Response to interpellation 2022/23:141 on the Settlement Act

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sofia Amloh has asked the Minister for Migration if she intends to take any measures to change the legislation in the area and, if so, what the changes are. The work within the government is distributed such that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.

The Settlement Act was introduced during a period when the reception of newcomers was very high and there were great challenges with long waiting times for newcomers in reception centers which delayed establishment. The Settlement Act was a prerequisite for managing the high reception. The Swedish National Audit Office's audit (RIR 2021:29) also shows that the intentions of the law have been achieved.

At the same time, the government sees that there are challenges with the current system. Even though the intake is decreasing, certain municipalities are still allocated relatively many newcomers. For municipalities that have a housing shortage, it can be difficult to find housing solutions for newcomers. Other municipalities receive so few newcomers that it can become difficult to maintain quality in the reception and in the measures. Several municipalities wish for a higher intake. Since the distribution of newcomers covered by assignment is strictly governed by a number of criteria, there are limited possibilities for the municipalities to influence the distribution of the intake. The housing conditions for those who are received after assignment also vary greatly between different municipalities.

The Government intends to review the settlement regulations in accordance with the Tidö Agreement. It is stated therein, among other things, that the Settlement Act should be reviewed regarding the weighting of the factors that govern the distribution of newly arrived persons, and that the housing situation in a municipality shall be given greater importance. The Government will return regarding the further details.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister Johan Pehrson for the answer. I first tried to pose the questions in the interpellation to Johan Pehrson. Then I tried with the Minister for Migration. Now I finally get to stand here and debate with Johan Pehrson, which feels good and right. The questions are, as stated: Does the Minister intend to take any measures to change the Settlement Act? If so, what are the changes?

I have kept the integration goals in the back of my mind: integration policy shall be based on equal rights, obligations, and opportunities for all regardless of ethnic and cultural background, which was decided in the Riksdag in 2008. To achieve the goals, it is important that persons who have sought protection in Sweden for various reasons and are granted residence permits quickly are received in municipalities and can begin their establishment in the labor market. The establishment of newcomers shall have a clear focus on rapid establishment in the labor market.

It was precisely for that reason that the Settlement Act was introduced in March 2016. It meant that all municipalities became obliged to, upon instruction from the Swedish Migration Agency, receive and arrange housing for newcomers. The purpose of the Settlement Act is that all municipalities shall participate and take responsibility for the reception of newcomers, as well as to achieve a more even distribution of responsibility between the municipalities. Newcomers thus receive better conditions to establish themselves in the labor market and in society. Before the law came into force, the assignment system was organized based on voluntary agreements.

In the answer, the Minister essentially says that the law has played out its role. But I note that the Liberals were for the law when it was introduced. I wonder a bit about which social problems we have solved since 2016 according to the Liberals and the government.

I want us to remind ourselves of how it looked before the law came into force. There were many municipalities that appeared to be rich and prosperous but which consistently refused to participate in the collective task of receiving newcomers. The responsibility was not shared by everyone, and then it became unsustainable. The only thing that made it possible to share the responsibility was that legislation was eventually introduced. That was what was required to force out the responsibility. That was the only way.

It is this that I have in mind. What are the social problems that have been solved since then? Now the Liberals and the government want to change this legislation and then abolish it, even though we have organized structures and forms for this. What are the social problems that are solved, according to the minister, if the law has now played out its role? Are the problems solved now and in the future?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Sofia Amloh for that we get to discuss and debate the Settlement Act this evening. In the Swedish National Audit Office report from 2021 that the Minister mentions, it is stated that the Settlement Act has been important for newcomers' opportunities to improve their establishment in Swedish society and that the time until one gets a job of one's own and self-sufficiency has been shortened. It says itself a bit. If one looks at that people come to municipalities where it is easier to get a job, the establishment will go faster. If they have to crowd into a labor market unit with many others and fight for attention, perhaps it will take a little longer.

That is why it is difficult to understand why the government wants to return to what did not work, to the situation before the introduction of the Settlement Act. At that time, we had an uneven distribution of newcomers between the municipalities, and it took longer for people to establish themselves in the Swedish labor market.

I have listened to the minister and his answers to Sofia Amloh's questions to understand why one wants to change the Settlement Act and, in the long run, abolish it. Johan Pehrson argues that the county administrative boards, which prepare the distribution between the municipalities in accordance with the Settlement Act, do not take sufficient account of the municipalities' wishes and specific circumstances. The minister also says: "Even if the reception decreases, certain municipalities are still allocated relatively many newcomers." This is highlighted as a reason for the change and, in the long run, the abolition of the legislation. I wonder what basis the minister has for the claims I have just mentioned.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the interpellation and for the intervention in the debate. It is of course clear that we must do incredibly much more so that people can get into work and so that they can get housing - a roof over their heads. Both parts are crucial for one to be able to be integrated. It is not enough with one or the other: to live on the street but have a job or to have somewhere to live where there are no jobs.

The National Audit Office has proposals for changes. I think that sounds reasonable. At the same time, it is noted that the law served Sweden well in a situation when very many people came to the country. EBO, which we have talked about in this chamber for at least 20 years, did not work very well. ABO was not that good either. We had to get people out. There were no places. You know how it looked in Sweden then. It was a rather tough situation, and this was a way to handle it.

The County Administrative Boards have pointed out a number of problems, as has the National Audit Office. It is clear that we are looking at those reports and that we want to investigate the conditions for better establishment. There is no one who has any purpose other than that people who have come to Sweden and been granted the right to stay here, regardless of why, should be established as quickly as possible. We see today that there are problems and that many municipalities would like to be able to influence this. For example, the National Audit Office points out the children's conditions in its report and thinks that certain changes should be made. It is clear that the entire spectrum should be illuminated.

I understand the fear. It is clear that there have been municipalities that have not wanted to help. But today, on the other hand, we have the situation that there are more municipalities where people really want people to come there, as they have an enormous labor shortage and see people as a very strong asset.

The original questions of the interpellation are easy to answer. We want to investigate how the municipalities' influence can be strengthened.

I meet quite a few people from different parties who think that it can be a reasonable opinion. We have built the Swedish public administration on a fairly reasonable measure of municipal self-government. That is not to say that one should be able to refuse entirely. We shall see. We are going to investigate the issue. That is what we are trying to address.

It is clear that the Settlement Act was necessary. The Liberals thought it was a good way to handle it when it did not work with EBO and ABO. People had to go somewhere in the very difficult situation that the people who came here were in. Then this was the tool.

I do not think one should be so worried that the conditions are being reviewed for how we ensure that people get out and establish themselves as quickly as possible. I agree with what was said here. Over the years, we have shortened the establishment time. It shall be shortened further. No one thinks that it should be anything other than as short as possible.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I take the floor there. The establishment period shall be shortened. But I find it a bit difficult to see that when one makes changes in precisely those legislations that have facilitated and are the reason why they have been shortened.

I am still somewhat positively surprised when the Minister brings up the EBO legislation, because it is connected. We Social Democrats say that unfortunately it has not worked and that the EBO legislation should be abolished. If that is what the government and the Liberals also think and have taken a position on, we listen with big ears from the Social Democrats. We are probably prepared to ensure that the government succeeds with that.

It is said that the legislation has played out its role but that it fulfilled its purpose at that time. What is it that has changed? We did not have a structure, and it was not organized. It was based on voluntariness. There was a great need, and the need grew. It was clear that we needed to establish a structure. The Social Democrats took the initiative and ensured that legislation was put on the table so that all municipalities took responsibility.

The Swedish National Audit Office clearly shows that it has fulfilled those objectives. It works. Why change and abolish something that works? As recently as last year, when the war in Ukraine broke out, the criteria for distribution among the municipalities were fully relevant and were to be maintained. That was what we agreed on. What has happened since then?

We can look forward to next year or the year after with the world around us with refugee flows and the need for people to move. Is it not good that Sweden has a structure for how it should proceed that we know works? The law has had many positive effects for a solution to a societal problem.

We can take an example. It is probably better that a hundred people come to ten municipalities than to two? If they are better distributed, better conditions are created both for the municipalities and for the people who come.

Is it not the case that the wealthy municipalities, which have consistently refused even before the law existed, now get the opportunity to be able to relinquish the responsibility again?

My question to the Minister is: Who benefits from the change or an abolition of the legislation? Is it the newly arrived who need to be integrated or is it wealthy right-wing municipalities?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answers to our questions that the Minister provides and the reasoning.

We keep returning in the debate to the report from the Swedish National Audit Office. It is in connection with the questions I asked regarding what basis the Minister had for his claims.

The Swedish National Audit Office notes, contrary to what the Minister claims, that to a large extent, where it has been possible, the number of allocated [refugees] has been adjusted according to the specific conditions and requests of the municipalities. This has concerned both more and fewer allocated newcomers to the respective municipalities.

The same report also showed that the distribution between the municipalities had been more even and that it accelerated the establishment time. Neither the minister's claim about a lack of consideration for the municipalities' conditions and wishes, nor that the unequal distribution of responsibility persists, seems to have any basis.

I still wonder: Why does one want to include the housing situation in the criteria? Why does one ultimately want to abolish the law? It is easy to get the impression, just as Sofia Amloh points out in the debate, that one is listening to a greater extent to those municipalities that do not want to take responsibility.

One listens to a greater extent to those municipalities that also do not want to ensure the construction of housing that can suit people who perhaps have lower incomes. They do not want to plan for it in their municipality.

I also do not experience that in this debate or otherwise, consideration is given to the municipalities that have previously been those that have had to take the very greatest responsibility. It has been a disproportionately large responsibility. The change is at risk if the law is now abolished.

Does Johan Pehrson really think it is worth sacrificing shorter establishment time for newcomers so that Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna can appease certain municipal representatives who want to avoid taking their responsibility?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It would have gone excellently if previous governments had wanted to act and introduce sanction possibilities against municipalities. We expect them to take their responsibility when we decide this here in the chamber.

We say that we should have the settlement law that we had during the enormous crisis that arose for people who were forced to flee. It would have created great tensions here in Sweden if one had introduced mandatory sanctions against municipalities. That was not done, I can note.

I believe that one should try to do it in cooperation with Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner to get the best possible reception. My only thought is perhaps not that I am only thinking of Örebro, Laxå and Degerfors at home in Örebro län. I want to assure the chamber that I am thinking of the whole of Sweden.

I am thinking of the individual. There are more parameters that determine whether it can become a successful integration. I know that those present in the entire chamber right now are thinking about that and do not want anything else.

People should preferably get into jobs and learn the language as soon as possible, and then they should behave. I note who agrees on the measures. There we have the same goal.

We must be prepared to listen to the National Audit Office, which thinks that adjustments should be made. It should be investigated. The Government Offices say that this needs to be reviewed. The County Administrative Boards' reports say the same thing.

Sofia Amloh took the example with 100 people here. It is a good unit, but many more are coming. If one is to select 100 in a very fair way, it should be 1 to each municipality. That is perhaps not the most optimal way.

One may need to have resources in a municipality to ensure that one provides a good establishment, besides people having somewhere to live. Then it concerns school places. It also relates to how many who have arrived earlier. It might be that one should not be ten in ten places but twenty in five places. But that the municipalities should have something to say about, and a bit more to say about – that is what is to be investigated. I have no other information to give.

Then we must follow this closely. What the investigation subsequently concludes, what referral process this leads to, and what conclusion it then becomes in a sharp situation in a government bill—when we know that, we shall have a proper debate and see if there are any alternatives. Perhaps the municipalities should have less to say. One can truly land on that again when this becomes the subject of sharp legislation. We do not know what Sweden will look like then.

Then the Ukrainian refugees were also mentioned. In that case, the situation is such that the mass flight directive applies. These people from Ukraine are not formally covered by the Settlement Act today, but it concerns the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations and municipalities that provide assistance.

I hope that we all stand humble before this situation. We want nothing other than for the war to end in Ukraine and for people to be able to return. But it can also happen that the situation worsens further from the hell on earth that already prevails in Ukraine. Then many, many more people may need to flee again. We know that it was 12 million people who left Ukraine, and 8 million have come back. Approximately 50,000 are in Sweden. If there is a significant change, we must take measures, but the Ukrainian refugees are therefore not covered by the Settlement Act.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are talking about the conditions for the municipalities and for the newly arrived. I think that is completely correct, because that is where the discussion should lie regarding what this is intended for. I nevertheless understand the Minister's answer to the question of who this would benefit as being the newly arrived's establishment and not the wealthy municipalities' own interests.

But now the government still wants to change this, and I think we need to mention that it also destroys a predictability that is important. When one says that the law is to be changed - we don't really know in what way - and that one ultimately wants to abolish it, I wonder how the municipalities are supposed to be able to prepare from year to year. It is about building up a structure with housing and so on, and now the predictability is being destroyed.

I still want to say somewhere what this has been about. Why is this so important here? I will start with the integration policy goals and the establishment – a rapid establishment. It is about entering the labor market and breaking the housing segregation. We Social Democrats see that there is a housing segregation, and we see that there is a difficult school segregation. We also see that there is a labor market segregation. There are those people who are in the labor market and those who are outside of it. As long as it is so, it is a societal problem that we must address politically. The Social Democrats will not back down on this. We intend to take responsibility to ensure that this is solved.

I think it is a bit sad that one chooses to remove things that work and instead goes in a completely wrong direction.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I think Sofia Amloh is a bit gloomy at the end. Otherwise, I think we have a lot of common ground, but we know what we need to remove.

I have heard several Social Democrats over the years say that it will get better with a change and with reforms. I have heard a lot of Social Democrats have that ambition, and it is consistent with the truth. There have been intentions, and things have been carried out. And sometimes it has also become much better. That is fantastic! It can be like that too.

I want to emphasize that one can be a social democrat, a liberal, or belong to whichever party one wants and at the same time think it is good that the municipalities have a lot to say. We often discuss the balance between what we should decide and what the municipalities should decide. Should they have crime prevention mandates? For many years we have talked about whether they should have a responsibility or should only take responsibility for women exposed to violence, for example. What interventions should the municipalities make? Should one sharpen the view on their interventions against honor-related violence and oppression, which is highly relevant?

One might think that we are adding things and so on, but in some ways I still believe it will be a different situation when we have many fewer people – because that is also what we agree we should have. The Social Democrats have clearly declared that they stand behind a narrower migration policy in the coming years than the one that led up to the Settlement Act, because it is a prerequisite for us to be able to manage the integration at all.

I look forward to us returning to the issue once the investigation has been appointed, completed, and referred for consultation. At that point, I would welcome a dialogue with Sofia Amloh and other Social Democrats on how to best do this, as it may be that you can meet representatives in the Social Democrats who believe that it is good to have municipal self-government in Norrköping, for example.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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