Response to interpellation 2023/24:432 on all municipalities' responsibility for integration
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that the municipalities need good conditions for integration 1 and that a new, flexible system for settlement increases municipal autonomy 2. L emphasizes that integration occurs through work, that requirements are placed on newcomers and that the government's policy involves support for the school 3. S considers that the government's way forward is unclear and that responsibility is placed on municipalities while economic conditions are being withdrawn 4. S argues that the Settlement Act was necessary to share the responsibility 5. SD argues that the Settlement Act is unfair towards students and young people 6 and that municipalities can best assess how many migrants they can receive 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take so that the responsibility for integration shall be shared in solidarity between the municipalities and not fall upon a few municipalities.
It is important that the municipalities are given good conditions for the reception of newly arrived people so that integration can function better. Since the Settlement Act entered into force in 2016, the conditions for the reception of newly arrived people have changed. The number of newly arrived people has decreased significantly in recent years, but many municipalities face major challenges with exclusion after a previously high reception.
The Government decided on 15 February this year that a special investigator shall propose a new system for the settlement of certain newly arrived persons that replaces the current system. The purpose is to increase the municipalities' influence over the reception of newly arrived persons and create good conditions for an equal, uniform and flexible reception in the municipalities.
A new system needs to be flexible in relation to changes in reception in order to be long-term sustainable. It must therefore be possible to ensure that the municipalities' reception of newcomers corresponds to the need for housing. In this way, conditions are also created so that newcomers can be received quickly and in an orderly manner in a municipality and begin their establishment in work and social life in order to enter employment and become self-sufficient. The investigator shall also analyze and propose which factors should be considered in the distribution of newcomers between municipalities so that the system promotes integration. The assignment shall be reported by March 31, 2025, at the latest.
In the budget bill for 2024, the government decided that the temporary state grant to municipalities with high refugee reception would cease from and including 2024, after having been phased out during 2023. The decommissioning of the state grant took place against the background of the economic situation as well as the fact that the reception of newly arrived persons has decreased over several years. The economic consequences of the reception after 2015 are managed today through regular systems for state compensations to municipalities and regions for the reception of newly arrived persons. The municipal economic equalization system compensates for the potential impact of refugee reception on the municipalities' tax base as well as for differences between municipalities due to structural factors, such as socioeconomics.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Employment and Integration for the answer! It is a somewhat difficult answer to follow, but I will nevertheless try to unravel it.
First, I want to tell you a little about the background to the interpellation and why I wrote it. Just as the Minister for Employment and Integration has just told the Riksdag, the government has gradually abolished the extra support that has gone to municipalities that have taken a large responsibility for the reception of refugees.
One of these municipalities is located in my constituency, and that is Burlöv municipality. It is a municipality close to Malmö with barely 20,000 inhabitants. It is actually Sweden's second smallest municipality by area. But regardless, it is a municipality that has taken a particularly large responsibility for the reception of refugees and has therefore received money for this. In 2023, the support amounted to 5 million kronor, and it has been higher before that.
These funds are now gone. 5 million kronor in a municipality actually makes quite a big difference. It is not something that Burlöv municipality is directly losing out on that is now disappearing. It is a lot of money. It is a difficult and somewhat strange signal to send to a municipality that has taken a particularly large responsibility for the reception of refugees to remove these 5 million kronor.
The Minister chooses in his answer to describe the government's, in my opinion, vague and unclear path forward and not talk so much about what happens until then. One must assume that the old tracks still apply. What is nevertheless surprising is that in the same breath as it is coldly stated that the money is now to be withdrawn from Burlöv, a return center is placed in the same municipality. It is admittedly not an integration cost, but it is still a cost during the period. The people in the return centers are hardly lived totally isolated from reality.
Madam Speaker! At the same time as the government talks about more municipalities taking responsibility - something along the lines of "to each according to their ability and to each according to their need" - it seems from reality as if the government is making life tougher for a municipality that has already taken a large responsibility. It is not enough that money is being withdrawn from, for example, Burlöv municipality - new costs are also being imposed on the same municipality. What kind of solidarity reception principle is that? Well, I can tell you: It is no solidarity reception principle. It is something else.
In the answer the House has just heard, the Minister refers to the fact that the current municipal economic equalization system is supposed to compensate the municipalities for this type of cost. But it is still a fact that Burlöv Municipality has lost 5 million kronor. I ask the Minister to elaborate on just that part a bit further, because I actually do not quite understand. Is Burlöv's loss of income of 5 million completely covered? That is almost how it sounds from the Minister.
When we are digging into the minister's answer anyway, I would like to ask about another formulation that I honestly do not quite understand: "A new system needs to be flexible in relation to changes in reception in order to be long-term sustainable. It must therefore be possible to ensure that the municipalities' reception of newly arrived people corresponds to the need for housing." What is meant by this? I do not understand. Here also lies the problem with the government's integration policy: It is difficult to understand, and it sends several different signals that are extremely difficult to interpret.
What is happening in reality right now is that a municipality that has taken a great responsibility is expected to take even a little more responsibility when a return center is placed in the municipality. Therefore, the minister's answer is somewhat confusing. What is being put forward here before the Riksdag today is actually that it is not supposed to be like this, but rather the opposite. It raises questions and fears regarding the future. Are costs for integration to be shifted onto municipalities like Burlöv while the state backs away and says "Good luck!", or what is it that applies? I hope that is not the case, but the minister's answer makes me concerned, confounded, and perhaps even somewhat perplexed.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! The interpellor, Adrian Magnusson, representing the Socialdemokraterna, complains that the Swedish Migration Agency has placed a return center in Burlövs municipality. A return center is intended to ensure that those who have been denied their application for a residence permit leave Sweden, which I believed was something that the Socialdemokraterna advocated for.
The interpellor also regrets that it states in the Tidö Agreement that the Settlement Act should eventually be abolished and replaced with a model with greater municipal influence. The Settlement Act is the law that since March 1, 2016, forces municipalities across the country to arrange housing for newcomers whether the municipalities want it or not. It is a law that creates costs by forcing the municipality to support newcomers for several years because these newcomers simply get a residence without standing in a housing queue for a single day, which is obviously very unfair to students and young people who have difficulty securing housing. This law has forced certain municipalities to purchase condominiums and villas in order to be able to offer newcomers the housing that the municipalities are required to offer newcomers according to the Settlement Act.
The legislation was developed after the Social Democrats' migration policy had brought Sweden to the brink of collapse. The government at the time had to, in pure desperation, conjure up housing for all the migrants that Sweden had received. Then, it was decided to limit the municipalities' autonomy through the Settlement Act and force everyone to accept newcomers, whether the local politicians wanted it or not.
The interpellor, Adrian Magnusson, is therefore concerned that this legislation, according to the Tidö Agreement, will in the long run be replaced by a model that gives the municipalities more influence.
Madam Speaker! The interpellant's concern is not justified.
Firstly, I am completely certain that those who can best judge how many migrants Burlöv can accommodate are the residents of Burlöv themselves and their local representatives. It is not state bureaucrats in Stockholm who should sit and decide how many newly arrived migrants Burlöv can accommodate. It is a self-evident matter that it is the society that receives the migrants that can best make an assessment of how many migrants it can accommodate.
Secondly: Moving forward, Sweden will receive fewer migrants, period. Integration will thus be facilitated, even if in some cities, such as my hometown Malmö, it may already be too late.
Member Magnusson can be assured that the mass immigration that occurred under the Social Democrats will not occur under this government. It also means that, in the long run, the state will not have to force municipalities to accept migrants. There will be fewer migrants, and they will need to qualify themselves into the welfare system. Then the municipalities will also have lower costs for the migrants who come to Sweden. Much of what Member Magnusson worries about will be solved by this government through a strict migration policy.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! We shall dwell for a moment on the Settlement Act, which was introduced in 2016, and that was precisely because there was not a sufficiently good order. It was a Social Democratic-led government that realized it, as a Social Democratic Prime Minister also repeated very many times to the municipalities: Everyone must take responsibility.
Which municipalities were it that did not do it? Which said that they did not intend to accept any? Even if they perhaps had a better housing and labor market than many others, they said: We do not want to! They were Moderate-led municipalities, bourgeois municipalities, that actively chose to stand outside the responsibility. In the end, it was necessary to introduce legislation to share the responsibility, based on criteria that were important for integration. It is about things such as what conditions there are to learn the Swedish language, what conditions there are to get a job, and what conditions there are to get a home. It was among other things against the background of these criteria that the law was created.
Several years after the law was introduced, the Swedish National Audit Office conducted a review of how this legislation has functioned. The Swedish National Audit Office concluded that it has served its purpose.
When we left government power, we had halved the establishment time. I think that is not good enough, but it is still a good part of the way. Now there is a commissioned job from Danderyd with several municipalities to abolish or change that order. It is said that they want to increase the flexibility for municipalities to choose. I understand that, but I think one should also say clearly in this chamber that this is what applies.
Integration policy is about creating conditions – giving both municipalities and individuals the conditions. I think it is reasonable that it stands in parity with the requirements one sets. If one sets high requirements, which I think one should do, one also needs to create better and fairer conditions to live up to them.
But this government and Integration Minister Johan Pehrson are not creating the conditions. They focus on requirement after requirement and then withdraw these municipal compensation funds. Adrian Magnusson raised an example in the chamber. I have my own constituency, where one loses these funds. But one has taken a greater responsibility than many others.
In what way does the Minister then mean that there are good conditions to carry out these integration efforts and get people where we want them to be – they should be in the middle of society and serve society well?
My question to the Minister is: What conditions, which are in parity with the requirements that are set, does the Minister for Integration create for municipalities or individuals?
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Burlöv is now coming into focus. It is one municipality among many that took responsibility for reception during a difficult time. It was a time that meant many municipalities had it very tough. Because there was a large migration but very weak integration, it became difficult in many municipalities.
Books have been written about this. One of the authors is sitting here in the chamber today. But we do not need to delve into the important literature about how the enormous migration that the Social Democrats, together with their supporting parties—when you built the government power—were responsible for, entailed enormous pressures on many municipalities.
I do not think we need to dwell on the fact that everything was not perfect before. I think we should look a bit forward and think of opportunities and strengths for the Sweden that we love. We see people as an asset. If people have not learned Swedish or entered jobs during the last three, five, or ten years, it is time to do it now. Let us focus on that instead! That is the government's message to everyone in Burlöv and actually to everyone in all of Sweden.
We shall ensure that we integrate and help those people who today find themselves in exclusion, and then the message is quite simple. We have provided a country. We provide great opportunities. But we also set a number of requirements. One of the members, Sofia Amloh, who also wanted to ask a few questions, thinks it is wrong to set requirements. I do not think it is wrong to set requirements.
We provide a country. We provide opportunities. But we set requirements. If you come to Sweden, you must learn Swedish. We know that it is important that one creates opportunities. But one also sets requirements and has high expectations. Otherwise, there will be low results.
We help with integration by building a new Sweden course, so that people understand what kind of country they have come to and what values one has in Burlöv and which one may have had in Burlöv for 100 or 200 years. It is very important.
Welcome to Sweden! We are learning Swedish. This is how it works in Sweden regarding children's rights and regarding equality between men and women. Then it matters very little to me, to speak plainly, which holiday one celebrates. It matters very little to me as a liberal or as Minister for Employment. You may celebrate whichever holidays you want and have whichever religions you want, as long as you allow others to have their religion and also allow that people have no religion. Above all, do not come forward and claim that it shall be included in the constitution in Sweden!
That is the way to go when it comes to integration. But it is correct that we are looking at a new way to arrange settlement, because we have a different situation. Not even the Social Democrats want to go back to the migration that was had previously. Now they say that they do not think it was so good all the time – I have seen that it is an internal debate within the Social Democrats.
But now we revise this and say that the municipalities get a bit more to say. It is, for example, about looking at how many people were received during the years when very many people came to Sweden. I think it is reasonable to weigh in both the labor market and the availability of housing. That is obvious.
Do not also forget that people's possibilities are enormous! Take all those people who have come from Ukraine to Sweden under a completely different set of rules and who are now settling here! Some live in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations. Others settle all around Sweden. They learn Swedish, start working and contribute to a fantastic Sweden.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I appreciate having a debate with the liberal party leader, I must say, because he often indulges in liberal ideological digressions. He does not always bring them home in practice and in politics, but he often indulges in them and is happy to use his allotted time to talk about liberal ideological ideas. Sometimes proposals appear that one should intervene in people's private lives and stop screen time at 11 p.m. That might be liberalism; I don't know. But I appreciate hearing this anyway.
Since then, it has always been convenient to be a Sverigedemokratisk Member of Parliament, because one doesn't need to listen to what they say or read what they write, they can claim just about anything. It must be very convenient. I sometimes envy them for having that role in political engagement. But I will never end up there – I can promise that.
It has been claimed here that I am against a return center in Burlöv. In that case, one has not read the interpellation or listened to what I have said. We have already established that this has occurred. What I am fixating on is that large parts of the responsibility are placed on individual municipalities while simultaneously withdrawing the conditions for those municipalities to conduct a good integration policy.
One takes 5 million kronor from Burlöv municipality at the same time as one places a return center in the municipality. It cannot be to conduct a good integration policy, because all that the Minister for Employment and Integration brings up here - SFI, Sverigekursen and whatever it may be - must cost something and should be financed by someone? If I know the Swedish administrative system correctly, it is the municipalities that usually have that task. They have that task, unless a large state agency is to be established to intervene here and take over the task, and then one can talk about municipal self-government as much as one likes.
I mean that it is this time that has been historical in this country. If one then pulls away money, I wonder: How is integration going to work in practice? That is a question I ask myself.
I am thinking of Burlöv, for example. A letter has been sent to the Minister for Migration from the Moderate municipal board chairman in Burlöv, which is among other things supported by the Sverigedemokraterna. The municipal board chairman is quite critical of this and writes, among other things, that this will lead to enormous pressures and costs. That is what the Moderate municipal board chairman in Burlöv writes. At the same time, 5 million kronor are being withdrawn. There will also be new burdens.
It is at some point here that one becomes reflective about the government's integration policy. Is the idea that this is how it is supposed to be? Is it Burlöv, Östra Göinge and other municipalities in Skåne that have ended up in the same situation, which have taken a great responsibility and which have now seen a lot of money disappear, that shall be responsible for the reception? Is it the government's intention that Täby, Danderyd, Lidingö and surely more municipalities should be protected from this responsibility and that it should be shifted onto a number of municipalities that have already today taken a great responsibility?
Then I can only note that it was claimed in the interpellation answer that the municipal equalization system shall cover these costs in the future. I received no clearer information regarding that. I may get it in the next speech. I hope so, because I am genuinely curious about what is meant by that wording in the answer. I would like to know how it is.
I think it is remarkable that for this type of policy – that one gives municipalities extra burdens and at the same time withdraws financial resources. I do not envy being a moderate KSO in Burlöv; I can state that. But we can well hope that some clearer answers can come in the next speech.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! There are municipalities in Skåne today where many do not recognize their communities. These municipalities have received so many migrants that the elderly who have lived their entire lives in these municipalities no longer recognize their communities.
Member of the Board Magnusson stands here today and argues that we should force these municipalities to accept even more migrants, even though the residents of the municipalities are convinced that they cannot handle more migrants.
I wonder how Member Magnusson justifies such coercion. Is it right to deprive people of their societies through mass immigration?
In my interpellation, Member Magnusson is upset that a return center has been opened in Burlöv. I have visited a return center. These centers help migrants who have been denied their application for a residence permit to return to their home countries. Why is Member Magnusson upset that a return center has been opened in Burlöv? Does Member Magnusson not want those migrants who do not have the right to stay in Sweden and Burlöv to actually leave Sweden? Is it the case that Member Magnusson stands here and openly supports illegal migration?
Are the Social Democrats also, as a party, critical of the opening of return centers? One hears the Social Democrats say that they want a strict migration policy. Now, a Social Democratic member stands in this chamber and complains that the Swedish Migration Agency is opening return centers. What do the Social Democrats actually want?
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I said in my previous speech that one should set high demands but also create conditions that are in parity with the demands one sets. I say it again considering that the Minister probably interpreted me as not wanting any demands: The Social Democrats think, say, and push that we should have high demands. But we must also create conditions to live up to those high demands. And the higher the demands one sets, the higher the demands are on society to create the conditions required to be able to live up to those expectations.
Now we have received it clearly and distinctly for us, for a moment at least, what applies for the Social Democrats. But I did not get any answer on what conditions this government provides. What conditions does this government create so that one can live up to all the demands that are set? Is it perhaps so that this government does not think that it will be necessary? Does it really want that one should live up to all these demands? I am actually starting to doubt, given how few conditions it creates.
What are the prerequisites, at the individual level but also for the municipalities, to manage this and do right and take responsibility for it? If the Minister is to live up to his title as Minister for Integration, I demand that he answers here in the Chamber. There should be something there, at least one point - perhaps two concrete points. That would be reasonable.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! We are, therefore, talking about this temporary support during a difficult time when Sweden received many people. It was temporary, and because it was temporary, it is being changed now that migration is decreasing – something I understood that most who have been up in the speaker's chair during this interpellation debate agree on. Now it is a different situation. Then one must be able to understand that this was temporary.
One must also make a decision. I see it as that this matter of new conditions for settlement, in connection with the amendment of the Settlement Act, increases municipal self-government. There are many of us who are members of Parliament or sit in the government but are elected as members of Parliament and have a deputy minister who experience that it is good for the municipalities to have the opportunity for more self-government. It is very unusual to strive for less. Then one has to go home and tell one's comrades and fellow citizens: Now I and the Parliament in Stockholm want to decide more over you, so you will have less to say about at home in Örebro or Burlöv or Norberg. That becomes a bit special. One must make a decision. This is about strengthening self-government and providing increased flexibility.
Since it is not the case that the government or the state is in any way backing down from its responsibility to provide support for integration, for that does cost.
When we say that we are to have a better entry point for SFI for those who come to Sweden from another country and are to study SFI as part of the establishment, and when we say that we are to make the requirements better so that one ends up in the right place early on to more easily be able to learn Swedish, for example in three years, then we send resources with that. Then we raise the ambition compared to previous governments. We add resources so that one gets a better entry when one arrives at SFI - so-called onboarding.
When we, who are not so extremely interested in constantly dividing people by ethnic background, say that all schools in Sweden that are vulnerable – those that are most vulnerable, which perhaps have the toughest socio-economic situation and where one perhaps does not always have the highest grades – receive special knowledge support via the state budget, then it does not go to all schools. It does not go to all schools in Danderyd or Djursholm or whatever it is you want to create some debate with me about. I am responsible for all of Sweden. We give all those schools from Ystad to Haparanda more support because they have tough challenges, because there is nothing so important for integration and the future of this country as that students like you who have now entered the stands here – welcome, by the way – manage to get through school.
We provide a fantastic school, but we also expect you to put in the effort and do everything you can to learn math, Swedish, English and a bit of other things - preferably social studies. You have all the opportunities in the future, and we provide support for this. But we set requirements, and we have high expectations.
It is also a part of the integration for those who have it toughest, regardless of where one comes from. The most vulnerable schools are found throughout the country. It is a way to provide support and opportunities. We provide a country. We provide opportunities. But we also set certain requirements. And no one can be happier than I, Madam Speaker, that the Social Democrats here affirm that they also support requirements.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Debating with the Sweden Democrat member here is a bit like banging your head against a wall and feeling the blood run down into your forehead. You get nowhere. That is a bit how it is. It doesn't matter what I say here, because the contributions are already pre-written. It simply doesn't have much significance.
I can at least state that I do not need any briefings on what Skåne looks like. Thanks anyway!
I perceived the sending of more resources as something the Minister promised here now. The Sfi courses and the Sverigekursen will lead to more resources being sent. That is positive. In that case, I am satisfied. If it leads to, for example, Burlöv being able to get more money to manage the integration in Burlöv municipality, I have no objections to that. In that case, one hasn't been deprived of these 5 million kronor. One might even be able to get even more. It would be even better if it were more than 5 million kronor that were sent to Burlöv municipality to manage the integration, especially linked to the fact that one has also placed a return center in Burlöv. I have said several times that I don't mind, but when one simultaneously withdraws money from Burlöv municipality, the signals become unclear. But, as said, if the government intends to send resources when it implements the Sverigekursen or more Sfi or whatever it is they are thinking of, I will be the first to welcome it. We recently had a broken promise from another party leader from the right regarding sending resources out into the country, so we probably have to take it with a grain of salt. But I am happy. I hope that it can become a reality.
It was claimed here – I will come to that again – that the municipal economic equalization system shall compensate for the potential impact of refugee reception on the municipality's tax base and so on. I have not received any answer as to what that actually means in that part of the interpellation response, so perhaps that should also be taken with a grain of salt. I feel that question is left hanging in the air a bit. But the Minister has, in a few seconds, two minutes to explain what is meant by that part of the interpellation response. In that case, I will gratefully accept that answer.
Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! I am coming with a ship of salt. I do not want that salt to be poured over the country Sweden. We are not going to impregnate or, so to speak, pre-salt herring here, so that we can store it much longer.
People come to Sweden in large numbers during an acute, fearsome situation; Sweden receives many people fleeing. In that case, a temporary support is introduced, not only to Burlöv, but all those who have received the most receive a temporary support. If we go to the Swedish Academy's dictionary and look at the concept temporary, we see that it does not mean "forever." It does not even mean that it should be like a lottery ticket, that one should receive a certain sum in 25, 15 or 10 years, but the support was temporary.
I belong to those who believe that people can contribute. I believe that not least people who have come to Sweden have an enormous power and can become a part of Sweden - if we provide support but also set requirements. Sweden is not a place where one can come and not be met with any requirements. It is not strange to set requirements that one should learn Swedish. It is not strange to set requirements that one should go to a job. It is not strange to set requirements for counter-performance for subsistence support, apply a benefit ceiling, or in other ways clarify that we expect you to participate and contribute.
The Social Democrats would be no opposition party to talk about if they were satisfied with the government's policy and did not always shout for more. But the future of Burlöv and all other municipalities depends on investing in the school. This is the homework, and one also receives support for it from this government.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.