Response to interpellation 2022/23:389 on social dumping

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me what I intend to do to counter social dumping.

Active participation in settlement in another municipality is a multifaceted issue that, among other things, concerns the availability of housing and the opportunities to secure employment. It is also a question of the municipalities interpreting and applying the Settlement Act (2016:38) and the Social Services Act (2001:453) in different ways. In the Swedish National Audit Office's report Active participation in settlement in another municipality, it appears that the most important factor behind active participation is the varying availability of housing.

As previously reported in a previous interpellation debate on the same subject (interpellation 2022/23:147), the purpose of the municipal economic equalization system is to equalize for differences in tax capacity and uncontrollable factors such as age structure and socioeconomic factors, for example education and income levels as well as length of residence in Sweden. The parliamentary Equalization Committee (dir. 2022:36) has, through a supplementary directive, been tasked to consider and propose measures to counteract high and increasing tax rates. The addition does not concern active participation, but in the original directive, the committee has been tasked to analyze whether the equalization system compensates to a sufficient extent for precisely socioeconomic factors. If necessary, relevant measures shall be proposed.

Other government investigations and agency assignments are also underway that are linked to the issue of active participation. According to the national homelessness strategy 2022-2026, the county administrative boards shall support the municipalities in their work to prevent evictions and counteract homelessness. The investigation on tightened controls during property acquisitions (dir. 2022:93) shall, among other things, propose measures aimed at protecting residential tenants against unscrupulous transfers of rental properties. The Government also intends to review the settlement regulations. Good conditions for receiving newcomers in the municipalities are central for integration to function.

It should also be emphasized that a large proportion of those who have changed place of residence through active participation have been newly arrived, and that migration to Sweden has decreased sharply in recent years. The Government is keen that there is a well-functioning cooperation between the municipalities and will continue to follow the issue.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! So here we stand again. We Social Democrats will not give up until the government takes action against the unworthy things happening in our country. Social dumping is when a municipality, which is often one of the wealthier municipalities, has persons in need of support moved to another municipality without the person themselves having expressed a wish to move.

A large number of municipalities have alerted us about the occurrence of social dumping. We have received reports from the National Audit Office and the County Administrative Boards. We know that this is happening. It is often municipalities with high unemployment and a severely strained municipal economy that need to take over the responsibility and costs for people who have been moved from more affluent municipalities.

It does not mean better conditions for the individual to create an independent life. One feels forced to move and thus gets worse conditions.

Since we saw that this occurred in the country, the social democratically led government appointed an inquiry. The assignment was to see how this can be countered, but above all to propose measures to counter social dumping. It did not take long before the SD-led government laid down this important inquiry.

We have, as we have said, debated this previously in the chamber. The first time we had this debate, I still felt a certain small hope, because Civil Minister Slottner said that he was aware of the problem. Now I no longer feel any hope.

In the previous debates, the Minister, for example, has referred to the fact that one should at least do something in this investigation regarding how we distribute state grants. Then we received the additional directive at the end of April. And there, actually to my surprise, there was not a single word about social dumping – not a single word.

In the answer here today, the Minister for Civil Affairs says that it was already in the directives from the beginning, i.e., the directives that the Social Democratic-led government submitted. Yes, it says there about adjusting for socioeconomic factors, and I am very happy that it is there. But the additional directives that the current government submitted do not mean enhanced opportunities to adjust, but rather the opposite.

So, point by point, the possibilities to counter dumping are being removed. There are no proposals to handle this. It is rather the opposite, that the government has made it more difficult.

Then I would still like to interpret a bit and wonder what this is due to. I wonder if the Minister truly understands the extent of this problem. I know, and I have both in my work as a social worker and as a politician met many people who have been subjected to social dumping when they have difficult circumstances and are furthermore pushed aside. It is not dignified. Sweden can do better.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but marvel at the government's policy at times. I sat in the Housing Committee – the committee that works with housing policy – during the previous parliamentary term and was present at the meeting when the Moderaterna solemnly and sincerely promised that they would let the 8 billion that were authorized for the investment support and that were promised remain. Now we know that 8 billion for building housing in Sweden have disappeared. They no longer exist. And we see the consequences. Housing construction has fallen by 57 percent. This, of course, results in figures that we send to the European Parliament and to the OECD about GDP falling.

But behind these figures, we see a glaring shortage of housing, in a situation where the Social Democratic-led government had succeeded in increasing construction above the projected needs. The promise from the Moderaterna of 8 billion disappeared.

The colleagues of the Minister for Civil Affairs in the Christian Democrats were to increase the construction of small houses. It was the solution to everything. But we have not seen any measures to build more small houses. More small houses are not being built. This housing construction has also failed. Point by point, the government's housing policy is failing.

Then the simple question here is: How does the Minister for Civil Affairs, whose party colleague also is responsible for housing construction, mean that fewer homes solve the problem we are talking about here with social dumping? How does it become easier for people to find housing in municipalities with a large housing need when the government withdraws 8 billion in production support for housing where these people could live? I repeat the question just so there is no doubt: How does a reduced housing construction contribute to solving the issue of social dumping?

(Applause)

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank my colleague Eva Lindh, who has presented this interpellation. We have previously debated this issue, and I have also asked questions. I therefore took note of the request from the Minister that I should look at how things look in the municipalities. During the summer, I have therefore traveled around a bit and met with managers and others in the municipalities affected by social dumping.

It is clear from these municipalities that social dumping has serious consequences. We have heard about how an overloaded social service can lead to longer processing times, reduced time for prevention, and a risk of children getting caught in the crossfire. Our children deserve better.

Above all, the municipalities in the rural areas are now forced to receive these socially vulnerable people, and this in a situation where the municipalities must save. Being suddenly forced to handle an influx of people in need of support and help can cause all municipal services to deteriorate. Children are particularly vulnerable. Placing an additional burden on social services can jeopardize their well-being. We need to protect our children and those who need help.

That is why it becomes problematic when the government shuts down the inquiry into social dumping and does nothing with the supplementary directive so that this is brought to light.

Imagine a municipality that quickly receives an increased population with major social challenges. This change can put enormous pressure on our municipalities, which affects us all. One area that is particularly affected is the school, given the influx of children with social needs or children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. This will mean that the school will need to do other things and reprioritize. It can lead to overcrowded classrooms, reduced support for all children, and a challenge to meet every student's needs.

The healthcare system is also not immune to the effects of social dumping. All municipalities say so. When large groups with health problems suddenly arrive, it can strain the healthcare system. And what happens then? Waiting times increase, and access to care worsens. This can, in the long run, also jeopardize the quality of care.

Diversity and integration are the heart of our social community. When resources are insufficient to support the integration of new residents in the municipalities, it leads to increased segregation. We see this everywhere. A lack of inclusion can, in turn, undermine this entire society.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that social dumping has a profound impact on our society. It is our common duty to work to manage and mitigate these consequences. This is done by distributing our resources fairly and effectively. Therefore, it is unfortunate when an investigation is scrapped that could now have shown us what we need to do. This investigation would have been submitted now in October, if I remember correctly. That is why we continue to ask questions to the Minister. We Social Democrats will not stop asking questions.

The question I have is: Is there any plan from the government to actually take this problem seriously?

Is the description that I have just made, and which I have received from the municipalities in Örebro län, a description that the Minister recognizes?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to provide a factual clarification that I have promised to do every time the term SD-led government comes up, because it is not an SD-led government that Sweden has. We have a government that is governed by and consists of the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna, who in turn have a parliamentary cooperation within the framework of the Tidö Agreement which ensures that this government can continue to pass its policies in the Riksdag and which thus gathers a majority in the Riksdag within these areas. The government is therefore not SD-led but consists of the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna. I think it is important that we say the right things and that what is said from this rostrum is true and correct.

I have previously in the debates we have had about social dumping said that this is a problem. I am aware that it is a problem that is far from present in all of Sweden and that is far from present in all municipalities, but that some municipalities are subjected to. It is not a violent number of municipalities that have highlighted this issue for me. I have met over 200 municipalities during my first year as Civil Minister, and the issue has come up in a few - perhaps a handful - of these more than 200 municipalities. It has very often been linked to precisely the migration. These municipalities have received a settlement of newly arrived people from other municipalities after the establishment period has ended.

I have also said that this is not a simple question to solve because it is an inherent conflict that where there are often housing, there is often a shortage of jobs, and where there are jobs, there is often a large shortage of housing. This is an inherent conflict, plus that one naturally gets to settle wherever one wants. Having a certain exchange between the municipalities cannot also always be wrong, even though the phenomenon itself, which is sometimes called social dumping, is naturally a problem for many municipalities.

It is true that the investigation has been discontinued. But the investigator managed to get a good way along. I met the investigator in the spring. We received a fair amount of factual material and a number of proposals. The government, however, needed to make prioritizations among different investigations, and then we chose to conclude just this one. But it is not the case that the work that managed to be started was in vain. I have received the comments and the conclusions that had managed to be drawn, which were quite a lot.

I can say that several of the proposals that are currently appearing in the debate as something that should be implemented do not fall under my area of responsibility, but under the responsibilities of other members of the government. It may also be important to point out in this context.

Then I would say that perhaps the most important measure that this government has taken so far to reduce the phenomenon of social dumping is the realignment of the migration policy. It has indeed led to a significantly reduced pressure in immigration to Sweden, which in turn will mean that more municipalities are able to accommodate and integrate the newcomers they receive in accordance with the Settlement Act. I am therefore convinced that the reduced migration will in turn lead to a reduced pressure on municipalities to use other municipalities' property holdings to establish immigrants.

We have the Equalization Committee which is sitting, and Eva Lindh sits herself in that committee. It is therefore fully possible to raise this issue as part of the original directives on whether one should look at whether the socio-economic factors weigh heavily enough in the equalization. It is fair game to raise that question there, so go ahead - do it!

The short answer to Ola Möller's question is, of course: not at all. I think it is an incredibly forced question. It is naturally posed rhetorically - I understand that - but the answer is obviously: no, not at all.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I will continue to call the government SD-led, because that is actually how it works with the Tidö Agreement. Nothing can be decided without the Sweden Democrats, and that means the government is led by the Sweden Democrats. I will therefore continue to use that expression.

I have a few things to bring up.

One cannot claim that this is solely a question of migration. Most of those I have met have not immigrated recently and are not new Swedes, but this affects everyone. Why is this then important? Yes, it is clearly important, because if one does not understand how the phenomenon works – that is, how the problem of social dumping works out in Sweden – one cannot do anything about it either. If one thinks that the issue resolves itself just because fewer people are coming to Sweden now, one is mistaken.

I apologize, but I must still bring this up again: If the Minister only meets with municipalities when visiting castles, that is to say county administrative boards, and has a short lunch, I do not think there are such great opportunities to raise this issue. What I have seen when I have looked is perhaps an additional two or three municipalities that the Minister has visited since last time. I believe it makes a difference to conduct these visits out at the municipalities and not just meet municipal representatives over a lunch. I apologize if it feels offensive, but I really mean that it seriously matters for the understanding of the situation.

I must also comment on the fact that it is not the minister's responsibility. If one sits in the government, one naturally has a responsibility for the entire government's work and policy.

Again: I have met many, both in my job and as a politician. I have also received a number of emails after previous debates. There, one person writes that one must be healthy to get help. One cannot manage to take the fight. That makes me feel that I, who can manage, must continue to take the fight to do something about social dumping.

I want to mention something of what could be done but that the government is not doing. One could provide sufficient resources to municipalities and regions. That is not happening now, instead they receive insufficient resources. Many municipalities and most regions have incredibly tough challenges and run with deficit results or budget to run with a deficit. It is clear that one has difficulty managing their premises to take care of their inhabitants then.

There is nothing about the issue in the investigation on the equalization system. I have already in previous debates told the Minister that I do not believe the equalization system is a way to solve the entire issue. I believe that one needs to address what is the problem, namely the occurrence of social dumping. As it is now, the equalization system, that is, how we distribute state grants, is not even remotely anything that handles the situation for the municipalities that have to receive more. The Minister knows that.

I will continue in my next post, but this is something that I am critical of the government not taking action on.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is good that the Minister for Migration is in the chamber and sitting next to the Minister for Civil Affairs, so that the Minister for Migration can inform the Minister for Civil Affairs that the reorganization of migration policy and the reduction of the so-called pressure on Sweden took place under the Social Democratic-led government. It was actually in 2022 that we received 7,000 who were granted asylum, and that happened during our government's time. This government is therefore not succeeding in carrying out any reorganization of migration policy, and the Minister for Migration can tell that.

I appreciate that the Minister answers no to a straightforward question, even if it is rhetorically posed. It is clear that reduced housing construction makes the Civil Minister's job of solving the problem of social dumping more difficult. The next question then becomes: How does the Civil Minister act to get his colleagues, the Housing Minister and the Finance Minister, to understand that we need to build housing in this country - so that the Civil Minister's job of solving the problem of social dumping becomes a bit easier?

It is exactly as my colleague Eva Lindh says: The collective responsibility that the government has is also borne by the Minister for Civil Affairs. The Minister for Civil Affairs is therefore to the highest degree responsible for the Moderaterna breaking their promise that 8 billion in authorizations would remain.

Then I want to make a small expansion regarding this with the SD government. When the Civil Minister's own party leader, in his summer speech, stands and uses terms directly taken from the far-right environment, the Civil Minister can actually be excused for us seeing what is happening. One must call a spade a spade, and when far-right terms find their way into the ministers' terminology, I see no difference whether Jimmie Åkesson had led the government formally or, as now, informally.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the contribution.

I understood that this was supposed to be about immigrants and how they put pressure on our municipalities. I have therefore looked at the statistics, and I told the Minister that I have recently been out in the municipalities. In Örebro län alone, it is four out of twelve municipalities that have problems with social dumping.

I have amused myself with the statistics from Arbetsförmedlingen, unfortunately not for this year but for last year. They show that in Ljusnarsberg - where Kopparberg is located, among others - 5.9 percent of the domestically born are unemployed. It is directly linked to social dumping, according to Arbetsförmedlingen. In Hällefors, which is a similar municipality, 4.2 percent of the domestically born are unemployed. In Degerfors, which is also one of these municipalities, it is 4.7. One should know that the average unemployment in Örebro län is 3.7 percent, and one can say that it is the same in the country.

So this is no longer a question of migration and how many people we receive, but it is a deliberate choice by wealthy municipalities to dump those in the worst situation – including children and families – in the municipalities that are struggling. I truly hope that the Minister takes it with the utmost seriousness that the municipalities in the countryside that are struggling now are also affected by other municipalities sending people further. It puts entire municipalities in incredibly great difficulties; as I mentioned, it concerns everything from the school, social services, and healthcare to bus traffic and transport to school – everything.

This is, therefore, no longer a question of immigrants and migration, but it is a question of social dumping among our municipalities.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I don't really need to be told that there are problems with this phenomenon. I have said several times in this speaker's chair that I think there are problems. Interpellations on this issue come very often, and it is very possible that the government will return with measures. However, there is nothing new to tell since the last debate other than regarding the work that is already ongoing. I also believe that the reduced pressure regarding migration to Sweden will lead to a reduced occurrence of so-called social dumping. We will have to see if I am right or not – it is sometimes risky to stand in a speaker's chair and guess, but I actually believe that we will see this.

I intend to continue a bit with what concerns the etiquette of the government. I think it is unfair of Eva Lindh and other Social Democrats to say that this is an SD-led government, because it is false advertising. This is a coalition government consisting of three parties that have a cooperation agreement with the Sweden Democrats in order to be able to govern at all and in order to be able to pass a budget in the Riksdag. Eva Lindh says that one cannot get this through without SD and that it is therefore an SD-led government. But without the Christian Democrats, one also cannot get a budget through. Would we then say that it is a KD-led government? I do not, despite the fact that I am a Christian Democrat.

This is a government consisting of three parties - the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals - which has a cooperation agreement with the Sweden Democrats. That is what the facts are. Using the same reasoning as Eva Lindh, we would call the previous government C-led or V-led, because that government was also dependent on support from other parties. It is every government that does not have more than half of the mandates in the Riksdag, and it was a long time ago that a government had that.

I can be a bit surprised by the debate on the equalization system. First, one sounds upset that no additional directives regarding social dumping were sent to the Equalization Committee. Then one says that such additional directives would not have made any difference anyway. Why, then, is one so upset that no additional directives were sent? If one now thinks that this issue can be raised in the committee, I mean that it is perfectly possible to raise it in the committee where, among others, Eva Lindh sits, given that the committee is to review whether the socio-economic factors weigh heavily enough in this system.

To Ola Möller, I want to say this: If one wants to have a debate on housing construction, one can actually submit an interpellation to another minister. I will not take housing policy debates, but it is the housing minister who speaks for the government in those matters.

I believe, however, that even Ola Möller at some point during the past year has heard that inflation is rising not only in Sweden but in much of the rest of the world, and that this is exacerbating the interest rate situation, which has caused a declining economy. This, in turn, has led to a decrease in housing construction. We could see this development even during the Social Democrats' recent time in government. The housing sector is often one of the sectors hit first when the economy declines and especially when interest rates rise, so do not place the entire burden on this government – I think that is very unfair.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I will not prolong the discussion on whether the government is SD-led or not, but I thought we should return to the question of social dumping.

When it comes to the housing issue, as many say, it is that the removal of the investment support caused the construction of rental apartments to decrease. We have, after all, talked about the need for more rental apartments.

I want to make a clarification regarding the investigation into the state grants, that is, the equalization system we have in Sweden. I do not mean that we should distribute less. I think instead that it would be good if we could distribute more based on socioeconomic factors, so that the conditions for municipalities in Sweden become more equal and so that the whole country can live. I am only saying that this would not solve the entire problem, but there would also continue to be social dumping. Therefore, I think that one should tackle the reasons why this occurs, because it affects people.

To begin with, one could resume the investigations so that clear proposals can actually be produced. That was what we asked for – the investigation did not finish in time. This would be needed.

Sufficient resources are needed for municipalities and regions. More housing also needs to be built. We probably also need to strengthen the law regarding the responsibility that municipalities have towards their own residents.

We will not give up. This is an important issue. It is not okay for children to be separated from their lives when social dumping occurs. We will continue to raise the issue, because this is not worthy of Sweden.

We must fight together for justice and equality. I hope that through these debates we can make a difference.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! The investment support is special. The Social Democrats often complain that it disappeared, but in the Social Democrats' own shadow budget, there were no funds for the investment support. We have checked this and have never been refuted here in the rostrum. Unfortunately, I do not have more speaking time, but it is actually the case that no extra money was allocated to the investment support for 2023. I think even this claim echoes a bit falsely.

The budget is to be presented within a few weeks. We will see what it contains regarding various assignments and various financial investments to, among other things, the municipal sector. This is nothing that has been communicated yet, but it will come. We are, however, close to a budget debate, and we will then have reason to return to several issues.

Even the question that this interpellation concerns, we will have to return to. I see the problem, but as I have explained, I still believe that there are a number of measures that will be able to produce some effects in a positive direction in this matter. There are, however, certainly reasons to return with more measures in the future. We will have to see what these measures will be; it is nothing that I can present here and now in this debate.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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