with the idea that one must qualify for the Swedish welfare. Then it will not become a woman trap because the man and the woman must cooperate. Right now, the woman is at a disadvantage, because as soon as she gives birth, the parental leave begins. Then it continues like that.

When it comes to Sverigekursen, there must not only be requirements for attendance, but one must also complete the national curriculum. If one does not manage that, parts of the grant can be withdrawn, with the exception of if one has any disability that must be taken into account.

If we bring the women in, it is not only a win for society and the woman but also for the children. We talk a lot about the adults, but I am more worried that the children with a different background who are born here will not succeed. I understand that it was difficult for my mother to come here in her 30s, but I, who am born here, should have the same opportunities, rights, and obligations.

It is good that Member Vilhelmsson highlights this, as women with a foreign background have been in the shadows for far too long. I am glad that we can talk about it in the chamber. I look forward to receiving pressure and to hearing if there is anything that is not being done, because these are issues we cannot leave as they are.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I am taking my turn now because the Moderates do not have any representative in round two when we are to debate precisely equality. I do not know how that is. Perhaps they have even outsourced that policy to the Sweden Democrats and therefore do not need to participate in that round of debate. But here and now, we have a Moderate member in the speaker's chair, so I intend to take the opportunity to ask my questions.

On the Swedish labor market, far too many women work part-time, in fact, nearly 69 percent. They have an insecure working life with split shifts, general substitute work, hourly positions, SMS-employment, and trimmed working hours. This leads to women earning less and having a poorer working environment.

Just as the member pointed out in their speech, it is very important to be able to go to work. But the government is cutting back on the Swedish welfare system and putting it on a starvation diet, and we see warning after warning. In what way does the member mean that this leads to more people being able to go to work?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said in a previous exchange, the government is allocating 16 billion kronor, but every municipality and region has the responsibility to prioritize its core mission based on its own tax base.

I happen to know that Member Amloh has a trade union background, and it is no secret that the union wants to see higher wages for its members than the employer side does. But it rarely differs by more than a few percent, so one argues over a small part. It is also in the union's interest that inflation does not spiral out of control, because when we have high inflation, the real wage increases are eaten up. Real wage increases are the union's greatest interest, apart from financing the Social Democrats every four years.

My question to Member Amloh is: What do your friends in the various trade unions say? It is one thing to shout for very high wages, but in the negotiations, they take inflation into account because it affects the Swedish economy. If inflation spirals out of control, growth and wages are eaten up and unemployment and strikes increase.

It is no secret that the Moderaterna are not in favor of the right to full-time work. But the Socialdemokrater sat in power for eight years and had the support of parties that are also in favor of the right to full-time work – yes, not the Centerpartiet, but you have many times succeeded in negotiating with them. Why did you not do that then? Why do you expect the Moderaterna to be in favor of the right to full-time work?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Member previously said in an exchange of remarks that he is happy to spend money on things that are good – obviously it is not welfare, since you do not spend the money required there, since we have an incredibly gender-segregated labor market and since it is mostly women within welfare.

They stood there during the pandemic. They are there every day of the week and carry the Swedish welfare. What is the thanks? That they should lose their jobs? Region after region issues notices of layoffs; these are mass layoffs. It is not a few individuals but hundreds.

In what way does the member mean that it will lead to better working conditions, more secure employment, and a better working environment without stress when one loses colleagues? It will lead to exactly the opposite. Sick leave will increase with this policy. Is it the Moderates' equality policy? Or is it something else? I find it very difficult to see it when it is done in this way.

The members of the government are welcome to answer whether it is their economic equality policy to cut welfare and let these women be even more worried and get even more insecure employment and an even worse working environment.

But we are not overly surprised, Madam Speaker, that it is the working women who are paying the price for this government's complete inability to prioritize them over tax cuts. It is a fact again this year.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that a Social Democrat is upset that a Moderate-led government is lowering taxes for ordinary people. The Member is not, however, upset that she herself was involved in lowering the tax for the very richest when you removed the wealth tax to bring in the Center Party and the Liberals.

Since then, the member has the nerve to stand here and talk about that we are betraying the women in the welfare system. You Social Democrats are arguing against yourselves. It might as well be that you take turns speaking to each other so that we save a lot of time here in the chamber.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Almost three months ago, the Sweden Democrats and their supporting parties in the government submitted proposals for the state budget and expenditure frameworks that shall govern the Swedish economy next year. Their priorities are clear. Instead of facilitating for households, healthcare, schools, and elderly care, they invest in tax cuts for the wealthy, despite the economic crisis and welfare's acute need for investments. Their priorities deepen our greatest societal problems while simultaneously putting Sweden's municipalities and regions under severe economic pressure. It is unfortunately not superfluous to say that Sweden finds itself in a situation where an already pressured welfare system enters a full-scale crisis.

In the part of the budget concerning integration, or the government's lack of integration, it is difficult to even find hope and direction in the policy that the country's governing body is pushing through. If we start at the reception, this government continues with short residence permits, low daily allowances, and temporary housing that increases ill health after flight and gives asylum seekers ever worse living conditions. They place the group far below the poverty line so that they can neither afford food nor diapers for their children. It is next to impossible for parents to create security for their children when the need for protection must be reassessed time and again and family reunification is made even more difficult.

With even more uncertainty, insecurity, and many times lawlessness, this government has made it clear that they do not want integration. They want return policies. This occurs against the background of the paradigm shift in migration policy that the previous government implemented, which meant a shift regarding the view on migration, integration, and rights. Instead of seeing rights and opportunities as a path to integration, a majority in the Riksdag chose to use the withdrawal of rights as a way to try to scare away people on the run. The reorganization was justified exclusively with that the worsened living conditions for newcomers would result in fewer people seeking protection in Sweden.

The right-wing nationalist government that took office last year takes this shift one step further by proposing a policy aimed at making people who are already in Sweden want to leave the country. This means that the living conditions are worsened even for people who have lived in Sweden for a long time.

So that is what it becomes with a government that builds a cooperation between parts of the former Alliance and the Sweden Democrats - the parliamentary representatives of organized capital and organized racism. Their political project is based on portraying people from other countries as responsible for all problems in society. They do this partly to cover up the failure of their own policies, and partly to be able to dismantle our welfare and security systems. The provisions of the Tidö Agreement point towards an economic policy that resembles the Alliance's negative work line, but now with ethnic undertones.

The Alliance government directed its attacks towards the sick and the unemployed. When, for example, the sickness insurance was to be dismantled, these groups were described as lazy and as a burden on society. Thus, the cuts became easier to justify. Under this government, those born abroad have been made to take over the role as the basis for all of Sweden's problems. By portraying those who have not been born here as a threat and a burden, it becomes easier to condition their welfare and rights.

The cuts to welfare, healthcare, schools, and housing construction naturally affect us all, and not least, they exacerbate the problems with integration. We will face eroded safety nets, and today we already face a welfare system on starvation rations and wages and compensations that are not enough. The rich can pull away, but the poor are left behind.

It is at that intersection that this government needs racism. Regardless of whether it is about unemployment, the housing crisis, or the neglected welfare, it is this government that is obsessed with pointing at immigration in order to evade responsibility itself. People who are wondering how they will make ends meet at the end of the month are not thought about very much. Nor is there much thought given to the families with children who face the choice of putting food on the table for their children or paying the rent, and the government does not want to do much about food prices right now.

Instead of acting or even commenting on situations such as these or the alarming forecasts for healthcare or school or other welfare, the government and the Sweden Democrats have managed to come up with all other kinds of announcements about how to facilitate the deportation of severely ill children, how to make people stateless, or how to expose minorities to a hateful rhetoric.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party will never accept a policy that splits and divides society into different groups with different rights. We know that our strongest tool is solidarity. We know that the best societies are built equal and with reduced economic gaps. Through a strong and robust welfare state that includes us all, we can gain the conditions to create good lives for ourselves and a secure society together.

The key to success for Sweden has never been cuts, lower wages or worse conditions. Our strength has been to invest in society and in each other - in education, housing, health and equality. That is how Sweden develops and grows. Our entire modern history has shown this. Previous generations received better education and better jobs while we became more numerous. It was possible thanks to long-term profitable investments. That is a lesson Sweden must take to heart even today.

We simply need to build a more spacious and stronger Sweden by investing in society and the people in it. It is the most important and effective engine for integration. We have historically proven that it is fully possible to invest in the general welfare, to reduce economic inequalities, and at the same time offer secure jobs and a strong welcome.

We are convinced that people succeed better with better conditions. It is how we invest in society and the people in it that determines how well we succeed.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that it is possible to avoid the upcoming cuts in welfare simply by choosing to prioritize it. I must say that I get feelings of unreality when I hear the Sweden Democrats and the government, who have talked about the wave of violence all autumn and have also raised it here today. They want to give the impression that they are making major investments, but at the same time, they are planning cuts to schools and social services. It is simply about decisive professional groups in the fight against the gangs. If you cut there, it has immediate consequences and worsens the situation we are in.

To break the wave of violence, we must immediately stop the new recruitment to the gangs. It must cost money. The government does not have those ambitions. The first line of defense to stop the new recruitment is social services, teachers, counselors, special educators, and all other local welfare personnel and civil society. These people are now sounding the alarm that they are going on their knees. But we have a government that thinks that cuts and tax cuts for the rich are more important than resource supplements for a completely decisive professional group.

It is the government that is responsible for this - no one else.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on Employment is an exciting committee, where we have the overall responsibility to ensure that people get into jobs and to create an integrated society where everyone is given the opportunity to contribute to a good social community based on their own circumstances.

At the same time as we have this overarching responsibility, we do not always have all the tools in our committee. When we are now going to discuss how we create a well-functioning and integrated society, we must also touch upon proposals that are handled in other committees.

Before I move on to the more concrete political proposals, I want to highlight the importance of the fact that a society is not developed solely through economy and laws.

A society grows and is influenced by the values that characterize the society over time. In our case, it is the Jewish and Christian ethics that have created the framework we all live in, regardless of whether we have a faith or not. It is also this framework or context that one must understand and adhere to when choosing to settle in Sweden.

Previously, both politicians and research have forgotten to speak about morality and ethics, which has caused us in Sweden to mostly debate only economics and class. But in a more multicultural society, one must be able to endure reflecting on which values are those that should apply to our specific society.

Within the Christian tradition of ideas, there has always been a field of tension between Athens, Jerusalem, and Rome, which means that for over 2,000 years we have discussed what should be the most important: philosophy, religion, or the law. It is from this discussion that we have, over time, formulated the human rights that today form the basis for the UN, the EU, as well as the constitutions of several individual countries.

When one chooses to settle in Sweden, one will automatically have to accept the norms that we have developed based on these natural law principles: everyone's equal value, equality, gender equality, and respect for nature and other living beings. This is part of our collective heritage, and it affects how we view family, work life, and society as a whole.

Madam Speaker! If I am to leave these ethical reflections and speak a bit more about the practical, integration is about values, education, work, and housing. Within my own committee, the Committee on Employment, we are making a number of reprioritizations. Instead of prioritizing increased volumes in introductory jobs, we ensure that measures such as establishment jobs are put in place.

The establishment job is a labor market policy measure based on a cooperation between the labor market partners. It is a new form of subsidized employment aimed at newcomers and at the long-term unemployed. It is about learning the job on the job, which is important for getting more people to move from exclusion to a work community. In the budget, we also strengthen Samhall, which has an important mission towards those who stand furthest away from the labor market.

We Christian Democrats have also pushed to educate Sweden. It is therefore pleasing that the government is now implementing initiatives within the education sector.

We are expanding the vocational training with approximately 16,500 places by adding 1.3 billion. We are also expanding the university college with an additional 385 million, which means approximately 3,000 more places. In addition to this, we are increasing the appropriation for the folk high school by a further 100 million.

All these initiatives aim to ensure that more people receive the education they need to be able to get a job and support themselves. At the same time, we are also investing in more special education teachers so that children and young people never have to fall behind.

Madam Speaker! Aside from jobs and education, housing is one of the major issues we have to address if we want to create a better integrated society.

When we built up our modern cities during the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, it was based on a thought founded on categorical housing. It meant that workers lived in certain areas and the middle class in others. The school was the gathering place that, like the church, lay in the middle of the village, and the idea was that society should be integrated around the school.

Unfortunately, it has not really worked that way. Today we see that all the areas that the police point out as particularly difficult areas are rental areas. In a way, it is logical, because the rental apartments are primarily used by people who are entering the housing market or who, for various reasons, have become stuck in this housing. Young people or immigrants who achieve better finances tend to acquire a condominium or a villa, and then someone else moves into the apartment. The area itself does not change, even if individuals can make a housing career.

This phenomenon affects the schools, which means that schools located in the middle of large apartment complexes tend to become very segregated schools. If we are serious about wanting to break the segregation in our cities, we must dare to change some of our residential areas. A more mixed development with different forms of tenure, both ownership and rental housing, is needed. Mixed residential areas have been shown to have a very positive effect on safety and for countering segregation.

I am therefore pleased that the government has appointed an inquiry aimed at making it easier to convert more types of premises into housing and that it has also appointed an inquiry with a mandate to propose an expansion of the system of condominiums and a new model for rent-to-buy of housing. The purpose of this reform is to make it possible for more people to own their home and to increase the diversity of housing forms in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Alongside these measures, it is good that the government is also reviewing the taxes on labor. It is important to safeguard the work line, get more people into jobs, and ensure that it always pays to work.

In addition to what I have now mentioned, we must also point out the major problems that exist in the form of honor violence, forced marriage, youth crime, and female genital mutilation.

We have problems, and even though all of this is already illegal today, we are now tightening several laws as well as giving the police and social services more instruments to work with these issues.

The Christian Democrats, together with the other coalition parties, are making a historic investment in the entire justice system, where we move from 69 to 90 billion between 2023 and 2026. This strengthens the investigative work, which is absolutely crucial for prosecuting more people. Crime victims and those living under honor oppression must never be left behind due to a lack of resources.

At the same time, it will not be enough for us to work with repressive methods; what must be the core of all work regarding law and order is the crime prevention work. Fundamentally, it is about values. That is why it is important that we in preschools, in schools, in leisure activities and at youth centers constantly work to support children, young people and women who are in different ways exposed to threats and violence.

We must also ensure that we create a meaningful and active leisure time for our children and young people. Here, the leisure card that the government is launching next year fulfills an important function.

We must also cooperate with civil society - religious communities, sports clubs and cultural associations - if we are to find arenas where we can talk with our immigrants about how Sweden works.

In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to extend a big thank you to all the voluntary forces who work daily to ensure that those who come to Sweden find their way and settle in.

For my part, I hope that in the long run we will learn more from countries such as Canada, where they have developed the cooperation with civil society in a completely fantastic way. It ensures that new and old Canadians get to know each other in everyday life.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

I also want to make a small reflection before we head towards Christmas. For my part, I will celebrate a Christmas where Romani, Serbian, a little Estonian, and some Swedish will be spoken. It is just in this mixture of many languages and cultures that I will have a wonderful Christmas. Therefore, I would also like to take the opportunity to wish my colleagues, the Speaker's Bureau, the officials at our office, and other officials a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! In view of the fact that the Center Party's budget motion unfortunately fell in the initial vote, I refer to our special statement.

Integration is undoubtedly one of our time's absolute greatest societal challenges. The government now has full focus on who should be allowed to come here and who should not be allowed to, instead of focusing on how we can create the best possible conditions so that those who have grounds for protection can enter and become a part of our common society.

The list of proposals on the area of integration is empty, and the reforms are conspicuous by their total absence. A government that says it prioritizes reducing exclusion and addressing integration problems must be able to answer the questions of how more people shall learn the Swedish language and how more people shall get their first job and thereby become a part of our common Sweden.

Sweden has for a long time been characterized by a long-standing and serious social divide. It is a divide that cuts between people and between places - between those who have education, language, and professional experience and those who do not have a job, and between on one hand prosperous and enterprising towns and on the other side vulnerable urban areas and industrial towns. The freedom and opportunities in our country are far too unevenly distributed. Sometimes the differences are very large, and sometimes they are almost non-existent.

One can only conclude that Sweden has gigantic integration challenges. But it is also important to say that there are many successful examples where integration works very well. For the successful examples to become more numerous, the integration perspective needs to permeate the entire society and all policy areas.

In order for integration to improve, it needs to become easier and cheaper to hire. Newcomers should be taught about Swedish society early on. This can involve practical matters, such as where to turn when in need of help, what the labor market looks like, and what rules apply here. What we expect from newcomers and what newcomers can expect from society needs to be crystal clear. Those who need it must be able to receive further education and Swedish language instruction. It is of the utmost importance that newcomers do not get stuck in classic Swedish bureaucracy and long investigations. Integration is an investment in people, an investment that must cost every crown so that every person can become their best self and thereby contribute to the common good.

We need to set requirements for those who come here. But we also need to set higher requirements for ourselves as a society and as politicians, and not least as members of Parliament, to create the conditions for the best possible and well-functioning integration.

There are many dividing lines in Swedish politics, both to the right and to the left. But a major dividing line in Swedish politics is that I genuinely believe that the absolute majority of all people who come here, fleeing war and oppression, want well, want to learn Swedish and want to enter and become a part of our common society. But for many, the necessary conditions are not provided.

For Sweden to stand strong now and in the future, effective reforms are needed that improve our reception of newcomers with a clear focus on jobs. Getting the first job is the key to much – to economic freedom and to becoming even better at the Swedish language. And we must not underestimate the importance of getting colleagues and new acquaintances. Work is not only important for integration. I believe it is a prerequisite for it.

Just as the first job many times is the key to a successful integration, good knowledge of the Swedish language many times is the key to getting that first job. The quality of Swedish for immigrants, SFI, is not good enough. At the same time, there are educational providers who have proven to be very successful in teaching languages. Today, the person who studies SFI cannot choose another educational provider than the municipality or the provider that the municipality has procured. Centerpartiet therefore wants that a results-based SFI-fund be introduced. Those who are to learn Swedish will then have the opportunity to choose where they want to study, and the educational provider will be paid through a school fund based on results.

Just as there is a gap in employment between foreign-born and domestic-born individuals, there is also a gap between foreign-born men and foreign-born women. Integration is therefore also a matter of equality. And here we have much to do. Especially women who are foreign-born and who have moved from their home country have difficulty entering employment quickly enough. The initial period in Sweden is all too often dominated by the woman being at home, which significantly reduces the opportunities to enter the Swedish labor market and thereby enter Swedish society.

The Social Democrats' new social analysis is both exciting and frightening. The Social Democrats state: Our focus on feminism has caused us to miss the boys.

I believe that one can reflect a lot on this quote.

When I became the integration policy spokesperson, I decided to go on a small integration tour and visit the vulnerable areas. I realized very quickly that those who were not in the yards or on the playgrounds were the young girls. I asked police officers, field secretaries, and youth leaders where the young girls were. The answer was always the same: that they were in school or at home. If there is any group that we have focused on too little, it is the young girls with a foreign background. It is them we have missed. It is them we need to talk more about, while we talk more about the boys.

Madam Speaker! There is much in the Tidö Agreement that is directly bad policy. When it comes to integration, it echoes, as I said, incredibly empty. The integration reforms that we are in such great need of are truly conspicuous by their absence.

But I am often asked if there are good things in the Tidö Agreement. And of course, there are good things there. That the government should look at qualification into welfare is one such proposal.

Newcomers need to contribute to a greater extent to the long-term financing of their livelihood. One way could be to convert the establishment grant into an establishment loan. In the same way as students support themselves with the help of student loans, newcomers should be able to support themselves with the help of loans during their first time in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I realize that I have exceeded my speaking time.

Politics can do incredibly much better when it comes to integration issues. But for those who are new to Sweden, association life and civil society are many times completely decisive. There, networks, contacts, and job opportunities exist. Civil society makes incredible efforts, often wants many times more, and needs to be given significantly better conditions. We truly need to review how the support for civil society can become more long-term. In far too many cases, it is about short-term projects that need more long-term perspective and that can be implemented on a significantly larger scale.

Madam Speaker! Swedish integration needs to become better. The expectations for newcomers need to become clearer and the conditions for entering and becoming a part of Swedish society need to become better. More young boys and girls need to see their mothers and fathers go to work every morning. Integration is one of the mandate period's absolutely most important issues.

I would like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year - and eventually also a very pleasant weekend!

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Even though this debate can sometimes be a bit heated, just like many debates, I believe that we are also some who - lo and behold - read each other's texts with some curiosity. I will give Cato the opportunity to develop his thoughts on a matter, and he will be allowed to do so for the simple reason that I am seriously curious about how he has thought about it.

It concerns the establishment loan. I have, in fact, myself spent quite a bit of time reflecting on that question. How do you handle grants versus loans? How do you handle personal responsibility and the citizens' feeling of only giving and giving? I actually think that is an important question to occasionally reflect on when we talk about integration. There is also a great deal of imagery and the spreading of rumors.

When I have researched this theme myself, I have found that there already exists a form of loan via CSN, but that then applies to home furnishings and the like. My question is therefore very open: How have you thought when you have deliberated on how the establishment loan should function in practical terms, Jonny Cato? You are now giving a certain signal here that it should work roughly like during studies, and in that case, it is so that there is a grant part and a loan part.

We can also play with the idea that someone comes to Sweden through migration. Then, when one wants to be integrated, one wants to study, and then perhaps one has already built up a debt in the form of an integration loan – and then one is to study and perhaps get a student debt.

I am honestly curious about how you have reasoned and thought regarding this issue.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by making a small observation. Often when we have these debates in the Committee on Employment, the Christian Democrats choose to request a reply from the Centre Party. However, they rarely do so against the Social Democrats or the Left Party, where the actual conflict perhaps should lie. But there may be reasons for that.

I gave an example of how one could develop a qualification into welfare, that is, the investigation proposed in the Tidö Agreement. It is up to the parties of the Tidö Agreement to deliver proposals on what qualification into welfare can look like. I mentioned an example, but we are open to looking at other solutions. One needs to look broadly at the issue, which is being done within the Tidö Agreement.

That the establishment grant could instead become an establishment loan would be a way to achieve a lower cost for migration. More people can come here, but the costs for migration are lowered. I am open to looking at other types of solutions, but one must be honest in saying that it always—for every single thing one looks at regarding qualification into the welfare state—becomes difficult discussions. It will certainly be the case among the Tidö parties regarding the child benefit and also regarding other issues. These are difficult questions even in my party, and therefore we have landed on the position that we believe establishment loans could be a solution.

It will be very interesting to take part in this investigation - and many other investigations, for if there is anything one is good at in the Tidö parties, it is investigating.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I note the observation, but I do not believe that Cato noted my introduction. I did not actually intend to go into polemics, but I am honestly curious. It is simply because I believe that we need to find different solutions if we are also to strengthen the legitimacy in both migration and integration over time.

I believe it is exactly the same situation if we talk about labor immigration. I am not entirely sure that we are moving in the right direction right now, given the incredible labor shortage that exists all around Sweden. I believe, therefore, that we in politics have to constantly test, feel out, and listen a little bit.

My purpose with the question was, as I said, actually not to go into polemics but quite honestly just to hear a little bit about how you have thought about it, Jonny Cato. It is, in fact, a question that I myself am pondering over in purely technical terms - and possibly considering bringing into my party so that it can be looked at.

I believe it is important that we also have that type of debate with each other - that we peek a little curiously at each other's contributions. It could potentially happen that even C finds something good that I and KD think would be fun to look at.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we have many good proposals; we just had a party meeting where we adopted 3,000 motions. I can send all of them to you later, Magnus Jacobsson, so that you can get them recorded. I must admit that I have not personally read all 3,000 motions – one could perhaps state that it was maybe a bit too many.

I also note that it was mentioned in passing from the rostrum that the government might be on the wrong track regarding labor immigration. That makes a Center Party member very happy to note, but I know that there are many Liberals, Moderates, and Christian Democrats – and even one or two Sweden Democrats who like the countryside – who are genuinely concerned about labor immigration.

When it comes to qualification into the welfare state, it is one of the reforms where we stand very close to the government. I find the entire benefit reform otherwise to be very interesting. We had extensive discussions within the framework of the parliamentary migration committee regarding precisely qualification into the welfare state, and there, Kristdemokraterna, Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Centerpartiet were very close to each other. One can note that it was actually Liberalerna who were opposed to an establishment benefit being able to become an establishment loan at that time.

Exactly how it would be carried out, I think we need to look at, and that is actually what the investigation aims to do – to be properly open and see what works and what does not. One can state that it would be possible to create a model similar to the CSN loan, where the establishment loan that replaces the establishment grant is to be paid back in the long run.

I can agree with the Christian Democrats that we perhaps should have fewer "falukorvars" in the Swedish political debate and more serious discussions about what actually works.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in AU1.

I also want to make the House aware that I will be speaking on both integration and equality. It does not depend on outsourcing but is simply about liberal superpowers. I would also like to apologize in advance for potentially exceeding my speaking time slightly.

Madam Speaker! Last week, Minister Pehrson tasked SCB and Boverket with producing a list of areas of exclusion in Sweden. It is an important task, and it is a continuation of the work that the Liberals - then Folkpartiet - with Nyamko Sabuni at the helm did in 2004, which was called The Map of Exclusion.

Only with sufficient knowledge can we make the right interventions. When an area is characterized by a lot of crime, it appears on the police's list of vulnerable areas - but that is when it is already time. In order to be able to make good, preventive interventions for real, we need to know what conditions the residents have in a socially and economically disadvantaged area. Then we can talk about preventive work well in advance.

It is indeed possible to change areas with a risk label. I am thinking of Landskrona, where my party colleague Torkild Strandberg has shown that with the right knowledge and courageous liberal interventions linked to the issues, a previously vulnerable area can be turned into a flourishing and safe residential environment. Let us learn from Landskroma and liberal preventive work – area by area and municipality by municipality! A mapping is step one.

A few weeks ago, I visited Hoshi Kafashi in Motala. It was Hoshi who started the organization Shanazi heroes and heroines, which has a way of working and a methodology where, with the help of role models, one questions honor norms and honor issues. Initiatives for preventive work that make a real difference take a long time, but we have no choice. We must change norms and values. It is time-consuming, but research shows that it is a method that works. The three-year initiative that the government has announced is very much needed and welcome. We need more projects like Shanazi heroes and heroines all over Sweden.

Madam Speaker! In theory, Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries to live in. But in the reality of Sweden 2023, women still control only 1 percent of the venture capital, and barely 30 percent of Sweden's entrepreneurs are women. Still, only just over a quarter of the parental leave is taken by men, regardless of whether it is the woman or the man who has the highest income. Still, the norm is that it is the woman who goes down to part-time if needed to manage everyday life as a parent of small children. Still, it is primarily women who, after a long working life, receive the least in pension and are forced to live under meager economic conditions.

Parents save more for their sons than for their daughters, and young women's savings lag far behind those of many male peers. In fact, the differences are so marked that men in their 30s have almost twice as large savings as women of the same age. It is an inequality that follows through life, because when it comes time to start a family, the differences increase further. Somewhere when childbirth enters the picture, equality is blurred.

We need to think anew about our parental insurance. We must have a parental insurance that is more flexible, with the possibility to choose a shorter insurance with full compensation or a longer period with lower compensation. Of course, we should have an insurance that fits all types of relationships. It should suit divorced parents, rainbow families, and completely other ways of living.

Madam Speaker! Women run service companies and men run construction companies. Men run large companies and women run small ones, mostly without employees. Furthermore, the proportion of women decreases as the political debate gets stuck on profits in welfare in the sectors where women dominate. Those of us who truly safeguard women's empowerment do not put spokes in the wheels of women's entrepreneurship and women's right to live their dreams.

It is not about women not daring to take risks, it is about rotten structures. Banks and centrally placed key figures reward people who resemble themselves, and it is usually a Petter or a Niklas. I have met women in large national companies who seriously say that the best they can do when they are going to meet venture capitalists and banks is to have a man at the meeting - in 2023. It is appalling.

We all speak warmly and affectionately about the Swedish model from right to left in the chamber, and it is true that that model has served us well, with few days of conflict. But we must also begin to speak seriously about the fact that those who have lost out on the model and continue to lose out are the women. With the Swedish wage model we have, the economic gap between the female-dominated occupational categories within health and care and the men in industry will never be closed; it is a matter of wage development. Do we want it that way – that it is as usual the women who pay the price?

Economic equality and a fuck off-capital should all women have. It is especially important for those who live in a violent relationship. There is nothing that restricts a person's freedom as much as violence. To address men's violence against women, we must work on several levels. We must get men to stop hitting. It is unworthy that women and children should have to hide from men who threaten them to their lives and rob them of their freedom. Thank you that the government is reviewing the possibilities for restraining orders in the ongoing investigation!

The most important thing to reach the goal is the preventive work - the blow that is never delivered, the psychological terror and persecution that never happens. Already in preschool, we must be attentive to gender-stereotypical patterns. In school, there must be discussions regarding machoculture and perpetrators. Equality Minister Brandberg's focus on violence in young relationships is a perspective that can truly change the conditions for all those women who encounter a man with a history of violence who has simply moved on to hit in the next relationship.

I am proud that Sweden has come this far. It has been a hard struggle fought by previous generations of women's rights activists and feminists. Today, the responsibility rests on us. Women and girls still live with fear of violence in all social classes, in all ethnic groups, and at all ages. When we no longer need to stand here in the chamber and again discuss men's violence against women, when wage differences due to gender can no longer be recorded, and when everyone, regardless of place of upbringing, can live their best life—only then can we fall silent.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! As everyone knows, it is "On Track" times now. I will myself be sitting on the bench tonight at eight. When I hear Kristian Luuk's winged words "Where are we headed?", it is actually not without me sometimes thinking of the Liberals and the Tidö cooperation. Do the Liberals actually know what the Sweden Democrats' so-called victory march has for a political final destination? Reporting laws, a stop to interpretation assistance in healthcare, torn-up mother tongue education - the clues should have had the Liberals pull the handbrake a long time ago. But there they sit, petrified in first class, despite clue after clue: Björn Söder's hair-raising statement about Pride, Jomshof's urge to burn more Qurans, Åkesson's attack against story time at libraries. Even though my hopes are quite low, I cannot help but wonder: Will we see a liberal panic rush two points before the next election?

Where are we headed, the Liberals? I ask the question because I think it is relevant after the speech we just heard from the Sweden Democrats, who mock the integration policy and almost describe the labor market policy as a disguised integration cost. What is it that motivates the Liberals to join forces with this party? What we heard Camilla Mårtensen say from the rostrum is not something that the Liberals are dependent on the Sweden Democrats to make a reality.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Blown away is the discussion we had yesterday, when Member Carvalho excused herself from having to defend what other parties wanted and were able to. Gone is the complaining about having to take responsibility for other political parties. I believe that Member Carvalho has forgotten this today when she stands on the other side.

I will nevertheless try to answer. Thanks to the cooperation we have now, we can begin to talk about honor issues, solve the energy issue, make investments in schools, and make completely necessary changes in crime policy, which affects women. We can also begin to talk about the importance of a language – yes, I know that even the Social Democrats are now saying that the Swedish language is the basis for integration.

My representatives in the speaker's chair have had to run a gauntlet. We in my party were called both racists and Nazis when we began talking about the Map of Exclusion 2004. When my representatives came forward with language tests, we were not worth a drop of water. We are getting through amounts of liberal policy that we never would have gotten through in the other constellation.

Yes, Teresa Carvalho, there is a great deal that stings - just as it stung together with you during the January agreement and just as it stung for the Social Democrats when they built their government base on Amineh Kakabaveh, C, V, and MP. You know exactly how it feels to sit in this cabin.

(Applause)

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that Camilla Mårtensen does not think it is very fun when I remind her of the Liberals' ideological ditch-driving. I understand that it hurts a little when I point out that the former Folkpartiet is now a party that obeys the Sverigedemokraterna, but it is nevertheless true. The internal hierarchy between the Tidö parties has become embarrassingly clear during this year.

The Liberals have a cooperation with the Sweden Democrats. The Social Democrats have no agreement with any other party. The Liberals are in government. The Social Democrats are not.

Therefore, there is a fairly big difference in asking me, as a Social Democrat, to take responsibility for other parties. I am asking that the Liberals should be able to answer for their relationship with the Sweden Democrats, which one is dependent on in the exercise of government. It is a fairly big difference.

The Liberals' choice of path here is very tragic. The Liberals have a proud history. Together we have fought for the introduction of democracy and women's suffrage. But today, the Liberals are primarily a party that functions as Jimmie Åkesson's long-term kingmaker.

I hope, not least for the sake of the Liberals, that they rethink and do so quite soon. I actually do not believe I am alone in Sweden in that.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! It is inspiring how much you think about the liberals' stomachs and how we feel in the evenings when we go to bed, Teresa Carvalho. I can assure you that I am completely very secure in the cooperation that we have. We know where our boundaries and our lines are.

I believe it would be beneficial for the Social Democrats and their own future if they consider which inquiries they should appoint so that they might once again perhaps glance a bit at what the Liberals said 10-15 years ago and end up precisely in the issues where we have ended up.

Cooperation hurts, absolutely. But I cannot see that this cooperation hurts more than the cooperation we had with Miljöpartiet, Socialdemokraterna and Centern in connection with the January Agreement. I hope that Teresa Carvalho comes home and sees På spåret on TV tonight and worries a little less about me and my friends.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The government parties have not presented concrete measures to improve integration. Instead of promoting mutual understanding and respect, they are creating an A-team and a B-team, a we-and-them society that hinders integration.

The SD-government is cutting back on labor market policy measures and wants to lower the establishment allowance, introduce a benefit ceiling, and remove welfare for newcomers. They claim that this leads to more integration, but all of us understand that it is a bluff.

It is obvious that it is about making it uncomfortable for newcomers in Sweden. Immigrants are to be uncomfortable here in order to deter other refugees from seeking asylum in Sweden. It is completely insane to base the so-called integration policy on these premises.

The government parties are breaking completely with their previous integration strategy, where, even if we did not always agree with each other, we still had a common basic view on evidence-based measures that have been proven to work for thousands of immigrants who have established themselves in Sweden. One thing we must understand. The majority of immigrants succeed in this society. The majority of immigrants succeed in integrating.

Madam Speaker! Debating integration with the Sweden Democrat government is becoming increasingly difficult. It is like talking about apples and oranges. A fundamental prerequisite must nevertheless be to improve people's life situations. But the government's policy seems to have a completely different agenda.

The SD government is spreading false claims that it is possible to stack benefits on top of each other. The fact is that all incomes, from maintenance grants to parental leave and housing benefits, are offset. To claim that it is possible to stack benefits is simply wrong. It is high time that the government stops spreading this misleading information.

Another myth that the government is trying to foist on us is that society is without requirements. Financial assistance is the ultimate safety net in our welfare, and not even that comes without obligations. If one is not ill or otherwise unable to work, one is expected to be available for the labor market and actively seek a job. Just sitting at home and waiting for benefits is, quite frankly, impossible.

Madam Speaker! The government is lying when it says that there are 700,000 unemployed immigrants. The reality is that the total number of unemployed people in Sweden is 416,000 people. The figure is high enough without the SD government's creativity. To include students, parents on parental leave, and those on sick leave in this figure is a deliberate way to distort reality and create a misleading picture. The fact is that over the last seven years, the number of people receiving financial assistance has decreased sharply.

Madam Speaker! Instead of using lies as a political method, the government should learn from the good examples that we recently saw in SCB's report on how it has gone for the unaccompanied children who arrived in 2015. More than eight out of ten of the unaccompanied children are working today.

Some claim that it is connected to the requirements in the Upper Secondary School Act, where one must study or work to obtain a residence permit. But that explanation is insufficient, because the unaccompanied children who received permanent residence permits have succeeded just as well.

Both groups have benefited from a powerful commitment from civil society, from families, benefactors, schools and sports clubs. These individuals have established extensive networks within Swedish society, something that many other asylum seekers lack. It is collective efforts from society that lead to success.

Madam Speaker! Let us instead be solution-oriented. I want to conclude by mentioning some of the Green Party's measures:

We want to strengthen the welfare. It is fundamental for the entire society and a central part of the integration process.

We want to reintroduce residence permits to avoid temporary permits that promote short-term choices, where highly qualified newcomers take low-skilled jobs instead of validating or supplementing their education.

We want to reform the establishment program so that it becomes more individually tailored.

We want to offer a clearer path to integration by extending the social introduction and also offering it to young people and children.

We want to introduce Swedish from day one, where instruction in Swedish becomes a mandatory part of the reception for asylum seekers.

We want to strengthen the labor market training with a focus on shortage occupations.

Madam Speaker! Finally: The unaccompanied children have now shown that integration actually works for real. We should all learn from that. That being said, I would like to refer to our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! "We bake with love" and "homemade mash" – these are two terms that we all recognize. We encounter them at the local hot dog grill or on the bread packaging in the grocery store.

But what is it one actually wants to say with such a message about love and home-cooked food? As customers, we get the feeling that one hasn't cooked the mash or baked the bread primarily to earn money, but out of love. One wants to share the good because one cares that the customers should get the very best. The economy is secondary.

The midwife is a role that has historically been present for a very long time in Sweden. Originally, it was often women in local communities who had experience assisting at births who shared their knowledge with other women. The role was often based on tradition, community, and a love for supporting women in childbirth. The economy was secondary.

During the 1800s and earlier, many of those who performed midwifery, including midwives, were not formally educated. One helped because one felt a calling. Often, one could receive food and lodging as thanks in order to survive, but the work itself was performed out of love.

In 1815, the midwives' society was formed in Sweden to regulate and improve the midwives' education and competence, and in 1833 the first Swedish midwives' law was introduced. From 1835, a qualification was also required to practice as a midwife. With the development of healthcare and the introduction of formal education for midwives, they gradually began to gain an increased status in society and finally became a recognized professional group during the 20th century. But the work itself was still done out of love.

It would be delayed until 1943, that is, 80 years ago, before one would receive any form of financial compensation for the work as a midwife. For why would one have a salary? Taking care of children and other women is, of course, done out of love!

Whether we want to or not, several of these perceptions remain in our society. We still bake bread with love and eat home-cooked mashed potatoes. But it perhaps becomes even clearer how common sense is reasoned when an IT technician demands a higher salary for the company's website to continue functioning compared to when a caregiver demands a higher salary so that the elderly continue to receive food. The natural instinct for most in such a scenario is to, willy-nilly, react to how the caregiver reasons: Think of the elderly! Is money the only thing that matters?

Instinctively, we expect people to perform certain types of work out of love, not for economic reasons. And of course, it is about interpersonal love and care, but just because one is a good person who cares about others, one should not have to be at a financial disadvantage.

It is therefore not particularly surprising that a caregiver in a salary negotiation has a significantly harder time arguing for a higher salary than an IT technician. In the professions and at the workplaces where it involves caring for other people, for example home care, preschool, childcare workers or nursing assistants, over 90 percent are women. A vehicle mechanic - a profession where 97 percent are men - earns an average of 30,000 kronor. A preschool teacher - where 96 percent are women - earns 29,000 kronor. It is thus more profitable to repair broken cars than to raise whole children.

Madam Speaker! So what do we do about the matter? Often we hear proposals about, for example, quotas for corporate boards or a forced distribution in the parental insurance, that is to say that equality shall be calculated in the outcome. As long as there are at least 40 percent women, we are satisfied. Why it looks the way it does is apparently secondary.

I want to assert that quotas do not solve any problems whatsoever. At best, they can counteract the symptoms and hide the original problem regarding the view on women and men so that one avoids seeing it. One can ask why an outdated view that a woman does not want a decent wage but should perform her work out of love would be improved because we force parents to share their parental leave.

Why would the responsibility for unpaid home and care work be improved by us not taking competence into account and instead quoting in the underrepresented gender into a corporate board?

It is fundamentally about society's values and norms. And it is nothing we can achieve by forcing people into different patterns to get the "right" outcome. We achieve equality through good upbringing, a good education, and suitable role models.

Let me linger a little bit just on role models. An individual, a human being, builds up their fundamental view of what is right and wrong, on empathy, and on how to behave towards other individuals very early in life. This also includes equality in the form of the view of women and men and how they interact with each other in everyday life. One can therefore think that it should be prioritized to let children take part in how women and men interact with each other and see that they are equal – for they shall be equal in our society.

The staff in Swedish preschools consists of 96 percent women, all of whom do a fantastic job. During the previous parliamentary term, I was a member of the Education Committee and focused precisely on Swedish preschools, which consist of true community heroes. But actual equality in Swedish preschools, as well as male role models, is almost completely non-existent when only 4 percent are men.

It is therefore not particularly strange that one already from a young age associates the woman with the care of children. But no voices are raised at all. In cases where the woman is underrepresented, proposals are put forward. But in cases where the man is underrepresented, for example in preschool, it is completely silent. And within preschool, there would truly be a need for male role models. But no proposals come.

Instead of addressing the underlying problem, one has tried to treat the symptoms and introduced a gender pedagogy that already at a young age establishes that there is a difference between girls and boys. It is a pedagogy that now, in 2023, still lacks proven evidence that it actually works.

Rather, we see the negative effects of how the gender pedagogy we introduced in the curriculum in 1998 now, 25 years later, leads to avalanche-like increases in gender dysphoria. That it is more girls who want to become boys than the other way around is also not particularly surprising, because from a radical feminist standpoint, one is fed the truth that as a girl, one is oppressed based on one's gender identity and that the only way to succeed is apparently to be quota-ed.

Madam Speaker! We must stop staring blindly at the outcome and instead start focusing on the opportunities and how we as a society create these opportunities. The conditions for a society to be considered equal are when there are equal opportunities and equal prerequisites regardless of gender. Reaching that is not easy - no one claims it is - but the budget bill from Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna, which we are now discussing, is a good step in the right direction. I would like to take this opportunity to move for its approval.

We shall continue to bake with love, and we shall continue to eat homemade mashed potatoes. But we must shift our focus. We need to revise how we measure equality and focus on conditions rather than outcomes. When women and men on exactly equal terms are free to make their own choices, decide over their own lives and their own families - regardless of what one then chooses to do - only then, and only then, do we have an equal society.

When the state actively tries to steer an individual's free will to achieve a desired outcome, it is the exact opposite of equality. Positive discrimination always leads to negative discrimination of someone else.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! It is no news to say that I do not agree with many of the rather robust and far-reaching conclusions that the Member draws.

I can say one thing about what the member calls quotas, but which I choose to call reserved days. In the best of worlds, one chooses by one's own will. But the member fails to mention an important concept, and that is the expectations of the surroundings—or rather, structural inequality. That is why we have reserved days. Then you get what the member talks about: role models both at home and in the form of both mom and dad going to work.

But that was not actually what I was going to ask about, but it was something the member did not mention. To be honest, I asked the same question last year. In the first version of the Tidö Agreement, one spoke of lack of conduct and more opportunities to deport people because of this. Prostitution was taken up as an example.

A few weeks ago, a clarification was issued in connection with the investigation. "Lack of integrity" had been renamed to "deficiencies in lifestyle." The issue has been discussed on many occasions here in the chamber, during question periods, in interpellation debates, and so on. Last week, the Minister for Equality claimed that this will not affect vulnerable people. It will not affect women in prostitution, it will not affect people who have an addiction, and so on, it was said. This was, however, obviously not the entire Tidögänget in agreement. Sverigedemokraterna's representative Ludvig Aspling argues that prostitution certainly can be counted because prostitution is not to be regarded as an honest livelihood.

My question is quite simply: Do the Sweden Democrats think that vulnerable women in prostitution have a deficient lifestyle or not?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Helena Vilhelmsson from Centerpartiet!

We can start with role models and the parental leave. Just this fact that one needs role models in terms of how men and women function towards each other and how one is expected to function in society is one of the reasons why we, for example, have introduced the double days. Research has shown that the double days have led to men and women sharing the responsibility more naturally.

What our entire policy is based on is not to force people into patterns, but rather to create conditions. We believe that the double days are such a good example. It has been shown that men who get more time at home with their family gain more understanding and often a personal desire to stay home more. This is a step in that direction, and we hope that it will work.

If we force someone to do something, we do it because we have to, but it does not even change their mindset, why they do it. That is what we must work on so that people want to do it in one way or another. We shall create the conditions for that. This also applies in different types of occupations, whether it is men or women who seek themselves there. We shall never force anyone, but we must look at: Why do men do this? Why do women do this? How can we create conditions so that one has the opportunity to choose based on their free will?

We spoke about lack of integrity last year, just as the member mentions. I think I was quite clear then, and I am clear again. Unfortunately, I have not received the exact quote that is referred to, but I want to speak on behalf of the party and say that a woman who is a victim of prostitution does not constitute an example of lack of integrity. She is welcome to stay.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I just want to say a few words about reserved days. I am quite sure that the vast majority of young women and men who are parents today have received good education and good information about what happens when one takes out some or so much parental leave, what happens with the finances and what happens with the pension. Still, it looks the way it does. The step to getting everyone to make the informed choice lies very far in the future if certain measures are not taken to improve this.

I can recount what was stated in the article I referred to: The representative of the government's coalition party Sverigedemokraterna, Ludvig Aspling, does not agree with Equality Minister Paulina Brandberg and argues that prostitution can be counted as a dishonest way to make a living and therefore be grounds for being denied a residence permit in Sweden. Also, substance abuse and rowdiness, he argues, can constitute grounds for deportation.

The Speaker should perhaps refrain from watching På spåret tonight and instead have a discussion with his party colleague Ludvig Aspling.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Why does it still look the way it does? That was, in fact, what I touched upon quite a bit in my speech. It is historical values, the view of society, and the view of the woman as the one who is expected to take care of the children that we need to work on. That it is an enormous challenge, I believe we agree on. Had there been a very easy solution, we would likely have found it a long time ago.

We have a solid task ahead of us. I believe that we must continue to work with good role models and good upbringing. And as was said: In order to be able to make well-balanced choices, the prerequisites for that are also needed. We also need to work with the technical tools around it.

One of our concrete proposals is that when one is on the Försäkringskassan website, one should be able to fill in how one intends to distribute the days and then immediately get up a calculation on the screen: This is how the long-term effect will be on your future pensions. If you choose to separate, it will hit the woman, who perhaps takes the largest withdrawal, like this. If the parents then still choose to do it in some other way, that is up to them, but they have at least been given the right conditions.

I cannot speak exactly for what Ludvig Aspling meant. It is, however, a fact that there are also men who actively seek out prostitution and who seek out Sweden to sell sexual services. When a man has deliberately sought out Sweden to sell sex - which we know occurs; it occurs at Åhléns in Stockholm - I can think that it is reasonable that this, in an asylum application or similar, is something that should be taken into account.

We must, however, distinguish between people who are victims of prostitution and people who actively seek out prostitution voluntarily and consciously. It is a small group, admittedly. The majority are victims of prostitution; we shall never claim anything else. But this group exists. One should not fixate on one side or the other and say that it is in a specific way.

The Sweden Democrats are part of the Tidö Agreement, and this is part of the Tidö Agreement. The Sweden Democrats stand behind Paulina Brandberg's statements. Then I understand what Ludvig meant in this specific example.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! We know that Sweden has been one of the world's most equal and egalitarian countries, but that is no longer the case.

76 percent of the board members in limited companies are men. Seven out of ten who work part-time are women. Women receive half of men's occupational pensions. 70 percent of those who receive caregiver allowance are women. Last year, women took 70 percent of all parental leave. In December 2022, 65 percent of all persons with an ongoing sickness case at Försäkringskassan were women. The Gender Equality Authority's mapping of prostitution and human trafficking shows that there has been an increase in the number of web pages promoting prostitution. Over 12,000 advertisements and profiles were identified on these web pages.

These are just a few samples of how equality is doing today.

All six gender equality sub-goals are important and interdependent in order to fulfill the gender equality goal that women and men shall have the same power to shape society and their own lives.

Going to a job or an occupation is something fine. Besides contributing economically to our common welfare, a job or an occupation implies an own identity and independence. It gives freedom.

Today's working conditions are a consequence of an unequal society. Women have always been and are even today those who are hardest hit by insecure employment. Shared shifts, general zero-hour contracts, hourly positions, SMS-contracts, and casual labor are everyday occurrences for many women today.

Women have significantly lower life incomes than men. Today, many women live below the EU's definition of poverty.

Earlier this week, the organization Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar presented the results of a survey they conducted among single parents, almost exclusively women. It shows that over 40 percent of parents this year have had to borrow money to cover the family's most basic fixed expenses. Almost 70 percent usually cook cheaper food for themselves to prioritize the food for their children, and only one-third can afford to let the children participate in organized leisure activities.

These are alarming figures that the government cannot continue to turn a blind eye to.

When there are quotes such as "We will not eat Christmas food this year but have to eat regular food during the holidays" or "It affects me so much that I feel bad to be dependent on alms" it hurts me physically. We Social Democrats can never accept that these quotes exist in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The working environment within primarily the female-dominated sectors is extremely deficient. As a consequence, women are often forced to reduce their working hours, to longer and recurring sick leaves, and to take early retirement. Poor psychosocial work environment and stress are the biggest causes. Almost every third woman in an occupational job cannot take a short break during a whole working day and cannot at all determine her own pace of work. It is only 6 percent of the men in a white-collar job who experience exactly the same thing. The labor market is enormously gender-segregated.

Most of those who work in welfare professions are women. The SD government has now put the entire welfare sector on a starvation diet. We are being reached by strike after strike in region after region. It will not lead to more colleagues or to a better working environment but to stress. It will lead to exactly the opposite. It will not lead to fewer sick leaves or more secure employment. Do you know what? It will lead to exactly the opposite.

Madam Speaker! It is working women who pay the price for this government's complete inability to prioritize economic equality over tax cuts for the wealthiest or the banks' excess profits.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women includes physical, psychological, economic, material, and sexual violence and is so widespread that it is classified as a structural societal and public health problem, regardless of whether there is a motive of honor or not. Violence against women is a violation of bodily integrity and women's fundamental freedoms and rights and is, of course, a criminal act. The violence must be prevented and countered, and the victims must be offered support and protection.

Working with values and gender norms is extremely important, especially at early ages. It needs to permeate the entire society so that violence never arises.

Violence against women is neither a natural disaster nor something that happens randomly. In most cases, the perpetrator is known to society. Women have alerted, left, and done everything in their power to protect themselves and their children. Yet, they are murdered by men who hate them. There are no reasonable, beautifying euphemisms for this reality.

Madam Speaker! The Government is investigating changes to the sixth gender equality sub-goal. Violence by men against women shall cease. All goals set for gender equality policy have been agreed upon by the Swedish Parliament, from right to left. Now the SD government wants to erase and make invisible the structural violence against women.

Every three weeks, a woman is murdered by a partner or ex-partner. And many thousands of women live daily with violence and oppression. They are constantly afraid for their lives. We cannot let it be reduced to a marginal problem for the individual.

When the government took office just over a year ago, it was promised that the work against men's violence against women would be stepped up. But the work turned out to be a step down instead. We are reached by reports that cases of violence against women and sexual offenses are being put on hold and that the places in protected housing for women fleeing from violence are insufficient.

It becomes particularly clear when the government, in its management of the authorities, removes mentions of violence against women in the regulatory letters. In the management of the Swedish Police Authority, almost all mentions of violence against women were removed and replaced with even more mentions of gang crime. The priorities follow accordingly.

I unfortunately have no hopes that this government will make Sweden more equal. I can only hope that it does not drive inequality forward too fast. An equal society for all can only be achieved through an egalitarian equality. This requires that the working-class women, that is, half of the country's female population, are placed at the center. But the government has until now only shown a lack of interest in and a total inability to put just those women first.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Amloh, for an engaged speech! We share in many ways the view on the work with equality.

I will, however, take the opportunity to discuss the Social Democrats' new social analysis. If I were a Social Democrat, I would not see it as positive that so much time is devoted to it. There is, in fact, a statement there that is deeply provoking, in my opinion. I mean that these are rather shallow analyses.

One of the explanations for the failed integration is - lo and behold - feminism, that one has invested too much in feminism and therefore has missed the boys. It makes me wonder what definition the Social Democrats have of feminism. I think instead that one should have worked more with feminism, not least in school, in order to move away from this.

That boys underperform in school, especially in vulnerable areas, is hardly anything new. But that the Social Democrats explain it by saying that society has focused on feminism and thus missed the boys is, in my opinion, a rather deeply provoking statement.

I want Sofia Amloh to reflect a bit on this. Does she share that view, on that concept and that problem area? What does feminism mean for the Social Democrats and for Sofia Amloh?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your questions, member!

The social analyses that have been presented are a piece of work where a number of working groups have reached a number of conclusions. I think I will let it be as it is, for now.

But I will still post the text about this. The fact is that we see that boys fall behind in school. The results differ. Many times the answer is precisely that we have strong gender norms that also characterize the school, and the boys who fall behind, deeply. It does not always mean that those boys do not succeed in life as a whole. Rather, one perhaps still succeeds very well in life once one finally gets out of school.

But we also see that many of the boys who do not manage in school and who fall behind early are exposed to an exclusion. They have difficulty entering several parts of society or expressing themselves in such a way as they would have had the opportunity to do if these gender norms had not come to such a strong expression.

I think, therefore, that we should continue with our work. As I said in my speech, the entire society has a job to do when it comes to these gender norms. It should start at an early age. It must, of course, continue. All children have the right to succeed in school.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I agree. I nevertheless interpret the answer as that it may not be stated in a final document, regarding policy development, that the problem is called feminism and that it is for that reason that boys fail in school.

Of course there are gender norms in school. It is even more problematic that in the same report the school was named "the girls' school," because it is the girls who succeed in school. In some way, it directs the focus toward it being the girls' fault that the boys do not succeed in school.

We can absolutely address this by discussing gender norms in schools and preschools at an early stage. The most important thing is that we see both boys and girls and that we also identify the honor issue, that young girls are overrepresented among those with mental ill-health, that the sexualization that young girls are pressured into and that the threats and the hate online that affect girls many times are greater than those that affect boys.

It is clear that boys' results in school need to be improved. But that is done by improving the school so that both girls and boys feel good there. It is not done by pitting feminism and boys against each other.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I can completely agree with what the member said about that we cannot set feminism and boys against each other. It is required that we see that boys who come after have the same right to succeed in school. I also feel quite certain that it will not be formulated in the same way in future documents in the working group.

All children have the right to succeed in school, regardless of what gender they have. Hopefully, they are free from the strong gender norms that we adults become very locked into daily. It is incredibly unfortunate when it sets in early in children.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! I intend to spend some time on the issue of violence against women. There is no doubt that violence in close relationships is an issue where a gender perspective dominates. Sometimes men are highlighted as victims in same-sex relationships, or boys – that is, children – and men who are subjected to honor-related violence and oppression.

Support for vulnerable men is quite difficult to find. If the starting point is the number of reported crimes, the term men's violence against women is probably most appropriate, but if one broadens the investigation slightly, a completely different picture is obtained. Since the 70s, there have been studies showing that as many men as women hit and are hit. For the Swedish part, Brå has produced reports, and they show that it goes both ways. The fact is that both men and women are victims and that both men and women are perpetrators. Violence affecting men is therefore significantly more common than people think.

Women often receive significantly more physical injuries, and it is exactly as the member mentions, primarily women who have died from this violence. It is not surprising because men are generally larger and stronger than women and can therefore harm a woman more.

In popular culture – that is, film, TV and series – there are clear examples of how it works when a woman hits a man. Slaps and violence from a woman are portrayed as justified actions, and it is usually the man who is supposed to be ashamed afterwards for having done something wrong. It is depicted as if women's violence hardly harms men, because a real man is supposed to be able to take a little slap.

It is difficult to seek help when the one you love hits you, and it hardly becomes any easier when the entire society acts as if the violence you experience does not exist. That is the situation one ends up in.

What do the Social Democrats mean that we should do about the men who are beaten and who are hidden behind the concept of men's violence against women?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! From 2017 to 2022, there were 86 women who died, that is, were murdered. There are no figures showing that an equal number of men were. It is the ultimate consequence of the unequal society.

This is structural, as I said in my speech. It is men who hit women. I am still quite surprised that people want to blur this out. It is completely obvious that the structures look like this. Why should we not now talk about who are the perpetrators and who are the victims? We should do that in all other political contexts, but apparently not here. Why should we highlight that which is not structural?

When it comes to the goal of combating violence against women, there are many more target groups and descriptions under that heading. The concept of violence in close relationships includes girls, women, boys, men, and hbtqi-persons. What is missing in that sub-goal so that one can also work with other target groups?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is no proposal that this sub-objective should be erased. There is a proposal that it should be broadened so that everyone is included.

According to a very recent report on violence in relationships, in 15 percent of cases it is women who hit men. In 85 percent of cases, it is the other way around. When it is called men's violence against women, we make that group of 15 percent invisible. The Social Democrats obviously think that is a good idea.

The wage gap between men and women is just under 5 percent, so a third as large, but it is a very important issue for the Social Democrats. They want to highlight and work on that. But when 15 percent of all violent crimes were committed by a woman against a man, we are not to talk about it. Apparently, just swapping the term is very serious.

I want to be clear that we are not going to erase anything; we are going to broaden it. There isn't even a proposal. Can we wait until there is a proposal? I assume that one wants to produce a proposal where it is clear that it concerns men's violence against women, women's violence against men, women's violence against women, men's violence against men, adults' violence against children, and so on.

The idea is not that anything should be erased. The idea is that it should be broadened so that even the man who is hit by his wife should dare to seek help. There are, just as the member mentions, a number of gender norms in our society which, among other things, say that the man who is hit should endure it in order to be a real man.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are also against all violence. There is probably no party in this chamber that is more against violence than any other. But when it comes to social structures and making visible the biggest social problem, it is the 85 percent that we must focus on reaching. We must ensure that a woman does not die every third week. We must talk about the problem.

You want to broaden the goal and say that all violence is wrong. But the entire work on equality and the issue of equality is about the power relationship between men and women. I wonder, because I have not heard anything about it and the member may perhaps get another opportunity to describe it, within which sub-goal women are overrepresented in their exercise of power or have a much stronger position in society. Within which of the sub-goals does it exist? I actually believe that we are in complete agreement, because it does not exist.

It is always the men who have drawn the winning lottery ticket. This applies to all six sub-goals. It shows the structure, and it is precisely that we are talking about.

The ultimate consequence of the unequal society is violence, and it affects women to a very high degree. We Social Democrats believe that we must address and tackle this.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Exactly one year ago, I stood at this rostrum for the first time. It was nervous, and still, it is with respect and trepidation that I do it. You who still have the strength to listen and watch might wonder why. Is it not just an ordinary day at work? Yes, in a way, it actually is. But it is also much greater, because I do not speak for myself but for my voters and for those who do not have the strength to make their voices heard themselves. It is a great responsibility.

Madam Speaker! The basis for equality between women and men is the equal, absolute, and inviolable value of all human beings. Equality shall mean that women and men have the same power to shape society and their own lives. With that as the goal and starting point, there are several sub-goals to ensure that it becomes a reality.

It is about, among other things, an equal distribution of power and influence, equal health, and economic equality. It is about working broadly to achieve a more equal society, and we see that in the basis for the expenditure area from the government.

Madam Speaker! As a Christian Democrat, I am happy to speak about values and the values that build our society strongly. These values are now more important than ever. I am therefore pleased that there are many important points in the budget proposal for expenditure area 13 concerning equality.

Such is the honor issue. Far too many live today in forced marriages and child marriages, suffer in silence and are subjected daily to abuse such as threats and assault. This can never be accepted, and we as a society must mark a clear distance from these atrocious crimes. Those who perpetrate honor violence shall be prosecuted, because honor violence does not only conflict with our laws and regulations, Western humanism and our Western way of life. It is also a crime against human rights.

I am glad that we have a government that lets this fact guide the direction of the policy, addresses it and tackles the core issue with a holistic approach.

Not least, the honor question shows the great failure of integration policy over decades. It shows what we Christian Democrats have pointed out time and again, namely that integration is about more than just jobs and language. It is about values, about being welcomed in and becoming part of the community at an early stage, about equality and about the freedom to shape one's own life. Fadime's father both spoke Swedish and had a job. Still, he murdered his daughter in a brutal honor killing. Integration is about more than jobs and language.

We must start early in families and in schools to counteract honor culture. In fact, a report from Malmö city shows that honor norms occur among children already in preschool in 12 out of 13 preschools. It is very serious, and I am glad that the government has intensified the work here.

Mr. Speaker! I must tell you about Underground Råslätt in Jönköping, a very successful example of integration work. Jonny Cato said in his speech that girls are not seen out on the farms. Then I must mention Underground, which lets the girls be alone for the first few hours at the youth center between 16 and 18. After that, the boys are welcome. It has turned out to work very well. Furthermore, their entire way of working with integration is a brilliant example and a successful example of functioning integration.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats are nation-builders and have just started the reform machinery in a government position. Sweden has come a long way in terms of equality, but the values of equality must be won by every generation. We see this not least from the honor issue but also when one wants to pretend that gender does not exist. To erase gender undermines equality policy and renders both women's and men's life situations invisible.

Equality is a task that we must all do to give people, both women and men, the opportunity to have the same power to shape society and their own lives and equal conditions and circumstances to be able to develop their full potential in both family life, work life, and social life. We have come far with equality in Sweden, but we cannot rest on our laurels. The work must continue, because what equality ultimately is about is all people's equal value.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I move again for approval of the committee's proposal.

I would also like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas, when it finally arrives. I would like to wish the Speaker, the Chancellery, all those on duty and the other Members of Parliament in the chamber a very Merry Christmas.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now, almost four hours after we started, I notice that people are a bit tired. I promise that I will keep going.

Equality is actually a matter of life and death, of women's right to their bodies and their safety. Equality does not come of itself, but just like previous generations and coming generations, we in our generation must fight for feminist reforms to eventually reach the goal.

Vänsterpartiet is a feminist party. We want to focus on issues such as the distribution of power, economic injustices, the division of labor in the home, and all forms of oppression and violence against women.

Violence against women is a serious social problem that has devastating and far-reaching consequences both for the individuals affected and for society as a whole, both in the form of human suffering and from a socio-economic perspective. Through preventive work over time and in many arenas, that violence can eventually disappear.

Mr. Speaker! The work of the women's and girls' shelters is based on an idea-driven foundation without profit interest, and they are a valued asset for society's collective effort to counter violence. Their voice has been completely decisive for the work on equality. This is in contrast to the increasing number of private actors, whose place on the market entails a risk that years of experience will be depleted.

The quality of the on-call services is often praised loudly and from many sides. But there is a big difference between the various political proposals regarding how the future of the on-call services shall be secured.

This is my fifth debate on this very subject, and once again I say that we must provide the women's shelters with secure, high and stable funding.

We want to protect, maintain and strengthen the independent women's shelters. Today, they are very often operated in project form and are dependent on temporary investments. And as I said earlier, the increased degree of privatization threatens the entire non-profit support activity and all the knowledge that exists there.

I really hope that the government intends to rethink, take a new approach and clarify that the women's shelters will be guaranteed long-term and stable financial solutions in order to be able to carry out their operations.

Since Vänsterpartiet, among other things, wants to allocate much more funds to the women's shelters, I cannot move for anything in this report, but we will submit a separate statement.

Mr. Speaker! I find it fascinating that this year's Nobel Prize in Economics winner, Claudia Goldin, receives the prize with the justification that she "was the first to provide a comprehensive picture of women's earnings and labor market participation over the centuries." We have, however, been able to show that for quite a few years. But now she received the prize for this anyway, and it has been noticed all over the world.

Her research highlights the drivers behind the changes and points out the main causes of the differences between the genders that persist even today, and in doing so, she has looked 200 years back in time.

What she presents is that in practically every country in the world we visit, we see exactly the same pattern, just slightly more or slightly less clearly: In all countries, men have always earned more in wages than women have. This is a global problem.

Despite the fact that women, not only in Sweden but all over the world, have chosen to pursue education to an increasing extent during the 20th century and quite often surpass men, they still lag behind in wages.

Then one begins to wonder what measures can be taken - there are obviously very many. But since this is not a debate in, for example, the Committee on Social Insurance, I shall not speak about how we should handle parental leave and so on, but we will take that there. But there are very many measures to, if one wishes, address the gender power order we have now, where men are always superior to women, both economically and in terms of violence capital.

In last year's debate, I took up the women's empowerment investigation from 1998, so I will not do that again – even though it is frightening that I could reuse the same speech year after year. But I thought I would conclude by repeating the short summary in that investigation.

The short conclusion of the investigation was that Sweden is not an equal country. Working life does not function rationally. Gender quotas are common, and in that case, it is not about the gender quota that everyone thinks it is about – that we should shove a lot of incompetent women everywhere – but about the gender quota that men have always engaged in throughout all time when they have taken their buddies into the boardrooms. Furthermore: Men are like corks – they always float to the top. It is better to invest in gender reassignment than in education. The public sector exploits women.

So these points are not my own, but they were listed at the end of the women's empowerment investigation. But I thought they were a bit clever, because they still hold true even though so many years have passed.

Sweden could do better, right? We should aim to surpass New Zealand, Finland, Norway, and Iceland. Iceland has been at the top for 14 years. I think we should aim to catch up and take that place by actually becoming a more equal country.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I also, of course, wish everyone a truly fine and wonderful, red Christmas!

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! At this late hour on Friday, when I myself have been highly involved in extending the debate by requesting replies, I shall attempt to shorten my speech a little.

Equality cannot wait. Equality has suffered from backlash many times - it is very sad. The development towards equal wages has stalled and even gone backwards. The problem of men's violence against women persists. It is entrenched, and we seem unable to do anything about it.

Of course, there is a need for measures to promote equality within all policy areas, as it is part of a whole that needs to be addressed. This work must not take a backseat when other crises in society are to be combated.

Men's violence against women is a major societal problem. The violence occurs throughout the country, at all ages and in different types of relationships, but it affects girls and women in a completely overwhelming way. In 2022, over 20,000 cases of assault against a woman over 18 were reported where the victim was acquainted with the perpetrator. The dark figure is large - we know that. Strong action was needed to put a stop to this, halt the acute spiral of violence and, in the long term, protect women exposed to violence so that we will eventually move away from the worst of the effects, namely that 15-20 women are murdered every year.

All the measures we take to stop men's violence against women can be used against all forms of violence in close relationships. I am incredibly tired of the whataboutism that we constantly hear. The structural problem is that men abuse women. This is what we must fight.

The women's and girls' shelters have a unique experience and competence and do an invaluable job to help girls and women in vulnerable situations. They do this as a complement to the municipalities' responsibility, not as a replacement for it. It is the public sector's duty to ensure long-term and stable funding.

We know that men's violence against women begins with boys' violence against girls. It is a clear pattern that the men who hit themselves have experienced violence in the home. Therefore, we must prioritize violence in young people's partner relationships. There is a great need for preventive measures. Centerpartiet believes that special resources are needed for actors who target young people who exercise violence and control in their partner relationships and support for those who are subjected to violence in relationships between young people.

Now the Liberal has left the chamber, but last year we discussed here in the chamber whether this support existed or not - it was in danger. I interpret the Liberals' input as that the government has now ensured it. It does not quite appear in the report, but we in the Center Party have pointed this out in our budget.

We also want to introduce a national exit program for women living in violent relationships, where police, social services, the Tax Agency, healthcare and so on cooperate, so that those who leave a violent relationship – they may be trying to take the step for the first, second, third or tenth time – will actually succeed and quickly and orderly receive the support that is needed.

Mr. Speaker! With precisely this method, the police in southern Stockholm worked in the so-called IGOR project, which, however, was quickly and absurdly shut down without explanation. The work to counter men's violence against women must, as it is said, take a backseat to other crime fighting. One cannot draw any other conclusion, and it is shameful.

Centerpartiet also wants to see a severance payment, or a "fuck off" capital, to cover the costs for the woman who is hastily forced to break up, leave her home and her property, and establish herself in a new location. It is completely unreasonable that the vulnerable woman herself should cover the costs for moving, new housing, new subscriptions, new clothes, and so on.

And you know, that is roughly how it works for men who participate in exit programs to leave criminal environments. Three and a half years of structured support is provided to men in exit programs in the form of rehab, employment, leisure, studies, financial support, etc. Women who leave a violent relationship get none of this today, speaking of structural inequality.

And thus we come a bit more into economic empowerment, Mr. Speaker. We must address the wage differences that exist today, the unequal distribution of parental leave, part-time work, and the structures that prevent women from starting companies. It is a bit embarrassing that Sweden stands out so much in an international comparison in that so few women run companies.

Women should not be dependent on a partner for their finances; women should be able to afford to divorce. Giving birth to children should not stand in the way of a career or entrepreneurship, and it should also not be an economic trap for women.

We spoke in replies about a form of nudging, which is very important. With today's technology, everyone should be able to make informed choices. All authorities should be tasked with working with what is called nudging.

We need to reform the parental leave so that it is adapted to a modern working life and to entrepreneurship. We want to see a new, significantly increased equality bonus, removed days at the minimum level, and an abolished two-child supplement.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to women's entrepreneurship, you are aware of this 1 percent. It is 1 percent of the state risk capital that is directed towards women's entrepreneurship. This is incredibly strange. We need to review the structures for business support; it must be redone. The incentives for equal boards and equal distribution need to be lured forward and strengthened.

We have talked about foreign-born women. Representatives for the government parties mentioned that one actually, as I interpret it, wants to review the multi-child supplement, which is good. I believe that one generally needs to review the parental insurance in order to shorten the time the woman is away from the labor market, which is often a very long time.

We did not talk about this regarding foreign-born women, but an investigation was released six months ago, Establishment for more, where these matters are actually included in the proposals.

I also look forward to seeing bills being submitted in this area. Many have commented that it has been empty on that list. There are many good proposals here to address. I look forward to the government doing this.

Finally, I just want to say a few words about the work against prostitution and human trafficking. The other day, an investigation titled Ut ur utsatthet was presented, which dealt with how to enable women to leave prostitution, i.e., an exit program.

We know that human trafficking for sexual purposes is one of the most lucrative activities, and it largely finances gang crime. In the wake of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, human trafficking has increased, and it affects both women and children.

The reflection periods that exist today and are regulated in the Aliens Act are an instrument, but it is far from sufficient to identify victims. We are not doing our homework according to international conventions. We do not identify enough victims of prostitution and human trafficking, and those who are identified do not receive the support to which they are entitled.

The Gender Equality Authority and its regional coordinators have the responsibility to work against prostitution and human trafficking. They can do much more. They can work more structurally with cooperation, methodological support, and dissemination of good examples to authorities. We think that focus should be placed on reaching children. There are enormously many children who are victims of human trafficking.

Finally, the most important thing: We need to start a national support hotline aimed at exactly this. There are support hotlines when it comes to violence in young relationships and support hotlines that women who are being assaulted can call. But people who wonder about things – they may be worried about what is happening and perhaps suspect that there is an apartment brothel – do not really know where to turn. Therefore, we need a national hotline.

Such a hotline exists in some of our neighboring countries. It is supposed to be open around the clock, and anyone should be able to call there to ask questions and provide tips. Not least, the vulnerable should know that they can get help there.

Since the Center Party's budget fell in previous votes, I have no motion and instead refer to our special statement. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Every month, a woman is murdered by a man she has or has had a relationship with. Every week, women and girls are brutally assaulted by a man they have or have had a relationship with. Every day, thousands of girls and women live in fear of a man they have or have had a relationship with.

Men's violence against women is a failure for us as a society, and it is precisely as a society that we need to tackle this together. The guilt must always lie with the one who oppresses and the one who strikes, but the responsibility to prevent the violence and ensure that the right help is available at the right time is our collective responsibility. Then we must also start early, with the children already in preschool and in school. We must talk about how we show respect for one another and do not harm one another in either words or actions. But we see in all too many cases that this is not enough.

Sveriges kvinno- och tjejjourer save lives every day through their work to protect and help women and children. Their operations are the outermost outpost in a Sweden that still does not succeed in protecting women from violence. And that is exactly how they must be regarded, as an outermost outpost and then not just in words, but above all in money.

We see how many of the shelters struggle to operate with insufficient resources and funding that is not secured from year to year. It is simply not sustainable. Miljöpartiet therefore makes, in its budget proposal, an increased investment in the grant to women's and girls' shelters with 70 million kronor. We also propose a special investment to strengthen the funding of civil society organizations' support activities for children and young people. Both of these investments are needed here and now, and I would have wished that the government could also open its eyes to the glaring need that exists all around in the entire country.

During the autumn, many alarm reports have reached us concerning how much violence there is in the relationships of young people. Many testify to how first love quickly turns into a nightmare and how quickly psychological and physical violence is normalized when it also becomes everyday life for more and more people.

We have met young girls' stories about how the consent law that we are often so proud of completely lacks meaning in their lives. We hear many guys telling stories that testify that society also has an enormous responsibility to show that every person's right to their body is equally important.

We see that violence in close relationships is creeping further down in age, and it is an extremely alarming development that we must take most seriously and do everything in our power to break. If we do not do so, the violence will escalate, and none of us want that.

In the same way as men's violence against women every day costs women's lives, safety and freedom, so do honor-related violence and oppression. Over 20 years have passed since Fadime was murdered in the name of so-called honor.

Since then, much has happened. But unfortunately, even more has not happened. The lives of young people are increasingly limited by norms and values that simply do not belong in a free and equal society. If honor-related violence and oppression are to be stopped, all actors in society must be given the right conditions to do their part of the work. They do not have them today, and they truly will not have them either when the government's enormous cuts in municipalities and regions are implemented in reality.

The work of identifying honor-related violence and oppression lies to a very large extent with the school, healthcare, and social services. That is where the help must be, and that is where the resources must be deployed. But if the resources are not there – and this is what we now risk – the lives and freedom of young people are on thin ice. This is one of the consequences we risk with the government's economic policy.

The cuts that de facto will affect the municipalities will also affect these activities, those that exist in everyday life and can detect the honor-related violence and oppression.

We in Miljöpartiet want instead to strengthen the finances of the municipalities and regions, precisely so that the very weakest, those who need society's support the most, do not have their support withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker! Knowledge is also power. This applies to all areas, not least when it comes to how the work for equal rights, equal opportunities, and gender equality is to be driven and designed. But for knowledge to be developed and maintained, resources are also required. Resources are required, but also politicians who dare to prioritize women's rights and who have the ability to see that it is precisely knowledge that lays the foundation for us as a society to do things at the right time.

Since this government took office, it has waged a war against knowledge and proven experience in several policy areas, at best low-intensity. Feeling has easily been mistaken for facts, and scientific findings on what is effective and what is not have been swept a bit under the rug in favor of more populist maneuvers. The winners are, more often than not, the Sverigedemokraterna and their policies, and the losers are all the rest of us.

But while the government tears down, we want to build up. We want to see more investments in schools, more gender pedagogy, and more education on sex and consent in schools.

The Gender Equality Authority is an important part of the large-scale structural work for an equal Sweden and for the work against men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression. The authority has the competence required to work systematically with these issues in an overarching way and contribute to Sweden reaching its gender equality policy goals. Therefore, we want to inject more money, not less.

In order to achieve equality, continued hard work is required on all fronts. In Sweden, we have come a long way from an international perspective, but we still have a long way to go. And in some areas, we are moving backwards. We have not achieved equality regarding any of our equality policy goals. This is therefore a task that must be scaled up. It must be worked on in all committees, and it applies to almost all budget items. It may even apply to some budget items a bit more than others, and it is not exactly this one that I mean.

I wanted to say a few words about the cuts in welfare and what they will do for equality and the equality policy goals. When we reduce resources to healthcare and care, it is women's working conditions and women's wages that will be affected. It is the same when it comes to preschool teachers and teachers. This will lead to more ill health and an eroded equality, regardless of what the government says.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet is a feminist party. This means that we want to work for equality and counteract the prevailing gender power structure, where men de facto have more power than women, using political and economic tools. For Miljöpartiet, equality is fundamentally a question of freedom – a freedom for everyone to be who they are, in Sweden and in the world.

We want more than the government does, but I cannot insist on that. Therefore, I will content myself with referring to our specific statement.

(Applause)

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that my voice will hold during this speech, as I have become quite hoarse.

I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal on the distribution of responsibility within the area. I will address the issues of honor-related violence and oppression as well as men's violence against women.

Even though it is more common for it to be a guy who exerts violence against his girlfriend, it can of course look different. Violence can, in fact, occur in all kinds of relationships. We must not forget that.

We can read that it is a priority to combat gender-related violence and honor-related violence and oppression from the perspective of the gender equality goal. That it has been stated does not mean that we have settled it yet. When it comes to this, there are very many challenges.

How do we combat this then, when most of it happens in secret? How do we find those who are being subjected to it, and how do we help them in the best way? How do we find the actual perpetrators? Some actually take the blame to protect the family.

Both violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression are a major problem here in the country, and these are areas that need to be made more visible.

Both women and men should have the right to decide over their own lives and their own bodies. But then they must also have the possibility to do so, which many unfortunately do not have today. Instead, one can be forced into a religion. One can have requirements placed on oneself regarding which clothes one is allowed to wear and so on. The right to decide over one's life and one's body fails. Everyone should have the same conditions to make independent decisions, but everyone does not have that as it looks in today's Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Even though we see that the honor violence and oppression have escalated as a result of previous governments' irresponsible migration policy, it is a problem that we also see among those who immigrated as early as the 1980s. My own relatives came here in the 80s. For them, circumcision and cousin marriage are a matter of course. And generations after them practice the same upbringing that they themselves received.

We see clearly that we do not only need to get those who have moved into the country in the last year to understand. We also need to get those who have lived here for a longer time to do so. This is a very difficult and complex area to tackle, but it is something that we must not ignore.

Then we cannot ignore that there is a clear connection between immigration from certain countries and honor oppression - we cannot deny that. The culture of honor is adopted in a part of the world that has now settled increasingly here in Sweden.

We need to become better at preventing violence in close relationships but also at helping those who are already living a life together with a violent partner. We also need to become better at helping and supporting those who actually manage to get out of a destructive relationship.

I have actually lived with a man who was very aggressive, and I know how difficult it is to get out of such a relationship. Someone who has not experienced a destructive and oppressive relationship simply cannot fully understand what it means.

For many, it is difficult to understand why one does not leave or how one can be pushed down so much that one hardly has an identity left. But the fact is that for most, this happens at the same time as everything is normalized more and more.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, I am not the only one who has experienced this. In fact, every fifth young person in Sweden has been subjected to a crime in a relationship, according to a survey conducted by the Swedish Crime Prevention Council.

I also know that even if one manages to get out of the destructive relationship, it does not mean that one is free. The time afterwards can be very difficult. One can experience feelings of guilt for having left, while at the same time feeling a sense of relief. Life after a breakup, therefore, does not turn out to be a bed of roses for everyone. If one has left an aggressive man, it does not mean that one is free. In my case, I had a man who actually sought me out afterwards and who continued to be aggressive and threatening.

We need to become better at being there for those who are vulnerable, while at the same time we need to have harsher punishments for those who commit the crimes. But we also need to become better at helping the one who has been subjected to it but who has managed to get out of the destructive and violent relationship. We must not forget the time after the relationship.

Most often, it is incredibly difficult to even talk about what one has been subjected to, much due to the threat situation but also due to the shame one can feel. To then take the step and report the perpetrator is not always the most obvious thing, especially not if there is a continued threat against one.

Many women who manage to get out of a destructive relationship just want to survive, which is fully understandable. I have experienced this myself. To report and further provoke one's perpetrator is not the easiest thing. The fact that one risks meeting the perpetrator in the courtroom can also contribute to not wanting to report.

A potential divorce after the breakup can also be very difficult and complicated, especially if the person appeals. In that case, it can drag on even longer. I have personally experienced that my ex did this. It is absurd that one should have the opportunity to appeal if someone wants to divorce from you. No one should be forced into a relationship. But one should also not be forced to stay in a relationship, I think.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, we can see that violence in close relationships has become more common, especially against women. Men's violence against women is a large and serious social problem that affects women's lives and health.

This is a very complex area. Even though it is in many ways difficult to detect and stop the violence and oppression that is occurring all around the country, we must not turn a blind eye to it. We need to have stricter punishments for the perpetrators but also better help for those who are subjected to it.

We also need to become better at the fight against honor-related violence and oppression, something that actually does not belong in our Western Sweden.

We have already had a permanent appropriation of over 500 million kronor aimed at implementing long-term measures to prevent and combat gender-related violence, honor-related violence and oppression, domestic violence, prostitution and human trafficking.

The Government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has allocated additional funds in the form of a three-year supplement for the work against honor-related violence and oppression as well as gender-related violence. The supplement amounts to 50 million kronor per year during 2024-2026 and complements the funds that already exist within the area. In view of this, I naturally have great hope that we will go further in the fight against honor-related violence and oppression than we have done so far.

Only in 2024, the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is investing over 600 million kronor in the work against honor-related violence and oppression, gender-related violence, domestic violence, prostitution and human trafficking.

Mr. Speaker! In the fight against gender-related violence, including honor-related violence and oppression, the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has commissioned several inquiries and measures, even though much work remains.

A number of authorities have been tasked with various investigations, such as the Gender Equality Authority, the Agency for Youth and Civil Society Issues, the Agency for Family Law and Parenting Support, the National Agency for Education, among others.

And with us now having a higher commitment in these areas, I look forward to seeing the results. However, I still believe that this is a very complex and difficult area because much happens in the shadows. I still hope that everyone, regardless of party affiliation, can feel that we are united in that this does not belong in Sweden.

With this said, I would like to once again express my approval of the committee's proposal for the distribution of appropriations within the area.

Integration and equality

(Applause)

In this speech, Michael Rubbestad (SD) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 December.)

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