Response to interpellation 2024/25:104 on the abolition of EBO

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Ingela Nylund Watz has asked me why I and the government do not abolish EBO.

The government is doing exactly that. We have recently decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation with a proposal that asylum seekers shall be assigned a place of residence at the Swedish Migration Agency where they are expected to live. As a general rule, they shall only be entitled to financial assistance if they live there. If they do not inform the Swedish Migration Agency where they live, their asylum application may be considered withdrawn. The proposals also mean that the Swedish Migration Agency is given a new authority to inspect the residential and storage spaces at the asylum centers, for the purpose of verifying that the asylum seeker is living there.

This is the biggest change in the reception of asylum seekers in several decades and important steps forward. However, it is not enough to handle the extensive problems with overcrowding, social exclusion, and vulnerability that the system of own housing for asylum seekers entails.

The Government wants to go further and therefore gave the investigation on an organized initial reception of asylum seekers additional assignments, in order to provide the authorities with the tools needed to the greatest extent possible to ensure that asylum seekers, as a rule, live in asylum centers and that their location is known. The assignment was reported on October 15 with proposals including, among other things, an obligation for asylum seekers to participate in presence checks at the center, a geographical restriction to stay in the county where the center is located, and an opportunity for the Swedish Migration Agency to decide on an individual reporting obligation. The report has now been referred, and the proposals will subsequently be further analyzed in the Government Offices. Through the proposals in the Council of State referral and the report, the current arrangement with private housing for asylum seekers is abolished. It is a historic success and a change that should have been made much earlier.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

Minister Forssell states in his response that the government is abolishing the EBO Act. In my opinion, that is a rather bold statement that likely lacks full justification. The concrete measures that the government has presented so far in this area only go halfway and do not abolish EBO. Let me return to this.

In Södertälje and some other municipalities around the country, we have had to live with what the EBO Act entails in the form of overcrowding, vulnerability, segregation, and problems with integration, with unwanted clarity.

But the absolute worst thing is that the EBO legislation has driven forward parallel social structures where vulnerable people are exploited and often burdened with debt in black rental slums.

The worst hit are the children who have difficulty doing their homework and completing their schooling. They are often drawn into gangs because they have to hang out in courtyards and around the houses. It is a grim reality. I believe we share that picture.

We Social Democrats have long pursued the issue of abolishing EBO without receiving sufficient parliamentary support for it. The Moderates have been opposed to changes to the EBO legislation. In fact, the Moderates harbored a strong opposition to abolishing the EBO law.

As a member from Stockholm County, I can assume that it has to do with the fact that some Moderate-led municipalities, especially in Stockholm County, thought it was convenient to have others do the work and that they could avoid taking responsibility. Even though it happened late, the Moderates fortunately turned around in 2019. Therefore, it is with great surprise and disappointment that we are now forced to conclude that the SD government does not have the stamina to go all the way.

The proposal that has now been with the Council on Legislation and for which we are awaiting a government bill shortly only takes a small step forward. The government itself says that it will mean that approximately half of the asylum seekers will continue to choose EBO, own housing. It has some effect, but it does not go all the way.

It simply requires more, and it requires that the government comes forward with proposals that truly abolish the EBO Act. Then one can imagine that we might get answers in the proposal on the Reception Act which was presented on October 15 and which the Minister refers to in his answer. We might, but we do not know.

The proposal here does indeed go further than what the government will hopefully soon present to the Riksdag. But I mean that in the proposal for the Reception Act, it is still highly unclear whether the EBO Act will actually be abolished. Furthermore, it takes time. The law is proposed to enter into force only in October 2026. Here, the Minister and the government owe an answer.

We Social Democrats have been very clear regarding the continued processing of the proposals in the reception act concerning how the asylum seeker process shall proceed. We believe that a new upcoming reception act should clearly state that the possibility of choosing one's own accommodation is closed with very few exceptions.

My questions to the Minister here today are therefore: Can the Minister promise that a new upcoming reception act guarantees that the EBO Act is abolished for real? Can the Minister also provide an assessment of how the new reception act will affect the choice of own housing? Will it be with 40, 30 or 20 percent?

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The restrictions now proposed in the Government Offices' referral A new order for asylum seekers' housing and the report on the Reception Act are the most restrictive restrictions for asylum seekers ever in Sweden's modern history.

It is about both asylum seekers having to live in an asylum center to receive any financial compensation and that they shall be restricted to staying within a geographical area.

It will also mean that presence checks will be carried out at the asylum centers to ensure that the asylum seekers stay in the asylum centers.

There are exceptions to this rule. Among others, an asylum seeker shall be able to live with their closest relatives if they have such in Sweden.

There are several international treaties here that prevent Sweden from separating families. Therefore, there must be exceptions to the rule that all asylum seekers must live in asylum centers.

But if the Social Democrats want us to withdraw from the European Convention or the Refugee Convention, they can say so. Because that is, among other things, what is required for us to be able to place all asylum seekers in asylum centers.

One of the proposals presented in the report on the Reception Act is that asylum seekers shall be able to work in Sweden only after six months. Those who come to Sweden as asylum seekers will need their daily allowance, which will be their only legal income.

In practice, these proposals will mean that many of the asylum seekers will not be able to work and will therefore need to live in an asylum center in order to have a legal income at all.

It means that almost all asylum seekers will be forced to live in an asylum center. Those who choose to live in their own accommodation will have an income that is probably illegal, because they do not have permission to work in Sweden. They will also not receive any compensation because they do not live in asylum centers.

Since then, we have never had an arrangement in Sweden in modern times where asylum seekers have been prohibited from acquiring their own housing.

The EBO Act does not mean that one allows asylum seekers to acquire their own housing, but rather that they receive assistance when they acquire their own housing. The only way to physically prevent asylum seekers from acquiring their own housing is to deprive them of their liberty. If one completely wants to forbid asylum seekers from acquiring their own housing, one must place them in a certain area and then have guards so that they do not leave that area. One can simply imprison asylum seekers so that they are forced to live in the Swedish Migration Agency's asylum centers.

If that is what the Social Democrats want, they are welcome to propose it. But again: In that case, one must first, among other things, ensure that Sweden withdraws from the European Convention, because according to this convention, one is not allowed to deprive asylum seekers of their liberty in any way. EU law also prevents member states from imprisoning asylum seekers simply to prevent them from obtaining their own accommodation.

The question, therefore, is what the Social Democrats are actually proposing and which international conventions and organizations one is prepared to leave in order to implement these proposals.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

I am confused when a Sverigedemokrat stands here and defends the EBO legislation and says that we must continue to have EBO. It is not common practice that we need to explain to Sverigedemokrater that one can indeed abolish the EBO legislation. We actually had a period earlier in this country when we did not have any EBO legislation. It is also not the case that a lot of other countries straight up have EBO legislations.

However, I will not get stuck in my astonishment over the Sweden Democrats. I actually just want to ask the Minister what other things are considered abolished when one has removed 50 percent. Youth crime has indeed fallen by 50 percent since 2000. Does the Minister then consider youth crime to be abolished in Sweden? Or if one vaccinates a population and 50 percent have not received the vaccine, is the disease in question then abolished? It becomes a very strange approach.

I can accept the argument that it is argued that way if it is down to some single percent. It is clear that we must have valves. We have people with functional variations and the like. It is perfectly reasonable that we do not force them to live in a reception center. They may need to live somewhere else. Some form of valve I absolutely accept. But when does the Minister consider that the term "abolished" no longer applies?

In the forecasts that the Swedish Migration Agency has produced for EBO, 50 percent remain in EBO even in 2027. That will be strange. I believe that even the Minister understands the pedagogical difficulty of explaining why the Swedish Migration Agency itself says that 50 percent will continue to live in their own housing.

There is a lot of talk about incentives and the like in the right's politics. It is often argued that it is a pull factor if, for example, the daily allowance is too high. But if it is 71 kronor for those who arrive alone, would that motivate anyone not to go out and work illegally? The consequence of having a very low daily allowance for staying at the reception center during the process is that one will seek somewhere else.

The logic should then be that one powerfully raises the daily allowance for those living in the housing so that it becomes attractive. Now, however, the daily allowance is so low that no one can manage on it. In that case, it becomes reasonable to choose the option of having no income, and so one ends up in the black economy. The risk, therefore, is that one reinforces that phenomenon and that people think: My God, should I live there? No, I choose to work black instead.

Here, furthermore, stands a Sverigedemokrat and argues that one should live with one's relatives. So it is not even family reunification and relative immigration we are talking about, where we are now down to the minimum, but here we are talking about kin. It is the clan. It will, of course, be absolutely excellent!

We are introducing measures for the inspection of housing, so that one can enter the rooms and so on. I think that is good. But what about the inspection of the apartments where these people live? Should we also strengthen that possibility, since people will be pushed out into the black economy?

I nevertheless let the Minister land on answering the question: When does the Minister consider something to be abolished? Is it at 50 percent? Is it at 40 percent? Can one perhaps have 60 percent in some case?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! We are talking about EBO, and perhaps someone watching does not quite understand. So just very briefly: The Act on Own Housing means that asylum seekers have the right to settle wherever they want in Sweden. It is not so strange that many want that. There are understandable reasons to seek out a certain area in every individual case. One wants to live near compatriots, near someone familiar, near a larger city or so.

What this has led to, however, is a runaway segregation. Certain areas in cities, and even some entire cities, have received disproportionately many refugees. This makes it enormously difficult for those cities. It also makes it enormously difficult for those people to enter Sweden and receive the integration that I nevertheless believe and hope that we all stand behind and really want to create.

More segregation has thus been created, and less integration.

Those of us who have visited people living in this situation have also seen what appalling overcrowding this leads to. It is a bit shocking to be there and see how, for example, an apartment can be full of mattresses and there is no space, just as my colleague Ingela Nylund Watz pointed out, where one can be at home, read one's lessons and all such things.

For us Social Democrats, this is an incredibly important issue. The EBO legislation must be abolished. It is about providing better conditions for integration and a sustainable reception, which is what we strive for and want.

There were still certain expectations that the government would proceed with the work that the S-led government started with abolishing the EBO Act. I had hopes that one would reach that point. The proposal that now potentially becomes reality, if no changes are made, is a shot in the air. Several are noting that it might halve the number. Member Ali Pour also says here that it has been observed that the EBO legislation will not be abolished, contrary to what the Minister said in his response.

The question remains: Will Minister Johan Forssell actively act for and contribute to the abolition of the EBO legislation?

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I also want to thank Nima Gholam Ali Pour, who has just explained that the government is in fact not abolishing the EBO legislation.

Just as my colleagues here in the chamber have expressed, the possibility for asylum seekers to choose their own housing has significantly complicated the municipalities' planning conditions regarding specifically integration, school, labor market, and housing policy measures to counteract segregation. Of the newly arrived who chose EBO 2021, the most moved to one of the municipalities of Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, Botkyrka, Uppsala, Huddinge, Borås, Södertälje, Haninge, Örebro, or Järfälla. Collectively, almost half of all asylum seekers who chose EBO lived in one of these 11 municipalities - out of the country's total of 290 municipalities.

All municipalities except Huddinge have today several areas with socioeconomic challenges. In Botkyrka municipality here in Stockholm, in 2020, half of all municipal residents lived in areas with socioeconomic challenges. In Gothenburg, Malmö, Huddinge, Borås and Södertälje, it was approximately 20-30 percent of the inhabitants. A predominant part of all asylum seekers who choose EBO during the asylum period thus remain in the same area after being granted residence permits. This in itself cements the emergence of low-income areas in our country.

This should be compared with the Norwegian settlement policy for newcomers, which means that after an education and labor market assessment, they are offered an individualized municipal placement that they can neither reject nor appeal, not only with reception centers. This also means that they cannot move during the establishment period. This promotes language production, labor market establishment, and educational opportunities for the children.

What the government is now proposing is not even close to what Norway does, that is to say, that they actually plan the settlement conditions so that the municipalities with the greatest and heaviest responsibility for newcomers do not need to continue taking that responsibility. It is quite obvious that in these municipalities and these areas, one has seen a demographic change of overcrowding and the like, but the other municipalities have not.

The general rule in Norway is therefore that newcomers do not choose where they shall live, which has clearly promoted all these measures. Municipalities are relieved, and socioeconomically weak areas are also relieved, because the state guarantees distribution across the entire country.

Now that the government has introduced a much stricter migration policy with the support of us Social Democrats, all the conditions are therefore in place to fully phase out EBO, introduce these reception centers, and negotiate with municipalities regarding an integration-promoting municipal placement, which I believe should mean that those municipalities that have taken the greatest EBO responsibility should receive exemptions. But instead, this government continues to engage in small measures that have no significant impact.

So, abolishing EBO is not just about the introduction of reception centers. Here, the government does not even reach 50 percent of the newly arrived with its own data. I mean that one must also develop a policy concerning those who have been granted asylum in our country. Where are they to end up, and what does the government intend there? There is obviously no plan. In the long run, this will mean that those who ultimately get to stay in Sweden will turn to their host families in the socioeconomically vulnerable areas and thereby drive the development of segregation.

My question, as are my party colleagues', is whether this is the policy that will increase the spread of newcomers in our country and seriously abolish EBO. In the basis that the government itself has developed, there are actually no such indications.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the interpellator and the co-debaters, especially to all the committed Social Democrats participating in the debate! It is a pity that their own party was so uncommitted to these issues during eight years in government. Let me return immediately to the small detail in context.

I also want to make a small factual correction. It is referred to here that there should be a specific EBO legislation. That is not quite correct. I do not know if the interpellor has made an effort to look into the matter, but it is not quite as it appears. It is a different type of legislation. The important thing is perhaps not what it is called in a technical sense, but possibly it is good to at least familiarize oneself with the actual circumstances.

I am very pleased that we are now making the largest change in the reception of asylum seekers since 1994. It is truly a historic change that is now being implemented. There are many reasons for it: segregation, overcrowding, and vulnerability. Not least, I would like to highlight that we have seen that very many children who have come to Sweden have not received the start in life that they should receive. This is linked, for example, to vulnerability.

Now we are changing this. It is a Moderate-led government that is doing it. We are doing it as part of our paradigm shift in migration policy, where we are also actively working to simply reduce the asylum pressure on Sweden. We see that this year we are set to get the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1997, and it is happening under a Moderate-led government.

When it comes to the question of the EBO legislation itself, it is like this. When we took office, we received an inquiry. There was an inquiry that worked on this. It delivered its proposals some time ago. That inquiry was commissioned by the Social Democrats, that is to say, the same party that now, when the inquiry has presented its proposals and wants to proceed with them, comes and complains that the inquiry did not go far enough, that it took too long, and that one does not reach what one wants.

I respect that view, but the question then is why the Social Democrats did not do more while in government. They had the chance for eight years. But first they did nothing, and then they did nothing. Now they come along in hindsight, with a different government, and complain that things are not moving fast enough. It is actually a bit parodic, Madam Speaker.

We are working seriously on the issues. We had to make an additional directive to this investigation. It is coming now; we presented it just a few days ago. There will be clear tightenings ahead. It was needed, not least in combination with a stricter asylum framework.

It might be good for my friends in the Socialdemokraterna to reflect a bit on their own responsibility. Why did they do nothing in a government position when they had the chance for eight years? If this was so obvious, why is there then no change that has already come into force? There were no propositions from the government here. There were no concrete legislative proposals or anything. There was only an investigation that the Socialdemokraterna commissioned and which one now thinks did not go far enough. Yes, politics is about will. But it is also about doing things, so a little self-criticism might have been called for in this discussion.

Now we move forward with our own proposals, which are significantly more far-reaching than anything that the red-green government managed to present during its years in power. There will be order and tidiness in the housing. There will be control. There will be a much better start for the people who come to Sweden. I am proud of that, Madam Speaker, and it is happening under a Moderate-led government.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Madam Speaker! Minister Forssell is trying once again to make it sound as if the SD government is now capable of taking action. But what is the actual situation?

As I said in my previous post, we have pushed this issue since our congress decision in 2009, but we have not had parliamentary support to carry out an abolition of the EBO Act. The Moderates were one of the parties that strongly opposed all proposals for changes and contributed to the parliamentary support being weak. The writing of history must be accurate. The Moderates did not turn on this issue until 2019.

Several changes have also been implemented that have moved in the right direction during the Social Democratic government. As a resident of Södertälje, I am the first to regret that we have not had parliamentary support to implement the changes. But I would like to say that the fact that the Moderaterna for a long time have been strong opponents of implementing changes to this legislation and have continued to make it possible for asylum seekers to choose their own accommodation has meant that the Moderaterna for a long time have contributed to the effects – the bad, miserable, troublesome effects – of this legislation having been deepened and worsened.

The Moderaternas lack of competence cannot be swept under the carpet by Minister Forssell. If we are to talk about how to share responsibility here, the Minister may as well go home and look in the history books himself. The fact that you turned under the gallows in 2019 does not mean that you have pursued the issue particularly actively before then. It is we Social Democrats who have been quite alone in it.

Madam Speaker! Södertälje is one of the municipalities that has had to take the greatest responsibility, perhaps disproportionately large, for refugees and asylum seekers. The effects are clear, and the lessons from Södertälje, Malmö, Norrköping and a few other cities that Member Redar listed are therefore important to take into account.

One thing that Södertälje, among others, has pointed out in various referral processes is that working to limit asylum seekers' opportunities to receive a daily allowance of 71 or 41 SEK per day has no impact whatsoever on whether one chooses to move to their own housing or not. In the environment where one ends up, there are other means of subsistence, and they are not pleasant – I believe the Minister is well aware of that. It is those that contribute to us getting parallel structures in our society, and that is why it is so incredibly important to learn from what has happened, including in Södertälje.

In the final report on the Reception Act, which is now undergoing the referral process, the government does not propose anywhere that there should be a ban on private housing. According to the investigation, as far as I understand, it should only apply to those who are subject to individual reporting requirements.

Minister Forssell must therefore answer the question here today: What assessment does the government make of the effects the reception act will have, if it is implemented in its current form? Will it mean that 50 percent will continue to choose their own housing, or 30 or 20 percent? When does the minister mean the government has abolished the EBO Act, and what assessments are being made?

If one takes responsibility for reducing crime and the tedious social development with gang crime and other issues, one is held accountable if one is unable to answer these questions. The EBO Act is the single greatest reason why segregation has been cemented, and the government is held accountable.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is quite tiresome that I have to use my speaking time to give a lesson to the Social Democrats on what own housing and the EBO Act are. Asylum seekers had the right to acquire their own housing even in Per Albin Hansson's time. Asylum seekers have always in modern times had the right to acquire their own housing, EBO. The EBO Act means that one provides assistance, financial compensation, to asylum seekers when they acquire their own housing. They are two different things.

In order to prevent asylum seekers from obtaining their own housing, they must be deprived of their liberty. Do you have any other suggestion for a way to prevent asylum seekers from obtaining their own housing? Tell me! They must be deprived of their liberty if you want them to be at the Swedish Migration Agency's facilities.

So this is the EBO Act and own housing. I am quite shocked that MP Lawen Redar, who works with integration policy within the Socialdemokraterna, was not aware of this given that it will be needed.

I also want to say that there is no EU country that completely forces asylum seekers to live in an asylum center by locking them in. In all EU countries, asylum seekers therefore have the right to secure their own accommodation. It is, however, important that one does not provide them with assistance for this, and that is what the EBO Act entails.

What is proposed by the investigations that have presented their reports is that one goes as far as possible in relation to EU law and the international conventions that Sweden has ratified.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I never thought I would experience the day when the Sweden Democrats stand and argue that asylum seekers should be allowed to live freely, exactly where they want, when they want, out in society and become a part of the black economy - as was previously stated, with their relatives. It is therefore precisely this that we are trying to avoid by removing the possibility of independent housing.

I understand that this is embarrassing for the Minister, because I still believe that the Minister now wants to abolish the possibility of independent housing. Since it is said with emphasis that it is being done, the intention is there.

It is also interesting that 1994 is referred to. I tried to get the Prime Minister here to the chamber because the party leader for those who want the EBO legislation to remain, that is, the Sverigedemokraterna, claimed that the Prime Minister apologized for his migration policy. I may have to submit another such interpellation to the Prime Minister given Member Ingela Nylund Watz's historiography regarding the Moderaternas handling of this issue. It is exactly as the Member says: The reason why more has not happened in this issue is that Sweden's Riksdag, with the Moderaterna at the forefront, has not wanted to remove the EBO legislation. It has been a clear freedom of choice reform, or whatever it has been called. Regarding that matter of freedom of choice and privatizations, we also know that the Moderaterna still rave about it because housing places are procured in the asylum process, that is, they market and enable gangs to own asylum housing - just like HVB homes and other success stories that the Moderaterna still protect.

But I have not received any answer to my question. Does Minister Forssell consider something to be abolished if 50 percent are still in their own housing?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe my colleagues have very clearly explained the historiography – why we have ended up where we have ended up – so I did not intend to continue with that.

I want to dwell a little on the Minister's own answer. He says: Ingela Nylund Watz - that is, my fellow Member of Parliament and the interpellor - has asked me why I and the government do not abolish EBO. The Minister then answers that the government is doing exactly that. And it is this that we question. Our experience is not that the government is doing it. EBO is not being abolished, and half is not good enough. Even if half of the own housing were to disappear, we would still have major problems remaining.

I do not think it is fair to leave either the municipalities that have taken this enormous responsibility or the people in this situation without support. The state must also take responsibility for this, and that is why we ask the questions and wonder: Why does the government not abolish EBO?

I also think it is important that we address here what several have pointed out: that the reason for this is that there are certain municipalities that really do not want to take the responsibility that is needed. I therefore also wonder how the Minister of State is to influence some of his own municipalities to actually take the responsibility that is needed. That responsibility needs to be taken by all of Sweden so that we can eliminate segregation.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate!

To the member of the Sweden Democrats, I want to explicitly say that neither the abolition of the housing allowance nor the abolition of the daily allowance in the choice of EBO in areas with socioeconomic challenges has had an effect. Only in the last four years have 57 percent of all asylum seekers chosen to live in EBO, and it continues to stay around 50-60 percent. These compensation models do not need to be explained to me; I have the figures and the statistics in front of me and have also submitted a clear report on why this specific system must be abolished.

The Minister was very insistent that one must not say the EBO Act, but it is well known that the Act on Reception of Asylum Seekers, abbreviated LMA, has in common parlance come to be called the EBO Act. Sure, we can use the correct legal terminology, but I think the debate should be inclusive so that everyone follows what it is that is being discussed.

But with the law, it is still the case that a complete and definitive abolition of EBO presupposes that Paragraph 3, third sentence of the Act on Receiving Asylum Seekers is repealed. This is what is required in order to be able to remove EBO. The choice of own housing shall not be enabled in this legislation.

Therefore, my question to both the Minister and the Sweden Democrats' representative in this debate is: Is this what you are proposing?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! We have received an investigation from which we are presenting a legislative proposal. That investigation is the Social Democrats'.

I agree that it does not go far enough. The responsibility for this lies with the Social Democrats, who, during their eight years in government, had every opportunity to abolish the EBO Act, if one wants to use that expression, to change the investigation's directive, or to do something in general. But they did virtually nothing.

I share the problem picture: The investigation does not go far enough. That was why this government had to do the real work. We had to produce supplementary directives. We had to include the major tightenings that are now taking place, with area restrictions and a reporting obligation with the consequence that an asylum application can be considered withdrawn. None of this is something the red-green government has to be thanked for, but everything is such as we have had to carry out.

I naturally wish that we had been in a different situation. I wish that the strong commitment that my Social Democratic friends show here in the chamber tonight had been translated into practical action during their eight years in government. But they chose not to do so. Why I cannot know. I know only one thing: They never tested the support in the Riksdag, because no bills were submitted. Perhaps they were not in agreement internally, or perhaps Miljöpartiet did not agree? So it could also be that way, and it is the same situation today – it is actually unclear how much weight we should attach to what the Social Democrats say today, because they are not in agreement within their government support.

On 92 percent of the proposals we submit within migration policy, the parties in the red-green government alternative vote completely differently. We therefore do not really know what is on that side.

The only thing I know is that we are now moving forward with reforms to do this in a good, clear and orderly way.

I will answer some questions, and I will also ask a question. We assess that we go as far as we can according to EU law. I assume that the Social Democrats also think that EU law is important. I am not convinced that the situation in Norway is the best example to disprove me. But it would still be clarifying if the Social Democrats could describe how they believe this relates to specifically EU law.

Since then, there is a great deal that Ola Möller thought he would never have to experience. I do not want to comment on that further. I only know that with the red-green government we never experienced any real change in this area, but now we are doing so. I also want to put this in a larger context, namely the paradigm shift that we are implementing to also reduce the number of people coming to Sweden. It is a work that is now bearing fruit.

This is a task that we carry out with the aim that Sweden should have the opportunity to overcome the major integration problems that have built up over a long period, and this is naturally not the only component for handling it. But it is an important component, together with initiatives on the Swedish language, tightening of the rules for citizenship and measures so that more people enter employment, so that it pays to work and so that we get a society where more people can make good on themselves.

In this way, we are now step by step reworking both the migration policy and the integration policy. I wish that we had not been in this situation, but now we are here. Far too little happened during far too many years. Now we are ensuring step by step that this is changed so that it will be good for people, both for those who come to Sweden and for everyone who is here today.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister says in his response that the government is now abolishing the EBO Act. I and my colleagues believe that it is a weak card that the Minister is playing here. If one is not prepared to abolish the provisions in the relevant legislation that enable independent living, one is not abolishing independent living either.

In my opinion, it does not appear in the proposal for the Reception Act that the paragraphs constituting the EBO Act shall be abolished, and therefore the government is unclear. I mean that the Minister is answerable: Will the new Reception Act abolish EBO, or does the Minister have any idea whether it will mean that an additional 20, 30 or 40 percent will continue to choose their own housing?

I mean that it is extremely important to get a grip on this. If we are to be able to jointly vote through a change of the EBO legislation, the proposal must mean that it is abolished. If the government does not have the energy to submit such a bill, we will have a political battle on the issue.

We are not entirely convinced about the Moderaternas credibility when it comes to EBO. It took until 2019 before the Moderaterna changed their stance on the issue. It is not a beautiful piece of history writing when the government stands there beating its chest about how skilled it is. Had one been clearer with the turn earlier, perhaps there would have been parliamentary support in the Riksdag to make changes, but the Moderaterna contributed to making it impossible. The government and the SD-government are the ones responsible.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! The Government is now restructuring migration policy and large parts of integration policy. As I have said several times, I wish we had been in a different situation, but we are in this situation.

I wish that we instead could have discussed how more people should get into work or the school results – how more should be able to learn the Swedish language – and that this was not even a question.

But I can state that the same party that is now criticizing me for not going fast enough or for not abolishing it to a sufficient extent did nothing when they had the chance for eight years. I do not think that 50 percent is good enough either. That is why we are adding a supplementary directive to the investigation that the Socialdemokraterna created.

But it becomes a bit comical, a bit parodic actually, when one comes afterwards and says that far too little has happened when one oneself did nothing even though one had the chance. Then I am the first to admit that I do not think all Moderate or bourgeois governments have handled this perfectly. I was involved in restructuring the Moderates' migration policy from 2014 onwards when we moved to temporary residence permits. Then I heard from my friends in the Social Democrats that if one did this, one was no longer human. So let it be. I hope that there will be better cooperation across party and bloc boundaries this time.

We are now moving forward with this in a two-stage rocket - first the investigation that the red-green government commissioned and then the investigation with our supplementary directive. There will be major changes. There will be area restrictions. There will be a reporting requirement. This could lead to an asylum application actually being considered as withdrawn. These are important steps to bring order to the migration policy and control over where people are located, but perhaps most importantly of all, Madam Speaker, so that fewer people will have to live in overcrowding and vulnerability.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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