Integration and equality

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! We shall begin with the formalities. We are now to debate the report on the budget for expenditure area 13, and I shall devote my speech to speaking about the integration area, which is my area of responsibility.

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

Madam Speaker! Finally! We finally see the beginning of the paradigm shift that the Swedish people gave us a mandate to carry out when the voters cast their votes for us in the 2022 election, when we became the largest party in the government base. Therefore, we have now been able to influence and begin a total overhaul of the policy within the integration area and all areas affected by it: migration, crime, school, and so on.

We have made it easier to deport people who should not stay here, we will introduce language preschools, we have made it harder to come here and live on benefits, we have changed the idiotic sentence reduction, we have introduced an obligation to provide information against those who are in the country illegally and we have increased the penalties for gang criminals. With the Sweden Democrats, it will be efficient.

For eleven years I have been an elected representative for the party. Like so many of my party colleagues, I have with both soul and heart devoted countless hours to campaigning, interviews, conversations with voters, distributing leaflets and so on to get the Swede to wake up from the slumber that seemed to lie like a wet blanket over the population.

We have done this out of the greatest respect for our parents and grandparents and previous generations - those who through hard work built our welfare society so that Sweden would be a safe country to live and grow up in. There is no room then for a completely infantile idea of building a multicultural society.

Many times I have heard politicians from other parties say that we will profit from immigration in the long run, and just as many times I have opposed this claim and asked when that long run actually arrives. As we have pointed out for so long, it does not. Instead, we have received a divided society that will take time to change for the better, but with the support of our voters, this work of change has finally been able to begin.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have long warned that Sweden is heading towards a complete collapse. We have done so for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and future generations. After many years, when we have time and again sent out warning signals and rung the alarm bells, a large part of the Swedes finally woke up ahead of the 2022 election. It is simply no longer possible to defend against the tragic and dangerous development in, or the dismantling of, our once so secure society.

Today we have a society where twelve-year-olds, instead of jumping rope or playing football, either discharge weapons or fall victim to them, a society where gang crime has spread and where ordinary, law-abiding residents unintentionally get in the way of settlements and have to pay with their lives, a society where terrorists and extremists have had virtually free rein to cause as much damage as possible to honest Swedes and our Swedish society, a society where anti-Swedish sentiment is spreading and honest Swedish children, youth, and elderly people have their lives destroyed through humiliation, threats, and hate crimes.

All this is due to a previously virtually non-existent governance of Sweden, where safety and security for the citizens have been sidelined, a governance characterized by a complete inability to take responsibility - all this apparently for, among other things, the great fear of being accused of racism. Previous governments have risked the security of Swedes rather than doing what is required, for example, deporting the people who do not have the right to be here. This is not only frightening but also completely incomprehensible, and I actually feel no respect for the politicians who are responsible for this decline.

Sweden's government must have strong leaders who are not afraid to see reality for what it actually is and who do something about it for real. The Sweden Democrats have that ability. It would obviously be better if we had our own majority, and we are clearly not completely satisfied. Through the Tidö Agreement, however, we have been able to negotiate points that are crucial for Sweden to become healthy again.

We naturally need to do more, and there is only one way. My party leader's message to the voters ahead of the next election is clear: Either we sit in a government and intensify the work of change that has now begun, or we go into opposition. That would mean increased immigration, increased gang crime, and increased division of our beloved country. I sincerely hope that the voters make wise decisions when they go to the polls in 2026.

Madam Speaker! Lack of integration – I actually prefer to speak of adaptation to – our Swedish society has major negative consequences for all policy areas and for the entire economy. The goal is that everyone should have their own livelihood. Everyone who can work shall work. If one does not contribute to the welfare society but only picks out the goodies from it, it says for itself that it becomes unbalanced; everyone actually understands that.

The same applies to the lack of cultural adaptation to our Western way of life. That is why the Tidö Agreement's point on misconduct is so important. Our message is as clear as ever: If you do not adapt to our Swedish society and Western values, this is not your place on earth. In that case, it is required that you move somewhere else. Here, it is required that you share our values regarding, for example, human rights, respect for individual will, and the view on equality. Our Swedish society and our population have neither the will nor the space to give up or sacrifice any of this. This is our country.

Adaptation to Sweden and learning the Swedish language is often an absolute prerequisite for actively participating in a Swedish working life. It is obviously unacceptable that medical misjudgments, lack of reporting within elderly care, or accidents at construction sites occur because workers simply cannot communicate comprehensibly with one another.

It is from this problematic situation, of course, that the focus must lie on requirements to learn the language in order to make oneself employable. To stop the benefit carousel, it is therefore very positive that the time requirements for passing SFI are tightened. Previously, one could study SFI for practically as long as one wanted. One could take a break for, for example, childbirth and then continue, without for that reason perhaps being able to make oneself understood or understand a word of the Swedish language. So we cannot have that, and therefore we have introduced a time requirement for how long one may continue to study SFI. The truth is, however, that those born outside of Europe have the greatest problems getting into work, and within that group, the women have a particularly low employment participation. This is because the education level is far too low, if it exists at all.

One should not come to our country to be a benefit recipient. Now there is an end to such coddling with work-ready labor.

Sweden has, with our support, received a stronger government, which, through laws, regulatory letters, and budgets, can make many of the changes that are the basis for the paradigm shift that must happen and that we are now seeing happen. This would not have become a reality without us. It is we who set the demands, push forward, and have the solutions. We deliver the changes that the voters have given us a mandate for.

Madam Speaker! Halfway through the parliamentary term, there is reason for special reflection in the debate on the political landscape. We know what policy S-led governments, one of which had to throw in the towel after the previous general election, have pursued. In the debate, S wants to assert that they have changed their policy, which is not true. They have conducted investigations and written reports on the escalating societal problems they themselves have made possible – extremely counterproductive, but they have at least had something to do. Their misfortunes are, however, in no way positive for the Swedes.

If we take a small look at how things look, what ideas does S have for the coming years? Regarding this budget, they only have one budget item that differs from the government's budget, namely that in a budget covering more than 6 billion, they want to invest an additional 92 million on measures against young people becoming gang criminals—a proposal that, for the rest, is not supported by the other three opposition parties. Otherwise, the Social Democrats are obviously satisfied with the government's budget, which the other three opposition parties are not. An intended government basis with S at the helm is, to say the least, fragmented.

What is the situation regarding potential coalition partners and a government base for the Social Democrats? All four parties are negative towards repatriation. Those who do not want to integrate shall, according to them, stay anyway - nothing new under the sun, in other words. This will mean new billions for integration and against exclusion, that is to say that the money is thrown into the lake instead of being invested in improved healthcare, school, and elderly care.

C, V and MP all want to increase immigration. A vote for S in the next parliamentary election will therefore mean increased immigration. All talk about the Social Democrats being ready to take responsibility for society's problems is therefore just empty words and not feasible. S's only idea for addressing Sweden's problems is increased immigration. All three potential coalition parties want to change and significantly increase the refugee quota, from 900 to 5,000.

Vänsterpartiet demands ministerial posts in order to support S, so the old communist party will, in that case, be sitting in government. And they demand a welcoming refugee policy.

It becomes truly problematic with the out-of-touch Miljöpartiet, which wants to give extra everything in this budget and invest more than 3 billion extra. This is to go to, among other things, study circles and further investments on newcomers and to reintroduce associations formed on an ethnic basis, something that we have stopped. None of Miljöpartiet's ideas will, however, stop, for example, gang crime, but it will be exactly the opposite.

A Sweden governed by the Social Democrats would once again become like Donald Duck on Christmas Eve - you know, when Donald, Mickey, and Goofy are out camping. They set up their caravan and have a nice screen so that everything looks beautiful. But then they fold down the screen, and it turns out that they are actually standing on a garbage dump of some kind. So that is how socialism works in Sweden. One gives an illusion of something beautiful and good, but in reality, one runs like a blind hen at full speed towards increased immigration, increased division, and increased crime. God forbid that we as a population ever again be forced to sit stuck in the Social Democrats' claws!

Madam Speaker! I shall conclude my speech by once again raising the issue of anti-Swedish sentiment and racism against Swedes. Honorable Swedes – elderly people, children and young people – have their lives ruined through humiliation, threats and hate crimes.

The government presented a plan of action in recent days for a society free from racism, but in that plan of action, focus on racism against Swedes is missing, which is completely unacceptable. Our message to all Swedes who have been subjected to and risk being subjected to racism is clear: the Sverigedemokraterna see and hear you, and you can count on us. We will pressure the government so that it also focuses on the growing racism against Swedes - be so sure! We will not fail you!

With the important focus, Madam Speaker, I would like to wish the committee members and officials, the Speaker's presidency, the secretariat staff and everyone out there a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. May Christmas bring you warmth and peace in a Sweden that, with the influence of the Sweden Democrats, has finally begun to change into a better place on earth!

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech, which can be summarized with the words Monday morning.

Madam Speaker! When the Left Party negotiates the budget with a government, we ensure that we invest in welfare, households, and ordinary people. We increase equality while simultaneously strengthening welfare. We push through a higher guaranteed pension, improvements in health insurance, deductions for the unemployment insurance fee, and many other good things.

When the Sweden Democrats negotiate the budget, welfare must take a backseat. They are rolling out cuts across the entire country. Households and families with children must take a backseat, even though the cost of living is only increasing. At the same time, economic inequalities are increasing and investments are put on ice, in a time when unemployment is at a record high and is left without measures - because the Sweden Democrats have chosen to pour all the money over those who earn the most, the Moderates' core voters. These are large tax cuts for the very richest, which are paid for with large cuts in healthcare and other welfare.

The large-scale billion-kronor investment that the Sweden Democrats have prioritized is a return migration grant, which their own investigator has completely shredded along with the other flaws and argues harms integration and is a counterproductive and meaningless reform. In addition to tax cuts for the very wealthiest, the Sweden Democrats thus want to burn billions to try to give 350,000 kronor per person in some kind of return migration grant that we know for certain would harm integration in Sweden.

Can the Sweden Democrats explain your insane priorities - tax cuts for the very richest and a return migration subsidy of billions that is counterproductive and meaningless and harms integration in Sweden?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for your contribution!

I want to start by reminding that we have actually succeeded in tackling inflation and have put Sweden's economy in order in a good way. It will become easier for Swedes moving forward. Interest rates are on their way down. This would not have been possible without us, of course.

I agree with the member that it is a major problem that unemployment is unfortunately increasing. We will, of course, do everything to try to stop that development. It must be remembered that this is not a development that has come with the sitting government with our support, but this has been ongoing for many years, even during the time when the Social Democrats were in power. Unfortunately, we now see the final result – how badly the country has been governed.

As I said in my speech, it will take time to change this. Social development is not something that can be changed in less than one parliamentary term, unfortunately. But the work of change that we have begun is, naturally, for the benefit of the Swedes.

I do not agree that it would be as bad economically as the member of Parliament claims. We make prioritizations and investments, of course, including a dental care reform. There is also much else that we invest in which is for the benefit of ordinary people.

The chairman wants to make it known that his own party is absolutely fantastically good, but I do not think the voters quite agree with that.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Here we come a bit to the core of the Sweden Democrats. What is happening out there is that people are left to the mercy of the elements. They are left in the lurch. The only thing I can state here is that the Sweden Democrats are pouring money over the very richest in Sweden. It is pure fact. Even in the budget bill that the Sweden Democrats have submitted, it is clearly stated that they are increasing the economic gaps in Sweden. Those who get the most are the very richest, and people are left in the lurch. Households do not get any better.

I do not know if the member has been out there. It is incomprehensible priorities that households, welfare, healthcare, and unemployment are left completely without measures - wind for waves. Think what could be done for all these billions! The return migration grant, the member does not even want to comment on here. The Sverigedemokraterna have thrown billions at something that is completely meaningless and counterproductive and which harms integration. But the Sverigedemokraterna cannot even defend their large billion-investment here.

One could invest these billions in welfare instead. One could invest in household economies, and one could invest in healthcare or in children's schools and preschools. One could invest in society and mitigate unemployment. One could invest in ensuring that people get secure jobs, and one could invest in strong and secure wage earners in Sweden. One could invest in reducing economic inequalities - yes, in everything that fundamentally actually creates a long-term and sustainable integration.

But the Sweden Democrats do not want that. Instead, it is tax cuts for the very richest and wasted money when the Sweden Democrats are part of the government. When it comes to all the social problems they do not want to solve, they have now spent twelve minutes just blaming immigrants. And this is a party that is part of the government.

Why don't you prioritize ordinary people out there? It is they who have to bear the brunt of all this.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that what the member says here is simply not true, and he surely knows that himself.

We see the return grant as very positive. I can say very clearly that we are not particularly satisfied with the investigation and its outcome. But we believe in the return grant.

What solution does the Left Party have for the whole of this? Your solution to integration is to increase immigration. The Left Party has no solutions at all. What would happen if the Left Party were allowed to be part of the governing is, as said, increased immigration and continued lack of integration. The division in society would increase, and the voters out there know that.

Let us talk a little about public economics; it is, of course, always exciting. The member belongs to a party that does not think the Swede should be allowed to keep the money that one earns. When one earns over a certain amount, everything goes to the state. I belong to a party that thinks one should be allowed to keep as much as possible of the money one earns through work. It is no mystery.

Regarding integration, I want to remind again that I prefer not to speak about integration. I am speaking about adaptation - adaptation to Swedish society.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! SD claims to be Sweden's party for a good integration policy. It is one thing to say, but another thing to do. To implement policy, take responsibility, and achieve improvement is much harder than talking about it.

The Sweden Democrats have had large parts of their integration or adaptation policy passed. It is simple: no investments in jobs and no investments in language, instead people shall return. But that is not an integration policy; it is a return migration policy. Even there, investigator after investigator says that SD's policy is ineffective.

SD demanded additional directives in the investigation on the disclosure law. The investigation chose not to include any of the professional categories that the Sweden Democrats so eagerly wanted to be covered. This is incredibly good for the country's doctors, nurses, and nursing assistants. It is good for Sweden's patients and students. The investigator also stated that the proposals will have a limited effect.

As if this were not enough, we also have the entire return migration grant. It can be noted that the investigator also rejected this proposal and considered it cost-driving and ineffective. The investigator even wrote that it risks complicating integration.

Madam Speaker! Now the Sweden Democrats have the opportunity to make a real difference. My question is: Will the Sweden Democrats listen to the country's skilled lawyers and investigators, rethink and do the right thing? Will the Sweden Democrats abandon their repatriation policy and instead start talking about things that work – language and jobs, initiatives and investments in people?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the contribution!

The member calls it the reporting law, but it does not exist; rather, it is a duty of information we are talking about. It concerns those who are in our country illegally. I cannot see the problem with that. I can, however, see the opposite problem: that illegal [persons] are in our country and that we don't even have a handle on the fact that they are here. Säpo is also not particularly satisfied with the equation.

Regarding integration, I am talking about adaptation – adaptation to Swedish society, our culture, and the Swedish language. I do not believe it is the society's task and responsibility to make people adapt to our society. It is actually a responsibility that the individual themselves has. The individual themselves must want to adapt to our Swedish society when moving here. If one does not want to, one should not live here. Therefore, we have introduced a return grant. There is nothing strange about that either. It is of course costly to travel from here, and we help with that so that one can return.

The member and I truly belong to two different parties. We will not contribute to what the member wants. We will, of course, not change our immigration policy or integration policy, and the member from Centerpartiet knows that too. But we will continue to set requirements. We will set requirements that people shall learn the Swedish language, make themselves employable and adapt to Swedish society.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! To make oneself employable - it sounds as if people do not want to work, as if they do not want to get up in the morning, go to work, earn money and get a better standard of living for themselves and their children! It is as if people do not want to become a part of Swedish society.

The members of the board know what the problem is. It is that one does not get the opportunities in Swedish society. Sfi is too poor. The opportunities to get a job are too difficult, because one does not get the education that is required. People are willing, but the systems we have prevent people from entering, becoming a part of, and adapting to Swedish society.

It is incredibly interesting that all of us others are always supposed to listen to evidence and research when it suits the Sverigedemokraterna. But here, it is about an investigator who states that the duty of information will not have any effect. It is also interesting that one is not allowed to use the word "law of disclosure" when SD is allowed to have troll accounts that are allowed to spread any amount of shit. Excuse the language, Madam Speaker, but I am getting irritated!

It is quite interesting that you believe the information obligation will work. The investigator says the opposite: It will not have any effect. And with the return subsidy, integration risks being worsened, says the investigator.

This matter of what constitutes Swedish culture is always interesting. I am from Skåne. I do not like spettekaka. On the other hand, I think baklava is quite tasty.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the insight into his food culture. Exciting!

Now it is like this: There are actually people who do not want to work. That is how reality looks. There are people who want to live on benefits. That is how reality looks. Then there are also those who want to work, who do everything they can to get a job or employment, who educate themselves and who also have the right conditions to be able to educate themselves.

One must be aware that some of the people who have come to us do not even have an education level that makes it possible for them to begin studying at a college or a university. They have no basic education. They may not have even attended primary school. It goes without saying that the uphill climb is quite steep and long for them to even be able to work at any point during their lives in Sweden.

I assert that the conditions exist to adapt to our society. I continue to maintain that it is actually the individual's own responsibility to want to educate themselves and to adapt to our society and our way of life. I say it again: If one does not want to, one should not live here. Then this is not the right place on earth. This is our country, and one must adapt to it.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the member for an engaged speech, even if half of the 14 minutes were about Social Democratic policy.

The Sweden Democrats have now had a significant role as the government's support party and the largest party in the government base during the last two years and some months. This means not only that the Sweden Democrats have the opportunity to influence the political agenda, but also that they have a responsibility to deliver concrete results that break segregation and promote integration, which is what we are discussing today.

My simple question to the member is: What concrete and successful measures have the Sverigedemokraterna proposed and pushed through to solve segregation and create a real sense of community in our country?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for a relevant contribution and a relevant question. Now, I do not, in principle, agree that 50 percent of my speech was devoted to the member's party. That was not the case. But it was absolutely so that I took a look at what it would be like with a social democratically governed government - God forbid! I hope that does not happen for many, many years to come.

What we do from the Sweden Democrats' side is clearly stated in the Tidö Agreement. We are also investing in repatriation, as the member knows. Regarding integration, I can say again that it is also up to the individual themselves to want to be integrated and want to adapt to our society. The prerequisites for that exist, as has been said.

We know that segregation is a major problem. I am from Västerås. There we have the marginalized area Bäckby, which I might speak a bit more about later. This simply must be solved. One of the things we are introducing is language preschool, which I touched upon in my main speech. This will naturally help children adapt to our country at an earlier stage. We cannot have these divided areas, where one has a completely different society and a completely different way of living compared to what the rest of the population has. This we must rectify. The member's party did not succeed in doing so during eight years in government. But already after half a mandate period with the Sverigedemokraternas influence, we see the change.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ann-Christine Frohm for the answer. We cannot say that we see a change that is moving in the right direction. On the contrary, we can say that we see a change that is moving in the wrong direction.

Sweden today has a government ruled by the Sweden Democrats, a party that I perceive lacks the will and ability to break down segregation and promote integration. Instead of creating opportunities and cohesion, they tear down. Important tools are being abolished. The agency against segregation has been abolished during SD's time. The investment support for rental apartments has been scrapped during SD's time. Billions have been withdrawn from adult education and active labor market policies. The Sweden Democrats prioritize tax cuts for the most well-off and wealthiest in our society.

Madam Speaker! This is a policy that reinforces segregation. It is a policy that fuels division and mistrust in our society. The Tidö Agreement's proposals on inhumane reporting laws, as the member does not want to call them, and the withdrawn right to an interpreter in healthcare are examples of measures that tear our society apart instead of building it stronger. Let us state that this is a short-sighted and despicable policy that lacks faith in the future and risks deepening the social tensions that exist in our society.

Madam Speaker! Breaking segregation requires investments in education, work, and welfare, not cuts and division. It is about giving every child, regardless of where they grow up and regardless of what they are called, the opportunity to dream big and grow in safety in a Sweden that is everyone's country, including my country.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! As far as I can see, the member is well-adapted in Swedish society.

That which does not work should not continue. Therefore, we are terminating the authorities and whatever it may be that has been invested in but which are completely ineffective. The member belongs to a party that has not had the solutions.

I return to the problem area and the marginalized area of Bäckby. It is located in Västerås, where I live. Västerås is a Social Democratic-led municipality. For a period, the buses could not even drive into the area. They were subjected to stone-throwing. Safety could not be guaranteed for the bus drivers, so public transport to the area was simply cancelled.

The Social Democrats' solution to the whole thing was to carry out a reconstruction of the area. They invested in new construction. I stood in the rostrum many times and said that something must be done about the root of the problem. But here we have the typical socialist thinking. In the Social Democrats' Sweden, nothing is done about the root problems. They only try to patch and repair on the surface.

How has it gone in Bäckby then? Yes, the other day a completely ordinary citizen, a completely innocent and honest resident, received a shot through the window in their apartment. So well it went for the Social Democrats to build away the problems instead of doing anything about the root cause.

The Social Democrats have created a divided society. SD wants to create a community. We have talked about it in all our years. We shall not have a "us" and a "them." We shall be us – we who live in Sweden, we who share values, we who take care of one another.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to say that it is deeply concerning that the SD member makes personal assessments of other members' Swedishness or adaptation to society.

(Applause)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to establish a national center for social orientation, individualize the establishment program, and establish an enhanced agency to combat segregation. We also want the most vulnerable people in the world to have the opportunity to find sanctuary in Sweden.

I believe that our policy is grounded in reality and is based on the values that the member spoke so well about.

Madam Speaker! Member Frohm speaks of Swedish values and human rights. Are humanism and humanity Swedish values? Are they the Sweden Democrats' values? Do the Sweden Democrats respect the right of asylum?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! As stated, the Green Party wants to go all out. In a budget covering a little more than 6 billion, the Green Party adds an additional 3 billion, i.e., 50 percent more, for study circles and other things that definitely will not help when it comes to solving segregation or getting people to adapt to Swedish society. This is also not in line with the Green Party's will and values.

The money could simply have been used for so many other things than ineffective integration projects. One might as well burn the money or throw it in the lake, for these are completely ineffective measures.

We have the answer to what it is like when Miljöpartiet is in government, and one of my best moments so far in this house was when Miljöpartiet left the government. Then, a hope was finally lit for Sweden again.

Regarding the view on equality and human rights, I just said in my speech that the Sweden Democrats are not interested in an ancient view of women where women are expected to endure, are expected not to work, and are expected not to have any will of their own. We do not support this!

We support equality and the view of women that we have here in Sweden, and it is that view of women that one needs to adapt to if one is to live here.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to repeat what we in Miljöpartiet want.

We want to strengthen the role of the Citizens' Offices in integration policy. We want to establish a national center for social orientation. We want to individualize the establishment program. We also want to establish a new and strengthened agency to work against segregation.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the Tidögänget prioritize repatriation grants, opinion registration, the abolition of the right to vote for certain immigrants, and denunciation laws.

I find it so funny when the Sweden Democrats talk about equality and human rights. It is interesting when one is so selective regarding equality and human rights, which the Sweden Democrats are. The Green Party is a feminist party, so I find it very interesting to get a breakdown of a Sweden Democrat here in the chamber.

I want to return to my questions that the member did not answer: Do you respect the right of asylum? Are humanism and humanity SD values? They are, in fact, Sweden values.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member for the contribution!

For me it is quite obvious - I am a woman and I am Sverigedemokrater, of course. For me there is no other alternative. Sverigedemokraterna is the only party that stands up for my values and for what I want. It is no secret that Miljöpartiet is our opposite; one still has to say that. What Sverigedemokraterna wants, Miljöpartiet does not want.

As regards the right of asylum, it is regulated by the EU. We have to adapt to the minimum reception, and we have no other opinion on that. The members actually know that.

It is good that we agree on equality. From the member's party, they would like to smear us by saying that it is something ugly to be at home and take care of one's children, for example. As a woman and a mother to the children, according to the Miljöpartiet, one should not be allowed to be at home. They consider the Sverigedemokraterna to be hostile towards women and want to force women back into the kitchen.

It is not true. That is not how it is. We want people to be able to choose for themselves. Some people are self-employed. If you are self-employed and a new mother, you cannot be at home. You must run your company, and in that case, it fits better for that specific family that the father, or for that matter the partner, is at home and takes care of the child.

That is why we do not want to rule in those directions, but what suits the families shall be an individual choice. We are for equality.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have a budget option with larger investments in expenditure area 13, which covers integration and equality. Therefore, I would like to begin by referring to our specific statement in this report.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time where social divisions are increasing, where mistrust is spreading, and where politics, which should be used to build bridges, is instead used to set people against each other. It is a time that demands clarity and determination, a time where our choices have far-reaching consequences.

Madam Speaker! The decisive question is what kind of society we want to build. A society that divides or a society that holds together? A society where people are hindered by their circumstances or a society where everyone is given the opportunity to grow and contribute?

For us Social Democrats, the answer is clear. We do not see problems – we see potential. We do not see threats – we see opportunities. It is this conviction that guides us in our decisions.

Madam Speaker! I came to Sweden as a ten-year-old, to Fittja in Botkyrka, together with my family. My parents had never been to school. They had no language skills and no resources, but they had a strong determination to make a way for themselves. My mother took a job as a caretaker, and my father got work in the restaurant industry with the help of friends. They took the jobs that were available, worked hard day and night and did everything to give us children the opportunity for a better life in our new country Sweden.

Growing up in Fittja, an area located 30 minutes from the Riksdag, shaped me deeply. I saw both the best and the worst in our society, side by side. I saw the challenges of segregation and poverty, but I also saw the strength of the people who lived there.

I saw neighbors who fought hard and never gave up the dream of a better future for their children. I saw classmates who had both talent and ambitions but who all too often were met with low expectations and prejudices. And I saw how resources were withdrawn and how mistrust took root in our society.

Madam Speaker! Today I see how parents are still struggling to create a better life for their children. I see how associations, sports clubs, and civil society do everything to keep the areas alive even though the structures of society sometimes work against them. But despite all this toil and commitment, we as a society have failed to fully support these efforts and provide them with the conditions to succeed.

Madam Speaker! I know therefore that integration is not only about requirements but also about creating real opportunities for people. It is about giving people the chance to realize their dreams and contribute to our common society. It is our duty as a society to see every individual as a resource, not as a problem.

Madam Speaker! We must simultaneously speak plainly about what has gone wrong. Segregation has increased and the gaps have deepened. Children in disadvantaged areas do not get the same opportunities as their peers in more prosperous parts of Sweden. Schools that should have been renovated have instead been neglected. The same applies to the safety that should have been created. What does the government, led by the Sverigedemokraterna, do then? Well, they abolish the Delegation against segregation, they scrap the investment support for rental apartments, and they cut adult education and active labor market measures by billions of kronor. This is not a policy for the future, but it is a policy that drives down instead of building up our country.

The Tidö Agreement, the Sweden Democrats' primary platform, contains proposals ranging from reporting laws to the withdrawal of the right to an interpreter in healthcare - measures that fuel mistrust and division in our society. It is a policy that builds walls instead of bridges, which sees threats instead of potential in people.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe in a different path. We believe in meeting the challenges of segregation with investments in education, work, and security. We know that change is possible, and we see it in the good examples that exist all around in our municipalities in Sweden.

Let me give an example: Qvinna i Botkyrka is a project started by the municipal housing company Botkyrkabyggen. The initiative aimed to employ long-term unemployed women, primarily with a foreign background, from the company's own properties. The women were employed to clean stairwells and common areas in the Fittja million program area, while they were offered training in the Swedish language, equality, and health promotion. The project became so successful that it was later spread to other parts of the municipality.

I myself had the opportunity, together with some of my comrades, to visit the project in its early phase, in the heart of Fittja, and meet these women who had now been given a chance to stand on their own feet. What I encountered there was more than just joy of work – it was a deep sense of pride and gratitude. For many of these women, this was their first paid job, and several told how it had changed their lives. A job did not only mean economic independence but also a strengthened self-esteem and a sense of being a part of Swedish society.

One of the women described with joy how her children now saw her as a role model, someone who went to work every day and contributed to the family's future. This project is a brilliant example of how we can break social exclusion and build sustainable communities. The women did not only gain economic independence, but their work also contributed to increased well-being and security in the residential areas. By investing in people and giving them the tools to succeed, we show what is possible when we see every individual as an asset, Madam Speaker, not as a problem and not as a threat.

This type of effort shows that we can break social exclusion and build sustainable societies. By investing in people, we show what is possible when we see every individual as an asset.

But, Madam Speaker, what happens when we fail, when society does not give people the support they need and when we do not dare to set demands that open doors to opportunities? The result is clear, and it is painful. We see young people who end up in exclusion, residential areas where insecurity grows, and communities where the gaps become ever deeper. And let me be clear: Crime in these areas must be fought with all means. But that is not done by stigmatizing entire neighborhoods or their inhabitants. It is done by giving people hope and by offering tools that make it possible to dream and succeed.

Madam Speaker! When segregation grows, the whole of society pays the price, but the children pay the highest price. Their future is at stake when schools lose resources, when families are forced to prioritize away basic needs, and when hope for a better future is missing.

Madam Speaker! One of the biggest obstacles to successful integration is discrimination. When people are met with prejudice because of their name, appearance, or where they live, it creates not only a personal injustice but also a structural barrier that reinforces both segregation and the growing gaps in our society. Discrimination limits the opportunities for individuals to contribute and develop, and it also limits our society's potential to grow and hold together.

If we are to succeed in breaking segregation, it also requires that we tackle the problem of discrimination at all levels of the labor market, in schools, and in our residential areas. It is there that we can build a foundation for a society characterized by justice, cohesion, and faith in the future.

Madam Speaker! As Olof Palme once said: Politics is about giving people hope. This is what we Social Democrats stand for, namely to create a society where no one is held back and no one is left behind. We cannot accept that a zip code determines a person's future. Segregation is the result of political decisions, and for that very reason, it can also be broken. It requires courage, investments, and an unwavering belief that all people, if given the chance, can contribute to a stronger and more cohesive society.

Madam Speaker! My journey from Fittja to the Riksdag has taught me what is possible when people are given the right conditions to succeed. But it has also shown me what happens when we as a society fail – when segregation is allowed to grow and the gaps are allowed to deepen.

History has time and again shown that the greatest progress occurs when we dare to believe in one another, when we build bridges instead of walls, and when we create a society where everyone gets the chance to succeed. It is precisely this society we Social Democrats strive for - a society built on cohesion, justice, faith in the future, solidarity, and equality.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! In the budget, the Social Democrats have a deviating item of 92 million kronor, which is to be used to prevent young criminals from becoming part of gang crime. That is good. But what do the Social Democrats believe will be achieved with those 92 million kronor? What is it that is supposed to happen? Otherwise, the Social Democrats seem completely satisfied with the government's budget since it is the only budget item that deviates.

The Speaker speaks in his address about how political decisions have led to segregation. This is highly interesting because the Social Democrats governed Sweden for eight years. The Social Democrat-led government had no solutions to the issues. On the contrary, segregation and division increased. Regarding potential coalition partners for the next election, the outlook is that if the Social Democrats were to return to power, it would mean increased immigration to Sweden.

What then is the member's and his party's solution to this? What is it that has changed after the Social Democrats took a position in government and were able to make a change? You ruled Sweden. Why did the Social Democrats not make the political decisions that were needed to make the changes? What has changed until now?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

It seems that the member has gotten stuck on a budget item in a budget that concerns several billion. The Social Democrats' starting point in the discussion is clear, namely that we invest in an active labor market policy, adult education, housing construction, the school, and so on. There is a clear direction from the Social Democrats' side for how we should build the egalitarian society, break down exclusion, and break down segregation.

During the years when we in the Social Democrats were in power, we invested enormously in establishment measures in the labor market, fast tracks for newcomers, establishment jobs, and language requirements. We conducted a review of the social orientation and targeted investments at women. We strengthened the AKAS (Establishment Allowance), invested in vocational training, and invested in housing policy.

We now want to abolish the law on own housing, which the Sweden Democrats have so far not said they want to abolish. We also want to invest in housing construction, renovation of residential areas, infrastructure, and municipal summer jobs. The list is long of what the Social Democrats did during their eight years and what the Social Democrats want to do moving forward.

It is interesting that the Sweden Democrats, which is a party that chooses tax cuts for the richest instead of investing in welfare, say that the Social Democrats do not have a policy to break segregation. If one looks at the Sweden Democrats' proposals and their budget, one can state that they do everything to fuel segregation and prejudice in our society. They do not have a budget that implies one can curb segregation in order to ensure increased establishment and integration in the labor market.

I wonder how the cuts that the Sweden Democrats stand for will contribute to an effective integration policy, especially in areas like the one the member mentioned in her speech that she comes from. How are we to break the segregation, and how are we to strengthen integration if it is the case that SD has no policy for it?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Serkan Köse, for your contribution!

It can be stated that it was precisely the opposite when the Social Democrats had the chance to make changes and govern Sweden to achieve community instead of segregation. The Social Democrats ensured that we got increased division and increased segregation. What I can see, based on what the member presents here, is that there are still no solutions to that. The member's party will, of course, be forced to cooperate with other parties, and then the Social Democrats will not be able to implement the issues that the member puts forward here. The other parties all want to increase immigration, and quite significantly as well.

I return to the fact that segregation, as the member said, is due to political decisions. I want to ask again why the member's party, the Socialdemokraterna, did not make the decisions that were needed to stop the fragmentation and stop the segregation when they had the chance to do so. You ruled Sweden! Socialdemokraterna are highly responsible for the way Sweden looks today. Socialdemokraterna did not have the solutions.

If we see Västerås and Bäckby as a mirror of how the Social Democrats govern, it is an illustrative picture. The Social Democrats are doing nothing about the underlying problems. They try other ways, such as for example building away the problems, but that simply doesn't work.

Why do the Social Democrats not want to do anything about the underlying problems? Why can one imagine governing with the old communist party and increasing immigration to Sweden?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if we should dive deep into the parties' history; perhaps we can leave that for another time and another discussion.

What is interesting is that the member repeatedly says that the Social Democrats did not have a policy and do not have a policy. That is simply not true. When we Social Democrats were in government, we presented a long-term reform for the years 2017-2025 to reduce segregation. We allocated half a billion per year to break the segregation. In the action plan, we had concrete measures for how we were to tackle segregation. It concerned everything from safety on our streets and squares to how we were to equip our residential areas and strengthen the school, welfare, and labor market policy.

What the SD did when the SD got the opportunity was to remove these resources and throw the strategy in the trash. What do the Sweden Democrats have on the table today to break the segregation? We had a plan - a long-term reform plan - to tackle the segregation and strengthen integration.

My question back is: Do the Sweden Democrats even believe in integration? The member does not even want to call it integration. How do the Sweden Democrats want to combat segregation? Is there a plan?

We have presented long-term reform plans that extend five to ten years forward and allocated half a billion per year to break this. My question is: Do the Sweden Democrats have such a policy? The answer is no. They lower the tax for the richest instead of investing in the school, the healthcare, the elderly care, the welfare and the housing construction and on strengthening the rental housing.

It is the difference between the Sverigedemokraterna's policy and social democratic policy. We believe in the people, but the Sverigedemokraterna do not believe in the people. We believe that we can create cohesion, but the Sverigedemokraterna live on division.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Honored members! I would first like to express my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Here in the chamber, all eight parties position themselves based on their own policies. Here in, one is supposed to stand and use fine words. One is supposed to be perceived as politically correct. I intended to be a bit like the Swedish people, whom we represent, and sound like it sounds at the kitchen table.

Here you hear that every person who comes to Sweden wants to work. That is not true. There are many who want to work, but there are also those who do not want to work. I can only look at my own relatives. I have a large family that does not just consist of one cousin, one aunt or a paternal aunt. It is a very large family, where there are those who work hard and also those who have actually exploited our welfare system in very many different ways.

There are, and have been, very clear incentives that it is not worth going to work. Why should I work 160 hours a month if it makes a difference of 500 kronor in the wallet?

We can take my mother as an example. She is one of those people who, similar to how MP Serkan Köse described his parents, worked hard. She got stuck in the Arbetsförmedlingen's efforts and measures in the 90s. She speaks nine languages and has an academic education, but that was how Sweden looked. Today, it is much simpler to get a job in Sweden than it was in the 90s.

My mother didn't know any better. She had no contacts, but she learned the language. She worked as a caretaker and worked extra as a nursing assistant and at a nursing home. She worked hard, but when she retired four years ago and saw her pension statement, she asked herself if it had been worth trying to work the back and body to death. She has friends who have 300-400 kronor less in pension but who have hardly worked a single hour in this country. That is how it looks.

Let's be honest! It is very nice to stand here in the chamber and talk about human rights, the Geneva Convention that we signed in 1951 and the additional protocol from 1967 - but how does it look out there for ordinary people?

Madam Speaker! The era of the requirement-free Sweden is over. Real integration policy is about ensuring that those who want to integrate can integrate, and that there must be consequences from day one for those who do not want to integrate – day one! We have such large diasporas in Sweden that many immigrants who come to Sweden feel that it is optional whether one wants to integrate or not.

I can take another example. At a Christmas buffet two weeks ago, I spoke with an old friend who is Arabic-speaking – I am not going to point out any ethnicity, but we are talking about a major language. He grew up in Skärholmen, and I asked him why he moved away from there. He answered that he does not want his children to speak Arabic in school. There are so many Arabic speakers in the area that more Arabic is spoken than Swedish wherever they go in Skärholmens center or in the school. But it is the Swedish language that we learn in the Swedish school.

There is nothing wrong with learning one's mother tongue, but if one does not learn the language they are to learn and conduct their knowledge acquisition in, it is clear that the students will sit as question marks in the classrooms. It goes without saying that they will not be able to seek the education they want, and it goes without saying that they will not be available to the labor market.

Integration in Sweden has been a fine word for a group of academics, who can write very fine texts in official Swedish to beat their chests with. The result we see in our suburbs, where we see second-generation immigrants who hardly speak the language. In addition, there is a gangster rap and gangster culture that sucks them in via social media. Then everyone scratches their heads and thinks: "I have a budget that I have to present once a year. I'll invest a little in a column - it will sound great, so then I can trick the Swedish people into thinking it will be great." No! This is how we have proceeded for 30 years.

Madam Speaker! This is over. It is no longer racism to demand knowledge of the Swedish language. It is a duty to learn. If you want to become a part of Sweden, you shall learn to speak Swedish, period. It has nothing to do with racism, but rather it is about us being able to understand one another.

We are therefore setting requirements for language skills, for example, a passed knowledge test in SFI. You should not be able to go to the classroom and just sit there, get attendance and go home and collect benefits; you must learn the Swedish language. There must be a time limit - a deadline.

Language school for the children is doing them a service. We compensate for the language deficit they experience at home.

Requirements for self-sufficiency for permanent residence permit and Swedish citizenship mean that you must be able to support yourself and your own family.

Qualification for welfare is about the fact that you should not have the same right to welfare on day one as the taxpayer who has paid into the collective insurance year after year.

With tightened requirements on family immigration, we say: If you want to bring a relative here, you, not your neighbor, must be able to support the person. It is not my neighbor who has asked me to bring someone here from another country. It is actually a decision I make myself. If I have now formed a family abroad, or if I have come here first and have a family back home, I must be able to support them.

The contribution ceiling means that it should always pay off more to work. One should not be able to sit there and do the math. People are not stupid; everyone has a calculator in their phone, and every person is concerned with their own interests. Therefore, it must be clear that the person who works should know that it is worth going to work and that it is worth learning the language. It is difficult during the first few years, but in five or six years, I will have come much further than the person who did nothing.

We need repatriation. Sweden has had voluntary repatriation; the only thing we have done now is to increase the amount. It sounds here as if every single person who has come to Sweden is thriving here. That is not the case. Start socializing with more immigrants! Start talking to them! Do not just go on a site visit where you take a photo and feel that you have taken part in the real society. There are many who do not thrive in Sweden. They may have come here because the whole family has left the home country and they have no one.

Significantly reduced immigration is necessary. There is talk about reducing segregation - yes, but then we must also reduce the inflow. Imagine being that teacher who works in the suburbs. Year after year, students who cannot speak the language flow in. It is not just one student per year. It is said that resources must increase - yes, we must increase resources and set higher demands in school. We must get rid of the racism of low expectations. But we must also reduce the inflow to give those who are actually integrating a chance. It is always those who are left behind.

Madam Speaker! I shall conclude, but I am exceeding my declared speaking time slightly.

We talk about integration, but we must also dare to talk about the tolerance for receiving moving forward. What has been done here in the chamber is to turn a deaf ear. Political deadlocks have been allowed to rule. This applies particularly to the Social Democrats, who in the Social Insurance Committee's debates hardly take the floor. They let everything the government puts forward slide through, which is positive.

However, a day will come in two years when Vänsterpartiet wants increased quota refugees. All credit to Vänsterpartiet; they have not changed their position when it comes to immigration. The same applies to Miljöpartiet; they stand for what they believe and fight for what they believe. What they have promised their voters, they push for in this chamber. What Centerpartiet wants, one does not know; they probably want to slaughter half the budget. In this committee, they talk about more state measures, but in the finance committee, they want to basically halve the budget. It is neoliberalism with socialism.

Then we have the Social Democrats, who are a power party and are to make the policies of these three parties come together.

Madam Speaker! It will be an interesting election campaign. What we do from the Tidö parties, however, is to put Sweden first.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for an inspiring speech.

I must begin by expressing my regrets regarding the tedious family relationship - it sounds like the member has work to do on the home front.

I also must make a correction regarding what was said about family immigration and so on. There is already a maintenance requirement today, so I do not think the member should pretend that it is someone's neighbor who is paying for people to come here and so on.

Integration shall be improved through the work line, the government argues in the report we are debating today. But at the Ministry of Employment, the leisure line seems to prevail. One leaves unemployment completely without measures. A prerequisite for the work line one wants must still be, I don't know – work? The starting point must surely be that there are jobs.

It is not entirely easy to make the math or the government's integration policy add up. In what way do you want to improve integration when you spend billions on proposals such as return migration grants, which lead to deterioration of long-term integration? You increase the economic gaps, leave the welfare system behind, and let unemployment spiral out of control.

Therefore, I must ask three questions to the member here. In what way does integration improve from large tax cuts for the very richest? In what way does integration improve from letting unemployment stand without measures? In what way does integration improve from rolling out cuts across the entire country?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! The Left Party is not exactly the party that is best at economics. If the economy is doing well and we have growth, it also creates jobs. It is not the case that the state can just make up a lot of jobs. History shows that; there are many other countries that have done so.

During the previous parliamentary term, they tore apart our electricity grid and created sky-high electricity prices, and they increased the reduction obligation. Decommissioned nuclear power and increased fuel prices led to increased interest rates. It was these three factors that led to double-digit inflation. In two years, the government has managed the Swedish inflation, and now it is below 2 percent. It is quick to tear down a house, but it takes a very long time to build it up again.

When the economy is doing well and those who work get more money in their pockets, jobs are also created, as companies are doing well. Yes, unemployment is high today, but it is necessary to turn the economy around. When you turn the economy around and ensure that those who work get more money in their pockets, you get an increased demand. When demand increases, the employers will also need to increase their staff by one or two people, and it will be just those two people who do not have a job to go to. Then they will get a job to go to.

That is how you solve unemployment, not by standing here in the chamber and sending more money to Arbetsförmedlingen. You do not solve unemployment by hoping that a labor officer has made a phone call to a business owner and that the business owner has said: "Yes, we can probably take someone in." It is not possible.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I asked three concrete questions but had limited success in getting answers. The member stands here and talks about something completely different from the three questions I asked.

I do not understand how one turns around the economy by offering the very richest in society tax cuts.

We have tried some of the economy the member is talking about. It has given us a welfare of starvation and people who are left behind. Quite honestly, we aren't exactly flooded with jobs, are we? We have record-high unemployment, and the member here leaves it completely without any measures.

I do not know if it will get better if I simply repeat my questions to the member and hope for a bit more success with the answers. In what way does integration improve from large tax cuts for the very richest? In what way does integration improve from letting unemployment be without measures? And in what way does integration improve from rolling out cuts across the entire country?

I would very much like to have answers to these questions without the member mixing in electricity prices and other things. Answer these questions concretely! Someone from the government should be able to do that.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very rhetorical to say that we are lowering taxes for the very richest. Would more jobs be created if we were to raise taxes for the very richest?

It is not the very richest that we are lowering taxes for, but we are lowering taxes broadly. We are lowering taxes for those who work - for those who are involved in financing the welfare. Member Tony Haddou knows this very well. Most regions in Sweden are governed, among other things, by Tony Haddou's party. We can see how it goes here in Stockholm - a massacre of healthcare and a massacre of public transport is taking place. It is easy to raise taxes. No cost control was needed. This is exactly what the Left's policy is about.

To Tony Haddou, it sounds like Sweden is a low-tax country. I want to remind him that Sweden, despite the fact that we have lowered taxes, is one of the countries where people pay the highest taxes. If you want to get people into work, it must pay to work. If you want to finance the welfare, you must first have people who go to work, do the job, pay taxes, and can support themselves so that households do not go to their knees. Only then can you finance the welfare.

Welfare must also have cost control. With Tony Haddous's policy - with increased immigration and more quota refugees - segregation will increase. I want to ask the members: Why do you have a policy that rather increases segregation than improves integration?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party received criticism here for not really knowing what one gets from the party, but if there is any party in this chamber - especially among the former Alliance parties - that stands firm on the politics that were our common value base, it is probably still the Centre Party.

Speaking of standing firm and making shifts: If there was anything I loved about Fredrik Reinfeldt's and Anders Borg's economic policy, it was the order and tidiness that prevailed in the finances and that one would invest in what one believed would actually work. I agree with the member that we have major integration and segregation problems in Sweden. In that case, we need to invest in what works.

Something that, on the other hand, is not working is the government's very costly return migration grants, which amount to 2.4 billion over three years. These funds could go towards concrete things that we know work. They could go towards tax cuts for those who are furthest from the labor market or towards investments in jobs, language, and so on. Instead, we invest 350,000 kronor on people returning. Furthermore, information came out last week that one can then regret it, as there is a so-called right of regret in this.

2.4 billion is not in order. The government power has been bought to get the Sweden Democrats' votes here in this chamber.

Why are the Moderaterna wasting 2.4 billion on a return migration grant instead of investing in concrete things that we know work? One could have invested in jobs, lower taxes and language. It is such things that make it possible for more people to become a part of the common Sweden.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Member Jonny Cato is aware that the Alliance no longer exists. The Centre Party placed itself in the broad center and now stands completely alone with its 4-5 percent. One thinks that the conservative side is very good when it comes to the economy but has locked itself into never speaking with the Sweden Democrats. Therefore, one will be forced into an unholy alliance with the Left Party, which one also has a red line against. By virtue of having taken left-wing voters, one will however be forced in that direction.

I am in favor of the return migration grant; that is my personal opinion. I might even think that the amount is too low, but now it is 350,000 kronor that we have agreed upon. It sounds to the member that this is fully activated. We are aware that that wording exists. It only requires that a proposal comes from the Government Offices to this chamber. We have a majority and can close that loophole.

Speaking of the 2.4 billion, my question to Jonny Cato is: What did the refugee immigration to Sweden cost in 2015-2016? Did it cost 200, 300, or 400 billion for the state, the municipalities, and the regions? In here, it did not sound like it was about that much money, but one should just let people come. Then it was important to stand up against racism. Now we have increased the amount of the return grant. The grant for voluntary return was previously 40,000 kronor. We have only increased the amount, but now it is a large cost.

I believe that people who do not adapt to Sweden and do not find Sweden as their home country should be given the opportunity to return to their home country. It will be good for both Sweden, for the individual, and for the individual's family.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I am the first to agree that the Alliance is dead; there is no discussion about this. This is what happens when one chooses to cooperate with right-wing populist forces instead of cooperating broadly in Swedish politics. This may be another discussion, but in 2015 it was actually the Moderates' migration policy that formed the basis for the wave of refugees that arrived. One should probably not throw stones in glass houses.

I am becoming a bit thoughtful. Here, the member of parliament said that 350,000 kronor is too little. What is then appropriate, one might wonder. What do the Moderaterna think the return migration grant should be? Should it be 500,000? Should it be 750,000? Should it be 1 million kronor? Should it be 2 million?

To be honest: Either it works or it doesn't. The investigator concludes that this will not work. It even states that it risks complicating and worsening integration. The Center Party and I personally often receive a great deal of criticism in this chamber for not listening to evidence or investigations and not looking at statistics. In the investigation, it says in black and white that this will not work.

We can stand here and pretend that 2.4 billion is not a lot of money, but it is an incredible amount of money. If one truly believes in order and tidiness in the finances, one should invest this money in things that will work, that will make a difference, and that ensure that people learn the Swedish language and enter into the common society.

I fully agree that we have major challenges with segregation and integration, but one must dare to take them seriously and not come up with one's own truths about what works, but instead listen to those who can do this and to those who have looked into it. I think, in any case, that 2.4 billion kronor is a very large amount of money.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Then I am just curious about what the member Cato has to say about the cost per month for those people who do not integrate, including social assistance, housing allowance, child allowance, dental care, healthcare, SL cards etcetera. The return migration grant is aimed at those who absolutely will not enter our society but who nevertheless constitute an expense for the public month after month.

Let's say that the rent in Stockholm on average is 10,000 kronor a month. To that, we can add child allowance and multi-child supplement for two children. Someone gets a cavity in a tooth. Maybe it results in a visit to the emergency room or medication that one cannot afford to pay for.

It costs, month by month. In that context, 350,000 becomes very little. In addition, all integration measures can be added to AF, or if someone is to go to any citizen center or Rusta och matcha or any municipal labor market measure.

This is a one-time amount that is completely voluntary. We say: If you want to return to your home country, it is up to you. Here you have an offer. You get the opportunity to go back and build a new life.

We can take Syria as an example. This is aimed at quota refugees and those who have temporary or permanent residence permits. We want to see Syria rebuilt. We have Syrian citizens here in Sweden who may want to return. This can be a start for them. But it is voluntary. It is not a police officer who comes and breaks down the door at their home and picks them up and forces them to return.

This is something that individuals and families can seek themselves. I promise you that this will turn out well.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask a question to Member Arin Karapet.

The government shall map immigrants' opinions with the justification that one should identify people who do not have "Swedish values." What Swedish values mean is, however, unclear. There is no unified picture of what they actually are. Underlying this reasoning is the assumption that immigrants have worse values than ethnic Swedes.

Do you, Arin Karapet, believe that immigrants automatically have poorer values and that Swedes have blameless values and opinions?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Was the member not himself for a race register? If I remember correctly, people were to be registered by ethnicity and the like.

Now we are talking about that we should identify what types of values and opinions are coming to Sweden. Yes, I think we should do that. I think we should do that, because we must get a better understanding.

The problem in Sweden is that we ourselves have never defined what integration is. We do not know what integration is. It is a fine word that we have learned within academia. Then we do not know how we are to implement it in reality.

We want to combat honor oppression and honor-related violence. I want to remind the members that in Sweden, we have been on a journey toward equality for a hundred years. I am very proud of that. We have not reached the goal, but women have received the same rights as men.

In other parts of the world, for example the Middle East, women still do not have the same rights as men. If those people come here, they do not automatically become Swedes because they land at terminal 5 at Arlanda. We must know what baggage they come with. What is the view on family? Do they make a distinction between their boys and their girls? What is it like for a child who grows up with a different sexual orientation in this type of family? We must know, because when it is wrong, we must be able to act.

It goes without saying that for someone coming from a country where there has been dictatorship for 10, 20, 30, 40 years to a free and open democratic society, completely different rules of the game apply. Our country is built on the fact that one has respect for one another, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, respect for other religions etcetera. It is clear that we must know what types of values are coming here.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Equality data is a method advocated by the UN and used by many countries. I have never proposed a race registry, I want to emphasize.

Back to the question. Does the member consider opinions and values that compare homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia to be blameless? These are values that have been expressed by members from SD, a party that the Moderates have a cooperation with and which is the entire basis for the government they sit in.

Are Swedish values and opinions beyond reproach? If one wants to address radical opinions, why aren't everyone's values mapped out? Why are immigrants singled out?

Yes, absolutely, if you grow up here, you should have the right to be who you are. I agree with the member. But what do you think, Arin Karapet, about the members of the Sverigedemokraterna who consider homosexuality to be equivalent to bestiality and pedophilia?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the last point here, may I ask: Why does the Green Party want to cooperate with a party whose regional council member masturbated in front of ten-year-old children? That is not what this debate should be about – that everything is relativized.

Madam Speaker! Both I and Member Leila Ali Elmi have parents who have come to Sweden. Sweden has opened its arms and said: Here you can have a better future. Then it is actually Swedish rules and values that apply. If I come to your home, I cannot behave as I do in my own home. This relativizing must end – that we are to come to Sweden, we are to receive all welfare benefits, and then we are to tell the Swedes what they should think. If one lives in Sweden and wants to live in Sweden, one must become a part of the Swedish culture.

The Swedes are among the most tolerant people on this planet. A country up here in the north has opened its arms to people from all parts of the world. I am not saying that everything is perfect in Sweden. But tell me a country that is better than this country! Look at this beautiful flag hanging behind us! It must end this idea that Swedes are strange and cold. Yes, we are so far up here in the north, and if you don't like it, well, you just have to bite the bullet.

They want to make it appear as if Sweden is a country in the Middle East, where there is oppression and total dictatorship. That is not true. It is time that we have the attitude that it doesn't matter what religion you have, what you look like, or what your first and last name is – learn the language, pay your taxes, and do your job! Then no one will disturb you, and that is what is beautiful about this flag and the honor of being a member and representing the Swedish people.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It feels like some clarifications need to be made here in the debate because the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates complained about a number of things but also repeated a whole host of errors regarding refugees and so on.

One example is quota refugees. It must be known that this is against the background that over 122 million people are fleeing today. Of them, 72 million are internally displaced, 32 million are under UNHCR's mandate and 6 million are under UNRWA's mandate. 5 million are stateless. 8 million of all these 122 million are asylum seekers.

Almost none of these asylum seekers are seeking asylum in Sweden. This year it is barely 5,000, and very many of these are in their second or third asylum process. Almost no one is coming here, so I would say that this government perhaps should tone it down a bit in the debate regarding quota refugees and give a different picture of what reality looks like.

In this, one can, as the Tidögänget here, kick at quota refugees. It shocks me, I must say. Quota refugees are, therefore, the world's most vulnerable and most marginalized refugees, and so one throws oneself over them.

This government reduced the number of quota refugees from 5,000 to 900. And do you know what? They then didn't even accept 900 but around 500, and they complained about that.

There are alternatives for a Swedish government when the world looks the way it does and one can actually create legal pathways and have an organized reception. But the government does not choose the alternative of taking care of the most vulnerable. They choose to kick just that group. It says everything about this government.

In this debate, we have not only heard a strong hatred towards refugees, who are the most vulnerable, but also towards the poor. The class differences become clear with this government.

There are other countries that do things in a different way. Sweden has historically never benefited from passivity and from hiding away from conflicts in the world and pretending as if nothing is happening. We stand here in Sweden and kick quota refugees. It has never ever served us well to hide away from responsibility.

There are countries that go against the current. One can take Spain as an example. Last month, they decided in their parliament to grant almost 1 million amnesty in the country. They know that those who have been there for more than three years will stay there anyway. They do not want to let people be exploited or live outside the system. It does not serve a country well. But the government we have in Sweden pushes people into undocumented status, increases the gaps, and ensures that people are kept outside the system and exploited. It is the exact opposite of integration.

Vänsterpartiet presents a proposal for amnesty for the unaccompanied minors, which was complained about here by the Moderaterna. We propose that the unaccompanied minors who have been in Sweden for more than one year should be covered by an amnesty. Most of them have, in fact, been here for over ten years. More than eight out of ten have jobs. That is a higher proportion than among Swedish youth! The majority of them also cannot be deported. In that case, it is surely better that they are inside the system than outside?

The government is at a dead end, and it shows by the fact that they can no longer kick out these groups. The only thing they are doing is deportation through a system they do not know how it is supposed to work and kicking out the most vulnerable: the quota refugees. It is not dignified at all.

I heard, especially initially, in the debate that the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates have totally crashed when it comes to defending this economic policy. They said that people should adapt. But the biggest integration obstacle we have in Sweden is indeed the government and the Sweden Democrats.

I must also comment on the Sweden Democrats' remarks about adaptation according to one's own yardstick. It is fundamentally racism. It is a life-threatening path when Members of Parliament with that background express themselves this way in the chamber. We know what that racism has historically led to. The Sweden Democrats have also repeatedly pointed to other parties' history in the debate. Could it simply be because your history is not history?

Arin Karapet has indeed left the chamber now, but he said clearly and distinctly that he is in favor of – and wants to increase – the return migration grant, while others cannot even explain it. It is very exciting, I think. The Migration Minister himself was in Aktuellt without being able to explain this. In the migration policy debate here, he also could not explain this return migration grant. Nor have experts been able to explain how it is supposed to work and who is to be covered. Spending many billions on something that does not work, I call an economic crash. It is not exactly order and tidiness.

Madam Speaker! It is halfway through now. After two years in power, the priorities of the government and the Sweden Democrats are clear. Instead of making things easier for households, healthcare, schools, or elderly care, they are investing in tax cuts for the very wealthiest.

I note that the government is failing, point by point, to handle serious societal problems. Large groups seem to be invisible when the parties included in the government base completely ignore the problems affecting those who find it difficult to make their everyday finances work. With the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas budget, inequality increases. The growing unemployment is left without measures, and the climate transition is put on hold. Furthermore, they are rolling out large cuts within the welfare system and across the entire country.

In the Left Party's budget proposal, there is instead a policy that addresses social problems and protects those who are in the worst position. We prioritize a powerful increase of resources to the core of the welfare system in the form of healthcare, school, and childcare and elderly care. We strengthen household finances, reduce costs in public transport, and ensure that unemployment benefits and social insurance are increased.

The rich, who have much higher incomes than others, must actually start contributing more. How can we call ourselves a welfare state if people cannot afford food and rent or even medicine? You are turning a blind eye to the increased cost of living and the economic inequality.

What the government is busy with is tax cuts for the very richest. You claim that it creates jobs. That has been tried for over 30 years, and the only thing it has led to is a welfare on starvation rations and that people are left behind.

To be honest, we are not overwhelmed by work. On the contrary, unemployment is at a record high, and it is left without action by this government. It is precisely for that reason that they repeatedly need to pursue a scapegoat policy. It is an ill-considered signal policy that only harms the cohesion in Sweden.

The part of the budget that we are debating today concerns integration. It is clear and obvious that the government is worsening and deepening the social and economic gaps between people. Instead of acting or even commenting on the record-high unemployment, the alarming forecasts for the welfare system, or the ever-increasing cost of living, the government chooses to spend billions on tax cuts for the very richest.

The Sweden Democrats' prioritized billion-kronor investment, in addition to the tax cuts, is a return migration subsidy that their own investigator completely slams and argues damages integration, is counterproductive and meaningless. But that is how it is when the Sweden Democrats negotiate the budget. Then welfare takes a backseat in favor of ill-considered billion-kronor handouts where money is thrown into the sea just so people in Sweden should feel unwanted. At the same time, the Sweden Democrats roll out cuts across the entire country.

Households and families with children are to be sidelined even though the cost of living is only increasing. Investments are to be sidelined in a time when unemployment is at a record high, and the construction industry is allowed to crash. It would not be an exaggeration to say that during the Sweden Democrats' budget negotiations, welfare, healthcare, unemployment, and construction enter into a full-scale crisis. It is because the Sweden Democrats have chosen to pour money over those who earn the most: the Moderates' core voters.

Large tax cuts for the very richest are paid for with large cuts all over the country and by people having to step back. It is not only inefficient and unfair but directly harmful. It reinforces and deepens the major societal problems Sweden faces. One can only conclude that the government and Sverigedemokraterna have a very strong policy for what is called segregation, if the committee ever considers changing the name of this debate in the future.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party will never accept the right-wing policies that increase the gaps between people. We know that the best societies are built equitably and with reduced economic disparities. The key to success for Sweden has never been cuts, lower wages, worse conditions, or privatizations. Our strength has historically been to invest in society and in each other – in welfare, education, housing, health, and equality. That is how Sweden develops and grows. Our entire modern history has proven this. Previous generations received better education and better jobs while our numbers increased. That was possible thanks to long-term, profitable investments.

The conditions for upbringing are also a clear example of this and of what the government is busy with. Once upon a time, Swedish school was known for being the world's most equal school. As the market experiments in the welfare state have advanced and democratic governance has been transformed into market governance, society has changed. Students have become customers, schools have become markets, and education has become a commodity in the Swedish market experiment.

The result is among the world's deepest school segregation. It is a market system that should be abolished so that the Swedish school can once again become one of the world's best, which is also supported by a majority of the Swedish people. But this government has no ambitions whatsoever to rectify these experiments that worsen and deepen the gaps in society.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I am convinced that we must build a more spacious and stronger Sweden by investing in society and in the people in it. It is the most important and effective integration engine we have. We have historically proven that it is fully possible to invest in general welfare, reduce economic inequalities, and offer secure jobs.

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

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats support the government's policy, and I want to begin by moving for approval of the proposal in the committee report.

We need to jointly build a society where everyone is given the prerequisites to participate and contribute. Every human being has an irreplaceable value and is a crucial piece of a strong, functioning society. Sweden needs to hold together. In this, the work against exclusion and norms that do not give girls and women the same opportunities as boys and men is highly prioritized.

Today we are debating the government's budget proposal for 2025 on integration and equality. These are areas that are particularly close to the hearts of us Kristdemokrater. I will touch upon both areas in my speech, as it is not possible to sign up twice on the speaking list. In my speech, I want to highlight some of the concrete measures that the budget enables, as well as the Kristdemokraternas values that can deepen this work.

Madam Speaker! About a week and a half ago, I had the privilege of meeting the organization Kvinna till Kvinna here in the Riksdag together with some fantastic girls - I can probably call them that, as they were younger than I - or women who are attending a leadership training. I also had the privilege of showing them around our fantastic Riksdag building after our meeting.

It was incredibly inspiring and at the same time a bit sad to meet these women. For example, one girl told me that she received her license as a social worker in May, but that, depending on her name and background, it has been difficult to get a job. This is rooted in both visible and hidden prejudices. We know that there is a shortage of people within this professional category. Still, she cannot get a job. Is that how it should be in Sweden in 2024?

Here, all of us parties in the Riksdag must actually admit that we have failed and that it is now only a matter of working forward for better integration and equality for women with an immigrant background. If we do not continue to work against honor-based oppression and tackle forces that, solely based on gender, want to limit people's freedoms and rights, we will only be standing still.

An idea that was born the day "Woman to Woman" was here in the Riksdag was that women with an immigrant background should be given the opportunity to shadow or practice with us female Members of Parliament for one day next year in connection with International Women's Day on March 8. It now looks like we can resolve this and can plan so that we women in the Riksdag in our turn, before International Women's Day, can have a woman walking by our side for a day. I believe it can become a clear manifestation; we let women with an immigrant background take a larger and clearer place in our society and give them an opportunity to integrate into work and into the community.

Madam Speaker! What has the government done, and what further does the government propose should be done in the upcoming budget?

In the area of equality, the budget prioritizes initiatives to reduce women's economic vulnerability, particularly measures so that more women can leave insecure employment and transition to stable jobs. This is something that we as a party support wholeheartedly.

When it comes to the area of integration, resources are allocated in the budget to strengthen newcomers' language learning and employability. Investments are made, among other things, in more SFI locations and in a new, flexible establishment program with the possibility to extend the measures up to five years for those who need it. We Kristdemokrater view this positively, because we believe that a good start in Sweden begins with the language and that it is an important and decisive path into the working life.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, I want to highlight the family's central role in promoting equality and integration. Kristdemokraterna sees the family as the cornerstone of society and argues that a secure family environment is crucial for both men and women, but also for children, to be able to flourish.

We advocate, for example, for flexible parental leave and increased support for families, so that one can combine work and care. We believe that a strong family policy also strengthens integration. Families with an immigrant background who feel secure in their economic and social situation have better conditions to participate actively in society. And that contributes to a faster establishment for both adults and children. Then we will be able to achieve real integration. That, in turn, is vital for us to reach other goals, such as reduced exclusion and increased equality in our vulnerable areas.

Madam Speaker! In summary, the budget for 2025 contains several promising initiatives. But we Christian Democrats also see that the policy needs to be combined with a clearer set of values. It is about encouraging responsibility and empowerment while we provide support where it is needed.

By combining our policies for integration, equality, and family, we can create a Sweden where everyone has the opportunity to grow, contribute, and feel at home. We do this best together for a stronger society.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I am very happy that Camilla Rinaldo Miller brought up the meeting with Kvinna till Kvinna, which I also participated in. It is fantastic to see young women who are incredibly enterprising, even though many look at them and only see a woman with a Somali or Ethiopian background with a veil. That is usually what is the problem, and they took up exactly that with us.

We heard from the women that it never matters that they always have a higher educational background and furthermore are always incredibly eager to perform more - not just more than men but also more than Swedish women.

Therefore, it is incredibly important that in our debates, when we talk about integration, we ensure that the structural segregation that always decides who can and is allowed to succeed does not take hold here.

These women should not have to think: "Oh, I got the job. That means my friend Sara cannot get any job because we have filled the quota for women wearing headscarves." It is roughly like how I sometimes feel that others think: "Great, now we have Ciczie here. Then we have a worker. We don't need any more than that."

How will the Christian Democrats and the government, through their policies, ensure that all women and men and boys and girls, but above all these super-driven, fantastic women, are given the opportunity to succeed and be able to show the way for other women so that we break the segregation and integration problems?

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ciczie Weidby for the contribution and the question. I agree that we had a fantastic time together with those girls.

When one sees highly educated women who have truly strived to enter society, one becomes incredibly happy. One feels a hope that we are now on the right path. At the same time, it is exactly as I said in my speech that one can feel an immense sorrow when someone says: "I applied for the job but didn't get it, and I know it was because of my name and my background."

Here we must, above all, work clearly with both visible and hidden prejudices, something I also touched upon earlier. What is it that makes these women not receive any positions despite having the right competence? It cannot be that prejudices are allowed to be the basis for whether someone receives an employment certificate or not.

Since the government is allocating extra money to equality work, I see that we are on our way to being able to get closer to the goal of removing obstacles, dismantling prejudices, and coming closer to one another. Next time this woman applies for a position as a social secretary, she shall therefore be able to be selected first based on the fact that she has the right competence and education and has the opportunity to contribute.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! "Enter into society," said the member. But these girls are born in Sweden. They have not been in any other society than the Swedish one. We must look at the rhetoric so that we do not, through it, confirm that they should stay outside of society. It is not about some other society, but it is the same society that you and I live in and which they are born into.

These girls also had several concrete proposals on how to tackle this. For example, one could have de-identified job applications. That would mean a great deal, and through that, one could truly read what competence a person has, regardless of gender and other factors.

Another member previously raised a similar issue that the girls had also raised. It concerned racial profiling in connection with equality data. If one does not measure discrimination, one also cannot demonstrate where it exists and do something about it.

I have also read under expenditure area 13 in the government's proposition that data is quite often missing to be able to address certain problems. If one wants to know the answer to several of these questions and find good solutions, one must make a bit of an effort, obtain statistics and ask the questions that are required.

I actually had a lot of other questions about family policy and how the Christian Democrats' family policy promotes equal distribution, but we can take that another time.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! It was a pity that the member did not have time to ask them, for I would have liked to answer those.

When the girls were here, we were just talking about this. At one point this spring, I met a company started by some guys with an immigrant background who had attended KTH. They had experienced exactly the same thing. They had attended fine educations and were highly qualified, but when they sent in a job application, they were filtered out because of name and background. They had therefore started a company where job applications are de-identified so that people will have the opportunity to get further in the hiring process, and suddenly opportunities had opened up.

I think this is very exciting, but I would have wished that it hadn't been necessary so that one could get a permanent position regardless of name, how one looks or background. Everything should depend on the competence one has, what education one has or what one has worked with before.

Equality data is also very important. We often raised this when we debated the gender identity law. For us, it is incredibly important that one can also see differences between men and women in equality data, otherwise it becomes difficult to follow up on the statistics.

This is also very important. If women with an immigrant background are affected to an even greater extent than how these men experienced it, we must have good data to address the problems. In this case, we are therefore in complete agreement.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to speak a little bit about men's violence against women. I do not think the member focused specifically on it in his speech, but I know that we both work to put an end to the eternal pandemic that men's violence against women constitutes. It causes an incredibly great amount of suffering but also great costs for society.

The persecuted women are often asked: "Why don't you leave him?" It becomes a pure double punishment. Aside from being a victim, one receives a question that makes the blame be placed on oneself. Instead of asking "Why don't you leave?", we should ask the man "Why do you hit?"

Igor was a project that worked in a fantastic way to get women to leave their relationship. Igor was driven by police units in southern Stockholm in a collaboration between police, social services, housing agencies, healthcare, and others with the aim that the woman, when she for the second, third, fifth, or tenth time dared to leave the man and actually did so, would receive concrete, rapid, important, and effective support.

The Igor project was shut down. No one really knows why, but it was a big, big loss for this work. Therefore, I was very happy this summer when the government announced during a press conference that they would start a leaving program - for me, the Igor project was precisely a leaving program - which would focus on getting women living in violent relationships to leave them.

When I read the budget now, I find it very difficult to identify in what way the government is going to work with this decommissioning program and how it is to be financed. It is simply this that I want to ask the member about. How is the decommissioning program to be implemented and financed?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Vilhelmsson for the question.

This is yet another sorrow. If I spoke of sorrow before, this is an even greater sorrow. Violence in close relationships is something we must work intensively on together to stop. It cannot be said that it is okay if someone is beaten. That is why we have said that we have zero tolerance for all violence in close relationships.

We know that there is a dark figure when it comes to violence by women against men, but we also know that women are more exposed than men.

That is why this government has invested extra much specifically when it comes to men's violence against women. More funds have been allocated than for any other area to, within the gender equality policy area, invest in civil society organizations so that they can continue their work, but also in what is called the "lämnaprogrammet" (the "leave" program).

I will not go into detail on how it will be implemented. What I know is that there is now a clear position - that one is on the victim's side. The victim shall have the right to a protected residence or be able to stay. It is the one who strikes who should find it difficult, not the one who is vulnerable and is being hit.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

It often sounds like this government is doing extra much to invest in ensuring that women living in violent relationships can end them and so on. But, again, I have difficulty finding the specific investments in the budget.

It is a fact today that women who are forced to leave a violent relationship themselves must bear the cost of a new apartment, moving costs, new subscriptions for themselves and the children, new insurance for the home and so on. How can it be so? Why should they pay for these costs, which they have not caused?

This is what I wonder, especially in light of the fact that there is an exit program with money for men who leave criminal environments. There, one receives support for all of this.

This is very much at odds with the member and the government always saying they stand on the victim's side.

The truth is that when the budget arrived, we searched high and low for an exit program containing an exit payment. The Centre Party has proposed an exit payment for many years. It is exactly what is needed and exactly what men receive when they leave criminal environments in an exit program. Why does the government not have an exit payment in its exit program? What is actually new about the government's exit program?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Member, for wanting clearer answers regarding this!

When it comes to the victims and the cost that the person who has been subjected to [the crime] has to bear, I say: This is nothing that this government has dumped on the person who is subjected to it, but unfortunately it has been that way previously as well. What this government is now trying to do is to in some way restore the order so that the victim is primarily the one who is protected and who should feel safe.

It is easy to say: No, but we shall let the one who has committed the assault move away, and the one who has been subjected to violence shall be allowed to stay – this is so that one does not have to pull the children out, move, and start over somewhere else. Once one has started over and settled in, one might be found by their former partner, who starts over again. Then one must move away again. It should be safer. It is about being able to stay for the children's sake and for one's own sake, and about the perpetrator simply having to move away.

We have a Minister for Equality who truly takes these issues seriously. Even if it is not stated in detail in the budget bill or in the committee report, I promise you that she will ensure that the work on a compensation program will not disappear anywhere. When we say that we stand on the side of the victim, we really mean it, and we will continue.

I promise the member this. The member can look forward and see that the government has made a reality of what has been said about standing on the victim's side.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Everyone who strives, regardless of background, should be able to succeed in life. This is not only crucial for the individual but also for Sweden's future. There are no advantages whatsoever to a divided society. A divided society is a weakened society, which hinders growth and competitiveness. It also makes us vulnerable to external threats. A large economic exclusion contributes to the division, hinders small and large companies from growing, and is costly for our society.

When other political parties see certain people as a burden, we as members of the Centre Party have the fundamental view that the human being is an asset to society. Everyone can and shall contribute in some way. That all people find their future benefits growth and lifts Sweden as a country. But it is also a matter of the heart for us as liberals that everyone should be free and have the opportunity to live the life they themselves want to live.

Regardless of zip code, socioeconomic conditions, and upbringing, everyone should be given a chance to become their best self. Sweden has been built by people who, through education and hard work, and through freedom and entrepreneurship, have taken the chance to create for themselves and for others.

For the Center Party, a life journey means that one can choose the life one wants to live and that one has the prerequisites to live that life, that one is not forced onto a pre-determined path but can be involved in shaping one's own journey. It is about freedom but also about tools.

Everyone should receive the right tools to be able to get where they want in life regardless of background. Parents' education level, a disability or diagnosis, even one's zip code or prejudices in society should not determine what is possible and impossible.

It does not matter whether you grew up in Botkyrka, Tjärna Ängar, Finspång or Vellinge. The task of politics is to give everyone a chance and to give the individual the freedom to take responsibility for their life and their life's journey.

Some succeed despite all the obstacles that politics has set up, but it is far too difficult.

For some groups in society, it is more difficult to make this type of life journey. The step into the labor market is statistically largest for foreign-born women and young men. Here, unfortunately, Sweden stands out negatively compared to many other countries. Among young men, a short educational background is a decisive reason. There is also a noticeably high proportion of young men in rural areas who are unemployed compared to young men in large cities. Sweden still has large social and regional gaps.

For many foreign-born people, a failed integration is a root cause of why they do not succeed in creating a better life for themselves and their families. Often, the requirements are not sharp enough or the opportunities are not good enough. It can almost feel impossible to achieve a place on the Swedish labor market, despite hard work.

In some cases, the incentives to take the first job are also not large enough. Instead of tough requirements and great opportunities, foreign-born individuals are offered low-intensity language training, subsidies, and a ticket to a few entry-level jobs. Many manage to get past the feeling of not being needed by fighting their way through sought-after education or starting their own small businesses, but it is not obvious for either the foreign-born or the native-born.

This is, of course, an enormous waste. When integration succeeds, immigration is good for both Sweden and the person who comes here, but when integration fails, it leads to major problems.

We can observe that the lack of functioning integration efforts over the recent decades - regardless of government - in combination with a large immigration, has contributed to an exclusion and a parallel society, which has created short-term and long-term societal challenges.

Risk of increased crime, mental illness, substance abuse, insecurity, and a breeding ground for religious fundamentalism and oppression are some of the most serious consequences. A lack of understanding of the Swedish authorities' mandate and work also hinders integration efforts in itself. It thus risks closing paths to jobs.

At the same time, migration was needed. International exchanges promote innovation and creativity and were needed for growth and prosperity. But they were also needed for cultural exchanges so that one can avoid eating that spettekaka and eat baklava instead.

Everyone who comes to Sweden shall be met with openness and clarity about what society expects of each individual, and what each individual can expect from society. Integration has succeeded when the person who has come to Sweden is involved and contributes through employment.

It requires will and drive from the individual, who must be willing to do their part. Sweden has so far failed to set clear requirements that everyone who can work is also expected to work. High demands on the individual must, however, be combined with large investments from the collective, large investments from society, and large investments from politics.

Today, there are far too many people in our country who feel that the Swedish state and Swedish society are not for them, that they are not allowed to be a part of our community regardless of what they do and regardless of how much they strive.

The reasons are many. The political conversation and the debate here in the chamber about exclusion also contribute now to reinforcing both prejudices and the feeling that there is a "us" and a "them". It is influenced by how we treat and talk to each other. But it is also a question of how leading political representatives talk about a part of the Swedish population.

Xenophobia and racism are an obstacle to creating a sense of community, and they risk being passed on to the next generation. A prerequisite for a cohesive society is that there is an openness among people who are already part of the community to include new people.

It is a matter of that who has a job, feels like a part of society, feels trust in the common system and becomes a part of the community. It is a matter of that the common "we" is not about ethnicity or background, but that it is about being involved and contributing.

People move to Sweden for various reasons: for love, for studies, to work, or because they have been forced to flee for their lives. There is a connection between the reason for moving to Sweden and how quickly one enters employment.

Those who have come here to work or study step straight into society and already have employment in Sweden before the move. If one, however, moves here due to war, oppression, or persecution, the primary purpose of the settlement is precisely to obtain protection. Integration and the steps toward the labor market only begin after one has arrived here.

Therefore, it is natural that it takes longer for refugees to enter the labor market than it does for, for example, labor migrants. Today, however, it takes far too long for refugees and their relatives to enter Swedish society, learn the Swedish language, and become a part of the Swedish labor market.

All newly arrived refugees and their relatives aged 20-64 undergo a special integration effort during the first years called the establishment program. How long it takes for refugees or their relatives to enter employment depends largely on educational background.

Of those who have a high school or post-secondary education, approximately half are in work after two to three years. For those who lack a high school education, it takes significantly longer. After 14 years in Sweden, fewer than half have entered the labor market. It is a political failure.

Employment is lowest among foreign-born women. One explanation is that most who immigrate are adults, which means that many have children in connection with their arrival in Sweden. Studies show that it is common for women within this group to take primary responsibility for the home and the children when they are small, and that a long parental leave delays and hinders integration.

Madam Speaker! When the government sees people as a problem, the Center Party sees people as an asset. When the government invests in ineffective measures such as return grants, the Center Party invests in jobs, language, and integration initiatives that enable more people to become a part of the Swedish community.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

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

The more areas of exclusion we have, the worse it is for Sweden. It is bad for social cohesion, it is bad for safety, and it is not least bad and unfair for the children who are forced to grow up in these areas. Overcrowding, crime, and poorly functioning schools give children who have not chosen their surroundings poorer life chances and thus poorer opportunities.

The problem is not new. Already 20 years ago, the Liberals, then Folkpartiet, warned about the lack of integration and the great exclusion. But despite these warnings, society has turned a blind eye to the problem and had an over-reliance on the idea that high benefits and different types of projects could solve the exclusion.

Then it was difficult to get support for language requirements. Today, all political parties talk about the importance of being able to speak the language and making oneself understood in order to be able to take part in the wonderful things our Swedish society offers. But it is also about an understanding of what expectations and requirements come with the offer. Sweden shall welcome you, but you shall also want to welcome Sweden.

A life in exclusion does not only mean insecurity. It is also about children who do not see their parents go to work or children who fall behind in school due to lack of language skills. It gives a skewed picture of rights and obligations in the country.

Focus on the Swedish language is central in the integration work. Other measures are also needed, but then they need to be targeted correctly with resources where the needs are greatest. Then we must dare to identify and address the problems.

Madam Speaker! That is why the Liberals and the government already at the beginning of the mandate period took the initiative to collect more information and statistics on where the needs were greatest in order to subsequently be able to deploy the greatest resources there.

During the autumn, Statistics Sweden and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning presented a compilation of areas where exclusion is particularly great. Already in the early 2020s, the first exclusion map was written by colleagues of mine. But in recent years, we have used facts only regarding economic vulnerability and crime.

It is insufficient. The new mapping is based on statistics. It is school results, labor market establishment, benefit dependency, crime and overcrowding, but also attitudes and democratic participation.

A total of 700,000 people live in these areas, of whom more than 170,000 are under 18 years old. Areas of exclusion are no longer a big city phenomenon; small municipalities such as Perstorp in Skåne or Lessebo in Småland also have an integration debt to deal with.

To reverse the development in these areas, major efforts are required. This is, among other things, about ensuring a good schooling. Therefore, the government is making a special investment to make it attractive to work at the most demanding schools.

The government has also allocated significant resources so that the social services can work side by side with the school with school social teams. With the map of exclusion, the interventions can become more accurate.

It will make a difference with measures such as providing the possibility to extend establishment efforts in connection with parental leave, mandatory language preschool, strengthening civil organizations, extra resources for those who are furthest from the labor market, and giving the municipalities greater responsibility for delivering a good SFI education. But as usual in this speaker's chair, we know that a functioning preschool, primary school, and upper secondary school is the most important integration measure for the future.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries. Nevertheless, we see great differences in a life depending on whether you were born a man or a woman. It is unreasonable and unacceptable. New legislative proposals were absolutely needed to rectify injustices. But the cultural and structural change that is required is harder to legislate.

An equal distribution of power is one of the Riksdag's equality goals. I am thinking of the group of young and successful women from the organization Kvinna till Kvinna who visited me and some of my colleagues here in the Riksdag. Even former members have raised them here in the chamber. They all testified to the difficulties with female role models with a foreign background, both within the business sector and within politics. Politics must, of course, be a good example and not just point fingers at others.

Economic equality is another sub-goal. But it is not just the salary, but also the lifelong income and the distribution between men and women that we must address. Who takes the most parental leave? Who receives a salary after their education? Who receives venture capital for their company? And who runs companies? How do the division of property rules actually strike? Ung Företagsamhet is an important organization in our schools. Their latest report shows that companies run under the Ung Företagsamhet umbrella are completely equal. Knowledge and the ability to take responsibility for one's own economic situation are important parts toward the goal that gender should not determine your economic security.

When it comes to equal education, boys fall behind in school and girls in working life. Girls with foreign origins perform best in school. According to research, the boys' poorer results are due to an anti-study culture, expectations of future opportunities, and the choice of negative patterns such as computer games instead of movement and reading. In the long run, it is devastating that boys and men risk not seeing education as the most important path to a full life in freedom. Here and now, it is upsetting that girls perform best in school subjects. But in working life, there are still differences that favor men simply because they are men. More structure as well as more order and tidiness has been shown to benefit the weakest boys the most. The Liberals' establishment of the knowledge school with safety and study environments is a good start. From screen to binder will also help on the journey towards equal education.

When it comes to equal health, men get injured, and women become burnt out. That is a heavily simplified picture. At the same time, many of us can certainly testify that it is usually the woman who is the home's project manager and who takes responsibility for the school's excursion program, takes responsibility for sick and elderly parents, ensures that the Lucia crown has batteries, and ensures that the Christmas food suits everyone. This resulted last year during the Christmas rush in December in that 79 percent of the stress-related sick leaves were women. Flexible parental leave, focus on the work environment, and an ongoing social debate are parts of a large puzzle that is to make this work.

Men's violence against women must stop. There is nothing that limits a person's freedom as much as violence. To address men's violence against women, we must work on several levels. The government's new action plan with 132 measures focusing on 6 areas is a step in the right direction.

The most important thing to reach the goal is the preventive work - the blow that is never delivered as well as the psychological terror and persecution that never happens. Already in preschool, we must be attentive to gender-stereotypical patterns, and in school, there must be discussions about machoculture and gender roles. When the first blow is delivered, the justice system must take over and give harsh punishments for the perpetrator. I am proud that Sweden has come this far in the work for equality. It has been a hard-fought battle that previous generations of women's rights activists and feminists have driven. 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 once again discuss men's violence against women, when pay gaps due to gender cannot be registered, and when everyone, regardless of place of upbringing, can live their best life, only then can we fall silent.

(Applause)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask two direct questions to Member Camilla Mårtensen.

Do the Liberals, as a liberal party, think that the right to vote should be revoked for certain immigrants, as Ebba Busch has proposed? And how does the member view what that would mean for democracy?

My second question may be simple, but I would like to get a straight answer to it. Are the Liberals prepared to sit in a government together with the Sweden Democrats?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Leila Ali Elmi for the question.

The short answer to the first question is: No, the right to vote shall not be withdrawn for anyone. It would be devastating. That is the position of the Liberals and mine.

Regarding the second question, we have also been clear. We will not be able to sit in a government together with the Sweden Democrats. Our position regarding that is that we have different values and that one must be able to make quick decisions. A government makes decisions daily, and new things arise. One must be able to trust each other's representatives. That is not the case for us.

I have not heard anything else from my party leadership or from my party board, nor from the parliamentary group.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have no closing remarks, I just want to thank Camilla Mårtensen for straight answers.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the direct questions.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless begin by saying that it is tough times to be liberal and to pursue liberal politics, regardless of whether one is a member of the Centre Party or belongs to the Liberals. Unfortunately, there are few other parties in this chamber that see the advantages of a liberal policy. One must probably be honest and say that.

Today we have heard SD make what is, in my opinion, a shift in their rhetoric regarding those born abroad. That is what happens when you give the Sweden Democrats influence. They take further steps. Now they are no longer talking about integration policy, but now they are talking about adaptation policy. From my liberal horizon, I would like to describe it as us having truly hideous opinions from the Sweden Democrats here today.

I was surprised when I was standing there baking Christmas treats this weekend and a flash appeared on Omni where the Liberal Party's party leader opened up for that one must be able to reconsider things and be able to open up for reconsidering that the Sweden Democrats should be part of a government. Then we saw a small poodle a few hours later.

But it is this that many of us have been afraid of, namely that sooner or later a reassessment will occur. This is relevant, Madam Speaker, because this will mean that the Sweden Democrats, just as the member said, every day in the Government Offices will be able to push for an adaptation policy that ensures that a "them and us" is fueled.

My question is therefore: Will the Liberals do as Johan Pehrson said and review their position on SD?

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind you that this is a budget debate in connection with the Committee on Employment's report. I wish to point out to the members that the requirement to stick to the subject is something that the Speaker in various debates has referred to. This is a budget debate, and as long as you stick to this, the Speaker will not intervene. If you move on to debating something completely different, the Speaker will intervene, regardless of who the speaker is.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Cato, for the question! I think I must answer it even if it may not have a direct connection to labor market policy.

I say as I did in the previous exchange: No, we have no plans to reconsider this.

I understand what the member is referring to. My party leader is a reasoning man and has very many good qualities. He made an argument that politics is always evaluated. We have seen great changes when it comes to NATO membership, the euro, and other things.

We are an association just like the Center Party. If a majority of our members want something else, it will become so, naturally.

But I have never in our parliamentary group heard any member want to change our position. I have not heard either our party leader or our party leadership say anything else at any time. I have not heard anyone from the party board say it.

For me, this would be completely unreasonable. But we do live in a member-led organization, so there will be a discussion. But there is absolutely nothing indicating that there would be any change here. It is the same in Jonny Cato's political organization. A majority of your members could say that they want to sit in government with Vänsterpartiet after the next election.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Had this been a party-line debate, the Speaker would not have intervened. But now I want to be clear. If this debate continues, I will break and give the floor to the next speaker for a reply. This is a position that we in the Speaker's Bureau have landed on. We are not to have a general political debate, but this is a budget debate with an expenditure area as its basis.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I respect this. I will move on to the substantive policy. I can only state that over the past year, seven times here in the chamber, I have been asked why we want to let the Left Party into a government position. Therefore, I thought this question was relevant. But I will absolutely stick to the substantive policy.

Let me ask a few other questions. Do the Liberals think we should switch from integration policy to adaptation policy? Do the Liberals think that one should adapt fully when one comes to Sweden? Do the Liberals think that one should one hundred percent adopt the customs of where one comes? Don't the Liberals think that we can become better through cultural exchanges?

Do the Liberals accept the shift that the Sweden Democrats have made here today, where they begin to speak about people from other countries having to adapt?

As a member of the Centre Party, I believe that we should set very strict requirements for learning the Swedish language and entering the Swedish labor market. But for me, it doesn't matter whether one celebrates Christmas or Eid. It doesn't matter whether one eats baklava or spettekaka. But it absolutely matters if one has rotten values regarding homosexuals and a rotten view of women.

What the Sverigedemokraterna mean is something much more far-reaching than what I believe the Centerpartiet and the Liberalerna can agree on, namely that fundamental values regarding equality, LGBTQI and so on apply in Sweden. What the Sverigedemokraterna want is something much more far-reaching. And they will continue to push for it at the coordination office every day.

Do the Liberals think SD's new adaptation policy is good for Sweden?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! We shall absolutely continue to have an integration policy. That is what makes a difference. It absolutely does not matter whether one eats baklava or spettekaka. I am not fond of either, I can tell you.

It is of great importance how we use words and what we expect. We have in this country a Minister for Integration, Mats Persson. We will continue to pursue the integration policy that we have pursued for many years.

Therefore, I do not believe that we have any difference of opinion at all when it comes to the laws and rules we have regarding equality, people's right to live and love whomever they want and other things. They shall be followed. But whether one wants to celebrate Eid or Christmas is completely irrelevant as long as one contributes to society and to their fellow human beings.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall pose a few questions to Camilla Mårtensen.

In the government's budget bill, one can observe, as the government also does, that there is a very large difference between women's and men's average work incomes. We do not need to go into the figures. We both know them.

When setting goals for equality, a major ambition is that there should be an even distribution of unpaid home and care work and that women and men should take equal responsibility for housework and have the opportunity to give and receive care on equal terms.

But the large income difference is not just about what salary one has, but about how much one works. It is this that determines the life income. It is about who takes responsibility for the work at home.

I thought that Camilla Mårtensen in her speech said that there were very many things that we cannot deal with through political decisions. But that is actually not true.

Bengt Westerberg is a well-known person, isn't he? He was very proud of the paternity month, and there have been more paternity months since his time. Such a political decision where one says that fathers should also be at home contributes to changing values. I think that Camilla Mårtensen should have more proposals on how to address the difference here.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Ciczie Weidby is absolutely right. The parental leave is a powerful instrument that we must take advantage of. One thing that this government has done is to ensure that the double days have increased, that is to say that both parents can share the first period at home. I believe that is a step in the right direction.

But with that said, I and the Liberals would have liked to change the parental leave and move towards an individual parental leave. In the constellation we are in today, there is no possibility to implement that type of policy. I do not believe that it exists in the chamber as a whole either. But the parental leave is absolutely an important matter here.

Something else that could be done concerns support for relatives for all those who take care of their sick and injured relatives, which often are also women. Certainly, there are legislative proposals to push through.

We have not succeeded in pushing this through regarding the parental insurance during this parliamentary term, but I hope that it will continue to be reviewed moving forward.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! It is always exciting to hear that the Liberals' basic values regarding what is the individual's responsibility, and actually also regarding what is society's responsibility, quite often do not differ from the horrible socialists' basic values. We have historically stood for many common freedom reforms that ensure all people have the right and opportunity to realize themselves and that things can be distributed in a good way between individuals and society.

I will not provoke the Speaker by talking about something that has nothing to do with the actual budget debate, but it is interesting that the Liberals have several proposals that could actually make a difference. Still, there is never any doubt about being in the bourgeois politics, when one could do so many better things for real. One could submit both budget proposals and actual proposals in committees and so on to make a difference. One could set prestige aside and do politics for real.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! That is how it is. None of us here in the chamber have 50 percent, at least not in the foreseeable future. We have chosen the bourgeois side, because there we believe we will get the most impact for the issues that then guarantee the others, that is, equality and security. We believe that we on the bourgeois side will go further with crime, succeed better with integration work, be able to have an energy policy and economic policy that ensures that households do not collapse, and be able to have a kitchen-table-friendly climate policy where we actually get the people on board to make the necessary changes in the green transition. Therefore, we have chosen to cooperate on the bourgeois side.

Yes, we are a bourgeois party that believes in the individual and the individual's opportunity to create their own freedom. That is where we differ.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I live in Angered - an area where people from all corners of the world live and work side by side, an area with around 55,000 inhabitants. The majority in Angered do exactly what is expected of them: They work, study, and have dreams and ambitions, just like everyone else. But still, we hear daily that we are a burden on society.

We have a government that avoids talking about the real problems: inequality and segregation. Instead, they focus on where people come from. The Sweden Democrats talk about imported problems, and it is no longer only them who use that rhetoric - the entire Tidögänget has followed suit.

In the Tidö Agreement, one points to a requirement-based integration policy, where people who come to Sweden shall take responsibility for becoming a part of Swedish society. On the surface, it sounds reasonable that those who live here should do their best to integrate. But to become a part of a society, it is required that the door to that society is open. This government is keeping that door closed.

Reporting obligation, registration of immigrants' opinions, withdrawal of voting rights, proposals to exclude certain people from welfare, and repatriation grants – all these proposals have one thing in common: The purpose is to make immigrants feel unwelcome, not to create integration.

The fact is that most who have immigrated to Sweden are already striving hard to become a part of society. We are a part of society. You see us in elderly care, in public transport, and behind the counter at Ica. You see us in essential occupations, on big stages, and in Sweden's Riksdag.

Today we see more foreign-born people in work than ever before. The number of households dependent on benefits has decreased for ten years in a row. Furthermore, integration is moving faster for those who have come to Sweden in recent years. Just look at unaccompanied refugees! Of those who have been allowed to stay through the upper secondary school law or on other grounds, eight out of ten are working today.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, we see that inequality is growing and child poverty is increasing. Gang crime is a serious societal problem, racism is spreading, and trust between people is diminishing.

What is the government doing about this then? They are worsening the integration opportunities. Despite constantly talking about maintaining the work line, they are making cuts in the labor market policy, which makes it harder for people to enter the labor market. The preventive work – which is about reducing inequalities, supporting young people, and breaking exclusion – is dismissed by Sverigedemokraterna as "flumprojekt" (vague projects).

It is about giving children a secure schooling with qualified teachers, about youth centers and activities for young people, about more social workers who can support children and families in vulnerable situations, and about creating contexts where young people can meet safe adults who believe in them. SD dismisses this as "juice-and-bun politics." But let me be clear: These investments are the foundation for a safer, stronger, and more equal society.

Creating equality is not a "fluffy project." It is the core of the Swedish community - a Sweden where everyone, regardless of background, can feel like a part of the whole. That is how we truly break segregation, reduce crime, and create faith in the future.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants all people in our society to feel worthy and be given the opportunity to come into their own. Therefore, we propose concrete measures to strengthen integration: We want to individualize the establishment program, establish a national center for social orientation, and give the citizen centers a central role in the integration work. Integration is not a one-time effort; it is an ongoing process.

Madam Speaker! Many of the social problems we see today, especially gang crime, are rooted in inequality and segregation. Sweden needs to take these problems seriously. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants to establish a new and strengthened agency to combat segregation. It shall be able to carry out in-depth analyses, support local initiatives, and develop long-term action plans together with municipalities and other actors. With financial and political backing, we ensure that the work against segregation becomes purposeful, effective, and long-term.

Madam Speaker! The difference between the SD government and the Green Party is clear: We do not believe that one can build a prosperous society on hatred, mistrust, and division. We do not close the door to integration and cohesion. We want to create a better Sweden - a Sweden that holds together.

With that said, Madam Speaker: I do not participate in this decision. Miljöpartiet's position is clearly stated in our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! I recently participated in an interpellation debate on violence against women. There, I was asked if I was satisfied with a situation where, on average, 15 women per year are murdered by their current or former partner. Perhaps that is exactly why I stand here in the speaker's chair, and perhaps that is exactly why I have chosen to engage politically: because I am not satisfied.

For the same reason, I also want to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in expenditure area 13. The joint budget from the Sweden Democrats and the government is, in fact, a step in the right direction to get Sweden back on the right track. I and the Sweden Democrats may not agree on everything. It is always a matter of negotiations. But it is moving in the right direction for improved equality.

Equality - what does that word actually mean? In dictionaries, it states that equality should prevail between women and men. In political contexts, it is usually defined as that women and men should have the same power to shape society and their own lives.

The follow-up question then becomes how we measure equality. How do we know if women and men have exactly "the same power to shape society and their own lives"?

In 2006, the gender equality sub-goals were adopted under the leadership of the then Prime Minister Göran Persson from the Socialdemokraterna. A number of indicators, assessment grounds, were also adopted for these goals to be able to measure whether equality had been achieved or not. It is essentially the same indicators we see in the budget today as we saw then, almost 20 years ago.

What is it actually that one measures? Is it whether an individual has a free will and is not limited by their gender? Is it whether the individual has the power to steer their own life? No, not at all, actually. Free will is not touched at all.

Equality for me is that gender should not play any role, but according to the indicators, it seems to be the only thing that plays any role. Are there as many women as men on a board? Are a mother and a father at home exactly as much with their newborn child? The only thing that is judged is the outcome.

When one needs a new employee for the workplace and the comment becomes "We must hire a woman" or "We must hire a man," the rational follow-up question should reasonably be: It is still the competence that should determine which person is to be hired - one should not hire someone based on what gender the person has? But that is not how we measure equality today.

A family where the father has the opportunity to work from home and thus does not need to be on parental leave on paper, while the mother can take out more parental leave so that they can be home together with their child - extremely unequal, so we cannot have that. It must be 50/50 on paper - otherwise, it is not equal. How reality looks is secondary. There must be more earmarked days for each parent and more measures to force an outcome. The family's free will is insignificant.

Madam Speaker! When we now discuss equality, it is therefore crucial that we clarify what we actually mean and how we measure success. We cannot and shall not let equality be reduced to being a question of quantitative measures or gender distribution.

It is not the number of men or women in a certain position or at a workplace that determines whether a society is equal, but rather whether both genders have the same opportunities to get there and, as it is said in the case, that one has the power to control one's own life and is not reduced to a gender collective.

I and the Sweden Democrats therefore welcome the investigation commissioned in November regarding a review of the gender equality policy sub-targets. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to send an appeal to the government, which has initiated this investigation, to also review the indicators used to assess whether an area can be considered equal or not and there shift the focus from outcomes to conditions.

Madam Speaker! Now that we have talked a bit about how equality should be assessed, we can move on to talking about one of the biggest obstacles to equality in our society, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, namely men's violence against women.

According to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, 7.7 percent of all adult women state that they have at some point been subjected to a sexual offense. 7.7 percent is approximately 300,000 women. Every year, around 50,000 cases of domestic violence are reported.

This violence is not only a threat to the individual's safety but also an economic burden for society. The costs of relationship-based violence are estimated by some surveys to be 2.7-3.3 billion kronor annually. These are money and resources that could have been used, for example, to strengthen welfare, but which instead must be used to manage the consequences of the unacceptable violence.

We are often met with headlines about men who have committed violence against their partners, and it is no exaggeration to say that men's violence against women is one of our time's greatest social problems. But when it comes to the opposite - men who are subjected to violence by women in close relationships - it is rarely discussed, despite it also being an extensive problem.

According to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, almost 29 percent of the population has at some point been subjected to violence in a close relationship. Among these, 35 percent of women and over 20 percent of men reported that they had been subjected to violence specifically in a romantic relationship, which roughly corresponds to 500,000 women and 300,000 men. Still, men are often met with silence and in some cases even with skepticism.

We know that severe violence in close relationships affects women significantly more often. It is women who appear in our emergency rooms. It is women who encounter healthcare with visible injuries. And as I mentioned in the beginning of my speech: On average, 15 women per year are murdered by a current or former partner.

Many men who are affected feel that they are not taken seriously and have difficulty getting support. Society's image of men as strong and independent means that they are rarely seen as victims. This includes, of course, also violence in same-sex relationships – a vulnerability that all too often risks remaining invisible in the debate. Regardless of what type of relationship it is, we must ensure that the person seeking help is met with understanding and respect.

The Sweden Democrats therefore welcome the ongoing review of the designation of the sixth sub-goal. Men's violence against women shall in no way be downplayed, but we need to ensure that such a goal more clearly also includes women's violence against men and violence in same-sex relations. We want an inclusive goal, not an exclusive goal.

Honor-related violence and oppression is a completely different dimension of the entire issue, something that cannot or must not be confused with men's violence against women. My party colleague Sara Gille will therefore address these issues specifically in her speech a bit later in the debate.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to wish our speakers and their associated officials, as well as my parliamentary colleagues in all parties, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope that this budget becomes a Christmas present not only for all those who fight for equality but also for those who dream of a society where freedom and security are a given for everyone.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your speech!

The comments that it is heading in the right direction and that the budget is a step in the right direction, as the Sweden Democrats believe, make me react. When the budget for 2025 was presented earlier this autumn, the reactions were both strong and unanimous: Rich men are the big winners in the government's budget.

All media, news broadcasts, economists, political commentators and editorials describe the distribution profile in the same way: The rich men are the biggest winners. We can also see this distribution profile in the budget. Six out of ten women feel that they cannot separate due to economic reasons, but that was before the budget comes into force.

I heard in the member's speech that money is needed for welfare. I would then like to ask: Is one satisfied with the distribution profile when half of the reform space goes to tax cuts that primarily benefit rich men?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Sofia Amloh, for the question!

It is de facto that almost 800 million kronor are being invested in this area. It is a historically high level - it has never been so high. During all the years that the Social Democrats have been involved in governing Sweden, we have never even been close to those sums, so very much is being done.

Significant resources have been allocated to strengthen support for women's shelters and protected housing through national and regional resource centers, which of course shall exist regardless of where one lives. Then there is the government's action program, which I believe contains 132 points to tackle men's violence against women and what is connected to that. We have talked about language training, integration preschools, and a more preventive social service. There are as many measures as you can count.

Rich men were also mentioned. It is a rhetoric that we have heard repeatedly from the Social Democrats. We know, of course, that those rich people can be a father in a family where someone works as a police officer. It can also be a woman who works as a nursing assistant in healthcare. Whether one considers oneself rich or not is up to the individual, but I still want to assert that it is a budget that benefits everyone.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not only the Social Democrats who say that there is such a distribution profile in the budget, but it is stated in the budget. It is not something we have made up, but it is everyone's assessment, as I have just described.

That everyone would benefit from the budget is incredibly foreign for me to hear. We see that it is women, above all working-class women, who pay the absolute highest price for the distribution policy that Sverigedemokraterna and the government are pursuing. These women pay with their health. They are the only group in society that is actually declining in life expectancy, because they have poor working conditions and far too much stress, which leads to an enormous number of sick leaves.

At the same time, one puts welfare on a starvation diet. Then one can use 10, 20 or 30 billion for tax cuts, which so obviously primarily benefit rich men.

I hear that the member is satisfied that it is this distribution profile we can expect, and I am not particularly surprised; this is the Sweden Democrats' policy. But, Madam Speaker, I want to urge them to think again. We could have used all these billions to invest in welfare or in women's peace, to make a difference there. But this is something the women here in the country can only dream of as long as the Sweden Democrats are involved in governing.

(Applause)

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sofia Amloh talks about investing in women's peace - okay. We can look a bit at expenditure area 13 Integration and equality and at the deviations from the Social Democrats. In what way do the Social Democrats prioritize differently, if one considers that this budget proposal is not particularly good? We start by looking at Special equality measures - 0 SEK in deviation. It is neither one krona more nor one krona less, but one thinks that this seems good. We move on to the Gender Equality Authority - 0 SEK in deviation. The same applies to Grants for women's organizing.

The fact is that when we look at this entire budget area, we see that there is a small initiative on measures against social exclusion, but otherwise, one stands behind our budget proposal in principle. It is therefore quite bold of the member to then stand here in the speaker's chair and sound as if one wants to pursue a completely different line, when that is not the case. It is one thing to stand and say something, but you must also move from words to action. This is what the Sverigedemokraterna are doing, together with the other parties in the Tidösamarbetet.

We have a budget that will improve things for Sweden, and it applies to everyone. It is no stranger than that. It goes without saying that tax cuts contribute to having more money in your pocket. More money in your pocket contributes to stronger purchasing power. And this, in turn, leads to more jobs and to Sweden's economy getting moving. As previously mentioned in this exchange of remarks, we have had an inflation that has finally started to be broken.

I think I will stay there. I actually could have continued for as long as I wanted, but I don't think it leads anywhere.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! I want to note that the Member quite often has an analytical approach to the question of equality, and I think that is good and interesting. Then we may have different opinions on how to handle the conclusions that the Member draws from this analysis.

Since 2006, we have had gender equality sub-targets. Naturally, it is good that one reviews whether we are measuring in an effective way. I think it is good that an investigation reviews the effectiveness of the sub-targets – perhaps the indicators should be changed. But what I object to in the member's analysis is the resignation. It is said that the results of these indicators are worth nothing, because it is only volume that is measured and not free will. First and foremost, I think that free will perhaps cannot be measured. And the question is: Should we steer free will?

But it is important to do something about the outcome if we see that the indicators lead to actual inequality, which they do when it comes to economic equality. We know that the parental leave is the biggest culprit when it comes to economic inequality in a woman's life, from a lifelong perspective. There is no doubt. Still, it is said that we should not govern people's free choices.

Prerequisites are not the same thing as expectations. I wonder a bit how the Sweden Democrats think we should approach this. There is an expectation, from society, fellow human beings, and work life, and perhaps sometimes from people themselves, that one should act in a certain way, even if there are prerequisites to act in another way. How are we to truly approach this?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by saying that it is pleasing to hear that the Center Party also thinks it is good to have a review of these goals and also the indicators. Then we will see what this results in. There we might not be as much in agreement anymore.

Shall we rule free will? No, really not. All of the Sweden Democrats' policy aims to ensure precisely that free will.

When it comes to the outcome, I make the assessment that humans, generally speaking, are very wise. I believe that we will get a natural outcome that is quite good, as long as it is based on free will. If women are not interested in seeking out the carpentry profession, we probably shouldn't argue about it, if it is the case that 96 percent of men work in the profession. But if women want to work as carpenters but cannot do so because of norms, values, and expectations, that is a problem, and there we need to do something.

As the system looks today, it is often said that it will take approximately 250 years before we achieve any form of equality. Obviously, we must do something and change something. I also believe that we need to work very much with norms and values. I believe, for example, that more men are needed in preschool, so that we get good role models. It is also about upbringing in the home. I believe that if we just provide the conditions, humans will automatically make wise choices.

Young Entrepreneurship was mentioned here, I believe, and that the gender distribution there is very even. As far as I know, this is not steered in any way, but it happens completely naturally. If we just create the conditions and provide the right values and opportunities, then this outcome will occur naturally.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I wonder how politics shall provide the right values. One can work towards achieving a society with the goal that everyone shall be equal and that equality shall prevail.

The problem here, however, is that reality time and again shows that what the member desires is not fulfilled. Free will does not lead to equality in companies and corporate boards, in state support to companies and growth, or when it comes to lifelong economic income. Instead, it leads to a terribly large difference in life income, several million, largely due to the parental insurance. The question is therefore left unanswered. How should one go about changing this? Free will is not enough.

Neither the member nor anyone else has mentioned anything about gender mainstreaming, which is an incredibly important way of working that has been in governments' decision documents and budgets for decades - which has also led to it being stated in regulatory letters that gender mainstreaming is the method to be used to achieve gender equality within the various policy areas. Judge then my surprise when, this year, there is actually nothing about gender mainstreaming in, for example, the regulatory letter for the Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen).

I would very much like to hear if the member has any answer as to why it is not mentioned. It may, of course, be the case that one stands behind equality via decisions in the government nevertheless, but for some reason, it has not been seen as so important with the method of integration and has been removed, at least in Arbetsförmedlingen's regulatory letter and perhaps also in the others. The member is welcome to reflect a little and answer that question, if he can. Is equality integration a good method, and why, in that case, is this not included in the regulatory letters?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! The parental leave was touched upon a bit. I still want to assert that increased freedom of choice in the parental leave will lead to better equality. We have also seen that the introduction of the so-called "double days" means that one is home more, which in turn leads to fathers, in particular, taking more parental leave days later. It can also, just as I mentioned in my speech, for example be so that thanks to the work situation one has, one can work a lot from home, and then one has the opportunity to hand over these days to one's partner. In that way, one can be home with the child together. The more days we reserve, the harder it actually becomes to achieve this.

I am not satisfied either; it is going far too slowly. But I do not believe that the current system, where one tries to force an outcome, works particularly well either. If one is not satisfied with what the freedom of choice results in, one forces an outcome. I do not believe in that solution. I am open to discussing other types of solutions, but as far as I know, it is the freedom of choice that will lead to us achieving equality. Then, of course, we need to find more ways to "tweak" this to get there faster.

Gender mainstreaming, as was asked about, often leads to pure gender quotas and steering towards a specific outcome. It becomes a form of reverse discrimination where, in some sense, one undermines the foundations of meritocracy, and I see it as something positive that it is gone.

I am not entirely convinced that equality integration is the right way to go, but we are focusing more on a reformed equality policy where individuals and families are given greater freedom and responsibility and are allowed to shape their own lives themselves. It is a policy where the self-determination of individuals and families is respected.

The government and the Sweden Democrats will, of course, continue to work on the issue of gender equality. It ranks extremely high on the agenda, and as I have mentioned previously, it is historically high amounts that are allocated to improve gender equality. But we see that there are other tools than just gender mainstreaming to reach that goal.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 13 in the state budget, which contains equality and discrimination. We are at the halfway point of the parliamentary term. We are debating the government's third budget, and the trend is clear. Equality is moving backward, while the rich, well-off men become the big winners when the Tidö parties get to decide.

It is only one in ten women who believe that she has fared better, and the wage gaps are increasing for the first time in 30 years. The government and SD have passively watched as inflation and the cost crisis have hit households hard. It has, above all, hit brutally hard on households consisting of single women with children.

Today, many women in Sweden live below the threshold of Europe's definition of poverty. A survey from Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar shows that over 40 percent of single parents have had to borrow money to cover the family's most basic fixed expenses. Other surveys show that six out of ten women feel anxiety about their finances if they were to divorce. Indebtedness has increased dramatically, and women stand out particularly in the statistics from Kronofogden.

In parallel, the government has put Swedish welfare, such as healthcare, school, and care, on a starvation diet. The state grants from the state have been like small drops in the ocean when municipalities and regions are to solve reality's challenges in very tough economic times.

This has driven a healthcare crisis, a crisis described as the worst since the 90s. It consists of streamlining, demands for cuts, notices, and dismissals of staff. The consequences of the economic policy are not waiting. In a report from Försäkringskassan, it is stated that women have more than double the risk of sick leave due to stress-related mental ill-health compared to men. During 2023, stress-related sick leave accounted for 21 percent of the total costs for the sickness benefit. It is an increase of 14 percent from the previous year.

Working-class women, 48 percent of the country's total women, have fallen behind compared to all other groups in recent years. There is plenty of statistics that show this. Both the Public Health Agency and SCB have warned that working-class women with the lowest level of education are the only group in society moving backward in life expectancy. It is the country's assistant nurses, healthcare assistants, and childcare workers who have the absolutely worst wages and working conditions and the worst work environment in Sweden.

It should be obvious, but it clearly needs to be emphasized: We do not solve these structural problems by putting the public sector on a financial starvation diet in order to lower taxes for well-off men. It is working women with low levels of education who pay the price with a shortened life. Then it should be obvious to everyone where we should put the tax money?

In addition to this, we are informed that women's shelters and social workers across the country are sounding the alarm that women fleeing violence are not getting places in protected housing. Two years into the parliamentary term, it is evident that this government is not managing the most fundamental task: to protect women and children exposed to violence.

Already in October, we were reached by reports from several sources that the money is running out and that no further placements will be able to be made during the year. It is completely unacceptable that the government does not react to these serious signals.

The government's underfunding of the country's municipalities and social services could not be in a worse position. A new law was recently introduced which means that a permit is required to operate sheltered housing in Sweden. Despite the fact that this entails increased requirements for municipalities, the funding has not materialized.

As if that were not enough, one has also shut down the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions' (SKR) women's peace project, which existed precisely to support social workers and operations in the transition.

We can continue with the list. Regarding the government's alleged shift to move the focus from perpetrators to crime victims, victim support services and the support platform for young people subjected to violence in close relationships, 1,000 Möjligheter, are now alerting that they have had their funds reduced by a full 66 percent over two years.

Every year, thousands of women are subjected to psychological, physical, and sexual violence, and thousands more to other forms of oppression. It is nothing that is a coincidence or something that happens randomly. In most cases, the perpetrator is known to society. Women have alerted and sought help to try to protect themselves and their children, and yet they are murdered by men.

We know that violence against women becomes most dangerous when the woman wants to leave the man, and it is then that her life is most threatened. It is also exclusively women who are subjected to the most extreme violence. To then let the work for women's peace wither away and disappear is nothing other than a mockery.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as the government lowers the tax on beer, snus, and incomes for everyone who earns over 64,000 kronor, it reduces support for economically vulnerable families with children and pursues a policy for increased income inequalities between women and men. When welfare is heavily underfunded for the third year in a row, it is women in healthcare, schools, and elderly care who are forced into increased stress and worse conditions.

When the government also dismantles measures to stop men's violence against women by, for example, choking off the development funds for the municipalities' work on women's peace, many are asking along with me why.

Madam Speaker! The government gives tax-free ISK accounts the name fuck off-capital and calls it a historical equality reform for women living in violence. It is completely insane to me. I promise that feminist pioneers would turn in their graves if they heard this.

I and the Social Democrats can state that equality will never be more important to the government than the opportunity to lower taxes. The Sweden Democrats and the SD government allocate almost half of the reform space to paying for tax cuts. I hardly dare to think about what important equality reforms could have been implemented with so much money.

Madam Speaker! The expenditure area also addresses discrimination. Several reports have been submitted describing the negative development. More people are being discriminated against. The goal of a society free from discrimination is further away than before. What stands out most is the increase in the grounds for discrimination regarding ethnic origin and disability. It is most common in schools and in workplaces.

It is not only the employers and the school that should bear the responsibility for the serious signals regarding widespread everyday racism. It is the entire society that consistently needs to put a stop to racism. We cannot have any tolerance whatsoever for discrimination, regardless of where it occurs.

The Tidö Agreement is a clear political project that is about increasing contradictions, pitting group against group, and setting people against each other. It is a politics that drives racism and discrimination and which daily normalizes and shifts the boundaries of racism. It begins and ends with those of us who are politically responsible. It is about what we do in substance and what rhetoric we have.

Madam Speaker! It is deeply regrettable that people need to suffer in a harder and colder Sweden. I have no hopes for the Tidö parties, but I can hope that the consequences of their policy will be the minimum possible. As a social democrat, I am driven by the conviction that politics should make life easier and better for people and that our task is to level the differences between women and men. Those who are already well-off in society do not need more resources. It is those who carry society at all hours of the day in their encounters with, among others, patients, children, and the elderly who need the resources most; it is a win for us all.

Madam Speaker! I will not vote in favor of anything, as the Social Democrats' proposal implies a larger framework for the area. In our special statement, we present our view on the political direction.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

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

In an equal society, you are free to love whoever you want and be exactly who you are. That is enough and sufficient. There is a place for everyone. It is a society where one can trust that when one becomes old, one is still seen as important and valuable. As the need for care increases, one will be well cared for. It is a society where all children's abilities are utilized and allowed to develop, and where all those children who have great needs for support receive all the help they need before their parents completely collapse. Parents should be able to feel the security that society will step in the day they themselves are no longer there. The honest person who has worked a professional life and then becomes ill should be able to count on that support is there.

This is what we are working for. What matters when we present a budget is not just individual budget items, but the whole and the society we build a foundation for when we allocate funds and create incentives.

The government's gender equality work continues forward, which is also visible in this budget. Among other things, we are increasing the appropriation to the Gender Equality Authority. We are also improving the financing model so that it becomes more long-term and efficient. We are strengthening the support for the national support lines for those affected by violence to increase the response rate. The support for those exposed to prostitution is strengthened. A new action program for 2024-2026 has been developed to prevent and combat men's violence against women, honor-related violence and oppression, as well as prostitution and human trafficking. The work with gender equality integration will, of course, also continue forward.

The egalitarian society that we work for requires solidarity. We must help each other together to create resources. Then everyone must contribute, work, and do everything they can. But if one has lived in a country where a woman's place is in the home and comes to Sweden, where in many cases today it is even more profitable to stay at home than to take a job, the step into working life is not particularly obvious. It is not about where one comes from, but about which norms and values one has grown up with and what incentives and opportunities for change exist.

We know this, because Sweden is a shining example that equality does not come by itself. It is the result of a number of well-considered reforms, such as expanded childcare, parental leave, and not least that we removed the joint taxation of married couples in the 70s, which increased the value of women's wages and made it too expensive to be a housewife. The women who then did not want to work, because they had grown up with the norm that the right thing is to be a housewife, were more or less forced out, and those who had long longed to enter the workforce finally received the support they needed. It is the reform that has had the greatest impact on equality and women's economic empowerment.

I am truly proud of all parties today regarding this journey. I have at least not heard anyone dreaming of going back. It is precisely the journey we need to make again today, but now for the housewives of the new era: the foreign-born women. Therefore, we place a great focus on language learning, literacy-promoting measures, and study and career guidance for newly arrived and foreign-born women. We also invest heavily in vocational training and try in various ways to reach out to foreign-born women, for example in the open preschool.

What will above all have a decisive significance for this group, which now stands furthest away from the labor market, is the benefit reform that the government plans to implement and which will ensure that it always pays to work. Just as in the 70s, it must become too expensive to be a housewife in Sweden today. It is a bygone era.

It must also be pointed out that there is a group that receives very little of everything we do and that has been talked about here today. The progress is not for everyone. At the same time as the work has proceeded with improving equality, a parallel society that resembles Sweden from several hundred years ago has grown back through imported honor violence and oppression.

The girls, women, boys and men who are subjected to this are the most vulnerable group in our society. They often have an entire family and relatives against them. This is a separate issue that needs to be treated separately. It is considerably more complex than the issue of violence in close relationships. Honor violence and oppression is one of our greatest societal problems today. It is also strongly linked to gang crime. Even though the Moderate-led government has now taken several of the measures that previously had to wait far too long, there is still very much more to do.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity during the Christmas season to send a little hope to the red-green opposition. The Moderate-led government and its coalition partners are now creating the foundation for a more solidary and equal society. And you know—all of Sweden's women, both Swedish-born and foreign-born, have much more capacity than you think.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

In the government's budget proposal, there is an inclusion of a proposal for exit programs for prostitutes, something that is very welcome. A discussion on the issue of prostitution has flared up over the last year, not least regarding taxation on prostitution. The issue is relevant, to say the least, and it is very welcome and long-awaited. Then it can be thought that one will actually be able to view prostitution for what it is, namely men's violence against women and nothing else. It is not the world's oldest profession. It is the world's oldest oppression. Furthermore, those affected are very often subjected to human trafficking. They have been "human trafficked" here to Sweden. They work under constant pressure and have a pimp who decides on their daily lives and takes care of their money.

It is impossible not to also reflect in this context on what has come up over the past year, namely the question of a tax on prostitution. The money that the prostitutes receive would thus be taxed by Skatteverket, or by the government.

This is completely incomprehensible to me. Many and long discussions have been held here in the chamber about this. We have had seminars where we have discussed it purely from a tax technical, ethical, and moral perspective - how can one actually collect tax on money that comes from a criminal act?

The state gives with one hand and takes with the other. It is said that one will help people out of prostitution and then takes a tax on the money these people earn.

What is the member's view on this matter regarding tax on prostitutes' incomes?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for a very important question! I have noted that the member has also spoken about this in the media.

I absolutely share the view that prostitution is by no means the world's oldest profession; it is nothing other than a terrible abuse. There is no other position than that we must counteract this in every way we can. I hope that we can stand united across party lines on these issues, and I cannot believe there is any will other than that we should all work against this.

It is one of the parts included in the action program that we have also updated for 2026, and we are strengthening the support for those vulnerable to prostitution.

The discussion on a tax on prostitution, I believe, will absolutely continue moving forward. It is a very strange discussion in many ways; I can share that view.

I am satisfied with that answer. In this budget and in much of what we have talked about today, I believe we have made it clear that prostitution is something we can never accept in our society. We are probably very united in the fight against this.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The principle of taxing the income of prostitutes is so absurd. If prostitutes are to be taxed on these incomes, they should also be allowed to make deductions for condoms, lubricant, rent, and travel to and from where they sell sex.

This is completely unreasonable, and I noted that the member avoided the question in a polite way.

I am completely convinced that the discussion will continue, but what is so aggravating is that the government actively during the autumn has made a decision that nothing shall be done about this. That is to say, one is not to proceed with an investigation. One is not to continue the dialogue with Skatteverket, I assume, on how one can get away with this major problem. Perhaps it is not so many who are subjected to this in their tax return, but even one is enough. The signal we are giving is completely absurd.

One reason I heard was that criminals' incomes are benefited if this group is exempted from taxation. That did not make me any happier. Are the prostitutes, the vulnerable women, supposed to take responsibility for the system surrounding criminals' incomes and that these incomes potentially increase? That was the most outrageous thing I have heard!

I wonder again if the member thinks it is convenient to stand here and represent a government that has made these decisions when the Minister for Finance, who has the Swedish Tax Agency under their responsibility, has stood here in the chamber several times during this year and perhaps also during last year and said that this is not reasonable and that something must be done about it.

In what way does the member wish to actively continue the discussion in order to achieve a change?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I am not comfortable. I am not at all comfortable standing here today and stating that women are still being murdered by their husbands and that we live in a society where honor violence and oppression are still allowed to spread. I am not at all comfortable that men earn more than women and that women do more housework than men. I am also not comfortable that women are subjected to abuses such as prostitution.

We and the government will do everything we can to resolve all these problems. As I stated, I am also not comfortable standing and talking about tax on prostitution, because prostitution should not exist at all in a society like Sweden. It is not worthy.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for the speech, which however raises some questions that I intended to take the opportunity to ask.

Why are the Moderates dismantling the work for women's peace in the country by strangling the funding for the municipalities' work for women's peace? After 17 years, the municipalities will no longer receive any development funds to carry out just this work for women's peace. You are scrapping the specific initiatives for women's peace that have existed since 2021 to support social workers and their operations across the country against men's violence against women.

Why has it been ensured that the last special unit at the police against men's violence against women is being shut down?

Why does the dismantling continue by underfunding protected housing?

Why are finished proposals against men's violence against women not being presented? Why is the support for crime victims missing?

Why does one not continue to provide funds for the work that I have mentioned earlier? Why is the work for women's peace being dismantled?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! As has been stated previously, the Social Democrats are not putting more money into this budget specifically for this than we are. I would like to begin by reminding of that.

We have shown in several ways how we work with these parts, not least in the action program which we have now also updated until 2026.

I just listened to Member Amloh's speech, where she spoke about women's finances. When we talk about equality and honor violence, as I just raised, the Social Democrats would rather talk about the wealthy Moderates.

I am very much opposed to the image that is being tried to create of you being the women's party. I myself come from a background with a single mother who cleaned in the evenings and should, in that case, have a fairly good basis for voting for you. But you are a sham party for women. I think you are deceiving women. You stand behind the women who earn very little, you say. But what you do not talk about is that they are participating in financing all these grants to everyone who does not work.

If we can instead ensure that more people work, as I spoke about in my speech, and if we count in all those who could work today but do not, then we can talk about a completely different budget for this appropriation. Then we do not need to talk about the grants that the Socialdemokrater constantly return to.

We believe much more in women, but as soon as a woman succeeds in raising her salary, the Social Democrats are there and want to take the whole cake to fund those who do not work. There is a glass ceiling in your politics. It is not the case that one gets a pat on the back as a woman when things go well, instead, one is to be kept on the mat. It is fake politics for women!

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! We are, therefore, the party that does not give money to those who work.

You are spending half of the reform space on tax cuts instead of spending it on welfare. For you know what, Madam Speaker - there are women there who work and toil. They toil in the school, in the canteen, and in the nursing home. It is they who need a better working environment and better conditions. It is those women who would need all that money that you spend on lowering taxes, and it would have made a gigantic difference.

I did not receive any answers to the questions I asked about why a dismantling is being carried out. I gave six clear examples. But I want to break this down to one of them that I know the member has had a high level of advocacy for the government to implement. It concerns the proposal that was already on the table when the government took their seats in the departments, namely to criminalize psychological violence. It was to be done immediately.

Given that violence by men against women has as high a priority as gang violence, the government claims, it has taken an enormous amount of time to handle this proposal. Other proposals and propositions have been forced through the Council on Legislation and referral bodies. Why is it taking so long to produce this proposition to the Swedish Riksdag?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! We have made a number of legislative changes to strengthen women and protect women against violence. I can assure you that this proposal will also be implemented.

I would like to return to what we talked about, namely how women are encouraged through the Social Democrats' policy. I mentioned that we removed the joint taxation in the 70s. That is something I understand many are proud of. What we did then was to make it more expensive to stay at home. We are trying to do precisely the same thing now with the subsidy reform that we will implement. It is not a harsh policy, but it is a policy where we believe in women.

I would very much like to hear how the member reasons regarding the joint taxation. Was it the wrong step to take? What is it that distinguishes that journey from what we are now doing to get foreign-born women into work? They are also worthy of the equality journey. Much of what we talk about, differences in wages and how one takes parental leave, is not even a part of this. These women are at home inside four walls and manage everything. It is now their turn to make the journey. Why is that not prioritized by the Social Democrats?

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that we are becoming fewer and fewer in the chamber. We have now been at it for four hours, and I promise that I will be concise.

Let me make a small comment. I thought it was interesting to hear the Moderate member praise so many Social Democratic reforms. Historically, everything concerning parental leave, vacation, removal of joint taxation, and so on has hardly been something that the right and the bourgeoisie have pushed for. Instead, these reforms are the result of long-term politics from the labor movement and the Social Democrats' side.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries, but it is also a society where we see daily how equality is threatened by bourgeois politics. Equality does not solve itself; rather, equality is a matter of political decisions, of courage, and of choosing the right side of history.

The bourgeois government says that they care about equality, but their actions show something else. They have lowered the tax for the richest, while women, who most often work in healthcare, care, and school, are left with insecure employment and a poor working environment. How can it be equality when female-dominated occupations still have lower wages and worse working conditions than male-dominated ones?

Madam Speaker! When our welfare is privatized, it always hits women hardest – both as employees and as users. It is women who take the hit when elderly care does not function, when schools are drained of resources, and when healthcare queues grow. Conservative politics is about turning welfare into a market where profits always come before people's needs.

Economic equality is the key to true freedom. But how is it even possible to talk about economic equality when women's wages constantly and consistently lag behind, when women's total lifetime earnings never even come close to men's earnings, and when women's work in the home is constantly rendered invisible and never valued?

The bourgeois government completely refuses to see the connection between class and gender. We in Vänsterpartiet see it clearly. That is why we always fight for better conditions in female-dominated occupations, for the right to full-time work, and for a stronger common welfare.

As I said earlier, equality is not something that happens by itself. It requires action, investments, and a political will to create a society where women and men, girls and boys, have the same opportunities to live their lives.

I will never back down in the fight for an equal society, a Sweden where healthcare workers do not go to their knees, where women's work is valued as highly as men's, and where every woman can feel safe at work, at home, and on the street.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, no woman should have to live in fear of violence in the home. No woman should have to choose between her own life and a roof over her head. Violence against women is a national crisis, and the women's shelters are one of our most important lines of defense.

We in Vänsterpartiet stand up for the role of the voluntary women's shelters in society. These organizations have for decades carried an enormous responsibility and performed invaluable work to protect women and children fleeing from violence. They are driven by commitment and solidarity, not by profit interest.

Allowing private actors to conduct women's shelter operations means that the focus is shifted from the woman's needs to profit maximization. What happens when protected residences begin to cut costs on staff, security measures, or support interventions to increase profitability? What happens when resources that should go to therapy, legal aid, and protection are taken out as dividends? Women and children exposed to violence deserve better than for their safety to become a commodity. Furthermore, privatization risks creating unequal access to support. Even today, there are large differences in how many resources different municipalities allocate to women's shelters. When private companies get access to the market, the situation risks becoming even more fragmented. We get a patchwork of quality and access, where women's opportunities to get help depend on which companies have chosen to establish themselves right there.

The women's shelters are already suffering from chronic underfunding. Many voluntary shelters are today struggling to keep their operations running. They are dependent on temporary project grants and municipal support that can vary from year to year. This obviously makes it difficult to plan long-term and offer women and children the safety and continuity they need.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women is a societal problem - not a business opportunity. Combating men's violence against women is a fundamental issue of equality and human rights. It is a struggle that requires political will, not market logic. Privatization and outsourcing of women's shelters is yet another example of how bourgeois politics undermines our collective solutions to a real societal problem that we all say we want to tackle.

Madam Speaker! Since the Left Party, among other things, wants to provide much more funds to the women's shelters, I cannot move for a separate reservation in favor of that, but we have submitted a special statement to the committee report.

This is my last appearance in the speaker's chair, and therefore I would like to take the opportunity to wish the hard-working parliamentary secretariat, who do their utmost to ensure that we speak correctly and behave properly, a peaceful and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year - and also to the labor market committee's administrative staff.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the expenditure area in the budget called Integration and Equality. Within this, discrimination and exclusion are also addressed, and in my speech I will primarily speak about equality issues.

I would, however, like to begin by strongly protesting the statement we previously heard from a Sverigedemokratisk member. The member stood and judged other members and said: You seem integrated. I actually did not know that those of my friends who do not have Swedish-sounding names needed to be approved by the Sverigedemokraterna or their members in order to be who they are. I am saddened that this is being said, and I am saddened that former bourgeois parties are cooperating with this party.

The Center Party's goal for the equality policy is to stop men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression, strengthen women's economic empowerment, and ensure an equal and equitable healthcare.

Of course, there is a need for measures to promote equality across all policy areas, as a holistic view is crucial. Otherwise, it could end up like during the pandemic. In crises, it is revealed what the systems and structures we have are actually capable of. Just compare the proportion of companies run by men versus the proportion run by women—which received the most crisis support during the pandemic? Which workplaces received the most support—those where the most women were employed or those where the most men were? Also compare whether it was mostly women or men who were at home on parental leave during the pandemic.

Equality cannot take a backseat when other crises are to be fought, and in order to change that, we must have structures that function when we are not in crisis. Do we have that today? No.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women is a major problem. It occurs throughout the country, in all ages and within all categories and social classes. The violence affects girls and women in an entirely overwhelming way. We know that every year 20,000 cases, perhaps more, of assault against a woman over 18 years old are reported where the victim is familiar with the perpetrator, and we know that the dark figure is large. We need to take decisive action to someday escape the grim statistics that show that every year it is 15-20 women who are beaten to death by a man they have lived or live with.

The women's and girls' shelters naturally have unique experience and competence in this and do invaluable work. They constitute an important complement to the efforts of municipalities and other authorities to detect and stop violence. But it is the public sector's responsibility and duty to ensure that this activity is funded, no one else's. It is good that there is an investment in NCK so that it can never be busy when a vulnerable woman calls. It is a very good initiative by the government.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women begins with boys' violence against girls, and we know that a clear pattern is that men who hit themselves have experienced violence in the home. Therefore, violence in young people's partner relationships must be countered. Special measures are needed for the actors who work with this, and those who do it need long-term support. Neither boys nor girls at young ages benefit from this, but it is the girls who risk dying in the long run.

I hope to avoid standing in this speaker's chair more times and talking about the funding of Unga relationer, but I am afraid that my hopes will be dashed. Right now, the applications are with the Gender Equality Authority, and the foundation 1000 Möjligheter, which runs this activity, still does not know what grant they will receive for next year.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for the government to decide on this and say that the activity shall be conducted. Make a contract and decide together with the authorities that you shall do this! The activities should know it from year to year, and the foundation 1000 Möjligheter should not have to apply for the money itself. Is the work against violence in young people's relationships not more important than that? It is very strange.

Centerpartiet also wants to introduce a national exit program for women living in violent relationships. In that regard, it is crucial that actors such as the police, social services, Skatteverket, financial advisors, healthcare, and psychiatry cooperate so that those who actually dare to leave a violent relationship quickly receive the support that is needed.

It is precisely the activity that was conducted in Igor - I do not remember now exactly what the abbreviation stood for, but it was an activity conducted by the police units in southern Stockholm but which was quickly shut down. It was shameful. I know that the police now work methodically and effectively in another way with finding perpetrators, but that does not erase the fact that the crime victims must quickly receive the effective support and the effective help they deserve and need in order to actually survive. That includes a compensation payment.

I fully support the proposal that the vulnerable party, which is usually the woman, should be allowed to keep the apartment when a relationship is broken up. It is very good, but it doesn't always help. Furthermore, it is often the case that one must first flee in order to perhaps be able to move back into the apartment. If one has to flee, one has to pay for a new apartment today, as well as for insurance, travel, and new subscriptions for both oneself and the children, even though one is fleeing because of something one has not caused oneself. It is completely outrageous.

In some way, we accept this in today's society – except when it concerns men who want to leave criminal environments. There, however, there is an exit program. It has existed for many years, and it includes three and a half years of structured support in the form of rehabilitation, employment, leisure activities, studies, and financial support so that one can get out of the criminal environment. In that case, we are talking about something that the criminal has actually chosen to do themselves. Women receive no such support today.

I received some information from the Liberal party member, who unfortunately has left the chamber, about the departure program that the government so grandly announced this summer. As we have said, we have tried to find what funding exists for this, and I still maintain that the government's departure program, in short, consists mostly of existing activities that have been repackaged. The National Board of Health and Welfare has indeed been tasked with investigating a coherent care chain for vulnerable crime victims. That is very good, but I do not think it is enough. I think that already in the budget for 2025, one could have allocated the money that is actually needed so that it is possible to get away from a violent relationship.

I will conclude with my second heart issue, which has been raised in the exchanges here. Human trafficking for sexual purposes is today actually the second most lucrative activity for the gangs, Madam Speaker. It is also increasing in the wake of the pandemic and, above all, the war in Ukraine. The work of intercepting these people needs to be scaled up. The Gender Equality Authority, as the responsible authority, should be given an expanded responsibility and an expanded mandate – a targeted mandate.

Sweden is not meeting its commitments regarding identifying or protecting crime victims. This is shown by evaluation after evaluation by the European monitoring body Grevio. We receive criticism. When speaking with municipal representatives today, one realizes that they do not believe they have victims of sexual exploitation under the age of 18 in their municipalities. They do not know if the crime victims exist and do not even have a designation for them - speaking of statistics, being analytically minded, and collecting knowledge in order to then address a problem.

I am unfortunately completely convinced that in all municipalities we have crime victims who are under 18 years old but who do not appear in the statistics and therefore cannot receive the support they are entitled to.

So, the investigation "Out of Vulnerability" regarding an exit program for women in prostitution has finally been released. This is extremely welcome so that we can see prostitution for what it is, namely men's violence against women. I, and probably also you, are still asked why it is legal to sell but not to buy sex. It is not so strange that people think that way, because this issue is not discussed. Not even when celebrities are caught for buying sex, and one thinks that the window should be open to actually talk about what this is about, does the media flow help. It does not land correctly; instead, opinions are conveyed that it wasn't that dangerous and that she perhaps wanted it herself.

This initiative is, therefore, very welcome, but the Center Party wants even more. We want to target it towards young people as well, or perhaps towards young people at the beginning. If we are ever to tackle the online prostitution that exists, we must target young people early and their use of sites such as Onlyfans. Children and young people are extra vulnerable to the sale of sex online, and we must do everything we can to reach them.

But it is certainly strange – you give with one hand and take with the other. I say this because, at the same time, it is decided that nothing will be done about the fact that Skatteverket collects tax from prostitutes. I find that strange. From Centerpartiet, we will continue to pinpoint this issue throughout all of next year and until we have achieved a change. Skatteverket cannot continue like this. The government must clarify this, which ministers have also said here in the chamber previously.

I do not participate in the decision but refer to the Centre Party's specific statement.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Even in this debate, just as in the debates on expenditure area 10 and expenditure area 12, it is heard that it should pay to work. Still, the real question is: How is one supposed to afford to live on one's salary?

Earlier in this debate, I heard that it is about freedom of choice. By some kind of magical event, women seem to choose very low incomes. Not a single word have I heard from the government's representatives about how we should re-evaluate women's work so that one actually receives a wage one can live on.

I have also heard that previous Social Democratic governments were said to have taken women's wage increases away from them. What is talked about less is that women with low incomes will lose money every month in this government's budget. It is an equality issue that we would need to talk about.

A woman with a low income who works full-time, for example as a childcare worker, and who has exactly the capacity the Moderate Party member was talking about, loses 500 kronor a month on this government's budget. She does not receive more than just over 100 kronor in job tax deduction and loses 500 kronor a month on the removed temporary supplement to the housing allowance. It is an equality issue, because this will also mean that her pension decreases. It will mean that she will not have the possibility to save to the same extent. It will mean that she will have poorer opportunities to manage her old age.

These are the gender equality issues that should be discussed even in the government basis instead of pretending that one has a gender equality vision.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet is a feminist party. We want to use political tools to increase equality and counteract the prevailing gender power structure, according to which men have more power than women. It is fundamentally a question of freedom and of being able to live on one's wage. It is not just about being punished for not having a job, but one must also be able to live on the wage one has when working full-time as a single mother.

Unfortunately, this is not at all the policy that the government is presenting. In a budget where a sky-high 28 billion goes to tax cuts, the very richest - and primarily men - are favored in the form of reduced tax on high salaries, pensions, and fuels, and reduced tax for large corporations. A very good example of this is the tax cut of a full 4.7 billion that is specifically targeted at high-income earners by removing the tapering of the job tax credit. The proposal will benefit twice as many men as women. This is not only a missed opportunity to strengthen women's freedom, but it will also have a direct effect in the form of reduced equality in society - also over time.

Madam Speaker! The greatest lack of freedom affecting Swedish women is, however, not being able to live a life free from violence. Last year, at least ten women were murdered by their partners. How many women have been killed so far this year we do not know, because no authority has the task of continuously counting this.

The government has been clear about the ambition to reduce violence and lethal violence. We in Miljöpartiet present three concrete proposals in our budget that we hope the government will want to adopt, just as has been done with very much of the investigations and proposals that we submitted during our time in government. We are grateful that this has been taken further, but the work is not finished.

We need to strengthen the funding of the women's shelters and the civil society organizations that combat psychological, physical, sexual, and digital violence. For a long time, the volunteer forces of the women's shelters bore the entire responsibility for the situation of women exposed to violence while society looked the other way. Thanks to the work done by the shelters, there is today a completely different knowledge about violence, honor-related violence, and what is required to improve women's situation. This work is completely central to the social change required to break violent norms. Even the Sweden Democrats' member spoke about how important it is that we break destructive male norms.

Despite the fact that the state subsidy to the women's and girls' crisis centers was both made permanent and increased last year, we still see that there are insufficient resources to provide women with the support they actually need. Both the open operations and the sheltered housing run with the centers' expertise are needed. We therefore invest an additional 50 million in our budget motion for the women's and girls' crisis centers' operations and provide 20 million to the organizations that run support lines.

Madam Speaker! Today, only every fifth woman who has been subjected to violence is offered sheltered housing by the social services, according to SKR. The legislation for placement in sheltered housing has recently been strengthened to counter fraud. This is good, but if the new law is truly to make a difference, it must lead to more women and children being granted placement in high-quality housing. This is, however, expensive for the municipalities.

The municipalities' pressured economic situation – they have also not received the adjustment that would have been needed after the inflation – means that access to sheltered housing risks being governed by budget rather than need. So we simply cannot have that. Miljöpartiet therefore proposes that the state covers half the cost for placements in sheltered housing and that the municipality can invoice for half the cost afterwards. This is a system that already exists in Denmark – it is usually popular to look at Denmark – and which can create greater stability regarding economic conditions for those who need it.

We allocate 1 billion annually for this purpose. That is, 1 billion to strengthen the possibility of gaining access to high-quality protected housing, and it is still only one-fifth of that which is allocated to the tapering of the job tax credit.

Madam Speaker! People who are trying to leave a violent relationship or a honor-related context, or who live in protected housing, can often have a very strained financial situation. We want to introduce a new support - a special relocation allowance - in the social insurance system so that crime victims do not have to be affected financially, for example, when confidentiality has been breached or when recurring moves are required due to protected personal data. In addition to the obvious loss of income that follows from being forced to break away from one's home, one's work, and one's surroundings, many women exposed to violence are hit by large costs when data is cleared and they are forced to leave the residence on very short notice.

The state must take its responsibility to help these families, who are already in a very vulnerable situation, so that they do not also go to their knees financially. We are allocating 100 million to this.

Madam Speaker! I hope that the government is prepared to consider these initiatives to meet the needs that exist regarding men committing violence against women. Men's violence against women must be fought with the same force as we use to fight men's violence against men. For the sake of clarity, I want to say that these are not just words. They are not rehearsed slogans, as a member said here in the chamber last week. This is an incredibly central truth that the equality policy must embrace. Men's violence against women and children must stop.

For Miljöpartiet, it is clear that the government's talk about equality is fine words rather than concrete policy. I hope that this debate does not stop here in the chamber, but that we breathe life into the gender equality conversation in order to turn the trend in the right direction again. Our entire society would benefit from that.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! The member speaks a lot about the group that I feel very strongly for, namely the women who have the very lowest wages.

It has been a very tough time. When the Moderate-led government took over, we also saw almost the highest unemployment within the EU, while we have also had a recession and high inflation. The most important thing we have been able to do during this time, especially with regard to those who have had it the toughest, has been to fight inflation, because it hits them the hardest.

Now I come from Stockholm, where the red-green opposition rules together with Miljöpartiet. Stockholm is indeed an area where women have it very difficult. I therefore cannot help but wonder a bit about how the member sees how they have raised both the municipal tax and the regional tax there. They also raise the prices in public transport, which are daily costs for these women, and additionally withdraw several lines.

Not least, the options for care within women's healthcare are being drastically reduced, particularly within gynecological activities and eating disorder care, for ideological reasons. It truly worsens the possibilities for care for women. It is also a hard blow to female entrepreneurs, if we are talking about women's economic empowerment, for it is the only industry where women have been prominent and the large proportion of entrepreneurs.

I would very much like to have a comment on this.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind that it is politics that is decided in the Riksdag that we debate in the Riksdag.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I was just about to ask about this, because I have understood that we normally do not debate municipal and regional decisions in the chamber.

My comment to Merit Frost Lindberg is: No, I do not think it is good. In my home municipality, Malmö, they have chosen to do it in a different way and are not proceeding with a municipal tax increase precisely because it hits those with the lowest incomes so incredibly hard.

On the other hand, it is a very weak defense from a representative of a government that has just implemented 28 billion in tax cuts but has failed to deliver those funds to municipalities and regions for healthcare, elderly care, and schools, which could have been used to raise wages in female-dominated professions. Instead, they are now going to tax reliefs of 7,000-8,000 kronor per month per person in the households that have the most. They receive so incredibly much money. I calculated once that it is 350 falukorvs or something along those lines that one could joke about in such a household. 130,000 kronor a year is what a high-income family here in Stockholm receives, while those with the lowest incomes, as mentioned, lose out on your budget.

In Malmö, a family loses in the example I gave 500 kronor a month. The government does not invest in municipalities and regions in its budget, but instead in those with the highest incomes, those who buy pools, who have four cars and private yachts. That is where they put the money. It means that here in Stockholm, a family loses in the example I gave even more money, while the welfare cannot be strengthened in the way that should have been completely obvious.

The question can be turned back: How much more than full-time does the member think it is reasonable for a single mother to have to work in order to be able to pay basic costs such as rent, food, and clothes for her children? When we know that so many borrow for necessary expenses all the time, how can you then remove 500 kronor a month for these income groups?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I am aware that I drifted off a bit, and there are many members here who have taken that liberty in order to be able to highlight important issues for equality.

The fundamental aspect of our policy and the dividing line here is actually that we want the group of low-paid women well. As I note, it is truly a priority area and one of the reasons why I want to be involved in politics. Here we have complete agreement.

What we see very differently on, however, is how to improve their situation. My view is that we Moderates believe in the ability of these women. They should not have to rely on benefits. Instead of a benefit line with increased taxes, we believe in a job line.

These women are today participating in and financing all the benefits that go to people who do not work. Today, there is not particularly much that distinguishes between those who receive benefits and those who have the really low wages. I think it is an injustice that precisely these women should have to pay for people who today can roll their thumbs.

We know very well that there are many who want to work, and we will support them with education and skill-enhancing measures. But there is also an all-too-large proportion of people in Sweden today who do not want to contribute and work. It is also them that these women will have to help finance, and they will continue to do so with the Green Party's policy.

I would like to have a comment on that.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I will first just take two very deep breaths. Merit Frost Lindberg stands here and speaks of low-income earners, single mothers, whom you take money from, as those who pay for those who do not work, while at the same time you give 7,000-8,000 kronor on average to the richest decile in Sweden. It is completely absurd, Madam Speaker. How does that math add up?

I have a very radical proposal for the Moderaterna if one wants to protect this group. Stop cutting their incomes! It would be to prioritize the group of low-income earners. It would be to prioritize single mothers who cannot make ends meet in their everyday lives. Give them back the money that you have taken from them!

The second very radical proposal: Let those who already have three houses, a pool, and all these cars be involved in paying for the low-income earners who cannot manage to pay for food and clothes for their children! Let those who work full-time, and who travel to and from work by public transport, avoid paying as much as they do now! Let them avoid losing 500 kronor a month! Then perhaps you can take a small part of the 4.7 billion that just the tapering off of the job tax credit entails for the richest men to reintroduce the temporary supplement to the housing allowance. It perhaps should be made permanent, so that the single mother, the caregiver, gets a chance to keep her nose above water and a chance to do something other than worry about finances and do something other than go and ask the neighbor for a loan to manage the rent that month as well. That is the reality today.

When you speak about it having to pay off to work, it is a mockery of all those who today actually cannot live on their wages. Think for a moment about how you support them! Think about whether it really is to prioritize gender equality policy when you spend so many billions on the richest men while at the same time taking money from the poorest women!

(Applause)

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision. Then I intend to raise the issue of honor-related violence and oppression in my speech.

Sweden is based on freedom, equality and the individual's rights. These are values that are threatened by honor oppression and Islamization.

Honor-related violence involves gross violations of human rights, and it thrives in parallel societies where sharia laws are sometimes applied unofficially, which undermines Swedish law and democracy. Honor culture primarily forces women and girls to subordinate themselves to the will of the family and the clan. This can limit their freedom of movement and their choice of clothing, education, and life partners. In extreme cases, it can lead to child marriage, genital mutilation, forced marriage, and honor killings.

Islamization contributes to the honor culture taking root in society. This structure is often linked to Islamist ideas that aim for Sharia laws to stand above democracy and for the individual's freedom to be sacrificed for the collective's control. This threatens not only women and girls but also our society's fundamental values.

We must dare to admit that the problem has its roots in traditions and ideologies that have accompanied migration and which are not part of Swedish culture. To turn a blind eye to this connection is to betray the victims.

The Sweden Democrats clearly stand on the side of the victims. To combat honor-related violence and oppression, an integration policy is required that strengthens our fundamental values and combats oppressive structures.

Madam Speaker! It is not too much to ask that people who come here respect the laws and values that have built our country. We do not demand that any of them should love surströmming or learn to build a piece of furniture in 15 minutes. We only demand that they accept that women are worth as much as men and that no one should have to live their life in fear.

We must set clear requirements for adaptation to Swedish values and laws. Coming to Sweden means accepting equality, freedom of speech, and individual rights. The Sweden Democrats are clear: We do not compromise on these values, and we have zero tolerance for honor-related violence and oppression.

Sweden shall be a country where every individual has the freedom to live without oppression, fear or coercion, where law and justice take precedence over clan power and where everyone has the same opportunity to live in freedom.

Madam Speaker! The previous government turned a blind eye while radical preachers spread their hatred, allowed the financing of extremism through foreign donations, and ignored warning signs from schools, social services, and the justice system.

The current government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has made extensive investments to combat honor-related violence and oppression through an action program with a total of 132 measures.

During 2024-2026, an additional 50 million kronor will be allocated per year, which raises the total annual resources to over 400 million kronor.

The County Administrative Board of Östergötland receives 22 million kronor to develop a national support line and regional resource centers. This is a significant increase compared to previously, when similar initiatives lacked dedicated funding on this scale.

The Gender Equality Authority is allocated 15 million kronor for targeted assignments such as mapping, knowledge dissemination and competence building, a doubling compared to previously.

The National Board of Health and Welfare receives funds to counteract female genital mutilation and spread knowledge about travel bans for children.

Protected housing is being strengthened, and the number of places will increase by 30 percent over the next three years.

The police are now prioritizing investigations of honor-related crimes and have received increased resources with a budget of over 11 million kronor for 2024.

Furthermore, we clearly stand against parallel societies and religious oppression by stopping the funding of mosques and organizations from countries that spread radical Islamism. Religious leaders must respect Swedish laws and values, and those who spread oppression or Islamist propaganda have no place in Sweden.

To prevent honor-based violence, 15 million kronor are invested annually in training for school staff and others who encounter children and young people.

Integration policy is being tightened with requirements for language learning, education, and adaptation to Swedish values.

Furthermore, we have tightened the requirements for the financing of organizations and mosques from abroad. For 2024, 25 million kronor are allocated to review and stop financial flows from states and actors that spread radical Islamism in Sweden.

All of this is a clear indication that Sweden will never compromise on its values of freedom, equality, and individual rights.

Madam Speaker! Although we see more powerful measures against honor oppression today than ever before, I want to be clear: This is the result of the Sweden Democrats' pressure and influence. Without us, these initiatives and the clarity of the zero tolerance towards honor oppression would not have existed. But this is only one step. With full opportunity to shape the policy, we would have gone further to protect the vulnerable, hold perpetrators accountable, and stop parallel societies from taking root. It is our firm conviction that Sweden needs a policy that does not just handle the symptoms but also addresses the underlying causes of the problem.

Previous governments betrayed Sweden. It is they who bear a heavy responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in. They allowed parallel societies to emerge and looked away when women were oppressed and the culture of honor took hold. Their naivety cost lives, and they betrayed the girls and women who deserved safety and freedom.

The Sweden Democrats do not accept that anyone lives in fear of honor oppression. We say no to Sharia laws, no to Islamist extremism and no to honor culture. Sweden shall never become a breeding ground for Islamist oppression.

The Sweden Democrats will never back down before either Islamism or the forces that seek to undermine our democratic society. We stand on the barricades to defend freedom, justice, and equality. We stand for a policy that puts the victims first, that tackles the problems for real, and that always chooses freedom over oppression. Sweden deserves better, and we will fight to make it a reality - no matter how much it stings for the politicians who have been involved in building up this debacle.

Integration and equality

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by wishing everyone here a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

In this speech, Patrick Reslow and Michael Rubbestad (both SD) concurred.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 December.)

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