Migration

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now in the second half of the parliamentary term, and the Moderate-led government's paradigm shift in migration policy is being implemented at a high tempo.

We in the coalition parties are carrying out solid reform work where we are restructuring migration policy on a very broad front. The reforms we are working on include everything from reducing the pull factors to Sweden, for example by introducing qualification for welfare for newcomers and non-citizens, to tightening the requirements for obtaining Swedish citizenship, a strengthened return work through for example more internal foreign national controls, the establishment of return centers to reduce the shadow society, as well as conditional assistance so that countries will to a greater extent receive their own citizens who have been denied their asylum application in Sweden.

The work of the Moderate-led government is yielding results. The number of people seeking asylum in Sweden continues to decrease. In 2023, the number of asylum seekers decreased by approximately 25 percent compared to 2022, and so far this year, the number of asylum seekers has decreased by an additional approximately 25 percent. The Swedish Migration Agency estimates that the number of asylum seekers this year will be fewer than 10,000 people, compared to over 160,000 asylum seekers in 2015. In 2023, the number of those granted asylum-related residence permits, that is, asylum seekers and relatives of persons who have received asylum, was the lowest in the entire 2000s. This year, it has continued to decrease. It matters who governs Sweden.

Enacting laws in our country takes time and sometimes proceeds frustratingly slowly, especially when we as Moderates want to implement policy as soon as possible. But now the investigations appointed by the government are beginning to be presented, which means that the pace of the reform work will be significantly increased moving forward. That is good and important.

Migration

During 2025, we are streamlining both the reception of asylum seekers and the return of those who have been denied their asylum application. On March 1, a new law comes into force so that more asylum seekers will live at the Swedish Migration Agency's reception centers throughout the entire asylum process. Those who receive a yes will then be integrated into society, while those who receive a no will move to the Swedish Migration Agency's return centers to begin their journey home. In this way, we ensure that fewer people disappear into the shadow society, where they risk being harmed, exploited, and in the worst case, radicalized.

We are taking measures to address the shadow society and provide the police with means and tools to expand internal foreigners' controls. We continue to expand the number of detention centers. We increase the use of biometrics to increase control over who is present in Sweden. Additionally, we strengthen the Swedish Migration Agency's work with revocations of residence permits. This is very important work that received no focus from the Social Democratic government.

During the S-government's eight years in power, it gave Migrationsverket no goals, mandates, or reporting requirements regarding revocations. This has, among other things, led to hundreds of millions of kronor of taxpayers' money disappearing when benefits continued to be paid out to persons who have had or should have had their residence permits revoked. Since the Moderate-led government took office, Migrationsverket has been tasked with prioritizing the revocation work, and this has, among other things, resulted in a new organization with departments that exclusively handle revocations. Now we are strengthening the important work to get migration in order.

We are also taking measures to increase voluntary return. Those people who feel that they have not integrated into Sweden and wish to return to their home country shall be given better conditions to do so voluntarily.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates, together with our friends in the coalition parties, agree that immigration to Sweden needs to decrease if we are to manage integration and reduce exclusion. This is far from what can be said about the united opposition. S, V, C and MP are hardly in agreement on anything at all – especially not when it comes to migration policy.

The Social Democrats take every opportunity to trumpet that they want a strict migration policy, and they claim that in any future negotiations with other parties they will have red lines when it comes to deviating from the strict direction for the migration policy. How this is going to happen is a very interesting question given that their partners' starting points and demands in such a negotiation look very different.

To exemplify: Vänsterpartiet wants to return to the migration legislation as it looked before 2015, which contributed to more than 160,000 people applying for asylum in Sweden during one and the same year. They also want to introduce an amnesty for those foreigners who have not followed legally binding decisions to leave the country, that is, those who are illegally present here in Sweden.

But for Vänsterpartiet, it is not enough to increase immigration to Sweden. They also want to increase immigration to the European Union by, among other things, increasing the number of quota refugees. This year, the EU receives approximately 15,000 quota refugees. Vänsterpartiet dreams that the EU should receive at least half a million quota refugees per year. The Left's migration policy is totally detached from reality - and this is, according to the opinion polls that exist, the Socialdemokraternas largest coalition partner.

Miljöpartiet wants to return to the previous more generous goal for migration, which the Riksdag replaced with a restrictive goal a year ago. They want to reintroduce the use of permanent residence permits and make it easier to become a citizen in Sweden.

Centerpartiet wants to return to the incredibly generous regulatory framework for low-skilled labor immigration, which ensures that people come from the other side of the world to perform simpler jobs in Sweden while we here in the country have nearly half a million unemployed people who need to get into work.

Mr. Speaker! In September this year, Dagens Nyheter reported a review of how the opposition votes in migration policy. The review shows a gigantic split between the opposition parties. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have voted with the government less than one time out of ten. Centerpartiet has only voted with the government six times out of ten.

It is easy for the Social Democrats to vote yes to the strict migration policy that the Moderate-led government is presenting, but to present the same policy themselves, together with the Left Party, the Center Party, and the Green Party, is an impossible task. That these parties would agree to a strict migration policy is a social democratic illusion that will never be realized. This is important consumer information for the voters ahead of the 2026 election.

One can also look back to the time when the Social Democrats actually sat in government. At that time, on 20 unique occasions just during the years 2017-2022, one voted yes to a more generous migration policy or no to a more restrictive migration policy. It is not possible to conduct a strict migration policy together with Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet. It is an impossibility.

So to everyone who wants a strict immigration policy, which we know is a significant majority of the Swedish people, I want to say: Do not be deceived by the Social Democrats' so-called red lines within migration policy!

We have seen it before. The Social Democrats always bow to their coalition partners' demands when it comes down to it. Government power is more important than anything else for the Social Democrats - the issues come second. The only guarantee that Sweden will have a strict migration policy that enables us to manage integration is a Moderate-led government that puts the issues first.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally want to approve the committee's proposal, that is to say the government's proposal regarding expenditure area 8. Now the work continues to make Sweden richer and safer.

(Applause)

In this speech, Caroline Högström (M) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In 2021, the Taliban took back power in Afghanistan. In Sweden, there were already many refugees from Afghanistan, as well as persons with origins in Afghanistan who had been refugees in neighboring countries such as Iran for many years and then moved to Sweden, not least in 2015.

After the Taliban took power, the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts continued for a long time to deport women as well to the Taliban's Afghanistan. In some cases, this was done with the justification that it was not dangerous for women to be in Afghanistan if they adapted to the country's customs and traditions, that is, to the Taliban's terrible oppression.

Then came a decision that no woman should be deported to Afghanistan. The decision was made by Migrationsverket. Overnight, Afghanistan went from being a country to which Sweden deported women to a country to which no woman was deported. Just a short time before Migrationsverket changed its mind, there were therefore women who had been given a no, and then it became a yes.

This is, I believe, one of the clearest examples of when the rule of law fails and the mantra that a no is a no is no longer true; overnight, no became yes.

We disagree on much, but I want to ask Viktor Wärnick: Does he think that legal certainty in the asylum process needs to be strengthened?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe there are always reasons to uphold the rule of law and ensure that it improves and maintains quality - of course, it is in that way.

But I am also for an orderly migration policy, where the authorities - Migrationsverket - and the courts are responsible for the application of the law and it is thus not the Riksdag's task to decide individual cases or decide whether a person meets the requirements to be granted protection status and a residence permit. I think it is an important principle that the policy does not judge in individual cases.

With this said, I also want to say that in the case of regulated immigration, circumstances can change and assessments can be altered. But the person seeking asylum in Sweden has the right, on a number of occasions, to have their case reviewed in different instances, for example in the event of a rejection. That order is important to safeguard.

There is reason to keep an eye on legal certainty and on the application, but we will not agree to point out individual cases or areas and go in and make judgments about the Swedish Migration Agency's and the courts' assessments in those matters.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Then I wonder why the Moderates deleted the word legal certainty in the Migration Agency's regulatory letter - if one thinks that this is always important. Why did they remove that word completely in the assignment that was given to the Migration Agency?

Mr. Speaker! The answer from Viktor Wärnick still raises a number of additional questions. He says that he does not intend to agree to point out certain groups or cases here in the Riksdag where the Swedish Migration Agency should act in a certain way. That is very interesting. I received an answer from the Minister for Migration as recently as yesterday on a question. He said that the government shall prevent the Swedish Migration Agency from making decisions in citizenship cases in accordance with current legislation. Citizenship cases are, after all, individual cases.

This, Mr. Speaker, is very concerning. I wish the government had refrained from stepping in and pointing out that the Swedish Migration Agency should be prevented from making decisions in individual cases, more consistently, so to speak.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is important that we safeguard the principle that it is we as legislators who enact laws, but that it is not we who are to handle the administration of justice. That is to be done by our authorities and by our courts. I hope that the Green Party also stands behind this – I know that the Green Party fundamentally stands behind it.

The problem is only that the Green Party's seven years in government position meant a lack of legal certainty on many levels, with different types of special legislation. The Secondary School Act is an example. It was a failure from beginning to end. The Green Party, in its great eagerness, wanted to single out a specific group as particularly sympathetic. It was an amnesty for a specific group. We shall not engage in such things in Swedish migration policy.

We shall enact a law. We shall establish what is called requirements, i.e., what is required for someone to be considered in need of protection. The person who is not in need of protection shall leave the country. Legal certainty exists, fundamentally, for all authorities and for the courts to follow. It follows from the Swedish constitution. It follows from the Administrative Procedure Act. This is always included. Of course, it is that way.

Regarding the citizenship legislation, it can be stated that Miljöpartiet has now opposed every step when it comes to ensuring that it is tightened. This involves, for example, ensuring that someone who is a child or young and who has applied for citizenship should not be able to receive it automatically. We are, therefore, not going to insist on that one receives it automatically even if one is a criminal. This we changed on 1 October, and Miljöpartiet voted no to that legislation.

We will continue to reform the citizenship legislation. We, the coalition parties together, have stated that it is important that we now also try to get the handling of citizenship cases in order. There is reason to review this so that we stop scattering citizenship until we have reformed the system.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to raise three parts of the Social Democratic migration policy.

The first part is about strengthening the focus on return. A no must be a no, and a yes must be a yes. Those who have the right to stay shall receive support and help to integrate. Therefore, it is important that we safeguard the intentions in the Settlement Act. It is also important that we set language requirements in order to obtain a permanent residence permit.

That a no must be a no also means that the return activities need to have clear goals. We want more traceable goals to exist for the Swedish Migration Agency and other authorities to work towards. We think it is unfortunate that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are moving forward with large investments in return migration that cost more than they are worth. We believe that those resources could be allocated to return activities instead.

The second part is connected to the return. It is about EBO. Abolishing EBO is an important issue for the Social Democrats and has been so for very many years. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to achieve success with this because we have had a large majority, dominated by the right, in the Riksdag that has blocked our attempts at this. We achieved some success during the last parliamentary term by having certain socially disadvantaged areas be exempted from EBO. But for us, it has constantly been a priority goal to abolish EBO.

The government's proposal, which is to be debated here in the near future, is good. But we mean that it does not go far enough. We wish that one had gone even further. We will continue to fight so that EBO will eventually be abolished - for real.

The last part concerns labor immigration. For us, a needs-based labor immigration is the only real solution to the question of getting the right labor in the right place in Sweden. In our eyes, a needs-based labor immigration is the only way to completely get order and clarity in the migration policy.

Until we can have such a means test in place, we need to do more to try to manage the current situation with supply requirements. Therefore, we believe that an investigation should be conducted into whether this can be done dispositively. With such an arrangement, we would push more power out to the parties. They would then have a large scope to locally provide conditions and opportunities for decent jobs and good coverage of the competence needs that the companies have. It would simply strengthen the Swedish model.

In line with this, we want to increase the sanction fees for those employers who abuse the system and who behave improperly. It should cost to exploit vulnerable people.

We also see that there is a great need to strengthen the work with the controls of A 1-certificates, Mr. Speaker. These certificates regulate the payments of social security contributions, so this is a key issue in order to address the dumping of wages and conditions on the Swedish labor market. Posted labor must never compete out fair conditions on the Swedish labor market. In Sweden, all jobs shall be fair jobs, and all employees have rights and obligations that must be fulfilled.

Försäkringskassan should be given a much clearer mandate in this part. And Arbetsmiljöverket's posting register should be better synchronized with Försäkringskassan.

Mr. Speaker! For the Social Democrats, a long-term sustainable migration policy is of great importance. For us, it is about pursuing a strict policy where integration works, where the labor market is preserved, and where people are given an honest chance to enter and establish themselves in the country if they have the right to be here.

If they do not have the right to be here, they shall of course leave the country. Workers, both Swedish and foreign, shall work under fair conditions and with fair wages. The companies shall have their need for personnel met, and everyone shall know that competition takes place on fair and decent terms.

I want to conclude by stating that we stand by our specific statement.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats often claim to stand behind a strict migration policy. They speak carefully about red lines towards their intended government partners V, MP and C. With the Social Democrats, no increase in immigration will indeed be allowed – that is what they want to convey.

The problem is just that it is not particularly credible. Social Democrats have shown this before and will show it again. Government power is most important of all. The substantive issues come in second.

Vänsterpartiet wants, as has been said, that Sweden should return to the migration legislation that applied before the asylum crisis in 2015 and which contributed to over 160,000 people seeking asylum here that year. They also want to carry out an amnesty for all who have illegally hidden here for a long enough time. Vänsterpartiet is the Social Democrats' largest coalition party in a future socialist government.

Miljöpartiet wants, among other things, to see a more generous migration policy and a return to the use of permanent residence permits instead of time-limited ones, and they want to lower the requirements for obtaining citizenship.

The Center Party is also not a particularly strict party when it comes to migration policy - on the contrary.

It is these parties that the Social Democrats will have to form a government cooperation with if the misfortune were to occur after the next election. Do the Social Democrats believe that the Swedish people fall for the party's talk about so-called red lines within migration policy?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Can Viktor Wärnick mention who it is that has spoken about red lines within the migration policy?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The person who has mentioned this is the person who has been tasked with, so to speak, reforming the Social Democrats' migration policy, namely Lawen Redar. In Ekot's Saturday interview, she was very clear that it shall not be allowed to move in any more generous direction regarding migration policy. It is a Social Democratic red line.

That is why it is so important to ask questions about this red line. I understand that the Social Democrats think this is a bit awkward and a bit tedious to hear, but it is relevant, because it matters. We need to know what this means. The voters need to know if the Social Democrats themselves believe that these red lines will be possible to uphold at all when they stand there and are stumbling close to—if misfortune were to strike—taking office at Rosenbad again.

The question to Ola Möller and the Social Democrats remains: Do the Social Democrats believe that the Swedish people will accept the party's red lines?

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Viktor Wärnick for the clarification - I was not sure what he was referring to.

Lawen Redar has led a working group in the party. The person who signs for the party is Magdalena Andersson. It is her one should listen to - and Anders Ygeman, who is the migration policy spokesperson.

"Works"? For us, it is obvious that we should have a strict migration policy as long as we need to have it, and it looks like we will need it for the foreseeable future. That we can succeed in putting together a stricter migration policy, we showed, for example, in the Migration Committee during the previous parliamentary term. It was we who overhauled the migration policy after the Moderaternas liberalizations of it. We have shown that we can do it.

However, we are not prepared to bypass certain other things. We are not prepared to withdraw favorable administrative decisions, that is to say, revoke people's permanent residence permits, or do stupid things like the investigator suggests regarding this with return migration and such things. That type of measures, which are ineffective and violate Swedish legal tradition, we are not prepared to try. It is not strict migration policy; it is stupid migration policy. But for us, it is obvious that we do not intend to let it happen so that we get a failure like the alliance government saw to the country getting.

Viktor Wärnick is very worried about who we should cooperate with. But in Viktor Wärnick's government base, there are only two parties left, as it looks now. He talks about his party's largest cooperation party. The Moderates perhaps should look at their smallest cooperation party. As it looks now, Viktor Wärnick will stand here with 40 percent of the voter support behind him, if the opinion polls hold. If Viktor Wärnick had worried more about his own government base, I think it would have benefited him.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I assume I may disappoint Ola Möller a little. We are probably a party that will appear in this Riksdag even after the next general election. One should not stare fixedly at all opinion polls.

I would like to think it is somewhat remarkable that the person who is the spokesperson in this debate, the main debate we are having on migration, does not want to comment on or reflect on either the Social Democrats' background in the issue or the future. There are probably quite a few of us who listened to the Saturday interview that Ola Möller does not seem to have listened to, where Lawen Redar expressed quite a lot based on a report. I want to quote her. She says that the Social Democrats voted incorrectly during their period in government. In the report, it is pointed out to the party leadership that it is an acute situation. In the same interview, Lawen Redar also says that she supports the government's tightening of migration policy.

Ola Möller usually in his speeches - it was not so today - says that the Social Democrats started the turnaround and laid the foundation for the fact that migration policy in Sweden is good. It is then very strange that the internal report shows and says something else and that the spokesperson in this Saturday's interview comes to a completely different conclusion.

I would like Ola Möller, despite everything, to reflect on what Lawen Redar says: that a strict migration policy is needed from parties that want to cooperate with the Social Democrats, and that she does not agree with the internal critics who argue that the party leadership's tougher rhetoric on immigration is problematic. Is it the case that Ola Möller sees a future migration policy that goes in Lawen Redar's direction?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am fascinated that we are going to stand and discuss individual reports, working groups' free thoughts and what Lawen Redar has said. Lawen Redar is not the spokesperson in these matters. It is an inaccuracy. It is Anders Ygeman who is the spokesperson. I say it for the sake of the parliamentary protocol.

When it comes to the strict migration policy, it is in that way that it was we who turned things around, and Ingemar Kihlström knows that. We have talked about it many times in here, so I thought that we do not need to repeat it. It was also the case that it was we who appointed the Migration Committee, which came up with the basis for the policy that was initiated and which significantly lowered the asylum numbers here in the country. Furthermore, the reforms that have been made during the first half of this mandate period have mainly been based on investigations that the Socialdemokraterna appointed. Therefore, the voting pattern that Viktor Wärnick mentioned in his speech is completely natural. It is clear that we think that the policy for which we ourselves have appointed investigations in many respects is reasonable.

For us, the direction has been clear. We will continue to pursue a strict migration policy. I completely agree with Lawen on that, if it matters what Lawen Redar and I have for mutual views when it is not Lawen Redar who decides on the Social Democrats' policy. That is what our party congress in May does. After that party congress, one can come and ask about the direction. A background report is not what decides the policy. I do not quite understand this focus on that report. Which decisions in the Social Democrats' committee motion, which constitutes the Social Democratic migration policy, is it that Ingemar Kihlström is critical of?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I still think it is a bit strange that as a spokesperson in the debate on migration, one claims that it is someone else who has the responsibility. When I stand here in the chamber, I have been given the trust to speak for the party.

I also think it is remarkable that Ola Möller implies that the person the party sends forward in a Saturday interview does not speak on behalf of the party. I am relaying what Lawen Redar has concluded in this report. It is stated that the Social Democrats have pursued a policy that has gone in the wrong direction and need to pivot. They have 86 reform proposals. But Ola Möller dismisses her party colleague by saying that it is not she who signs the firm.

I can state that the Social Democrats are aligning themselves closely with the government's policy on migration. The big question we have here is: What will the direction be after the election if it—against all probability and against my own wish—were to become a Social Democratic base for the government? Will it, as Lawen says, be red lines, so that one must agree to the stricter migration policy if one is to cooperate with the Social Democrats?

Let us look at the committee report we are now debating! Just within the distribution of economic resources, it diverges in all directions. The Social Democrats are lying on their backs exactly like the government. The Centre Party has a few million less. The Left Party and the Green Party have more. Then it is not strange that we wonder in the debate: What is the direction forward for the Social Democrats and for the government base that the Social Democrats see? I still think this is relevant. Does Ola Möller Lawen share Redar's criticism? She says: We had the wrong policy before, and we need to change it.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have responded to this. Lawen Redar thinks something in a report. It is refreshing and good that we have an internal political debate. I share the opinion that we should have a strict migration policy, and I have also expressed that. Whether all of Lawen Redar's proposals are good or bad is impossible to answer, because there are so many of them. There is a huge amount of good in that report. I actually do not understand this.

We do not send people out for Saturday interviews. It is the media that asks if you want to participate. It is not the case that we decide who is to sit in a Saturday interview. I do not quite understand what kind of image of the media Kihlström has.

In other respects, one can be calm - we have overhauled the migration policy. We did that in 2015 with the Migration Committee. We tightened it. Asylum applications fell. We have commissioned a lot of inquiries which the government has now delivered strict policies on, which shows that exactly what we have wanted to do has worked. It is the way forward that is now up for discussion.

Shall we continue and grant permanent residence permits? Shall we throw away a lot of money on bad reforms regarding repatriation? Shall we occupy ourselves with throwing out prostitutes, addicts, and others from the country? That is the discussion that is coming now, and that is where it becomes interesting.

A strict migration policy is not synonymous with the Tidö Agreement. We Social Democrats have very clearly pursued a strict migration policy since 2015, and even before that. Many times this occurred in cooperation with the Moderaterna, before they, together with the Kristdemokraterna, overhauled the Swedish migration policy so that it completely collapsed when there was a large wave of refugees in 2015.

I think it is better to look at what we have actually done since 2015. If Lawen Redar is critical of that, she can stand by that. I think it is good that the Social Democrats have tightened migration policy in Sweden.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In my speech, Ola Möller criticized the government's proposal, or rather the investigation we have received regarding a new reception law concerning an abolition of EBO. The criticism is based on the fact that Ola Möller - I assume - does not think the proposal goes far enough. There is still a possibility to live in one's own housing, even though one will have a duty of attendance at the accommodation assigned by Migrationsverket. I suspect that is how the criticism is to be understood.

There is a reason why we have not been able to completely abolish the possibility of having one's own accommodation to some extent. That is because there are EU law rules here. A decision that a person must stay at a certain accommodation during the entire assessment period is counted as detention. There are clear limitations on how the member states may use the detention instrument specifically when it concerns asylum seekers. The EU law rules come, among other things, from the Social Democrats and their friends in the European Parliament and in other governments in the EU.

Ola Möller criticizes our proposal because it does not go far enough. The reason why it cannot go as far as Ola Möller would like it to is the legislative proposals at the EU level that the Social Democrats support.

Can Ola Möller admit that it was a mistake to push for the European rules that make the reforms he now advocates for impossible?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the word "vistas," we have not said that one should stay there all the time, but it is about where one should live. It is about proportionality, whether one should live alone or not, and there it is our view that one can go further than what the government proposes in the bill that will be handled here.

The Social Democrats argue that in such cases one can challenge the EU rules. Then we shall have to do that. We can try to introduce this and see if we are convicted in the EU Court. It is nothing that the Sweden Democrats have held back from when it has concerned, for example, the reduction obligation, climate goals and other things. I am therefore a little surprised that the Sweden Democrats do not think it is reasonable to go further and test it. If we should then be forced to back down, we have at least tried.

We think it is a destructive order with EBO and that asylum seekers can choose to live exactly where they want in the country.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can start by correcting Ola Möller directly: No, you cannot. You cannot carry out what the Social Democrats propose, because it contradicts the rules on storage. It is completely obvious to everyone who has a basic knowledge of what these rules say.

To challenge the EU's regulatory framework on this point would simply be foolish. It would mean that our own laws would be struck down and that we would then have to start over from the beginning with new investigations and new legislative preparations. Then we would need to redo the regulatory framework so that it aligns with the Union's aki. It would be idiotic.

The question remains, then. Ola Möller refuses to answer whether he thinks it was a mistake to push through the rules at the EU level that now make what he would like to see in Sweden illegal. I take the silence as an implicit yes - because it was a mistake, Ola Möller!

To be fair, however, I shall not only blame the Social Democrats. It is a fact that the large EPP group has been just as responsible for this in the European Parliament. The Moderates' and Christian Democrats' group therefore bear just as much of the responsibility, so I am not pointing the finger specifically at the Social Democrats. I also believe that they, if you asked them, would agree that it was indeed a mistake to have those types of limitations regarding the use of detention during the years when the common European asylum system was being developed. I believe they would admit it.

I ask the question again and give Ola Möller a chance. Ola Möller wants us to practically apply detention to these persons, that is, that we should have a designated residence where they shall stay during the entire asylum period. This is illegal today. I would have wished that it were not, because I would gladly have used that type of rule.

I ask a simple question to Ola Möller, and I want an honest answer. Was it a mistake to push through the rules that now make the rules Ola Möller himself wants to see illegal? Yes or no?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since I make a different interpretation of the legislation and believe that one can go further, I am not of the opinion that it is a mistake - not until it is, in that case, clarified in a court, for then one can indeed discuss it.

The problem with Ludvig Aspling is that he believes he is a total interpreter of all existing law. He does this time and again, and it often turns out that he is very wrong. In this case, there are both EU countries, for example Denmark, and other countries, for example Norway, that do not allow asylum seekers to live anywhere. It is about not creating detention, as Ludvig Aspling touched upon. It is based on the issue of stay and proportionality.

The fundamental problem for Ludvig Aspling is that he is so confident in his own greatness that he always portrays himself as a total interpreter of all law. Most of the time, however, Ludvig Aspling is wrong, and I am prepared to go further to see whether Ludvig Aspling is right or wrong. But Ludvig Aspling has already solved everything. He knows everything and is not prepared to test. This means that we will retain the problems that EBO actually entails with increased segregation, which is built on the problems we have in Sweden.

Ludvig Aspling's recklessness and self-righteousness mean that Sweden will also in the future suffer from a system that does not work.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! During the first exchanges, it was wondered for a while whether the debate was actually about expenditure area 8 Migration or possibly about Lawen Redar's internal Social Democratic report. I still intended to take us back to the budget debate and ask a question to Ola Möller that concerns money.

How far does 71 kronor go? It is one of the questions of migration policy. Just 71 kronor a day is indeed the amount that asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees are to live on during their first time in Sweden. These 71 kronor are supposed to cover food, clothes, travel, medicines, doctor visits, shampoo, hygiene products, and toys for the children. I cannot even get a lunch for 71 kronor here in Stockholm.

We in Miljöpartiet have once again stated in our proposal that the level must be raised. There is a minimum level in the national standard for the maintenance support regarding what people in Sweden should manage on. We believe that the daily allowance for asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees who are not registered in the population register should not be lower than the minimum level that has been set.

I wonder if the Social Democrats agree that it is not possible to live on 71 kronor a day and why, then, you have still not increased the daily allowance in your budget.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! In line with the shift in migration policy to focus on residential housing instead of EBO, the daily allowance will play out a bit of its role as it does today. When we have the new system in place, we will then have to review the daily allowance and see if the 71 kronor are sufficient when housing, rooms, and everything else is provided by the residential housing.

Then it is a truth with modifications that it is only 71 kronor; I believe that 1 million special payments were made in 2023 just because people applied for extra money for a jacket or similar. It is therefore not quite as simple as it being 71 kronor a day, but one receives support for necessities if one applies for it. Then we can discuss whether it is an efficient system to have a lot of applications to be processed and so on, but now it is the order we have.

We would, for example, like to discuss this with the Moderaterna and see if they would be interested in reviewing the daily allowance, but the fundamental issue is, after all, that the need to increase the daily allowance is decreasing because we are restructuring EBO and moving people into residential facilities. We would like to see the development in that.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I know that the Social Democrats want to move away from this with own housing, but I think it is still the system we have now. Even if one were to carry out such a reform, it would probably take some time, and I wonder if the Social Democrats, during the time that the system still remains, could be prepared to admit that the allowance must be raised - completely regardless of what the Moderates think on the matter.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for discussing the budget and not Saturday interviews, Annika Hirvonen!

It is de facto that we believe a long-term perspective is needed in this. It is not good to have a jerkiness in migration policy, and that was, among other things, why we appointed the Migration Committee to try to find broad agreements here in the Riksdag. Fundamentally, we also got most of it through in that committee, and in some way, that is positive.

That is why I mean that it would have been good if the government had raised the issue and we could have discussed it, so that we could have agreed on how we should proceed. It would also not be good if the compensation was raised one year and then someone lowered it the next year, but it is important to have long-term perspective in migration policy.

Somewhere we want to see the development here. Had we wanted to raise the daily allowance, we would have done so in our budget proposal, so the answer to Annika Hirvonen's question is well, actually no.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A few months ago, our committee undertook a trip to Italy to study how that country works with the issues we are debating here today. For many of us who participated in the trip, I believe it was somewhat of an eye-opener.

We even had to learn a word in Italian: caporalato. According to an NGO that we met, it is a well-organized system for brokering illegal migrants as labor. Italy's agricultural sector is today one of the EU's most competitive, largely thanks to cheap, illegal labor that is present there and which is brokered by the famous Italian mafia.

I remember that when we talked about this, I thought: "How lucky that we in Sweden don't have anything resembling this!" But that is not quite true. According to some calculations, Italy has about twice as many illegal migrants as Sweden, which might sound like a lot until one remembers that Italy also has a population that is a total of six times larger than ours. But unlike in Italy, it is not mainly the mafia but others, largely also Swedish municipalities, who exploit the illegal labor force that exists here.

We know that companies such as restaurants, construction sites, and cleaning companies are staffed by people who do not have the right to stay in Sweden. We also know that the municipalities turn a blind eye to the fact that suppliers providing services to them do the same. Many unscrupulous business owners probably think to themselves: If the Social Democrats' party leader, then Sweden's Prime Minister, can utilize cheap, illegal labor for the cleaning of her luxury villa without it having any consequences whatsoever for her—well, why wouldn't it go well for me to do the same? The fish rots from the head, Mr. Speaker.

For the first time in Sweden's modern history, the government is now attempting to settle this. The coalition parties are attacking the issue systematically and from a broad perspective. The investigations we commissioned at the beginning of the mandate period are now starting to deliver, and two weeks ago we received a new legislative package that is to handle precisely Sweden's version of caporalato.

There will be a duty of task for six strategic agencies to detect illegal persons, with the exception of school, social services, and healthcare - just as we have agreed. There will be new rules for internal immigration controls, which will now be able to be carried out on an intelligence basis. It is an important tool to reach illegal migrants at workplaces in Sweden.

There will be new rules for house searches to access ID documents, which illegal migrants often hide. There will also be new powers to search through phones and find other ID documents that migrants often hide. There will be a completely new foreigners database with fingerprints and facial images of all migrants who apply for residence permits in Sweden, and last but not least, there will be the use of fingerprints in citizenship cases to see if those who apply for citizenship have been involved in crimes.

As late as today, a new investigation was submitted regarding preventing fraud and abuse of residence permits for studies. It is proposed there that we should limit the number of hours students are allowed to work to 15, which would naturally be very good for countering the phenomenon that all of us in the committee are well acquainted with, namely that people bypass the regulated labor migration by in practice purchasing a student visa at a Swedish university.

This is just a small appetizer to the full-scale banquet of changes that is underway, Mr. Speaker. Like children at Christmas, we can all look forward to hearty crackers containing deliberations on tightened and modernized rules on citizenship, deportation due to lack of livelihood, deportation due to crime, the possibility of taking persons into custody, family immigration, qualification for welfare, etc., etc.

Furthermore, the 2024 Freedom and Rights Committee will soon submit its report, Mr. Speaker, where one of the issues that has been investigated concerns the revocation of citizenship. The report has not been submitted and adjusted yet, so the Chamber must wait until that is done.

In other words, the entire new social democratic social contract, which is based on mass immigration and benefit corruption in exchange for clan votes, is being dismantled. Step by step, we are making Sweden good again.

Mr. Speaker! Since we debated the corresponding report last year, other really pleasant and interesting things have also happened. A wave of common sense is currently washing over Europe.

Before the summit on October 17, the then-candidate for the position of Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, announced that she intended to run on finding new, innovative ways to manage irregular migration. This is something that many interpret as a euphemism for the externalization of the asylum process in some form. It could, after all, happen in many different ways.

She also promised to facilitate the introduction of so-called return hubs, i.e., places where persons who for some reason cannot be deported to their home countries can be moved while waiting for them to voluntarily return home. This is something that is urgently needed in almost all countries in the European Union.

Similar thoughts are also expressed in several places in the Union. The supposedly liberal government in Poland, which I know many in this chamber welcomed, has decided to completely abolish the right to seek asylum at the border with Belarus. The German Christian Democrats are flirting with the idea of abolishing the right to asylum altogether, and the Italian government is working purposefully to stop human smuggling by establishing cooperation agreements with the southern neighborhood.

Why is all of this happening now? Why is it that we can see the outlines of a paradigm shift even at the European level? Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is because the old famous words from Abraham Lincoln are still true: You can fool all the people sometimes, and you can fool parts of the people all the time – but you can never fool all the people all the time.

The constant stream of lies about the benefits of mass immigration that I and the rest of the people on this continent have been subjected to throughout our entire lives - at least if you are of my age - is falling more and more on deaf ears. People are not buying this anymore - that is why this is happening.

Mr. Speaker! I shall move from the large to the small. I must say something about the budget, for that is, in fact, why we are here.

What is happening in our dear state budget? The coalition parties are presenting initiatives in the migration area, including what is probably the largest individual anti-corruption initiative in recent decades. I also want to take this opportunity to move for approval of the committee's proposal.

We have an initiative of 100 million kronor to reclaim residence permits that have been granted or maintained in violation of the rules. This initiative began to yield results already last year – then we reclaimed approximately twice as many residence permits as the year before. Similar projects are also ongoing within other agencies, for example, the Pensions Agency. There, the work against corruption is being escalated, which is yielding results.

We will get more defense positions and an increased return of people who have lived in long-term exclusion. We will also get fast and smooth processes for the migration we actually want. One must remember that there is immigration that makes Sweden better - this primarily concerns highly qualified labor and certain students.

In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the committee's secretariat for a well-executed trip. It was very pleasant. I also want to thank the other participants on the trip – it was very pleasant to socialize with them during the time the trip lasted. I would also like to wish the Chamber a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! To work out communicative and populist proposals that attract voters is one thing. To implement policy, take responsibility and achieve improvement is something else entirely.

The Sweden Democrats have now had large parts of their migration policy passed. It is a great victory for the Sweden Democrats. But now the proposals that they have cobbled together in their chamber are to become reality, and then it does not go as well.

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

As if this were not enough, we have the return grant. We can state that even this proposal was rejected by the investigator, who argued that it would be very cost-driving and ineffective.

When the Sweden Democrats' policy is to be tested in reality, it is being sawn down. The only thing they succeed in is to exacerbate the division in society - that there is a "we" and a "them" and that not everyone is equally worthy in Swedish society. People with a foreign background are made to not feel welcome in Sweden.

Will the Sweden Democrats listen to the investigations, or will you continue to push cost-driving proposals with poor effect that only exacerbate the division of Sweden?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I noted that Jonny Cato started by saying that there is a difference between having visions and being able to implement them in practice; that was roughly how I interpreted it. I am old enough to remember what this chamber looked like during the previous mandate period, when the Center Party's visions led to a collapsed government and to the loss of budget votes. I do not believe that Jonny Cato is the right person to provide the lesson he is now trying to teach others.

Regarding the duty of disclosure, Jonny Cato has not read the directives. I do not reproach him for that – he almost never reads the documents that come from the committees when we debate. It did not state that the Sweden Democrats had demanded to have full duty of disclosure pushed through in the activities that were now exempted, but it stated that the issue should be illuminated from all sides and that nothing should be exempted in advance. There were, however, no requirements from any side regarding which sectors should be included or excluded. I can add that this is a political agreement based on the result that was reached before this report was submitted.

The investigator did not state that this would have no effect – that is completely wrong. Jonny Cato obviously has not read the investigation either. The proposals in the report I mentioned in my previous speech concern, among other things, the duty of information between the six strategic agencies. We have incredibly good proposals regarding a foreigners database with fingerprints and facial images. We also have incredibly good proposals regarding the possibilities to search, for example, communication equipment, which is extremely important to be able to identify who a person actually is.

The investigator states, for example, that the obligation to provide information to Skatteverket will have a specifically large effect, because Skatteverket has a very large amount of the information that is needed.

Nothing in Jonny Cato's question is correct. I am not surprised by this, but I welcome him to try again.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! If one googles power techniques, Ludvig Aspling's name will surely come up. It is always the case that no one else can do anything and no one else has read anything. It is always Ludvig Aspling's answers to all problems in this chamber. To be honest, it is quite unsightly for the party that is supposed to be the government's heaviest party.

Since Ludvig Aspling gave me a reprimand because I had not read the committee's documents on the reporting law, I can say this: The committee has no documents on the reporting law. Investigation directives come from the government, and then investigators work out the whole thing. If we are now going to stand here and reprimand each other about how Swedish public administration works, perhaps Ludvig Aspling can say which committee documents I should have read.

However, I can state that there were a number of exceptions in the investigation commissioned by the Social Democrats, for example, school staff and healthcare staff. The Sweden Democrats demanded that the exceptions should not be included in the investigation directives from the beginning – that is why there were no exceptions in the investigation directives. In that case, it is simply a matter of stating that the Sweden Democrats were wrong and that it is not good politics for teachers, doctors, and nursing assistants to have to report people?

We also have the investigation on return migration grants, where the investigator actually states that this is ineffective policy. If I haven't read the investigation on the disclosure act, Ludvig Aspling hasn't read the investigation on return migration grants. It is very clear that this does not have any effect. It is also very clear that the investigator states that this hinders the splitting of Sweden.

Is Ludvig Aspling worried that his rhetoric fuels the splitting and division of Sweden, or does it matter all the same to him?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That is absolutely not what I am worried about. I must also interject that the biggest problem this country has had over the last 20-30 years is that people like Jonny Cato and several others here do not dare to call a spade a spade. They adapt their rhetoric to what they believe works and scores points in the media or in the general debate. That is not how we work, Jonny Cato, and that is precisely why we have 20 percent and you do not have 20 percent.

Let us move on to the question itself. No, the investigator does not say that the return grant is not effective or that it would not work. What he says is that it might potentially harm integration in Sweden in such a way that foreigners would feel unwelcome. This is total nonsense, and everyone who knows someone who has roots in another country knows that.

I have many in my circle who are relatively new immigrants in Sweden. Not one person I have ever met shares this perception. The people who come from other countries are very often concerned that we should have a functioning society, just as I and - I hope - Jonny Cato are. When we have people who find themselves in a long-term exclusion - who go year after year in Sweden without being able to speak Swedish, without managing their own livelihood and without entering society - it is actually better if one sees that the integration policy has a better horizon.

When we have tried and tried and tried and it hasn't worked, it is actually better that one returns home. It is not that strange, it is not controversial, and it is definitely not inefficient politics. We have an agreement on somewhere around 350,000 kronor, and a family living in exclusion will without any problems spend 350,000 kronor on a weekend. Google what a shooting costs. So no, inefficient it definitely is not.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ludvig Aspling spoke in his speech about making a deal. When Vänsterpartiet negotiates the budget with a government, we ensure that we invest in welfare, in households, and in ordinary people. We increase equality while simultaneously strengthening welfare. We push through a higher guaranteed pension, improvements in health insurance, deductions for the waste fee, and many other good things. But when Sverigedemokraterna negotiate the budget, welfare will take a backseat, and they roll out cuts across all of Sweden. Households and families with children will take a backseat even though the cost of living is increasing. Investments will take a backseat at a time when unemployment is at a record high and the construction industry is crashing.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that during the Sweden Democrats' budget negotiations, welfare, healthcare, unemployment, and construction are entering a full-scale crisis because the Sweden Democrats have chosen to pour money over those who earn the best in Sweden, the Moderates' core voters. Large tax cuts for the very richest are paid for with large cuts in healthcare and other welfare.

The major initiative that the Sweden Democrats prioritize is a return migration grant—a grant that the government's own investigator cut down to size with the foot-knuckles and which the Migration Minister in Aktuellt could not explain who it is intended for. In addition to lowering taxes for the very richest, the Sweden Democrats want to burn billions to give 350,000 kronor per person in a return migration grant which the government's own investigator states is counterproductive, meaningless, and a waste. At the same time, we know that this also harms integration in Sweden.

Can the Sweden Democrats explain their insane priorities, namely tax cuts for the very richest and a multi-billion kronor return migration grant that is counterproductive and meaningless?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If Tony Haddou wants to discuss the conditions for the construction industry, he is in the wrong debate. We are now debating expenditure area 8 Migration. I can only urge him to go to the chamber at the right time.

Regarding the return migration grant, which I understood there was a question about, the investigator does not say that it would not work or be wasteful or insane or any of the adjectives Tony Haddou uses. He says that it could potentially harm integration. This is interesting, because in the next breath the investigator says that it is not even theoretically possible to investigate how large this potential effect would be. So that is what it says in the investigation.

Tony Haddou says that everyone knows this. Okay, what is he basing that on? What research is there that shows that return grants harm integration? I would like to have a reference.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is well clear that we ask questions when the investigator and the expertise completely tear this apart.

I believe we have reached the core of the entire discussion: the Sweden Democrats absolutely do not want to discuss the budget negotiations and that they have given large tax cuts to the very richest. The Sweden Democrats are pouring money over the very richest in Sweden, making unthinkable prioritizations and leaving households, welfare, healthcare, and unemployment to the mercy of the waves. The Sweden Democrats absolutely do not want to talk about this but instead engage in scapegoat politics to avoid it. It is distressing and unprofessional of a party that negotiates the budget, but that is how it usually is with the Sweden Democrats.

What is happening out there is that people are being left to the mercy of the elements. It doesn't matter how much Ludvig Aspling talks about closed borders, immigration, and shootings. People are being left in the lurch out there. The construction industry has crashed, welfare, including healthcare, is in full-scale crisis, and household economies are collapsing. For this, the Sverigedemokraterna never take any responsibility but instead only engage in scapegoat politics. I think they should start taking these issues seriously instead of, as usual, blaming immigration, pushing through scapegoat politics, and throwing billions at a meaningless and counterproductive reform.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I perceived no question in this, only rambling. But if I am to be generous and interpret a possible question, I can only repeat as an answer what I said initially. There is nothing to indicate that this would be counterproductive for integration. It is a very strange assumption. I have myself lived as an immigrant in other countries for tens of years, and I find it difficult to understand why anyone would be annoyed by or feel offended by the fact that there is a benefit that in no way affects them.

I asked for a reference. Tony Haddou says that everyone knows that this harms integration. Okay, bring out the references! Where is the research, Tony Haddou? But it became very quiet, and instead, Tony Haddou started talking about the construction industry. He really wanted to change the subject. I understand that, because there is no research that supports this claim, which is stated in the investigation report, which Tony Haddou pretends to have read. If he had read it, he would have seen it. The investigator says that there may be such an effect, that is, that integration is harmed, but that there is no research that can confirm it and that it is not even theoretically possible to investigate whether this effect exists. This is a paraphrase, but that is roughly how it stands in the investigation. My tip is that Tony Haddou reads the investigation before he gets up and takes a reply on it next time. It usually turns out better then.

Tony Haddou has no lines left, so he cannot provide a reference here and now, even if he had one in his pocket. But let's do this: Tony Haddou can send a snap or an email if he has any research indicating that this claim is correct. Shall we do that? Excellent!

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that regardless of what the Sweden Democrats are saying now, there was a time when Sweden Democrat members of Parliament said that it was completely ruled out to exempt schools from the duty of information, or the reporting law. This was one of the issues that, from the first day of the Tidö Agreement, caused enormous debate. Millions of people organized in associations stood up and said: "No, we do not report. We do not want any reporting law in Sweden." Trade union after trade union, human rights organization after human rights organization, and a united opposition said stop.

Reporting is not at home in a democratic society; it rather brings to mind the GDR. Reporting there, where employees, such as teachers and nurses, are obliged to report if they encounter a person who is undocumented and otherwise risk consequences would tear apart trust and jeopardize fundamental human rights.

So regardless of what Ludvig Aspling said in previous exchanges to distract us, I want to say thank you to those of you who fought. You made a difference!

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Annika Hirvonen! I would like to throw a question back, if that is alright. I would like to have an honest answer.

The duty of information is no new phenomenon in Swedish law. Until 2014, it existed in Chapter 7 of the Aliens Ordinance under the heading Duty of notification. It is still there, but the school was removed in 2014. Before 2014 and all the way back to the day Miljöpartiet was formed, Miljöpartiet was completely okay with this. Miljöpartiet has therefore stood behind a duty of information in the school from the time the party was formed until 2014. That is quite a few years, Annika Hirvonen.

To be clear, I should also say that Miljöpartiet was one of the parties that was involved and contributed to the rule being removed. This occurred when Miljöpartiet and the old Alliance reached an agreement on migration policy in 2013. In connection with that, the rule was removed from Swedish law.

This is very poorly aligned with rhetoric such as this: "Angiveri does not belong in a democratic society; it rather brings to mind the GDR." Okay, but can Annika Hirvonen explain to the chamber why Miljöpartiet stood behind the duty of information in school from the time the party was formed until 2014. Why?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can join my colleagues in pointing out that the level of the debate is incredibly low. The debate is full of bullying tactics, and furthermore, claims are being made that are not true. These are claims that SD did not at all demand that the reporting system should cover schools, healthcare, and social services, and now that Miljöpartiet would have been in favor of a reporting system. That is simply not true.

In 2014, we succeeded in securing an unconditional right for all children in Sweden, regardless of whether one is undocumented or not, to attend school. We secured an unconditional right for all children, regardless of what legal status one has, to have access to healthcare. It is an important victory for fundamental human rights. Angiveri cannot be reconciled with those rights.

If a person is afraid of being reported, they might not seek care. A woman who is about to give birth should not be afraid of being reported and therefore opt out of a safe delivery. A parent should not keep a child home from school for fear of being reported. It is that simple. It is not compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the convention that Miljöpartiet has proudly fought to make into Swedish law.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I asked a very simple question. Annika Hirvonen has no answer to it. I can understand that, because I do not believe that Annika Hirvonen knew that this rule existed until 2014.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified in 1990, if I remember correctly. Between 1990 and 2014, we had a duty of information in school according to Chapter 7 of the Aliens Ordinance. It was called the duty of notification back then.

I have looked in the Riksdag's motion bank. I cannot find a single example of Miljöpartiet having submitted a motion to have the duty of information removed. I find that a bit strange when we are talking about a party that now claims it is a rule that belongs in the GDR.

The rhetoric does not match the actions, Annika Hirvonen, so we can make an attempt: How is it that Miljöpartiet did not lift a finger to remove this rule - at least not if one looks in the Riksdag's archives - from the time the party was started until 2014, when it, as I can state, was removed in an agreement between Miljöpartiet and Alliansen?

I can understand that one can use expressions like that something belongs in the GDR if it is truly something one has fought against and made into a profile issue. I would have understood that. But in this case, it is not so. Miljöpartiet thought that rule was quite good. Miljöpartiet did nothing to have it removed during all these years or when the Convention on the Rights of the Child became law and so on. But that actually has nothing to do with this. The Convention on the Rights of the Child does not stand in the way of a reporting obligation, but that is another story.

Annika Hirvonen has no further remarks now and cannot answer the question, but it could be something to consider for the future. It could be good to check what one has stood for earlier in history when one stands up and makes this type of remark. It could be smart.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! We have now gone through about half of the debate. The Moderates began by talking about the shadow society, but still manage to pursue a policy that deepens and worsens the so-called shadow society in Sweden. Several of the Left Party's issues were highlighted. Therefore, I want to clarify a few things.

It was raised that we want a return to the Aliens Act 2016 - yes, that was when we had permanent residence permits as the main rule. There is a reason why one should have it. Permanent residence permits as the main rule means that people know that they can end their flight when they arrive in Sweden and can seek jobs in security and have a greater chance of being reunited with their family. Integration works better with permanent residence permits. The security of asylum seekers becomes much better. That is one of the arguments for a return.

The question of amnesty and so on was also raised. The Moderates complained a bit about the Left Party wanting amnesty for the unaccompanied minors. Of course, we want it. When it comes to those who have been in Sweden for more than a year, it is a waste not to grant amnesty. There are people here who have worked for over ten years and established themselves. They were treated in a terrible way by the Migration Agency when they arrived. It is perfectly reasonable that they receive amnesty. That is what we have thought for many years.

The quota refugees were also brought up. It was described as the end of the world that we are to receive quota refugees. It is not that dangerous! Sweden has received quota refugees for very many years. There is a reason for that as well. There is a humanitarian reason for it, and I also consider it to be an obligation that states have. Today, 120 million people are in flight. Not everyone is seeking to come here. Not even 1 per mille comes to Sweden.

With the help of the quota refugee system, it is ensured that the most vulnerable and exposed get to come here. That is good. I regret that the government reduced the number of quota refugees to 900 and still did not even manage to receive 900. It is distressing and terribly sad.

It was also raised in the debate that a no is a no, but that mantra is not correct at all. That has been proven, at the very least, by Afghan girls and women. Many of them received a no and then, overnight, a yes. One day they were part of the shadow society the government speaks about; the next day they were not. They were granted amnesty. It is not so strange. One could not deport girls and women to Afghanistan. That assessment is completely correct. One cannot do anything else. One does not need to complain about that either.

I heard that there was a discussion about the daily allowance. I must just say that it has been at the same level for 30 years. There is nothing that can justify such a low amount. It is not worthy to treat asylum seekers and their children in that way and make them so economically vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker! The Sverigedemokraterna member seemed, in his speech, happy to want to abolish the right of asylum. I think it is deplorable. It is appalling that one wants that.

I want to remind the House that the right of asylum came after the Holocaust and the horrors of the Second World War, when Europe failed totally to save the Jews. Afterwards, the countries made a decision that it must never happen again. It was decided that they would not close the borders in the same way again. But a promise between the countries was needed so that it would never happen again.

Unfortunately, it now seems that the countries in Europe and also Sweden's government think it is much easier to just close the borders. But there is a history behind why we have the right of asylum and why it is important to stand behind it. It is so that it never happens again. I do not think Sweden's government should break that promise.

Mr. Speaker! It is now halftime. After two years in power, the priorities of the government and the Sweden Democrats are clear. They have not eased the situation for households, healthcare, schools, or elderly care, and are investing in tax cuts for the very richest. Then we hear this scapegoat politics.

I can only state that the government is failing, point by point, to handle serious societal problems. Large groups seem to be invisible when the parties in the government base completely ignore the problems affecting those who have difficulty making their everyday finances work. With the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas budget, inequality increases. The growing unemployment is left completely without measures, and the climate transition has to wait. Furthermore, they are rolling out large cuts in welfare across the entire country. It is not immigration's fault that we have large societal problems. It is right-wing politics' fault.

The Left Party's budget proposal stands for a policy that handles society's problems and protects those who are in the worst position. We prioritize a powerful increase of resources to the core of the welfare system in the form of healthcare, school, and childcare and elderly care. We strengthen household finances, reduce costs in public transport, and ensure that we raise benefits in unemployment insurance and social security. Then, the rich, who have much higher incomes, must actually start contributing more.

How can we call Sweden a welfare state if people cannot even afford to pay for food, their rent, or even their medicine? This government turns a blind eye to the higher cost of living and to people's situations out there. They are preoccupied with tax cuts for the very richest. There is an underlying theory that it would create jobs. But we have tried that for over 30 years, and all we have received is a welfare on starvation rations and people who are left behind. Quite honestly, we are not exactly flooded with jobs. Unemployment is, on the contrary, at record highs, and this government leaves it without any measures.

Just for that reason, one needs this scapegoat policy. It is an ill-considered signal policy that damages cohesion in Sweden. It harms integration and does not necessarily make more people return. It only leads to increased vulnerability and more people living in the so-called shadow society, which the government has said it wants to combat.

A significant portion of those without papers living in Sweden cannot return for various reasons. Making life harder for them through withdrawn benefits, worsened rights, and an intensified hunt for them will increase vulnerability and desperation even further. No one has simply chosen to live this way. It is simply a consequence of politicians in here pursuing a so-called strict migration policy. It attacks the most vulnerable. It is political decisions that push people into undocumented situations. That is where we have ended up, but I do not think we should be there.

I believe it was Ludvig Aspling who spoke quite a bit earlier about how it is done in the rest of Europe and so on. But there are actually countries that are going against the current. Spain is now introducing amnesty for those who are in the country without permission - it concerns around 300,000 people per year for the next three years - partly because people are needed, to be honest. People are needed in Sweden too. If you want to develop and build up a society and make a country wealthier, people are needed.

But one also does it to improve the refugees' vulnerable situation, so that they are not exploited and so that they can be a part of society instead of being outside. It is simply inhumane to continue in this way.

In our budget, we propose that unaccompanied children and young people who have been in Sweden for over a year be granted residence permits through amnesty. This concerns children who sought and needed protection in Sweden but who were treated poorly as a result of political decisions and who have become adults in the meantime. A large part of the group has also established themselves in Sweden.

We also propose an increase of the daily allowance. Government after government has, year after year, made asylum seekers poor.

Mr. Speaker! Before I conclude my speech, I want to extend a big and heartfelt thank you to all those who have protested against the disclosure law and who continue to do so. It is the welfare staff, the healthcare staff, the teachers, and many more across Sweden. The entire collective profession, trade unions in the welfare sector, and all of civil society have protested, demonstrated, and repeatedly urged the government to withdraw the proposal. They have stood up straight and stepped up since day one. The signal has been clear: Not a chance that this goes through!

Organization is the key. That is how it has always been. And we have a bit left to go. The entire proposal must be scrapped. As it stands now, for example, the pregnant woman will not dare to seek care at birth. A newborn child is still to be registered, and then, for example, Skatteverket will be involved. It is connected. This proposal needs to be scrapped as a whole.

I also want to take the opportunity to turn to all those who already today face the consequences of the government's inhumane migration policy and those who are afraid of the future. We have said it before in this chamber, and I say it again: You also have a right to freedom and security. Your children also have a right to a future in safety and security.

I know that families with children want to be reunited, that children need to be protected and that children need to know that they are allowed to stay. We will, regardless of what, do everything we can so that they can enjoy those rights.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party is currently perhaps the most migration-radical party in the Swedish Parliament. They want a return to the migration legislation as it looked before the asylum crisis in 2015, which led to more than 160,000 people seeking asylum here in Sweden in a single year.

Vänsterpartiet also wants an amnesty or, as they speak of in their migration policy motion, a regularization for all those who have hidden illegally in Sweden for long enough, that is, for those who have not left the country despite, for example, having received a legally binding rejection decision. It probably concerns over 100,000 people who are currently in Sweden illegally.

One simply wants to dismantle the regulated immigration and the principles that govern it. And one wants to significantly increase the factors of attraction to Sweden without, as far as I can hear, thinking the slightest bit about the consequences.

Mr. Speaker! In view of this, I would like to ask the Left Party how on earth they believe this is even practically possible. How would this not drive increased alienation, increased vulnerability, and increased crime in our country? How would Sweden manage the integration work with the Left's extreme immigration policy?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by stating that we simply do not agree with each other. We stand so far apart on these issues.

I think it goes too far to call us migration radicals because we safeguard the rights of asylum seekers. It is about humane politics. The 2015 migration crisis is brought up as an example, but wasn't it also the case that right-wing politicians and blue municipalities were strong opponents and did not want a reception throughout the country? In that case, it naturally becomes more difficult.

One must know, however, that all of Sweden stepped up. I worked at Rädda Barnen at that time. All of Sweden stepped up in the reception. The opposite effect occurred when the government pivoted. It was politicians who did that.

I do not believe in the member's Sweden, but I believe in the Sweden out there where people stand up for one another, where people stand up for refugees. It happens every day all around the country. It is everything from food distribution to supporting someone with papers or other things that are needed.

Viktor Wärnick also had to bring up crime. I think he should look at his coalition partners' wedding guests and find criminals there instead. It is unserious to link asylum seekers to crime in that way. I know that the government is obsessed with doing so, and I do not share that view.

If Viktor Wärnick had been out more in the country, met asylum seekers and understood their situation, I do not think he would have gone around calling them criminals. But it is very easy for right-wing politicians to stand here in the chamber and wave around asylum seekers, crime and so on.

To move to the question of opportunities: Yes, absolutely, but then we must also build an equal society. That is something I am prepared to do. Is Viktor Wärnick prepared to do it?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is very clear that Tony Haddou in no way backs down from what is also expressed in motions and otherwise from the Left Party's side. It is very clear for the voters ahead of the upcoming elections, I think, that the Left Party has a view that actually means that we are to dismantle regulated immigration and its principles. That is what I want to give Tony Haddou.

People talk about the right of asylum, but it also has a connection to the fact that immigration should be regulated. If one has received a yes, we shall fight against exclusion and ensure that the people who have arrived also integrate into society, but if one has received a no, one must leave. That is where we differ sharply from Vänsterpartiet.

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask another question. Last year, the Riksdag voted, on the initiative of the Moderate-led government, for a new migration policy goal that entails a more restrictive migration policy. It is established, among other things, that the goal for the expenditure area is a responsible and restrictive migration policy that provides temporary protection to people who have a need for protection in accordance with the minimum level that follows from EU law and the binding international rules that Sweden has committed to follow, including the right to asylum, as well as maintains a controlled immigration, reduces irregular migration to Sweden and the EU, and contributes to that persons who lack grounds for protection or for other reasons do not have a legal right to stay in Sweden leave the country.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has stipulated in parliamentary motions that they want to return to the previous, more generous goal in the migration policy area. In the name of consumer information, I ask: Does Vänsterpartiet stand behind the new, more restrictive goal?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! We stand behind the policy that the member began with. It is not strange at all.

I must still say that after a full speech of twelve minutes and a subsequent exchange of remarks, the member still does not seem to understand the complexity of the migration legislation. A no is not a no. It might be a good talking point for the Moderaterna, but a no does not necessarily have to be a no. It is much more complex than that.

I believe the member knows what practical enforcement obstacles are and what court decisions can be like. I believe the member is aware that one cannot deport to all countries and so on. People remain, and I think it is aggressive of this government to then deepen and worsen the shadow society.

I do not think so. I think that one should be able to safeguard a system where we have people who come here and seek asylum. If it becomes a no, it shall be reviewed and so on, and it shall occur correctly and properly. But it is complex. The members must concede that.

There was an exchange of remarks here earlier regarding legal certainty. It is failing completely. When people receive a "no" and legal certainty has failed, it is also known that many will not follow that decision because of these flaws, because legal certainty is failing significantly. The age recordings are a clear example of this – the age of children was recorded in order to make them deportable.

I do not think so. I think that the government should review the regulated immigration. If it is to be followed, it must take place in legally secure processes. And it is not legally secure to write down the age of children. It is that simple.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are a few brave souls who are holding out this Thursday evening! I think that is good; it is an important area that we are debating.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the government's budget proposal for expenditure area 8 Migration.

It is important that a country has a responsible migration policy that considers both the needs that exist in our global environment and the opportunities for integration that exist. Naturally, it is important that those who seek asylum receive a legally secure process. It is simultaneously important that the level of migration is long-term sustainable and that requirements are also set for becoming a Swedish citizen.

All of this is now being implemented in the shift in the direction of migration policy that is being made by the current government. This is happening after a number of years with a policy that has not fully addressed the problems that have existed, something for which we see different results today all around in our society.

We can see that Sweden has received more asylum seekers than we have managed to integrate. Society has not taken decisive action against the exploitation of the asylum system, and the emergence of parallel societies has not been able to be stopped.

The Christian Democrats see, like the other government parties, the need to have a strict migration policy to address the problems that we see in many places in our country. That the total migration to Sweden should be at the same level as our Nordic neighboring countries is a view that we have raised for a long time. It is then reasonable to prioritize the most vulnerable refugees through, for example, the quota refugee system, that is to say that legal and safe routes should be the method for seeking asylum in Sweden. To prevent people from being exploited, harmed, or perishing in flimsy boats in the Mediterranean, the EU must also powerfully and jointly counteract irregular migration and human smuggling and also have a focus on helping refugees in the surrounding area.

We now see that this issue has received increased focus at the EU level and will be discussed further during meetings in the near future. We view it positively that the EU is forming a common line to address these problems.

Mr. Speaker! The recent years have largely been characterized by Russia's fearsome invasion of Ukraine. We have also in Sweden seen a number of Ukrainian refugees, and I am pleased that the government's budget and direction have ensured that these refugees have, on one hand, received financial support directly aimed at them through the possibility of population registration, and on the other hand, that support has gone to municipalities for greater opportunities for education in the Swedish language. This means that those from Ukraine who have taken their temporary refuge to Sweden will have greater opportunities for both contacts and work during the time that they will be in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö parties have negotiated a large number of points that change the direction and content of the migration policy. A large number of changes are either already decided or under implementation. This concerns both control and requirements, for example, changes regarding the requirements for Swedish citizenship.

A question that we Christian Democrats raised a long time ago is the legal certainty for converts. This was part of the assignment given to Statskontoret to review the legal certainty for converts and LGBTQ persons. The investigation has now been presented, and a number of proposals for recommended measures are provided. We look forward to Migrationsverket following the recommendations in its continued work.

Mr. Speaker! During the eight years of the S government, it was difficult to see a straight line regarding migration policy. This prompted the need for change that exists now. To say, like the Social Democrats, that one started the change can be said to be correct with some good intentions. But the coalition of different parties and wills that characterized the eight years of governing created a result that can hardly be seen as successful. One can also note, as previous exchanges of remarks have shown, that the Social Democrats themselves, in investigations and reports, have drawn the conclusion that the party's previous course was wrong in certain parts and that a change of course was needed. That everything was well during eight years is an exaggeration.

At the same time, one can see that during this parliamentary term, the S members have primarily voted yes to the government's proposals for changes. We welcome that insight, and it underscores that what the government is now implementing is what is needed to rectify the situation for our country.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Tidö parties cooperate, and we approach the issues with a spirit of cooperation and a direction that does not result in us binding or locking each other. But what does it look like on the opposition side? As I mentioned in the exchange earlier, one can see that the budget proposals that the opposition parties have submitted in the area vary. One might ask what consensus exists. MP and V, as usual, invest more generously than the government does, the Center invests less than the government does, and S settles on exactly the same figure.

This is also what one sees regarding the political positions. S says it is the one that carried out a shift in direction. C, MP and V continue to advocate for a line that provides a continued higher possibility for migration into our country.

We have asked what the common line will be, if it becomes a change of government against my own expectation and own wish. We see now that V demands a place in the government if one is to give its support to S. Then we can also expect other ultimate demands. Even C and MP will demand their share to give support to an S-government.

In light of this, the words that have just been uttered ring a bit false, that is to say that S wants a stricter migration policy. It is probably closer to fearing a return to a larger migration and a larger asylum reception. In many ways, it becomes a return to square one on the playing field we have regarding migration policy.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's citizens showed in the last election which path we should take. The tightening of the migration area that is taking place needs to be done to address the problems we see in our society. The cooperation yields results. The number of asylum seekers to Sweden has decreased. It is becoming increasingly clear that a no is a no. Measures against the shadow society are being implemented. More people will return, and those who do not live an honest life risk deportation to a higher degree.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats believe that migration policy has needed and continues to need a change in direction, but it must happen in such a way that we maintain the focus on ensuring that those who primarily need protection also receive it. We will work together with the rest of the government for a responsible and humane migration policy, where people who are received are given good conditions and support for a successful integration into our society.

I vote in favor of the government's budget proposal for the area of migration.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In his exchange with Ola Möller, Ingemar Kihlström asked many questions about red lines. Now that I hear Ingemar Kihlström's speech, I think it might be because the Christian Democrats do not know what red lines are in migration policy.

One speaks of helping refugees in the surrounding area, and then one slaughters the aid. One says that those who primarily need protection should receive it, and then one reduces the number of quota refugees from 5,000 people per year to 900. One speaks warmly about improving the economic conditions for Ukrainians, while at the same time one has written a completely new law stating that Ukrainian refugees shall be the only ones in Sweden who do not receive child allowance, housing allowance, and support for persons with disabilities.

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot believe any of the words coming from Ingemar Kihlström. When you reduce the number of quota refugees, fewer of those who primarily need protection will receive it. When you cut aid, the opportunities to help refugees in the surrounding area decrease.

I want to ask Ingemar Kihlström whether the Christian Democrats will put what they talk about into practice, or if it is starting to be time to not only bury the inhumane actions but also the rhetoric from the KD side.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Annika Hirvonen speaks about red lines. One can wonder which red lines have existed for Miljöpartiet. My memory, at least, gives that when migration to Sweden during the years 2014-2015 was at a level that everyone realized was too high, Miljöpartiet was involved and made decisions. It is in the same way as has been raised earlier, namely that one can have questions about where Miljöpartiet stood in the issue of the reporting obligation.

We can observe that Annika Hirvonen touches on various matters that are not included in this debate. We do not handle aid here. That we provide support and can focus on refugees means that one can direct aid in a more efficient way, similar to how a transformation of aid is currently being undertaken, by for example allowing NGOs to reach out. It is a fact that Sweden, with the aid framework currently used, still ranks in second place among the European countries.

That the Christian Democrats are in the government means that there is a focus on assistance. The same applies to the quota refugees. We have, quite correctly, reduced from a level of about 5,000 down to 900, but we still take a large portion in relation to the size of our country.

Regarding Ukraine, I was in the previous exchange when we discussed the change in the population register, forced to point out that we do not only have the individual support, but there is also an extended support to apply for for families in the assistance that one gets access to through the population register. It is not entirely correct that the Ukrainian families are the only families who lack support.

I would like to ask Annika Hirvonen what red lines exist for Miljöpartiet if one wants to join the Socialdemokraternas government.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The red lines that we established in 2015 were about not closing the border for people on the run. The right of asylum was to apply. It was also about that the children who had come to Sweden should be exempted from the tightening measures that were made. It concerned the unaccompanied minors – those whom we have continued to fight for even when Migrationsverket changed applications of rules, invented new constructions, for example, rejections with suspended execution, introduced legally uncertain medical age assessments, and applied illegally long processing times.

Mr. Speaker! I do not know how I should interpret Ingemar Kihlström. Should I interpret it as that one thinks that the cuts in the number of quota refugees from 5,000 to 900 is a victory, and that the cuts in aid, not least the aid that is mediated through just NGOs, is a win?

One cannot deceive oneself for long that aid will achieve more by reducing the amount of money. There is talk of becoming more efficient, but if one works on becoming more efficient with more money, one can still help more – for example, refugees in the surrounding area – than if one makes the gigantic cuts that the Christian Democrats are now making despite promising before the election to stick to 1 percent.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that with the Christian Democrats in the government, we have a support that we are fighting for. I agree with what our goal was during the election campaign, but sitting in a government cooperation involves negotiations.

I still note that Sweden is in second place regarding providing aid, and it is about providing aid where it does the most good.

I also note that Miljöpartiet has a view on the migration policy we have in Sweden that differs from the government's. That is how it should be – an opposition should highlight what it thinks. But Annika Hirvonen represents a party that says it can constitute a government basis, and I can note that the large party in that government basis basically says yes to the migration policy we have and, in some cases, even says it wants to go further, for example regarding EBO right now.

I can state that in this chamber, there is a large majority of politicians who have received their mandate from a change in migration policy. It is being implemented right now, and we will ensure that the implementation occurs in accordance with international agreements and regulations, but also in such a way that we can integrate those who come to our country. It is also a very important piece in having a migration policy on par with other Nordic countries, as I said, and on par with the fact that those who come here should be able to be integrated into our country. So, we think.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I did not intend to take the floor at first, and that has to do with the government's infrastructure policy limiting my opportunities to get home late in the evening. But I promise that I will not debate either the trains or the government issue. I will actually debate the expenditure area that we are here to debate.

I think it is good that there has been great consensus in Sweden's Riksdag regarding humanitarian aid, support with war materiel, and economic support to Ukraine. On the other hand, the government has lacked the decisiveness to deliver livable conditions for the Ukrainian refugees who have been in Sweden.

I reacted when the member proudly spoke about what the government is doing for the Ukrainian refugees who are in Sweden. It took far too long, and far too little was done. I do not understand how one can be proud when one has seen news reports about Ukrainian women and children who have not been able to afford winter jackets and Ukrainian mothers who have been forced to stand in line at soup kitchens to feed themselves and their children.

For me, it is a question of dignity. But it is also a question of Ukrainian war capability, because we know that it affects the war capability at the front to know that one's wife and children and so on are safe and well in the country they are in.

My very simple question to the member is this. Are the Christian Democrats proud of the policy that the government has pursued for the Ukrainian refugees who are and have been in Sweden?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Jonny Cato and I share the commitment for Ukraine. Just as I mentioned briefly in my speech, this horrific war of aggression where Russia attacks a free state in Europe has created a situation that we have not had since the Second World War.

We see a large flow of refugees, primarily of course in the surrounding area - Poland has indeed received a large part - but also in many other countries. And the EU's mechanisms worked. The mass flight directive that existed for precisely these measures was activated, and those who fled from Ukraine could seek their sanctuary and their safety in different countries.

We can state that the regulatory framework we had was politically decided in this chamber when those from Ukraine came here.

We can observe that the daily allowance had not been changed for 30 years, regardless of which government we had had and what orientation there had been in this chamber. That is something one can reflect upon.

We can also note that if one needed a winter jacket or if one needed anything additional, there was the possibility to receive additional grants.

The government started a process. One can always reflect on how fast it goes, and if we look back at previous government periods, I believe we see that those in opposition always think it should go faster.

I am, in any case, proud that, in addition to making it possible for the Swedish Tax Agency to begin population registration when the mass migration directive was extended, we have also introduced a rule that allows for population registration earlier than after two years of stay. It will meet many needs. I am proud of that decision. We will, of course, review what else we can do.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am actually hesitant to raise the tone in this issue, and I usually weigh my words when I am to debate the Ukraine issue specifically. I also want to point out that it is many Christian Democrats and civil society organizations that stand close to the Christian Democracy who have done much for the Ukrainian refugees, both in Sweden and on-site in Ukraine. But I become a bit confounded when the member describes it as that there are other supports to seek and that one perhaps could have done more.

Centerpartiet is one of the parties that has given the Christian Democrats the opportunity to, among other things, in the Finance Committee concretely vote for increased daily compensation for the Ukrainian refugees. The Christian Democrats have then voted no. The Christian Democrats have thus actively countered more bearable living conditions for the Ukrainian refugees who are in Sweden. That is a fact.

It is remarkable, I think, that one highlights that one is very proud of what Sweden has done when, in fact, there are so many countries that activated the mass flight directive at the same time as Sweden, while Sweden did much more much faster.

One of the reasons why many Ukrainian refugees choose other countries than Sweden is precisely that the living conditions have been much better there. We should not be proud of that. We should be ashamed of it.

We agree that we shall help Ukraine. But we must do it in all ways, not just in some ways.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is correct that there was a proposal from the Center Party to increase the daily allowance. Now we can state that the possibility of being registered in the population register provides many times more per day and also the possibility of further benefits, including support for, for example, family costs and housing costs.

I can state that no previous government has raised the issue of the day rate in this way. I can say that we as a party are open to discussing it further. I have personally stood in interviews and said that the day rate should be corrected. But that is another matter.

We can state that we have done something that I am proud of: We have ensured that people can be registered in the population register earlier than according to Skatteverket's normal rules. This opens things up. We have also ensured that the municipalities have been able to provide support regarding language so that people can get into work. I am also, just like Jonny Cato, proud and happy about all those who provide help, regardless of whether it happens here in Sweden or, as we see, in Ukraine.

Ukraine's war is ours, and we will always evaluate how we can support them. I am proud of what we have done, and we will, of course, review what we can do further. This is what we agree on, at least.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Migration policy is fundamentally about people receiving protection in difficult times. Right now, we find ourselves in an uncertain, restless, and in many ways very difficult time. The security policy situation is very uncertain both in Sweden and around large parts of the world. Several humanitarian crises are occurring simultaneously. The world around us affects migration policy to the highest degree.

In this situation, it is important to be able to have many thoughts in one's head at the same time. It is important not to forget and stop talking about Russia's and Putin's horrific, illegal invasion of Ukraine, which entails a brutal darkness. My thoughts are with all those who have lost their husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. The invasion is unforgivable.

Even though I am often sharp in my criticism of the government's migration policy, I still want to emphasize the strength of the often great consensus in the Swedish Riksdag regarding the support for Ukraine. Sweden has shown its support in many ways – humanitarily, in the form of military equipment, and economically. This has often occurred with broad support here in the Swedish Riksdag, and it has truly been an important signal. The government has done this well.

But for us in the Committee on Social Insurance, the Ukraine issue is primarily about the Ukrainian refugees. I touched upon this in the exchange earlier: I am disappointed. I am disappointed that it took the government too long and that it did too little. It has truly affected the combat capability of the men who are at the front line to know that their loved ones are having a hard time in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! For the Centre Party, the right to asylum is the foundation of migration policy. Those who come to Sweden shall have their grounds for asylum examined. Those who do not have grounds for protection shall leave the country as soon as possible. Those who have grounds for protection shall be allowed to stay and receive the best possible integration with a focus on jobs and language skills. When the government sees people as a problem, the Centre Party sees people as an asset.

There are parties in Sweden's Riksdag and in the government base that believe that the majority of refugees come here with evil intentions and want Sweden ill - that they simply want to destroy our beloved country. I, on the other hand, genuinely believe that people who come here fleeing war and oppression want well - that they want to learn Swedish and want to enter and become a part of our common society. Many, however, do not get the conditions and opportunities required to succeed.

Those who know what people flee from and what people risk during flight also know that safety is many times the only thing one seeks - safety for oneself, one's family, and not least one's children. Our perspective, as a society, fellow human beings, and politicians, when it comes to people fleeing war and oppression, affects the possibilities for good migration and successful integration. Our way of talking about immigrants also affects the possibilities for successful integration.

For me, there is nothing more Swedish than a strong sense of community, where people get up in the morning, work hard and contribute to the common good. That everyone who strives, regardless of background, should be able to succeed in life is not only important for the individual – it is also crucial for Sweden's future. There are no advantages to a divided society. A divided society is a weakened society that hinders growth and competitiveness but also makes us vulnerable to external threats. A large economic exclusion contributes to the division, makes it difficult for small and large companies to grow and is costly for society as a whole.

Everyone who comes to Sweden must be met with openness and clarity about what society expects of each individual and what each individual can expect from society. Integration has succeeded when the person who has come to Sweden is involved and contributes through employment. This presupposes will and drive from the individual, who must be willing to do their part. Sweden has so far failed to set clear requirements that everyone who can work is expected to do so, while the public investments in education, guidance, and favorable environments do not at all correspond to the needs for everyone to be able to succeed.

High demands on the individual must be combined with tools and opportunities. The current government only focuses on raising the requirements on paper, without actually creating more opportunities for people to enter society.

When integration succeeds, immigration is good for both Sweden and for those who come here, but when it fails, it leads to major problems. We can state that regardless of government, the lack of functioning integration measures in recent decades, in combination with a large immigration, has contributed to exclusion and parallel societies, which has created long-term and short-term societal challenges. Risk of increased gang crime, mental ill-health, substance abuse, insecurity, and a breeding ground for religious fundamentalism and oppression are some of the most serious consequences.

Today, there are people who feel that the Swedish state and Swedish society are not for them - that they are not allowed to be a part of the community no matter what they do. The reasons are many. Furthermore, the political conversation and the debate about exclusion now contribute to reinforcing both prejudices and the feeling that there is a "we" and a "them." This is influenced by how we treat and talk to each other, but also by how leading political representatives talk about a part of the Swedish population.

Xenophobia and racism are obstacles to creating a social cohesion and risk being passed on to the next generations. A prerequisite for a cohesive society is that there is an openness among people who are already part of the social community to include new people. Someone who has a job feels like a part of society and feels trust in the common system. A common "we" is not about ethnicity or background but about being involved and contributing. When the government now implements the Sweden Democrats' migration policy, it contributes to an increased division and fuels the idea of a "we" and a "them."

The government's proposed legislation has created a very great concern across the country. Let me quote the Minister for Migration: "We have had a debate over the last two years that has been characterized by huge exaggerations, where people in the opposition and organizations have deliberately created a great concern among many people."

It was a statement that truly made me furious. There was an investigation on site, which already exempted employees within the school and healthcare sectors. It was the government's additional directive that included doctors, teachers, nurses, nursing assistants, and student assistants. It is the government's fault that there has been great anxiety in many professional groups. It is therefore appropriate to truly thank all trade unions, professionals, and those in civil society who truly stood up for the right not to identify and for the right not to fuel a "us and them" mentality.

We see this point by point. Another very clear example is the investigation into return grants, which creates a "us" and a "them." The government's own investigator established that this risks worsening integration measures. Many of us in the opposition have today been mocked because we do not read investigations and take in documents. At the same time, the Sverigedemokraterna stands in the speaker's chair and says: There, the investigator is wrong. One should not listen to him.

One simply has to listen to the government's investigations when it suits their own arguments.

Centerpartiet says no to reporting laws and to the government's return grants in order to instead invest in integration measures that work. When the government has given up faith in people, Centerpartiet sees people as an asset that we need to invest in.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a land of opportunity for those who choose to come to Sweden. Our country's long tradition of openness towards the rest of the world has contributed to the Sweden we have today, our development, our growth and our prosperity.

It is important that we also continue to receive people fleeing and that we do so in a way that is sustainable for our society. It is not just about letting people come and stay in Sweden. If people live in Sweden for the rest of their lives, they should have opportunities for a good life. That means that migration policy cannot be reduced to only being about an approval or a rejection. It is also about how one is integrated in the next step into what we call the social project Sweden.

This is a responsibility that extends decades into the future. If we are to succeed in creating opportunities for a good life for all who have protection needs and who have come here, we cannot have a situation where we have an excessively generous immigration, where people are driven straight into an exclusion with benefit dependency, overcrowding and great insecurity as a result. It is not to safeguard a long-term sustainable policy.

Mr. Speaker! Just a few weeks ago, the Map of Exclusion was presented by the responsible Minister Mats Persson. What was presented was not particularly uplifting. It showed in black and white that Swedish society has been drifting apart for a long time.

Sweden has an extensive problem with residential areas where there is a great sense of exclusion. It is not difficult to draw the conclusion: The more of these we have, the worse it is for our country and for those who live in it. It is bad for social cohesion, but above all, it is unfair to all the adults and children who live there and who grow up under these conditions. I mentioned overcrowding, but it is also about a lack of role models and about poorly functioning schools, which provide poorer life chances and poorer opportunities.

This problem is unfortunately not new. Already 20 years ago, we liberals warned about the lack of integration and the great exclusion. More have joined in since then. We are all, in one way or another, responsible for this. We have simply turned a blind eye to the problems for too long or had an over-reliance on the idea that short-term projects would solve the exclusion. But we have failed.

The combination with a migration policy that has not been particularly realistic means that exclusion is now visible not only in our large cities but also in smaller communities. This is no longer a metropolitan phenomenon. Today it covers 710,000 people, of whom 170,000 are children.

Mr. Speaker! Reversing the development requires major efforts from society but also increased clarity regarding what society requires of people who live here - a clarity that everyone has the same obligations, rights, and opportunities to live a free, dignified, and independent life but also a clarity that it presupposes that those who live in the country strive to become a part of Swedish society.

We are determined to do what is required to change the situation. The map of exclusion is no miracle cure - that must be said straight out. It should be seen as an important building block with a knowledge base at its core that will give us the opportunity to break this with more targeted and precise interventions. It is only through increased knowledge and accurate interventions that we can increase the possibilities for a brighter future.

At the same time, I must be honest and say that I believe it is impossible to manage this great challenge in the migration area without us deepening European cooperation. Most of us know that it has historically been very difficult to achieve this at the European level. More often than not, the discussions and conversations have become both too long and too numerous without landing on anything concrete that lasts over time.

But suddenly it happened. After years of intensive work, the EU Parliament decided on the new migration and asylum pact this spring. One can actually call it a success for Europe. It is, as said, important that we on our continent help each other in these matters.

The entire purpose of the pact is that it should be a coherent system for asylum and migration management in the EU. It concerns our asylum procedures and reception conditions, common rights for those judged to have grounds for protection, the distribution of responsibility between EU member states, the reception of quota refugees, and more. The reform also contains specific rules for crises, mass flight situations, pandemics, and situations where foreign powers exploit asylum seekers to put pressure on the EU, which we have seen both in Finland and in Poland in the recent past.

In the new order, those seeking asylum shall be sorted into different types of examination procedures. This shall include, among other things, a fast-track border procedure for those judged to have a low probability of receiving protection and another procedure for those with greater chances of protection, where special consideration is taken if one already has close relatives, for example, in an EU country. With this pact, there will be more order and structure in the asylum reception. The focus now shall be on implementing the reform in the best possible way. It shall be in place by the summer of 2026.

Mr. Speaker! That we are now in agreement between the EU countries on the issue is good, but the most important thing remains: to implement what we have agreed upon, so that it moves from words to action and so that this has a real effect. Now a roadmap has been developed, as I mentioned. Until the introduction of the pact, we need to update our way of working in these issues. It is about how we register persons who travel into the EU or who are encountered on the territory without the right to stay there.

In conclusion, I want to mention that migration is larger than it only concerns Sweden and Europe. This is truly an issue that symbolizes that we live in a globalized world and in a globalized time. We see the development that is taking place in parts of the world. Large groups of people are seeking their way here. In the Middle East, several different conflicts and wars are ongoing. The magnitude of their negative consequences is very difficult to predict. It means that we must build relations – and deepen them even more – with the countries outside of Europe.

This needs to result in ensuring that people get a more bearable existence in their local area. But it is also about investing and creating confidence in the future in these countries. In the longer term, it is these issues that are crucial for us to achieve stability in our global environment.

With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal on expenditure area 8.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Patrik Karlson for the presentation. I have a short question regarding the Disclosure Act.

Despite massive protests occurring for two years, the Liberals manage to declare themselves winners in this issue. It must be some kind of record to render invisible the unions, civil society, the professional bodies, and everyone else who for two years have organized and protested against the disclosure law. The party is thus in the government but has also given the Sweden Democrats state power and carries out their policy.

Since the Liberals proclaim themselves as winners – do the Liberals think that, for example, pregnant women should end up in situations where they do not dare to seek care? That is how it still looks with this proposal. For example, children are to be registered and the Swedish Tax Agency shall be the notifier. If a child is registered, the police must be called. My question is quite simple: Do the Liberals think that pregnant women in those situations should not dare to seek care?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is correct that our party leader expressed that he saw this as a liberal victory, and we others in the party do as well. We were pushing from the very beginning for healthcare, schools, social services, and even libraries to be exempted from the obligation to provide information. All of these conditions were met, which we are, of course, happy about. Various trade unions and other organizations and people have engaged in this issue, and we share the joy with them. The fact that we have proclaimed ourselves "winners" does not mean that others cannot do so – it is not only us who are free to do so.

My answer to the member's question is that one should, of course, be able to seek care. One must be able to do that in this country, and one has every right to do so. It is, as mentioned, six authorities that are covered by this. But care can still be sought.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Excuse me, but this has become completely incomprehensible. The pregnant woman will not dare to seek care, because the Swedish Tax Agency will be the informant. I do not know if the member has understood the question. The damage has already been done, and this is connected. Healthcare is exempt, but for example, children are to be registered - with the informant. How can you declare yourselves winners when the damage has already been done, Patrik Karlson? Do you, therefore, stand behind the proposal as it looks today? It risks leading to the fact that the pregnant woman will not dare to seek care.

This is all connected. Healthcare is connected with the Swedish Tax Agency. Even the Enforcement Authority should be part of this. They encounter, for example, children in economically vulnerable situations who risk ending up in such a situation. Everything is connected. Then my questions are: How can the Liberals declare themselves winners? Do the Liberals stand behind this, which risks leading to the pregnant woman not daring to seek care?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! When the investigation was conducted, a duty was proposed for certain authorities, six in number, to provide information to the police regarding persons who have stayed in Sweden without permission. We were previously clear that schools, healthcare, social services, and libraries should be exempted, and that is exactly where it landed. Now, this investigation has been sent out for consultation to authorities, municipalities, regions, and other organizations. Then the government's work in preparing a proposition will begin. We have, as mentioned, already reached an agreement that schools, healthcare, social services, and libraries shall be exempted. Yes, we see that as a win.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I would like to welcome the members to the Social Insurance Committee and the migration policy debate.

Half of the parliamentary term has passed, so perhaps it is time for a small mid-term evaluation of the migration policy and the integration policy, which the member wanted to touch upon. The number of quota refugees has gone from 5,000 to 900. We have received a narrower humanitarian basis, which means that severely ill children can no longer stay in Sweden. We have limited family immigration, which makes it harder for children to be reunited with their parents. We have most recently seen a return grant which the investigator himself believes risks worsening integration.

This is migration policy, but it is also the Sweden Democrats' integration policy. The government has only delivered tightening, tightening, and tightening. Nothing is being done to invest in people's ability to enter and become a part of the common Sweden.

My question is very simple: Where did the liberal watchdog go?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jonny Cato for the welcome. It has been interesting to participate in this debate. It has been a bit more dynamic, if I may say so, than the debates I participated in when I sat in the Committee on Taxation. But that is good – that is exactly how it should be in the Chamber.

There were many questions that were raised – we will see if I managed to perceive them all. We can start with the quota refugees. It is simply a matter of admitting that we do not want that number. It is a compromise within the framework of the Tidö agreement. That is how it is. One has to give and take. We would have liked to see a higher level, but that is where we did not end up. It is something one has to accept. One cannot sit down and cry every time one does not get what one wants. Then we would never be able to govern this country. We would never get anything done.

When it comes to family reunification, we certainly deny no one the right to be reunited. But we say that, compared to before, to a greater extent, one should be able to support oneself. One must have a home where one can actually live as a large family, and there must be reasonable conditions to enter and become a part of the social project Sweden. That is what we say.

I may have missed a question, but we believe that the exclusion that exists must not be pushed further. When I listened to the member's main speech, I perceived a great consensus with exactly what I said. I therefore do not quite understand the criticism that is now being presented - then you contradict yourself, Jonny Cato. Is it the case that, despite what you said, you still want to push the exclusion that exists in this country? Over 700,000 people live in this exclusion, which is inherited across generations and which they do not get out of. It is not just about people who come here but also about people who are born here. It is about children and grandchildren. Is it perhaps the case that increased exclusion is your thing, even though you say something else?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! This government is investing hundreds of millions of kronor in an ineffective return grant. The Centre Party invests in people. We invest in more people learning the Swedish language, in more people becoming part of the common society, and in more people getting that important first job. There, the government is completely absent. The only integration policy that exists is a stricter migration policy, and that is my point. One must invest in and commit to people.

Since this government took office, I have asked three different liberal politicians about the number of quota refugees. I have received three different answers. One member was very satisfied with the number 900. Another member was a bit hesitant. Today's answer is by far the best. I hope that is the Liberals' policy. In that case, I am pleased that we share the view that Sweden should receive more of the most vulnerable people on our planet. But the fact is that, point by point, one has had to yield to the Sweden Democrats' migration and integration policy. Quota refugees are one thing, but it has also become harder for families to be reunited. We also have the humanitarian basis, which has made it harder for seriously ill children to stay in Sweden. These can hardly be any liberal victories.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know whether I should take it as something positive or not that I am standing here and receiving praise from the opposition. But oh well – this late in the evening and when the Minister is about to arrive, I will accept it!

The member of Parliament stands and says, however, which is completely incorrect. Massive investments are being made in the area of integration. Large amounts of funds are being allocated to schools, primarily with a focus on ensuring that more people learn the Swedish language. We are lowering taxes so that more people can enter the workforce, and a great deal of work is being done on the housing side so that more apartments and small houses are built, which is in demand where there is currently a housing shortage. We have also increased [funding] when it comes to vocational and adult education.

The palette is therefore broad and large, and that is also the objective – especially when it comes to the women who today stand far away from the labor market and how they are to become a part of it.

When it comes to voluntary repatriation, it is no new phenomenon in Sweden; it began to be discussed as early as the 40s and began to be practiced, with a sum of money, in the late 80s. Whether the level of the money has remained there since can be discussed, but what one sees here is still that it is voluntary repatriation it is about - and perhaps above all information campaigns. But I do not see it as any victory for us, as you tried to express, Jonny Cato. Again: It is rather a compromise in the cooperation.

That we are doing nothing in the area of integration is directly incorrect. A lot is being done. One only has to read our budgets, not just this year's but also those from previous years.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In his speech, Patrik Karlson spoke of a long series of societal challenges linked to, among other things, segregation and overcrowding.

I think it is interesting that we are touching upon housing policy when we have a debate on expenditure area 8 Migration. It is particularly interesting because the government conducts a housing policy that one might think it would prefer to talk as little as possible about. What we see is, in fact, a total crash for housing construction. At the same time as prices have skyrocketed, the government has totally ignored the fact that we have an entire sector here that has been extremely hard hit.

There was a long description of societal problems, but I note that not a single solution to the societal problems was presented. Where are the initiatives for increased housing construction that can make overcrowding decrease? Will you re-establish the authority that had the task to systematically work against segregation in a way based on knowledge and long-term methods, Patrik Karlson? Or is the return migration grant the answer to all these societal problems? At least the government's own investigator does not believe so.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I am becoming a bit perplexed – one wonders if the member has completely missed what has happened in recent years, that is, completely ignores that society has been severely affected by extremely high inflation and high interest rates. It is clear that it hits hard against a construction industry that has extremely high prices.

The prices are a result of the housing policy that Miljöpartiet pursues. It is your heavily regulated housing market that is the reason for this, Annika Hirvonen. We have now taken steps toward easing this. Whether they are small or large is debatable, but we have taken steps. It is about getting faster planning processes, easing the detailed planning work, and easing the building regulations. That is what we must start to address, because the problem is that there is too little market in the housing market. It is extremely heavily regulated.

In the policy pursued by the previous government - your policy, Annika Hirvonen - the answer was solely national subsidies. It is clear that it results in a small increase in housing construction, but it is very small. Above all, that which is not in demand is being built. What happened was that you sent money straight into the developers' pockets. To what benefit? It is clear that the developers became happy, but what happened to the citizens?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, "confusing" was the word. Was it inflation or was it MP that increased housing prices? First it was inflation, and then it was the Green Party. The previous government made mistakes – things that no one wanted – and the wrong housing was built. But housing was built! It was built at a pace that nevertheless impressed.

I think like this: One can have an interesting discussion about who did what a long time ago, but now it is the Liberals who have the power. The Liberals say that they see a social problem, but the Liberals present no solutions. What they do instead is completely devote themselves to a kind of blame game where all problems are blamed on refugees. That is why they talk about these problems when we are going to talk about that expenditure area in the budget concerning migration. I cannot draw any other conclusion.

One could do as we do and introduce subsidies to build rental apartments that ordinary people can afford to demand. One could come up with an entirely new system. But the government does nothing. The only thing they do is point fingers at the most vulnerable in society – people who have moved here from war and oppression – and say that the solution is to send a bag of money as a return migration grant to people. It is actually shameful. If anything, it is tearing society apart.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Let us state that you are right, Annika Hirvonen - it is your fault. It is also the fault of inflation and the high interest rates. That is what has led to the housing crisis we have today.

It is clear that much less is built when construction costs spiral, but already now – since the Riksbank has lowered the interest rates – the forecasts show that the construction rate is on its way up again. However, it must be built where it is needed and based on the needs that exist, not based on some greedy politicians sitting and saying that they want it this way or that way. That is not how we solve the housing crisis.

Let me just state that I never blamed any refugees when I stood up in the speaker's chair. I do not know where you got that from, Annika Hirvonen. It was rather that I blamed myself. I said that it is our responsibility how we have failed with this. As a liberal politician, I naturally want Sweden to continue in the long term to be a country that is open to immigration. I am completely convinced that it benefits us. But here and now we have major problems with the exclusion that has arisen because we have had a policy that has not been sustainable over time. That is what I have said.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The migration debate in Sweden is terribly sad to follow. It is a debate that focuses on people as a problem, which divides into us and them and which has devastating consequences for individual people.

When I visited a relative who was in the hospital, I ended up in a conversation with the nurse Omid. Omid and I began to talk about his situation. His wife and newborn child were to come to him in Sweden, but they were refused because he had too small an apartment. Left behind in the home country was a postpartum-depressed wife who was alone trying to take care of the couple's child.

He was desperate. On TV, he was fed day after day with messages from the Tidö parties that all of society's problems were his fault. When I was about to go out through the door, he hung up the bag with the drip that kept my relative alive and said: One feels worth nothing in Sweden today.

This is the consequence for individuals such as Omid and many others, who see how the government, day after day, suppresses their right to exist in our country and restricts the rights of people – especially immigrants.

The most drastic consequences likely hit those who do not receive the right to safety and life at all. In my first exchange of remarks, I spoke about the rule of law. Here, Sweden is failing.

In a number of cases, Sweden has been condemned by the UN for violations of the prohibition against torture and degrading treatment because Sweden continues to deport Christian converts to Afghanistan. One case concerned a young man with a cross and Jesus tattooed on his neck. Both the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts wanted to send him to Afghanistan. They said that he could wear a scarf for the rest of his life – then there would be no danger.

Even RFSL, which has written a report on the situation of LGBTQ refugees in Sweden, points out systematic flaws in the legal certainty for LGBTQ refugees. These refugees seek protection from countries where homosexuality is punishable – in some cases with death. Yet, they do not receive protection in Sweden. The justification is often, for example, that they have not talked enough about their sexual orientation or have not been able to account for feelings and thoughts in a sufficiently deep way. That one has actually lived in a homosexual relationship for several decades carries little weight.

When people are deported after legally secure assessments, as in this type of case, I understand that they choose to stay even if it means they have to live under the most difficult circumstances, as undocumented. It is a life I would not recommend to anyone, but I understand those who choose this over moving to the Taliban's oppression.

What is the government's answer then? Yes, the government's answer is to make the shadow society for these people even darker.

To all of you who engaged against the reporting law, I would like to once again express a big thank you. We in Miljöpartiet know that it was you and your commitment that ensured that the most vulnerable people do not have to be afraid of seeking care or going to school because healthcare staff or teachers could report them.

Madam Speaker! I would like to devote a part of my speech to talking about another story about people. This story is not about societal collapse but about social engagement and what happened in 2015, when many people went out and distributed clothes and other supplies along train stations and bus stops. People did not only open their hearts but also their homes for those who needed a roof over their heads when many arrived in our country in a short time.

I want to tell you about Ölands folkhögskola, which has just ensured that an entire class of women who did not pass SFI – or for whom SFI was not suitable – have now learned Swedish. They told me: We started with the integration. We started with everyone daring to speak. At first, they spoke in Arabic. Now they dare to speak in Swedish.

Through a flexible and creative way of working, folkbildningen every day designs an education for those for whom our regular system has not worked.

I want to speak about all the committed people who stood firm when society failed – about those of you who opened your homes to the unaccompanied children who, overnight, were unjustly age-assessed, and about those of you who have been involved year after year, supporting them in their schooling and supporting them in finding jobs. I want to thank you.

I want to thank Bashir and all other young people who came to Sweden as children and who are now contributing to making our country better. I met Bashir when he was still waiting for his permanent residence permit. Recently, Upsala Nya Tidning wrote about him. Now he has received his permit. Now he can finally open a bank account so that the salary from the work at the elderly care home can come directly to him. He is one of the most appreciated at his workplace. He is one of many who are now taking care of the elderly who built our country.

I also want to thank the woman who walked past me during the election campaign and said: Thank you for seeing me, who gets up at six in the morning to clean the university. The others only talk about immigrants as criminals, but I thank you for seeing us who work.

Thank you to all the bus drivers, nurses, doctors and employees in elderly care and childcare who have come from other countries and are making Sweden better and stronger.

I want to thank all of you who have traveled to Sweden to contribute to Sweden's green climate transition and who have taken jobs at the battery factories and in all the activities that are needed to build a society around these factories.

Thank you to all of you who ensure that the restaurants can stay open several days a week - to the labor migrants who have come here because we actually need more people who want and can work in our country.

Sweden is in many ways a fantastic place. There are challenges, and one of the biggest challenges is a government that sees people as problems and that divides people into a "us" and "them" instead of uniting, giving opportunities for everyone to enter society and every day standing up for human rights.

Miljöpartiet has presented a budget that has larger frameworks than the government, because we invest more than the government in increasing legal certainty in the asylum process and raising the daily allowance for asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees. We cannot move for approval of our proposal because the frameworks are already determined. We therefore abstain from the decision. But we stand by our conviction and will continue to fight for a legally secure and humane refugee policy and a society where everyone feels valued.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! There is much to ask Annika Hirvonen after her speech, for example, that she seems to condone the shadow society because she says she understands that people who have received a rejection decision and a deportation decision still do not leave the country. It is worth noting.

But let me move to a budget question. One of the Moderate-led government's more important changes within migration policy concerns strengthening the work with revocations of residence permits in various ways, for example, those granted to persons on incorrect grounds. The Swedish Migration Agency has a key role in the work of preventing, detecting, and addressing abuse of the regulated immigration system, and therefore we believe that further steps should be taken to reinforce the Migration Agency's work with revoking residence and work permits and status declarations when there is grounds for it. We therefore propose that the appropriation be increased by 100 million kronor starting from next year.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet may not be entirely surprised by the government's proposal to strengthen the work on the revocation of residence permits, and a friend of order then asks: Is Miljöpartiet against revoking residence permits for persons who have cheated their way to a permit, for example by providing incorrect information? Does Miljöpartiet believe that it should pay to cheat and abuse the system without facing consequences?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! If Viktor Wärnick were a homosexual from Uganda who sought asylum in Sweden and was denied, perhaps on the grounds that he did not feel sufficient self-loathing or could not describe his thought process when he realized he was homosexual well enough, would he then choose to travel to Uganda and risk persecution and, in the worst case, the death penalty, or would he choose to remain in the shadow society? If Viktor Wärnick were a Christian convert with roots in Afghanistan, would he then travel back to Afghanistan with the scarf over the tattoo on his neck and risk being murdered, or would he choose a life in the shadow society? Even though I know how difficult it is for undocumented people to live in Sweden, I can still understand the choices these people make.

It is because we see that not all "no"s are right that we say that legal certainty must be prioritized. The right to asylum is the foundation, and the core of it is that people who risk being persecuted, tortured, or killed must not be deported. It is central that this does not go wrong, and therefore we choose to prioritize the resources in a limited budget for what is most important in the migration area.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me be very clear that those who have grounds for protection and meet the requirements of the law shall, of course, be granted protection status and a residence permit. For this, we have an organized process in Sweden that, for the most part, functions well. In addition to this, there are safety valves in the form of the possibility of appeal in two different instances.

I am nevertheless surprised by the Green Party's view. For the Green Party, just as for the Left Party, it is about dismantling regulated immigration. The functionality of the legal system and the independence of the courts are being questioned. One judges these independent bodies in society, which are tasked with interpreting the law and ensuring that each individual case is examined according to its nature and in a correct manner. This is also worth noting - in addition to everything else Annika Hirvonen mentioned in her speech.

Madam Speaker! Not with a single word does Annika Hirvonen answer my question regarding revocations. In cases where there are grounds to assume that someone has been granted a residence permit, a work permit, or a status declaration on incorrect grounds, what does Miljöpartiet think? Is it opposed to revoking residence permits for persons who have cheated to obtain them? Is Miljöpartiet in favor of it being profitable to cheat and abuse the system without facing consequences?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that the UN has condemned Sweden for, in a number of cases, having deported persons who should have been granted protection. They have had their cases reviewed by the Migration Agency and the courts and still were deported despite the fact that they should have been granted protection. The case with the Afghan convert is a clear case, where the UN has said that Sweden has made a mistake. And there are more cases. If one thinks it is important that those who have grounds for protection are granted protection, one should be concerned when the UN's Human Rights Committee says that Sweden is violating the prohibition against torture.

I am concerned, because I believe the government should take note of this and prioritize the rule of law by giving the Swedish Migration Agency the mandate to ensure that no one is ever deported to persecution or oppression. Particular focus needs to be placed on converts, atheists, LGBTQ persons, and other vulnerable groups. The stereotypical assessments that RFSL has found in the Migration Agency's investigations, where they, for example, strike down on people not feeling bad enough about themselves, not feeling ashamed, and not feeling disgust for having a homosexual orientation, must simply be removed.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Members of the House! The time for migration policy experiments is over. The four coalition parties received the voters' mandate for change in the 2022 election – not least in migration policy.

We took over in a situation where Sweden, for several years, had had asylum reception at a level that was significantly higher than the country could handle. It had had serious consequences in a long series of different areas of society.

We took over a return policy that was not functioning. The shadow society grew in scope year after year and challenged the trust in the entire regulated migration policy. In the shadow society, tens of thousands of people lived in vulnerability, and the authorities did not even know who was in the country. This had very serious consequences for both the individual and Sweden as a country. We also took over a situation with an enormous integration debt with 400,000 people without work, an insecurity that was starting to take hold in society and far too many people who felt that they were not getting their due.

We took over a situation where the migration policy had been anything but consistent. There had been talk of stricter rules, for example for those who have not been granted asylum and therefore should return home, but the policy then underwent complete reversals and produced amnesty-like upper secondary school laws. They were so poorly implemented that responsible authorities protested and the Council on Legislation considered that the limit of what is acceptable had actually been reached. Political experiments perform very poorly in migration policy.

It was the situation we took over. That was why we received a clear mandate from the Swedish people to tackle the problems, stop sweeping them under the rug, and instead make Sweden a better country.

As we now enter the second half of the mandate period, the paradigm shift is in full swing. This is a turnaround that is unparalleled in Swedish history. This is our third budget, and just as before, it is an offensive budget for change, for order and clarity in migration policy, and for better conditions in the fight against the shadow society. We are tackling the large integration debt that has been built up by the past policies from previous mandate periods.

Most of the reforms we are now implementing should have been implemented many years ago. But paralysis of action is not a way of working that we have adopted. It happens sometimes, not least in this chamber, that we receive criticism for doing too much and moving too fast. That, however, is not what I encounter when I meet voters. One of the most common reactions is, on the contrary, surprise that what we are doing is not already Swedish law.

It is in no way an unreasonable expectation that Sweden should have a migration that we can manage and a migration policy where a no is a no, a yes is a yes, and cheating is not rewarded. But that has not actually always been the case. Therefore, we are making this historical realignment of the migration policy.

Madam Speaker! We continue on the path we have set and do something that has not characterized previous migration policy. We will, in fact, agree. We agree on a strict migration policy. We implement reforms that have an effect. The fact is that asylum migration is heading towards the lowest level since 1997. It is, of course, a historical change.

The government has a high pace of reform. With this year's budget bill, we take further steps in the restructuring of the migration policy. Some particularly important focus areas for the coming years are a more efficient reception and return, combating fraud and abuse, and also expanding internal immigration controls to ensure that persons who do not have a legal right to be in Sweden follow Swedish legislation and return home.

Madam Speaker! The government's reorganization of migration policy places great demands on both the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts. The Swedish Migration Agency, for example, needs to have good conditions to implement the entire reform agenda, including by converting the reception system for an organized reception and enabling a more efficient asylum process and a more efficient return.

A more efficient asylum process promotes that those who are granted residence permits can begin to be integrated into our country and settle in here more quickly. That the time from application to decision and the stay in the reception system is as short as possible is, of course, completely central for both the individual and the public.

That more people live in the Swedish Migration Agency's housing implies a proximity to the Swedish Migration Agency, an ongoing dialogue and better conditions for the Swedish Migration Agency to adapt its support and its information to vulnerable groups such as children or persons with disabilities. To achieve this, the migration courts also need to be given stable economic conditions to carry out their mission. The Government therefore proposes that both the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts be allocated funds in the budget bill for 2025.

In order to improve the conditions for executing removal decisions, authorities need to know where the persons who are to leave Sweden are located. Therefore, authorities need to be able to take persons into custody to a greater extent. The government's goal is to achieve 1,000 detention places as soon as possible. We propose in the budget bill that funds be allocated for this.

Madam Speaker! The Government wants to strengthen the Swedish Migration Agency's work in combating fraud and abuse in the asylum system. This includes, among other things, that the agency shall expand its capacity to handle biometric data, expand the controls of employers in cases regarding work permits, and strengthen the work with revocations of residence permits and status declarations. The Government therefore proposes that funds be allocated for this as well.

An initiative is being implemented so that the Police Authority's work with internal immigration controls shall be further expanded and streamlined. Internal immigration controls are an important tool to be able to have control over which people are staying in the country, but also to detect persons who do not have a legal right to be in Sweden. It is important from both a security perspective and to maintain the regulated immigration with its principle that a right to be in Sweden is required to be here.

Madam Speaker! The Government also proposes measures to stimulate voluntary return for persons who have not integrated into Swedish society or who, for various reasons, wish to move to their home country. This includes, among other things, significantly increasing the support for return during 2026 to create better conditions for the recipient to re-establish themselves in the home country. The Government also proposes that a national coordinator be established and that information initiatives be carried out to increase awareness of the possibility of voluntary return.

In total, the government proposes in the budget bill that 513 million kronor be added during 2025 in this expenditure area. Despite the addition, the total level in the expenditure area is proposed to decrease during 2025 compared to existing funds for 2024. This is primarily due to lower costs for the reception of asylum seekers and persons with temporary protection under the mass flight directive. One reason for this is that the forecast for the number of asylum seekers has been adjusted downwards compared to previous budget bills. The pursued policy is taking effect.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's ability to receive more asylum seekers in the coming years is very limited. We see the effects of the previous policy in more and more areas. There is a growing shadow society, social exclusion, gang crime, segregation, and an integration that has not functioned.

The consequences of a return to unregulated immigration cannot have escaped anyone. It is therefore very worrying that it is precisely that which is offered as an alternative to the government's policy. Exactly what is offered we naturally cannot know because the split in the opposition is so great, but one thing people at least seem to agree on: to increase asylum immigration to Sweden.

This is admittedly a budget debate, but the cost of a regression is not measured only in money. It is also measured in exclusion, unemployment, a growing shadow society, and worsened integration. We already know now that the price tag for this would be very high. We also know who pays the price for such a policy. It is children who do not see their parents go to work, women who are stuck in a hopeless situation, and young men who are lured into a world of gang crime and substance abuse.

Madam Speaker! Sweden cannot afford to return to the previous policy. Therefore, I am proud that the government is once again proposing an offensive budget for expenditure area 8 and continues to move the goalposts. Further steps are being taken in the historical reorganization of Swedish migration policy.

(Applause)

In this speech, Caroline Högström and Viktor Wärnick (both M) agreed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! There is a worrying pattern with this government. There are always restrictions and deteriorations for those seeking protection and security in Sweden, but there are also deteriorations in other areas regarding welfare, school, healthcare, housing construction and so on. Large tax cuts for the very richest are paid for with large cuts in healthcare and other welfare, and one leaves unemployment completely without measures.

To improve integration, the government wants fewer people to seek asylum in Sweden. They are therefore introducing a number of measures that we know with absolute certainty lead to worse integration. It is a very difficult and hopeless conflict. It is very difficult to imagine in what way the austerity measures that the minister speaks of would improve integration for anyone in Sweden while at the same time the government leaves households and welfare behind and lets unemployment run rampant.

Furthermore, knowledge and experience show that everything from pushing people into undocumented status and granting temporary residence permits to imposing livelihood requirements, splitting families, and providing 350,000 SEK in return migration grants – that is, what the government wants to see more of – leads to deteriorations of long-term integration.

Against the background of the overall societal development and the budget that the government is presenting, I therefore want to ask the minister in what way integration becomes better from large tax cuts for the very richest. In what way does integration become better by letting unemployment stand without measures? In what way does integration become better by rolling out cuts across the entire country?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for the questions! It is still liberating to hear the Left Party be so clear about what they want. It is in some way like an echo from 2015. As long as we return to the policy that applied then, there do not seem to be any problems.

That policy put Sweden in a very difficult situation. That is how it is. Perhaps the Left Party does not see it, but the Swedish people do see it – exclusion, segregation, and a great insecurity.

Now we are shifting the migration policy, away from the unsustainable migration policy that the Left Party pursued together with the Green Party and the Center Party and which the Social Democrats unfortunately agreed to. I am, of course, very concerned when I hear repeated demands for a return. We hear how it has sounded in this debate - it is amnesties and permanent residence permits, we shall no longer have any livelihood requirement for family immigration, and we shall preserve the old EBO system. It is point by point.

It is quite telling that it appears to be precisely Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet who are speaking for the opposition in this area. It is, of course, an important clarification.

Now it is halftime in the mandate period. What would happen with a red-green migration policy? Would it be new legally secure upper secondary school laws? Is it to leave regulated immigration? In a recent exchange, there seemed to be a very great mistrust towards the legally secure asylum system that Sweden actually has. It sounds as if it is we in this chamber who are to conduct asylum reviews and that it should no longer, as it is today, be authorities and courts.

What is it about besides returning to the migration policy of 2015? What is actually the red-green line on these issues? It would have been excellent, Madam Speaker, if Tony Haddou could give an answer to these questions.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister provides a very pleasant opening to this debate when he brings up some ten-year-old rubble in his non-answers. I asked three questions and received three non-answers. It is deplorable when the Minister is still here.

The questions were about understanding what integration is, namely that people who come to Sweden from other countries approach the majority population in terms of, for example, income, work, and housing situation. We see that this government consistently has a very strong policy to increase what we call segregation and decrease what we call integration.

It is clear that we have a government that, with its proposals, makes segregation worse and integration less possible. With the policy being pursued, the people who come to Sweden will not approach the majority population in terms of work, economic conditions, or housing situation. It is the core of the government's policy: a raw right-wing policy that splits society and increases the economic gaps.

Your proposal significantly worsens integration, Minister, so I am posing my questions again. In what way does integration improve from large tax cuts for the very richest? In what way does integration improve by letting unemployment stand completely without measures? In what way does integration improve by rolling out cuts that affect everyone across the entire country?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! It sounds as if, according to the Left Party, if we only increased the benefits and stuck to the old policy, we would not have any integration problems. However, here Tony Haddou has a problem to deal with. The fact is that we had eight years with a red-green government, and the Left Party was part of that work. It was much of the Left Party's policy that shaped that policy, not least in the area of migration.

Why does it then look the way it does? Honestly: If this had been the answer, why do we then have the integration problems, the insecurity and the exclusion that we see in Sweden? That might be something for Vänsterpartiet to reflect on.

We have a different starting point in this. We believe, in fact, that it is important that it pays to work. We are not going to hide and forget people in benefit dependency and exclusion. We think it is important that people who come to our fine country feel that it pays to take that extra work shift. One should not be passivized, stuck, hidden, and forgotten in benefit systems. That was how it functioned for a long time in Sweden under red-green governments. We are now changing all of this, and it is clear that it will make a big difference.

I have a question for the Left Party. What is the answer regarding the red-green migration policy? Is it a long return to 2015 that the Left Party stands and speaks about here in the speaker's chair? Is it what we can expect if the red-greens were to win the election in 2026 – that Sweden should return to permanent residence permits, that we should no longer have subsistence requirements for family migration, that the EBO system should remain? Will it be a long series of restorations?

It can be important to keep in mind when there are other parties on the red-green side that say that one should tighten the migration policy. That was not the case last time. I note that the Left Party, as well as several other parties on the red-green side, seem to want to return to the situation in 2015. That would not be responsible towards Sweden, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Rule of law has been a theme in several speeches. I have raised it with the Member of Parliament from the Moderaterna before Johan Forssell arrived, and I intended to ask some very concrete questions to the Minister for Migration.

Recently, Statskontoret presented its report *Många öar små*, which shows that the uniformity in Migrationsverket's assessments is lacking. Statskontoret proposes that the government should task Migrationsverket with reporting back on what the agency does to ensure that case processing is uniform and legally secure.

We in the Social Insurance Committee have met with the Director General of the Swedish Migration Agency, who has welcomed this report. I would like to ask the Minister for Migration if he intends to give such a mandate in the regulatory letter as the National Audit Office proposes and which the Director General appeared very positive towards.

I also want to ask the Minister for Migration how he views the fact that Sweden has, on several occasions, been condemned by the UN for violations of the prohibition against torture because individuals have been deported despite risking persecution. This has included, among other things, Christian converts who have been deported to the Taliban's Afghanistan. Does the Minister for Migration believe that there is a rule of law problem when Sweden is condemned by the UN for violations of the prohibition against torture when it comes to asylum cases?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall have a migration policy that is secure in terms of the rule of law. Sweden has a migration policy that is secure in terms of the rule of law. It is very important to establish that. It sometimes sounds in the chamber, not least when Miljöpartiet takes the floor, as if the migration policy were not secure in terms of the rule of law. It was also an important part of the report that Annika Hirvonen refers to, that is, that Sweden has a migration policy that is secure in terms of the rule of law.

It has not always been that way. Once upon a time, it was not authorities and independent courts that made the asylum decisions, but it was politicians in the chamber. I become concerned when I hear those types of tones coming from Miljöpartiet now, that is to say, to involve themselves in individual cases and to imply that the entire system would not work. We have reason to be proud of the system we have. It is legally secure. Authorities and independent courts make the important but so difficult decisions.

We have, of course, noted the report that came from Statskontoret. All systems can always be improved. Just monitoring and constantly developing the systems is also an important part of the Tidö Agreement.

We will, of course, follow up to ensure that the matters that have emerged in the report are taken forward. We do this continuously in our dialogue with the authorities, and we have already done so on several points. But it is important to state that the general quality is good in Sweden even in that area.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask Annika Hirvonen something that I did not receive an answer to in the previous exchange when we are now talking about the important issue of migration policy. What is the red-green alternative to the migration policy? Is it the Left Party's and the Green Party's line that applies here – and naturally the Center Party's? Is it in large parts a return to what applied in 2015, where Sweden is again to have rules that differ from actually all other countries? Or is it what the Social Democrats say? Whose line on the red-green side is it actually that applies? Perhaps Annika Hirvonen would like to answer.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! What this debate has mostly been about is the government's issue after 2026. I promise that even though this is a debate on expenditure area 8 Migration in the state budget, I will request the floor and answer that question if Johan Forssell answers my two questions that I asked in my first reply.

Will the government give the Swedish Migration Agency a mandate in the regulatory letter to report back on what the agency does to ensure that case processing is uniform and legally secure in accordance with the recommendations from the Swedish Government Offices' report *Många öar små*? That report shows that uniformity is lacking and that the governance from the central level is too weak when it comes to, for example, legal positions.

The second question concerns the fact that Sweden, on a number of occasions – I am aware of four occasions – in a short period of time has been condemned by the UN because individuals, despite having undergone assessment by both the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts in accordance with all the legal safeguards that exist in the system, have nevertheless received decisions that contravene the prohibition against torture. Is it, according to the Minister, a problem? Will the Minister take measures to ensure that Sweden never extradites people to torture, persecution, and death?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall repeat my answers for Annika Hirvonen.

Regarding the conclusions in the National Audit Office's report, we have already moved several of them forward. Regarding the regulatory letter, I understand that Annika Hirvonen is curious, but we will do as we have done all previous years, and even red-green governments, namely present the regulatory letters collectively before Christmas. Wait a few more days and answers will come!

Regarding the third question, I can say the following. It is of course always bad if incorrect decisions are made that are not legally secure. That is also the reason why we have already taken further action on several of the matters that Statskontoret pointed out.

It was three questions and three straight answers.

The answer to the question about the red-green migration policy was perhaps not quite as clear and distinct. It was, in fact, a non-answer, and that is probably in line with what we have heard in the debate. It becomes a bit strange that an opposition that criticizes most things cannot even unite on one single small thing in the debate. It is completely empty. Quota refugees - disagree. Support level for family migration - disagree. Permanent residence permits - disagree. Dagersättning - disagree. Amnesty for persons who do not have the right to be in Sweden - disagree. EBO legislation - disagree. Return - disagree.

I may have missed several areas! But it is point by point. What is the red-green alternative, really? It is easy to stand here and complain about others, but the only thing that seems to be the common denominator among the red-green parties – Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet – is that Sweden shall return to having a higher asylum reception than before. It may be going back to the situation in 2015, which created such great problems for Sweden and for many people in our country.

I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that this is what the Swedish people want. We must hope that we receive answers in the future because we did not receive them in this debate.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not really want to prolong the debate, but if one has promised something, one must keep it. I promised that if Johan Forssell answered my questions, I would answer his. Since I had no reply left, it had to be a statement, but I will keep it short because the hour is late.

When the red-green side wins the election in 2026, we will negotiate and reach a common policy in all areas, including in migration policy. In that negotiation, Miljöpartiet, just as we have done previously, will fight for the right of asylum, for strengthened legal certainty, for the right of severely ill children to stay if they cannot receive care in their home country, for the right to family reunification, for strengthened integration, for a systematic effort against segregation, and to ensure that all people feel welcome in Sweden. No one shall be subjected to, for example, discrimination or racial profiling.

One should feel proud when going to work, regardless of whether one is born in Sweden or somewhere else.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 11 December.)

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