Response to interpellation 2023/24:840 on deportation due to exploitation in prostitution
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns deportation due to exploitation in prostitution. M argues that the investigation should analyze how the possibilities to deny or revoke residence permits due to deficiencies in lifestyle can be expanded 1, but emphasizes that the legislation should not target vulnerable people who are exploited by others 2 3 4. MP considers that women who are exploited in prostitution are crime victims who should be treated as complainants 5 6 and wants them to receive support and help instead of deportation, as they should not be covered by the designation of deficient conduct. V considers that prostitution should not be included in the conduct assessment 7 since deportation creates a life-threatening signal 8. C considers that prostitution as deficient conduct contradicts the sex purchase laws and advocates for an extended reflection period 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen has asked me if I intend to take any measures to clarify to the Swedish Migration Agency that exploitation in prostitution shall never be regarded as "lack of integrity," neither under current legislation nor under future legislation.
The Swedish Migration Agency was given a mandate in the 2023 regulatory letter to, based on current legislation, analyze the possibilities of increasing quality and prioritizing checks of conduct and lifestyle in the processing of permit cases. In the reporting of the assignment, the Swedish Migration Agency states, among other things, that the scope for considering factors other than crime or suspected crime is limited.
In accordance with the Tidö Agreement, an investigator has been tasked, among other things, to analyze and propose how the possibilities to deny and revoke residence permits due to deficiencies in lifestyle can be expanded. The committee directives provide a non-exhaustive exemplification of what types of deficiencies in lifestyle could be considered. This could, among other things, involve lack of regulatory compliance such as benefit fraud, association or other close interaction with or participation in criminal networks or a violence-oriented or extremist organization or other environments that threaten fundamental Swedish values, as well as dishonest livelihood.
It also appears from the committee directives that it should be tested in a versatile and broad manner which actions or which circumstances are relevant and justified to consider for what constitutes a lack of honest way of life. This includes taking into account personal circumstances, where the personal responsibility in the individual's actions is emphasized.
The assignment shall be reported by no later than 15 January 2025. I neither want nor can anticipate the result of this investigation and see no reason at this point for further steering of the Swedish Migration Agency in the matter.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to say that I really appreciate that Johan Forssell, so quickly into his new role as Minister for Migration, has chosen to step in and answer this interpellation, which was originally addressed to his predecessor Maria Malmer Stenergard.
This is a very important issue. Deportation due to exploitation in prostitution is not just about how we view the right to obtain a residence permit in Sweden, but it is also about how we view women who are exploited, about how we view men's violence against women, and about the underlying view established in the Swedish sex purchase law. We have, in broad agreement in the Swedish Riksdag and in Swedish politics for a long time, stated that women who are exploited in sex trafficking are crime victims and that those who exploit women and those who buy or trade in women's bodies commit a crime.
This was the background to why many - we in Miljöpartiet, representatives of other political parties, and also actors in civil society - reacted powerfully when the Tidö Agreement was presented and the question of deportation due to lack of integrity or deficiencies in lifestyle, as it is described in the interpellation answer, arose. To mention exploitation in prostitution in the same sentence as one talks about criminals truly challenges our Swedish basic worldview.
We in Miljöpartiet want that the women who are being exploited and who are being bought and sold should actually be regarded as full crime victims and that they should be complainants and not just witnesses in sex trafficking cases. In the same way, we also want that the objective, when a woman is encountered in prostitution, should be to provide her with support, rehabilitation, and help to get out of this horrific situation. Simply put: The goal must be to get women to leave prostitution, not Sweden.
Maria Malmer Stenergard stated in a previous interpellation debate that I had with her shortly after the Tidö Agreement was presented that it is, however, important to emphasize that the purpose of the proposal in the Tidö Agreement is not to deport people because they have been placed in a vulnerable situation.
Not least for the reason that Johan Forssell is new to the role of Minister for Migration, but also for the reason of the case highlighted by Göteborgs-Posten – a woman was deported, among other things, with reference to arguments regarding a lack of integrity, linked to the fact that she had been exploited in prostitution – I would like to ask: Does Johan Forssell stand by the principles of the sex purchase law, that women who are exploited in prostitution are crime victims, that they have been placed in a vulnerable position, and that the proposals in the integrity investigation are not to place these persons in the same position as the criminals?
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Madam Speaker! I also want to start by welcoming Johan Forssell to the new assignment. It will be fun to get to work with the minister in this position. We have had the privilege of working in the committees together. I think this is an incredibly important post. This policy area truly shapes the image of Sweden, so I look forward to good cooperation ahead.
Yes, this is a question that has been relevant since the Tidö Agreement was presented. There were many with me - many with us - who really had their hearts in their throats when the wording about lack of misconduct was included and where the exemplification was prostitution. I completely agree with the description that this stands in direct conflict with the Swedish sex purchase law, as the interpellator described.
Then the investigation was commissioned, which was to investigate whether there could be expanded possibilities to reject asylum applications or even revoke residence permits due to lack of integrity. Then it had been renamed to lack of lifestyle, which perhaps sounds more palatable.
My first question to the minister is: How much agreement was there within the government, or the government base, on this? According to the Minister for Equality, those vulnerable in prostitution should not be regarded as having a deficient lifestyle, but this was not agreed upon by the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna. The spokesperson Ludvig Aspling was very clear that this could indeed be included. This is, therefore, my first question.
Then I would like to ask about another matter connected to this, namely the reflection period. We have a number of high-profile cases where women have been deported, among other reasons because they have stayed in Sweden illegally, linked to the reflection period. Just as has been mentioned, those exposed to prostitution are crime victims. Many who are exposed to prostitution come from countries other than Sweden, often former Eastern countries. They are extremely vulnerable. They are victims of human trafficking. They are lured here.
The reflection period is the instrument we have to be able to offer these people a support that they are entitled to according to international conventions and legislation and to get them to, if possible, participate in criminal investigations to convict the persons who have actually committed crimes, namely those who exploit them, those who buy and sell people.
The reflection period in Sweden is four weeks. It is hardly a time that is sufficient for them, first and foremost, to receive support and encouragement and for them to have the commitment and energy to participate in a criminal investigation. In many other countries, the period is three months. I have just come from Berlin, where they work in a fantastic way. There, they have a three-month reflection period.
My second question is: How does the government view extending the reflection period from today's four weeks, which is far too short a time?
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! I also welcome the Minister in his new role as Minister for Migration.
Now the Migration Agency is rejecting an application due to lack of integrity despite the fact that the investigation is still ongoing and that it is to present its work next year. In that case, we really need to question the government's management of the Migration Agency.
To the new Minister for Migration, I must say: We cannot have a situation in Sweden where women who are exploited in prostitution are regarded as criminals and thus receive deportation orders. That does not belong with Swedish legislation at all. We regard people who are exploited in prostitution as victims and not perpetrators.
The decision that the Migration Agency has made, to deport due to lack of conduct regarding prostitution, also creates a life-threatening signal regarding where Sweden and this government are headed. It sends a signal about the society that the SD-government envisions and strives for, where women are no longer to be seen as crime victims. It jeopardizes the safety of crime victims and Sweden's and society's view on women's right to protection from sexual violence.
Vänsterpartiet voted before the summer with Miljöpartiet to scrap the investigation into lack of misconduct specifically because of this case at Migrationsverket. This creates enormous consequences. One also risks being deported on weak grounds, which lack of misconduct is, when one lives in a way that this government does not consider pleasing to them. It is a great risk for arbitrariness and legal insecurity, especially when it comes to prostitution.
The Minister has received questions, including new questions here today. I have one further question for the Minister for Migration. It is not illegal to sell sex in Sweden. How does the Minister for Migration then consider that a conduct review should proceed? Are we suddenly to deport people who are fleeing from trafficking and human trafficking due to so-called lack of integrity? Is that the new Minister for Migration's position? Is that the Minister's Sweden?
We see in this case how insanely wrong it has gone, and I therefore hope that the minister is not satisfied with this legal uncertainty and arbitrariness. This simply cannot be reconciled legally at all.
In other respects, I share the intention in the interpellant's question, namely that the Minister needs to take measures to clarify to the Swedish Migration Agency that involvement in prostitution shall never be regarded as a lack of integrity, neither under current legislation nor under future legislation if the investigation results in any.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the interpellor and others for all the welcome greetings! We have met in several different contexts previously, for example in the Committee on Social Insurance, and will probably meet often here in the Chamber as well, which I naturally look forward to very much.
In that case, I may have to disappoint the interpellor and others a bit today, as far as it is difficult to give answers regarding an investigation that is still ongoing. It is very difficult to comment on an investigation that has not yet submitted its result; it is simply not possible.
Just as I mentioned in my answer, the investigation is currently working. It is to work for a number of months more, throughout the entire autumn, and shall therefore submit its final report no later than January 15 next year. When we have that result, I will of course answer questions and comment on it, but I do not intend to stand here in the Riksdag's speaker's chair today and speculate about different outcomes. I do not think it would be quite responsible.
Migration policy affects human destinies in a very direct way. It is in the nature of the matter. I believe that as Minister for Migration, but also in other cases, one should perhaps be a bit cautious about commenting on individual life stories. Not because they cannot grasp one, but we do not usually do it in that way, rather we usually design the legislation in a different way. I do not, therefore, intend to comment on individual decisions here today either.
I can only repeat that when we make a decision in the government, we do it collectively, that is to say, we stand behind the directives for this investigation and for that case we will then proceed with legislation. We are maintaining a very high pace of reform in the migration area and have done so in many ways. We are shifting the migration policy from the previous unsustainable migration policy, which has created such great problems for very many people who have come to Sweden in recent years and which has also created very great problems for Sweden in the form of a growing exclusion, major segregation problems, etcetera. When we then proceed with legislation at a later stage, we will of course do so as a government, negotiated between four parties. I naturally welcome as broad support as possible for this direction, which the Swedish people also gave us clear support for in the election two years ago.
I want to repeat once again what I believe my predecessor has said, namely that the legislation does not target vulnerable people who are exploited by others. But we also know, for example, from Migrationsverket that the possibilities today are limited when it comes to considering other factors than just crime or suspected crime regarding this area, and that is also why the investigation is now working on this.
Of course, it is the case that this work shall take place with respect for both the Swedish constitution, EU law, the European Convention, and other international law obligations. But I do not intend, as said, to anticipate the results of the investigation here today, but we must wait a few months until the investigation has presented its work.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! Johan Forssell says that he does not want to talk about the investigation that is ongoing. I can absolutely accept that. However, I want to know what Johan Forssell, as Minister for Migration, himself wants. Does the Minister want women who are exploited in sex trafficking to be classified as persons with a lack of integrity and who therefore cannot be granted residence permits?
It is, in the end, no investigation that determines how the legislation views women, men, children, and others who are cynically exploited in commercial sex trafficking, but it is actually the government. It is the government that chooses whether one wants to present a proposal that places persons exploited in prostitution side by side with criminals and regards them as persons who have a lack of integrity or flaws in their way of life, or whether one chooses not to do so, completely regardless of whether the investigation should present such a proposal.
It is a political choice, and what view the Minister for Migration has on this group matters. Does Johan Forssell believe that persons who are exploited in prostitution should continue to be placed in the category of crime victims, or does Johan Forssell believe that they should end up on the same side as the criminals when it comes to deportation?
Short and sweet: Should we continue to focus on convicting those who trade in women's bodies and see it as men's violence against women? Should we focus on helping the women out of prostitution, or should our focus be that they should be deported from Sweden on the same grounds as the criminals who trade in their bodies?
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Madam Speaker! I asked a question: Does the Minister for Migration consider prostitution to be an unacceptable way of life? Does the Minister for Migration think the same as the Sweden Democrats, who have explicitly stated that it can be?
I can guarantee to everyone listening that I would want nothing more than to hold the Sweden Democrats accountable for that statement, but that is not possible because they are not part of the government. They are, however, involved in governing the government, so therefore there is no other alternative for me than to pose the question to the Minister for Migration: Do the Moderates and the government consider prostitution to be an unacceptable way of life?
I also asked a question about the reflection period. I heard the minister say that he does not want to comment on individual cases from Migrationsverket – fully understandable. We have also not asked the migration minister to comment on individual cases. However, we are asking principled questions linked to the judgments that have been issued.
One such [issue] concerns the reflection period, which is the instrument we have in Swedish legislation to support crime victims. Sweden repeatedly receives criticism from international evaluations, including the Council of Europe's evaluation group, GRETA, regarding our poor performance in identifying crime victims. With the widespread prostitution that we nevertheless have and the enormous human trafficking that exists, it is not unreasonable that there could be more crime victims in Sweden, but we are too poor at supporting the crime victims. One criterion there is the reflection period. Many other countries have three months, while we have four weeks.
This is a way to support the women, so my question is: How does the government view expanding the reflection period?
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! The absence of answers in the migration minister's first interpellation debate in her new role is worrying. Can victims of prostitution be punished? It is a simple question. How does Sweden's new migration minister believe a reputation check should proceed? It is complicated, and therefore I believe that prostitution should not be included in the investigation at all.
The core issue here is that Sweden's new Migration Minister has nevertheless signed agreements with the Sweden Democrats. They have been clear about what applies regarding moral turpitude and prostitution. They are clear that prostitution constitutes moral turpitude, and that creates enormous consequences for women in vulnerable situations where the intention in Swedish legislation is to protect them against sexual exploitation. Then it cannot be particularly difficult for the minister to say what he thinks about the issue and how it looks in his future Sweden.
Why can't the minister be clear about what applies? Does he intend to support crime victims? These are not such difficult questions.
One step is, for example, as the interpellator pointed out in the question, to clarify to the Swedish Migration Agency that exploitation in prostitution does not constitute a lack of integrity. I believe that Sweden's Migration Minister must be able to demonstrate that clarity.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall comment on some things that have been raised in the discussion.
First and foremost, it concerns the claim that I would not want to talk about the investigation. That is obviously not true. I have just spent four minutes talking about the investigation, and I am doing it again. I have even submitted a written response regarding the investigation. That is why we have the discussion, and that is why I received the interpellation. We are talking about the investigation.
What I do not want to do, Madam Speaker, is to comment on or speculate about a result that still does not exist. The core of the discussion is that the interpellator and the opposing debaters want me to comment on an investigation result that is several months away. I understand that there are many questions, and I know that it is not only the interpellator and the debaters who are curious about the government's migration policy and the major reorganization that we are now carrying out. We received the Swedish people's mandate to carry out a major change of the migration policy, away from the unsustainable migration policy that, among others, representatives from the three parties here today stood behind and implemented. We are carrying out a paradigm shift, but it would not be quite serious of me to speculate on and comment on a result that still does not exist.
It is complicated with the assessment of reputation, it was said in the discussion. I truly agree with that. That is exactly it. That is also why I have asked an inquiry to look at the issues, work through the material, and carefully and seriously weigh the pros and cons against each other before a piece of legislation. I do not intend to stand in the speaker's chair for four months before an inquiry is to be completed and fire from the hip in all directions and corners. That is not how we design a long-term migration policy in this country, at least not with this government. We want it to be well-thought-out and serious. Therefore, the inquiry will work on the issue for a number of months more.
I also want to take the opportunity to repeat what the government is doing. People in prostitution suffer greatly. We have seen this many times. In the budget bill for 2025, the government proposes a strengthening of the support for people exposed to prostitution by 10 million kronor. The appropriation is also expected to increase during 2026.
Just a few months ago, in December last year, we received the report Ut ur utsatthet from the preparation Utredningen om exitprogram för personer som är utsatta för prostitution. It is a very important piece of work, and it is a report that is now being prepared within the Government Offices.
We do a lot to help people who become victims of prostitution. For 25 years, it has been criminalized in Sweden to purchase sexual services. Sweden was the first country in our world with such legislation, which we naturally stand behind.
We do a lot to help people who suffer from prostitution. I want to be clear that the legislation is not aimed at exactly vulnerable people who are exploited by others, but I do not intend to speculate today on the result that is to come at the beginning of next year.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! Johan Forssell concluded by saying that the investigation does not target those who are exploited by others. Then only one question remains, namely whether we are in agreement today, Johan Forssell, that persons in prostitution, those who are prostituted, are by definition exploited by others. In that case, it follows that they shall not be covered by the new designation lack of integrity.
For us in Miljöpartiet, it is central that women who are exploited in prostitution should receive support and help to get out of prostitution, not be deported from Sweden at all costs. For us, it is central that they should dare to ask for help, dare to call the police, dare to alert when they are subjected to horrific abuses, dare to turn to healthcare without the risk of being deported straight into the claws of those who once tricked them into prostitution, who trade in their bodies. In that, the migration legislation plays a central role.
Are we in agreement, Johan Forssell, that people who are exploited in prostitution - those who are prostituted - are by definition people who are exploited by others?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall answer the questions regarding the reflection period. I understand that the interpellation concerns precisely the investigation, and I do not believe that the question regarding precisely the reflection period is included in that investigation. I will take the question with me as a side issue, but it must become the subject of another written question or interpellation.
I have said several times that this is complicated legal matter. That is why we have asked for an investigation to carefully analyze the issues and report back. That investigation shall do so by January 15 next year at the latest.
We are now at the beginning of September. I understand that there are many questions about this, but because the questions are difficult and because it is legislation, not just the opinion of even a Migration Minister, I do not intend to comment on a result that still does not exist. It would not be responsible or serious. I also do not intend to speculate or engage in various chains of reasoning. I can only repeat what is the basis for the investigation itself and what we have said about the fact that the legislation does not target vulnerable people who are exploited by others.
I also want to point out the extensive support that the government provides to people in prostitution, for example with 10 million in this year's budget bill. It is an appropriation that will increase next year.
We will certainly have reason to return to the question. I will not anticipate the investigation work any further than that, but I look forward to continuing the discussion on the matter.
Madam Speaker! I thank the interpellator and the co-debaters.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.