The National Audit Office's report on the system for revocations of residence permits

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I would like to thank the Swedish National Audit Office for having conducted this audit. It is important to have good auditing and that we get it in black and white what can be improved in the state's administration.

I also want to point out that we have a specific statement in this matter. In the specific statement, we highlight, among other things, the valve introduced in 2013 in this issue as well as the fact that a great deal has been acted upon by previous governments.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have, in a separate statement, emphasized that during part of the period covered by the report, Syrians were granted permanent residence permits due to the Migration Agency's legal position that they should be granted such.

It is an interesting historical fact that the Migration Agency took such a decision. However, this report is about something completely different. The National Audit Office's report concerns the revocation of residence permits, not the granting of residence permits.

Furthermore, not a single word in the report mentions the Swedish Migration Agency's decision that Syrians should be granted permanent residence permits. The Swedish Migration Agency's decision to give Syrians permanent residence permits resulted in quite a few things that were negative for Sweden, but it has not resulted in fewer residence permits being revoked. I would like the Social Democrats to explain how that connects.

However, it states in the report that revocations of residence permits had low priority under the then Social Democratic government. That is the explanation for the deficiencies in revocations of residence permits, according to the report that we are discussing today. According to the report, it was the Social Democratic government that did not give Migrationsverket any goals, assignments, or reporting requirements regarding revocations of residence permits. That is what has caused the deficiencies if one is to base it on the Swedish National Audit Office's report.

What do the Social Democrats actually mean in their special statement?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! In response to the first question, it is of course clear that if one issues permanent residence permits, there will also be more residence permits to revoke later in the process. If they are temporary, they will not be extended if one does not re-apply for them. Therefore, it is relevant.

The second question concerns the goals, and there we have had different objectives. The report also says that other types of cases have been prioritized, for example, returns where we set a goal of 50 percent.

A number of measures have also been taken to coordinate this activity more broadly than just in this type of case through a number of assignments, for example, improved service of process, improvements in the Swedish Payments Agency, confidentiality-breaking measures to enable the exchange of information, as well as the fact that the population register has been reorganized based on Social Democratic inquiries.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! A record few residence permits are being granted today, according to the statistics we have. But that does not mean we are to work less on the revocation of residence permits. The two are not connected. Residence permits must be revoked if there is no basis for the residence permit, even when few residence permits are granted. I do not quite understand how this is connected, but the member may perhaps explain a bit more.

The lack of focus on revocations of residence permits on the part of the Social Democratic government is what has caused the deficiencies in the Swedish Migration Agency's operations regarding revocations of residence permits.

It is also what has caused Försäkringskassan to have paid out funds to persons who either should not have received permanent residence permits or did not even have a residence permit. Hundreds of millions of kronor have been paid out to these persons because the Social Democratic government has not focused on the revocation of residence permits.

Even though the Social Democrats, as the member now says, have shifted their focus to something else, this has harmed Sweden in various ways, including by tax funds being paid out to individuals who should not have received social insurance benefits.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I am surprised that the member does not understand that the volume of cases at an agency also determines what can be prioritized. For example, 163,000 people came during a single year due to the legislation that the member's coalition partners introduced, and it is clear that this has an impact. One must prioritize in that flow of cases.

We see that the problem with incorrect payments is broader. The Payments Authority is now working with confidentiality-breaking measures, data sharing, and so on. That is to say, the focus on ensuring that it becomes correct in the system has been there.

Then I agree that it is good that the Swedish National Audit Office presents an audit where it is stated that different goals would have been needed here. That is the purpose of the audit, and I appreciate that we have a National Audit Office.

The National Audit Office has also pointed out that we have deadweight effects in the renovation deduction of 8 billion annually and that the fraud with the weapon this year is record-breaking at 85 million - 12 million down in Skåne, where we come from.

It is interesting that what one emphasizes and gets annoyed about in the payments is precisely this. It is too damn much, one thinks. But it is not about the total sums of money. It is because here it is about immigrants and potentially Muslims, whom the member has historically shown a strong aversion towards.

It was also the case that the pace of the recalls increased towards the end. The Swedish Migration Agency noticed this in 2019, and therefore approximately one-third of the total amount was recalled in 2020 and 2021. From 2022, it was also clear that work was being done on this issue because, in dialogue with the government, it had been concluded that it was necessary. So, things have happened here.

It is also the case that if things happen, such as an enormous amount arriving in 2014-2015, then it shifts. One has to handle a huge number of cases. Then it is clear that the effects also arise later. It lies in the nature of the matter. But the member's lack of experience in governing shows itself here. He does not understand how an authority works.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we have the opportunity in this chamber to discuss a report that truly punctures the myth that the Social Democrats conducted a strict migration policy.

The report looks at revocations of residence permits during the period 2013-2020. For almost the entire period, the Socialdemokraterna held government power and shaped the migration policy.

When a foreigner with a permanent residence permit leaves Sweden to settle in another country, the Swedish Migration Agency shall revoke the permanent residence permit. But this has not functioned when the Social Democrats have governed Sweden. According to the report, 9,000 foreigners retained their permanent residence permits at the end of 2020 despite having left the country in 2019 or earlier. According to the report, this was the tip of an iceberg, as additional persons had likely left the country without this being registered by Swedish authorities.

The report also shows that 1,700 people who were registered as residents in Sweden and had residence permits for work completely lacked registered work income in 2020 without their residence permits being revoked.

The Swedish National Audit Office assesses that an important explanation for these deficiencies is that revocations of residence permits have had low priority for the previous government and the Swedish Migration Agency.

Previous governments between the years 2013 and 2022 have not given Migrationsverket any goals, mandates or reporting requirements regarding revocations of residence permits.

At the same time, the Social Democratic government has implemented extensive savings at the Swedish Migration Agency, which has resulted in the Swedish Migration Agency not being able to take its own initiatives to prioritize the revocation of residence permits.

It is not a strict migration policy one pursues if one does not revoke residence permits for those foreigners who no longer have any grounds to stay in Sweden. It is not a strict migration policy one pursues if foreigners can retain their residence permits when they openly deviate from the grounds on which their residence permits were based.

This is however exactly what has happened during the Social Democratic government. The most upsetting thing is that some of this has happened after the migration crisis when it should have been obvious to all parties that those who have no basis for their residence permit should have their residence permit revoked.

The Social Democrats and their coalition parties in the government have simply bungled the migration policy. And for all this bungling, for this poor design of the migration policy, the taxpayers have paid a price. Apart from the price paid in the form of a less secure society resulting from the fact that people who do not have the right to stay in Sweden continue to stay in Sweden, quite a lot of money has been paid out by Swedish authorities to these foreigners who should have had their residence permits revoked.

The National Audit Office's report shows incorrect payments from state agencies and municipalities of up to 430 million kronor during the period 2013 to 2020. The payments have partly gone to foreigners whose residence permits have been revoked, and partly to persons who have permanently moved from the country without their permanent residence permits being revoked.

The reason that foreigners whose residence permits have been revoked have continued to receive various forms of social security benefits and grants in Sweden is that authorities have not shared information with each other. Among others, Försäkringskassan has not had up-to-date information that the foreigner in question had their residence permit revoked.

All this has been ongoing for a long time without the Social Democrats having acted, either before or after the migration crisis. All this is also a sign of how little the Social Democrats have focused on the return activities. If one does not have a handle on who is to be in the country, one also does not know how many are to be deported.

It is a fact that under the Social Democratic government, there has been total chaos regarding migration policy. People who have lacked residence permits have collected social security benefits that they were not entitled to.

The Social Democrats, who are so meticulous when it comes to who should pay tax and how much, have not been able to prevent illegal migrants from collecting benefits that they absolutely had no right to. It is a scandal. This is not how it should work in a developed country.

The National Audit Office's report shows that the increasing number of illegal migrants, who in turn promote the illegal economy and organized crime, is rooted in the migration policy that has been conducted. According to the report, 44 percent of all those whose residence permits were revoked between the years 2013 and 2020 were still registered as residents in Sweden on 31 December 2021.

How can it be possible that the Swedish Migration Agency revokes a residence permit and that the foreign national, who then no longer has the right to stay in Sweden, is still registered in the population register in Sweden several years later, despite the fact that the foreign national has not been granted a new residence permit? Is this what the Social Democrats call a strict migration policy?

I can understand that the Social Democrats complain that the government wants to introduce an information obligation where authorities and municipalities shall inform the Police Authority and the Swedish Migration Agency if these authorities and municipalities come into contact with illegal migrants. Based on what the Social Democrats have done during their years in power, it seems as if they have wanted to keep illegal migrants in the country.

It is also good for the public to hear some more facts about how these illegal migrants have been able to collect benefits thanks to the Social Democrats' mismanagement. The National Audit Office assesses that Swedish authorities during the period 2014 to 2020 incorrectly paid out up to just over 121 million kronor in grants to foreigners whose residence permits have been revoked. Municipalities have paid out an additional 54 million kronor in financial assistance to illegal migrants.

During the same period, Swedish authorities have paid out up to 260 million kronor in residency-based benefits to approximately 1,650 foreigners who retained their permanent residence permit despite having been registered as moved out of Sweden and lacking the right to these residency-based benefits.

When it comes to foreigners with residence permits for studies, one in four foreigners with such a residence permit did not fulfill the conditions for their residence permit between the years 2013 and 2020. According to the Swedish National Audit Office, this is considered a conservative estimate.

This is anything but the result of a strict migration policy.

The current government has begun the work of establishing a migration policy that creates order and that the public can have confidence in. In its first regulatory letter to the Swedish Migration Agency, the government tasked the Swedish Migration Agency with taking measures to strengthen its work with cases regarding the revocation of residence permits.

Just the fact that the government began focusing on this activity very early has yielded results. Already during 2023, the number of revocations of residence permits began to increase significantly compared to previous years. The Swedish Migration Agency's annual report for 2023 shows that the number of revoked residence permits and status declarations more than doubled compared to 2022.

A few weeks ago, I personally visited a revocation unit at the Swedish Migration Agency that works with revoking residence permits. They are developing their working methods; among other things, they are working on revoking the residence permits for all those who "fled" from their home country but still travel back there every summer.

Now the tip function also works, so you can simply tip off the Migration Agency if you have information about such cases or other cases where someone has submitted false information regarding their grounds for a residence permit. Routines have been established where specialists work with these cases systematically.

We are moving towards an order for migration where everyone must follow the regulations. However, more resources are needed for this activity. It concerns personnel resources, as more people shall work with the revocation of residence permits because there was hardly any activity around this during the Social Democrats' government, which the Swedish National Audit Office's report highlights.

But other types of resources are also needed, such as IT systems to manage the information surrounding these cases so that the revocations of residence permits can become more numerous and occur faster. The very question of IT systems has been addressed in the government's regulatory letter to Migrationsverket for 2024, where Migrationsverket has been tasked with increasing the efficiency of the operations with the help of digital technology.

The Swedish Migration Agency shall also, moving forward, report various forms of data and statistics regarding recall cases so that the mistakes that occurred under the Social Democratic government are not repeated. Given the level of mismanagement that has occurred regarding the recall of residence permits, more resources are needed to work with this activity for a long time to come.

Under this government, legislative changes have also been adopted to make it easier to revoke residence permits. Such a legislative change entered into force on 1 March 2024. It means that it shall be possible in certain cases to revoke a residence permit if it can be assumed that the foreign national will engage in state-controlled corporate espionage or activities linked to terrorism.

Several investigations are also underway to produce legislative proposals where it will be easier to revoke residence permits when they are abused. This includes, among other things, proposals where residence permits can be revoked due to deficiencies in the foreigner's lifestyle.

Opportunities also arise here to revoke residence permits for imams who spread hate or foreigners who sympathize with extremists.

When it comes to the issue of revocations of residence permits, this government has, through its decisiveness, clearly shown that the Social Democrats refrained from acting for the country's best interests. The National Audit Office's report clearly shows that the Social Democrats are anything but fit to govern, as they have grossly mismanaged the migration policy.

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

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe in regulated immigration. If one believes in regulated immigration, the revocation of residence permits is part of that. I believe it is important that we revoke residence permits when someone has unfairly obtained their residence permit. It could be that one has violated the conditions for their work permit or study permit. One may not have attended school but instead done something else and had another purpose with their visit to the country. One may have done something that means one should not remain here. Regardless of what it concerns, revocations of residence permits are an important part of regulated immigration.

It is interesting to take part in the Swedish National Audit Office's report on – or criticism of – the previous government, which has now been presented. The Social Democrats cannot blame this on some troll factory or claim that it is some kind of government propaganda. This is in black and white. This is a report from the Swedish National Audit Office where it is stated that the Social Democratic government did nothing.

Madam Speaker! The air is probably still trembling after Magdalena Andersson barked because people were sitting in the benches and talking a few days ago. Despite that, her party colleagues are sitting and talking in the benches today. They disturbed the previous speaker, and I see that they are starting to talk now as well. I am just noting it.

Let us return to the subject. In the National Audit Office's report, it is stated that the previous government neither gave as a mandate nor had as a goal that the Swedish Migration Agency should work with recalls. Now, however, efforts are being made on this.

I was in Gothenburg last week and visited the revocation unit being built up there. Proud employees told me that they were handpicked to work specifically with revocations of residence permits. They have taken the best of those who have worked with work permits, study permits, asylum, and residence permits for protection reasons. To work with revocations of residence permits, one must namely be able to know all the different reasons for why residence permits have been granted in Sweden. They are working hard on this, and more cases are being opened now. We also receive praise for this in the report.

It is noted in the report that there has previously been no communication between different authorities in Sweden. The fact that the Swedish Tax Agency knew about people who could have been grounds for revoking residence permits is information that has not been shared with the Swedish Migration Agency. This also applies to other authorities. We are addressing this now. We are breaking down walls between authorities so that information can flow and so that we can get this in order. We shall have an immigration to Sweden that is regulated but also legally secure.

Something that has struck me now that I have worked with these issues for nearly two years is that people who have residence permits in Sweden because they cannot be in their home country have nevertheless been able to go on vacation there. I have had this picture confirmed by passport controllers at the country's airports and also by employees at Migrationsverket. They have told me that they know people travel to their home countries on vacation even though they say they are to be protected from them. But nothing has been done previously, because there has not been any regulatory framework or system for revoking residence permits. Work has begun on this, but of course, more can be done.

It is not reasonable that someone who is in Sweden and says they need protection from their home country goes on vacation there and is there for a few weeks a year. But that is what one starts working on now. However, it is certainly possible to do more there as well.

The important thing is that the National Audit Office notes that it was not good before. We all saw that, but it feels good to have it confirmed. It will get better now. I look forward to the government basis' continued work in producing good policy to get Sweden's migration in order.

(Applause)

In this speech, Eleonore Lundkvist (M) and Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) concurred.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the system for revocations of residence permits. It is an important issue. Sweden, as a country, should have control over who has the right to stay here and also who should no longer have a residence permit. It is important from many different aspects, for example, to create confidence in the migration policy but also for security reasons and not least economically. It is about what our tax money is used for.

The National Audit Office has, in its report, audited the system for revocations of residence permits between the years 2013 and 2022. They have audited whether it has functioned effectively. The overall analysis has proceeded from the following questions: Are the objectives of the revocation activities being achieved? Does the Swedish Migration Agency have an effective process for initiating, investigating, and deciding on revocation cases? Are there effective channels between the Swedish Migration Agency and other relevant authorities to share necessary information in revocation cases? The result is disappointing and also noteworthy, as the overall conclusion is that the system for revocations of residence permits during the assessment period 2013-2022 has not functioned effectively.

The Swedish National Audit Office highlights a number of deficiencies in the management in its report. It points out, among other things, that the Swedish Migration Agency has not always initiated revocation proceedings even though there has been information suggesting that it should have been done. Deficiencies in the notification procedures mean that the Swedish Migration Agency's decisions on revocation do not always become legally binding. Furthermore, it is unclear what proportion of all those who have their residence permits revoked actually leave the country, since not everyone is deregistered from the population register as having moved out. Incorrect payments of subsidies, financial assistance, and housing-based benefits therefore occur.

The National Audit Office also assesses that the Swedish Migration Agency has not had effective approaches for handling revocations of residence permits or protection status declarations during the period under review.

The Swedish National Audit Office notes that regarding these issues, the government's governance of the Swedish Migration Agency during the assessment period has been weak, if not non-existent, because the Swedish Migration Agency was given no goals, mandates, or reporting requirements regarding recalls between the years 2013 and 2022.

This bleak picture gives the impression that this was not an important issue for the S-led government. They did not follow up on the situation and gave no directives, and thus no change could occur either. Once again, S stands at the rostrum and says that they took action, that they started the process and that they made changes when they were in power. But when you sit at the helm and do not steer, the boat drifts freely. That is really not how one should handle an important issue.

Mr. Speaker! It can be stated that the work with revocations has been substandard for a long time, during the period that the National Audit Office has examined. In order to maintain a good migration policy, the system for residence permits must be managed so that those residence permits that are no longer to be valid are revoked.

What were the consequences of this deficient handling? As mentioned earlier, 9,000 people retained their permanent residence permits at the end of 2020 even though they had been registered as moved out of Sweden in 2019 or earlier. Additional persons have likely left the country without it being registered by Swedish authorities.

It is also shown that 1,700 people who were registered as residents in Sweden and had residence permits for work lacked work income. This means that they have not worked. An additional 2,800 people with residence permits for studies lacked registration for any form of studies in Sweden. This means that almost every tenth work permit and every fourth study permit can be questioned. This is remarkable.

Mr. Speaker! This does not only have the effect that people incorrectly retain their residence permits. It also has an economic effect. The audit shows that incorrect payments from state agencies and municipalities of up to 430 million kronor occurred during the period 2013-2020. They have gone partly to persons whose residence permits have been revoked, and partly to persons who have permanently moved from the country without their permanent residence permits being revoked. The error lies therefore both with Migrationsverket and with the paying authorities.

Mr. Speaker! The report shows that the management and handling of revocations are not at the level that we as citizens can expect. It is important for the legitimacy of regulated immigration that fraud and abuse are prevented, detected, and addressed. Residence and work permits shall be revoked when there is grounds for it.

The Christian Democrats share the Swedish National Audit Office's assessment that revocation issues have not been prioritized in the management of the Swedish Migration Agency for a long period, that is, during the previous S-government's management. But fortunately, a change occurred after the change of government. The new government tasked the Swedish Migration Agency in December 2022 to take measures to strengthen its work with cases regarding the revocation of permits. Additional assignments have also been given in the regulatory letters for 2023 and 2024. The Swedish Migration Agency also stated in its annual report for 2023 that the number of revoked residence permits and status declarations had more than doubled compared to 2022.

Mr. Speaker! The report shows a lack of interest and governance from the S-led government, which has caused great costs for Sweden as a country. Even in this debate – which S is participating in, which was not the case earlier in the week – self-awareness regarding cause and effect and responsibility is conspicuous by its absence. It is fortunate that the newly appointed government has taken hold of the issue and clearly stated in the regulatory letter that this is a priority issue – an activity that was missing during the previous eight years when S was in power.

This area shows, like so many others, that a change of government was required for issues to receive the right priority and for issues such as revocations of residence permits to truly receive the right focus and direction.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! In its report Systemet för återkallelser av uppehållstillstånd, the Swedish National Audit Office states that the regulatory framework for the revocation of residence permits is not being applied as intended.

When, for example, a person with a permanent residence permit in Sweden moves permanently from the country, the Swedish Migration Agency shall revoke the residence permit. Despite this, 9,000 people still had their permanent residence permits at the end of 2020 even though they were registered as having moved from Sweden in 2019 or earlier. The situation was much worse in 2018 and 2019, when between 14,000 and 16,000 people were in this situation and could continue to receive financial assistance, child allowance, parental leave benefits, and other residence-based benefits that they were not entitled to.

In this context, it may be relevant to point out that a permanent residence permit according to the Aliens Act shall be revoked if the person is no longer residing in Sweden. It is therefore something that the authorities are obliged to do, not as in other cases where the Aliens Act instead uses the word "may".

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office's analysis also shows that 1,700 people who were registered as residents in Sweden and had residence permits for work completely lacked registered work income in 2020 without the permit being revoked. An additional 2,800 people with residence permits for studies lacked registration for any form of studies in Sweden. This means that almost every tenth work permit and every fourth study permit can be questioned.

These figures are also cautious estimates. As the Swedish National Audit Office points out, there are also additional reasons for recalls that are not covered by register data and which therefore are not included in the estimate.

Mr. Speaker! It is a matter of a serious failure to do what should have been done according to the law. It is a neglect that is symptomatic of an unacceptable way of handling migration issues. It undermines the credibility of our entire regulated immigration policy.

How could this have happened? Who bears the responsibility for this complete failure regarding following the rules that govern the right to stay in Sweden?

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office's report is crystal clear in this regard. According to the National Audit Office, an important explanation for the mentioned deficiencies is that recalls have had a low priority for both the government and the Swedish Migration Agency. Between the years 2013 and 2022, the government gave the Swedish Migration Agency no goals, assignments, or reporting requirements regarding recalls. That is to say, in plain terms: The government did not care at all about this.

It is written in the report as follows:

"The review shows that the government has not prioritized recalls in its governance of the agency. It is an important explanation as to why even the Migration Agency's management has prioritized scaling down the activities in its internal governance. For example, the recall cases are not included in the agency's internal production targets and resource allocation."

Despite these very serious findings, the Social Democrats, who held government responsibility between 2014 and 2022, claim that it was they who drove through a historical paradigm shift in migration policy. This claim is very poorly aligned with the serious negligences that the Swedish National Audit Office has mapped out. The Social Democrats therefore have a great deal to explain in this context.

Mr. Speaker! The serious political negligence that the Swedish National Audit Office has identified, plus other deficiencies in this context, has cost taxpayers considerable sums.

The review shows incorrect payments from state agencies and municipalities amounting to up to 430 million kronor during the period 2013-2020. The payments have gone partly to persons whose residence permits have been revoked, and partly to persons who have permanently moved from the country without their permanent residence permits being revoked. The direct error lies with Migrationsverket and the paying authorities, but fundamentally there is a fundamental political responsibility, a lack of political will from the government's side to address this issue.

But there is something even more important that is highlighted in the report. According to the National Audit Office, the incorrect payments are a symptom of a broader issue with a lack of controls regarding who is covered by the Swedish social insurances. It is not about safeguarding the welfare for the Swedish people.

Mr. Speaker! Now we have a government that takes these issues seriously, and therefore the Swedish Migration Agency has been tasked in its regulatory letters to prioritize cases regarding the revocation of residence permits. It is a real paradigm shift that will restore credibility to our regulated immigration system and additionally save a great deal of resources that are needed for the school, healthcare, and the justice system.

The result of this changed attitude has been very tangible. In 2022, just over 4,800 residence permits were revoked. In 2023, nearly 11,000 residence permits were revoked for persons who no longer met the requirements. From 4,800 to 11,000, Mr. Speaker – it is a real paradigm shift.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) and Magnus Resare (M) concurred.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I regret that I missed my place in the speaking order; I attended an incredibly valuable seminar in the Riksdag's second chamber which concerned related issues, namely the introduction of a reporting system in the hunt for undocumented persons.

From the perspective of the Green Party, we view with great concern how the sitting government, led by the Sweden Democrats, has placed all focus on casting suspicion on immigrants and making life as difficult as possible for people who have moved to our country.

When one only prioritizes what concerns making life harder for people or sending people out of our country, there is a worrying tendency to opt out of issues that concern, for example, legal certainty. For example, I note that the word "legal certainty" is no longer included in the Swedish Migration Agency's regulatory letter, even though we know that there are major deficiencies regarding the assessment of grounds for asylum for, for example, vulnerable groups such as converts, LGBTQ refugees, and so on. We also note that Sweden stands out compared to our neighbors in the rest of Europe regarding the number of rejections for asylum seekers from Afghanistan.

When it comes to ensuring that the regulatory framework is complied with, we have no objections, and we think it is good that the Swedish National Audit Office has noted that there are deficiencies that can be addressed. This applies, for example, to IT systems that could be improved so that we can simply ensure that the regulatory framework is followed.

I see, however, with great concern, the government's and the Tidö parties' ambition to make more and more people deportable - to introduce more grounds for revoking residence permits. This concerns, for example, what is being discussed regarding misconduct, where people, because they are exposed to crime and exploited in prostitution or because of substance abuse, may risk losing their right to live a safe life in Sweden.

We from the Green Party's side will monitor these priorities closely. We will continue to work to ensure that people who have been granted permanent residence permits do not lose them on grounds we do not consider acceptable, for example, lack of integrity. We also oppose a system that implies that favorable administrative decisions are withdrawn retroactively.

With those words, I support that we add the letter to the records.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The report we are discussing shows that during the period 2014-2020, incorrect payments of up to 260 million kronor have been made in settlement-based benefits. The payments have been made to 1,650 people who retained their permanent residence permits despite having moved from Sweden and thus lacked the right to settlement-based benefits. It is therefore 260 million kronor that have been paid out incorrectly over six years because Migrationsverket had not received the assignment from the government to work with revocations of residence permits.

The current government correctly tasked the Swedish Migration Agency early on to take measures to strengthen the work regarding cases of revocation of residence permits. It was, moreover, a task that the Swedish Migration Agency requested. Now, the revocation activities are being streamlined, and it has yielded results – during 2023, the number of revocations of residence permits more than doubled compared to 2022, and it will increase even more as the revocation activities receive more resources. There will be fewer incorrect payments, and those who do not have grounds to stay in Sweden will not have a residence permit. This creates greater confidence in regulated immigration.

Does Miljöpartiet support the government's line to ensure that more residence permits are revoked when there is no basis for the residence permit?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to people who have moved from Sweden and therefore no longer have the right to, for example, grants based on being resident in Sweden, we think it is very good that there is a system that prevents people from receiving benefits that they actually are not entitled to. We think that is good.

As I said in my speech, however, there are many proposals that the Tidö parties have presented in their agreement that are about making more people lawless. More people shall lose their residence permits on completely different grounds than those that apply today. Then it is no longer about, for example, having moved from Sweden, but then we are talking about, for example, having been exploited in prostitution – that it should be able to lead to one losing their residence permit. We in Miljöpartiet do not support that.

We do, however, think it is positive that the Swedish Migration Agency has improved its routines and is working more efficiently with IT systems to prevent fraud with, for example, settlement-based benefits, which are intended to be for people who actually live in Sweden and not for people who live in other countries.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

If the Green Party now supports the work with the revocation of residence permits, I wonder how it is that the Green Party did not invest resources in this, did not establish revocation units, and did not give this assignment to the Swedish Migration Agency so that the Swedish Migration Agency could streamline its work with the revocation of residence permits. That is a question I have for the member.

My second question is whether Miljöpartiet, if they ever gain influence over policy, will strengthen the revocation units that currently exist at Migrationsverket—the units that work on investigating and revoking residence permits on the scale we see today under this government. Will that activity be strengthened? Because some reinforcement was needed there regarding personnel resources and IT systems, so that more residence permits can be revoked when there is no basis for them.

Finally, regarding what the member said about revoking residence permits in more cases than we do today and due to deficiencies in lifestyle: It could also be about, for example, an imam who spreads antisemitism, that is to say that his residence permit is revoked. It could be about someone who has a residence permit and is involved in gang crime and harms people here in Sweden. Obviously, that person's residence permit should be revoked. Does the member not agree with this?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I perceived three questions. The first was whether we in Miljöpartiet, in two years when we take power in Sweden after the next election, will provide Migrationsverket with more resources specifically for the return activities. The second question was why the measures that Riksrevisionen recommends have not been implemented earlier, i.e., before we received Riksrevisionens report. The last question was whether I think that persons who express certain opinions or commit crimes should be able to lose their residence permits.

When it comes to exactly which budget priorities we will make in 2026, when we in Miljöpartiet take over government power, I ask to be allowed to return to that. I look forward to taking a position on that question together with the coalition parties we will have.

I see that there are great needs for resources and many areas that are extremely neglected. This applies to both the legal certainty at the Swedish Migration Agency in several types of cases, for example converters and LGBTQI persons, and in other areas, for example climate policy.

Why have we not taken these measures before? The Swedish National Audit Office's report has arrived now, and now we stand behind making these issues visible in internal planning, developing automated systems for tip management, streamlining distribution etcetera. This is nothing that the government has prevented the Swedish Migration Agency from doing, but it is only now that this has actually been audited. It is only now we have received this in black and white from the Swedish National Audit Office.

Regarding the last question, I do not think that immigrants should have less freedom of expression than Swedish citizens. I think there should be the same freedom of expression for everyone. I also think that serious crime, just as today, should be able to lead to deportation. I do not think that it should apply to persons who are exploited as crime victims or who are ill.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask a question to Annika. If the Swedish Migration Agency determines on a Monday that someone is a refugee and if this refugee on Tuesday celebrates this by booking a trip to their home country and on Wednesday travels there, does the member - like me - think it is then reasonable to open a revocation case if the Swedish Migration Agency receives information about this?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There is a regulatory framework that applies to refugees and how to assess whether a person seeking their home country's protection can still be considered a refugee from that country. If one returns to their home country and utilizes their home country's protection, it is a ground that in the individual case can be assessed as meaning that one can no longer be considered to have refugee status.

There are also situations where one can travel back to their home country and retain their refugee status. Such exceptions can involve persons who are refugees from a country but who, for example, need to travel back due to the imminent death of a close relative. There are situations where it is not considered that a person should lose their refugee status because they travel to their home country. This assessment needs to be made in the individual case.

Since we are talking about the revocation of residence permits, I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question to Magnus Resare regarding the conduct requirements that are now being introduced. Does he think it is reasonable that a person loses their residence permit because the person is being exploited in prostitution, exercises their freedom of speech, or has an addiction or an illness?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is positive that Hirvonen shares the view that one should actually open recall cases in those instances where someone returns. If one then judges that there is grounds for a recall, that is another matter. It is very good that we agree that one shall open recall cases. It is something that has not happened previously.

I can answer your question, Annika Hirvonen - since you were not here and could not respond to me, I can let you respond to me now. I think we have to look at exactly what is to apply. Some years ago, I saw an episode of Uppdrag granskning that showed a number of women from another country who were in the Nordics and sold sex. They marketed this as a fantastic business idea on social media and urged men and women from their home country to come to the Nordics and sell sex.

I thought this was terrible. Some of the women who had come here at the request of women from their home country who were already here were interviewed. They had ended up in horrific situations. They had been exploited, been locked up, and subjected to repeated rape. I thought it was horrific.

There were people who marketed their thing as sex workers here and encouraged more women to come here and put themselves in the same situation. That situation became appalling. I can imagine that one can actually review whether they should have the right to continue to be in Sweden, because what they do puts people in appalling situations. They come here in the belief and hope that this would be something positive after having seen expensive handbags and other things on social media.

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

TALMANNEN

I remind that one shall speak through the Speaker.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate the sincerity. If we want to protect women from other countries who are exploited in prostitution, I believe it is very important that we ensure they are not so afraid of reporting to the police and seeking protection. They can, for example, be afraid of being immediately deported. I believe this is something that increases their vulnerability.

I believe it is important that migration policy is adapted to put those who exploit people behind bars instead of scaring away those who are being exploited from seeking help. This applies to both persons exploited in human trafficking and prostitution and labor migrants. It also applies to other groups, for example, women exposed to violence who are family-based migrants.

We need to ensure that the fear of being expelled from Sweden never prevents anyone from reporting crimes they have been subjected to or participating in legal processes.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! When I heard what Member Hirvonen said in his speech and in the exchanges, I wondered what it is we are discussing today. We are discussing a report concerning political responsibility for the fact that hundreds of millions of kronor have been paid out incorrectly and that tens of thousands of people have been able to live in Sweden without having a right to it.

Instead of taking responsibility as a governing party, as the Green Party was during these years, the member of Parliament is attempting a sleight of hand. She is trying to talk about something else - about the Tidö Agreement and about this and that - and ask questions about it.

I do not think this is good, Mr. Speaker. One must take full political responsibility. That is what a former - and perhaps future - governing party should do. This is not right towards the voters or the citizens. It is not right towards all those people who did not receive a share of the resources that during this time were incorrectly paid out to persons who were here in Sweden without having the right to it. This is not taking responsibility for a regulated immigration policy. It undermines trust in the authorities.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the member takes their responsibility and answers regarding that which this report is based on.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have answered questions regarding this report, which was presented quite recently, which for example recommends an intelligence obligation between Försäkringskassan, Pensionsmyndigheten and Migrationsverket and which for example concerns work with more efficient data sharing at Migrationsverket. Had these views been presented earlier, they would surely have been acted upon earlier as well.

Abuse occurs in most public systems, and it is important to counter this. That is what we stand for.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is not about abuse. It is about a government that did not do what the law says a government should do.

According to the report, the review shows that the government that the Green Party sat in did not prioritize recall in its governance of the authority.

It sounds from the member that they knew nothing and that it is good that a report is coming so that they can find out. Imagine if authorities usually answered in that way: We did not know that a crime was being committed. But now we have received a report, so next time it will be better.

It is not serious, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the member, whom I respect very much for her efforts in the chamber, says something sensible about the report.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can only regret that Mauricio Rojas thinks I have not said anything sensible, but it happens quite frequently that representatives of different parties think so when they hear each other.

It is, however, important that all authorities work against fraud in the welfare systems, and I hope that the government will prioritize these issues, not only when it concerns immigrants but also when it concerns criminals who run health centers and profit-seeking in schools where the money goes to venture capitalists in other countries instead of to teaching assistants for children with neuropsychiatric disabilities.

I hope that the government prioritizes ensuring that our common tax money goes to the welfare and to those who are entitled to it. In all welfare systems, there are now deficiencies that, in the most serious cases, are exploited by organized crime, and to stop this as much as possible, our government took the initiative for, among other things, the Payment Authority, which is now finally in place.

I think it is good that the Swedish National Audit Office has audited this and that there are wise measures that the Swedish Migration Agency has taken and is working on. I am, however, worried about the future, and I think it is relevant to also speak about the Tidö parties' ambitions to make even more people deportable. I worry that, for example, many more women who are exploited in prostitution will end up in an even greater state of vulnerability than they already are now.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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