Integration and equality

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! In this debate, I will focus on the gender equality policy within expenditure area 13. My colleague Ann-Christine Frohm will touch upon the issues of discrimination and integration.

I would like to begin by moving to approve the government's proposal for the distribution of appropriations within expenditure area 13.

The overall goal of gender equality policy is that women and men should have the same power to shape society and their own lives. Sweden stands well in international comparisons, but despite this, serious problems remain. This particularly concerns men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, prostitution and human trafficking, as well as honor-related violence and oppression. It is against this background that the government's proposal for the distribution of appropriations within expenditure area 13 shall be assessed.

The Sweden Democrats support this budget because it addresses well-identified deficiencies in the current system and strengthens those parts of the equality policy where the need is greatest.

A central element in the budget is the strengthening of the work against honor-related violence and oppression. Honor-related violence and oppression involves a serious violation of fundamental freedoms and rights. It often takes collective expression and differs in its character from other forms of violence. This distinctiveness has for a long time been insufficiently visible in state governance, despite the consequences for vulnerable girls and women having been well known.

The government's decision to introduce a specific gender equality policy sub-goal regarding the cessation of honor-related violence and oppression therefore represents a very important change. A separate sub-goal creates clarity in the distribution of responsibility and provides better conditions for follow-up, management, and coordination between authorities, municipalities, and regions.

To this is linked a national action plan against honor-related violence and oppression for the period 2026–2028. The action plan shall concretize the work, identify prioritized interventions, and ensure that the support for vulnerable persons becomes more equitable across the country.

The government is simultaneously scaling up the investment in regional resource centers against honor-related violence and oppression. The purpose is to ensure that children, young people, and adults who are or risk being subjected to it receive access to specialized and adapted support regardless of location. To enable this, municipalities and regions are provided with permanent funds to strengthen and develop the regional and local work.

Madam Speaker! This is an extremely important measure. Lack of access to specialized expertise has long been a problem, especially in smaller municipalities. Through clearer structure and long-term funding, the conditions are improved for professionals to handle complex cases and to provide more legally secure support to the vulnerable.

The government also clarifies the agency responsibility by transferring certain national tasks from the National Centre against Honor-Related Violence and Oppression to the Gender Equality Authority. This strengthens the state coordination and contributes to increased efficiency in the work.

Madam Speaker! The budget also contains a clear strengthening of the work against prostitution and human trafficking. Human trafficking involves a systematic exploitation of people in vulnerable situations and is in many cases linked to organized crime. The work against prostitution and human trafficking is therefore both a matter of equality and a matter of combating crime.

The action plan against prostitution and human trafficking is strengthened to provide more coherent and effective support to persons who have been subjected to exploitation. This improves the possibilities for municipalities and regions to provide support to those who wish to leave vulnerability. The action plan covers persons who have been subjected to human trafficking for all purposes, even though the funds allocated within this expenditure area are intended for interventions within the framework of gender equality policy.

The initiative also has a special focus on children and young people. The Sweden Democrats have, together with the government, also given several agencies mandates aimed at strengthening support for children who have been subjected to violence, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking. This is a necessary priority, as children are often in a particularly vulnerable situation and have limited opportunities to seek help themselves.

Madam Speaker! Women's shelters and other crime victim support organizations constitute an immensely important complement to the municipalities' responsibilities according to the Social Services Act. They play a central role in providing support to women and children who have been subjected to violence, threats, and abuse. The Government is therefore increasing the permanent support to women's shelters and to certain other non-profit organizations. Through the reinforcement, the conditions for long-term operations, competence building, and accessibility are improved.

A significant proportion of the organizations covered by the grant carry out targeted activities for women and girls in particularly vulnerable situations, including those who have been subjected to honor-related violence and oppression.

It is at the same time very important to clarify the distribution of responsibility. Protected housing is an intervention according to the Social Services Act and ultimately a municipal responsibility.

The new regulatory framework that entered into force on 1 April 2024 entails stricter quality requirements, a permit requirement, and strengthened rights for children in sheltered housing. The Government has also tasked several authorities with supporting the municipalities in the implementation of the reform.

Madam Speaker! The Government's proposal represents, taken as a whole, a clearer direction for the gender equality policy. The focus lies on areas where the needs are well-documented and where previous interventions have proven insufficient. Through new goals, better governance, permanent resources, and increased coordination, the conditions are strengthened for more effective and equitable work throughout the country.

The Sweden Democrats support this because the budget is based on identified problems, clear priorities and concrete measures, and because it represents a step in the direction we have long advocated for within gender equality policy. It is a responsible approach that strengthens the protection for vulnerable girls, women and children and improves the conditions for the goals of gender equality policy to be achieved in practice.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude my speech by wishing everyone in the chamber a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I hear the members speaking about how the government is taking major steps to strengthen the situation for crime victims. That is good. But I wonder why one is cutting back on Brottsofferjouren and their incredibly important work. Brottsofferjouren plays a completely decisive role by providing support to over 60,000 crime victims, witnesses, and relatives, and they run the national support line. They have over 100 employees and more than a thousand volunteers.

It is actually difficult to estimate the value of Brottsofferjouren, but this government chooses to cut the support by 15 million, which means that Brottsofferjouren must cut back on its operations. For me, it becomes contradictory. The Member of Parliament is welcome to explain why one is cutting by 15 million.

The Speaker also addressed honor-related violence and oppression in her speech, and she was generally satisfied in her speech regarding what the government and SD are doing in the area. I will be absolutely clear. Honor-related violence and oppression are dangerous and appalling, but it is not possible to solve this with hatred and threats against Swedes and persons with a foreign background. Why does one not instead choose to invest in education, jobs, and security to break the honor-related violence and oppression?

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

I am a bit confused. Combating honor-related violence and oppression is not about hate and threats. I find it difficult to understand that. Here, it is about actually defending the fundamental freedoms and rights. If you think it is about hate and threats, you need to review your policy further – which I think anyway.

Then it was a question of cuts. No, it is about where the resources are placed. We believe that resources should be placed where they are needed. It is not that we cut and remove completely, but we reprioritize and redistribute the funds.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! 15 million is being cut from just Brottsofferjouren, which has an incredibly important operation and in many cases constitutes the first intervention for the victims. Just as I explained, it concerns over 60,000 crime victims, witnesses, and relatives every year. Then you cut by 15 million. There, the member is still liable for the answer.

I want to return to what needs to be done, namely to put people to work. The opportunities for foreign-born women to enter the labor market mean getting out into safety to work; not being in exclusion or staying at home during the day.

Why have you not expanded and individualized the establishment program, and why have you removed the extra services? They would involve major efforts that play a large role. Where are the efforts that would make a difference for many of these women? When women receive education, jobs, and security, honor-based violence and patriarchal violence decrease. Where are those efforts?

Madam Speaker! Women's freedom must never be used as a weapon for a racist policy. It is something that the Sverigedemokraterna stand for every day in the chamber – unfortunately.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! I shall disregard what the last member said and try to remain somewhat sane in the debate. That is what I think we should be.

If we are to talk about efforts that have not been sufficient, we can look at the efforts of the member's party. When you were in government, you were dependent on time-limited project funds. You only introduced time-limited projects. There were large differences between different municipalities in terms of support and protection.

If you were to take over, there is a risk that the honor oppression will once again become a side issue, that it will again be managed within broad goals and that there will be an increased dependence on projects and temporary investments. There will be a less clear follow-up with the member's party.

The government's budget, on the other hand, involves permanent reinforcements within existing appropriations, which also strengthens the structure. There is a big difference in where the funds are allocated.

We have come much further than blackening parties in the chamber. I nevertheless want to conclude my speech by wishing the member a very Merry Christmas.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! No one has missed that the parliamentary term has been characterized by economic crisis, inflation, increased living costs, and wages that lag behind. It is primarily households with small margins that need help from the state to get through these types of economic crises.

Those who have it the absolutely toughest are single mothers. It is about thousands and thousands of hard-working women who can no longer manage financially. These are mothers who are care assistants, nursing assistants, or shop employees. They do everything in their power to manage their most basic expenses, but they are left powerless and alone when the government chooses to prioritize those who are already managing very well.

Imagine the stress if someone in the family needs medicine or glasses when there are no economic margins left, when thousands of kronor are already missing every month. Then you can just imagine the panic of a single parent when they become ill and perhaps cannot go to work. So we cannot have that. It is not decent in a rich country like Sweden, and it makes Sweden not only poor but also a more unequal country.

The government has during the mandate period been completely uninterested in protecting ordinary households from the consequences of inflation. Those who are hit hardest are Sweden's working women.

As the only group, women in manual occupations have namely fallen behind economically over time. They have society's lowest wages and worst working conditions. They get sick most from the job, they often do not have a full working life, they receive the lowest pensions and they even fall behind in life expectancy. This is not a small group, but here half of the country's women are included.

Madam Speaker! 72 percent of all those who work in the public sector are women, and it is they who lose their jobs when the budgets are to be shrunk. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, estimates that the number of employees in the regions will decrease by between 5,000 and 6,000 people in the coming years. When the workforce is reduced, it leads to increased workload and worse working conditions for those who remain, and other women increase their unpaid work to compensate for the welfare system's deficiencies.

We want the welfare sector to have enough resources to create better conditions and a sustainable working environment for everyone who works there.

We know that stress and high workload are among the greatest work environment challenges today. The sick leaves for mental ill-health have doubled in ten years.

The Work Environment Authority's review of healthcare shows that three out of four workplaces do not meet the requirements of the Work Environment Act. The workload is unsustainable, and the measures are non-existent.

Those who are to take care of us when we are going to give birth, when mom has had a heart attack, when the teenager has broken a leg in football, or when the daughter is to be helped with her anxiety – those who are there during life's various events and when we are most vulnerable – should not have to pay with their health and with a shortened life. It is unworthy.

Madam Speaker! When SD and the government have placed their commitment on lowering taxes for those who have the most, Sweden's growth stands still, and we get an unemployment rate that is among Europe's highest and which has stuck at 9 percent. Then the government chooses to worsen the housing and activity support. The support is phased down every hundred days to finally land at 8,030 kronor per month before tax.

It is a hard kick downwards that does not make it easier for anyone to get into work. Many are hit hard, for example the mother of two and the university-educated engineer Lovisa, who was interviewed in Agenda last Sunday. She has applied for over 400 jobs without results. Now she lives on activity support, which provides just over 7,000 kronor a month. She says herself that if she had not had a partner, she would probably have been practically homeless.

That is what it looks like when the Sweden Democrats and the government are allowed to rule Sweden. Their economic policy tears society apart, increases inequalities, and makes women economically unfree. Economic equality is about women's economic freedom, and it is fundamental to achieving the goal of an equal Sweden.

It is not possible to say that equality is important and then pursue an economic policy that makes women, especially working-class women, poorer. It is completely incompatible.

If we are to gain momentum in the work on the ultimate consequence of an unequal society – men's violence against women – women cannot be unemployed, become ill from their work, have too low an income to live on, or be economically dependent on their husband or someone else.

The government says that they stand on the side of crime victims, but then I cannot understand why they pursue a policy that causes protected housing to be shut down and become fewer in the country. Then one cannot cut millions from Brottsofferjouren.

We cannot tell a woman that she should leave her violent husband without there being a safety net, a police officer or a social service that helps her and takes her seriously, legislation that protects her, or a women's shelter with the conditions to help. She cannot leave her husband if she has nowhere to go or any money left in the account.

Madam Speaker! It does not have to be this way. Sweden can take a completely different, new direction. We Social Democrats want, among other things, to increase the child allowance and abolish the "karens" (waiting periods). We have put countless billions more into our budgets for healthcare. We have put 2 billion more into elderly care next year to improve working conditions and care. We have put billions more than the government on labor market initiatives, education, and subsidized employment, all so that people can get into work. We want to both expand and individualize the establishment program for foreign-born women, so that they can break their exclusion and get into work.

We want to introduce a special relocation support that will give those subject to violence the opportunity to quickly leave a dangerous relationship, as an important part of society's protection and the work for women's peace. Society must be there when women and children need to flee from their perpetrator.

These were just a few examples of another policy that would strengthen Sweden and the country's economy and prosperity, and this is done through increased equality work, for all women. The goal of Sweden's equality policy is that women and men shall have the same power to shape their own lives and society.

The Tidö parties have left women and ordinary families behind when it has been tough economic times, because tax cuts have been absolutely most important. The goal for Swedish gender equality policy is withering away. It becomes more of a dream than a common vision. This is nothing that surprises, even if it is strikingly unfortunate when it becomes a fact.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your speech! I truly agree with many parts of what you say, and we care about the same groups in society. Our perception of reality, however, differs on several levels and also our solutions.

I have a question. This is a budget debate, and when one makes a budget, one would preferably want everything. If I go into a store, I want to buy most of it, if I have unlimited resources. What is difficult when one makes a budget or shops is that one must prioritize and choose based on the means one has.

The Chairman mentioned the quarantine deduction in his speech. The Social Democrats have also held a press conference where they were more than clear that this is something they intend to move forward with. The quarantine is deeply unfair and must be removed, says Magdalena Andersson. That they want to remove the quarantine is also in the report, albeit quite briefly. I perceive that it is something they intend to move forward with and that they are going to the election on.

The Chairman spoke about what the Social Democrats have included in the budget, but there is actually nothing in there for the care deduction. It is zero.

I have a question for the member. According to the Social Democrats' calculations, it will cost 5 billion kronor. According to many other organizations' calculations, it will rather be up to 40 billion kronor, taking into account sick pay costs and production loss. But if we still rely on the Social Democrats' cost, what cuts or tax increases does one intend to make to finance this?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not so incredibly difficult, but it must be said that it is absolutely about priorities. The government has prioritized lowering tax after tax with gigantic reform spaces without doing anything about what I said in my speech regarding welfare and the women who pay a very high price for the tax cuts.

We will need to do even more things to improve working conditions. This includes, among other things, the care allowance. We can take funding from quite many places. We could tax the banks' excess profits – it is many billions. It is so many billions that it is difficult to have time to count them during the speaking time, and they would suffice for much.

We believe that we can both finance the welfare much better than this government has done and finance a removal of the care deduction.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! The problem I am trying to highlight is that the Social Democrats have not spoken about how they intend to finance this. Today, the member gives the example that it is the banks that are to finance it, but this is not clear to the voters.

If one is still to believe that the investment will stick to what the Social Democrats themselves have calculated, i.e., 5 billion, which is not particularly likely considering that many other factors will be affected by this – but let us still say that it would end up there for the sake of comparison: It is at the level of the entire gender equality budget that we are talking about here today. But one has not said a word about how this is to be financed. It is the women that we are largely talking about here today, the single women, who will also have to participate in paying. I think it is dishonest to stand and say that one is going to carry out such a large thing without mentioning a single word about how it is to be financed.

I also want to take the opportunity to get clarity on another matter. Major communication initiatives have been made by the Social Democrats regarding the reduction of working hours. I have spoken with many people who work in healthcare, whom the Social Democrats have addressed regarding this, who wonder: What is it that we are supposed to save on in order to shorten the working hours? Some saving must occur. Is it that the elderly should shower faster, or should one speak faster as a teacher?

I don't know. But after the Social Democrats have been out beating the big drum and made many voters believe that this is something one goes to the election with, it has landed, as I have understood it, even though it yielded nothing – other than that the issue should be resolved between the parties. That is actually where we Moderates stand as well, so in that sense it pleases me that the Social Democrats have landed there.

I would simply just like to have confirmation from the Member that the Social Democrats are dropping the issue of reduction of working hours and landing exactly as we have done.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is a matter of the government having very few proposals. You have implemented tax cuts now, in several budgets. Will you continue on that track? Is that how you intend to develop this country to become stronger and more equal? We see how it looks. It will not be so.

We Social Democrats have ambitions in this area when it comes to the care deduction and when it comes to strengthening the welfare. It is about improving the working environment and the conditions. It is about ensuring that growth gets started in this country after your years. That is how we create jobs, and people need to have jobs.

The work line that the government is pursuing only breaks the unemployed and not unemployment. It is incredibly bad with proposals from the government, so I understand that it is concerning for the member and the member's party that we have proposals.

(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 the report. I will address equality and discrimination.

When my father was eleven years old, he was forced to let out his beloved dog on the street, at the mercy of the elements, and say goodbye to his grandparents who were too old and sick to be able to flee. Then the flight began away from tanks, artillery and dead people without knowing what awaited or if one would even survive.

Having to flee from war does something to people. It creates wounds in families that always remain. I, along with many other immigrants of the generation, carry this legacy with us.

For the people who come to Sweden, there is an opportunity for a new beginning. Today's reception provides a basis for that, and it continues to be improved all the time. But the beginning I am speaking of can only occur through a common commitment. Sweden's laws and rules shall be followed by everyone, those born in Sweden and those born abroad. The commitments that it entails to build up and receive a share of our common welfare is a responsibility for each and every one. Values regarding people's equal worth and equality have no room at all for compromise.

I am eternally grateful that Sweden opened the door and offered protection and the opportunity for a new life when my family fled the war in Hungary. But I also learned from home that with this came a great responsibility even for us. We were not to merely be content with being grateful, but we were to do things so well that Sweden became grateful for us.

Both of my grandparents started working within a couple of months, and they worked hard throughout their entire professional lives. They learned Swedish. My grandmother also became prominent in her profession and laid a new foundation not only for herself but also for other women. She is my role model. Being a part of her journey toward equality has meant everything to me. I would have been a completely different person today if I hadn't been able to experience it.

I want all children, girls and boys, to see their mother, sister, aunt and grandmother shape their own lives according to what they dream of. I know that it will lay the foundation for what they will also believe is possible for themselves.

I am pleased that the Moderate-led government, with its coalition partners, is now implementing a subsidy reform with activity requirements and subsidy caps. It is not only a reform for hard-working people, but it is also the largest equality reform in decades. It will affect many foreign-born women.

The equality we have in Sweden today has not come from nowhere, but it is a result of several well-considered reforms such as expanded parental leave and childcare. It is not least about the fact that we removed joint taxation. The reform that has had the greatest impact on women's economic independence is the one where we reformed the tax system so that women's wage labor received a significantly greater economic value.

It was tough in the 70s for many women to manage this journey, because many had never worked. They did not have education, qualifications, and experience. Employers hesitated, but the women managed it. We know it, because we have the answer key: Sweden is today one of the world's most equal countries.

It is the same result that we strive for this time, but now by changing the subsidy system. It should be too expensive to be a housewife. It should be a bygone era when our subsidy systems were rigged so that one could just as easily stay at home as work. It is now the turn of the foreign-born women, for they are the housewives of today. There is no reason at all to believe that they do not have the same ability to manage this journey.

The Moderate-led government, with its coalition partners, has taken action on all levels regarding creating a more equal Sweden. The measures are spread across several different budget areas. I will mention some examples from expenditure area 13: increased funds against prostitution and human trafficking, increased and permanent grants to support girls' and women's shelters, funds for an action plan against honor-related violence and oppression, and permanent strengthening of municipalities' and regions' work against honor-related violence and oppression.

Furthermore, the gender equality sub-objective regarding men's violence against women will be clarified regarding which forms of violence and groups are covered. We also add a seventh, new sub-objective that honor-related violence and oppression shall cease to clarify that this area needs special attention, separate governance, and clear goals.

Of all the advice I received from my grandmother, there is at least one that I have followed without exception. She told me many times: Always be financially independent – it is the only way to freedom.

And it is precisely this that highlights the difference between the government's and the opposition's policies. While we believe in women and make changes that are intended to make them independent and give them economic empowerment through jobs and self-sufficiency, the opposition has no confidence in women's abilities and instead supports a dependency on benefits.

No, the opposition – we women can, want to, and shall, and you actually must not stand in the way.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Women's wages are stagnant or even falling back a little, which is appalling. I did not hear the member say anything about that in their speech. Part-time jobs are increasing, and insecure employment is becoming more common. As the only group in Sweden, working women are falling back in terms of both life expectancy and earned income. We see how a new woman trap is emerging, driven by market logic, with cuts in the female-dominated sectors.

I wonder, Madam Speaker: Why have the women of the welfare sector not been important for the Moderates? During the mandate period, you have thrown billions after billions into strengthening wealthy men – they were already wealthy, but you wanted to strengthen them even more – instead of the women of the welfare sector. Why does the member have nothing to say about that? Why do you choose to cut back on the welfare sector? As I said in my speech, 72 percent of all those who work in the public sector are women. Why do you choose to worsen their working environment in order to put the money on tax cuts?

If you are to be a guarantor that the positions for equality are moved forward, you cannot place so many women in the economic squeeze, with a deteriorated work environment and deteriorated living conditions. Why have you not prioritized the women of the welfare sector even once?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I almost do not know what to say, for I am astonished by the member's question: why we have not prioritized the women of the welfare system.

I live in Stockholm. There we see how the Social Democrats have governed. It is a clear shop window, as you yourselves have noted, for how your rule would look. Here we do not have gynecologists to go to. We do not have eating disorder care. The prerequisites for precisely those welfare enterprises that women have started are being removed. Is that investing in the women of the welfare state? I actually do not understand at all what the member is talking about.

Don't you know what is going on in Stockholm? It is a scandalous attack not only on the women of the welfare system but on women in general and all those patients who cannot receive care. Anorexia care is just one example – there, they have removed an entire operation's possibilities to help children. I almost don't even know what to answer to this question.

When it comes to the women in welfare, I have been out and met many of them and talked about the work environment, for example. None of them talk about shortening working hours as an opportunity. It is one thing when it concerns production; there perhaps one can save by using other machines or cutting back on administration or so. But these women do not work with such things. They work with people, and many of them are already going on their knees. What they are requesting is not shorter working hours, because then someone else would have to do the job, but to have a more flexible work environment, to be able to have opinions on their schedules and to have better tools to work with. There is a huge amount that can be done to care for the women in welfare, but shortening working hours, which the Socialdemokrater are on, is definitely not such a thing.

But again: I would very much like to receive a comment back from the member on how the situation looks in Stockholm now, both for the women in welfare and for all the patients who are affected – female patients.

(Applause)

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind you not to address each other as "du" but with "ledamot" and that we must not forget that it is expenditure area 13 we are debating.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Then I would just like to refer that question back to the Stockholm City Council meeting. The member can take the debate there instead. Here we are discussing and debating expenditure area 13, which concerns the equality goals we have in Sweden. It concerns, among other things, economic equality, which does not shine particularly brightly in this area. Fundamentally, if we are to get anywhere with achieving equality, it is whether women are economically unfree or whether they are economically free and can have an independence and control over their own lives.

This government chooses in all its budgets to cut back on healthcare and on welfare, where incredibly many of these women work every day, with insecure employment and poor working conditions. My question therefore remains: What does the member say to all those welfare women who toil every day, 24/7, when you have chosen to prioritize them away and not put money into ensuring they can get an improved work situation, more secure employment, and a better salary? What is the member's answer to them? Is the answer that we needed to lower the tax for very wealthy men once again, or does the member have another answer to give them?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Economic freedom is achieved, as has been said, by securing one's own livelihood, not through dependency on benefits. That is exactly what this government has worked towards. The group that stands furthest away from the labor market is foreign-born women. They can much more than the Social Democrats communicate that you think they can.

We have invested an enormous amount in reaching exactly these groups. We invest in education, adult education, language learning, and literacy-promoting measures and try to find new ways to reach these women, for example through open preschools. This is one of the absolutely most important foundations for foreign-born people, who have become the new era's housewives, to enter the workforce.

It is also one of the groups that we will reach with the subsidy reform that we are now going to implement. The member stands there and smirks – I think it testifies to a rather poor debate climate.

I think there is a patronizing attitude towards foreign-born women. We have, as I mentioned, made a journey in Sweden where we changed the economic incentives. It was actually many who were forced out then. If one comes from another country with other values – such as those we had in Sweden 100 years ago – it is not a given that one immediately enters employment. Support was needed there, and we provide that on many levels. We will also, in several ways, make the reception more flexible for women when it comes to parental leave and so on. But economic incentives are also needed for that, and that is something we are now implementing.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Merit Frost Lindberg, for the speech! I would also like to dwell a little on the work of reaching just those born abroad. I completely agree with the member that they are the new housewives in Sweden. The question is whether we think they are housewives by choice or not. What I react a bit to is when the member puts words in the opposition's mouth about us not believing in women. Then I react strongly. If there is something the Center Party believes in, it is the individual's ability to shape their own life. The problem is that one does not have equal conditions to do just this. Those are the conditions we must work to level out.

Then I wonder: Is this really the only measure? Can the change of conditions that is needed be achieved through a subsidy reform? If the majority and the government believe it, they must believe that women until today have stayed at home of their own free will. But that is not the case. I am very sure that all women who come here for various reasons want to be self-sufficient.

If the government believes that one can, with a subsidy reform, get these women to change their behavior, I think they are falling into their own trap. There is a certain difference from the 70s that the member describes, when one came to Sweden and – if we are to use that word – was forced out into the labor market, because back then there was a labor market. Today it is completely different. There is a skills shortage, and there are jobs that are difficult for everyone to take.

It is about a structural inequality for women who come from other countries. I wonder: Does the member agree that there is a structural inequality in the labor market for foreign-born women?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe we must get this picture right. Do you want a job and go out into the labor market? Is this what one dreams of? Or do we think that one does not want it? I actually do not think that everyone wants it. There is nothing strange about that. It is not like one is a bad woman for that. But very many women have come to Sweden from completely different cultures, where the woman from birth is taught that she should be at home with children. One has completely different opportunities as a man and a woman and is not equal in any way. Many of these men and women have come to Sweden with the values they had at home. No, I do not think that all foreign-born women today want to go out into work. One has grown up and learned that that is not what is right.

Then I also believe that there is a large group of foreign-born women who want it and dream of it but are kept at home by their husbands.

I turn against the image that it would be something bad to bring forward these values. We had those values ourselves in Sweden. We were not worse women then than now, but we have learned something else. If one does not carry that with them from the beginning, however, economic incentives are needed. This applies both to the women who do not want to work because they have learned something else during their upbringing – I believe they exist – and to those who want to work but today are kept at home by their husbands; today we have subsidy systems that support that. I believe it would be very good in many families if the man instead experienced that it cost quite a lot to keep the wife at home – damn it! – and was forced to let her out onto the labor market.

I believe there are women who want to and women who do not want to, but they shall go out. We do not live like housewives here anymore.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I agree, but the difference is that I am completely convinced that all persons who come to Sweden want self-sufficiency, even those who perhaps do not believe that they need it; if one explains to people what self-sufficiency means in terms of freedom and independence, everyone wants it. The point is that we must explain it in a way that makes people understand. But we cannot simply combine it with a benefit ceiling or a benefit reform based on the thesis that one is at home because they do not want to earn money but want to be a burden to society. We must move away from that view. No, we must combine it with both a benefit reform and active measures that give people opportunities to get jobs.

Again: There is a big difference between the labor market today and the labor market in the 70s, when all of Sweden and the people's home were being built up. There are surely hundreds of thousands of women who can testify that they want jobs but do not get them, cannot get them, or are denied them.

Then I wonder: What are the government's proposals to facilitate this? Is one prepared to change Swedish for immigrants to job-Swedish? Is one prepared to individualize the establishment project? Is one prepared to work for equal support for all further vocational trainings? Both Merit Frost Lindberg and I were at a round table discussion with Sweden's Women's Organizations where it was established that labor market trainings within, for example, the industrial sector are paid while trainings for assistant nurses are not paid – without valuing the divided labor market we have. Is one prepared to limit parental leave, so that an incentive is given to come out and learn Swedish? Is one prepared to limit the employer contributions for small businesses up to a certain number of people to facilitate jobs? Then we can combine a good subsidy reform with people actually entering the labor market.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! It feels as though we are in some way speaking roughly the same language when it comes to women wanting to live independent lives. Then, I do not think it will happen without there also being economic incentives. But it is truly far from the only thing this government is working on. Of course, all the support that can be imagined shall be available for both the women who want to enter the workforce and the men who want to do so.

It has been very tough times, with war, recession and so on. It is a situation that we took over from the previous government. We have done everything in our power to improve the situation. We are now also seeing a brightening in the economy, which will affect the opportunities for jobs.

Many of these women will need to make a "journey" to make themselves employable. We have invested enormous resources in education, such as vocational adult education and language instruction at SFI. From the Moderaterna side, we have also said that the establishment program shall become more flexible, so that it becomes accessible even for family-dependent immigrants. We have also, for example, said that parental leave shall be able to be paused and that the times shall be able to become flexible for a woman who has children, perhaps in relation to her partner's working hours. We are trying on all levels to really do everything to facilitate so that these women get into jobs. The economic incentives are only one part of a whole.

I think it is important to release this image of everyone wanting but not being able to, because I think it is an image that becomes condescending towards foreign-born women. It has been difficult even for Swedish women to make the equality journey that we have made. I think it becomes an insult even towards them to say that just this group cannot. All women should be able to live independent lives.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I stand here today with a sense of both frustration and determination. During my upbringing, my mother could envision how my generation of women would have better living conditions than she did. She believed, rightly so, that development was moving forward and that we would pick up where previous generations of women had gained ground through their struggle.

But when I look at my own daughters today, it is with concern, because the slow but forward-looking journey of equality that has built Sweden is now starting to go in the wrong direction. We stand at a historical crossroads. Shall we continue forward or accept that we are going backward?

Year after year we stand here and review the equality goals, and year after year we can state that they are not being achieved. Isn't it a bit strange: The overarching goal is about power and says that women and men should have the same opportunities to shape society and their own lives. That should be a self-evident matter. But in practice, we women are still treated as if we were a minority that must ask a majority for rights. We are half the population. Yet we must argue for the right to the same pay, the same security, and the same freedom. That is not equality. It is not worthy of a modern welfare state.

Madam Speaker! We must speak plainly. Women in Sweden still work for free during the last hour of the workday. We have lower wages, higher sickness absence, greater uptake of parental leave, more part-time work, greater responsibility for caring for relatives and, as a result, lower pensions. The most dangerous place for us is our own bedrooms, because men in our vicinity can be our greatest threat – all just because we are women.

We are achieving no sub-goals. This is a structural injustice that follows us from the time we are children until we die. It is an injustice that everyone should want to eliminate, but that is not the case. In fact, the development has instead started to go in the wrong direction. The statistics unfortunately speak their own clear language.

The wage and income gaps between women and men have stopped decreasing. The distribution of unpaid home and care work is moving backwards. During 2024, men's VAB and use of parental leave decreased. Cohabiting women with children have the highest absence from the labor market. It is so bad that KD should actually be at the front of the line to demand shared parental leave, because today's silent female revolution is to separate and have the children every other week. In that case, the figures look completely different. Then women and men suddenly share equally. It is still a bit too cynical that it should require split families for us to take the same responsibility and have the same opportunities.

Let us nevertheless go back to that so dismal statistics. Women's self-perceived health is worse than men's, and the differences are increasing. Women's sickness benefit figures are almost double those of men. Prostitution and human trafficking are increasing. Men's violence against women is not decreasing, and we see again more cases of fatal violence against women.

All of this can be read about in the government's own budget. This is the picture of women's lives, health, and freedom in Sweden 2025. It is not a good grade for our government, neither according to me nor according to the statistics.

Madam Speaker! It is said that money is power, but when the government presents its budget, it asks us women to be grateful for marginal investments. Do not misunderstand me – good things are being done. It is good to have more education, good to have more cohesive work against men's violence against women, good to have investments in equality, and good to have investments against honor-related violence and oppression. But at the same time, the government chooses to prioritize tax cuts for those who already have the most. Of 80 billion in investments, 50 billion go to tax cuts.

It is tax cuts that primarily benefit men. A female worker's 300 extra kronor in her wallet, a little on a hip, weighs lightly compared to the Prime Minister's approximately 4,000 kronor more every month, especially when we know that it is the welfare that pays the bill, that which is the very foundation for equality. This is a political choice, a choice that makes Sweden more unjust.

The absolute best initiative to strengthen equality is our general welfare. It is through our care for our children, the elderly, and the sick that we lay the foundation for women's freedom. It is through investments in our welfare that we ensure that women can go to work and then have the energy and strength to go home to live their lives. It is in our safety nets that we can guarantee that illness or unemployment does not put us into economic dependence or vulnerability. It is in our investments in welfare that we show if we mean business when we say that we want to achieve our equality goals.

Here, the government points in its budget with the whole hand: 50 billion in tax cuts, 30 billion to the rest.

Madam Speaker! An expansive budget is good. It is necessary, and when used correctly, it is a real highlight. But the crux of the matter is how the resources are then distributed, and it is here that we differ so strongly. Our line is, one could say, the total opposite of the government's.

Vänsterpartiet invests in welfare. We invest in women's safety, and we invest in women's economic independence as a whole. And we do not do this at the expense of ordinary people – on the contrary. We finance our investments by letting the banks, the billionaires, and the food giants take a greater responsibility. We let Kristersson be part of and contribute to women's equality. We put a stop to those who take record profits from our welfare and let that finance an improvement of women's living conditions, that is to say by letting the money go back to our children's preschools and schools, our parents' elderly care, and our common healthcare.

It is by transforming how we manage the citizens' hard-earned tax money so that it accelerates the economy and the labor market so that people have a job to go to and a wage to live on. Our policy therefore benefits the majority and increases equality. It is fair, it is economically wise, and it is absolutely necessary.

The beautiful thing is that there is something truly hopeful in this. We are not powerless. We can turn the development around very soon. What we need to do is to demand new politics, and we can do that in less than a year. Then we in Vänsterpartiet stand more than ready to take over the government's responsibility, ready to invest in welfare, ready to strengthen women's living conditions, ready to ensure that our daughters get the future that our mothers dreamed of. It is not just a political issue. It is a question of justice, dignity, and ultimately a question of democracy.

With these words, I want to wish you a very Merry Christmas but above all a very hopeful new year!

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I cannot begin my speech without pausing to send thoughts to Australia today, for once again, antisemitism has manifested in a fatal act.

The beach where the act took place is one of Australia's most famous. That evening, it was full of people when the shooters opened fire. Among other things, a Jewish family festival was taking place adjacent to a playground in connection with the holiday Chanukah. The Premier of the state of New South Wales, Chris Minns, stated during a press conference that the act was directed at Sydney's Jewish population and that "what should have been an evening of peace and joy in the community was shattered by this horrific and evil attack."

How many times are we going to say "never again" but still let antisemitism continue to spread? Together, we should be able to stand up against the Jew-hatred that we have seen increase and have terrible consequences. I am not surprised that it is happening, but I feel a great sadness that it is occurring.

The Christian Democrats, together with the government and SD, take seriously the developments that we have also seen in Sweden. The work against racism and hate crimes must never stop. Therefore, within the framework of the action plan against racism and hate crimes, the appropriations have also been increased by 10 million per year during the years 2027–2029.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 13 Integration and equality. In my speech, I will touch upon both parts.

The basis for equality between women and men is all human beings' equal, absolute, and inviolable value. It is actually something that one could say also applies to integration. The goal for equality should be that women and men shall have the same power to shape society and their own lives. This goal could also apply to integration.

The question is how we make this a reality. One start is to divide the goal into sub-goals, as we have done. Some of these sub-goals concern an equal distribution of power and influence, equal health, and economic equality. Of course, this is not everything, but it is a fundamental prerequisite for working towards and building a society that is equal and where integration works. The Government is working broadly to get there, but it requires long-term perspective and clarity, and certain problems require extra efforts.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about equality and integration, we must touch upon language. Language is a decisive factor in being able to become a part of the community and in easily finding ways into the working life. We must acknowledge that the teaching and the rules surrounding SFI have not functioned. There are, of course, good examples all around our country, but the quality and the framework have been far too uncertain to give everyone a good opportunity to learn Swedish. It has been without requirements and time-unlimited.

Today, there are far too many women with an immigrant background who are outside the labor market. These women are a resource that we should take advantage of. Strong reasons to give these women a chance to enter the labor market are equality and to give them the opportunity for self-sufficiency and stronger self-esteem. The Christian Democrats therefore welcome the changes that the government proposes regarding SFI. A proposal that the Christian Democrats have long had is that a mother should have the opportunity to bring her child to SFI classes in order to be able to complete her education even as a new mother. It should also be possible to a greater extent to combine SFI with internship.

Madam Speaker! Last week I was invited to a dinner and had the great privilege of sitting together with two second-year students from the natural science program. They run a UF company. They were given the opportunity, in front of all of us at the dinner, to present their business idea. However, it was not that which touched me the most.

During the conversation at the table, one of the students asked me: "I want to continue my studies at university and am considering training to become an engineer. Do you think my name will make it harder for me to get a job after I finish my education?" I do not need to say that the student has an immigrant background. My answer was that in 2025 I would have liked to be able to answer: "Of course not! Your name will not cause any problems whatsoever at a future job interview." But unfortunately, we know that especially women and young people feel that their names make them able to be screened out early when applying for jobs.

Madam Speaker! My wish for next year and onwards is to achieve a major change and that we should see all people as a resource for a better Sweden to live in, that we all help each other to build Sweden strong again – a Sweden that rises again – and where we in politics focus on giving the inhabitants of our country a functioning everyday life and equal healthcare and that one works from values that see every person's unique and inviolable value.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and wish the Speaker, the Presidium, the secretariat staff, and the members a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker, members and listeners! Since the Riksdag has already reached a decision on budget frameworks with a different content than what the Centre Party desires, we will abstain from the decision tomorrow and refer to our special statement. I will instead speak today about our priorities in the budget for the expenditure area.

In Sweden, we have common goals for the gender equality policy. There is one overarching goal and six sub-goals. It has been that way for decades, regardless of political governance. That is good. It is a strength, and I actually believe it is quite unique. The means to achieve these goals, regardless of which measures respective governments have decided upon, has been gender mainstreaming.

Gender mainstreaming aims to make visible the people behind the figures in a budget, how public resources are distributed between the genders and how they meet the needs of women and men and girls and boys and what effects that has. It is simply about safer resource distribution. Decisions and responses shall be based on the individual without being distorted by stereotypes, prejudices or even ignorance. It is simply a very good method, which previously has been a clear instruction in all agencies' regulatory letters – but which is no longer. I do not quite understand why.

I know that there is a general government decision that everyone shall work with gender equality integration. But this is, as stated, deleted from the agencies' regulatory letters. This is incomprehensible to me. It means that the opportunities for the government to monitor all agencies' work with gender equality disappear. What remains is actually only to report the indicators that one has set up as goals to evaluate the gender equality policy and which are fixed. This is very strange to me, and I would like to have explained to me how the government intends to proceed.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party's goal for gender equality policy is to stop men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression, to strengthen women's economic empowerment, and to secure equal healthcare. There is, of course, a need for measures to promote gender equality within all policy areas.

A holistic view of gender equality is crucial, otherwise it risks becoming like it was during the pandemic. We could compare the number of companies run by women and men then and which ones received the most state crisis support. We also remember that the proportion of women who took parental leave during the pandemic increased, even though women are dominant in healthcare and care professions, which were extremely important during the pandemic. Gender equality cannot take a backseat when other crises are to be fought. If we are to get this right, gender equality must also work when it is not a crisis.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps the most important issue to address is men's violence against women. It occurs throughout the country, in all ages and in different types of relationships, but it affects girls and women in a completely overwhelming way. I would say that it is a greater problem than gang crime in our society. Strong measures are needed to stop the acute spiral of violence and, in the long term, protect women exposed to violence so that we will one day move away from 15–20 women being killed per year.

The government states that 90 percent of the funds for special equality measures during 2019–2024 were allocated to initiatives within the sub-goal that men's violence against women shall cease. Still, we see no improvement. We must focus on what makes a difference.

Madam Speaker! The women's and girls' shelters have unique experience and competence and do an invaluable job in helping girls and women in vulnerable situations. They are an important complement to the responsibilities and efforts of municipalities and other authorities to detect and stop violence in the home. That is how it has been for all years; women's vulnerability to men's violence has been taken care of by women. But it is the public's – no one else's – duty to ensure long-term and stable funding. This applies especially now when we have new legislation that we probably actually have to admit is heading towards hitting a bit wrong. The authority does sometimes make rigid interpretations when it comes to granting permits.

Centerpartiet increases the resources for protected housing more than the government. One of the reasons is that it must be ensured that such housing exists throughout the country. Private initiatives and actors can be good as complements, but the non-profit actors provide an institutional knowledge and a capital of trust that we cannot miss.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women begins with boys' violence against girls. A clear pattern is that the men who hit themselves have experienced violence in the home. No man wakes up on his 30th birthday and thinks: "Today I am going to hit my wife or partner." We must address this early. Therefore, violence in young people's partner relationships must be countered. For the first time in many years, I feel somewhat secure that the foundation Ungarelationer.se has secure funding. It has been a recurring question in budget debates from my side.

Another thing that the Center Party has said for all these years and continues to say is that we want to introduce a national exit program for women living in violent relationships, where authorities such as the police, social services, the Swedish Tax Agency, financial advisors, healthcare, and psychiatry collaborate so that those who actually dare to leave a violent relationship quickly receive the support that is needed. We know that the police work structurally to try to reach perpetrators early, but the direct and professional support for victims of violence must also be established.

We also need a relocation payment that covers the costs associated with the need to quickly leave one's own home and property to establish oneself in a new location. It is completely unreasonable that the vulnerable woman should have to pay for the move, housing, new subscriptions, and clothes for the children herself. But in the best of worlds, the woman should not have to move. The man should do it. Regardless of this, it involves great costs to support oneself, as the economic violence can continue long after a breakup.

Madam Speaker! We want it to work roughly as it does for men who participate in the exit program to leave criminal environments. They receive three and a half years of structured support in the form of rehab, employment, leisure studies, financial support, etc. Women receive none of this today. Even though the women have not even committed any crime.

Madam Speaker! Some time ago, the investigation Ut ur utsatthet, which concerns prostitution, was released. It led to an exit program for women in prostitution. The status is a bit unclear right now, but this is extremely welcome, not least for once and for all establishing what prostitution actually is about. I am sure I am not the only one who still gets asked: Why is it legal to sell but not to buy? It is important with an exit program to make everyone understand what prostitution is, namely a form of men's violence against women.

Centerpartiet wants to do more, including targeting an initiative towards young people as well. We must start by tackling online prostitution and target young people and their use of sites that beautify, infiltrate, and enable the sale of children's bodies. Children and young people are extremely vulnerable and are often led into online sales. To prevent continued vulnerability in prostitution later in life, an exit program for young people must be started now.

I thank you and wish the committee and the Parliament's staff a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! Dear members! Giving up has not been considered – it is a good title for an anthology about equality and how women's suffrage was introduced. It stands on my bookshelf. I open and read it often, because it is part of our DNA. Our party was formed in that question.

Liberal politics is based on a fairly simple but decisive principle: Every human being shall have the same rights, the same opportunities, and the same value. This applies regardless of gender, background, religion, sexual orientation, or life situation. It is the foundation for an open and strong society.

In this budget, the government takes important steps to strengthen the work against discrimination. The Equality Ombudsman is allocated 25 million during 2026 and 34 million annually thereafter. It is an investment that will make a difference. Discrimination is not only a crime against an individual's freedom, but it is also a hindrance to the development of our entire society.

We know that unjustified pay differences between women and men still exist. It is unacceptable. Therefore, the EU's pay transparency directive is now being implemented. This means increased insight into pay criteria, clearer reporting of pay differences, and better support for employers. Women and men shall have the same opportunities for paid work and economic independence throughout life. It is a matter of justice but also of making use of everyone's competence.

Madam Speaker! The Government is also strengthening the work against racism and hate crimes. The appropriation for measures against discrimination and racism is increasing. This provides long-term planning conditions and continuity in a work that is both complex and crucial.

Racism is not just an attack on individuals. It is an attack on democracy. But the work for integration and equality is about more than discrimination. It is about creating a society where everyone can participate fully, where newcomers get the opportunity to quickly enter work and education, where language becomes a key to participation and where we build bridges between people instead of walls. It requires support, high expectations and demands.

I sometimes think about what would have happened if the Liberals' – then the Folkpartiet's – language requirements had become a reality in 2002 instead of a simple club in the debate. Integration is not a one-sided process. It is a mutual responsibility. Society shall provide the tools, but the individual shall be given the freedom and the responsibility to use them. People must truly be given the opportunity to both belong and contribute.

Madam Speaker! We must also speak more clearly about honor oppression. No girl, no boy, and no young person should live under threat, control, or violence in the name of honor. For a long time, it was a rather lonely struggle fought by a few individuals, not infrequently liberals, but now it is different.

The government's action plan against honor-related violence and oppression is part of our broader work for equality and human rights. We are strengthening support to municipalities, regions, and authorities to detect and prevent honor-based oppression. We also provide civil society with resources to reach out to the young people who need support. The freedom to choose one's own path in life is a fundamental right, and it must apply to everyone.

We Liberals also stand up for the rights of LGBTQ people. The government's action plan for the LGBTQ area is an important part of this work. No one should have to hide who they are or who they love. We strengthen the efforts to counter discrimination, hate crimes, and mental ill-health among LGBTQ people. We work so that healthcare is inclusive, so that school is safe, and so that work is characterized by respect. A society that stands up for the rights of LGBTQ people is a society that stands for everyone's rights.

Madam Speaker! Building a society characterized by equal treatment is not a cost, but it is an investment. A society where people trust one another, where everyone is allowed to contribute and where no one is held back because of prejudices or structures is a society that stands strong in both prosperity and adversity.

Liberal politics is about uniting freedom with responsibility – the freedom to shape one's own life but also the responsibility to ensure that no one is left behind. With these investments, we strengthen both the individual's rights and the society's cohesion. That is how we build a Sweden that holds together, a Sweden where every human being counts, and a Sweden where we form ourselves, care, and behave.

Madam Speaker! I would like to vote in favor of the proposal in the report and wish Madam Speaker, the chair, members, and the registry staff a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Expenditure area 13 covers several subject areas: integration, discrimination, segregation and equality.

I want to begin with equality. It is an area where the government is taking steps in the right direction. We welcome that the funds for the women's shelters are made permanent and strengthened. At the same time, the Green Party considers the needs to be greater, and therefore we are adding 300 million kronor more than the government.

I now leave the issue of equality and move on to those parts of the expenditure area where the government's policy goes in the opposite direction, namely integration, segregation and the fight against discrimination and hate.

Madam Speaker! It is not possible to build integration on xenophobia. The two things are incompatible, and it is clearly visible in the SD government's policy. It is not integration that is intended to be achieved through return migration grants, qualification for welfare, and mapping of immigrants' opinions.

In Sweden, we have had a universal welfare system for over 70 years. That principle has built our country into one of the world's leading welfare nations. The government's poverty reform now breaks with just this fundamental principle.

The Sweden Democrats have been successful in cementing a false image of people who have moved to Sweden, namely that they actually lack genuine grounds for asylum and have come here to erode the welfare state. People from Afghanistan, Somalia, and Syria – people who have fled from some of the world's most dangerous places – are described as fraudsters rather than as refugees. The purpose is to reduce so-called pull factors to Sweden. This occurs at the expense of equality and children's right to good upbringing conditions. It also hinders integration opportunities.

The fear of the immigration specter has become so extensive that the welfare state is no longer universal and that the government is abandoning the idea of equality. There is no doubt that this will create more social misery and exclusion.

Another question we must ask ourselves is this: When welfare is no longer universal, which will be the next group to be excluded? Will it be the elderly on low pensions, the low-paid, or those on sick leave?

Madam Speaker! In the report, the SD government returns to the fact that it has significantly increased the return migration grant. It allocates billions of kronor so that people shall return. In addition, Arbetsförmedlingen has been tasked with informing job seekers about the grant, i.e., the authority that has the largest role in ensuring that people establish themselves and enter society. The government writes that one way to break segregation is through return migration. In short, one breaks the ethnic and economic segregation by sending people back.

It is clear that the SD government is not interested in breaking segregation. It considers mixed areas to be forced integration, the same rhetoric that was heard in the USA in the 60s when white Americans were upset that brown children were going to school with their children.

Madam Speaker! The SD government also wants to map out the values of immigrants. There is no uniform set of values among the group of immigrants, just as there is no uniform Swedish set of values to compare with.

I myself have a green liberal set of values with roots in the peace and environmental movements. I do not share the values of the Sweden Democrats, a party that has its roots in neo-Nazism. Still, both of our parties are represented in this chamber. There is no common value profile that all Swedes can represent. So what is it that one intends to measure against?

The proposal to map immigrants' values fails on its own logic. In a democracy, one is actually allowed to have even reprehensible opinions.

Madam Speaker! The government also highlights the cultural canon as a way to reduce exclusion. I am not fundamentally opposed to a cultural canon, but I find it difficult to see how Paintings for the Temple by Hilma af Klint, the Falu copper mine, or Symphony No. 7 by Allan Petersson are going to get a young guy living in poverty and segregation into work and make him feel like a part of society.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet believes that integration takes time and that it requires more than social orientation. People need to be able to access knowledge and support repeatedly, in different ways. Therefore, we are investing 100 million in the citizen centers, which are tasked with conducting long-term and systematic integration work.

To break the segregation, powerful initiatives in housing, school, and labor market policy are required.

We also want to establish a new agency against segregation. Segregation in Sweden is so extensive that it requires a holistic approach. It is unfortunate that the SD government has abolished the Delegation against Segregation and instead advocates for repatriation as the solution. We want to establish a reinforced agency that works closely with the municipalities and does what is required so that a small country like Sweden does not have 66 areas classified as vulnerable.

Madam Speaker! Lastly, I want to highlight the criticism directed at Sweden from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The committee points to a low clearance rate for hate crimes, limited opportunities to identify and prove racist motives, and increasing hate propaganda, even from public figures.

At the same time as criticism was directed at Sweden, the Sverigedemokraterna held their national days. On the table was a proposal to abolish the law on hate speech against a population group. The proposal fell by a margin of a single vote.

It shows with all clarity that today there are completely different political answers on how racism and hate crimes should be addressed. For Miljöpartiet, the starting point is that society must strengthen the protection for those who are affected, not weaken it.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants to expand the support for those who have been subjected to hate by establishing a national support line for hate crimes. Many who are subjected to it do not dare to file a police report today. Therefore, a support line staffed with experienced and knowledgeable personnel who can offer support and guidance for all types of hate crimes is needed.

The Sweden Democrats are not like other parties. It has been noted many times. Just a few weeks ago, one of their members of parliament had to resign due to links to Nazism. What is serious is not that such things occur, but how often they occur within the Sweden Democrats.

SD is today Sweden's second-largest party, and it has ambitions to sit in government. When a party with that history and that worldview moves into the center of power, its ideas also move into the heart of the state.

Madam Speaker! The line that should have been drawn has already been crossed. That is why we must now consistently mark it again and again. It is not merely to protect certain groups, but to protect the lifeblood of democracy. A country cannot build cohesion through suspicion. A society cannot grow through fear. Sweden cannot be strengthened by making itself smaller.

With that said, I would like to refer to our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Equality is the very soul of freedom. There is actually no freedom without it. That is how Frances Wright expressed herself already in 1829. It is nearly 200 years ago. We still face the same fundamental questions. It is about the conditions of freedom, about the importance of equality, and about what responsibility society bears so that those values are not eroded over time.

For a long time, there has been a notion that development in itself and time would in some way automatically lead to increased freedom and equality. But experience shows that is not the case. It is not time that is the problem. It is the counterforces to democracy and equality that constantly gain ground and advance positions. That is what we must also do.

Therefore, I am proud to be able to present this equality budget where we propose a total of 918 million kronor for equality policy in this specific expenditure area, of which 166 million are for new initiatives.

The government has over the past years taken decisive action in a number of different issues. This concerns, in particular, the reorganization of the penal policy with increased penalties that directly have consequences for women and equality in general. It concerns restraining orders of various types. We are now finally in the process of criminalizing psychological violence, where, for example, coercion to wear a certain type of clothing will be included.

We break with the notion that equality is a separate track or an odd bird that one can devote oneself to in good times. On the contrary, it is a completely fundamental prerequisite for us in Sweden and Europe to strengthen and increase our competitiveness. If both men and women, boys and girls, can reach their full potential, that is when we can achieve innovative power and growth potential and strengthen competitiveness.

We also break with important notions that the digital world is in some way a different world than the physical world we live in. We technology-neutralize the legislation on sex buying, that is, the purchase of sexual acts. It is prohibited both digitally as well as in the physical world, and pimping is prohibited. It is an incredibly important normalizing legislation.

Madam Speaker! Honor-related violence and oppression is one of the most serious threats to our society's fundamental values. There are studies that point out that up to 240,000 young people in Sweden live under honor oppression. It can involve things such as demands of virginity, risk of forced marriage, control of relationships, and female genital mutilation.

In Botkyrka, over 40 percent of girls in ninth grade stated that they worry that someone else will decide their future partner. It is not a marginal phenomenon but a systematic oppression that primarily affects girls.

The consequences of honor oppression are brutal. Young girls are forbidden to play with boys in preschool. They are controlled at school, in their free time, and at home. Those who break the norms risk threats, assault, ostracization, forced marriage or, in the worst case, so-called honor killing. These are torture-like conditions that we all know exist in Sweden today.

Despite the problems having been known for a long time, Social Democrats, Left Party members, and Green Party members chose to turn a blind eye to them. The fear of being called a racist weighed more heavily than the girls' freedom. The result is one of the greatest betrayals of children and young people in Sweden in modern times.

It is against this background, among other things, that the budget bill for 2026 should be understood. The government has a long series of reforms in the budget to counter honor-related violence and oppression. Thus, we are moving forward with several central reforms. One of them concerns regional support for those affected by honor oppression. Next year, the government will invest over 100 million kronor so that municipalities and regions, together with the county administrative boards, shall develop the support for those affected by violence, among other things by establishing and developing regional resource centers against honor-related violence and oppression. Today, an equivalent support is lacking across the country, which we are now addressing.

Knowledge, support, and coordination must be close to those who are vulnerable in everyday life, in schools, social services, and healthcare. Previously, long-term perspective has been lacking, which we are now addressing. We are also strengthening the support for women's and girls' helplines. We are increasing the support to these helplines and certain other non-profit organizations within the crime victim area by 20 million kronor. A majority of the helplines handle cases concerning honor-related violence and oppression. But the problem is also broader, with men's violence against women in various forms.

If we are serious about combating honor oppression, we must provide stable and long-term support to those who meet the most vulnerable. Therefore, this support is also permanent from now on.

We also clarify the work against honor-related violence and oppression with a new gender equality policy sub-goal. We will establish a new national action plan against honor-related violence and oppression. The new plan shall give authorities clear mandates and resources to increase competence and improve working methods. 17 million kronor are allocated during 2026 for measures that strengthen the entire society's ability to prevent and combat honor-related violence and oppression.

Madam Speaker! Let me also take this opportunity to highlight another important part of the budget. In the budget bill for 2026, the government also proposes that the Equality Ombudsman be allocated 25 million kronor during 2026 and 34 million kronor from 2027 onwards. The work of combating discrimination and promoting equal treatment, especially in a time when human rights are being challenged, is a priority for this government. A democratic society characterized by equal treatment is also a competitive and resilient society.

Women still earn less than men. Now, the Equality Ombudsman has the muscles to work effectively with the implementation of the EU's pay transparency directive. Making visible unjustified pay differences can and will improve the conditions for women and men to receive equal pay for equal work.

Madam Speaker! We can never take basic democratic and equal values for granted. We must actively defend freedom and equality. That is what this budget contributes to.

When one listens to the opposition, it becomes clear that they see equality as something separate, as a specific track that we can attach different epithets to. But this is about a fundamental view on democracy and human rights.

If both boys and girls, men and women can reach their full potential, it benefits Swedish competitiveness, our innovation capacity, and our growth opportunities. Anything else is a waste that Sweden or Europe cannot afford.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the speech! It was very interesting to hear. I would like to discuss many issues, but we do not have all the time in the world. But we are actually going to debate a bit further ahead in the week as well.

I intended to raise two issues, one in each speech.

I really love the phrasing that equality is not an odd bird. For me, equality is a horizontal theme, and it is part of all policy areas. For that reason, I also want to ask a question about what I took up in my speech: How is it that the government has removed the formulations regarding equality integration in the agencies' regulatory letters?

Let me clarify and say that for me, this is the obvious way to truly ensure that all agencies are talking about equality. If it is not written into the regulatory letter, it is clear that one can conduct a dialogue in other ways – that can always be done, so the minister does not need to say that in response; one can also conduct a dialogue about gang crime – but in the regulatory letter, it becomes very clear what the agencies are to work with or against. Now, it has been removed. This also means that the possibilities to measure and evaluate the work on equality are nullified when it concerns those agencies that do not have responsibility for the direct indicators, i.e., those indicators that the government uses to measure the result, which we can read about in the report. I do not quite understand how they are thinking there.

I am actually not alone in not understanding this. The Gender Equality Authority's gd was quite clear during its visit to the committee: No, this is not a good proposal. It is better that it remains.

Can the Minister elaborate on his/her thoughts regarding this?

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

Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Helena Vilhelmsson for a very pertinent question. Gender mainstreaming is fundamental to the government's work on gender equality issues. It is precisely in the way Member Vilhelmsson describes: We must work with it systematically and integrated in all core processes. That was also why the Prime Minister earlier this year made the decision that the Government Offices shall work with gender mainstreaming. It is in this way that the government works and incorporates these issues.

We are now evaluating the JIM initiative, i.e., gender equality integration in agencies, and will return during the spring with proposals on how that work should continue. It has been a work over many years. It is also important that we evaluate how the gender equality integration functions and see if there are ways to streamline and improve the work so that it can have an even stronger and better effect than until now.

This is an important issue to continue with. I look forward to returning to Member Helena Vilhelmsson with an answer later this spring.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I also look forward to that. Then we shall return to the issue. I believe it is truly decisive. I believe it is a good way, as it has been for many years, to get all agencies to work with equality issues.

Thank you for the answer! I will then move on to my second question, which concerns the work against honor-related violence and oppression. I largely share the picture that the Minister gave. I admit that we in Sweden have been naive for many years, but now we are in the process of correcting the problem. We do this, in particular, through the latest legislation that we decided on here in the chamber, namely to criminalize virginity checks, virginity certificates, and virginity interventions. It is a very welcome legislative proposal.

What I was critical of when we debated and decided was that the government does not think that Socialstyrelsen or Ivo should work in any other way with supervision of the new law. They refer to the fact that it is usually the case that doctors or patients themselves contact Ivo, and then a supervision is initiated.

I think it is an incredibly boring and naive way to look at it. It is not the case that a doctor who knows that he or she has now committed a criminal act calls the police the next day and says: Hello! I have committed a criminal act.

For me, it is obvious that if one creates a new law, one must also review how one works to ensure that the law is complied with. But that was not the government's view. Despite many referral bodies considering that this was necessary, the government did not proceed in that direction.

I wonder if the Minister can elaborate on this a bit. It should also be said that almost no cases have come to Ivo for review or reporting, almost none at all. Still, one should not change their way of working.

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

Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Helena Vilhelmsson for the questions regarding virginity checks and virginity interventions and how the legislation can be implemented!

This is a normative piece of legislation. It has important signaling effects within healthcare and schools and among various actors. There will be increased pressure to report as a result of this criminalization. Even though there are not many examples of this so far, the legislation has an important normative effect.

The government is also working with assignments to various actors linked to knowledge-enhancing documentation and material, so that one obtains much better knowledge and understanding of the issues regarding honor-related violence and oppression, and so that one can identify this and take action when encountering this type of crime, which is what it concerns.

But then it is also up to the police and the justice system to develop methods based on new legislation and constantly improve their work so that the laws and regulations we have in Sweden have an effect and so that crimes can be prosecuted in a good way.

I do not rule out that we may need to make further efforts. It is an ongoing work as we get new legislation in place in all areas. It is about constantly trying to improve the knowledge base. Then it is up to the authorities to develop the methods so that the legislation can also be followed.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Equality, for your speech!

The Pay Transparency Directive was mentioned, which we look forward to addressing here in the Riksdag. Then we will also see what approach the government has there. I absolutely believe that it will play a major role, but I am skeptical about the major role that the government wants to make it. We must also be careful that this is something that the Swedish government is forced to do. No own initiative has been taken; rather, it is a directive from the EU. We shall be careful about this, I think.

When it comes to human trafficking, which is also addressed in the presentation, action plans are good. But I am thinking that we have problems when it comes to legislation. Not least, criticism has come from the Gender Equality Authority, and even other state investigations show that there are deficiencies in the legislation. I have a rather small confidence that the action plans would have very large effects in this area when one does not have legislation that punishes human trafficking and organized crime.

The Minister for Equality speaks much and well about honor-related oppression. But I want to correct that. That the opposition would not have done anything in this area is not correct. One example is that we introduced a specific crime for honor oppression, i.e., a basis for increased penalties for crimes with honor motives. I think that there are several of us who are carrying out the work against honor oppression.

I want to come to the question of how one is to get right with this type of questions and action plans. Equality is about people becoming free, about women achieving the freedom that the speech began with. But this government has made people and women poorer. How is that liberation then to be achieved?

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

Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Sofia Amloh for the questions!

I want to say a few words about the action plans and the issues surrounding them. Politics is often about making a collective assessment and trying to interpret and see the problems and the reality that we live in today, and constantly adapting, improving, and strengthening the knowledge base, legislation when it is necessary, and coordination when there is a need for it.

What drives us in this government is precisely to find good and effective solutions that perhaps many times involve more departments and more policy areas. Equality issues permeate precisely all policy areas.

The action plan against prostitution and human trafficking is urgent, partly because we see that the issue is moving down in age, and partly because it is moving to a much greater extent in the digital sphere, where we have so far fallen behind in legal support and methodological work to meet it. It is, therefore, a priority issue.

But it is also about the view on where people's potential lies. It is about that we have an ability to get women and girls to reach their full potential. In that case, tax cuts are also important for women, so that they can get an increased room for maneuver and a greater opportunity to influence their life choices.

We can see from the analyses of the gender equality budget that women benefit slightly more in terms of distribution. But this assumes the view that men and women should have equal opportunities and that tax cuts, defense investments, and knowledge-enhancing research initiatives also benefit women. That is the basis.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Equality speaks of the reality we live in today. Yes, in the reality we live in today, these tax cuts have only dug huge holes, for example in welfare. There are no tax cuts in the world for the women in welfare that ensure they get a better working environment, more colleagues, or other working conditions. The price for the tax cuts is a deteriorated working environment and worse working conditions.

Arbetsmiljöverket has now conducted inspections within healthcare. Three out of four workplaces do not meet the standard at all. It is a sharp criticism. Which tax cuts help to improve the working environment and the conditions for the women who work there? There are very many who do that.

Tax cuts will not lead to a better working environment and better conditions. They lead to increased poverty.

I ask the Minister for Equality what the answer is to the mother who says: I cannot afford to buy any Christmas presents now. What does the Minister say to the mother who actually hasn't received any job? She is a single parent with two children and is mostly a burden in job interviews because she is seen as someone who will constantly be taking parental leave. What does the Minister say to the mother who does not have the economic resources, who lives with the smallest economic margins and for whom you have done nothing? What is the answer to all those mothers out there who now cannot afford it and who haven't been able to for your entire time? What is the answer, Minister?

(Applause)

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

Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Sofia Amloh for the question!

It is absolutely crucial that the government and the state – we in politics – take responsibility and steer Sweden in the right direction. It is about ensuring that the economy is strengthened broadly, so that we have resources for the welfare system. That is the entire starting point for this government and something that we, despite the recession, have succeeded with.

We have twisted and turned every reform to get Sweden in the right direction. Now the economy is also being strengthened.

I can agree with Member Sofia Amloh that we can certainly place higher demands on employers in Sweden today – not least within healthcare and elderly care, where many women work. It must be worthwhile to get an education, also for first-line managers in healthcare or head teachers in schools. The Government is also adding resources in, for example, the school sector, and then it is required that the employers in that area – the municipalities – take that responsibility. It is a joint political responsibility for the parties that are also active as employers.

We are now heading towards Christmas, and I want to emphasize the last point that Member Sofia Amloh raised. I often think about how many women, but also other groups, have it particularly tough during the Christmas period. There is no other issue I am as eager about as truly strengthening the Swedish economy and Swedish competitiveness. That is also the absolute most important priority for this government's work.

With that, I want to say Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 13 Integration and equality. I have many times stood in this speaker's chair and spoken about integration, or adaptation as I would prefer to call it, and the lack of integration in our country. But we must not forget the important area that is also included in this, namely discrimination. It is something I think we speak about too little, so today I intended to largely focus on discrimination in my speech.

This is a budget that we have negotiated with the government, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal. We have come a good way on the Sweden Democrat path, but we are far from satisfied. As the largest party in the government base, we see it as a matter of course to fulfill the mandate the voters have given us as far as possible. I want to thank the Tidö parties for the good cooperation we have had in the committee so far, but after the next election, it is a necessity for our country that the Sweden Democrats are part of the government.

Madam Speaker! I am a very proud Sverigedemokrat. I know that my party is driven by a will to do what is best for Sweden.

For decades we have tried to explain exactly this to you in the chamber and to the entire Swedish people. I remember when Jimmie Åkesson for the first time in 2010 stood in this very rostrum to get all the parties in this chamber to listen. To love one's country and feel responsibility towards previous and future generations is nothing other than goodness, love, and responsibility. That love has nothing at all to do with looking down on, thinking poorly of, or outright hating anyone else.

What we have been accused of is very far from how I function as a human being and how my colleagues and party comrades can be described. We have explained this to you and to the entire Swedish people.

And what were we met with in this chamber? Yes, a self-centered screamer who did not only spend their days explaining how open, tolerant, and kind-hearted they themselves were. No, they spent at least as much time explaining how we Sweden Democrats stood for the exact opposite.

The image of us Sweden Democrats that this leftist elite, often with the help of the media, spread of us as a party – we were portrayed as cold, hard, and mean – had consequences. I have friends and colleagues who have been assaulted, beaten, lost their jobs, and suffered hate, threats, and other crimes. I have been subjected to it myself.

The consequences for those who have behaved badly or committed crimes against us can be summarized as being almost entirely non-existent – except for one consequence, namely the fact that the leftist elite has witnessed how we Sweden Democrats have moved forward in the Riksdag election after election.

When it comes, however, to the work against discrimination and grounds that can be linked to political views, Sweden has not moved forward but has sat in the back seat without any interest in any steering towards change – until now.

Madam Speaker! To lose one's job, to be denied a position of trust within the union, to be denied renting a premises, to be denied entry into a restaurant as a guest, to be pushed away from shops when one has had clothes with the SD logo on them – not because of who you are as a human being but because of which party you belong to – is how our everyday life as Sweden Democrats has looked for decades.

That political views were omitted when Sweden adopted the UN Declaration of Human Rights and what constitutes discrimination obviously suited this left-wingers' agenda very well. These self-appointed apostles of goodness have been able to continue their harassment against SD undisturbed without any consequences whatsoever. The discrimination and what it has led to for us in everyday life has continued.

Those who, according to themselves, are the most open and the most tolerant have proven to be the most mentally limited and least tolerant as soon as the Sweden Democrats have been mentioned. I have even been urged to pack my bags and leave the country because my fatherland no longer belongs to me. It is not only astonishing and sad; it is also dangerous. It has created a we-and-them society that we Sweden Democrats have never wanted to have.

Finally, however, the Swedes, whether their ancestors contributed to building up this country or if they have come here in recent years and adapted, have opened both eyes and ears and actually listened. Having seen the misery, I believe most would have done so a long time ago. We do live out there in reality.

Speaking of Swedes, Madam Speaker: Swedes as a group cannot be discriminated against today. It is obviously not acceptable. To all of you who have been subjected to threats and hate crimes solely because you are Swedes, especially all youth and elderly people who often find themselves in extra vulnerable situations, I want to say: We are here for you. Of course, we Sverigedemokrater have a solution for this as well.

We propose that we change the wording of the law so that discrimination means that one is subjected to "undue differential treatment", instead of today's various highlighted points about what one is considered able to be discriminated for. Then no one is left out. It is a self-evident matter that we Swedes should have the same right to protection as groups that previously have not even set foot in this country?

Madam Speaker! The multicultural experiment that the old parties launched, without even asking the Swedish people, led to extremely negative consequences for Sweden. The idea of opening the borders, letting in millions of people from distant cultures and hoping for the best was not so good, to put it mildly.

You parties sitting in here, primarily the Social Democrats and the left side, succeeded in transforming one of the world's safest and most secure countries into something completely unrecognizable. We who have had the privilege of celebrating a number of birthdays know what Sweden looked like previously, and I feel a great sorrow that the grandchildren are now met with a completely different upbringing.

Enough for societies to develop and change, and often for the better, but Sweden has not undergone this change in a natural way. It has been forced upon the Swedish people without us even wanting it. All the billions that have been pumped into all kinds of worthless integration projects and in areas of exclusion led to nothing other than pure and utter waste of money and increased division.

We Sweden Democrats have a different solution. Instead of believing that one becomes Swedish just by crossing the border into our country, instead of naively believing like the left side that the multicultural project will arrange itself, and instead of believing that new money leads to new values, we believe that requirements must be placed on the individuals themselves. Learn Swedish! Study and embrace the culture in the country you are in! Adapt and show seriously that you want to become a part of Sweden!

For those who do it, there are all the opportunities to create a good life for themselves and join our Swedish community. For those who choose another path, they simply have to leave our country. Requirements for adaptation, expectations on the individual themselves and a refined victim mentality – excuse me, a deleted victim mentality, I meant – is the best integration policy there is.

Madam Speaker! We have come a good way, but we are far from satisfied. In the next election, we seek the voters' mandate to continue even more forcefully the path that we have begun. We have achieved more in three years than S-led governments have accomplished during several terms. The worst thing that could happen now is that we are hurled back into a chaos of increased immigration and destructive lack of requirements.

It is no secret that the Social Democrats say they have changed their stance – that they have changed their minds and suddenly observe that what they themselves for years have called racism is not racism at all. It is obviously correct, but the Socialdemokraterna are not credible. They can basically say anything to regain power; they will not be able to keep it anyway. It is, in fact, difficult to believe that any of our parties alone will get 51 percent or more of the votes, so we must all have our intended cooperation partners in order to push through the policy issues.

Let us therefore look at the Social Democrats' intended government basis! In the left camp, it sounds roughly as it always has.

Miljöpartiet wants more immigration and is also known for its lack of demands. They are known for their belief that people who fly freely, cause trouble and do a bit as they please create a safe, beautiful and slightly kinder society. Even though reality shows the opposite, it doesn't matter – Miljöpartister will always be Miljöpartister.

Then we have the market liberals and the immigration enthusiasts within C, who are thus supposed to sit at the same table as the semi-communists within Vänsterpartiet.

In the midst of this red-green mess, we have the Social Democrats, who are known for their hunger for power.

Everyone understands how this would end. It gives me worse shivers than a horror movie, and horror movies, as is known, never end well. Unfortunately, we have been forced to experience how it has gone before, and we will see the same thing again if the left side wins. It is not what Sweden needs.

What Sweden needs is a strong Sverigedemokratiskt party that ensures we have order and tidiness when it comes to integration, when it comes to including everyone's protection against discrimination, and last but not least when it comes to making Sweden good again.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! There was a lot of broad and wide-ranging talk in the beginning of the integration debate here. I regret the political trauma that the member expresses and hope that it is nevertheless okay for me to ask a question about the substantive policy.

In the first integration policy sub-objective, the members want more people to work and support themselves. Now, the Sverigedemokraterna have negotiated the budget year after year during this mandate period, and during that time we have received 100,000 more unemployed in Sweden. We have also received deteriorations in the unemployment benefit and the activity support and no other labor market policy measures than that the labor market minister has been changed approximately once a year. So, there were no more jobs, only pressured households and empty wallets.

Therefore, the question is: Since you have now negotiated the budget anyway, Ann-Christine Frohm, why have you, year after year, not prioritized labor market policy during record-high unemployment? And why have you proceeded with reductions of the unemployment benefit and the activity support?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that today we are debating expenditure area 13 Integration and equality. Expenditure area 14, which concerns the labor market, was debated last week. I regret that the member arrived late to that debate once again.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I think it is very irresponsible to answer in that way. The first sub-objective in the integration policy that the member has been involved in deciding is, in fact, that more people should enter employment and support themselves. It is part of the integration policy that the member has decided on, so it is very irresponsible to answer in that way.

I still think that the Sweden Democrats should take responsibility for the situation we have, with 100,000 more unemployed and deteriorations in the unemployment benefit and the activity support – which they promised before the election they would not move forward with but are now implementing, for the rest. It creates an insight that they do not want to have this debate or answer those questions at all.

I will, however, make sure to ask the question again. In relation to the integration policy sub-goal that the Sverigedemokraterna have decided on, Ann-Christine Frohm, why have you not prioritized labor market policy during record-high unemployment? And why have you proceeded with deteriorations?

This can also be seen against the background of the Sweden Democrats' entire case that they would get Sweden back on its feet through migration policy and so on, just as they blame immigration year after year. But now it is the Sweden Democrats' migration policy that applies and has applied for a few years, and one has budget-negotiated for several years. Still, it has not become better. We have 100,000 more unemployed, we have no labor market policy measures, and we have deteriorations.

I still think that the Sweden Democrats, now that they have the opportunity here, should take responsibility for the situation and answer questions instead of throwing out things as the member did. I think it is very irresponsible, I must say, that someone who is negotiating the budget answers in the way the member does.

I give the member another chance to answer the very simple question: Why have you not prioritized labor market policy during record-high unemployment?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I was not aware that it was budget negotiations here today. I believe that it might have been a misstatement by the Left Party member. The budget negotiations have obviously taken place a long time ago, and what we are debating here today is, as stated, integration and equality.

I look forward to the member taking the opportunity to be part of the debate on the labor market next time the opportunity arises. It is not the first time that the member has stood in a back-and-forth in the debate on integration and equality but does not want to talk about that subject at all, but about the labor market.

But it is clear that those who can work shall work. Those who can work shall work. We believe in the work line – as an individual, one should support oneself as far as possible.

I and my party were clear before the last election, and the voters gave us a clear mandate. We are the largest party in the government cooperation. We take responsibility for the integration and migration policy. It is perfectly clear that we have done so during this mandate period. I cannot see that the Left Party would take that responsibility. Actually, the Left Party's only will is to increase immigration to Sweden and the reception.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are pursuing the line of abolishing the seven grounds of discrimination. We heard that now, and it has also been known previously. Such a shift would significantly weaken the possibility to identify, examine, and address discrimination and racism. The party has also gone one step further and decided to restrict the law on hate speech against a population group by exempting the protection for sexual orientation and religious belief. Taken together, this points in one and the same direction: a systematic dismantling of the legal protection for different types of minorities.

My question to the member is quite simple: Why do the Sweden Democrats repeatedly focus on weakening the protection for groups that are particularly vulnerable to hate, racism, and discrimination? Why do the Sweden Democrats not instead safeguard their fundamental rights?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member poses a question and asserts things. I believe it is precisely the opposite of what the member says.

Regarding the grounds for discrimination, I can clarify once again: By stating that all discrimination is improper treatment, all people in Sweden are included, instead of it being specified as it is today; then someone is always left out. We think it is unfortunate that people are left out. Today, for example, one cannot be considered discriminated against for their political views or for the most part for being Swedish. We think it would be much fairer if all people who are discriminated against were covered by the Discrimination Act, which is not the case today.

Then we are not entirely satisfied with the action plan against racism. I can also be clear about that. The reason is the things I just mentioned: It puts too much focus on certain groups instead of all groups that are subjected to racism or improper discrimination being treated on that basis.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Improper treatment is a vague concept that fundamentally renders invisible the groups that are subjected to discrimination. As I said, it is a matter of an abolition of the seven grounds for discrimination.

I want to return to what the member said about Swedes who are subjected to racism. It is absolutely true that Swedes can be subjected to hate and threats. But it is important to remember that racism often concerns power and structures. In Sweden, the Swede holds the norm position.

I also want to point out to the member that the grounds for discrimination do not exclude Swedes. Swedes can be subjected to discrimination based on, for example, gender, age, or disability. There is nothing in the Discrimination Act that excludes the possibility that Swedes can be discriminated against.

My question remains: Why do the Sweden Democrats consider it to be legitimate at all to weaken the legal protection against hate and discrimination, regardless of which groups are affected?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I still maintain that improper treatment would include everyone.

When I speak about Swedes often being excluded, it is primarily about action plans against racism. But for one to be able to be discriminated against as a Swede today, it applies that one falls within one of the specified groups. Today, one cannot be considered discriminated against because one is Swedish. At the same time, we know that anti-Swedish sentiment is spreading. Swedes are subjected to hate crimes. Youth are being peed on and humiliated by all kinds of crime one can imagine.

I move on to the question of vulnerable areas that today are occupied by gang criminals and where one, as a Swede, cannot stay at all. There are, for example, schools where not a single Swede attends. We must take those areas back. We must do something about it. Unfortunately, we have far too many such areas in Sweden, including Bäckby in Västerås, which I come from. It does not look good at all.

It is, after all, a debate on integration. Even Miljöpartiet advocates for increased immigration to Sweden. How then is Miljöpartiet going to get integration in order? That remains a rhetorical question. So far, from what I have seen, Miljöpartiet has not put forward a single proposal that would help the adaptation to Sweden for the individuals who have come here.

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! I am wondering a bit where to begin. But I would nevertheless like to start by thanking the member for a most engaged speech.

The chairperson began her speech by saying that in the integration debate she did not intend to debate integration but to highlight other issues. She said she would highlight discrimination, and it is absolutely an important issue that falls within this committee report. But to completely refrain from touching upon integration, I still think is a bit serious.

The next few minutes, the members spent describing how terrible it is to be targeted because of one's political affiliation. Of course, none of us should be attacked or subjected to hate or threats because of our political affiliation. But I still want to note that the members spent a very large amount of time in their speech on something other than discussing the political issues. I intended to try to take us back to the political issues.

In my opinion, the member did not mention a single concrete measure to tackle the integration issues and the segregation in our country. Since the member, as she herself also said, is a representative in the Swedish Riksdag for the largest party in the government coalition, she is also reasonably responsible for all the policies that the government pushes through the Swedish Riksdag. I want to ask the member which actual measures the Sverigedemokraterna have had passed in this budget and how they are to improve integration and cohesion in our country.

I also want to ask the member – to stick to the actual issues – if the member is satisfied with the completely lacking investments in labor market policy, education policy, and housing policy.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for his questions and observations. I also thank him for the praise for my moving speech.

The members of the committee took up this issue regarding discrimination, hate, threats, and other criminal acts against political representatives. It actually happens today. Apparently, it is okay as long as it does not happen on the left side. It is okay as long as it does not happen against parties other than the Sverigedemokraterna.

I do not think so. I do not like the development in Sweden where people can discriminate against others without it having any consequences whatsoever. As I said in my speech, it does not only happen against Sverigedemokraterna but also against other Swedes. People who are born in this country and who have had ancestors here are harassed, humiliated, assaulted, and urinated on. It is not okay. I find it hard to believe that the member from Socialdemokraterna also thinks that it is okay. Yet, the Socialdemokraterna do not want political views to be a ground for discrimination or that Swedes should be seen as a group that can be discriminated against. I think it is unfortunate. I think it is sad.

As for the Tidö Agreement, the members of parliament just as well as I know that the Sweden Democrats are part of the government base. The Sweden Democrats do not sit in the government, but the Sweden Democrats and the government have the Tidö Agreement together. We are responsible for the issues that we vote through here in the Riksdag which fall under the Tidö Agreement.

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! None of us Social Democrats, and certainly no one else in here either, will ever accept hatred or threats against elected officials in any direction whatsoever, regardless of whether it is directed from right to left or vice versa. Therefore, it is, for example, very unfortunate that I myself have previously been targeted by the Sverigedemokraterna.

I still think that we should get back to the actual policy. We are discussing integration here. The member said that she only takes responsibility for what is stated in the Tidö Agreement. I note that the government and the Sweden Democrats are in complete agreement in this report – the Sweden Democrats have no dissenting opinion.

Sweden has a government that is, in practice, dependent on the Sweden Democrats. Every morning when Ulf Kristersson goes from Sagerska to Rosenbad, it is with Ann-Christine Frohm's approval; I think we should still keep that in mind. Everything the government does has been approved by Ann-Christine Frohm. Then it is reasonable that one takes responsibility for the policy being pursued. The result is that the work against segregation has been deprioritized, that the labor market policy has been completely sidelined, that Swedish welfare is being starved, and much more.

I would like to once again pose my questions to the member, because I do not feel that I received answers to them. How does the member actually view integration in Sweden? What further measures are needed? Is the member satisfied that Sweden has half a million unemployed?

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, I am not satisfied that unemployment is so high. The Member knows just as well as I do that one can calculate this in different ways. One can count those who are studying full-time as unemployed; then one gets a very high figure. It is not always that figure shown correctly, I want to say. I know that the Socialdemokraterna sometimes state that unemployment is over 20 percent, but that is absolutely not true. I am absolutely not satisfied, but one must not forget that the Socialdemokraterna bear a large part of the responsibility for the way things look today.

Regarding the budget, I cannot see any great dissatisfaction from the Socialdemokraterna either. The only difference between the Socialdemokraterna and the government in this area is 50 million kronor – otherwise, the Socialdemokraterna also stand completely behind the government's proposal for the budget. It perhaps is not so surprising, because the last time the Socialdemokraterna sat in government, it did not turn out any better for them than that they had to govern on the Moderaterna's budget.

I cannot see that the Social Democrats would be particularly dissatisfied with the government's budget. These 50 million actually do not make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Regarding the Tidö Agreement, we are, as said, in agreement with the government on a number of points. We are satisfied with those points. They are largely linked to migration and integration. The member can read about this themselves.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! That was an interesting speech on integration. I would like to start by saying that I think I have become reasonably well integrated in this country. I have learned that a classic Swedish behavior is to be punctual.

We are in complete agreement that hate, violence, threats, etc. should not exist in politics. Everyone knows that the Center Party has also been very exposed to it. A former party leader resigned because of it. A person wanted to murder our party leader in Almedalen. We have had Nazis who have eaten breakfast outside the door. We are in complete agreement that this is unreasonable.

The Sweden Democrats have been very exposed – together with the Centre Party and the Green Party, they are probably those who have been most exposed. I know that many Left Party members have also received threats directed at them. This is unreasonable, and it must come to an end.

Then it is fine if one takes some responsibility oneself and refrains from calling left-wingers apostles of goodness, from talking about hate speech etcetera. If we are to adopt that line, we should also uphold it ourselves. I still think that is something one can take away – otherwise, it just becomes a refined victim mentality, as the member himself said.

Let me move to the actual questions about integration. We will definitely set requirements for people, but what requirements are it we want to set? One example is that people should learn Swedish. We will, of course, discuss education later. It can be stated that children learn Swedish much better if they have qualified teachers. Then they also learn math much better. Then they pass school and upper secondary school, move forward, and get a job.

This government holds the world record in expulsions – never before have so many students left the Swedish school without passing it. This applies particularly in vulnerable areas. How will integration improve in the long run by you throwing out 20,000 children from school every year? This is what it is about. You are also not investing in teachers – on the contrary, we are training fewer qualified teachers with this government. The Sweden Democrats also want to shut down all teacher training programs except for three, so that there are no teachers in the countryside at all.

How will it get better for Swedish integration?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I regret that representatives of the Centre Party and other parties have also been subjected to threats, hate, and criminal acts. It is not acceptable for any party or any political representative to be subjected to that; I want to be clear about that. We must also take that responsibility ourselves towards one another. I mean that this has fallen short enormously towards us in the Sweden Democrats. I am not putting on a victim's coat but simply stating that that has been the case. The "good hate," as it is often called in common parlance.

I completely agree with the member that the most important thing is that we can provide education and that those who educate and those who are educators can the Swedish language. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. We have closed schools – and I hope there are not many such ones left – that have educated solely with the help of Arabic. The children have been made to study the Quran, and they have been taught a lot of things that do not at all belong to our Swedish way of life, our culture or our language.

We are, of course, also making investments in school and education. The Member expressed it as that we are throwing out 20,000 children. I think it is unfortunate to express oneself in that way. If students do not manage to reach the knowledge goals, we must look at what reasons there are for that and do something about them.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! The reason is that they do not have qualified teachers, and this has been well-investigated. Here, the Center Party is investing, but unfortunately, the government says no. What the government wants is for 1,000 fewer teachers to be trained every year; that is the official policy. Furthermore, they do not want to pay more for qualified teachers, and they do not want to have qualified teachers where they are needed most, for example in marginalized areas. They say no to everything. Then the teaching does not become better, and they do not get better Swedish, do not manage their schooling, and do not get a job. Then it becomes what it becomes, and you can stand here again in 20 years and say that it is too bad that they speak poor Swedish and do not have jobs. But it is your policy that has created that.

The opposition can complain a lot about what has been. That is fine, because I agree that there is much to complain about. But there are also things to complain about today, for which the Sweden Democrats are responsible. Never in the history of Swedish democracy have so many left school without being able to proceed to upper secondary school as during this mandate period, and it is the Sweden Democrats' first mandate period in the government support. That is where we are right now.

The Prime Minister said that those who behave themselves should have all opportunities. That is made up, because it is really not the government's policy. Those who behave themselves but do not earn 90 percent of the median wage are to be kicked out of the country, because you have removed the track change. We hear about these people every day. They are sent out without having done anything wrong. They work, behave themselves and do everything right but are still to be kicked out because you have some strange idea that the median wage is the answer to who behaves correctly. It is an incredibly poor view of those who work on the floor. Those who clean here in the Riksdag do not earn 90 percent of the median wage. Why should they be kicked out? Is it the Sweden Democrats' view that they do not exert themselves? In that case, you have an incredibly elitist view of your fellow citizens.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions. However, there was a mix of high and low in the member's battery of questions, so I will certainly not be able to include everything.

The Sweden Democrats are for nationalizing the school system. The school is today a municipal responsibility, and our municipalities are self-governing. The state can do much but not everything, and the municipalities decide, as mentioned, over for example school and elderly care. The state has, however, had to put its foot down sometimes and close schools that should not exist in Sweden at all.

I move on to low-wage jobs. Everyone, regardless of party affiliation, should know that Sweden does not need any labor immigration for low-wage jobs. There are also jobs in Sweden with incredibly low wages, and in that direction, I hope that no party in the chamber wants to go. I think it is absolutely excellent that we are raising the requirement for what one should earn and thereby raising the value of work on the Swedish labor market. The minimum one can earn should be quite high, and I think we have landed well on that issue.

Unfortunately, I do not have time for more, but I thank the member for the questions.

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the Riksdag recently chose to approve the government's and the Sweden Democrats' proposals for the framework of the state budget. At the same time, our budget proposal was rejected. I therefore refer to our special statement where we set out our priorities in this area, but also to our budget proposal in its entirety, as integration policy reasonably cannot be limited to only this expenditure area.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in many ways a fantastic country with fantastic people. It is we who live here, regardless of whether we were born here or have come to call Sweden home later in life, who together build our country and our social community. In this social community, everyone should be able to achieve their full potential, reach the full longing of their dreams and do their best to contribute to the construction of society, and everyone shall be welcome.

Unfortunately, there are great challenges for our country and our social community. We see how the polarization in society increases as people are pitted against each other, how the mistrust between different groups in society grows, and how the economic gaps continue to increase from already high levels. This brings consequences for a society like ours and for people in our country, especially for many of those who did not have Sweden as their homeland at their birth.

When people feel that they are not welcome into the community or even do not get the prerequisites to take the step into it, it is an enormous loss for society as a whole. But above all, it is a loss for the individual and their children who risk falling into long-term exclusion.

This is a problem that the integration policy must solve, and because it is a problem that has been created by political decisions, or rather a lack of such, it is therefore also a problem that can be solved with political decisions. But unfortunately, we see far too little of that right now. In the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas budget, we see all too few initiatives aimed at tackling the integration challenges.

The government and the Sweden Democrats are unable to take a unified grip on segregation in the housing market, and welfare continues to be starved when the state grants to the municipalities are too low. Labor market policy remains deprioritized, and they choose to expend their energy on repatriation instead of focusing on building a sense of community.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats naturally understand that the integration challenges in our country are great and will take time to solve, likely several parliamentary terms. But with a different focus on the policy, the investments to break the segregation would have looked completely different, and within the framework of the integration policy, we could have done something completely different.

It is not least about Sweden's vulnerable areas. We Social Democrats believe that society needs to join forces to reach the goal that Sweden should have no vulnerable areas. Our starting point is that all residential areas in our country shall be safe places to live, reside, and operate in. The ambition must be that the residential areas shall be so safe that people both want to stay and move there.

In order to be able to work in this direction, we want to carry out a so-called Sweden negotiation. In this Sweden negotiation, agreements shall be signed between the state and municipalities with vulnerable areas, and the ambition is that long-term measures and investments shall be carried out in these areas. Specifically, it could involve upgrading existing housing stock, new construction of terraced houses and small houses, and other important initiatives.

To combat segregation in these vulnerable areas, we also want to abolish the EBO legislation. We Social Democrats will always reject all proposals that lead to uneven distribution of refugees to the municipalities because it risks worsening segregation in the country.

Furthermore, we see the need for a labor market policy that actually gets more people into work and employment. Having a job is completely fundamental to becoming a part of the community, to securing one's livelihood, and to feeling that one contributes to society.

To get more people into work, we need an active labor market policy. Everyone who can work shall work, and those who do not have the right competence to be able to take a job shall be equipped and receive the support needed to be able to take it.

Today we can see how many people, not least in our vulnerable areas, stand far from the labor market and are employed to a lesser extent than the rest of the population. Those who lack necessary education or speak insufficient Swedish shall receive the support offered, and the various compensations linked to these efforts shall, as a rule, be conditional on active participation.

Madam Speaker! Women born abroad are a group that need to be prioritized. An important initiative for this group was the so-called extra services, which unfortunately have been abolished. Through this support, municipalities and regions were given the opportunity, at a relatively low cost, to employ a person who had been far from the labor market. For the individual, it meant meaningful employment and practical work experience. It was simply a sign of a functioning integration policy.

Another important way to tackle segregation is to work on stopping discrimination. When people who just want to do the right thing are met with structural barriers simply because they have a certain skin color or a surname that does not sound typically Swedish, it is not strange that one can feel discouraged and not feel motivated to participate in society.

The discrimination of people, regardless of the reason, limits people's opportunities to develop and contribute. Since this is something that limits our society's opportunities to hold together, it is something we must combat with the full force of society.

Madam Speaker! We are facing a decisive time in many ways. It is a time when segregation in our country continues to deepen, a time when mistrust and polarization dominate society and the political conversation, and a time when economic inequality continues to spiral out of control. This is a time that demands political action, that one rolls up one's sleeves to seriously tackle the problems we see in our society, including the integration challenges.

In that situation, we face a number of completely central political choices. It is about choosing between seeing people as a burden or as an asset, between seeing people's shortcomings or opportunities to contribute, and between building a society based on division or on cohesion.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, these elections are completely self-evident. We see people as an asset, we see people's opportunity to contribute, and we want to build a society based on cohesion, not on division. That is, after all, the only way we can build Sweden stronger for the future.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jonathan Svensson, for an excellent speech in many ways!

There are, however, some things that we perhaps have a slightly different view on, including labor migration, which is important for Sweden. I believe we are up to the point that labor migration contributes 35–40 billion to Sweden's GDP. Most recently, a few years ago, labor migration contributed 12 billion in tax revenues, I believe.

Now many of these people must leave Sweden, because of the government's policy with wage floors and that the possibility of switching tracks etcetera is being removed. All those who are now leaving Sweden would have had to leave anyway because of your policy. Why do you want it this way?

You Social Democrats spoke earlier about, for example, 90 percent of the median wage, which Anders Ygeman put forward. You also want the union, instead of the employers, who actually know what competence is needed, to decide who should lose their employment.

I would like to hear from the Social Democrats why you look at those who are now leaving and think: How good that they are leaving now. Then we can hopefully get in some Swedish labor.

In reality, many of those who are leaving Sweden can be healthcare assistants and nurses, which has happened in, for example, Malmö and Lund. Why is it better for Sweden and for the welfare system that they leave rather than that they stay and work?

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for an interesting and pressing question!

Labor migration is handled separately from the ordinary migration policy. It has a special handling. Fundamental for us is that the ordinary migration policy shall be strict within a foreseeable time. But when it comes to specifically labor migration, we want a so-called need-based labor migration. There, one looks in each individual case at whether there is a need to bring in labor from abroad.

Of course, we would like those who are in Sweden and lack a job to primarily take the jobs that are available. That is the very foundation. But we understand that in some specific industries there may be a need to bring in labor from abroad. In those cases, we believe that an individual assessment should be made for each area.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! The member said that one should see if there is a need. We can clarify that a bit. By "one" is meant here social democratic trade unions and not just anyone out on the streets and squares or, for example, an employer, who can assess what needs exist in a workplace. With this "one" is meant, therefore, specifically social democratic trade unions. I think it is very reasonable that we have it with us when we are to assess this issue.

The Social Democrats have, as they have said, at least previously, wanted 90 percent of the median wage to apply, which the government is also now moving towards. Has the party completely moved away from that idea, or does it remain? Do you support the wage floor of 90 percent that the government has set, or do you say no to it? I am new to this area and therefore take the chance to learn here.

If you consider that a floor of 90 percent is still relevant, you have just as great a responsibility for those who must leave now as the government does.

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! Again: What we Social Democrats would like to see is a means-tested labor migration where an individual assessment is made for each individual area. For a long time, we have had a significantly more liberal view on labor migration, and it has been significantly easier to enter Sweden. We do not think that has been positive.

The member may certainly refer to the fact that we have cooperation with trade unions, just as the member's party has cooperation with other parties. It is natural in the political landscape and in a multi-party system with various actors that one listens to different parties and assesses which policy one wants to drive forward.

Our basic position is, as said, that we shall have a needs-based labor immigration where we assess each individual area.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Honored members and listeners! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

I will address the integration part in the report.

When I was elected in 2018, we did not have such open debates. Today, we do. Sweden has changed. It is no longer taboo to talk about certain things. That problem led to Sweden looking the way it does today.

I was born in 1988 and grew up in Rinkeby and Hässelby. From their teachers, who were Swedish – now we also have teachers with a foreign background or who are Swedish-born with foreign parents – one was told back then that it was racist to sing the national anthem. And when we looked around, no one looked like the majority society.

The first thing we had to learn was, therefore, that this country, which we were born in, which our parents came to, or which one might have come to as a young person, was a racist country. The first signal was: Okay, they make a distinction between us.

I will not say the name of my teacher, because I do not want to out anyone. But that was how we grew up in Smedshagsskolan. There, ethnic groupings were also formed in the classroom. I have Armenian roots, but there were no other Armenians in the class. I was completely alone. Then I found a Syrian friend. He didn't have many others either. So we found each other. They were groupings from different parts of the world. When there was bickering and fighting in school, you were simply backed up by those with whom you shared an origin.

That is how it looked. I believe many can testify to this. The problem is that those people are rarely asked, and therefore they cannot answer it.

When we grew up, the requirements were also very low. When we started breaking out in Swedish, because Swedish was not anyone's mother tongue, the teachers just looked at us and said year after year: "But it will go very well for you." And now one asks oneself why we have such large segregation and integration problems.

Every time, one hears that there are a lack of resources for healthcare, school, and elderly care. It is always a lack of resources. In a country where one pays the world's highest taxes, one must ask: What is the problem?

The problem is the racism of low expectations. It has been thought that every person who has a different appearance than the majority population is a person who is vulnerable. Someone who must be taken care of. Wrong! If one has been able to come to Sweden from the other side of the world, one can actually be faced with language requirements and self-sufficiency requirements. One supports oneself. If one wants to bring one's family here, one is expected to support them. One does not make a distinction between one's son and one's daughter. Both are allowed to choose which education they want to attend. Both are allowed to choose which partner they want to marry.

For almost 30 years, it has been diminished in here and said that if we talk about honor-based oppression and honor-related violence, we point out every single immigrant. But it is the immigrants who are subjected to honor violence and honor-based oppression. One claims to be a voice for the most vulnerable, but one uses the most vulnerable to drive their political agenda.

Madam Speaker! The major problems we have in Sweden are linked to immigration. It is not the individual immigrant who is the problem. It is the large-scale immigration that has come to Sweden. Let us just look at the proportion of unemployed – more than half are foreign-born. But half of the Swedish population does not have a foreign background.

Now the government is putting forward that if you are to live in Sweden, then you shall learn the language. If you do not learn the language, you will receive no compensation. If you are to move from temporary to permanent residence permit, you are also expected to support yourself. That is how it works in the rest of the world.

I listened to what was said earlier in the debate about that Sweden is so racist. There is a lot of discrimination. That is what we heard from Miljöpartiet. Then I want to ask Miljöpartiet: If Sweden is so racist, why do so many people from large parts of the world want to seek out Sweden? If Sweden is so racist, why has one let in so many immigrants into Sweden? If Sweden is so racist, why was access given to the generous Swedish welfare system from day one?

I am genuinely tired of hearing members of the Swedish Riksdag paint a picture of Sweden as a racist country. Sweden is one of the most tolerant countries. Not much is expected of you. What is expected is that you learn the language, live an honest life, behave yourself and respect the common values we have in Sweden and the culture we have in Sweden.

I come with a different culture, Madam Speaker. But in Sweden, out in the countryside, people like dansband. It is part of the Swedish culture and the Swedish tradition. I am not saying that dansband is the music I prefer, but it really swings. I realized that when my wife said: Can you show me the real Sweden? She likes it. At the Swedish crayfish party, there is always someone who gets karate-drunk, but that is what is the real Sweden.

It is not the Swedes who are to change. The people who have come here may bring their faith, their culture, and their values, but on one condition: that they respect the culture and the values we have in Sweden. It is not harder than that. Immigrants do not become more Swedish because Swedes become less proud of being Swedish. For God's sake, how will the immigrant then be able to know what is Swedish and what is not Swedish?

When one comes to Sweden, the purpose is that one shall live and reside here. As my mother said: My son, you are born in Sweden. No matter how much you think you will go back there where your parents come from, forget it! Learn the language, study, work! You will live here. You will live here. You will die here.

That is what should be the signal. It is time that we draw our red lines.

If you fit our requirements, you are welcome. Just look at the new tech billionaires! Many have foreign-sounding surnames and foreign accents. The idea that it is not possible to make a class leap in Sweden is incorrect. In Sweden, you can reach your potential.

But demands must also be made from the side of society. It must be clear from day one. If there is something we Swedes have difficulty with, it is being clear. I must give the Danes credit; the Danes are very clear. It is not us Swedes. But now we are moving towards a new era: Learn the language, support yourself, and live an honest life! If you do not live an honest life, you will be deported, but if you live an honest life, you are welcome into the Swedish community.

(Applause)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is difficult to draw any other conclusion than that this government lacks credibility regarding integration policy when Arbetsförmedlingen, the agency that has the clearest mandate to promote both establishment and integration, is simultaneously given the task of informing about return grants.

These are two goals that are completely incompatible. My question to the member is: How is Arbetsförmedlingen supposed to be able to promote establishment and long-term integration in a credible way while the same agency is expected to signal that people should instead leave the country?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! I think Member Leila Ali Elmi should ask her coalition partner the Social Democrats, who introduced this in the 1980s under Olof Palme. How can you cooperate with the Social Democrats?

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The return grant was introduced in the 80s; that is correct. But the mandate for Arbetsförmedlingen is something that this government, the Tidö government, has introduced. My question concerns that. How is the same agency that is to work long-term with establishment and integration simultaneously to signal to people that they should leave the country? How is one to achieve establishment and integration in a credible way?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! It cannot be more implausible than that a person who has not entered employment for several years and has hardly learned the language is asked: Do you really enjoy living in Sweden?

This is interesting, because I remember the virtue signaling from two or three weeks ago when a lot of high-ranking politicians, almost all with Swedish ethnic background, sat with their papers and said: Now I have written a letter. I declined a meeting.

Then you go out to where they grew up and ask the parents: Are you happy in Sweden? No, they say. But we cannot afford to return.

It does not hurt to ask the question. Do you feel at home in Sweden? If the answer is yes, welcome! These are the efforts we are putting in. But there are very many who do not feel at home in Sweden. They may not find themselves at ease. In that case, they shall be given the opportunity to return to their home countries. It is voluntary. It costs nothing to ask the question. The answer is either yes or no, and based on that, Arbetsförmedlingen or Sweden's municipalities can proceed.

There are very many immigrants in Sweden today who do not enjoy it here. It is dark. It is cold. They perhaps have not learned the language. They do not enjoy it here. That is the truth, Leila Ali Elmi! You can laugh at it, but instead of laughing in the chamber, we can go out together. You can choose the people we are to ask the question to. I promise you that it is more than zero who will answer: If I get a good opportunity to return, then I will do it.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Arin Karapet, for the speech!

I listened carefully, and it made me think that this government is actually putting forward proposals to revoke people's permanent residence permits. They also went further and abolished the "spårbyte" (track change) retroactively so that people who have worked here for about ten years and are well-established are deported.

Here stands Arin Karapet and says: Learn the language, support yourself and live an honest life. These people have done exactly what the government asks them to do, but they have been fundamentally cheated and are not allowed to stay.

This government has systematized deportations in a terrible way, I want to say. Every day we are met with new reports about lives and dreams being crushed before our eyes. These are people with deep roots in Sweden. They are well-established parents working in healthcare, elderly care, and other shortage occupations all over Sweden. It is about family friends, colleagues, the children's classmates, and the football coach or the basketball coach. They are well-established and have done everything right and correctly. They have learned the language, supported themselves and their families, and met every single requirement that was set when they came here.

The question to Arin Karapet is: Why do you continue to deport well-established people who work, have done everything right and correctly, and who behave themselves, set their alarm clocks and go to work? They were promised that they would be allowed to stay here, but a retroactive legislation is being implemented that results in them being singled out for deportation.

Why are you proceeding with the proposal to revoke permanent residence permits? It is frightening people all over the country, and that's all!

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us begin at this end: How does one end up in a situation where one applies for a change of residence? Very many people who have come to Sweden came from countries with a very low approval rate. They applied for asylum, and we know how long the asylum processes were. The Swedish state also paid for the legal counsel.

It was already known in advance that one would be rejected. One appealed to as many instances as possible, and then one received advice from a lawyer to apply for a change of track. Then you put sand in the machinery again, and you extend the time one is allowed to stay in Sweden.

They are from countries such as Mongolia, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Georgia. I have many compatriots from Armenia who will not like to hear this, but that is how it is. If one comes from these countries, one can in principle come to Sweden as a political refugee or have fled because of their sexual orientation. In principle, everything else is rejected.

This is the problem: that Agency-Sweden and primarily the politics have not put their foot down in time. We are doing so now.

When it comes to switching tracks, it is fundamentally about that one should have come to Sweden as a labor migrant and not as an asylum seeker who subsequently changes reasons to stay in Sweden.

Now we make it clear. If you want to come to Sweden, you can apply as a labor migrant, and in that case, you must fulfill these requirements. If you are seeking asylum, we have a completely different list of requirements that must be met.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It is a deep disappointment to listen to this answer from Arin Karapet. These are, after all, people who have done everything correctly. They work, support themselves, and have learned the language. They work many times in shortage occupations and uphold the welfare in Sweden. They pay tax and behave themselves. This is the answer they receive while they are receiving a deportation decision.

What is most cynical and provoking here – and I hope the Moderaterna are listening properly to this now – is that it was you who introduced this system. The problem is that a system has been introduced and these people have been deceived. Then you withdraw this and undermine your own policy – that you have not stood your ground and so on.

It is, however, completely reasonable that one remains on the labor market if one has come to Sweden, established oneself, and started working. It is completely incomprehensible that the member defends a system where one legislates retroactively in this way. It is about people who came perhaps eight years ago and have worked here for more than eight years – even when they were asylum seekers – and have established themselves. The children go to school, and children are born here. They play in the local football team and have perhaps bought an apartment. They live their entire lives here. And then one carries out a retroactive legislation and says: Hey you! That which you were granted a few years ago, we feel right now no longer applies.

I think it is a cynical way and a disparaging view to treat people in that manner. Now, one does the same thing when proceeding with trying to revoke permanent residence permits for people. It concerns up to 200,000 people who risk having their permanent residence permits revoked. One has received a legal document in a rule of law state and is now threatened with that such a thing can be withdrawn. I think it is cynical and a terrible way to treat people.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! I have no problems as a politician in admitting that the Moderaterna were wrong in 2014. More politicians in here might dare to say that when you make a mistake, you correct your mistakes, instead of just pushing on.

I also want to remind the member that his party cooperated with the Social Democrats from 2014 to 2022. You were part of their government base even though you argued about the guaranteed pension. You also ousted the Prime Minister for two or three days and then the Social Democrats returned to power. It was a very good Netflix show.

But why did you do nothing for eight years? I think the member should be open about that no human is illegal – or? Anyone should be allowed to just come to Sweden and take part in our welfare. You might as well just say that you are for free immigration! Then we don't need to have these discussions about permanent residence permits or temporary residence permits or when one should be allowed to apply for Swedish citizenship and what requirements it should be.

We are straightening up Sweden. Yes, people are getting caught in the middle. But the reason people are getting caught in the middle is the immigration policy that your side has pursued. You have promised everything to everyone – everything to everyone! Just stay here a little longer and it will be fine! Instead of clearly saying: These are the requirements, and you have not fulfilled them. Then you must return.

There must be a difference between those who are allowed to stay and those who are not allowed to stay. We are correcting a system that should have been corrected much earlier, and I dare to stand up for that policy. I do not intend to stand here and lie.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by seeing if not I and Arin Karapet can reach an agreement here. Sweden is not to adapt to immigrants – but Sweden shall also become a bit more Danish. It is a good compromise. I think it was a very nice speech, actually.

I agree with Arin Karapet that Sweden is not a particularly racist country. It is tiresome that there are people who claim it is. We know that it is not true and that the country is the least racist in the world – and we certainly want it to continue that way! Then one can also ensure that racist ways of thinking are met with force and pushed back wherever they are found – regardless of side.

Arin Karapet says that the Moderaterna have realized their mistakes and that it is important to correct their mistakes. That is true. It is also very good not to commit them, so to speak. And there you still have a chance, perhaps, to refrain from committing some of them during this parliamentary term.

It is actually a bit difficult when Arin Karapet says one minute that it is enough if you live your whole life, support yourself and behave, but then says "but that doesn't really do it," because if you have too low a salary according to the imaginary limit that the government has set up, you shall be out even if you behave and even if you work hard. This has been made up in hindsight. Even if you have behaved etcetera and have PUT, we will remove it. It makes no difference.

You have behaved yourself for ten years and you work and do everything you can, but you are no longer allowed to have track switching – even though the Moderaterna have always thought that it is actually a good thing.

We agree that this needed to be cleaned up – but to completely remove it is not Moderate politics, and it never has been. That someone who behaves and works must be removed just because the state sets up rules. That is not Moderate politics – not classic Moderate politics.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates are a liberal-conservative party, and I belong rather to the conservative side. The fact that the liberal part then took over all too much for too long interacted very much with the Centre Party.

If one wants to come to Sweden, one must also be able to support oneself. Previously, it was a matter of approximately 13,300 kronor before tax. It speaks for itself that it is exploitation of people. So it is! Now there is a wage floor of approximately 29,900 kronor. After tax, it becomes approximately 24,000 kronor.

Look at the housing market we have! It is rare that you find an apartment that costs under 10,000 kronor. Even more so, it costs with a sublease contract, which is extremely difficult to get.

The labor immigration we are to have to Sweden shall consist of the labor we cannot find in Sweden. Jobs on the Swedish labor market shall primarily go to those who live here. The labor immigration aims to bring here competence that we cannot find in Sweden. It is up to the employers, but then they must be prepared to pay. Most of those who come to Sweden to work do not come with a large starting capital, but they must get a fair chance with a good salary so that they can live a good life. There shall be decent insurance. But we shall not bring in labor when there is labor here that can perform the jobs that can be performed here.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I can remind the Moderaterna that they have never been greater than when they cooperated with us, and they have hardly been smaller than when they have cooperated with SD. It may be worth reminding, at some point along the way in the liberal-conservative discussion.

But it is not conservative to change people's basic conditions by removing their permanent residence permits and giving them a temporary permit with the help of retroactive legislation. It is not conservative. Nor is it conservative, not classically moderate, to set a minimum wage of 29,000 kronor for all occupations in Sweden.

If I have understood correctly, Arin Karapet has been involved in Muf from the beginning. There is a fantastic song called Sverige jobbar!, and we also play it at our meetings. It is very good. In the lyrics, there is, among other things, the following:

I am the immigrant who gets their first job without being able to speak a single word of Swedish.

Furthermore, the text reads:

It is wisdom that builds Sweden

And finally, the text reads:

Sweden works best when Sweden is at its best

But now it is the case that I am the immigrant who has worked for ten years and has learned to speak excellent Swedish. It is we who build Sweden. But then the new Moderate refrain is that Sweden expels when Sweden is at its best. How did it become so? How did one go from it being good to work to it being good to expel those who work? I do not understand. There is no reason.

We can talk about who is allowed to come here and about new rules for those who are to come. There is quite a large consensus overall on that. But what happens to those who are already here, who work, who do right, and who do everything?

I can repeat: You who live your whole life here, you who support yourself, you who behave yourself – those were Arin Karapets' words. But many of them are being sent out now because they do not earn an imaginary sum based on someone else's salary. It is not even their industry wage. Some kind of average wage for cleaners to be allowed to clean could almost have been understood, but that the average should be based on everyone else's jobs is very strange. What happened?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! I had signed up for eight minutes in the speaking list, and I did not want to exceed the time. I could have added even more and stood there for an hour.

With this said, I assume that when you have come to Sweden, you have come here on the right grounds, and a large group of people have not done so. Politics has made decisions in previous stages with so many exceptions. It shall be amnesty here, and it shall be the upper secondary school act there. Somewhere a line must be drawn, and that is what we have done now.

Yes, people are in danger. I even know some who are in danger. But one must behave correctly from the very beginning when one comes to Sweden. If one is an asylum seeker, one is an asylum seeker. If one comes here as a labor migrant, one shall apply for a work permit. The politics in the chamber have not been able to handle the issues due to negotiations to put together a government formation, and then it becomes a total mess out in society. This is the consequence.

Now there is a government that is building a new direction for Sweden. It is about that if you want to work in Sweden, you must fulfill certain requirements. Period! We cannot go back and forth. I understand – I have a heart – but somewhere we must take responsibility for an entire country. We cannot keep going back and forth.

The problem that arises, which no one here is talking about, is that all people with foreign origins who actually behave correctly, who did the right thing from day one, are being questioned. It is their side we should stand on, not the side where those who try to fiddle with the system and then hope to win a lottery ticket stand. That is over.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating integration with a government that has, with all clarity, shown politically, economically, and institutionally that they do not want integration. They are moving forward with proposals to revoke permanent residence permits retroactively. This is something that their own investigation shows can affect between 98,000 and 180,000 people, many of whom have long periods of residence in Sweden – upwards of ten years or more. This is a matter of people with deep roots in Sweden. With one hand, they talk about doing the right thing, and with the other hand, they abolish track changes retroactively and raise the wage floor in order to be able to deport well-established and permanent workers all over the country.

Many work in shortage occupations, have learned the language, pay taxes, contribute to the welfare system, and have behaved themselves and done everything right and correctly. Their children go to school, and they have lived their entire lives here. In what way Sweden becomes a better place by these people being deported, I think no one from the government can explain. Arin Karapet made some kind of attempt, but it was a flop. And he has left the chamber.

There is an obvious difference between politics and priorities. When Vänsterpartiet negotiates the budget with the government, we ensure that we invest in welfare, households, and ordinary people. We strengthen equality while simultaneously strengthening welfare. We push through increased pensions, improvements in health insurance, strengthen the safety net, propose free medicine for the elderly, and many other good things.

When the Sweden Democrats negotiate the budget, welfare will take a backseat. They are rolling out cuts across the entire country. Households, families with children, and pensioners will have to take a backseat, despite the fact that the cost of living is increasing. Investments are put on ice at a time when unemployment is at a record high and are left completely without measures. The cash flow worsens, and the benefits for the unemployed are lowered. The unfair gap remains, and they have actively made medicines more expensive.

Households have not been protected during cost shocks, but it was important for the Sweden Democrats to put a stop to increased child allowance in the budget negotiations in order to instead prioritize a return migration grant that almost all municipalities protest against and that no one seems to want. Municipalities across Sweden want to keep their residents, regardless of where they come from. One does not distinguish between people and people in one's own municipality. One neither encourages nor urges anyone to leave the country. Everyone is needed, and one speaks well of one's residents.

Madam Speaker! This has been refreshing. When was the last time one heard someone from the government say a good word about immigrants?

Instead, we have lived with an undignified and degrading scapegoat policy in recent years. I think the opening remarks in this debate showed this very clearly.

We have constantly been told by this government that immigration is a problem, but that is not true. Over the last ten years, we have brought 400,000 foreign-born people into the Swedish labor market. We have shortened the time it takes for newcomers to enter the Swedish labor market from seven to three years. Among the 35,000 unaccompanied refugee children who have arrived, eight out of ten have jobs, which is more than among Swedish-born youth of the same age, mostly within welfare and care. This does not quite fit the government's refugee policy agenda; they must have someone to blame for societal problems. I find this cynical and regrettable, and it does something to our society.

But the reality out there is that everyone is needed. Every other nursing assistant and every other healthcare assistant in elderly care was born abroad. Despite this, it is usually deathly silent from the government parties regarding which people are upholding the Swedish welfare. They deserve respect. Everyone who upholds the Swedish welfare deserves respect and a policy that looks after them and stands on their side.

But instead, we are met every day with new reports about lives and dreams being crushed before our eyes. It is about people with deep roots in Sweden. Children born here and young people who have grown up here are deported to countries they have no connection to and have not even been to. They also cannot understand the language. Parents who work in healthcare and elderly care or other shortage occupations are deported. It is about family friends, colleagues, the children's classmates and the football or basketball coach. They are established like everyone else and have done everything right and correctly.

Absolutely nothing gets better from the politics that this government is pursuing, neither for individuals nor for society, which this government is tearing apart bit by bit. It does something to children and young people and to local communities when, in schools all over the country, time and again there is a classmate who is to be deported.

Madam Speaker! I believe that many who are listening to the debate can agree with me that Sweden is more fragile than it has been in a very long time. People are left to fend for themselves. They are left to handle the economic crisis on their own. Cost shocks mean that parents have to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table. The welfare system is breaking down, not because it has to be so, but because the government has prioritized and decided that it shall be so.

This is very cynical, because the key to integration and success for Sweden has never been deterioration, cuts, and worse conditions. Our strength in Sweden has been to invest in society and in each other – in welfare, education, housing, health, and equality. That is how Sweden develops, and that is how Sweden grows. Our entire modern history has proven this. Previous generations received better education and better jobs while we became more numerous. This was possible thanks to long-term profitable investments. It is possible to build a more spacious and stronger Sweden by investing in society and the people in it. That is the most effective and important thing we can do.

It is an election next year, and this is exactly the direction Sweden needs – a safer and stronger Sweden that leaves no one behind. The government is now proposing tax cuts of over 50 billion for 2026, and the distribution profile looks as usual: money to the very richest.

In the Left Party's budget alternative, there is a completely different direction, with different priorities than those that the sitting government and the Sweden Democrats have made during the mandate period. Then we could have protected welfare, healthcare, households, families with children, single parents, and pensioners. We could have better protected those who become ill or unemployed. We need investments in society, for households, in jobs, in housing with reasonable rents, and in the climate transition. We need to strengthen our welfare and security systems. Then the rich must also start contributing so that we can begin to redistribute solidarily between the employed and the unemployed, between the healthy and the sick, and not least between those who live in abundance and those who live on the margins.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for your moving speech!

The member claims that everyone is needed. No, Tony Haddou, not everyone is needed. The immigrants who have come here to us and who, for example, work in elderly care, as the member spoke about, and subject the elderly to serious crime, are not needed here. Those who humiliate, assault, and rape our elderly are not needed here. The immigrants who have come here to us and humiliate, assault, rob, and urinate on Swedish youths are not needed here. They should not be here. They should leave from here and go home.

I have a concrete question to ask the Left Party. How is the Left Party going to address the integration in – I choose to say the adaptation to – Swedish society? We see things a bit differently on that matter. The Left Party's only proposal is to increase migration, asylum reception, and immigration to Sweden. How is that going to solve the integration problems?

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! We have quite robust legislation against criminals in Sweden and in this rule of law. If one commits a crime, such as rape, humiliation, robbery, and so on, I believe one should be prosecuted. I do not think it is any bigger case than that. I think it is important that people who commit crimes are prosecuted in the legal order we have. I am not singling out immigrants as criminals, just. I think it is very wrong and deeply racist, and it says something about the Sweden Democrats and their roots that this still lingers, quite simply. I think it is deeply regrettable.

I was asked how Vänsterpartiet views integration. I just spoke for almost eight minutes and spent the majority of the time on what we want to do. We have a budget that we see as a whole, which we have also written in the report, where we have primarily investments as the central focus. We want to invest in people and society, quite simply.

It is primarily about making the social investments that must be made, also to create jobs. Housing must be built, and rails must be laid. Many people therefore need to be in our welfare system. We need to refurbish Sweden, and we do that with powerful investments and by ensuring that people thereby enter employment.

But it also requires a lot of education, which is lagging behind. We need to educate, invest, and ensure that we create jobs.

The problem with all of this is that the Sweden Democrats are one hundred percent passive regarding what I spoke about, to upgrade Sweden – not a single labor market measure or integration policy measure. They said very clearly that they still do not want integration; the member speaks about adaptation.

So I don't know – I can ask a counter-question. During this period, when the Sverigedemokraterna have negotiated the budget, why have households not been protected? Why have compensations and child allowances not been increased? Why have food prices not been pushed down? Why were the deductions not abolished? Why are we not being invested out of unemployment? Why has Sweden not been renovated? We do what is required.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I understand if the member from the Left Party is not very interested in reading about the Sweden Democrats' policy or even listening to it, as it seems to have completely passed the member by. It is about, for example, Jimmy's food basket – we have lowered the VAT on food. No, the member apparently missed that, but it was good that you received that information now. It is also about energy prices and fuel prices, which we have lowered by at least 10 kronor. But the member completely overlooks this.

I return to the criminality. The member says clearly that he considers that criminals should be prosecuted. I consider that they should be prosecuted and deported. A criminal who has come from another country to us and who insults our population by humiliating us and committing criminal acts against us does not actually deserve to live here in our country.

I am a very understanding person, and I can still understand the member, who is, after all, a Left Party member. The Left Party's tail is known for being fond of criminals, not for the crime victims. There I want to be very clear, Madam Speaker: the Sweden Democrats protect the crime victims.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe we are getting to the core of the Sweden Democrats' policy here when it comes to deportations. What an anti-democratic party they are! The basis for deportation in cases of crime and so on is handled by the rule of law and independent courts. But it is the core of the Sweden Democrats, quite simply.

We have independent courts that follow the legislation that exists. I do not stand here as a politician and think all sorts of things about how people should be prosecuted and so on, but there is a legislation. I know that the Sverigedemokraterna want a different one. Today, one can deport criminals. I also understand that the Sverigedemokraterna have a strong interest in shaking up independent courts. I truly understand that.

I received an answer here that the Sweden Democrats are doing something about the cost shock that people are facing, and for example, fuel prices were mentioned. But what do lower fuel prices do for people who have lost their jobs and who no longer have a job to drive to because of the Sweden Democrats' policy?

The Sweden Democrats have, year after year, completely screwed over people during the budget negotiations. There are 100,000 more unemployed people under this government. What do lowered fuel prices do for people who are forced to sell their cars because the Sweden Democrats are cutting the allowance and worsening the activity support? What does it do for these people?

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have left people behind during the budget negotiations. I will say quite honestly that politics is about priorities, and the Sweden Democrats, for example, allocated 1.4 billion kronor to a return migration grant next year. That is money down the drain that no one wants, and where municipality after municipality has said thank you, but no thanks.

Explain to all workers why the 1.4 billion should not go to them!

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It is somewhat amusing to hear how one protects crime victims by inviting the gangs to parties.

This debate is actually about integration, but one can observe that none of the government parties have wanted to talk about integration in their speeches. It is still a bit funny that one does not want to talk about that question at all, given that the subject is integration.

I think, in any case, it is good that some things are stated, even though the integration minister's party has not even been up in the debate on integration to talk about it. I hope that we can get a bit more discussion on integration.

I think the government writes well and begins very nicely: "The goal of the integration policy is that foreign-born women and men shall have the same obligations, rights and opportunities as the rest of the population to live a free, dignified and independent life within the community. This presupposes that those who are in Sweden for a long period of time make an effort to become a part of Swedish society and that society both sets requirements and provides opportunities for integration. The integration policy shall contribute to social and cultural, economic, linguistic and democratic integration as well as, through education, improve the conditions for girls and boys with a foreign background."

It was long, but that is what it says in the introduction. They are nice things. But let us take them one by one. Same rights for everyone – we all agree on that, don't we? But is it not the case that the government wants to change favorable decisions regarding permanent residence permits? Otherwise, we are not allowed to overturn favorable decisions here in Sweden, but apparently, it is not exactly everyone who is to have the same rights. For some, one can overturn things just like that.

Then everyone must make an effort. One must work; of course, one must. And one must, of course, educate oneself. Why then does the government throw out people who have integrated, educated themselves and started a family, and who work, get the children off to school, help with homework, and do all that other stuff that one is supposed to do and that we gladly want people to do, just because they earn a little less than the median wage in Sweden? Why? It has nothing to do with what is stated in the report.

Are the healthcare assistants not making an effort, according to the Moderates? I don't know. Are the cleaners at our elderly care homes or those who clean here not making an effort, according to the Liberals? They do not earn enough. They perhaps do not make enough of an effort. Are the preschool teachers not making an effort, according to the Christian Democrats? They do not earn enough to stay. Are all those who take care of our elderly around in Sweden's municipalities not making an effort, according to the Sweden Democrats?

What is this disparaging view of those who perform the very foundational work in Sweden's welfare around our companies? It is they who do the work, and yet it is said that they do not do enough. I find that remarkable. That is what it is about – real people performing real jobs.

We can take some examples. We have a family who came to Norsjö in 2018. Sara works at a cleaning company, Farhood works in home care, and Parham attends upper secondary school at Norsjöskolan. Because the Tidö parties removed the possibility of switching tracks, they are now to be deported before Christmas.

That people who are fully established in every way, who have jobs, houses and cars and who speak good Swedish should be deported is neither humane nor dignified. I could have said that, but it was the Christian Democrats' local member in the municipal board, Lars-Åke Holmgren, who said it. KD here in the chamber says: Get them out!

Sam, 35, has been here for ten years and has obtained a permanent job within elderly care. The wage floor of 90 percent of the median wage that the Moderate-led government has set means that he is to be deported to Syria. Now, the colleagues at the nursing home in Moderate-ruled Nyköping want to waive their wage increases this year so that Sam will have a chance to meet the income requirements and stay in Sweden. ”For us, it is just money – for our colleagues, it is about lives,” says the assistant nurse Sandra, for example. The Moderates here in the Riksdag say: Out!

In Skåne, a man and his wife were forced to leave the country because the government removed the tracking system entirely instead of just reviewing it. They were two people who were appreciated by both staff and patients, highly competent individuals who were integrated and who worked in industries that are crying out for staff.

Politicians in Malmö city, which is governed by the Liberals, and in Lund, which is one of the Liberals' strongest strongholds, complain that it is difficult to recruit staff. The Liberals here in the Riksdag say: Get rid of them!

That is how it is. It is the difference between the politicians who meet everyday life out there, who see what is actually needed and who have welfare in their laps, and the politicians who sit in the government and who go along with the Sweden Democrats' short-sighted populism. That is the difference. Those who sit with real problems that need to be solved need these people, but you who are here kick them out. That is the difference.

Let's be honest: It is not even worth asking the Sverigedemokraterna about policies for the integration of immigrants. It is like asking Vänsterpartiet about policies for growth in companies. They might say some nice phrases, but in reality, they just want to get rid of them. For this government, it makes no difference how much one integrates and does the right thing – you are just supposed to leave. It is sad.

It is not only when it comes to jobs that the Tidöregeringen undermines the belief that integration pays off. One speaks of cultural integration. That is good. Of course, we should have that. Has the government then strengthened the organizations that work with this, such as folk high schools, public libraries, etc.? No, on the contrary, and in the curricula, one reduces those types of parts instead of strengthening them. That is also interesting.

It says in the report that through education, the conditions for girls and boys with a foreign background shall be improved. Really? The school results are particularly weak in those areas in Sweden that are most vulnerable and have the most immigrants. There, the results are weakest, but what is the government doing to change that? What is the government doing for the 20,000 students who every year leave Swedish school without eligibility? It is in areas of exclusion and in the countryside that this happens, but they do nothing.

We have spoken with the Minister for Integration, who says that we will soon have a ten-year primary school. Excuse me, but so in three years we are going to introduce a ten-year primary school! That will be 13 years. To believe that it would make a huge difference for the 20,000 who do not succeed is actually a bit ridiculous. It will therefore be 260,000 more people who leave school without having eligibility. That is the time horizon the government responds with, instead of doing something now for these people.

The Tidö parties have, as said, set records in weeding out students in Swedish schools. Never before, during any previous parliamentary term, have so many students left school without being able to proceed to an education and a profession. It is the integration effort that the government is making, and it is really bad. It is this that makes the students not get any profession or any job. It is this that makes them not learn Swedish properly etcetera. It is because the government does nothing about the basics in school. That is the reality; it is the political legacy from the Tidö government.

It is also about the jobs, and the jobs are connected to the school. What does the unemployment look like for those who do not get into upper secondary school? It stands at 28 percent for those who do not pass upper secondary school, and for those who do, the unemployment is 5 percent. We have 20,000 students who do not pass upper secondary school.

You cannot come along afterwards and complain that there are a lot of people who have not received jobs. That is because you are not doing the work at the foundation. You are destroying the possibility for integration in this country by not investing in the school.

We know that it is qualified teachers who make a difference. They are the ones who reduce noise, and they are the ones who provide better results. The government wants fewer qualified teachers, and the Sweden Democrats want to abolish all teacher training programs except for three. How are you supposed to get teachers in Filipstad if they are only trained in Gothenburg, Malmö, and Stockholm? It is not possible. We must have many teacher training programs all around the country if this country is to live in its entirety.

This is the big difference. Instead of educating the children who are born here, you want the social services to work on getting them out of the country. It is a huge difference in perspective.

I will be clear. When I see a child in school in Malmö or somewhere else in this wonderful country who is struggling in school, and who is most often born here, my and the Center Party's first thought is: What more can I do to educate this child?

How can one instead, first and foremost, think: What more can we do to deport this child? I will never, ever understand that.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an engaged and moving speech!

I do not know if the member listened to my speech, but I said at the beginning that I will touch upon both integration and equality. I can clearly see the connection between them, and I want to state that I mentioned integration in my speech.

A colleague of mine said to a colleague of the member for a while ago: Welcome home! Isn't it time to come home to the father's house?

In connection with the speech, I would like to request a response from the Center Party and Member Paarup-Petersen. The Member received no answer from the Social Democrats regarding where they stand regarding AKI and 90 percent of the median wage. I therefore ask the Member: How is it possible to form a government and sit in a government with a party from which one cannot even get an answer in a debate in the chamber?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! If clear answers are a requirement to be able to sit in a government, it must be difficult to sit in a government where the leader of the largest party always answers: I don't know.

It is clear that I expect the Social Democrats to start answering our questions over time, but I hope that we do not only have them as an option when it comes down to the wire. One can still say that.

I think it is a pity that those who previously called themselves conservative are now conducting some kind of semi-socialist deportation policy. It does not make Sweden better, in my opinion. The state sits and defines what wage people should have on the free market – what is that? That is nothing that should come from conservative parties. But now it is apparently so, and it is a bit sad.

The Center Party says very clearly that jobs shall increase and that emissions shall decrease. That is our focus. The Tidö parties' slogan seems rather to be that opportunities shall become fewer and segregation worse. It is not possible to show more clearly than that how the Center Party's view on Sweden differs from the Tidö parties'. That is the challenge.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I still received no answer, because the member has a concern in that the Left Party says that they cannot imagine sharing ministerial posts in a future government. Given the strong commitment with which the member maintains their statement, it feels as if the Center Party wants to be involved and have significant influence.

It is something that I would welcome, because we stand very close to one another. We often speak of how the Swedish model is very functional, and I wish that we would stand behind it in a significantly clearer way in this.

When we make decisions, it is always a concern when people get caught in the crossfire and are affected. No one in this chamber can be satisfied with people being exposed and getting caught in the crossfire when we do what we think should be done.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate that Rinaldo Miller says that she is not satisfied. That is how it is; one is not always satisfied, and I think it is good that parties can stand for what they think and be clear about it even if they sometimes do not get what they want. Such is this compromise politics overall.

I do not hope to sit in the government with any type of Left Party; I can be clear about that. We have probably been quite clear from the Center Party's side and several times said that we would gladly keep both the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats out of the government. Because of that, it took a little time to get a government in 2018. I think most people have some understanding of this, because we have been clear over a long period that this is what we are working for.

I appreciate that the Christian Democrats are once again saying that we stand close to each other. Ebba Busch has opened up a bit and said that one can cooperate with more parties etcetera. Everything is not locked, and one has to see how it turns out after the election, she has said. We are starting to hear that from the Christian Democrats, and that is something I and the Centre Party appreciate.

Neither the Social Democrats, the Moderates, nor the Sweden Democrats should think they own us, right? We shall see what exciting days we get after the election and if we can perhaps find each other even better than we do today.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 December.)

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