Response to interpellation 2022/23:2 on prostitution and deportation due to lack of good conduct

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the interpellation!

Annika Hirvonen has asked me whether the parties in the government cooperation intend to investigate whether people who are exploited in prostitution should be deported due to lack of integrity in the same way as criminals.

From the Tidö Agreement, it appears that the government intends to appoint an inquiry which shall, among other things, analyze the conditions for reintroducing the possibility of deporting foreigners due to lack of conduct. The inquiry is included as part of many in the government's initiative to achieve a responsible migration policy.

From the Tidö Agreement, it appears that the current investigation shall, among other things, analyze the legal possibilities based on both the Swedish constitution, EU law, the European Convention, and other international law obligations. According to the Tidö Agreement, the investigation shall also produce legislative proposals to, to the extent possible, reintroduce a possibility to deport foreigners due to lack of integrity. This could, for example, involve association with a criminal, violent, or extremist organization or other environments that threaten fundamental Swedish values. Taken from previous preparatory works, prostitution is also mentioned as an example. It is, however, important to emphasize that the purpose of the proposal is not to deport people because they have been placed in a vulnerable situation.

The Government intends to return with committee directives where the investigator's assignment is further developed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, we can read that the government wants to investigate the possibility of deporting people due to lack of conduct. This is exemplified, among other things, by people having committed crimes, which is already what is usually meant by this today. Then it is exemplified with a number of actions that do not concern people having committed crimes but are in a vulnerable situation, for example in substance abuse, or even that they are victims of crimes such as sexual exploitation in the form of other persons purchasing sexual services.

We in Miljöpartiet think it is serious that the parties behind the Tidö Agreement in this way lump together criminals with those who should be classified as crime victims, that is to say women, girls, boys, and trans people who are exploited in prostitution. We want to strengthen these crime victims' status and protection, not punish them with deportation.

I have searched the preparatory works. I do not find the word prostitution in them. Maria Malmer Stenergard is welcome to inform me where it stands. What I find is that in the 1980s, one could be deported if one engaged in prostitution. After that, we introduced the sex purchase law, which clearly establishes that it is the one who buys sex who commits a crime and that the one who is exposed is not criminal and should not be punished.

My question then is: Should I interpret this interpellation answer as that one is now moving away from this and clearly stating that women, girls, boys and trans people who are exploited in prostitution shall not be deported?

Mr. Speaker! In addition to crime and that which Maria Malmer Stenergard now highlights in her interpellation answer as circumstances to be covered by this paragraph, it is also spoken of insulting the population in actions. It is spoken of that one shall have respect for basic Swedish values, and that is important. But what does the government mean by persons who insult the Swedish population or do not respect basic values? Should they be able to lose their refugee status? Should a refugee from, for example, Iran, which has now been debated, and who does not share, for example, the values that the parties behind the Tidö Agreement stand for and demonstrates against them or in some other way expresses contempt for, for example, the Sweden Democrats' values, be able to lose their status as a refugee and be deported? Should other refugees be able to be deported for insulting the population? Should it not nevertheless be clear in the context that refugee status is something that should apply regardless of whether one agrees with certain values or not?

Mr. Speaker! This paragraph in the Tidö Agreement has been criticized from many perspectives. We in Miljöpartiet think it is incredibly serious that conflations are made between criminals and crime victims and, furthermore, that sweeping grounds are provided for people to be deprived of the human right to protection from persecution and oppression.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! This investigation into the possibility of deporting a foreign national due to lack of conduct is part of a comprehensive reform agenda intended to solve Sweden's most important social problems in the area of migration and integration. The goal is, among other things, to introduce a requirement-based integration policy where those who stay in Sweden for a long period shall take responsibility for also becoming a part of Swedish society. And I would like, by reason of the interpellant's questions, to remind that it clearly appears from the Tidö Agreement that all proposals submitted shall be in accordance with the binding international rules that Sweden has committed to follow, and they shall respect the right to asylum. Likewise, the preparation requirements in the Instrument of Government shall, of course, be observed.

Then Annika Hirvonen knows very well that the sweeping words she refers to are not legislation, but they are part of the Tidö Agreement. It is not our intention to have sweeping formulations in the legislation if it eventually comes into place after a thorough investigation where all aspects have been highlighted and where international comparisons have also been looked at and where we have ensured that we stay within the framework of, for example, asylum rights.

But we mean that societal developments mean there are reasons to investigate whether people should be able to be deported from Sweden on more grounds than what is possible today. And this is therefore not foreign to Swedish law, as this possibility existed until as late as 2005.

I believe that most agree that we have failed with integration for many years. If one has many people who are in Sweden without wanting to integrate and become a part of society and instead actually act contrary to the basic principles that apply to the Swedish democratic society, it is a major problem.

If integration is to work, people who live here must also actually want to become a part of Swedish society and strive to the utmost to also become that as quickly as possible. If, on the other hand, one does not have such a will and is in environments linked to, for example, criminal gangs, clans or extremist groups and has no intention of changing that, then we must ask ourselves whether one really should stay in Sweden.

Exactly how this is to proceed, this investigation will naturally look closer at, for example, how it works in other countries. I do not want and do not intend to preempt this investigation.

In light of these questions, I would like to take the opportunity to say something. It may appear as if this is a completely new phenomenon, but there have been similar regulations in the past. However, the integrity check itself is something that is carried out daily at the Swedish Migration Agency in connection with people applying for citizenship or permanent residence permits.

I also want to highlight the possibility that exists today according to the Aliens Act to deport persons who are not EEA citizens or relatives of EEA citizens if it can be assumed that they cannot support themselves in an honest way. Prostitution is mentioned as an example in the preparatory works. It is not exactly the regulation we are aiming for here, but this is therefore about the deportation of non-EEA citizens and those who are not family members of EEA citizens.

I swear, this is nothing that Miljöpartiet has acted to change. It is a quite similar regulation. Why, in that case, has Annika Hirvonen not taken that fight during the nearly eight years that Miljöpartiet sat in the government?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would then like to inform that Miljöpartiet also wants to view persons exploited in prostitution as crime victims. We do not want to punish them with deportation. We want to give them the same status as other victims. It is something that we have advocated for for a long time.

It worries me that Maria Malmer Stenergard makes this comparison with the deportation of non-EEA citizens. In the response, one could interpret it as the government now backing away from this part of the list which contains prostitution and substance abuse, i.e., people who are in a vulnerable situation, and that they should be punished with deportation in the same way as people who engage in organized crime. We in Miljöpartiet are concerned about this. We saw, not least when many women fled from the war in Ukraine, how it had a major impact on the sex trade in Sweden. We are concerned about the extremely low compensations that these women are forced to live on and support themselves on in Sweden. It is, therefore, less than 100 kronor a day for an adult woman and barely 50 spänn for a child. It drives people into the hands of those who cynically exploit girls, boys, and women in the sex trade. It is those who exploit these people that we should imprison. We shall not punish Ukrainian refugees by deporting them back to the hell of war because they are in prostitution. We shall not do it in the way that Maria Malmer Stenergard describes that the legislation says about EEA citizens who are exploited in prostitution. That is not what we in Miljöpartiet want.

Can Maria Malmer Stenergard now say, clearly and distinctly, that the government will not proceed with the deportation of persons who are exploited in prostitution? That would be a very welcome announcement.

I also asked earlier if the Minister could give me a reference to which preparatory works it is argued that this list comes from. I simply cannot find it when I search myself in previous propositions and investigations that have dealt with this. I find terms such as "otukt" (unchastity), but I do not find the term "prostitution." It can, of course, be that I have not searched thoroughly enough or found the right one. I also do not find where this is listed with respect in relation to fundamental values or to disrespecting the population. I think it would be very good if we could also get clarity on that.

As said: Can we now get it in black and white that the government will not punish crime victims who are subjected to prostitution with deportation in the same way as the criminals who exploit them? That would be incredibly valuable.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to be crystal clear here. What matters is what I said in my opening response, that is to say that it is not the government's intention to deport people because they have been placed in a vulnerable situation. There I want to be very clear.

I envision that it is, to a much greater extent, for example those who engage in brokering who become relevant for deportation, but again: This is something that the investigation must look into, and the investigation has not even been commissioned yet. We will work with directives, and the investigation shall, of course, be allowed to work entirely as investigations usually do and be able to live up to the preparatory requirements that exist.

I think Annika Hirvonen is quite quick to criticize the government, Mr. Speaker. She, like others, is very welcome to criticize the government – I welcome it, and it is an important part of a democracy – but I believe it could be a good idea to wait and see how the investigation directives are formulated, what the investigation concludes, and what the government then potentially chooses to proceed with.

Just as during the years in government, Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet nevertheless choose to see what they wish to see. Annika Hirvonen selects one of the examples mentioned in the Tidö Agreement and blows it up instead of ensuring that the whole and all the considerations that the investigation will be tasked to make come forward.

Miljöpartiet also consistently chooses to ignore the negative effects of the irresponsible migration policy without functioning integration, which is largely a consequence of the party's and the Social Democrats' policy in government over the last eight years. In Miljöpartiet's world, the perception seems to be that more of the demand- and boundary-less policy that has contributed to the problems should constitute the solution, and I - like a large part of the voters - think it is quite obvious that it does not work.

From the perspective of the Green Party, they like to beat the humanist drum, but for me, it is not the sound of the drum that is what matters, but the results – and they are depressing. Far too many children never get their due and do not get the same chance as other children to grow up and become their very best selves here.

Women fleeing from war and oppression, as Annika Hirvonen meritably highlights in various contexts, are forced into another form of oppression in Swedish marginalization. This government can never accept that. As responsible politicians, we must all reflect on our own responsibility for the marginalization that far too many people, not least children and women, live in today here in Sweden. What is it that is actually humane?

I want to emphasize the following once again: Prostitution is an example that is counted and which has been taken from previous preparatory works. It is the word immorality that I am referring to. The purpose is not to deport people because they have been placed in a vulnerable situation. I want to be crystal clear here. It is not about us putting vulnerable people in prison. Exactly where the boundaries should appropriately be drawn will be investigated, and I do not want to anticipate that.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Then the natural follow-up question is whether Maria Malmer Stenergard shares the Miljöparti's view that persons subjected to prostitution have been placed in such a state of vulnerability as Maria Malmer Stenergard speaks of in her interpellation answer.

The solution to the oppression of women, including through exploitation in prostitution, cannot be to punish the women with deportation. If there is a threat of deportation back to the oppression one once fled from, it will lead to fewer people daring to seek help and report the criminals who exploit girls, boys, women, and trans people in the sex trade. This is already the case today. We must remedy this.

When we read the sentences where criminals and crime victims are listed side by side, it is clear that we react to it and criticize it. And we do not get clear answers - it is obvious that there is an intention to investigate this issue because one is actually interested in being able to produce such legislative proposals. That is what we are deeply critical of.

We are deeply critical of the very sweeping formulations in the Tidö Agreement's integrity paragraph regarding disrespecting the population and Swedish values. These are concepts where one can insert different things. For me, Swedish values are about equality, anti-racism, and the equal value of all people. They are about solidarity with future generations and all people. It is obvious that the parties behind the Tidö Agreement interpret Swedish values differently.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, I want to be clear that our purpose is not to deport persons solely because they have been placed in a vulnerable situation. Here I can be crystal clear.

We have the situation where someone can be deported on the grounds of crime, and here one can imagine a situation where someone repeatedly commits crimes that do not reach the penalty level required for deportation to be actualized. One can imagine a situation where someone has clear involvement with criminal organizations or terrorist organizations and that it is that type of involvement that can lead to deportation, even though deportation on the grounds of crime, as mentioned, cannot be actualized. But precisely this is what the investigation must, naturally, look into more closely.

I want to emphasize once again that all proposals submitted must be in accordance with the binding international rules that Sweden has committed to follow, and likewise, the preparatory requirements in the Instrument of Government must, of course, be observed. I cannot anticipate the investigation that we have not yet appointed. However, I very much look forward to continued debate with Annika Hirvonen on this when the investigation has been completed and if the government chooses to proceed with any of the potential proposals.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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