Stricter requirements in municipal adult education in Swedish for immigrants (SFI)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! The integration policy that Sweden has lived with for decades has been far too lax. The result we see now is the exclusion that has taken hold in large parts of the country. We know the figures, namely that over 700,000 live in 180 exclusion areas in our country. Unemployment, welfare dependency, and insecurity are everyday life for far too many. Behind every such figure is a human being whose freedom is restricted. There is an adult who cannot attend development meetings at their child's school and make themselves understood, a parent who cannot compete on the labor market, or a child who grows up with fewer opportunities than others.

There is a widespread linguistic poverty in Sweden. In preschools, it occurs all too often that employees cannot speak Swedish. In the latest PISA study, it appears that every third upper secondary school student cannot read at a basic level. One third of the foreign-born population lacks sufficient reading skills to access social information, while the figure among the domestic-born is 4 percent.

A linguistic divide has emerged, Mr. Speaker, which excludes people from the Swedish community and risks being passed down as an inheritance. This is not worthy of a country that wants to hold together. This is not worthy of a country that claims to safeguard education, knowledge, and the individual's freedom.

That is why we are now changing the policy. The government, with the Liberals at the helm, is fundamentally changing the integration policy, not through symbolic politics and loud words but through substantial systemic changes: language requirements for citizenship and for staff in preschools, an activity requirement for social assistance, and a benefit ceiling that strengthens the motivation to quickly learn Swedish and secure one's own livelihood.

If Sweden had listened to the Liberals back in 2002 when we proposed language requirements for citizenship, the language gap in Sweden would be smaller today. But it is never too late to do the right thing. The government is now investing in intensive Swedish training in primary school, in tens of thousands of vocational training places, and in language training in welfare activities. We are taking steps towards language preschools for the children who need it most. Above all, we are now implementing the largest reform package for schools in decades with new curricula, a new grading system, investments in students' study environments, billions for real teaching materials, a student health guarantee, and a clear mandate to raise the status of the teaching profession. The state is taking a step forward and re-regulating the foundations of the Swedish school system.

We do this, Mr. Speaker, because we want to see a Sweden where we form ourselves, where we behave, where we care, where knowledge is the continued source of our prosperity and where everyone has equal opportunities to realize their potential.

Reforming the teaching of Swedish for immigrants is a central part of this, Mr. Speaker. Sfi is, and shall be, one of the keys into Sweden, but today it does not function well enough. Nearly half of the participants discontinue their studies. Some do so because they have found jobs, which is positive of course, but far too many quit without either work or sufficient language skills. It is worthy of neither the individual nor society.

The bill that the Riksdag is to take a position on today does something about this. It establishes that SFI shall, as a general rule, be time-limited to three years with the possibility of extension for special reasons. It will be the end of years of repeated interruptions and re-entries that yield poorer results and cost great resources. Even though it is good that the bill proposes increased requirements for the participants in SFI, it is about much more. It is about giving people a real chance, that the municipalities shall take responsibility for reaching out to everyone who has a right to SFI and report their work in individual action plans. It shall become easier to study in another municipality if needed to manage everyday life. The assessment of each person's background and circumstances shall be guiding for the teaching so that both those who learn quickly and those who need more support can develop.

Skolverket is currently, on behalf of the government, working on developing new SFI courses aimed at improving individual adaptation. It is precisely that individual support that all good education is built upon. That is how more can succeed, and that is how more can move forward into the labor market.

It is this freedom, Mr. Speaker, that we liberals fight for – a liberal community of values where more people are given the opportunity to form themselves and where we care. We will not, with the help of a single proposition – everyone understands this – eradicate the linguistic poverty that has grown in Sweden over a long period, but today we take one of many small and decisive steps. We show that it matters to be able to speak Swedish, and we show that Sweden is a country where it pays to make an effort and where society, in turn, provides the tools to succeed in this.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Language is absolutely crucial if you are to establish yourself in a new country, take part in the community, and become part of the working life. It is through language that people can contribute and support themselves, as well as become active and conscious citizens. Therefore, today's debate on SFI is important.

There must be a clear expectation that everyone who comes to Sweden also learns Swedish. It should be both a right and a duty. Do your duty, claim your right – a social democratic starting point.

Let me start by being clear: We do not oppose stricter requirements or time limits. But they must be combined with measures that raise the quality of the education and strengthen the students' learning. It is the quality of the teaching that determines how long the education actually takes. Therefore, measures are also needed that stop the profit-seeking – even within SFI.

Unfortunately, we see few proposals for quality-enhancing measures in this bill. It is certainly positive that the municipalities shall report on how they inform, motivate, and seek out students, but the question is whether there will be any real effect on competence when the systematic quality work has such major deficiencies today. There, we Social Democrats would have liked to see the government adopt the proposals from the Kliva Inquiry, which concern a municipal language responsibility, a so-called KSA-function. We also believe that the municipalities should be required to seek out students who drop out.

As quality-enhancing measures, the government reports in principle only that Skolverket has been tasked with reviewing the courses. I have not seen any concrete proposals regarding courses, partial courses, and activity points, but I believe they will arrive in April. What I have seen is a proposal for vocational training at the basic level, SeQF level 2. This is a level that does not exist today. This work has unfortunately been characterized by a lack of cooperation with professional industries and national program councils. It is far from clear that the working life demands such vocational competence. It is not surprising that both Svenskt Näringsliv and LO reject the proposal that Skolverket has submitted.

If the government has more quality-enhancing measures in this area, I look forward to them with gratitude in this debate.

Mr. Speaker! The quality within SFI must be raised, and the throughput must be improved. That was why we commissioned the Klivutredningen – to strengthen the quality and the equality. The government's proposition on stricter requirements in SFI has a completely different perspective.

We do not say no to the time limits. But I ask myself: Why? What is the justification? I cannot find it in the bill. Why three years? Why was this chosen over the commission's proposal, which is well-elaborated? The proposal was four years, with an extension. Why does the government lean on its own assessments and considerations instead of actually taking into account the basis provided by the referral bodies and the research? Stockholm University, which is the country's leading research environment when it comes to Swedish as a second language, is not even commented on in the bill.

The Government also claims in the introduction that a majority of the referral bodies have approved the proposal. That conclusion is based, among other things, on five municipalities, a college and the Unemployment Insurance Inspection, as well as on the fact that Försäkringskassan had nothing to object to – they simply had no comments. This is, to put it mildly, a rather creative interpretation of the word majority.

Reading all the referral responses, one realizes that there is much more to take into account than the government's desire to push through its line. Svenskt Näringsliv and Skolinspektionen reach approximately the same conclusion as we do: Regardless of the time limit, there must be quality – the quality must be strengthened. VIS, Vuxenutbildning i samverkan, which represents all municipalities and some educational companies, has similar views. SKR asks what happens when the time limit expires. Arbetsförmedlingen argues that it is not clarified how a three-year period will lead to increased throughput or fewer dropouts. IFAU notes that many students may risk not reaching the goals within three years and that the government's justification is insufficient. SPSM asks the same question: Why three years? Why not four? Skolverket and Diskrimineringsombudsmannen reject the proposal. LO, TCO, Sveriges Lärare, Sveriges Vägledarförening, Folkbildningsrådet and Myndigheten för delaktighet advocate for the commission's proposal. We do as well.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal of three years is too narrow and poorly substantiated. The impact assessment is deficient when it comes to students with disabilities and students with little or no formal education. And there is no gender equality analysis.

We know that the combination of SFI and vocational training works well and leads to employment. That possibility must be developed, not weakened by rigid time limits that risk creating lock-in effects.

To strengthen the throughput, more teaching time and more qualified teachers are also required. Language learning takes time and is best done in classrooms with trained teachers. Today, the proportion of qualified teachers is too low, especially among private actors. Many municipalities have outsourced large parts of their SFI education to contractors, which increases the risk that profits take precedence over quality. The pursuit of profit in the Swedish education system also affects adult education. We Social Democrats want SFI to be conducted without profit motives.

The Kliv report contained several important proposals to strengthen equality, proposals that the government and the Sweden Democrats are now ignoring. The bill should have contained regulation of distance learning. Local teaching should be the main rule. It should also have contained stricter qualification requirements for teachers and measures to strengthen the municipalities' procurement competence in contracting.

We strengthened the School Inspectorate's mandate in 2022 so that supervision takes place continuously at the school level, regardless of the provider. That work must continue. The state needs to raise the bar for quality and increase the scrutiny of SFI providers. This bill tightens the requirements on the students, not on the system.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Caroline Helmersson Olsson asks: Why exactly three years? Why not the investigation's proposal of four? She means that an equality analysis is missing.

The Social Democrats let the integration policy remain devoid of requirements for a very long time. This has led to hundreds of thousands of women, not least in marginalized areas, who have come to Sweden and do not speak Swedish, being abandoned in an exclusion where they have not entered Swedish society and have not learned the Swedish language. The gender equality analysis is relatively clear. We believe that it must end now. We believe that it is now time for the women who have been left to their fate in the marginalized areas to enter SFI teaching, learn Swedish, find their place in society, and be seen by Swedish society. And with this come these expectations.

Mr. Speaker! The question that should be directed to the Social Democrats is: If one is now in favor of these time limits, why did one do nothing with these proposals when they were on the government's table when the Social Democrats ruled Sweden? That is reasonably the question that the Social Democrats need to answer, Mr. Speaker. Why did one let the women in exclusion, who have come to Sweden but have not been given the opportunity to learn Swedish, be left to their fate in the exclusion areas instead of introducing the clearer requirements and expectations and the time limits that one now claims to welcome? Why would it take several years, regarding the question of how many years things actually are allowed to take?

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

Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

I lead the Education Committee's evaluation group. I am happy to evaluate these matters within that framework. Today, I would like to use these minutes to talk about what is actually on the table.

The Kliv investigation was commissioned in 2018, I believe. A partial report was issued in 2019, with some measures. We have introduced a duty to educate and done a lot of things. But then unfortunately something unfortunate happened in 2022, so we didn't quite manage to finish the final report. It is that final report that this proposition rests on.

In my speech, I have stated that I believe this government has missed a lot of quality-enhancing measures. I ask: Why the time limits? It is not possible to read it in the bill. Why is a solid basis that exists regarding the time limits not being utilized? It is research-based. The parties have been involved. Several experts have been involved and developed exactly that proposal. But now they say three years, and I cannot find any reason. I would like to hear about that in this debate.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive that there is no answer to the question of why the Social Democrats chose to let women in marginalized areas continue to be left to their fate without sufficient opportunities and requirements and expectations to learn Swedish. It is, of course, problematic.

We have a somewhat different attitude, to say the least. The proposal that is now on the table will involve stricter requirements to learn Swedish, because we know that this will be crucial for the possibility of establishing oneself on the labor market and for the possibility of entering society.

It is not only regarding the three years that this proposal differs from the investigation's proposal, which was four years, but also when it comes to the question of extension and how it should be regulated. Our assessment is that in this way, more people will be able to enter society faster, learn Swedish, stand on their own feet, and grow by their own strength.

Mr. Speaker! Our conviction is that we must not repeat the Social Democrats' serious mistakes and follow their backward attitude toward reforming Sweden. They have not addressed the serious problems with segregation and exclusion. We see women who come to Sweden without learning Swedish. They end up in severe vulnerability and exclusion because they cannot themselves grasp what is expected of them in Sweden and how Sweden functions. They end up in situations where children need to act as interpreters for their own parents because the parents have not learned Swedish.

That policy must end. That is why we are settling this now. That is why we now have a bill on the table that will enable higher requirements for learning Swedish. Sweden is not a requirement-free community. If you come to Sweden, you shall learn Swedish. Our assessment is that it should be possible to do so in three years in the normal case.

The question is: Why are the Social Democrats also cautious with their expectations in this issue? It is not enough to be cautious with one's own reforming. One is also cautious in one's expectations of those who come to Sweden.

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

Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Oliver Rosengren, for the historical overview! I wonder if I will have to wait for the member's speech to hear what assessment you are making. Once again, the word "assessment" came up. It is an assessment that forms the basis for the bill. The proposal is not based on a solid knowledge base. Many heavy referral bodies and researchers question the bill because it is poorly constructed.

It is clear that we have done a number of things in the past. I do not intend to account for this once again. We have changed our policy. We shall have requirements. We shall ensure that people learn Swedish. There shall be language requirements in preschool and in elderly care. But we shall also allocate resources and quality. We shall provide opportunities.

Demands without quality are rhetoric. Quality with demands is for real.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Oliver Rosengren and I reacted to almost the same thing.

Here we heard an entire speech that dealt with requirements, and then the member came to the Klivautredningen. In the exchange of remarks just now, Caroline Helmersson Olsson said that the Social Democrats did not manage in time because of the final report. But the final report came in December 2020, didn't it? There was still a good bit left until the 2022 election. Why did nothing happen then between December 2020 and the 2022 election?

Furthermore, one did have time for other things. Other proposals from the Kliva Inquiry were submitted. Why did one not bring up this time limit then? Why did one not submit a proposal for a four-year time limit, if one now thought it was so important? Why did not a single proposal come forward to set a time limit for sfi?

It is quite clear that a distant time limit will also entail increased requirements for the content of the education. There is no other possibility. If we say that it should be completed in a maximum of three years, with a possibility for some extension in cases where it is particularly justified, it will also mean that the course offerings and the content of the education are sharpened and the throughput is increased in the right way.

I do not understand why the Social Democrats constantly need help from bourgeois parties or from the Sweden Democrats to implement adequate policy. Why can they not manage to do it themselves? If it were so important to have a time limit, why did they not submit a proposal for a four-year time limit in 2022?

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

Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Reslow's speech almost makes me want to change my mind. I have intended to leave the Riksdag, but it would be very interesting to be involved in the next mandate period and ask the same question then: Why did you not manage to achieve what was stated in the Tidö Agreement? But I will not do that. Someone else will have to do it.

It is you, Member Reslow, who bear the primary responsibility for the SFI policy that is on the table today. This is what I spoke about in my speech. This is what I want answers on. The primary responsibility actually lies with Member Reslow. That is what I realized last week, when we had a discussion in the Education Committee. It is you who steer. It is you who drive the policy, and therefore you are obligated to also account for it and explain it. I will stop there.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Caroline Helmersson Olsson stops there, because there is not much more to add. The Social Democrats are unable to present proposals that are important – proposals that they themselves think are important. They cannot or do not want to. Therefore, the Social Democrats did not present any proposal on a time limit when they had the chance and had a majority. They were not interested in presenting a requirement for a time limit themselves, but when other parties push the requirement, they are happy to join in. Then it is important, and then they are happy to criticize.

But note well that the lack of demands within the Social Democrats persists. We hear that between the lines. Three years is far too long a time, and no consideration is taken that one may receive a possible extension.

A question was also asked about how the assessment is made regarding the three-year limit. I will answer that question, Caroline Helmersson Olsson: It is about political will. It is about actually setting requirements and ensuring that we get changes and that this also drives development forward, so that we get increased requirements on the content of the courses and so on.

It is about political will, what was once the Social Democrats' crowning achievement: Political will was to shape society. That will is missing with all force and clarity among the Social Democrats today. It is fortunate that some parties still have it.

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

Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! There lies the great difference between Patrik Reslow and me. I also want these students to be given the right conditions to master the Swedish language and enter society. But then one must take other measures than just setting requirements. It is about quality, teaching, and qualified teachers. I also want to lean on heavy referral bodies and research. We must take advantage of knowledge.

We assess, we consider, we appreciate and we want, says Patrick Reslow. I also want, but in a different way and with research and proven experience as a basis.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first and foremost express my approval of the committee's proposal.

Basic knowledge of the Swedish language is absolutely crucial for those who come from another country and want to work, pay taxes, and become a part of Swedish society. It is also a prerequisite for being able to fully participate in Swedish culture, Swedish norms, and Swedish values. Living in Sweden without having basic knowledge of the Swedish language is not only a weakness when it comes to the ability to get by, but also evidence that the legislation has not set sufficiently sharp requirements on people who want to live here when it concerns specifically learning the Swedish language.

These problems are also strongly associated with the mass immigration policy that was pursued for several years. It is the consequences of that we see in the SFI teaching today.

The Sweden Democrats have in many other contexts pressed that it is necessary to set increased requirements. This applies to stricter rules for residence permits. This applies to stricter rules for refugee reception. This applies to stricter rules for citizenship. But it is also about increased requirements for knowledge of the Swedish language, for example, a requirement of grade C in Swedish in order to be admitted to the teacher training program.

It is serious, we mean, when people who have lived in Sweden for several years – yes, perhaps even for decades – are still in need of an interpreter when they visit the health center, the hospital, or other authorities. It should under no circumstances be so, but that is how it works in Sweden today. It shows what a lax attitude previous political governments have had regarding the requirement that one should learn basic Swedish. This applies not least to the Socialdemokraterna.

Our ambition is to continue this reform work in order to ensure that the language becomes one of the factors that unites us in Swedish society and that unites our norms and values in society.

When we debated adult education in general in this chamber last spring, I pointed out that SFI in particular was adult education's great disappointment. There are no requirements or expectations whatsoever. It is possible to start studying, take a break, come back, take another break, or completely abandon the studies without it having resulted in any progress at all in the acquisition of knowledge in the Swedish language.

There has also been no outer limit for when the right to SFI expires. You can just keep going – four years, five years, seven years, twenty-six years. It is applicable forever. Furthermore, you can always start over from the beginning – completely without any hurdles. Arbetsförmedlingen can also refer people to SFI so that the activity support can be paid out for those who are most interested in just this. And the municipalities, which bear the responsibility for implementing SFI, fail in the control and follow-up of the knowledge.

During 2022, 46 percent of students dropped out of their SFI course – 46 percent. Was it because they had met the course requirements and now had basic knowledge of Swedish? No. Was it because they got jobs? Yes, some did. But getting a job without knowing basic Swedish does not mean that the opportunity to establish oneself in society is strengthened. It can be exactly the opposite, for example, if the job is in the family restaurant or in a friend's family business. In those cases, the dropout can worsen the exclusion rather than strengthen the opportunities to become a part of Swedish society.

The municipal responsibility for education also implies limitations for those who are to study SFI but who may intend to combine it with work in another municipality. The right to SFI applies only in the home municipality, unlike all other adult education. This means that a newly arrived person who wants to work while he or she is to study SFI does not receive sufficient incentives to continue the studies. It may be that one has to discontinue them.

The Sweden Democrats and the government parties are now proposing an upper time limit for SFI of maximum three years, with some possibility of extension based on an individual assessment of maximum an additional three years, but in six-month increments. It is therefore a clear objective that three years is the limit, but in some individual cases there may be an opportunity to extend the time if necessary. The goal should therefore be that one should complete with sufficient knowledge of Swedish. Sometimes it can take two years. It can take three years. It can take three and a half years. The important thing is that an upper limit is set. One should not, as is today, be able to attend SFI for as long as one wants. That requirement must be set.

The demands on the education must increase significantly – including the pace of study. Therefore, we have landed on that three years is a reasonable time. It is right to set requirements. Therefore, we have deviated from the Klivautredning's proposal of four years. We thought it was too generous. We shall set higher requirements than that on the participating students' efforts to complete their studies with passing results.

From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we would of course have liked to see the time limit shortened further, not least when it comes to the possibility of an extension. But we are very satisfied with the construction that the proposal has received by requiring that an extension must be requested before the time period has expired. Once the time period has expired, the right and the possibility of an extension are gone. Thus, we put an end to the possibility of dragging out the SFI training – which we previously heard the Socialdemokraterna thought was good but which one never managed to achieve.

In addition to the introduction of time limits, we are tightening the regulatory framework for the municipalities. Among other things, the municipalities shall establish an action plan for the measures taken to reach persons who are entitled to SFI. Furthermore, an inter-municipal compensation system is introduced to ensure that there is an opportunity to study SFI in another municipality. Additionally, an individual study plan, based on a mapping of the student's knowledge, shall be established. Such an assessment shall be made promptly, and its purpose is to ensure that the student is placed at the correct educational level. It shall – this, we also think, is an important regulation – appear in the individual study plan when the student was first admitted to SFI. This limits the risk that the time limits are not respected.

One of my dear colleagues previously said that if we had listened to the Liberals in 2002, we would not have had any language gaps. It was a good proposal; we think so. But had one listened to the Sweden Democrats before the mass immigration, many of the problems we see in Sfi today would not have existed at all.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The reception of people fleeing must, from the asylum process to establishment in society, be characterized by the fact that the individual's rights are at the center. Language is a central part of this and lays the foundation for independence, participation, and freedom. But it also requires that we have a strong society otherwise, in the form of a powerful policy for general welfare and security, so that we can take advantage of people, experiences, and resources. We know that, for example, housing shortages and unemployment hit those who are newly arrived in Sweden extra hard.

When it comes to SFI, which we are debating today, the government proposes a number of tightenings. There are, of course, deficiencies that need to be addressed. It is primarily about the quality having to increase and about us getting improvements. We know, after all, that with better language skills, better opportunities are created to establish oneself in society and on the labor market.

One needs to start SFI as early as possible. It must also be possible to combine this with vocational training, work, and so on. But what the government presents, including among other things that a short time limit of three years shall be introduced, does not solve the deficiencies and problems that exist. They say they want people to learn the language, but they make it difficult for them. It is completely illogical.

A four-year limit with flexibility, as has been discussed, is absolutely preferable to a three-year limit. What the government is doing now, besides making it more difficult, is creating a greater difference between those who are accustomed to studying and those who are not. It will affect people who are less accustomed to studying or who do not have a study background at all.

Basically, I also do not see how the government's proposal would result in more people passing Sfi. Something such has not been presented either. One might not have enough time to complete the studies during a three-year period. This risks increasing the gaps by favoring those who have good conditions to learn Swedish and disadvantaging those who have poorer conditions. It is a completely unnecessary and unequal gap. The consequences are that one risks losing the right to education and that one risks their establishment and so on.

We would rather have seen a greater focus on quality. This involves increasing resources and ensuring that we get more qualified teachers, better working conditions, higher teacher density, and smaller teaching groups. But it is also about adapting the education to people's everyday lives and life situations, so that they get better conditions and more opportunities to learn the language.

Then we obviously cannot have privatized education with a profit motive; it only leads to poorer quality. It is precisely this that one needs to focus on. As the market experiments in welfare have advanced and democratic governance has been transformed into market governance, society has changed. Students have become customers, schools have become markets and education has become a commodity in the Swedish market experiment.

So it cannot continue. I am convinced that we must take back control in order to increase quality and ensure that resources remain in the operations. Sfi teaching is underfunded in many municipalities. It is exposed to market forces, and operations are outsourced. This has opened up for profit interest instead of quality, and it is only to be regretted that this is not being addressed.

That is why we need to take back control but also ensure that we invest in learning and establishment. It is the most important and effective integration engine we have. People succeed better when they are given better conditions. It is how we invest in society, establishment, and the participants that determines how well we succeed.

I move for approval of reservation 2 in the report.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have a relatively short question for Member Haddou.

If one disregards how it may differ in terms of support and interventions of various kinds around a person studying SFI, does the Vänsterpartiet and Tony Haddou believe that a person's own effort can change the outcome? Can a person studying SFI exert more or less effort and, against the background of that effort, for example, learn Swedish faster or slower?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have rarely met anyone who has come to Sweden and who does not make an effort. I find it difficult to agree with that image. People who attend SFI are making an effort today. There is a drive among people. Individuals are doing their best. I believe very many agree with that image.

The problem with the question lies precisely in how the Moderate Party initiated its question, namely by ignoring a good deal of things. But it is precisely those things that matter. It is about what background one has, whether one has an education from the home country, whether one is studious or not. There are a number of things that matter, but it is of course true that people make an effort.

Learning Swedish in three years is very, very difficult, and it risks causing people to lose their establishment and thus lose the chance to better integrate into society, into the labor market, into the housing market, and so on. That is the problem, and that is what we have criticized here during the debate.

What is it that shows that it would succeed better by reducing it to three years? You have not shown any evidence for that at all, Oliver Rosengren.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive that it matters whether one makes an effort, but that effort would be about whether one makes an effort or not. I would rather consider it as that one can make more or less effort.

Then we come to the second question: Can the design of rules affect how a person behaves, for example, whether a person exerts more or less effort? In what way does that affect the Left Party's position on this issue?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is a logic in the question being asked, but then there should be something in the committee report that we are debating and will vote on today that clarifies that logic. There is nothing that says one learns the language because a three-year limit is set, but none of you have given an answer to that during this debate, Oliver Rosengren.

I think it is terrible. In the previous exchange, people spoke instead about integration and blamed the Social Democrats far back in time. They have not shown anything at all that says it is possible to learn the language better because you reduce it to three years. No member from the government or its coalition parties has done that. I think that is very bad. In addition, there are a number of other unanswered questions. How would this, for example, lead to better throughput through Sfi? It has not been clarified at all.

That is the problem in the debate we have today. The Moderates are obsessed with drivers and making demands. We are to have subsidy ceilings, language requirements, and so on. But there is absolutely nothing in either research, experience, or the existing knowledge that shows that it will become better for the individuals or for society. The only thing the Moderates have to offer is increased gaps between those who have the opportunity to learn the language quickly and those who do not.

It is however nothing new that the Moderaterna increase the gaps. It is somewhat in their DNA. We get increased gaps with the Moderaterna – in the labor market, in the housing market, in school, in the entire economy. It is only to be regretted.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the report on requirements within SFI, time limits, and how we should develop the opportunities for people who come to Sweden to learn Swedish.

I would like to start in my hometown Växjö. Ahmed from Araby and Simon from Söder might not always have the same lunch box at the workshop where they work, but they have found a really good way to exchange tires. When they work there, they solve many problems for their customers, for each other, and also for Sweden. At work, one learns to understand how society functions. One learns Swedish and gets the opportunity to pay their rent, buy their food, and provide for their family.

Work does not solve all problems, but it is probably nothing that gets worse when Sweden works.

Learning Swedish is crucial for more people to have the opportunity for a work community. Not all people have a good classmate or a secure family, but everyone here in the country should be able to get a really fine colleague.

Mr. Speaker! Our proposals are about dealing with exclusion and opening the labor market for people who today end up on the outside. We know that there are women who have been abandoned, hidden, and forgotten in exclusion without the possibility of getting in, without the possibility of exercising their own rights, and without the possibility of becoming their best selves. They have been abandoned in exclusion, without the possibility of learning Swedish, without the expectations that have built the country through all times.

This country has been built by people exerting themselves, but also by us helping each other to place demands and expectations on one another. One could imagine that fewer people would complete upper secondary school in three or four years if it had no upper time limit. How is it possible that we have been able to have language teaching in this country without an upper time limit? This is a completely reasonable arrangement with an order that does not work.

46 percent do not complete the courses. 37 percent of those who started courses in 2018 were not finished five years later.

Mr. Speaker! Sfi in Sweden suffers from serious problems. It is about the fact that we have unserious private providers that must be steered and regulated in a better way and that must do their part so that Sfi teaching functions better. It is about the fact that we need to do what the Moderaterna decided on at the party congress a few weeks ago, namely to prevent people from being on parental leave from the establishment. In Dagens Arena, one can read today that one of the major problems with Sfi teaching is that it is repeatedly interrupted because people are on parental leave in the middle of the time they are supposed to be integrating into Sweden. In Sweden, one should first get a job, then have children.

We need to ensure that the rules are improved. We need to ensure that the requirements for education and learning Swedish are tightened. This is an important part of the reform work. We propose a three-year limit for SFI, Mr. Speaker, in the normal case. We propose an extension of an additional three years. We propose mandatory knowledge assessment and requirements for an individual study plan. These reforms will collectively ensure that more people can lift themselves out of exclusion and that we break up the segregation that has affected so many people for so long and caused crime, poverty, and problems with discord and division.

Now it is a matter of addressing the problems. It will not be done with a reform, but it will be done step by step, with a determined government and a determined political cooperation where we have decided that Sweden must become the best it can be. It means that all people who are here must be given the opportunity to become the best they can be. But the one who is abandoned in an area of exclusion or forgotten outside a community of work will never have that chance.

We will never rest, Mr. Speaker, until we have ensured that all people in this country learn Swedish and that society has set the reasonable requirements and expectations we have for all people that one should make oneself a part of our community, that one should make oneself a part of the solution to our problems and that one should support oneself, integrate into society and take care of one's family and one's surroundings.

This is the reasonable reform to make to get order on our problems. Therefore, I want to move for approval of the proposal that comes from the committee.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Learning a new language is the key to integration, work, and participation in democracy. Miljöpartiet believes that the quality of SFI needs to increase and that the throughput in the SFI system needs to be improved so that more people who are new to Sweden or have lived here for a very long time but still cannot speak Swedish can more quickly obtain sufficient language skills to find their place and find their way home in Sweden, in society, and on the labor market.

Miljöpartiet sees that SFI with higher quality that starts earlier and is easier to combine with work is an important way forward. The requirements for quality and flexibility in the SFI courses must increase. The government's proposition contains some improvements, for example flexibility to live in one municipality and work and/or study in another, but I want to focus on the limitation of the right to SFI to three years. No evidence is provided as to why this would be good. It is an all-too narrow and poorly substantiated timeframe that risks becoming counterproductive. The proposal deviates from the investigator's proposal of a four-year limit without a convincing justification being presented for this tightening.

Miljöpartiet can accept the proposal with a time limit of four years, but there must be generous and legally secure opportunities for extension for those who need it. We cannot accept the government's proposal for even sharper time limits than there is evidence for and which furthermore lack support in research and proven experience.

Learning a language is, as said, the key to integration, work, and participation in democracy. To deny people this opportunity by setting an excessively sharp and short time limit is to actively create exclusion. It is a short-sighted and inhuman policy that Sweden shall not pursue.

The government's proposal risks creating an A-team and a B-team where those with good study habits and favorable conditions manage to meet the shorter time limit, but those who need the most support are left behind. This risks particularly affecting people with short or no educational background. This is pointed out, among others, by Botkyrka municipality and SPSM. They point out that students on study path 1, who often lack basic reading and writing skills, need significantly longer than three years. To close the door for them is to give up on those who most need sufficient time to acquire a high-quality education.

It is about women. Several referral bodies, such as the Equality Ombudsman and the Gender Equality Authority, point out that women are more often on parental leave for longer periods. A strict time limit will disproportionately disadvantage women and their opportunity for establishment. It also risks disadvantaging people who combine studies with work. In order to avoid creating lock-in effects where individuals choose to opt out of work so as not to lose the right to Sfi, the system must be flexible. Many, including Svenskt Näringsliv, point out the importance of being able to combine work and studies, which often extends the period of study.

The proposal also risks affecting persons with disabilities or ill health. This is pointed out, among others, by Hörselskadades Riksförbund and SPSM, who argue that the proposal does not take sufficient account of the needs that persons with disabilities or periods of illness have for an adapted pace of study.

What does Miljöpartiet want then? It is about a focus on quality, flexibility, and resources. We want to invest in quality, individual adaptation, and greater opportunities to combine sfi and work. We do not want overly strict time limits. We want to see an education that builds on each individual's potential and that provides real conditions for lifelong learning.

A long row of referral bodies, including trade unions, authorities, and municipalities, have warned that a three-year limit is too short. It risks leading to a large number of students not having enough time to complete their education. This ultimately creates exclusion instead of integration.

Instead of setting a time limit, it is now even more important to prioritize measures such as securing resources for higher quality and strengthening individual adaptation and flexibility. This applies, for example, to the possibility of combining work with studies. It is also about mandatory assessments with real support measures and that asylum seekers shall have the right to SFI from day one. Waiting with language learning is a waste of human potential and society's resources.

I lend my voice to an SFI teacher from Örebro who published a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet on April 23 last year:

"Many of our students are women and some are men. They come from different countries, but what is common for the majority is that they are very motivated to study. They want to learn. They are curious, hungry, and grateful. All teachers are 'the best teachers'! They arrive early every day so as not to miss lesson time. We encounter a lot of warmth and joy in classrooms and corridors. Many study on their own in their free time by looking up film clips on Youtube where they can learn even more Swedish. They write down words that they have picked up in our lessons. Many express how much they appreciate their 15 lesson hours a week. Then they get the opportunity to have conversations in Swedish with those who master the language."

Vidare: ”Moving from illiterate to a reading adult is a complex process. Along the way, you shall learn to handle and control a pen, interpret images and symbols, understand that a letter symbolizes one or more sounds, which together with others become words that in turn can be put together into sentences. You shall also build up a vocabulary so that you can express yourself in speech and writing. Many of our students speak mother tongues that are far from the Swedish language, which further exacerbates the challenge. Despite this, we constantly see progress among our students.”

And finally: ”We believe in our students and know that they can succeed – with the help of a wise and reasonable plan. But three years is far from enough to make this enormous journey as an illiterate.”

As I began by saying, learning a new language is the key to integration, work, and participation. To deny people this opportunity by setting an excessively sharp and short time limit is to actively create exclusion. It is a short-sighted and inhuman policy that Sweden should not pursue.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1, which concerns that the time limit for sfi shall be four years in accordance with the commission's proposal instead of the government's unfounded proposal for a stricter time limit.

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish integration policy has for a long time had deficiencies. Unemployment among foreign-born individuals is still several times higher than among domestic-born individuals. At the same time, employers are searching high and low for staff. On the labor market, there are up to 150,000 vacant jobs.

When companies are asked what stands in the way of recruitment, almost a quarter cite a lack of knowledge in the Swedish language. It shows how important the language is for work. But the language is also crucial for entering the social community. In a society where many do not speak the same language, trust, security, and the sense of belonging will decrease.

The Swedish language is one of our strongest common denominators, and it functions as a bridge between people who otherwise risk living parallel lives. When people cannot talk to one another, understand each other's needs, and express their thoughts and feelings, it becomes much harder to build relationships and cooperate in everyday life. The children on the schoolyard, the neighbors in the residential area, and the colleagues at the workplace simply need a common language to feel included and seen. Through the language, we also gain access to the unwritten rules, the nuances, and the everyday codes that make it easier to understand and become a part of a society.

Lack of language skills, however, can lead to isolation, misunderstandings, and a sense of exclusion, which can affect entire families, local communities, and residential areas. It is therefore absolutely crucial that more people are given the opportunity to learn Swedish in a way that is structured, motivating, and adapted to their situation. The language then becomes not only a tool for work and studies but also a foundation for trust, security, and community in our society. Those who master Swedish gain greater freedom to shape their own lives, make their own decisions, and stand on their own feet.

In Sweden, Mr. Speaker, newcomers are offered the opportunity to gain a part of the language and learn Swedish via Swedish for immigrants, SFI. It is an activity that has immense importance, but it has long had a good deal of problems. Far too many who start SFI discontinue their studies before they reach the knowledge needed to manage work life and everyday life in Swedish. In 2022, almost half of the students discontinued their course, and quite few returned later and resumed it. This is harmful both for the individual and for society because people who do not master the language risk being left behind.

The problem is quite typical of how Swedish integration policy has looked during the last decades. Because we have not set clear requirements, people have not been integrated. The intention may have been good; one has wanted to give people security, rights, and time to establish themselves in Sweden without feeling any pressure, but the low expectations have instead led to exclusion.

By the requirements for language learning and establishment having been too low, people have not received the tools needed to enter the community. The result has been an exclusion where people neither fully share our values nor participate in working life, in education, or in social life. The sense of belonging and solidarity has been weakened.

Setting requirements is therefore about creating clear frameworks and support that make it possible for people to enter the community and society and simply feel at home. Higher requirements in combination with support is a way to show that we believe in the individual's ability and want to give everyone a real chance to establish themselves and contribute to society.

The government's proposal in the report on SFI is an important step in the right direction. It will result in clearer rules, a time limit, and increased flexibility. Better opportunities are being created for more people to reach their goals.

A typical person who would benefit from this could be someone who previously dropped out of SFI due to family situation or work. With a timeframe, a clear signal is sent that we want people to learn Swedish directly upon arrival and to enter Swedish society. It also sends clear signals that we want to provide better support and better opportunities to enter society. It is simply a way to show that we care about people's opportunities to support themselves, participate in social life, and feel at home in Sweden.

Language is the key to community, trust, and participation. When more people master SFI, they can fully participate in working life, education, and social life, and therefore it is important to strengthen SFI. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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