Equality and the establishment of newly arrived immigrants

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries and has, together with our Nordic neighbors, often been regarded as an example. One should, however, not rely on the fact that Swedish equality is a law of nature that is permanent regardless of circumstances, and there is still very much left to do.

The Sweden Democrats consider equality between the sexes as a self-evident fact and a fundamental pillar in a civilized and democratic country.

The right to freedom and security and the opportunity to shape one's own life must never be allowed to vary in scope between the genders and thereby restrict fundamental rights, but must be a self-evident matter for both women and men, to the same extent.

We Sweden Democrats oppose the view that women and men should primarily be seen as representatives of a collective and, in second place, as individual persons with distinct experiences, knowledge, and backgrounds. This means that we, for example, are clearly opposed to all forms of gender quotas because it is based on the idea that the person being quoted should represent the entire group, regardless of what the person themselves thinks and feels.

We see no benefit in questioning gender identity or gender norms, but instead we advocate for measures to promote the individual's own choices and free thought in a positive context.

The problem is not that girls are girls or boys are boys. The problem is that society views, and values, the different gender roles in different ways. Women, for example, work more often in care and nursing professions or in the public sector, where there are significantly lower wages and working conditions and an all too slow wage development compared to the traditionally male-dominated professions.

Sweden needs to focus on creating a society where one is allowed to be oneself without being stopped by structural and socially constructed barriers. We are enough just as we are, without needing to be placed or quoted into norm-boxes.

The Sweden Democrats want to see a society where equality between women and men permeates all layers of society and reaches all groups. Most often it is the group of women who suffer the absolute greatest consequences of inequality, but in cases where the opposite holds true, there must of course also be solutions for the problems that affect more men. That being said, it cannot be overemphasized that many equality problems have a one-sided nature when it comes to which group is hit hardest by them.

The starting point in a healthy society must be that women and men are given the same opportunities and rights and that equality and each person's security are upheld. What we see instead today is widespread violence in society and in particular violence against women and children, which is not worthy of either Sweden or any other country.

The Swedish Crime Prevention Council states that 7.7 percent of all Swedish women between 18 and 64 years old, i.e., over 300,000 people, are victims of sexual crimes, and over 50,000 cases of domestic violence are reported annually.

The widespread insecurity in society has been palpable for a long time, and at the moment there are no indications that it will change for the better in the near future. The budget that we are debating here today contains the investments required to begin the very important work towards change.

Even though all insecurity is to be considered unacceptable, there is a significant difference between the genders. The insecurity is particularly widespread among women. A full 49 percent of women in the age group 20-24 state that they are afraid of being subjected to a sexual offense. In response to the insecurity, many women feel forced to change their own habits or behavioral patterns. These limitations in life constitute an unacceptable obstacle to an equal society.

The rule of law shall be the guarantor of the inhabitants' safety, and the work to secure the population needs to be accelerated. Women and men shall have the same opportunities and rights and thus also have an equally great right to a safe life. Violence against women is a significant equality issue that must be taken most seriously.

Violence against women constitutes not only a significant and unacceptable obstacle to an equal Sweden, but it also has economic consequences and costs enormous sums in tax revenue every year. These are funds that could instead have been used, for example, to improve welfare.

The costs of violence against women in Sweden amount to between 2.7 and 3.3 billion kronor per year, depending slightly on what is included. Violence against women as an obstacle to an equal society and that which the individual is subjected to is sufficient to justify a powerful action program, but violence against women also highlights an economic dimension. Therefore, every well-spent krona on measures that effectively counteract violence against women is also a socio-economic investment.

In recent decades, honor-related violence and oppression have established themselves as phenomena in Sweden, and more and more often reports come from individuals living in an oppressive and violent honor culture that severely limits their opportunities to live their lives as they wish. They are forced to accept that their right to make their own life choices is restricted, and it is often required that they give up their own will to put the family's or the clan's honor first. In the name of honor, they are subjected to harassment, threats, and violence from the people who should be closest to them.

What distinguishes honor violence from other forms of violence against women is that it is often not a husband or another single individual who is behind the violence. In cases of honor violence, an entire collective of countrymen, relatives, and family members often act oppressively through violence or threats of violence. Escaping from honor oppression can therefore mean that one is forced to sever contact with all their closest relatives.

In order to further counter the spread of honor-related violence, a knowledge lift was needed. An intensified effort in information dissemination was needed to reach those individuals who today live in areas of exclusion characterized by honor culture.

Key personnel working within health and social care, preschool, school and leisure activities, social services, the Police Authority and the justice system need to receive expanded knowledge in this subject. These skills are fundamental to being able to communicate with the victims of honor culture, show understanding for their situation and, in the long run, help them feel safe enough to free themselves from the oppression.

Madam Speaker! The budget from Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna that is on the table addresses exactly the challenges that I have just spoken about. It is a budget that will make a difference for people for real. I therefore wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

In conclusion, I would like to wish the speakers, the members, and all the staff in the Riksdag a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would take the opportunity to try to clear up a few things.

Gender mainstreaming is a strategy used as a method in many municipalities, county administrative boards and, not least, our state agencies as part of the work to make visible the decisions that are made and what resources are to be allocated from the outside whether it is men or women who benefit or if there will be a disproportionate distribution, in order to be able to address it quickly.

That gender mainstreaming leads to identifying these disadvantageous differences has been proven many times, and it is well-established. But the Sweden Democrats have previously been quite clear that gender mainstreaming is vague and nothing that they want to govern or be included as a method or strategy at all.

When I read this budget, gender equality integration is nevertheless included to the highest degree. It is clearly evident that it is an important part of the budget and shall continue to be so - exactly what the S-led government introduced in previous regulatory letters.

My question to the member is then: Is gender mainstreaming good or bad, given how the tone has been previously from the Sweden Democrats?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Amloh, for the question! It is not possible to answer whether gender equality integration is just good or bad, it is a tool. The question is how one intends to use it, what it is to be used for.

It aims to ensure that the six gender equality goals are incorporated into the operations. In that case, we must go back there and ask: What do we think about these goals? Fundamentally, looking at the headings, they are very good. The sixth goal, that we should stop men's violence against women - 90 percent of the budget - is very good. No one thinks there is anything strange about that.

But if you take, for example, the first sub-objective, it focuses quite a bit on that we should achieve an even gender distribution among men and women. Then you look entirely numerically at this figure, and then the question is: Is it the number that is important, that there are as many men as women? Or is it perhaps more important that women and men have an equally great opportunity to influence their surroundings, their lives, and their society?

Specifically, when we look at this, yes, we work with the gender equality integration, and we ensure that there are as many men as women. But it could be the case, for example, that a parliament has 45 percent women where the women have nothing to say at all. Is it therefore considered to be better and more equal than a parliament with, say, 39 percent women where those women have the greatest opportunity to participate and influence?

The answer to the question regarding gender equality integration therefore simply depends on what one bakes into that concept. As you say, it remains in the budget, but exactly how it is to be used, what it de facto means, is an ongoing work that we will have to return to.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe it has been quite clear. The Gender Equality Authority has been very clear about how this method is to function and what strategy applies. When, in addition, very many municipalities, many county administrative boards and all authorities have worked with it, it shows very clearly what is contained in it and how it should be used.

So the question remains: Is it good or bad, and should it still be in the budget according to the Sweden Democrats?

We didn't really get an answer to that, but we can try with another question to the Sweden Democrats and see if it is easier to answer. In the budget for 2023, it is the government parties and the government's support in the form of the Sweden Democrats who have gained power. It is they who now sit and decide what should be decided in this chamber and who bear the entire responsibility for this. But now we see that cuts are to be made in welfare and the public sector, which is, after all, very female-dominated. Nevertheless, women's work environment is specifically pointed out in both the work environment strategy which both the government and the Sweden Democrats still stand by. The general state grants will decrease significantly. Municipalities and regions show with all clarity what this will mean and the desperation that exists out there.

We are doubling the general state grants, because we know what it would do for the welfare and for these female-dominated professions. Why don't the Sverigedemokraterna do it?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Take responsibility, says the member from the Socialdemokraterna. We can start by looking at the Socialdemokraterna's budget proposal which is set against the joint proposal from us; there is basically no difference at all. The Socialdemokraterna have the same figures, with the exception that they want to invest 327 million on municipal arrangements for the reception of refugees. Otherwise, it is exactly the same figures. It feels as if the member is talking himself into a lather about investments that one then does not spend a single krona on. It sounds a bit hollow, I must say.

When it comes to responsibility for the policy, we can look at what the Socialdemokraterna have done during their time in power. Then we see that the proportion of people who feel insecure has increased from 21 to 30 percent. Only 2 out of 10 foreign rapists are deported. They have not tried to abolish sentence reductions or quantity discounts. There is a shortage of midwives, and there is a lack of 21 million kronor there. I can continue, but I therefore understand if Socialdemokraterna do not want to speak about their own policy here but instead try to direct the light elsewhere.

I can, however, assure the members that this is a budget that, when it is implemented, will address the equality problems that exist in our society and actually make a difference. The path we have been on in recent years has obviously not worked. The people want a change. Now they will get it, and we will address the problems that exist.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Rubbestad, for an initiated and engaged speech! The Member spoke a great deal about men's violence against women, which perhaps is the greatest threat to women actually being able to shape and have power over their own lives.

One of perhaps the worst forms of violence against women is prostitution. This leads me to a question that may not have a direct bearing on next year's budget but is nonetheless so important that I am asking the question. I have asked the question to many representatives for the government's supporting parties, but I have not yet received an answer that I understand, so now my hope rests with Member Rubbestad.

It concerns the provisions in the Tidö Agreement regarding the investigation into whether a lack of integrity, where prostitution has been used as an example, should be grounds for deportation. It is understood that time and resources are now being spent on drafting directives for this investigation; in some sense, money is therefore being spent on this issue.

My question to Member Rubbestad is quite simply: How can prostitution - which concerns the most vulnerable groups in society, women who are victims of prostitution - even be included in terms of it constituting a lack of integrity and a ground for deportation?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Vilhelmsson, for the question! I agree. This is an important issue.

First, I want to confirm what you said about men's violence against women. There, we are actually in complete agreement. I know that Sverigedemokraterna and Centerpartiet have some similar views on this issue, and that feels quite good.

I have not been involved in the negotiations where the exact wording has been discussed, so it will be difficult for me to clarify exactly what is meant by prostitution in this specific case. But in the event that prostitution is discovered and the police are involved, a unique assessment of that case is, of course, made. It is likely a woman who has been forced into this. In that case, in my assessment, lack of prostitution is not relevant when it concerns that person, who is then doing something against her will. It is perhaps rather the person who has forced the woman into prostitution who constitutes the problem itself. In that case, it is quite obvious that it is that person who should primarily be prosecuted and perhaps deported, while the woman rather needs a lot of help and support.

If it is the case that a woman – assuming it is a woman; there are also male prostitutes – has traveled to Sweden and herself concluded that she wants to do this to earn money, that is a completely different matter. It is therefore not possible to answer how we should act, but it is always an individual assessment from case to case.

My starting point, however, is that a woman who enters prostitution is to be regarded as a victim and not as someone who has exposed herself to a lack of integrity. She likely needs help and support in the first instance. Then there may certainly be exceptions.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I understand that there were quite few who sat and discussed the formulations in the Tidö Agreement. There can certainly be one or another formulation that one regrets, and this should be one of them.

I am grateful that the member is so clear that women trapped in prostitution are victims. I thought I heard the member say that. But it has been some time since the Tidö Agreement was concluded, and there should have been opportunities to really discuss this. What does it mean? What do you mean?

What I am reacting against is when the member says this: even if the woman - we say that it is a woman - in this case has not been forced into prostitution, and so on. In that case, I have a question. We have a piece of legislation called the sex purchase law, according to which women who sell sex, regardless of whether they have been forced into prostitution or not, are not criminals but crime victims. It is the one who forces them and the one who buys sex who is the criminal. This argument, therefore, does not hold.

Even if a woman does this voluntarily to earn money - which, in my world, no one would do - and has not been forced into prostitution, we still have a piece of legislation called the sex purchase act. Does the member mean that it is still reasonable for the woman to be investigated for lack of integrity?

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I want to remind that the debate concerns expenditure area 13, even though the topic within it is gender equality.)

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is a question that must be decided on a case-by-case basis. The starting point is that a woman in prostitution is a victim; frankly, there is no debate about that. I am completely convinced that we are in agreement on that.

Then there can always be exceptions. Unfortunately, there are women and men who seek out prostitution, that is, selling sex, completely voluntarily. I was in contact with an interest organization a few years ago that went out and took a stand for prostitution in connection with there being some form of brothel up north. At that time, a political dialogue was also held with these people. So yes, there are people who want to sell sex and who are in no way forced to do so. As the member says, it is also permitted according to today's legislation.

But the starting point must, of course, be that the woman is regarded as a victim. When we talk about lack of integrity linked to prostitution, it is, of course, about wanting to reach the people behind it all – the human trafficking itself.

The Tidö Agreement is very, very good for Sweden. But what is good can always be better. Obviously, there are question marks surrounding the meaning of certain formulations, and I can absolutely stand behind that we should review these so that they become clear and everyone understands what applies. That is something we must take with us.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Freedom! The goal of economic equality is about the right to shape one's own life. It is freedom in its purest form. I want to take this opportunity to tell about a meeting that I return to in my thoughts most often whenever economic equality needs to be turned into flesh and blood.

Exactly six years ago, I was in Cambodia, specifically in the capital Phnom Penh. I was there to participate in a project to understand the working conditions and circumstances of textile workers. 95 percent of textile workers are women.

It is an early Sunday morning, and I have managed on short notice to book a meeting with two female textile workers. We are a bit early, and I am waiting anxiously for them to arrive. It is their only day off in the week, and they hardly know who I am or what I want.

Kosmak and Solyna appear. I offer them iced coffee, as I have promised. I take a black hot coffee, and they smile. Sweat runs down my forehead, but still, I shall have that hot coffee – very Western. My hot coffee becomes the icebreaker that makes them more comfortable, and the conversation gets underway.

We talk about the difficult working conditions and how both of them left their families at a very young age to work in the factories. We talk for a long time about their wages; that is the big question. The trade union struggle has for several years been about getting a wage that one can survive on. Their wage was 140 US dollars a month, while the living wage was 177 US dollars a month. In Cambodia, inflation has increased a lot recently. The cost of a simple meal has increased by 50 percent in a short time.

We are talking about the future. What happens if the factory closes down? We are talking about the desire to get an education and about the dream of a better life. It is slowly sinking in: That being able to change one's life is almost impossible here. Even if you get a job, it is only a way to survive and not to live. The feelings in my body just grow and grow, and it becomes so strong that I want to cry. But I hold back. It just must not be like this!

At the end of our conversation, Kosmak poses the first counter-question to me: What are you going to do with what we have told you now? I am taken aback, and I answer as it is – that it is part of my work here and in the report I am going to write.

Kosmak looks at me and says: You must tell about this! For if you in Sweden had not come as far as you have, we could never believe or hope that we can make the same journey. Tell about how your continued struggle is also ours!

Now I stand here and tell what Kosmak wanted. For me, this journey and the conversation we had make it so incredibly clear what significance economic independence has.

I have not met either Kosmak or Solyna since that Sunday six years ago, but I have followed the developments in Cambodia. However, I have had countless conversations with many women, and not so far away as in Cambodia. It is enough to have these conversations in Sweden, and they are more similar to each other than one might think.

Madam Speaker! I will now describe what has happened and what has been done in Sweden over the last eight years with an S-led government in this area.

An equality authority has been established.

As the first country in the world, Sweden introduced a feminist foreign policy which six other countries have now followed, including Canada, France, Spain and Germany. The current government was very quick to abolish this earlier this autumn.

A specific child peace crime that makes it punishable to expose children to witnessing crimes in close relationships has been introduced.

The general state grants to municipalities and regions have been increased in order to improve the quality of welfare.

A third reserved month in the parental leave has been introduced.

The child support, which primarily locked women with a foreign background in the home, has been abolished.

Annual salary mapping has been reintroduced.

Kunskapslyftet and labor market training have been expanded to include over 144,000 places. It is now possible for more unemployed people to study while maintaining their benefits.

Maternal health care and maternity care have been strengthened through, among other things, increased financial investments in staffing levels.

A new sexual offense legislation based on consent has been adopted.

A specific ground for increased sentencing for crimes with an honor motive has been introduced.

We have provided increased resources to the police so that, for example, 350 more investigators for violence and sexual offenses against women and children have been able to be employed.

Increased housing allowance and guaranteed pension for pensioners have been introduced.

The list is long, and yet this was only a small part of the entire list.

Madam Speaker! Then one might ask if I am proud. And yes, I am proud – very proud! I know that each of the points in the list has played an incredibly large role for many. Taken together, we have moved on a structural level towards a more equal Sweden.

But one might also ask if I am satisfied. No, I am not satisfied. There is incredibly much more to do, and even more to defend. More than anything else, I am rather worried about what we face.

An equal society for all can only be achieved through an equitable equality. An equal society requires that the equality for working women, that is, half of the country's female population, is placed at the center. The women in Cambodia who have sewn our clothes should be in the spotlight in the political debate. Women all over the world should do so.

Sweden is often said to be one of the world's most equal countries. Even though that designation says more about how bad it is in other countries, it is something to keep in mind. But in some respects, Sweden stands out. The gender pay gap, for example, remains large, and that is how it has looked in recent decades. The labor market is more gender-segregated than in most other comparable countries, and women earn on average four-fifths of men's wages. At the same time, women's health is getting worse compared to men's.

It is only a few parties in this chamber that have a policy leading to increased economic equality for all women. Those parties are not in the current government and are not part of the government's basis. Equality is only mentioned a couple of times in the Tidö Agreement. Last week, the agenda for Sweden's presidency of the EU next year was presented. Equality is not among the four priorities there. There is nothing to indicate that this government will have the same ambitions to improve economic equality. Therefore, I am concerned.

Madam Speaker! I will not vote in favor of anything, as the Social Democrats' proposal implies a larger framework for expenditure area 13. But in our special statement, we set out our view on the policy's direction.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Honored members of the committee! Honor-related violence, honor oppression, and exclusion among the group of foreign women are our time's greatest equality issues and our time's greatest freedom issues. Honor-related violence and oppression have been raised by very many in Sweden, not just in recent years but over the last two or three decades. But when it was raised, it was neglected. The problem was brushed aside. This was something one did not want to acknowledge. How could this happen in our fine, tolerant, and open Sweden? They did not listen to those women, men, girls, and boys, because they did not belong to the majority society. The majority society had decided that we do not have this type of problem in Sweden. When one comes to Sweden, one automatically becomes Swedish. When one comes to Sweden, one adopts every value we have as soon as one lands at an airport. That is not how reality looks.

It was mostly women with a foreign background from the left side of politics in Sweden who raised these issues. Among the first was Nalin Pekgul. She was given a cold shoulder by her party. She was later proven right. But we threw away all those years, Madam Speaker. How many girls and boys does politics not have on its conscience? People speak very loudly in this chamber about human rights, equality, equal opportunities, the same rights and equal obligations. But these are people of flesh and blood who live in our society. It could be our sister, our brother, our neighbor or our colleague.

Madam Speaker! To speak about honor-related violence and honor oppression is not racism. It is to stand up against the intolerant, against those who are prepared to take away an individual's freedom. It is a matter of young girls who are not allowed to choose their partner, who may have their freedom of movement restricted, or who are denied education. An example of honor-related oppression can be a girl living in Stockholm who is to study to become a doctor and gets into Lund University but receives a strong no from the family. If she moves to another city, they namely do not have social control over her. Who does she hang out with in the morning? What does she do in the evenings? No! It is better that she is at home and gets a worse future. It is better that she works at some nearby workplace. This is not only honor-related oppression but additionally the destruction of human capital.

Madam Speaker! Honor-related violence and honor oppression also affect young boys. Boys who may have a different sexual orientation or are forced to control their sister or their divorced mother are also victims of honor-related violence and oppression. It must end with everything that is uncomfortable in this country being called racism. Those who take the hit are the victims, and it is always persons with a foreign background. Those whose side one claims to stand on are most often those whose freedom one is actually fighting against. That is what becomes the result.

Madam Speaker! We also have problems with the increased exclusion among women with a foreign background. It is not just a question of them having to take responsibility for the unpaid work in the home. When they come to Sweden, they may already have one, two, or three small children. They may have come here pregnant or became pregnant after a period of living in Sweden. What we know is that children of mothers who integrate faster themselves integrate faster and succeed better in school. The mothers have a greater presence in the children's lives than the fathers. There is statistics on that. The more women who enter the labor market, the better. They must also learn Swedish from day one. We ensure that with the Tidö Agreement. We set requirements for knowledge of the Swedish language already to obtain permanent residence permits as well as to obtain Swedish citizenship. It benefits the individual, it benefits the children, and it also benefits Sweden. It is the language that binds us together. Our welfare society is built on that each person works according to their ability, pays taxes, and finances our common welfare.

Madam Speaker! The Government is investing an extra 20 million permanently for women's organizing in our suburbs. In the fight against honor oppression and honor-related violence, we are making a permanent investment of 50 million kronor. In addition, there will be increased penalties in the fight against honor-related violence and honor-related oppression. The previous government spoke very warmly about this, as well as about the fight against men's violence against women. But when it came to legislative issues, the writings were always very light. Whether one calls oneself a feminist or not is for each individual to decide. It is what happens in this chamber at the end of the day that counts.

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

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! It was kind of the member to speak warmly in their address about many of the things that I believe many of us in this chamber are passionate about. But it was the Moderaterna who governed after Nalin Pekgul's alarm, that is to say during the period from 2006 to 2014. I have a bit of difficulty seeing what the Moderaterna government did after the alarm from Nalin. But perhaps that can be clarified at another occasion.

But I actually intended to highlight another point in my reply to the member. We are coming from a crisis, and we are heading into a new crisis. We are coming from a crisis that was primarily a health crisis, where the welfare workers – mostly women – stood on the front line. Even there, we see that the women in the labor market took a big hit for what became the consequences.

The women, primarily working-class women, who paid a high price then, appear to continue to pay a high price in the impending economic crisis. I do not quite see in this budget what the Moderaterna intend to do so that it does not happen, or how it should be alleviated or even completely prevented.

Why are cuts being made to welfare, to the public sector, to the female-dominated professions, to the women who stood at the forefront? Why can we not improve their work environment and working conditions so that they do not have to take the hit and pay that price even further?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Sofia Amloh!

I can also chime in with something. The Social Democrats are very proud that one has had a feminist foreign policy. Eight weeks after one had left government power, one dared to talk about the struggle in Iran. Before that, one did not even dare to talk about the women's struggle in Iran. The first feminist revolution that we have experienced in modern times, one did not dare to speak about. This, members, leads to reflection.

It is very easy to put a label on oneself and exaggerate things based on one's inner frustration: I am passionate about the issue! But the voters do not care whether you are passionate about the issues or not. The voters care about how we act here in the chamber. That is why they go to the ballot box, not because we are passionate about different issues and post something on Facebook to get a heart, a like, or a comment. These are people of flesh and blood.

I also want to remind Member Amloh that occupational diseases increased before the pandemic, and similarly during the pandemic. It is true that it is the hard-working women and men – the nursing assistants and the cleaning staff – who have taken the hardest hit.

If we are to exaggerate so many things here in the chamber - I have no problem showing emotions; there is more to show - then my question to Member Amloh is: Your budget is a napkin sketch on 35 pages, containing a table of contents and an explanation. In this report, quota refugees are the only thing you are investing more in. You talk about working women and men, about equality being challenged and about general state grants. But let us look at the report! The only thing you are investing more in is the quota refugees, an increased refugee reception that will also affect the welfare.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! There is much talk about what the previous government did not do and what we have stood for. But now, the fact is that the member here represents the government, and the government has received the power.

It is not so concrete what the government is doing and what proposals are on the table. What are you doing so that the working environment will change, so that women's working conditions will improve, so that the sickness absence rates will go down? Is it the tax cut for those who earn 50,000 a month?

After the turn of the year, when we have celebrated New Year, we are to get more money in our wallets - 1,000 kronor more! I believe we can do without it. Instead of 25 million, for example, my home municipality Nyköping would receive 50 million more to provide welfare for, twice as much as the government has proposed. I know, because I have sat on the municipal board. I know exactly how much more welfare it could provide.

I think it is appropriate for the member to answer the question. Why should we cut the welfare? But when you see a tax cut opportunity, it is difficult to refrain. Then it can cost. Then it can cost the welfare when it might be needed most.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! It seems that Member Amloh has overlooked the fact that we have an inflation of 10 percent. That is to say, as inflation goes up, taxes would also increase. Here stands Member Amloh, shocked that people will have less in their wallets, yet she is still prepared to tax them even more heavily. That is the question, but for you, everything is about general state subsidies, to collect a lot of tax and tell people: Here you get a small bag of money! Look, Santa Claus has arrived!

I want to make Member Amloh aware that the reason we politicians can make investments is that we have taken in the citizens' tax money. It is better that they keep as much as possible. If one wants to rectify the problem within the welfare sector, it is about early interventions: preventive sick pay, earlier interventions in the workplace, and better follow-up when it comes to the work environment.

When women in healthcare perform heavy lifting, well, then perhaps we should increase the health promotion for them or ensure that they get to train during working hours. Instead, they are sent to Försäkringskassan and receive a decision: Hello, here you have received sickness benefit! Come back when you have gotten better!

That is how it works in your Sweden. In the Social Democrats' Sweden, you are forgotten. In the Moderates' Sweden, together with the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats, you are not forgotten. There is a welcoming embrace. There is consideration. One says: You have it tough today. The safety net takes care of you. But one day you are back in the warmth, because you can get well again.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I want to remind again that it is expenditure area 13 within the Committee on Employment's report 1 that we are debating today.)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Equality is a matter of life and death, of women's right to their bodies and their safety. Equality does not come of its own accord, but just as for the generations that preceded us with feminist reforms, it is now our turn to do the same.

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

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

Madam Speaker! The work of the women's and girls' helplines is based on an idea-driven foundation without profit interest and is a valued asset for society's collective effort to counter violence. The quality of the helplines' support is often praised loudly and from many sides. But there is a difference in the various political proposals regarding how the helplines' future shall be secured.

The ideological journals have a crucial function, and their voice has been decisive for the work on equality, in contrast to the increasing number of private actors, whose place on the market entails a risk that years of experience will be depleted.

We in Vänsterpartiet have on repeated occasions previously highlighted the issue of the women's shelters' future and the need for stable funding. We want to protect, maintain, and strengthen the independent women's shelters. Vänsterpartiet considers that the government needs to clarify that the women's shelters will be guaranteed long-term and stable economic solutions in order to be able to continue their operations. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that much more funds be allocated to the shelters' operations than what the government and the committee are doing.

Madam Speaker! Equality is not just about the abolition of men's violence against women, because even though women have gained increased space at various levels in society, very many different injustices remain. Women still earn less than men, simply because they are women. The gap between a man's and a woman's lifetime income is almost 4 million kronor. And this gap, Madam Speaker, has not decreased in 25 years. Women work part-time more often, often involuntarily, and thus also receive a worse pension. Women utilize the parental leave to a higher extent than men and also perform a larger part of the household work. There is, of course, not just one proposal that will make us increase equality in society.

Madam Speaker! If one searches for the word equality in the Palace Agreement, it is found in only one place, and that is under the section Social introduction for asylum seekers, social orientation for newcomers. The idea is apparently that equality is something we already have that is a good thing and that we are to teach the wretches who come here, because we are already doing a very good job. I am sorry, but it would have been pleasant if we had also talked more about how our equality work in Sweden should increase.

Madam Speaker! Since the Left Party's proposal for appropriations within the expenditure area exceeds the level in the budget, I cannot reserve myself. The Left Party's budget must, of course, be seen as a whole, so I refrain from taking a position and instead present a specific statement on the Left Party's policy on expenditure area 13.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats stand behind the government's policy. I would therefore like to begin by moving for the approval of the bill in its entirety.

We have now come a little way into the debate, and it is a strength for me to hear that all Riksdag parties agree that equality is an important and prioritized issue. I believe we can all agree that we agree. Through this, we have at least come a little way forward on the road towards a more equal society.

Madam Speaker! A few weeks ago, we witnessed a historic event. A woman named Stéphanie Frappart, together with two other women, formed a referee team for the first time in a match during the men's Football World Cup. Stéphanie Frappart was assigned the task of being the head referee in the match between Costa Rica and Germany. That this World Cup was chosen for this event can well be seen as a clear move in the right direction, even though there were many other hesitations surrounding the championship that has just concluded.

What this female trio had to experience can, as Neil Armstrong expressed it in 1969, be seen as a small step for a woman but a large step for humanity. Despite the fact that we here in the chamber seem to agree that equality is an important issue, there is an enormous amount left to do.

Madam Speaker! Let me ask you to focus for a moment on the overarching goal regarding equality that is included in the bill. It says so here, which you surely know: Women and men shall have the same power to shape society and their own lives.

Think that I am one of 349 members who have been entrusted to be part of shaping society from my mandate as a member of the Riksdag! I want to manage that in the best possible way. Surely all other members of the Riksdag want that too. Together, we have a capital of trust to manage, which implies the power to be part of shaping our society. This applies regardless of whether we are men or women. All of us have been given that opportunity and that responsibility.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about equality, it is not possible to bypass the issue of men's violence against women. Just last year, 24 women were murdered. Men's violence against women is the ultimate expression of a lack of equality – something that must never be accepted or nonchalanced. Together we must find ways to help women out of these circumstances, and we must work together to take powerful measures and powerfully mark the seriousness of the crimes.

I also want to emphasize that from my perspective, the opposite, i.e., violence by women against men, is equally unacceptable. Unfortunately, I believe that the statistics here do not show actual figures but that there is a large underreporting. Personally, I have had a friend of the family in my circle who has been subjected to it. My perception when it comes to violence by women against men is that it is not physical but mostly psychological.

There are also studies that report that the vulnerability of men and women is equal. And research shows that it concerns different types of violence, that is, as I myself was touching upon, more psychological violence than physical. That men report to a lesser extent is often due to the fact that it is somewhat humiliating and harder to address when the violence is not physical. The dark figures are therefore probably very large. But let me be clear: violence must never be tolerated or accepted in our society, regardless of whom it is committed against.

Madam Speaker! The second part of the overarching goal is that women and men shall have the power to shape their own lives. We as politicians therefore have a great task to create the right conditions, so that it shall not only become an overarching goal inscribed in a document but a goal that can be fulfilled.

We have taken many important steps forward, but we are not there yet. It is a task that we must all do to give people, women as well as men, the opportunity to have the same power to shape society and their own lives, to provide equal conditions and circumstances to be able to develop their full potential in both family life, work life, and social life. What equality ultimately is about is the equal value of all people.

Madam Speaker! The bill in its entirety breathes these possibilities. I therefore only wish to conclude by again demanding approval of the bill.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! In order to reach the goal of full employment and women's economic independence, women's participation in the workforce needs to increase, but also men's presence and commitment at home. A sustainable working life with balance between family, work, and leisure is a prerequisite.

The most significant reform for increased equality in working life and family life is a fully individualized parental insurance. The unequal uptake today leads to poorer wage development and lower pensions for women. But women's opportunity to advance in working life also decreases. This reinforces unequal structures where women take more responsibility for unpaid domestic work while the men can devote the time to gainful employment.

We have seen effects in the right direction when policy through legislation has steered towards a more even distribution and marking of the parental days. What do the Christian Democrats, one of the government parties, have for proposals to take this equality policy further and level out in order to achieve both a better family life and the possibility to combine it with a professional life, so that more women can participate and we as a nation can achieve our equality goals?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Sofia Amloh, for the question! It is no secret that we Christian Democrats believe that there should be an opportunity to distribute the parental leave based on each family's own situation. We do not believe that society should decide how much the mother and the father should be at home - or if there are two mothers or two fathers. We believe that each family best decides for themselves how the days should be distributed. From my side and the Christian Democrats' side, we therefore want to give both parents the opportunity to manage their own days themselves - to freely choose how they should be distributed. All the days shall therefore be equally everyone's, and each family can choose for themselves based on their own situation.

I have personal experience of this. My husband, who is self-employed – and now I am too – did not have the possibility to take parental leave when the children were small. That does not mean that he has not taken responsibility, but in recent years it is he who has stepped in and taken much more responsibility at home and for the housework. I believe that every family decides best for themselves, based on their own situation, how the parental leave should be distributed.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! So the Christian Democrats do not intend to do anything about this, even though we know that it has mattered when we have made the political decisions regarding the distribution. For decades, we have shifted the norm so that men contribute more to housework and women's participation in the labor market has increased. Despite that knowledge, the Christian Democrats do not intend to do anything about this, but instead intend to leave it entirely to the family and ignore this fact. It is also an answer to the question.

But what are the Christian Democrats' proposals? It is a bit difficult to decipher everything in the Tidö Agreement. My question to the Christian Democrats and the member is: Is it private parental insurance that we will see ahead? Are those the kinds of proposals that will come? Is it a new child support payment that will be placed on the Riksdag's table? Or is it more rot, so that the wealthy women can capitalize on the working women's labor? What proposals can we expect to see?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Member Sofia Amloh, for the questions! There were very many questions. We began with the parental leave and what we should do about it.

I am a bit surprised when it almost sounds like one is saying: Should the family decide for themselves? How awful! Society must do it, right? We must interfere in how parents want to share their parental leave - they probably can't manage that themselves?

I do not understand that rhetoric. The member must apologize. I believe and trust that every parent themselves, based on their everyday life and their own perspective, can best decide which distribution will be best. I do not believe that, if we were to decide that the parents themselves get to choose how they want to distribute the days, it would mean that men would suddenly stop being home more. I believe we have come further than that – we live in the 2000s.

I trust that parents want the best for their child and their family, so that society does not need to govern every day and every withdrawal. I cannot see that need.

Now, Member Sofia Amloh may not answer this question, but it is quite interesting. The child-care allowance was removed, but I wonder if more foreign-born women have entered the workforce just because of that. I do not think that is the case. I believe that it is the same there. It is better that we try to work on getting women into work. The child-care allowance would not stop that. I believe that it would make it so that one saw that the work done at home is also valuable for society and means something.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an engaged speech! We share many starting points here, especially regarding the work against men's violence against women. I thought it was a bit interesting how the Member also highlighted the opposite: women's violence against men. I would very much like the Member to elaborate on this a bit.

Personally, I believe we are falling into a bit of a trap when we constantly say: But what about them? It is a kind of whataboutism that I believe is harmful to the debate. What is the argument that I, if I speak about the incredibly important work against men's violence against women, would not be equally engaged in women's violence against men? It is the structural that is dangerous and that we must work against, regardless of which relational violence we are talking about. The member may be welcome to elaborate on her reasoning and speak about whether she agrees with me on this.

It is naturally good that we highlight all forms of violence in close relationships. No one should feel shame for it. But it is, I mean, harmful to always say: Well, what about them? And what about her? It is the structural aspect that we are looking for.

The member did not mention anything about prostitution. I venture to ask the member the same question that I asked the Sweden Democrats' member, even though the Speaker says that this concerns the expenditure area. But it is actually the case that the Gender Equality Authority is covered by this expenditure area, and they work with prostitution via their coordinators. Does the member think that prostitution should constitute grounds for lack of conduct and thus deportation?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Helena Vilhelmsson, for the questions! For me, it is quite clear that the work on equality must go in both directions. I was quite clear when I said that violence is not okay in any form. That is what we must work against. I think it is therefore not wrong to also highlight the opposite, because I believe that the more attention this receives, the more we will get started with the work to counteract the violence. Women living in conditions where they are subjected to honor-based violence or other violence shall receive help. But from my perspective, I actually think that men should also receive that help.

I do not think it is about saying: Well, what about you, or what about that one? I think it is important that one highlights both perspectives, and I believe that when we do that, we raise this to a higher level, which creates a greater engagement and a greater understanding for all those who unfortunately are exposed to violence in some form.

I would like to say that even though, as Member Helena Vilhelmsson is pointing out, it looks as if it is women who are more exposed, we know—I touched upon this in my speech—that research shows that there is a large underreporting.

I believe that just by us talking more about the matter will make the work of preventing this and helping people who are vulnerable - regardless of gender - increase and get more focus, which creates better conditions to reach out.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, I agree with the member, and naturally, I am in agreement. For me, this is about how the debate is conducted and what signals we are sending.

I will probably never say that the structural problem is equally large in all types of relational violence, because it is not. It is men's violence against women that is the large structural problem, and if one works against that, I do not think one should have to hear that one must mention other things as well. One does not have to, in fact. One is automatically against all forms of structural violence. I do not believe either that knowledge of the structural increases just because it is mentioned in one way or another; I actually believe that it can even increase polarization.

We will probably not get any further in that debate, but I would like to once again ask the member to elaborate on their and the Christian Democrats' view on what is stated in the Tidö Agreement. In the bitter end, we arrive at the fact that it states that the possibility of viewing prostitution as a lack of conduct and thus grounds for deportation should be investigated.

As has been mentioned, we have a purchase-sex law in Sweden that criminalizes the one who buys sex, not the one who sells sex. Is that law something the Christian Democrats stand behind, and how do you intend to position yourselves on this? The law actually comes into conflict with this if the prostitute is suddenly to be regarded as a criminal and deported.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Helena Vilhelmsson again for the questions.

I still cannot understand in any way how it would diminish the opposite if one also chooses to highlight violence by women against men. I believe it is important to address that both occur. For me, it is also quite natural that in equality, one does not only speak in one direction. The member wants to make it understood that the other is included when it is spoken in only one direction, and I think that becomes a bit strange. I think it is good to talk about the whole. But as we said, we can also state that we are very much in agreement.

This is my second debate in the chamber as a new member, and I would like to yield to the honorable Speaker. We are now debating expenditure area 13, which concerns equality and immigrants' opportunities for establishment. Therefore, I say that I think the member received a good and clear answer regarding the Tidö Agreement and prostitution earlier. I think that answer was sufficient, and I can stand behind it.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party is a clear voice for equality - an equality that is good for everyone, both women and men. We are a liberal and feminist party, and words and actions mean something. It is important to always stand up for the fact that one is a feminist.

We stand up for the rights of women and girls locally and nationally but also internationally. The right to abortion is threatened in the world, and it can also happen in our country. Therefore, we want to constitutionally protect the right to abortion. We condemn and abhor the tyranny that the Iranian regime is showing towards women and girls right now, and we demand that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard be classified as a terrorist organization.

Economic equality is incredibly important, and it is lagging behind in Sweden today - significantly. From a life perspective, women have on average barely 80 percent of men's total income, and as we have heard from this rostrum, this is a difference that has looked the same since 1995. So, nothing has happened since 1995. That means it makes a difference of almost 4 million kronor over an entire lifetime. So that is what the gap looks like.

Even though women's wage incomes have increased more relatively than men's wage incomes in recent times – for that is actually the case – the gap is just as large. Why? Well, men have greater capital income. They save more and own more. When one is to put those funds to use, one is taxed less, because tax on capital is lower than tax on income. Therefore, men have more money in their pockets.

As said, men also own more, regardless of whether it concerns cars, shares or real estate - or forest, which is my profession in civil life. It turns out that it is men who acquire forest properties. How do they then afford it? It is not cheap to buy forest today. Yes, it depends on exactly this: Men own more, and thus can borrow more and in that way buy more. This is very serious, my friends.

Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer has just released a report called Jämställda skatter. We really need to add the perspective of equality when we talk about tax reforms. The tax rules are "equal" in themselves, but the effects of them hit unequally. Have we ever talked about that before in the work with tax reforms? No, I don't think so. We must do it in a better way.

Another sign that women are not economically independent is that women actually refrain from seeking a divorce. There simply is not enough money to manage on one's own. And I am still not talking about relationships where violence is involved and where this could actually mean a catastrophe. The Center Party wants to remove the fee for divorce, which would be a small economic contribution but a very important signal.

We do, however, know that one of the clearest reasons for the economic inequality is the parental leave, which several before me have spoken about. More accurately, it is about the uneven take-up of the parental leave. It is clear that one can choose for oneself, and it is not about which of mom or dad is better at taking care of the child. Instead, it is about what conditions we give women and men when they become pensioners. That gap is, in fact, rooted in the parental leave.

Is it really the intention that we should use tax revenue to finance a reform that puts women on the economic edge when they become pensioners? No. We must improve the withdrawal of the parental leave. Having children should not stand in the way of a career, and parenthood should not be an economic trap for women. We must reform the parental leave.

Naturally, women's entrepreneurship also needs to be promoted through safety systems that are adapted to entrepreneurs' conditions and a more equal distribution of public risk capital. We don't even need to talk about that, because I am so upset by how much of the public risk capital goes to women respectively men.

Madam Speaker! The group in society that is most vulnerable to economic inequality is foreign-born women. It takes longer for foreign-born women than for foreign-born men to enter the Swedish labor market. The women are registered with Arbetsförmedlingen later than the men and are offered fewer interventions. Furthermore, on average, they are deregistered from Arbetsförmedlingen faster than men. It is nothing less than a betrayal.

The time in parental leave for foreign-born individuals must be limited, and integration preschool, an equal payment of benefits and better conditions for interpretation are important measures for increased equality - especially the latter. But above all, authorities and employers must have exactly the same expectations of foreign-born women as they have of foreign-born men.

Madam Speaker! Some time ago, we were reached by the news that schools no longer serve soup on Fridays or Mondays. The staff simply notice that many children seem to eat less during weekends. Parents simply do not have enough money for sufficient food. No mother or father should have to tell their child: Eat properly now at school so that you can last through the weekend!

When the costs for electricity, food, fuel, and interest increase, it is also many who find it much tougher economically. Among those who are hit hardest are the approximately 145,000 single parents who receive maintenance support. Of these, 80 percent are women. Therefore, Centerpartiet wants to gradually increase the maintenance support over the coming years starting next year.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party has long pushed for a long-term and stable funding of crisis centers for girls and women. It is unacceptable that a question sometimes arises in the municipalities' political agendas as to whether a grant should be given to crisis centers for women and girls. Is it even a question?

If there is a need, support shall be provided. Period. That is how we do it with all other crime victims or victims of abuse, for example. No decisions are made in the municipality on whether a youth should receive treatment or not for, for example, drug abuse; instead, the potential political decision might concern which treatment should be provided.

Support must be available when needed, and I am pleased that the Center Party is allocating extra resources to this compared to the current budget for increased support for on-call services and protected housing.

We have also long pointed out the importance of sufficient resources for those who work to combat honor-related violence and oppression. We have ensured that the competence team remains at the County Administrative Board in Östergötland and that the necessary resources are available for the operations. It is very good that this is being invested in in the present budget.

Centerpartiet also wants to provide Nationellt centrum för kvinnofrid, NCK, with better and more long-term economic conditions. This includes, among other things, ensuring full funding for Kvinnofridslinjen, a national support line for women exposed to violence operated by NCK.

The number of calls has increased in recent years, not least during the pandemic, and it is important that the support line can continue to be developed and staffed. We also need to continue to support the telephone line that exists at Unga relationer. The first blow does not come in one's 30s, but it begins much earlier.

NCK must receive a national knowledge mandate in order to be able to continue contributing to the development and dissemination of knowledge regarding men's violence against women. This also applies to the new mandate that municipalities have received to work preventatively with men who hit and to follow the new law on child peace crimes that has been mentioned here. We see in our budget to that NCK gets what it needs and demands. It should never be busy when a woman subjected to violence takes the courage to call.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women has increased during the pandemic. Unfortunately, so did sexual exploitation of children, prostitution, and human trafficking. With the war in Ukraine in our vicinity, we see that the risk of ending up in prostitution and in the clutches of human traffickers is increasing.

The regional coordinators work today at the Gender Equality Authority. They have a national mandate regarding prostitution and human trafficking. They shall collaborate on the work with the police, social services, healthcare, and civil society.

We are increasing the resources to Jämställdhetsmyndigheten for the regional coordinators in our budget. They have a key role in the preventive work across the country and are located in ten locations in all seven police regions. But they need to be more numerous.

Centerpartiet also proposes that the Gender Equality Authority should be given a permanent information mandate regarding the legislation against sex trafficking. Today, the work is focused very much on the victims. Correct me if I am wrong: They should naturally have protection and support. But there is also something that needs to be done a step before.

Who will take the lead in that work? Who supports the coach in stopping the bullshit in the locker room? Who supports the employer in putting a stop to it when the crude jokes come up? Who tells people that one in ten men has bought six, that you probably know many who have done it, and that you need to have the discussion with them?

Who ensures that the school has appropriate material so that every teenager understands that it is illegal to send dickpics, and that if you buy sex you end up in prison? The school, do you think? Yes, sex buyers are unfortunately becoming younger and younger.

Attitudes, language and norms are important. Here, the Gender Equality Authority has a very important mission and can do much more. This applies in particular to influencing the language we use and the media uses.

I can conclude with what was written in Aftonbladet, I think. There, they report once again that a woman has fallen from an apartment. Adults do not fall from apartments. They do not fall from balconies. It is completely unreasonable to use such a headline. Say it as it is: A woman has been subjected to an attempted murder.

Centerpartiet's proposal for the budget fell earlier here in the chamber. We therefore have no own proposal here today, but I refer to our special statement.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! We are debating expenditure area 13 in the state budget for 2023. It concerns gender equality and the establishment of newly arrived immigrants.

Madam Speaker! The unemployment figures are heading upwards again. Just as always, young people, immigrants, and especially foreign-born women are those who are affected first and hardest.

Research shows that in Skåne, it takes particularly long for refugees and newly arrived people to get their first job compared to the rest of Sweden. It is also hardest with the establishment for newly arrived women in Skåne. After ten years, only a quarter have a monthly income corresponding to more than 17,000 kronor.

At the same time, many businesses are crying out for competence, and the lack of matching is striking. It is not sufficient. It is a failing grade for the policy that has been pursued over the last eight years. But above all, it is a question of freedom for these women and men who are affected by their current situation but also the future, entire families and, in the long run, society.

Foreign-born women are not reached by the establishment measures regardless of whether they came here as refugees or as family immigrants. Sweden needs, among other things, better SFI, higher expectations for results, a reformed parental insurance, and language preschool for children. When women are integrated, it has effects for the whole family and creates empowerment and freedom.

The government's permanent initiative to strengthen the organization of women and girls is a piece of the puzzle in the work with integration. We know that building up an attractive and active civil society makes a difference.

As a football mother to three sons, I can state that some children's organization and club life is increasing. It is not uncommon for football practice several evenings a week. This is also topped up with matches on the weekend. But at the same time, there is a group of children and young people who are not visible at all in the membership statistics for volleyball or in the music school.

The inequality between the children who have the prerequisites and opportunity for an active and inspiring leisure life and those who do not have the prerequisites to participate is becoming ever greater. The group of children who perhaps would benefit most from being involved in association life is all too often left out. Municipal grants and activity support go more to resourceful children and youth instead of where they do the most good. When society's resources are not infinite, the policy must have the strength and courage to use them most where they do the most good.

All these hundreds of hours of voluntary work we parents put in to practice ball control, sell sausages or clean changing rooms provide content and strengthen more than the active child. I have high hopes for the government's new initiative on sports and organizing in areas of exclusion. One should not miss out on the camaraderie, safety and laughter that one gets in an association because one cannot afford to buy football boots.

Another area that needs to be highlighted here is female entrepreneurship. Of Sweden's 490,000 companies, only 25 percent are run by women. That is low in a European perspective in one of the world's most equal countries.

As a self-employed person since my teenage years, I know what it means to run a business while simultaneously starting a family and having children. It requires that one has made a well-considered choice of an equal partner and that one can secure a financial buffer for when the money isn't rolling in because you are taking care of runny-nosed children in February.

But it is also a struggle against society's expectations regarding pick-up times at the preschool, which is often already empty when one arrives at four o'clock to pick up their child. But it is also about baking buns for Lucia and excursions. Being a woman and an entrepreneur is an extra large challenge. Even entrepreneurs must be able to take part in society's safety nets. The alternative is that Sweden misses out on hundreds of thousands of businesses, and we cannot afford that.

Madam Speaker! Economic freedom is important. But these issues become secondary when one does not have their basic security. My home is my castle, and my family is my security. That is how it should be for all women and children in the country Sweden 2022. But the truth is different.

To address violence against women by men, we must work on several levels. First and foremost, we must get men to stop hitting. It is unworthy that women and children should have to hide because men threaten them to death and rob them of their freedom.

The most important thing to achieve this goal is the preventive work - the blow that is never dealt, the psychological terror and persecution that never happens. Already in preschool, we must be attentive to gender-stereotypical patterns. In school, there must be a discussion regarding machoculture and gender roles. When the first blow has been dealt, the justice system must take over and impose harsh penalties on the perpetrator.

Every three weeks, a woman is killed by a man in Sweden. Almost always, she has sought help from society before it happens.

On December 6, I had the privilege of organizing a seminar together with Unizon to mark the international day Femicide - men's deadly violence against women. During the seminar, I listened to Josefina's story about what it is like to grow up without her mother when her own father had killed her after years of harassment.

I wish that Josefina's story were unique, but unfortunately, there were additional listeners in the audience with the exact same experience.

Since 2000, 254 underage children have lost their mothers when a man has taken the mothers' lives, sometimes in front of the child's eyes.

Josefina testified not only about the terrible incident but also about the betrayal that followed in the form of forced contact with the perpetrator and about how the person who killed her mother is also to decide which upper secondary school she should attend. She also testified about the insecurity it entails to travel between different foster homes and the stigma in social situations. These women and children are betrayed all too often over and over again throughout their lives.

Our task in this chamber is to raise the voices for the women and children who have lost their voices from fear or from too much crying. Enough is enough! Not one more woman shall be killed!

Violence against women or children cannot be linked to any zip code or to ethnicity. But we know that honor violence is an extra large oppression when an entire family, a clan or a society sets norms regarding how one is expected to be and behave. This type of oppression most often affects women and girls but also boys, men and hbtqi-persons.

The work to make the support for women's and children's shelters permanent will make a difference. A first step toward creating long-term stability for this important activity is that it should not rely on project funding. The next step must be to help those who are exposed to violence within the walls of the home and provide them with better assistance toward secure housing. Living in protection costs, and not infrequently one ends up in the Enforcement Authority's registers as a consequence of poorer opportunities for jobs and various forms of support. The contacts are many, and coordination between authorities is required to secure the safety of women and children and their opportunities to establish an everyday life.

We must stop having the criminals' perspective and instead focus on the victim. Above all, we must never turn a blind eye to the unpleasant and incomprehensible. We must obtain more facts so that we can make knowledge-based and sensible decisions that make a difference for the least free.

It is a good approach in the budget that this government has achieved during the few weeks it has been running. Further sharp and liberal freedom proposals for the least free, I expect in the action plan that is being initiated now. The current one was initiated by the Alliance government in 2007. It is high time to take it further.

Just as we need a firmer grip when things have gone wrong, we need to increase the work to ensure that this does not happen.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals are a party that historically has placed integration policy high on the agenda. But now the Liberals choose instead to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats, who rather have the opposite policy and who for a long time have stood here in the chamber and almost proposed an abolition of integration policy. This has yielded a clear result in the government's policy. The entire Tidö Agreement has a clear Sweden Democrat seal. There will be cuts in the active labor market policy, in adult education, and in the work against segregation, something that will hardly lead to increased integration.

I wonder how the Liberals actually view the opportunities to promote integration within the framework of this cooperation.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. Teresa Carvalho is absolutely right that we have a proud history of skilled integration politicians. There are many who have stood here in this chamber and debated before me.

I am not worried that we will not be able to continue to pursue these issues. We have ministers who are sharp and who are well-versed in the importance of this. I also think that the proposed budget shows that we take the issues seriously and will continue with the proud tradition that we have.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the brief but concise answer that the member is not concerned.

I still think it must be quite difficult to be a liberal today when one is so pressured that one agrees to let through a policy based on reviewing mother-tongue instruction, considering the introduction of reporting laws, and contemplating withdrawing interpretation assistance in healthcare. In my world, it is in any case not a particularly liberal policy, but rather a policy that leans towards the authoritarian side.

I therefore wonder how it feels in the stomach of the Liberals to have let this party, the Sweden Democrats, into the Government Offices, a party that they had previously designated as their main opponent. When one can imagine introducing disclosure laws, then I really wonder where the Liberals' red lines are. Do the Liberals see any risks at all with what this policy will mean for the Swedish sense of community and what it will mean for segregation, which is already a very large problem in our country?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that as a Liberal, one always has a lump in one's stomach, regardless of which direction one cooperates. For us, the individual is in focus, and people must receive help with vulnerability regardless of whether it concerns honor violence, men's violence against women, or segregation. These people are attacked from both the right and the left.

What is proposed in the Tidö Agreement is largely about investigating a number of proposals. Let us wait and see what is concluded in those investigations.

I am glad that the member is concerned about my health and how I am doing, but I can assure her that I feel calm and secure in this regard.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that you brought up your tradition when it comes to integration policy and how much you have protected it, Camilla Mårtensen.

Even though the Sweden Democrats are not in the government, it is quite clear to me and all of Sweden who is ruling the country.

The Liberals introduced new integration policy goals in 2009, during Nyamko Sabuni's time as Minister for Integration and Gender Equality. They are as follows: Equal rights, obligations and opportunities for all regardless of ethnic and cultural background.

In the Tidö Agreement, it states that a new goal structure for integration shall be introduced. My question is actually quite simple. Will the Liberals stand by that?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

My answer is just as simple: Yes.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Okay, Camilla Mårtensen! But that does not match the rest of the content in the Tidö Agreement, where you indicate that you are going to abolish the right to an interpreter.

You spoke warmly about the establishment and opportunities of low-educated foreign-born women in society, and you spoke about how they are often forgotten. At the same time, you want people to qualify themselves into the welfare system. Thus, you are making it more difficult for already vulnerable people to move forward in society.

How does it add up?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! The member corrected himself. No restrictions have been made yet regarding the right to an interpreter, but the conditions and what it would entail are to be reviewed.

I do not see any problems. I see that we must discuss what it is about before we can make decisions. Yes, there will be negotiations, just as there would have been if we had sat in government with Miljöpartiet. There were integration proposals that we wanted to push through even when you sat in government, but which we did not succeed with.

To address the structural problems, we must bring them to light. We must have a basis and statistics in order to be able to do something about it and set new goals. I look forward to that work, which I have full confidence that the government will continue with. And I have confidence that the Liberals' issues and positions will historically have a strong position in the policy being pursued.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to take the floor, as I agree with much of what the member said. But sometimes one must also look at what is missing from the speech.

Within this expenditure area, one of my absolute heart issues is addressed: the quota refugees.

To call oneself bourgeois and liberal is easy. To stand up for liberal and bourgeois values is many times harder.

Let me quote the Liberals' website: "More legal paths to Europe were needed. More quota refugees must be granted protection, which would benefit women and children." Last year, Sweden received 6,421 quota refugees. The majority of them were women and children. We have had a common goal in the Swedish Riksdag of 5,000 quota refugees annually. 5,000 shall now become 900.

Calling oneself bourgeois and liberal is, as said, easy. But when one abandons some of our time's most vulnerable people, one has forfeited the right to call oneself liberal. But I hope and believe that this is a compromise, that it is the Sverigedemokraternas policy that the Liberalerna have been forced to buy. Therefore, I want to ask the question: How many quota refugees do the Liberalerna want to accept as a party?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I would wish that it is not someone else who defines who should be allowed to call themselves liberal and conservative. I feel both liberal and conservative.

There is no doubt that the quota refugees were one of the things we were forced to compromise on to produce a budget, a change in Sweden and a new government. That was probably what stung the most. I was not in the parliamentary group myself then, but it was that which hurt the most in the heart.

When we turn this ship around, when we succeed with integration and with getting women in exclusion into work, and when Sweden heads in the right direction again, I hope and believe that we can work towards increasing the number of quota refugees.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer. It genuinely pleases me to hear that. During the migration policy debate last week, I received a different answer from the Liberals, that the Liberals' policy was to stand up for that there should be 900 quota refugees. I was surprised and have thought a lot about it since then. Therefore, it really pleases me that Camilla Mårtensen seems to have a completely different direction.

We need to be more liberal forces who stand up for people on the run. Historically, the Liberals and the Centre Party have done very well there. I hope that we can do it again in the future as well.

I would, however, like to point out another part regarding quota refugees, that one should redirect in order to receive those who have the absolute best integration capacity.

For me, the quota refugee system means something completely different. For me, the quota refugee system means that we should help those who have the greatest need of help. It is about women and children who have been tortured and subjected to trauma. Many women within the quota refugee system have been raped and became pregnant on the way of flight. It is that type of quota refugee that the Centerpartiet thinks we should prioritize.

Connected to integration capacity, I wonder if this is also a compromise from the Liberals. Or do the Liberals think we should transition regarding what types of quota refugees we should accept?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I do not quite recognize the member's description. What has been said is that when it comes to quota refugees, women, children, and LGBTQI refugees should be prioritized. I cannot see that they are automatically the easiest to integrate.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals are known for – it is a large part of the Liberals' identity – being firm in their principles when it comes to values regarding freedom, even if that freedom is focused on the individual and not on the collective. This has historically played a major role in several important freedom reforms. The Liberals and the Social Democrats have many times helped each other to achieve those successes.

In the autumn when the castle agreement was concluded, you in the Liberals asserted that one of your biggest gains with the agreement was that you are the guarantor for constitutionally protecting the right to abortion. It is absolutely something that we Social Democrats also think is good. But the main reason why it was needed is that parties like the Sweden Democrats in the same agreement see exactly the power, and with the agreement, they become the largest part of the government support. If you had not given them that power, the right to abortion perhaps would not have needed to be constitutionally protected.

Do the Liberals consider this to be a great victory and that it would therefore have been a great sacrifice for the other parties in those negotiations?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not have any particular insight into the negotiations themselves. But the Liberals have, just as Sofia Amloh has aptly described, for decades and for a century actually driven the liberal freedom issues. That constitutionally protecting the right to abortion is a liberal idea and thought that was raised several years ago. That issue we will continue to drive. After eight weeks we have still not seen any legislative proposals, but I am convinced that they will come.

It is possible and likely that we could have reached agreements on individual issues also with the Social Democrats, where we agree, for historically we have been in agreement on many issues. But the Social Democrats were not prepared to make the major changes that we believe need to be made in order to address integration, honor issues, and labor market policy. We have chosen to place ourselves on the bourgeois side. We are back in the bourgeoisie, and there we negotiate with the other parties. We stand by the constitutionally protected right to abortion.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! You have no insight into the negotiations, but this must nevertheless be borne by your government parties. I think that one needs to take responsibility here as well.

It appears from previous exchanges what great sacrifices the Liberals have made in this castle agreement. The gains perhaps concern the constitutionally protected right to abortion and school textbooks. I find it difficult to see what other gains the Liberals have made in this agreement.

Here we have previously heard that another government party, the Christian Democrats, thinks that the child-care allowance has been quite good and that it perhaps has not locked the foreign women in the home without there having been quite large advantages with it. Are the Liberals prepared to reintroduce the child-care allowance despite the result having been a halving of the establishment period for foreign women?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals have fought to remove the child support [vårdnadsbidraget] for as long as it has existed. I cannot see that the agreement between the Tidö parties would change that view. As far as I know, there is also no proposal to introduce the child support. I share the member's opinion that it is a woman trap.

Yes, what have the Liberals gained by entering into this agreement? I would like to turn it around. Sweden has gained that we can now take action against crime, that we have a budget that can be adopted as a whole, that we can get an integration policy that is functioning, that we dare to see the problems that exist and that we get an education policy that will make us better equipped for the future, where we focus on research and technological development.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet is a feminist party. This means that we want to use political tools to work for equality and counteract the prevailing gender power structure in Sweden as well as in the world – the one that means that men have more power than women.

For the Green Party, equality is fundamentally a question of freedom. People's opportunities to live their lives should not be negatively affected or limited by gender or gender identity. Everyone should have the freedom to be who they are without being hindered by stereotypical norms and attitudes. A modern and radical policy for increased equality focuses on equal opportunities in all areas.

By Sweden ratifying the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, we have committed ourselves to upholding women's rights and preventing gender discrimination. In Sweden, we have taken many steps towards equality and today rank ahead of many other countries in the world. It is the result of a struggle that many have fought before us. But we must all continue to do our part if a development towards more – instead of less – equality is to become a reality.

During our time in government, we prioritized measures in the area of equality. I will give some examples. Equality mainstreaming became a powerful instrument. There have been requirements for employers to take active measures in equality work. The consent law was introduced in July 2018. It is an important victory for the Green Party. We have worked with the issue for many years. That the law now leaves its mark in a new kind of sex education in schools, where both gender identity and consent are included, will make a big difference in practice. We have also improved the minimum pensions, which benefits women, as well as raised the lowest levels in the sickness and activity compensation and improved the sickness insurance. We have also developed action programs to prevent and combat men's violence against women.

But there is still much to be done for Sweden to become a fully equal country. Even today, girls do not have the same power and opportunities as boys in society. The differences already exist in preschool and in school. Women take a greater responsibility for the unpaid work in the home, while they receive lower wages than men in working life and are more likely to become poor as pensioners. We also see differences in health between women and men, and men's violence against women is one of our greatest societal problems.

It was 100 years ago that women were granted the right to vote, and much has improved since then. But it is evident that women's rights must continue to be preserved and improved. There are still forces around the world that threaten the progress being made regarding freedom and equality. It is, for example, deeply concerning that the right to abortion is being restricted in several parts of the world.

We also see that the Swedish government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, is taking initiatives that will not strengthen women's rights. The cuts in aid, for example, will hit women and girls particularly hard, as will the tightened migration policy.

There seems to be a fear within the government of the concept of feminism. But feminism is about consistently analyzing reality from a gender perspective and ensuring that girls and women have the same opportunities as boys and men. It is something that everyone should see as a matter of course. It is simply about individual rights.

And with this, one of Sweden's hallmarks risks being lost. Until September, we had a feminist government. It was an important signal to ourselves and the rest of the world that equality has a high priority in all areas. Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries, but we are still very far from equality. This is noticeable, not least when it comes to men's violence against women.

Approximately at the same time as Miljöpartiet was founded, the first women's shelters and their operations were established. During the decades that have passed, the women's shelters have met and supported hundreds of thousands of women and children subjected to violence, and the knowledge of the dynamics and causes of violence has deepened. For a long time, the women's shelters' voluntary forces bore the entire responsibility when it came to the situation of the women subjected to violence, while society looked the other way. Today, thanks to the work the shelters have done, there is a different understanding of the violence and the women's situation.

Miljöpartiet wants to continue developing the legislation to provide better protection for women who are subjected to violence, including all dimensions of so-called post-violence. But we also see that the work of the women's shelters is completely central to the social change required to break with the violence. In the budget bill for 2022, Equality Minister Märta Stenevi, from Miljöpartiet, ensured that the state grants to the women's and girls' shelters were made permanent and that the appropriations were increased. But the shelters need even more support. Therefore, we want to allocate an additional 50 million kronor.

But we also see several civil society organizations doing incredibly important work in supporting children in their relationships and in countering, for example, physical, mental, sexual, and digital violence, which is increasing. The organizations' helplines are a good support. Therefore, we want to see a special initiative to strengthen the funding specifically for these support activities for children and young people - so that they can continue but also scale up their activities further. There, we want to allocate an additional 20 million kronor.

We in Miljöpartiet welcome the government's increased efforts regarding honor-related violence and oppression. In doing so, an important work is being continued, a work that the previous government initiated with vigor and where there is significantly more to be done.

More work for increased equality is needed in all areas so that all our equality policy goals are actually reached. We in Miljöpartiet, which is a feminist party, will never stop working for this. It is simply a matter of justice.

Since a parliamentary majority in the first step of the budget process has given the policy a different direction than what the Green Party would have wanted to see, we refrain from taking positions. We refer to our reservation 4 in the Committee on Finance's report on the state budget for 2023 and to our special opinion.

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The last time I stood in the speaker's chair and debated integration policy, it was, like all other times before that, entirely in opposition. This time, it is as a representative of a coalition party to the government but to some extent also an opposition party.

Sweden has had general elections, and the Sweden Democrats' support increased again. Thus, we have had the opportunity to make new brushstrokes on the previously destructive and failed integration map and make a change toward moving in a more Sweden-friendly direction. I want to thank all voters for that opportunity, and it is their voice that I represent in this chamber.

Large parts of the Swedish people have obviously had enough of politicians who are destroying our beautiful country, had enough of daily shootings, and had enough of the red-green mess that has failed in its task: to keep the Swedes safe. When I grew up during the 70s and 80s, we did not throw stones at emergency services. We were not subjected to gang rapes, and women were not thrown down into mine shafts in Bergslagen to honor some Mohammed or Allah.

It is about misogynistic, foreign, ancient values that do not belong here. Our Western way of life is being seriously challenged by the failed immigration and lack of integration that the other parties have engaged in. The only party that is not responsible for how today's Sweden looks is actually my own. But to stand in that corner and say that this is not our fault naturally does not lead to change.

We have at all times been humble in taking our responsibility in cooperation with other parties to change Sweden's direction. Finally, the day has come where we also have the opportunity to take a real responsibility for our country here! I do, however, want to be careful to point out that the Sweden Democrats are not in the government. We are a cooperation party that has negotiated an agreement that allows the government to exist with our support. Otherwise, we are an opposition party that probably will not agree with the government on every single issue during the mandate period.

Madam Speaker! With that said, I want to move for the approval of the coalition parties' budget, i.e., the committee's proposal for a decision. For thank goodness, the government, together with our coalition parties, has accepted that it is time for change. The Swedish people have spoken. October 14, 2022, will be etched into history. The government was then, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, ready to take that responsibility.

I have full respect for the fact that the government parties first during the previous mandate period seemed to realize that the previously conducted integration policy was unsustainable. The failure has been recognized from the sidelines for eight years and is now, with our support, ready for change. With Sweden's best interests in mind, the Tidö Agreement was born. Now it is time to make Sweden good again, Madam Speaker.

The Swedish people are tired of that their children cannot go to school without risking being robbed of their mobile phone, computer, or moped, and that we in Sweden have gone from having one of the world's best schools to now being at the bottom in the rankings.

The Swedish people are tired of our elderly not receiving the care they need because the staff do not master the Swedish language and of long care queues where people manage to die while waiting for care. World-class healthcare is no longer a reality here despite high tax pressure on the population.

The Swedish people have grown tired of a policy that has led to an exclusion that results in individuals never contributing to our society. We have witnessed countless integration projects that have cost us taxpayers enormous sums but have been completely ineffective.

Projects that have been carried out have established that there are individuals who, after having lived in Sweden for 15 years, do not master even basic Swedish. They cannot make themselves understood or understand. But thank goodness we Sverigedemokrater already during the previous parliamentary term have succeeded in stopping a good deal of headless grants, and one of them is the home establishment loan.

The home establishment loan was a CSN loan that could be used to, for example, buy furniture. The twist in all of this was simply that the individuals then did not have to pay back the so-called loan. To give a sense of what amounts we are talking about, I can say that in this case it is approximately 700 million kronor that have not been paid back. These 700 million kronor have been forgiven.

Individuals who vacation in the home country they moved away from no longer appear to have a need for protection. It seems we agree on that nowadays.

Out of respect for Sweden's population, it is important that the issue of deportation due to lack of integrity and the issue of return activities are properly investigated. Higher requirements must be set. Do your duty before you demand your right!

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are the guarantee that migration policy in general and integration policy in particular will change for real. I am proud that our coalition partners can now, for example, review how increased requirements for citizenship shall be designed and ensure that more residence permits are revoked. Through the voters' support and the Tidö Agreement, we have come a good way toward a safer Sweden.

In this speech, Michael Rubbestad (SD) agreed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The most important thing for integration is the security of being able to stay, establish roots, and build one's future here in Sweden. The Sweden Democrats do not want integration – they want deportation, and the methods for that are, to say the least, remarkable in a democracy.

In the palace agreement, the Sweden Democrats and the government want to investigate under what conditions existing permanent residence permits can be converted. Sweden is a democracy, and I understand that the Sweden Democrats have some problems with that, but there are basic legal principles. For example, it is such that legal decisions must be binding. We have a principle of legal certainty which means that, as a rule, an authority does not withdraw favorable administrative decisions and so on.

This is about very many people who have fled for their lives, received protection status, and been granted permanent residence permits. They are here today on exactly the same terms as we and everyone else. But they now risk deportation. Who is it that is to be deported, and how is it to go about?

I also heard the member say "Do your duty, demand your right." But this is about people who have done everything right and who have done everything in their power. They have been granted permanent residence permits. In that case, this thing about doing one's duty and demanding one's right does not apply. This applies in a democracy, but the Sweden Democrats obviously want to dismantle that.

The members of the committee are welcome to answer who is to be deported and how it shall proceed.

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now, it is actually not in any way a human right to live in Sweden. To be a full citizen in Sweden, one should perform one's duty first and thereafter demand one's right. One should contribute to Sweden in a positive way.

For the Left Party, nothing is problematic regarding, for example, the economy. The Left Party always has a simple solution: to raise taxes. Then one can continue to play around with the taxpayers' money.

Someone is going to have to pay for this party. Someone is going to have to pay for the fact that we actually have people in Sweden who commit crimes.

Who should be deported? Naturally, for example, gross criminals, who hurt other people very badly or murder them, should be deported; it is no secret that we think so. I, and we as a party, do not think that one is a full-fledged citizen if one treats Sweden and Sweden's population so badly.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if deep-seated racism has distorted all knowledge within the Sweden Democrats or if they even perceive the principles of the rule of law and democracy. It shocks me very much – here we actually get the answer that they want to compromise on the principles of the rule of law and make Sweden less of a democracy. They want to lock a group in permanent insecurity. They instill fear in a very large part of the country's population.

The Sweden Democrats have Tourette's when it comes to immigration and crime; one cannot speak without treating these things as synonyms. But this is about 300,000 people who risk being affected by this proposal. The Sweden Democrats are instilling fear and anxiety in a large part of the country's population.

This is undoubtedly the most irresponsible and indecent thing I have witnessed during my years in the Riksdag. It is said that those with permanent residence permits should not be here. It is completely insane. Furthermore, it is being done in a way that undermines the principles of the rule of law and makes Sweden less democratic.

Madam Speaker! I am ashamed of this. This is undoubtedly the most irresponsible leadership Sweden has ever had. But perhaps the members here do not need to take responsibility for it – she is in opposition when she feels like it and in a government position when she feels like it, so the criticism can just slide off.

Can the member clarify what the division of labor looks like? You want to evade responsibility when you receive criticism and questions, Ann-Christine From Utterstedt, but when you feel like standing at a rostrum and hurling out all the racism in the world, it is perfectly okay. Please do tell us about the division of labor within the government and the coalition party!

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! There, the member played the racism card again. It is quite tiresome, one might say. But it is clear - some here in the world develop, and some do not.

The Left Party stands on the side of the victims when it feels like it, but in many cases, the Left Party's tail has intended to stand on the side of the perpetrators instead. I find that highly remarkable. Can the member not explain to me and to the Swedish people why one so gladly wants violent criminals to be out in our society here in Sweden? Why do you not want to deport them from here?

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I would like to remind the speaker that Member Tony Haddou has no further right to speak.)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I have heard a lot, but this was perhaps actually one of the worst speeches I have heard in the Swedish Riksdag. One does not play the racism card, because it was pure and utter racism in some parts.

The Speaker had the opportunity to present the Sweden Democrats' integration policy. Instead, it was a long list of "everything is the immigrants' fault" and "everything was better before." That was what we heard.

To everyone out there watching this debate, I want to say that there is another way forward. There are many people here in the chamber who do not agree that everything is the immigrants' fault. We must also look at ourselves in the mirror - politics can do so much more to make integration better.

The Tidö Agreement is truly the Sweden Democrats' policy. A further sign of this is that there is not a single integration proposal in the Tidö Agreement.

We may not agree on much, but we can at least agree on one thing: More people need to learn the Swedish language, more children need to see their parents go to work in the morning, and more foreign-born women need to move from exclusion to inclusion.

Now I give the member another chance. What is the Sweden Democrats' policy so that more people learn Swedish? What is the Sweden Democrats' policy so that more children see their parents - their mothers and fathers - go to work every morning? And what is the Sweden Democrats' policy so that more foreign-born women move from exclusion to inclusion? Now you have the chance, Ann-Christine From Utterstedt - I hope you take it.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that the Centre Party and the members tend to be redder than the Social Democrats themselves in certain parts.

I note that the member advocates for a government that has not even had control over which people live in our country and are present here. The government, for example, has not been particularly in agreement with Säpo in these matters, as Säpo is highly interested in knowing, for example, which terrorists are staying in our country.

A census will be carried out. It is highly essential, because we need to have control over who lives - or stays - in our country. As I said earlier, it is also not a human right for anyone to live specifically in Sweden.

As the member well knows, we have a good deal of our integration proposals and political proposals in the Tidö Agreement. Among other things, it shall be investigated how one can be deported from the country if one is no longer judged to have a need for protection or if one has a lack of integrity. This will be investigated.

Additionally, I note that the Center Party and the member are not satisfied with the Sweden Democrats' policy and presentation, and I am actually not particularly surprised by that. It would be strange if the Center Party agreed with us. But we must not forget that the Swedish people have voted for this shift in power – it is the voters' will that we see.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I asked three very simple questions: How are more people to become better at the Swedish language, how are more boys and girls to see their parents go to work in the morning, and how are more foreign-born women to go from exclusion to inclusion? I received the answer: census and deportation. That is, seriously!

It is said that this is what the Swedish people have voted for, but I genuinely believe that the Swedish people have voted for a better integration policy. When I talk to the voters, it actually sounds like they believe that this is what they are getting with the Sverigedemokraterna, but that is not what they are getting.

Regardless of what the Sweden Democrats think, and regardless of the Tidö Agreement, foreign-born people will remain in this country. How are they to be given better conditions to learn Swedish? How are more to be given the opportunity to go to a job in the morning? How are more foreign-born women to move from exclusion to inclusion?

Now the Sweden Democrats are in the warmth, and now you cannot blame anyone else, the Social Democrats or us. Now you have the responsibility for the coming four years for Sweden and for integration. Then one must also take the responsibility. Responsibility entails obligations. Whether to sit in government or not, but you have the close cooperation that you have with the government. It is your policy that is to be implemented by reason of the Tidö Agreement. Then one must have answers to some of our time's most important questions, and integration is such a question. Even if I do not agree with the other parties, I can state that there are seven parties in the chamber that have an integration policy. It may be good or bad from my perspective, but there are seven parties that have a policy and one party that does not have it, namely the Sweden Democrats.

Now Ann-Christine From Utterstedt has two minutes. Then give me an answer on how more people shall learn Swedish.

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is an exciting exchange, insofar as I did not know until now that Member Cato is my principal and that it is Member Cato who decides here in the chamber how I shall speak, express myself, and what I shall talk about. But it was exciting.

I see it as the voters and my party being my principals.

These are very important issues that the member is raising, namely learning Swedish, integrating into Swedish society and getting a job. And these are issues that we must not downplay in any way. I do not, and neither does my party. And the Tidö Agreement shows that clearly.

First and foremost, it is about one's own will, to want to be part of Swedish society, to want to learn the language. It is naturally a cornerstone for whether one as an individual will succeed or not.

We cannot in any way generalize everyone. There are people who come to our country who, within two years, master the Swedish language, have a good job, work and contribute to Swedish society in a positive way. On the other hand, we see other people, other individuals, as I said in my speech, who have lived here for 15 years and still do not manage the Swedish language at all.

I and my party assert that if that is the case, there is not enough self-interest to want to be part of our society and our Western way of life, and then one should also not stay here.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I requested a reply when the Sweden Democrats made a big deal in their speech about not sitting in the government. That is true, but the Sweden Democrats sit in the Government Offices and in Rosenbad. One can call oneself an opposition party if one wants, but we all know that it is the Sweden Democrats who hold the reins of this government.

Together with its government, the Sweden Democrats have now presented its policy. In this area, it involves, among other things, abolishing the Delegation against Segregation, that is, the authority that has had the collective responsibility for the work against specifically segregation. They also remove the investment support, which has had the purpose of promoting the construction of more rental apartments because it is important to also physically build away the segregation. They cut back on adult education and labor market policy, and in addition, they have announced that they intend to scrap the Settlement Act, which aims for all municipalities to share the responsibility that nonetheless exists for the reception of refugees.

All this is what the right-wing parties do, even though they are naturally fully aware that all these reforms are such things that contribute to fueling segregation. Therefore, I wonder if the Sweden Democrats have any ambition at all to break the segregation, which is a major problem in our society today. Can the Sweden Democrats give a single example of how they intend to speed up the establishment, increase integration, and break the segregation?

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for her commitment and questions.

I note that the previous S-government has, to the highest degree, been on a leash held by MP. I can understand that the member compares the sitting government to being on a leash held by the Sweden Democrats in some way. But I can assure the member that is not the case. My opinion is that the coalition parties have negotiated an agreement with each other that all parties are satisfied with. That is why the agreement exists, and that is why the government sits with our support.

I cannot help but wonder about the following. The Social Democrats have had eight years to do something about segregation and to be able to handle integration in a good way, but they have chosen not to do so. What the Social Democrats have chosen to do, with the support of other parties, is to make segregation even more serious. Instead of doing something about it, they have diluted it even further. It is incredibly irresponsible.

I and my party, and I assure you that the governing parties also think the same, will naturally do something about this. That is why the agreement exists. The member can rest assured that we will make the best of this. We will see changes that would not have occurred if the Social Democrats had continued in government. But now the Swedish people have voted for this shift in power, so now we will see changes in the area.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I therefore asked what the Sweden Democrats want to do to break segregation, and I asked to be given just one example. I received none.

We Social Democrats mean business when we say that we want to break segregation, and a general plan spanning several policy areas is therefore needed. I will speak more about it soon.

For us, it is a fundamental prerequisite that the migration policy is strict. We shall set high requirements on the individual, but we also need to provide active support to the individual.

It is here that we have the great dividing line. The Sweden Democrats do not want an integration policy. On the contrary, they have stood here, year after year, and almost suggested that the integration policy should be abolished.

The reason for the opposition to the integration-promoting measures, I believe, when I listen to the member, is rooted in the fact that one is actually not only against immigration but also against immigrants. It was, Mr. Speaker, a deplorable level of rhetoric we just heard.

The Sweden Democrats have, as stated, no integration policy. That is why one cannot provide the requested examples of how the Sweden Democrats intend to break the segregation. They completely disregard the active support for getting people into the labor market, into Swedish society. They fixate on the demands and then sprinkle the policy with things that rather contribute to increased social division. That is why the Sweden Democrats cannot provide a single example, despite repeated chances, of how the segregation is to be broken.

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The members know very well that the Sweden Democrats want to reduce immigration. It is one of the measures that is most important in order to be able to take care of what we are struggling with within the country today.

One cannot fill a country with people year after year without giving these people an honest chance. The Social Democrats have not done this for eight years. They have not been given an honest chance when they have come to Sweden. They have moved to an area of exclusion, and they have lived in this area of exclusion without any special chances to succeed. It is the Social Democrats' responsibility that it looks like that. This government intends, with our support, to make a difference.

The member says that the Sweden Democrats have no integration policy. In that case, I would advise the member to read the Tidö Agreement and read our previous committee motions. The member can also review our principle program. There is a great deal that we want to do, and it is there in black and white.

The Speaker is absolutely right that there is a clear dividing line. Unlike the Social Democrats, we in the Sweden Democrats want to take responsibility for something that we ourselves have not caused. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, have not been interested in taking responsibility during the last eight years they sat in government and had the chance.

You had the chance. You did not take it.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

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

It is fantastic what result we have to look forward to in four years. By then, everything will have changed - even though the Sweden Democrats are not in the government.

Many of those with me have been surprised by the tone of the Sweden Democrat member's post, and I sign on to that. Everything was better before, apparently. The member also spoke about men's violence against women. I wonder if it was so much better before, in the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. How much of it came out then? How did women and children fare then, in poverty?

It concerns, Ann-Christine From Utterstedt, having respect for the crime victims. Words mean something. Words really mean something, and I wonder: Does the member believe it matters for the woman who was pushed into a mine shaft whether the one who did it has a Swedish or a foreign surname? That is my question to the member.

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the questions and reflections!

The member of Parliament points out that we need to have respect for the crime victims. I honestly do not understand why the member of Parliament asks that question of me and my party. We are, in the highest degree, the ones who have respect for the crime victims and stand on the side of the crime victims.

Can the member not try to explain to me and to the rest of Sweden's population why one is prepared to let gross criminals remain in this country and furthermore defend it? It is not about standing on the side of the crime victims, not ever or at any time. But the member can try to explain to me and others in this chamber how it is that the Center Party stands more on the side of the crime victims when one is not prepared to deport, for example, gross criminals.

For the woman who was pushed down into a mine shaft, it naturally does not matter what surname he has. But it naturally matters what consequences one faces for such an action.

Here, the Sweden Democrats are clear: We must have harsher punishments. It is no mystery. But the Centre Party can well explain how they view these issues since the member has now raised them.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Finally, the answer to my question actually came: No, for the woman who was pushed down into the mine shaft, the surname has no significance.

I thank you for that answer, because that is, after all, what it is about. Criminals shall be punished. Regardless of whether it concerns men's violence against women or anything else, criminals shall be punished, regardless of what surname they have.

Centerpartiet stands up every day of the week for crime victims. We work against men's violence against women. We work against prostitution. We highlight it in every speech, in every proposal, and in every debate. But it applies to everyone. It applies to all criminals. They shall have their rightful punishment, and for the crime victims, it does not matter what surname they have.

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is surprising that the Centre Party and the member exhibit such prejudice. I am surprised.

The Center Party says here that it doesn't matter what surname one has. No, okay, that can be so. But that is not what is interesting. I am surprised by the difference the Center Party makes between different people.

It is the values one has that make a difference. What one is called as a surname surely plays no role at all. It is one's values that make a difference, and I am, as I said, surprised by the prejudice that the member displays.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be an equal and egalitarian country. The Social Democrats' policy in this area is based on the idea that all people in our country shall be part of society on equal terms – regardless of background, ethnicity, gender, age, and sexual orientation. Discrimination and racism shall always be combated. We shall all meet equal rights and opportunities but also equal obligations and expectations. Sweden shall be a society that holds together. We shall not have any parallel societies.

But today, segregation is tearing our country apart. It increases mistrust and fuels crime. I do not believe there is a quick fix for this problem, unfortunately, but a broad offensive is required here. We Social Democrats therefore want to see a general plan to tackle the segregation problems from the root.

Unfortunately, we have received a new government that is ruled by the Sweden Democrats and which clearly signals that they do not share our ambition to break the segregation.

One chooses, for example, to abolish the authority that has had the unified responsibility for the work against segregation. The investment support to build new rental apartments disappears already at the turn of the year, and the Settlement Act is to be dismantled according to the Tidö Agreement so that wealthy municipalities without a large diaspora can escape their share of the responsibility to receive newcomers.

The government and the Sweden Democrats are also cutting adult education and individualized labor market policy by billions of kronor at the same time as we enter a recession. That part, I think, is particularly noteworthy, because one of the most obvious underlying explanations for segregation is that people who have immigrated to Sweden have not succeeded to a sufficient extent in establishing themselves on the Swedish labor market.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to be clear that it is the Social Democrats' firm view that a fundamental prerequisite for succeeding in breaking segregation is that we have a continued strict migration policy.

We changed the policy during our time in government, first after the refugee crisis in 2015 and subsequently as recently as last year when we established a new permanent Aliens Act. The major paradigm shift that is spoken of has, therefore, largely already occurred within migration policy.

Sweden shall take its share of the responsibility in the EU to provide people with protection from war and oppression. But we shall not have a regulatory framework that differs significantly from the rest of the EU, and we shall not receive more people than we have the capacity to integrate into society.

Even though the establishment time was significantly shortened during our time in government, it is evident that society's ability to offer housing, jobs, education, social integration, and community has been lacking, with segregation, overcrowding, and exclusion as consequences.

Mr. Speaker! It is rather in the will to tackle these consequences than in the migration policy itself that we find the truly great dividing lines in Swedish politics today. I think it is important to say that.

Those who do not have the right to be in Sweden shall leave the country. But those who are granted residence permits according to the new rules shall be integrated quickly. There shall be high and clear requirements for the individual to make themselves employable and to learn Swedish.

That is why we Social Democrats made it an obligation to participate in establishment measures, not just a right as the previous Alliance government did. We also introduced a mandatory education requirement for those newly arrived who need education to enter the workforce. Otherwise, the compensation can be withdrawn.

Referring unilaterally to strict migration and high requirements will not be enough, as it does not provide people with the skills required. This needs to be accompanied by tools and support.

Perhaps the most important thing is an active labor market policy - precisely what the Sweden Democrats and the government are now cutting back on. A broad palette of individually tailored measures such as education, guidance, matching, skills mapping, language training, subsidized employment, and internships is needed. The list can be made longer. All of this is required in order to be able to get closer and ultimately enter the regular labor market.

Despite the right-wing parties sitting in opposition last year, they unfortunately managed to secure a majority for their budget and scrap the extra services, which were an important tool, not least for foreign-born women, to get closer to self-sufficiency. Now these parties continue in the same spirit.

We can at least rejoice at a new tool in the toolbox, not thanks to the government, it should be added, but thanks to the fact that the labor market parties have finally agreed on an agreement regarding the new establishment jobs aimed at newcomers and the long-term unemployed. The setup is that the wage is financed by both the employer and the state so that it corresponds to the minimum wage in the collective agreement. I sincerely hope that the new government embraces this with the same enthusiasm as we Social Democrats do - and did during our time in government, when we worked intensively to support the development of this form of employment. The establishment jobs demonstrate the strength of the Swedish model of cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! Even though we are going to talk more about labor market policy in the next debate, I want to raise a warning finger here and now because integration from the bourgeois side is often mentioned as a reason to justify less security in the labor market. It is said that the thresholds and wages must be lowered to bring in more and in that way increase integration.

Don't misunderstand me - we are in complete agreement that more people should enter the labor market and that there is a need for jobs that do not require a long education. But it would be devastating for the Swedish wage-earner collective to open up for lower wages and conditions for certain designated groups, because we know that in the long run it means a general downward pressure.

Furthermore, it locks certain groups in low-wage industries and legitimizes poor wages that adult people cannot support themselves and their children on and under conditions that most of us would never accept.

Is it ever possible to break the segregation like that? No, I don't think so. Low wages, poor conditions and insecure employment cannot solve the integration problems. Strict migration in combination with secure jobs and a wage that is livable is a prerequisite for a sustainable integration.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: I see that one of Swedish politics' great dividing lines has a clear impact on this policy area and segregation. It is about whether we should pull society in a direction towards more exclusion and fragmentation or towards more community and cohesion.

When I listen to previous speakers in this debate, it becomes obvious that the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's focus is not to combat segregation but rather to make life as miserable as possible for certain identified groups. To take an example, cutting into the labor market policy will not improve integration.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement also contains some inhumane excesses such as proposals on the disclosure law, deportation of prostitutes, and limited rights to an interpreter within healthcare. It must be stated that this is a despicable policy and the wrong path to take to truly address the problems of segregation.

No, Mr. Speaker, Sweden shall be a country where every child gets to see mom and dad go to work and where we can all shape our lives and take new leaps. Sweden shall be a country that holds together, not one that is pulled apart by divides, mistrust, and segregation.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! When I read the Social Democrats' follow-up motion for expenditure area 13, I, and surely many others with me, am confounded. The first thing the Social Democratic members in the Committee on the Labour Market write in their motion, that is, in the portal text, reads: "We believe that Sweden should have a continued strict migration policy. The paradigm shift that occurred in this area in connection with the refugee crisis in 2015 occurred during our time in government. Sweden shall take its share of the responsibility in the EU - neither more nor less - to give people protection from war and oppression. We cannot permanentize an order where we receive more people than we have the capacity to integrate into society."

Despite these harsh words and the claim that they want to pursue a "strict migration policy," the Social Democrats propose that Sweden should receive five times more quota refugees than in the moderate-led government's proposal, and consequently, they add several hundred million kronor more of the taxpayers' money to the purpose than is estimated in the budget bill within this expenditure area.

Mr. Speaker! We often hear that it was indeed thanks to the S-MP government that a paradigm shift occurred in the area of migration policy and integration policy - which is actually historical revisionism. Words and actions do not align in the current S policy either, so therefore I ask Teresa Carvalho: How is it that the Social Democrats want Sweden to continue to receive the most quota refugees in the entire EU?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' analysis of Swedish politics feels a bit dated. I hope most know that the Social Democrats stand for a strict migration policy and that we shifted the policy during our time in government, partly after the refugee crisis, when the situation in Sweden became unsustainable, and partly when we got the new Aliens Act in place, where on many points we moved from a more generous policy to a stricter one. I have no problem repeating this policy. We see that Sweden needs a significantly stricter migration policy going forward than Sweden has had in recent decades under both the Alliance government and our time in power. That is how it is, and it is no problem for me to state it once again.

I do, however, understand that the Moderates want to maintain this as a major conflict in Swedish politics, because it would be favorable for the Moderates with several parties if we Social Democrats wanted a more generous refugee policy than what we actually have. But that is not the case, rather the major dividing line is found in the view on integration and segregation.

Finally: Regarding the quota refugees, I want to say to those listening to the debate and perhaps not following the different terms that quota refugees are, in other words, those who are redistributed directly from refugee camps via the UN. Among them are, among others, Yazidi girls who have managed to escape life as sex slaves for IS, as well as child soldiers from Congo. It is about those with the greatest needs.

We can discuss numbers. I do not believe there is a magic number that is the correct one. But we stand by the number that we previously agreed upon between several parties.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that it is difficult for Teresa Carvalho to escape the fact that Sweden will also in the future be the country within the European Union that receives the most quota refugees of all. This year, the countries have committed to receiving approximately 23,000 quota refugees. The proportion for Sweden's part is enormously high if one looks at the total volume that the European Union's member states have committed to.

If one looks at what UNHCR wants the European Union to do, one can see that it concerns approximately 40,000 quota refugees annually. In that case, the figure of 900 quota refugees, which we Moderates together with the coalition partners have put forward, falls into the right category. It stands in proportion to what Sweden is to receive.

It is actually this conflict that exists in the committee report, if one looks at how the appropriations are distributed. That is why I bring this up with the member and ask. It is about several hundred million more that the Social Democrats want to put into this, while at the same time saying they are conducting a strict migration policy. I actually cannot make this quite add up.

It is clear that integration and volume are linked. I believe that most of us in this chamber can now acknowledge that.

Sweden takes and has historically taken a great responsibility when it comes to receiving people fleeing. What we have failed at is integration. We have failed with immigrants' establishment in society, in the labor market, and in other areas. Therefore, it is important that words and actions go hand in hand.

That is why I ask the members once again: How is it possible that one claims to conduct a strict migration policy while simultaneously intending to accept five times as many quota refugees as the government proposes?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I answered the question regarding the number of quota refugees in the first exchange of remarks, but I can repeat that I do not see that there is a magic number that is the absolutely correct one.

But I can state that we very much have kept the level of 5,000 in our budget option, which is what we agreed upon between several parties earlier. This is a small part of the refugees who come to Sweden, and they are those who have the absolute greatest needs. We therefore do not see that it is primarily the number of quota refugees that needs to decrease. Otherwise, we do, however, stand for the fact that we need to have a significantly stricter migration policy than we have had during the last decades.

This debate is actually about integration and segregation. I note that Viktor Wärnick did eventually come to this in the end. I appreciate that.

It was not that many own proposals that were highlighted, but perhaps they will come in the presentation later. But I will simply take the opportunity to ask the question: In addition to the strict migration, which we largely agree on, what do the Moderates see as that which will accelerate integration and reduce or preferably break segregation?

As I read it, this is where we have the major lines of conflict. They do not exist in migration policy, however much Viktor Wärnick wants to debate this policy area and portray it as the great conflict. But it is rather in integration and segregation policy where the dividing lines lie.

Until now, we have seen a series of proposals on how the right-wing parties intend to exacerbate segregation. Is there anything that has been planned to break the segregation, or is this, Mr. Speaker, not something that is on the right-conservatives' agenda for this parliamentary term?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When I have had the privilege of sitting and listening here, I have slowly begun to wonder whether I am in the finance debate or in the labor market debate. But in any case, a number of things have been stated by our Social Democratic friends that simply cannot go unanswered.

For example, it has been claimed that we are cutting the economy in municipalities and regions. That is simply not correct. We are increasing by 12 billion. SKR also notes that the energy solution that we are now working on will provide an additional 5 billion to municipalities and regions.

This will, of course, be set against the Social Democrats, who want to continue with the reduction obligation, which will result in 9 kronor more at the pump. It will hit municipalities and regions very hard.

We also see in their budget how they want to raise the tax by 13 billion in a situation where we have major economic problems. Increased taxes in this situation risk leading to more people going into unemployment. It risks leading to the municipal economy being affected, as fewer people will be paying tax.

We also hear here in the debate that we in the governing parties are cutting back on adult education. That is a truth with qualifications. What is being phased out is an extra investment due to covid which was temporary, and this temporary investment is now ending. One can obviously discuss whether it is the right or wrong time to do so, but it is not entirely correct to claim that one is cutting back on something when it actually concerns a temporary measure that is ending.

If we then look purely generally at the labor market - I must still try to get to the topic, Mr. Speaker - it is a total of 95.6 billion that we are investing in the areas that we are discussing in today's two debates on AU1 and AU2. The Social Democrats are adding 2 billion more and the Centre 5 billion less. What is your government basis?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Oh, this was a bit outside area of expenditure 13, one might say! But I will gladly take on this exchange of remarks as well, so that the Christian Democrats shall receive answers to these questions.

Let us begin with the welfare. We heard from the member here that it had been claimed in the debate – I interpret it as him implying that I would have said it, but it could have been someone else – that the government is cutting the grants to the municipalities to finance the welfare. I said nothing of the sort.

However, I can comment with pleasure that while they are not direct cuts, the support to the municipalities and regions is so small that it will, in practice, result in cuts in welfare. That is how it is. The municipalities will not be able to afford to maintain even the current level of welfare. It will be either tax increases or cuts in welfare. That is what the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy contributes to.

The most remarkable thing we heard, however, was that we are raising taxes. Now I do not remember which figure the member mentioned here, but this is a lie! We Social Democrats are not raising taxes in our budget alternative. What we are doing is saying no to large tax cuts for high-income earners. We say that those funds were needed in welfare, and they were needed in the labor market area instead.

We have no tax increases, but we say no to tax cuts for those who earn very much.

Finally, I want to comment on this regarding adult education. There is a difference of 1 billion if one compares 2022 and 2023 in the government's budget. That is, at least, what I call a cut.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Raising break points and thresholds does mean that more people will enter state taxation. It is de facto raising the tax for individuals. It also results in weakening purchasing power.

Weakening purchasing power in a situation where the economy is receding is to increase the risk of unemployment. Increased unemployment will result in less money for the municipalities and regions that I know both we Christian Democrats and you Social Democrats are eager to protect.

Once again we hear the same reasoning when it comes to adult education. Yes, it differs by 1 billion, but it is still not any active reduction, but rather it concerns a temporary measure that does not continue. One can, of course, discuss whether it is needed.

We are heading into a tougher economic situation. I am completely convinced that the government will return in the upcoming budget on how it views adult education, for it is and remains one of the important measures we have. I will myself address this in my speech when it comes to how we develop society, improve the work against exclusion, and strengthen integration.

Again: Our municipalities and regions receive an immense amount of money. They work hard with this money and do good things for them. If I read the budget correctly, it is 8 billion that differs in this budget area between us and the Social Democrats. They pretend as if this would mean the difference between heaven and hell - forgive the imagery! - but it is simply not true.

I return to my last question regarding the area of the Committee on Employment - AU1 and AU2. Our total budget is 95.6 billion. S makes a change of approximately plus 2, and C makes a change of approximately minus 5. What does S have for a government basis?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Then we finally heard what many of us have had a feeling about: the Christian Democrats think that welfare has enough resources. I am of a completely different opinion, and many of the preschool teachers and nursing assistants I have met during the autumn have testified to a completely different picture.

We have also heard that if one says no to tax cuts for high-income earners, the purchasing power will decrease for this group. I am significantly more concerned about the purchasing power of the country's low-income earners - ordinary people - who are now worried about how they will manage to pay the electricity bill when the electricity compensation or the high-cost protection against high electricity bills, which was supposed to be in place on November 1, is delayed. It was a campaign promise from the government parties and Sverigedemokraterna, but we have not seen any of it yet. This worries me much more.

We say a clear no to large tax cuts for high-income earners, who we believe can manage their purchasing power regardless. Instead, we choose to spend the money on temporary child allowance, on refueling compensation for those who live in rural areas and are dependent on the car, and on welfare. We also spend money on labor market policy so that people can get into jobs and so that we can use this time to equip people so that they get the skills needed when things turn upward again.

Regarding adult education, Mr. Speaker, we can surely agree that we can call a spade a spade. When you remove 1 billion, I call it a cut. Furthermore, we say no to this cut.

Finally, regarding the government base, I do not know if the member from Kristdemokraterna has missed this, but now it is his party that sits in the government and not us Socialdemokrater. I take responsibility for the Socialdemokraternas policy, no one else's.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for a very long time failed with integration – let us be honest about that. Hundreds of thousands of people who, for various reasons, have sought their way here, and in many cases also their Swedish-born children, have ended up in exclusion and benefit dependency. What this has ultimately led to is now unfortunately commonplace in both news broadcasts and lived experiences for many in our country: insecurity, crime, gang shootings, honor oppression, housing segregation and overcrowding, to name just a few things.

As long as one does not acknowledge or even see the problems, it is difficult to do anything about them. Therefore, it is important that the Moderate-led government and the majority of the Riksdag in the form of the coalition parties - Moderaterna, Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna - have now received the Swedish people's mandate to act and reform.

We have in the Tidö Agreement agreed to place great emphasis during the mandate period on getting the migration and integration policy in order. The budget that is now being handled in the Swedish Riksdag is a first step and should naturally not be seen as the final result of the policy that our four parties intend to pursue, even if it sometimes, somewhat dishonestly, tends to sound that way from the red-green opposition.

Mr. Speaker! As part of expenditure area 13, which we are now debating, lies the establishment of newly arrived immigrants. It may seem that budget policy can be managed in the silos called expenditure areas, but just as the government emphasizes, integration policy must be conducted through overarching measures in combination with targeted measures.

Therefore, one also cannot see expenditure area 13, and specifically the parts concerning the establishment of newly arrived immigrants, as the complete integration policy that is now to be pursued, but it is of course true that a part lies within the Committee on Employment's preparatory area. Work is obviously an important piece of the puzzle for a successful integration, but it is not sufficient as a sole measure.

Mr. Speaker! A targeted measure presented by the government in the budget bill, which we in the majority of the committee support, is that funds are allocated to Boverket to continue to secure access to analysis and follow-up tools with location data through the so-called Segregationsbaromettern.

Sweden's good access to individual data needs to be combined with good access to location data. It is important that developments in different areas can be followed over time for, among other things, unemployment, social welfare support, and school results. In order to be able to do something about the problems, it is therefore important to see them and have knowledge about them.

Mr. Speaker! As part of turning the development around and succeeding with integration, migration to Sweden must decrease significantly. It is essential that we gain control over the levels of immigration in all areas, including the reception of quota refugees.

We Moderates, together with our coalition partners, believe that the intake should be reduced to 900 quota refugees per year during the mandate period, in line with Sweden's share of the European Union's numbers and based on UNHCR's request for 40,000 quota refugees to the European countries going forward. This is reflected in a reduced appropriation of a few hundred million kronor for 2023 and up to 1 billion kronor at the end of the mandate period.

But here, there is a significant discrepancy in the red-green opposition parties' shadow budgets. The Social Democrats, who in words claim to be the foremost defenders of a restrictive migration policy in Sweden, are shown in action to want a higher quota refugee reception with over 16,000 more resettled in Sweden during the mandate period than we Moderates and coalition parties want to see. The Centre Party and the Green Party join in, which is hardly surprising, and the Left Party wants to go even further and introduce an amnesty for unaccompanied children and young people who have been in Sweden for over a year.

One thing is very clear regarding the red-green opposition's policy: It will hardly contribute to solving Sweden's huge integration problem because those on the left in Swedish politics do not see them, or in any case do not acknowledge them.

Mr. Speaker! Already in the government statement two months ago, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson was clear. He said: "This is a government for all who strive and for all who want to do right by themselves, regardless of whether one has immigrated to Sweden or was born here. People have over the years come here and contributed with knowledge, entrepreneurship, and tax money. When integration into Swedish society works, a richer, more tolerant, and more successful society is created. But... we must never be tolerant towards intolerance."

It is in this spirit that the integration policy is now being conducted and built by the coalition parties. By seeing and recognizing the problems, one can do something about them. The budget bill's proposal for expenditure area 13 and the Committee on Employment's report 1 contribute a number of building blocks to this, and therefore I naturally wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats have started the mandate period by lining up proposals that will exacerbate segregation. I have already mentioned some of them earlier in this debate, but I am happy to repeat them. It concerns, for example, the closure of the agency that had the unified responsibility for the work against segregation, the torn-up Settlement Act which distributes the responsibility for the newcomers who come to Sweden, the abolished investment support for the construction of new rental apartments that are needed to physically build away segregation, and the dismantling of labor market measures and adult education.

I get the impression that the government has no ambition to break segregation, but I still want to give the member from the government's largest party a chance to respond. It is not the government base's largest party—we all know who it is that stands outside the government and dictates the terms—but I think someone from the parties that sit in the government needs to answer. How do the right-wing parties intend to break segregation? This concerns the segregation that already exists in our society today, not the segregation that could potentially be thought to arise further ahead, depending on what migration policy we have.

We are, as said, in large measure in agreement that we need to have a strict migration policy. But regardless of this, we have a segregation here and now. What then is the right-wing parties' answer on how it should be broken? Or is this not an ambition that is on the agenda for the Moderaterna and their friends in the government base?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Here, two months are being set against two parliamentary terms, that is, eight years. Members from the Social Democrats and the others who stood behind Stefan Löfven's and Magdalena Andersson's government are now demanding accountability from the new majority after two months but refuse to take responsibility for their two parliamentary terms - eight years! I can think that there is reason to reflect on this.

We are now discussing expenditure area 13, which we are dealing with in this report. Just as I mentioned in my speech, it is not possible to look at each of the expenditure areas in isolation in a single report to find the whole. It is a matter of looking at the whole, the breadth, in this.

When it specifically comes to expenditure area 13 and the Committee on Employment's report 1, which we have here today, there is a proposal that differs from the government's budget bill, that is, the budget proposal from the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna together with Sverigedemokraterna, and it is the proposal for an increased number of quota refugees from the Socialdemokraterna side. Otherwise, there is no difference between the proposals. Nevertheless, one comes and thinks that one has a number of different reasons to demand accountability.

What we are saying is that we now have a mandate period on us. We have a Tidö Agreement that regulates how we are to handle migration and integration issues moving forward. We do not solve that in two months after two mandate periods of passivity from Stefan Löfven and Magdalena Andersson.

I think it would be appropriate if the member could take some responsibility for the situation we have at present and instead present their own proposals. Is it then an increased quota for refugee reception that is the solution to Sweden's segregation and integration problems? I find it difficult to believe that is the case.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! And I think it would be appropriate if the member from the Moderates could listen to the question I actually asked, namely what the Moderates have for an idea to break segregation. Nor have I or the Social Democrats proposed an increased number of quota refugees, which we have now heard claims about.

But it becomes obvious that the Moderates do not want to talk about the consequences of their own policy, that is to say, the dismantled labor market policy and the consequences that it has for the promotion of integration. I received a request here to reflect on the years that have passed, and as I have said several times, that is exactly what we have done. And we state plainly that we need a stricter migration policy than what has been prevalent for many years in Sweden, under both Social Democratic and Moderate-led governments. It is thus not there that the great dividing line lies today, but rather in the view on integration and segregation.

The establishment time for newcomers has been significantly shortened during our time in power. I am in no way satisfied with how it looks today; I want to be clear about that. But one can still state that it has been halved during our time in power. We will, of course, also review and follow up on how the development looks during the coming four years, rest assured!

We can at least also state that today we have unemployed people who have come to Sweden and that at the same time we have industries that are crying out for labor. It is not always the case that one needs to have a long education for these jobs, but one might need a shorter vocational education and speak sufficient Swedish.

Then I will return to my initial question: How does the government intend to get more people into work as an assistant nurse or a bus driver, to take two examples, when you cut exactly that grant in the budget that finances labor market training and other active measures to equip people - how? Can we get any single proposal on how the Moderaterna intend to break the segregation?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned in the previous exchange with Member Carvalho, it is also a matter of seeing what the underlying problem lies in, namely the volumes that arrive in Sweden. On this, we seem to be in agreement in words, but in practice, it remains to be seen how it is handled when this finally reaches the Riksdag's table.

It is simply a matter of stating that when the Moderates have made reassessments of their own policy in the area of migration and integration, it has not been uncommon for former ministers such as Morgan Johansson to accuse us of no longer being human and so on. There are a number of statements that one can really wonder whether they contribute to a good political debate.

It is about setting requirements, and it is about ensuring that people learn the Swedish language and make themselves employable. It is about us wanting to push out the parallel society, the shadow society. There are a number of different measures that we have presented in the Tidö Agreement that need to be implemented. Again: two parliamentary terms versus two months - it is difficult to see that the responsibility should lie with this government after such a short time.

I do not always believe that one should see more money as the solution to all problems; that is usually the Social Democrats' general plan for solving most things. Sweden is a country with one of the world's highest tax burdens. If it were the case that the money pumped in from taxpayers to various types of measures was the single best thing, we would have had the best labor market policy in the entire world. Then we would have had the best conditions regarding unemployment. That is, in fact, not the case. Here, it is a matter of being efficient with the measures one implements and ensuring that the money is used for the right things, that the money is not wasted unnecessarily. Therefore, an efficiency of the labor market policy is important. We will return to that in the next debate!

There is much to say about this, and we will have reason to debate further and see how the Social Democrats position themselves when the proposals finally reach the table.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by expressing my thanks to the Moderate Viktor Wärnick, who in this debate highlighted the Left Party's proposal regarding amnesty for the unaccompanied minors. That makes me very happy.

Let me put it into perspective: Two weeks ago, women and girls from Afghanistan were granted residence permits in Sweden after many, many years of uncertainty, even though it was known that they still cannot be deported to Afghanistan. Many of them were not given the opportunity to work or to have anywhere to live, and their benefits were taken away from them.

Mr. Speaker! This is a good point, I think, to reflect on this. For this no for so many years finally became a yes. There is, of course, a reason for this: They cannot be deported. If one puts it in relation to the policy that this government wants to pursue, one could say that these women and girls two weeks ago were the shadow society that the Moderaterna would eradicate.

So that is what Swedish migration policy looks like today. For several years, they are attacked, they are targeted, and their civil rights are taken away from them. But then they are allowed to stay. The proposal we submit regarding amnesty for the unaccompanied minors is: Let them stay. Do not let them meet the same fate. It is completely unworthy. It is unnecessary, and it is such a waste. Let them stay in Sweden, let them be allowed to work, and let them be allowed to live somewhere. Let them receive the compensations they are entitled to. They are already a part of society today. I do not understand why one goes so far with people who nevertheless cannot be deported.

Mr. Speaker! The most important thing for integration, as research, knowledge, and experience show – now the government parties, the Moderates and so on, must hold their ears – is a welcome. It is safety and that one is allowed to end their flight. It is being able to look forward and start a new life. It is not harder than that.

To do that, Mr. Speaker, permanent and secure residence permits are needed, which it is possible to build a future on, and a welfare system and a safety net that is there for someone when it is needed.

But inside the castle walls, far from the reality of ordinary people, a policy has been shaped that is almost perfect for making integration impossible in Sweden. From one side, we have the traditional right-wing parties who are out to limit the Swedish welfare and who see this as a good start. From the other side, we have the Sverigedemokraterna, who take every chance to attack people with a foreign background. We heard it clearly in the debate earlier today here.

By portraying people seeking asylum here as a threat and a burden, it becomes easier to deny them their most basic rights and access to welfare.

The Right wants to cut the safety nets for everyone, and the Sweden Democrats offer them a scapegoat to begin the project where welfare is to be conditionalized and the principles of democracy and the rule of law as we know them are eroded.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a policy that enables integration – not one that hinders it, as this government does. To get away with this, it uses all its distorted arguments about integration. The government wants fewer people to seek protection here in order to improve integration through measures that we know, with all knowledge, lead to poorer integration.

It is also this that makes the palace politics totally incomprehensible in this area. If one still believes that the government solves unemployment, the housing crisis, the problems in school, or the neglected welfare by going after the most vulnerable, I think one needs to think one more time.

I see no ambitions at all from the government's side to make the investments and expenditures required to equip the country. On the contrary, it is the same parties that prioritize tax cuts for themselves and for the wealthy. It is the same parties that let their friends dip their straws into the welfare to suck out our common tax money, which should go to school, healthcare, and elderly care, while newcomers, the sick, families with children, and pensioners are left behind. That, Mr. Speaker, is a prime example of how one blames immigrants in order to escape responsibility themselves.

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

We are convinced that people succeed better with better conditions. It is how we invest in society and the people in it that determines how well we succeed. And precisely on these points, this government—inside the castle walls and far from people's reality—had simply gone and laid down.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the establishment of newly arrived people and immigrants, which is a large and important area. Before I proceed to the actual speech, I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Mr. Speaker! Integration is one of Sweden's most important political issues, which we must succeed in if we are to give all people living in Sweden the same conditions to develop and succeed in their lives.

The government has said that the goal of the integration policy is equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all regardless of ethnic and cultural background. The goal of the policy against segregation is reduced segregation, equal and egalitarian upbringing and living conditions as well as good life chances for all. These are good goals - goals that commit.

For my part, I have worked a great deal with integration as a municipal politician. I have also had the privilege of making study trips to both the United Kingdom and Canada. I also have many friends who come from different parts of the world, and I live in a multicultural family. All of this means that I have landed on the fact that one can never resolve the issue of exclusion if one does not work with a broad palette.

Mr. Speaker! Throughout all the years I have been a politician, I have perceived it as that many parties have had difficulty with concepts such as morality and ethics. When someone has spoken about values, it has been asserted that it is something that politics should stay away from, and that everyone is saved by their own faith.

In recent years, a change has occurred. Today, there are no companies or municipalities that do not speak of the need for a set of values. I welcome that change. At the same time, it is important to be clear about what kind of values one believes should characterize a company, a community, or a country.

For my part, I believe it is the Judeo-Christian ethics that create the best conditions for building a society where one emphasizes everyone's equal value as well as classical virtues such as the fact that we all have both rights and obligations. If we are to succeed with integration, it is important that we are clear about which values apply in our country. And it is in the heritage from Athens, Jerusalem, and Rome that the West has developed all the freedoms that we take for granted today.

Alongside clear values, it is when a person gets a job of their own that the big step into society begins. In the same way that equality between men and women is based on the opportunity to support oneself, the conditions for an equal and integrated society are created in the workplace.

That is why it is so important that we facilitate for people to enter the labor market as well as that we improve the conditions for studies. All research shows that the individual's education level determines what opportunities one has to get a job. We must therefore do everything we can so that children and young people succeed with their studies. We must also continue to give people the opportunity to further their education during their lives.

Good theoretical educations that provide the opportunity to study further at a university give people better conditions to take responsibility for their own lives. In the same way, it is with good vocational educations. There are several examples of individuals who have become stuck in social exclusion but who have received a good vocational education and thereby managed to improve life for themselves and their families.

At the same time as one educates oneself and gets a job, one also gets the opportunity to change one's housing situation. But, Mr. Speaker, this is one of our major problems. When one once in a while began building cities based on the idea of functionalist housing, segregation was automatically built into our cities. The very construction with villa areas, condominiums, rental apartments, trade and industries that are placed out in something resembling a Simcity game has created vulnerable areas.

No residential area should have more than a maximum of 30-40 percent rental apartments. Rental areas themselves unfortunately create a number of problems, as it is often those who arrive last to Sweden or who are entering the housing market who live in these apartments - which in itself was the very idea of categorical housing. But as soon as an individual or a new immigrant group succeeds in improving their circumstances, they move away from the area while at the same time someone else who is new moves in. This means that the residential area itself rarely achieves better development since it is, in principle, always those who are on their way somewhere else in life who live there at the moment.

This phenomenon also affects neighborhood schools, as most parents choose to place their children in the school closest to their home. A segregated neighborhood therefore also gets a segregated school, which in itself has led to us creating a society where segregation and exclusion are inherited.

If we are to succeed in creating a good society where no one is held back and no one is left behind, we must work with both safety issues, education, jobs, and housing segregation.

Even though I had hoped that there was some quick solution to break the exclusion, that does not exist, but instead we must work together with municipalities, the business community, civil society, the family, as well as the individual to break the exclusion over time. It is among other reasons why I myself am very happy that the trade union parties, together with the employers, are now working out establishment jobs.

I also want to tell two success stories.

In 2015, in the middle of the great and heavy crisis when people were fleeing from Syria, a Kurdish woman called me, who was then a school politician. She told me that she had 15 doctors sitting in the large room. I myself was tired. It was Monday and I had been at a group meeting. I wanted nothing more than to go home. But I just had to turn the car around and go and meet my Kurdish friend. Indeed—there sat the doctors. What I had not reflected on, which I should have done given what I had studied at university, was that precisely doctors from Syria have studied either in Italy and France or in Ukraine and Russia. Half of the doctors who sat in the room were within Erasmus and had the right grades.

In Uddevalla, we were able to create an adult education where we provided SFI at the same time as we provided healthcare Swedish and collaborated with the region. Today, when I go to my health center up at Dalaberg, it is one of the doctors who takes care of me. We must manage to get better at cooperating between the state and the municipality and between the business sector and politics if we are to manage this type of problem.

Mr. Speaker! We have previously had a debate on child support. Let me take another example of a success story. It concerns other pedagogical care, as the law says. It has given people the opportunity to take care of their own children themselves. It was a choice-based reform. Often we have debated this reform from the children's perspective – do they learn enough Swedish or not? I sat with one of my Somali friends a while ago, who thanked for this reform. But he thanked from a different perspective. He noted that several of the Somali women in Uddevalla who had never ever owned their own bank card got their first job and their first salary. Now that the children have grown up, lo and behold, they work with something else. They entered the labor market. They received a grade that told them they had accomplished something.

We must come together and get better at this type of cooperation. We will not solve this from the speakers' chairs in the Riksdag, and we will not solve it solely in the municipalities. But we will be able to cooperate and make Sweden a better country.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to integration policy, the government emphasizes that it is primarily through general measures for the whole society that the goals are achieved, which is an opinion that I share. At the same time, the government is making the following initiatives:

strengthening the work against honor-related violence and oppression

an investment in the sports movement in vulnerable areas, which I personally believe is extremely important

increased support for the organizing of women and girls in vulnerable areas

a long-term investment in preventive and health-promoting work within child and adolescent healthcare

more internship positions.

Alongside these initiatives, the government is working to increase safety in society and improve the quality of adult education. All of these are good measures, but I believe we need to do more, especially within the housing sector. Today's segregation has been established over decades, and unfortunately, it will take several years to work away the segregation, which is one of the reasons why we must do everything we can to provide all people with better conditions for education and jobs.

Mr. Speaker! Well aware that my speech will become a bit long, I nevertheless want to comment on the Tidö Agreement. I am a Christian Democrat. As such, I stand behind the natural law tradition, or the natural law philosophy, for those who can be bothered to Google it. In natural law, a legal tradition that to some extent is not so common in Sweden, where one has rather worked from the Uppsala School, there are a number of fundamental values. The UN Charter, the EU's various charters on human rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child are examples of natural law.

I am personally very proud of natural law and that it is gaining more influence in the Swedish political discussion. I want to point out in all humility that the Tidö Agreement is based on a number of investigations, but that everything is contingent on it being in accordance with ordinary traditional legal principles. It must be in accordance with EU law and human rights. These are important limitations that ensure that Sweden, with the current government, will stand firm on the legal tradition that is established in international law. This is something I am very proud of, Mr. Speaker.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I had intended to start by saying that after four years as a migration policy maker, it will be interesting to discuss and debate integration. But I can state that these areas are being mixed up even more than I thought.

Sweden has for a long time been characterized by a long-standing and serious social divide. It is a divide that cuts between people and between places, between those who have education, language, and work experience and those who do not have a job to go to, between on one hand prosperous and enterprising towns and on the other hand vulnerable neighborhoods and industrial towns. The freedom and opportunities in our country are far too unevenly distributed. One can only state that Sweden has major integration challenges. But it is also important to say that there are many successful examples where integration has functioned very well. For the successful examples to become more numerous, it is required that the integration perspective permeates the entire society and all policy areas.

In order for integration to improve, it needs to become easier and cheaper for companies to hire. Newcomers should be taught about Swedish society early on. This can involve practical matters, such as where to turn if one is in need of help, what the labor market looks like, and which rules and laws apply in our country. What we expect from newcomers and what newcomers can expect from society needs to be crystal clear. Those who need it must be able to receive further education and Swedish language instruction. It is of the utmost importance that newcomers do not get stuck in bureaucracy and long investigations.

We need to set requirements for those who come here, but we also need to set higher requirements for us as a society and as politicians to create the best possible conditions for a well-functioning integration. There is a large divide in Swedish politics. We have heard about this today. I genuinely believe that everyone who comes here and flees from war and oppression wants well. They want to learn Swedish. They want to come in and become a part of our common society. I do not believe it is the will that is wrong, but many times one does not get the conditions one needs.

For Sweden to stand strong, now and in the future, effective reforms are needed that improve our reception of newcomers with a clear focus on jobs. Getting the first job is the key to much, for example to economic freedom and to becoming even better at the Swedish language. I believe, in the name of honesty, that we should not underestimate the importance of getting colleagues, new acquaintances, and friends in one's new country.

Just as the first job many times is the key to a successful integration, good knowledge of the Swedish language many times is the key to getting that first important job. The quality of Swedish for immigrants, SFI, is not good enough. At the same time, there are many skilled educational providers who have proven to be very successful in teaching languages. Today, those who study SFI cannot choose a different educational provider than the municipality or the providers the municipality has procured. We therefore want a results-based SFI grant to be introduced. Those who learn Swedish will thus have the opportunity to choose where they want to study, and the educational provider will be paid through a school grant based on results. This has been investigated and can quickly become a reality if there is the will from the government.

The establishment reform, which moved the responsibility for the establishment of newcomers from the municipalities to Arbetsförmedlingen, has not led to the improvements that were the purpose, but rather the opposite. The municipalities should regain the responsibility for the establishment.

Mr. Speaker! Just as there is a gap in employment between foreign-born and domestic-born individuals, there is also a gap between foreign-born men and foreign-born women. Integration is therefore also a matter of equality, and here we have much to do. Especially foreign-born women who have fled their home country find it difficult to quickly enter employment. The initial period in Sweden is all too often dominated by the woman working at home, which significantly reduces the chances of entering the labor market. The time in parental leave should therefore be limited and language training should begin in parallel with any parental leave, for example with the help of the Center Party's proposal on the introduction of integration preschools.

It is important with clarity from the side of society when it comes to fundamental values regarding people's equal rights and worth. It is easy to say that those who come here should adapt. But we must also do our part. Economic compensations to households, such as financial assistance, should to a significantly greater extent be paid out equally between spouses. The response from authorities must also to a higher degree reflect that society has the same expectations of women and men to integrate, learn Swedish, and enter employment.

Mr. Speaker! It is probably no secret that I think there is an incredibly large amount in the Tidö Agreement that is directly bad politics. But I have promised myself to also look at the things that are actually good. When it comes to integration, it is difficult, because the Tidö Agreement echoes incredibly empty. Most of it is actually pure and simple migration policy. The reforms that integration is in such great need of are truly conspicuous by their absence.

But there are a couple of things that are actually good. One such thing is that the government is going to look at qualification into welfare. Newcomers need to contribute to a greater extent to the long-term financing of their own livelihood. One such example could be to turn the establishment allowance into an establishment loan, in a similar way as the CSN loan works for students.

Politics can do incredibly much better when it comes to integration issues. This applies to all parties in the Swedish Riksdag. There is often quarreling between the Moderates and the Social Democrats about whose fault it is. I can state that when it comes to integration, all parties have had too few answers to this very difficult and important question.

But for those who are new to Sweden, the association life and civil society are often completely decisive. There, they have often succeeded with what politics has failed with. There are networks, contacts, and job opportunities. Civil society has made and is making incredible efforts and often wants to do much more, but for that, better and more long-term conditions are required.

We really need to review how support for civil society can become more long-term. In far too many cases, it concerns short-term projects, which could be scaled up in both time and scope.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish integration needs, as has been said, to become much better. The expectations for newcomers need to become clearer, and the conditions for entering and becoming a part of our common Swedish society need to become even better. More young boys and girls need to see their mothers and fathers go to work every morning.

Integration is one of this mandate period's absolute most fateful issues. That is why the government has started [to be] worrying. Integration policy, in fact, is conspicuous by its absence in the Tidö Agreement.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's budget proposal for expenditure area 13. I want to state the following regarding the SD-led government's integration policy. Today's debate and the government's reform agenda in this area scares me. It takes us away from the tradition of humanism, justice, and tolerance that has characterized Sweden since the end of the Second World War.

For far too long, the debate on integration has been about everything other than integration. Instead of dealing with integration based on research and proven science, the debate has been about painting a picture that integration would be impossible, by repeatedly linking integration to crime and cultural burden.

The government and its supporting party link different phenomena together and make it sound as if immigration were synonymous with crime. The debate that should be about how people fleeing to Sweden can become a part of and contribute to our society is instead used as a link in a process to dehumanize immigrants. Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and the no longer so liberal Liberalerna have contributed strongly to shifting the focus from integration to instead making it about suspecting immigrants at all costs.

Mr. Speaker! Now this is no longer just a debate. Now it is no longer just a struggle over the formulation of the problem. Now SD's far-right policy is becoming a reality through the bourgeois government they remote-control. A paradigm shift is indeed occurring in Sweden; on that point, the blue-browns are completely right. This is clear when one reads the Tidö Agreement's section on migration and integration. I understand that the Sweden Democrats are now satisfied, when three bourgeois parties have promised to implement almost all of their integration and migration policy.

But the goal they have set up together with their puppet government is as clear as it is incomprehensible: Sweden shall become a worse country. Sweden shall become a country where no one wants to flee to. And in order to make Sweden worse as an asylum country, they need examples that illustrate that Sweden is a country that does not welcome refugees.

This upheaval naturally requires sacrifices. And those who are sacrificed are those who have an immigrant background, as well as all those who are a well-integrated part of society and who in many cases have lived their entire lives in Sweden - those who are born and raised here.

Mr. Speaker! In their eagerness to make Sweden as unattractive as possible, the blue-browns want to punish people instead of including them. They want to divide us into groups: citizens who shall have all rights and non-citizens who shall have no rights.

The proposal to qualify for welfare is headless and will make our country worse. Welfare rights such as child allowance, parental leave, supplementary financial assistance, and assistance allowance should not be given to those who need it but to those who deserve it.

These are not proposals that improve integration. They are proposals that are intended to make it uncomfortable to be in Sweden as an immigrant - all in order to set a deterrent example for asylum seekers. This will increase the gaps in our society, and it will lead to children growing up in poverty. It is unworthy of a welfare country.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats stand for an incredibly cold and cynical Sweden. Refugees are not welcome. Immigrants who live and work here are seen as a cultural burden and unwanted, and furthermore, they are singled out as the root cause of most of our societal problems.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that one can choose to make Sweden a worse country so that fewer people will want to live here. But we and many others want to make Sweden better. We want to improve integration instead.

An immigrant cannot be integrated if she is not included. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that newly arrived people are included in Swedish society early on through language skills, knowledge of society, and access to education, jobs, and housing. All these prerequisites are central to creating a secure future.

Equality and the establishment of newly arrived immigrants

What is Swedish can certainly be discussed, and one can have different opinions about it. But there are clear characteristics: a strong democracy that safeguards human rights, a general welfare for all, the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty. These have been important fundamental pillars for the shaping of Sweden as a humanitarian superpower.

The irony is the Sweden Democrats' obsession with Swedishness, while they and their politics today constitute the most un-Swedish thing we have seen. And that they, who call themselves friends of Sweden, want to make Sweden a country where no one wants to flee to or move to, I cannot comprehend.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, the Green Party's budget should be seen as a whole. Therefore, I abstain from a position and refer to the Green Party's specific statement.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

Labour market and working life

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