Response to interpellation 2024/25:697 on social dumping
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns social dumping and the government's actions. S considers social dumping to be a deeply undignified activity where municipalities move people in need of support 1. S argues that the government does not take the issue seriously, renders a serious social phenomenon invisible, and that it is a shame that the government does not do more for those affected 1 2 3 4. KD argues that the government's policy, including a new settlement law and work against homelessness, contributes to reducing social dumping 5. KD considers these measures to be more important than another investigation 6. KD argues that work is also being done on mapping the problems 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me if I intend to take the initiative for an investigation or measures that prevent social dumping.
Active participation in settlement in another municipality is, in practice, about how municipalities act towards socially vulnerable persons, about the availability of housing, and about the opportunities to obtain a job that it is possible to support oneself on.
In the regulatory letter for 2024, the county administrative boards were tasked, within the framework of their ordinary work, to report on whether the municipalities within the county actively contribute to their municipal residents settling in other municipalities. From the reporting in the annual reports, a mixed picture emerges. In some counties, there is no active contribution at all, while in other counties there are municipalities that experience that they both receive and contribute to people moving to other municipalities. It is difficult to draw any definite conclusions about how widespread the approach is and what consequences it has had, but it has not emerged that it is currently used to any significant extent. I have also not been alerted to the issue in my recurring meetings with municipalities around the country.
A large proportion of those who have previously moved through active participation have been newly arrived. For some time now, the number of people who have been granted residence permits for protection reasons in Sweden has decreased significantly. For those who arrive, good conditions for reception are central for integration to work.
The Government has appointed an inquiry into a new system for housing for certain newly arrived persons. The inquiry submitted its proposals last spring, which, among other things, give the municipalities greater influence over how many newly arrived persons they should receive, which means that a new model for establishment housing should be introduced. In the normal case, newly arrived persons shall have the right to such housing for 36 months. The inquiry assesses that the proposals can, to some extent, counteract the municipalities actively contributing to newly arrived persons moving to another municipality. The report has been out for consultation, and the questions are now being prepared in the Government Offices.
The municipal economic equalization system also plays an important role in this context because it creates equal economic conditions for municipalities despite the fact that there are differences in conditions.
The Government is concerned that there is a well-functioning cooperation between the municipalities and thus continues to follow the issue.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, a silent but deeply undignified activity is taking place. It is called social dumping. It involves municipalities, preferably those that are in a slightly better position, ensuring that people in need of support are "offered" a home in another municipality, not because they themselves want to move, but because the municipality wants to move them. The consequence is that people are torn away from their lives, networks, and opportunities for support, and children are forced to change schools, leave their friends and their security. Children with special needs also risk not receiving the help they need in the new school, which is often already under pressure.
What does it do to a child when society says "you don't belong here"? We know the answer: It creates insecurity, poorer school results, and in the long run, increased gaps between children.
What happens to adults who are forced to move to municipalities with a weaker labor market, as is most often the case? Then the opportunities for jobs disappear, and the step toward self-sufficiency becomes even longer.
Marginalization is growing with a policy that does not solve problems but creates new ones.
The previous Sledda government took this issue seriously. It appointed an inquiry to find out not only more but what needed to be done. But one of the SD government's first decisions was to scrap the inquiry. It turns its back not only on the children and the families but also on the municipalities that sound the alarm.
One contributing cause is that housing construction has plummeted, and many municipalities are not building housing for the people who truly need a place to live.
Several municipalities have sounded the alarm. These are municipalities that are already struggling with high unemployment or strained finances. These municipalities are forced to bear the responsibility when stronger municipalities pass it on to them. They do their best to receive people with dignity, but they receive no support from the government.
In the above, the Minister for Civil Affairs says that there are more important issues. In his response, the Minister for Civil Affairs even says that he finds it difficult to draw any specific conclusions about the approach and how it looks. Let me then tell the Minister for Civil Affairs that he himself can make contact and visit the municipalities that can tell what the situation is. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a couple of these municipalities, and this is not a closed chapter; this is ongoing. It is enough for the Minister for Civil Affairs to set aside a couple of days and visit these municipalities to see what reality looks like. It is not enough to go to the Governor's Palace and eat dinners; instead, the Minister for Civil Affairs needs to visit the municipalities he is responsible for.
Is the Minister for Civil Affairs not taking this issue seriously?
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to Eva Lindh's urgent interpellation.
I and several of my Social Democratic colleagues have debated this issue continuously during the parliamentary term because we consider the issue to be very important.
Regardless of whether the government and Minister Erik Slottner think this is important or not, we do. We know quite a lot because we commissioned a government inquiry earlier. It came very far, but unfortunately, it was shut down.
I become curious to discuss more when I receive the government's response to Eva Lindh's interpellation here today. It is almost as if the problem no longer exists. The number of asylum seekers to Sweden has decreased significantly since the time when, among others, Magdalena Andersson, as then Finance Minister, began a restructuring of Swedish asylum policy. I can, however, inform the government that migration to and from Sweden is ongoing.
I can also inform the Minister that there is an acute risk that social exclusion in Sweden will increase, not least due to the policy that the Tidö government pursues during this mandate period. It is still the case, Mr. Speaker, that women are subjected to violence by men. Violence in close relationships is occurring. And it is still the case that people are affected by mental ill-health and problems with substance abuse. It is a broad category of people who will need the municipalities' interventions and support. We know that.
We want to fight all of this. But we also want to see measures against the phenomenon that we are quite sure exists, namely social dumping, which Eva Lindh described in her first post and which we are asking questions about. One thing I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is that it probably fundamentally is very much about a few municipalities – absolutely not a majority – being negligent when it comes to taking their municipal housing provision responsibility.
One does not want to invest in the construction of adequate housing in the own municipality, Mr. Speaker, despite having a municipal planning monopoly and despite having the possibility of having a municipal public-service housing company, the possibility of having social contracts, the possibility of using priority rights and reservations, the possibility of providing municipal rental guarantees and the possibility of granting municipal housing subsidies. One may not always want to.
I want to ask the question directly to the responsible Minister Erik Slottner: Why should we accept that well-off municipalities do not take their legal municipal housing provision responsibility but instead dump individual vulnerable people outside the municipal border?
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that there are somewhat different versions in the municipalities regarding why the phenomenon arises and what it actually is that one does.
We know that there are private landlords involved in this, but there are, of course, obstacles to how far we can regulate it. We have no municipal arrest, and private landlords are free to rent out their housing stock regardless of where in Sweden it is located. It is therefore not as simple as it appears here in the debate.
Eva Lindh's question in the interpellation was whether the government intends to take the initiative for a new investigation. No, no such initiative exists. There are other things that we consider to be more prioritized than this in Kommunsverige. That is entirely correct.
The investigation that the previous government appointed and which we interrupted managed to get some way. I met with the investigator and could state that none of the proposals they had worked on and which were to be presented fell under my area of responsibility as Civil Minister, but they concerned legislation that fell under other departments. I find that interesting.
Even though it was one of my predecessors as Civil Minister who appointed the investigation – I believe it was Lena Micko – the legislation probably would not have been hers either, as it concerned other departments. This can also be interesting to say in this context.
I believe that part of the policy that the government has pursued and continues to pursue during the mandate period – with reduced migration, a new settlement act and a very active work against homelessness, which is further reinforced with 50 new million in the budget to fulfill the goals in the homelessness strategy and where we allocate more money to, for example, Housing First – contributes to reducing the problem of what we call social dumping.
Eva Lindh and I have previously had a discussion in this chamber about whether it is a good way to meet the municipalities at the county governor's residences. I think it is very good. When I meet county governors, I always ask to meet municipal representatives. I think it has been a good way to meet as many municipalities as possible, because it is basically impossible or at least very difficult for me to physically visit all 290 municipalities during a parliamentary term. Gathering at the county governor's and having very good discussions over a good meal is not at all so crazy.
In addition to this, I make many municipal visits where I check in the municipality according to the GPS. I have done that very much, and I do not only visit the residential municipalities and the larger municipalities but also many smaller municipalities. My first municipal visit was in what was then the smallest municipality, Bjurholm. It is not the smallest anymore, but it was then.
I was also in Gullspång and many other municipalities just to show that I want to be in both smaller and larger municipalities. I therefore have no bad conscience regarding my network of contacts with municipal representatives during this parliamentary term, but I am actually a very active minister in that regard.
I can only state that during all the meetings I have with municipal representatives, the question absolutely comes up sometimes, but not to the extent that I might have expected after having participated in some debates here in the chamber. I do not have the impression that this is the biggest concern out there in Municipal Sweden.
We have given a mandate to the County Administrative Board, and I know that Linköping University is researching this issue. It will be interesting to see what is concluded in the report.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! We have received some answers today.
One: This minister and this government don't give a damn about the issue. Excuse the language! They do not prioritize, they do not think it is important, and they do not care. Then we have it clear for ourselves.
I harbored a hope in the earlier debates we had. The Minister for Civil Affairs said that the problem had been seen and understood. The first step to fixing something is, after all, to at least recognize the problem. Now it is clear that it is not being prioritized and that it is not important.
Two: The Minister for Civil Affairs continues to think that it is a very good way to invite municipalities. Feel free to do that! Go to the governors' castle and invite municipalities to dinner – fine! That is probably good, but it is obviously not enough to hear the challenges that the municipalities have.
I shall speak about something to the Minister for Civil Affairs. I have met many municipalities that talk about and bring up this issue, but they would rather not do it very openly and clearly, as some municipalities dare to do. They perhaps do not bring it up at lunch or dinner at the Palace, and it is precisely for that reason that I bring it up here as a point. One must, as said, know about and realize that there is a problem before one can remedy it.
There are some municipalities that have had the strength, the courage, and succeeded in highlighting what it looks like for them, for example Ljusnarsberg and Fagersta, which I visited in August. They dare to tell about the situation as it is. Why is it so sensitive here? Well, because one feels personally that one does not want to point fingers at the people who have felt forced to move. But this is a problem, because it is often well-off municipalities that send residents whom they do not want to take responsibility for to other municipalities, which often have a much worse labor market situation and worse economy. What does that mean for those municipalities? Well, it means incredibly tough prioritizations. If the Minister for Civil Affairs goes there, he can see figures on it, because it has been calculated and can be shown to anyone who is interested in knowing the truth.
It also means tough conditions for the people we are talking about. And no, even though immigration to Sweden has decreased, the social dumping has not decreased, because it is not only that group we are talking about. It is people who are having a hard time overall, so this is ongoing. It continues. My deep frustration concerns these people, who end up in a very tough situation.
If the Minister for Civil Affairs were able to manage traveling to these municipalities, he could also travel to the areas in question, which are not maintained, and see leaking sewage pipes and other broken things. It is appalling and not worthy of people who live and reside in Sweden, and I know that it is happening.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the previous contribution!
I shall simply echo Eva Lindh's observation. This government marginalizes and renders invisible a serious social phenomenon, where already vulnerable people are subjected to even more, and I find the curiosity from the Minister and this government to delve deeply into that issue to be provocatively small.
In my case, it has been sufficient this summer to read the newspaper. There, municipal representatives have testified that social dumping is occurring in Sweden now, in exactly the way that my colleague Eva Lindh has described not only today but in a number of interpellations debates. But no new investigation and no special measures are coming.
I admit that this becomes a rhetorical question. I may not expect any crystal-clear answer. But I wonder, for I cannot shake off the suspicion, if it is possibly the case that for this government and this minister, Erik Slottner, it is primarily important not to clash with the right-wing party's municipal councilors in well-off municipalities where this has its origin. Is it possibly the case that this is what the handling by us in the Swedish Riksdag and the government of the phenomenon of social dumping is about? We do not really want to see this. We do not really want to tackle it.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The last question is very simple to answer. The answer is a short and simple no to that question. I am not afraid of clashing with specific municipal councilors; I can answer that straight and simply.
Eva Lindh seems to be very disturbed by the fact that I meet with the county governors and that at these meetings, where we discuss the county's development and the county administrative board's very important work to strengthen growth at a regional level and be the state's extended arm, I take the opportunity to meet municipal representatives. It seems to provoke Eva Lindh, and I do not understand this. I think it is a very good way to get a unified picture of Kommunsverige.
As a complement to this, I make very many municipal visits on-site. I visit municipal representatives, municipal councilors and municipal directors and many times also the opposition, in their municipal houses where the GPS points to exactly that municipality. I do both, so Eva Lindh does not need to be so upset over just this.
Since then, I have accounted for some of the work the government is doing and the measures we are taking to improve this situation. I have said that it is fundamentally a phenomenon I do not like, that people are moved around in this way. Perhaps I should have been clearer about that in my introduction. I think this is problematic.
Primarily, it is of course the individual municipality that is responsible for providing housing for its inhabitants, regardless of what needs they have. Then we know that the conditions look different for various reasons. Some municipalities have a housing shortage while other municipalities have plenty of housing, and we know that the labor market correlates the opposite way. It creates many challenges.
I still want to say that we gave the mandate to the county administrative boards to conduct a mapping in their respective counties to get a picture of the issues. It is not something the government decides, but I know that Linköping University has received research funds to investigate this further and see what mechanisms lie behind this type of relocation.
We also have the homelessness strategy. Another way to address this issue is, in fact, to reduce homelessness. We are providing new funds for this, not least to strengthen the Housing First concept.
We have also given a special assignment to the National Board of Health and Welfare to reduce the number of evictions of families with children and evictions where children are involved.
We have, as we have said, a migration policy that makes the inflow of newly arrived people decrease quite drastically, which also creates better conditions for the municipalities to offer adequate housing.
I mean that these measures are far much more important than appointing another inquiry into so-called social dumping.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! It seems that the Minister for Civil Affairs is not listening very well. I have never said that it is a problem that the Minister for Civil Affairs goes and eats lunch and dinner at the governors' residences. Please do so! But it might be good to supplement that by making visits out to municipalities and regions to see reality, because it does not seem like the Minister for Civil Affairs is doing that.
An example of this is this question, because when the Minister for Civil Affairs says that there are more important issues, it is a mockery of the people who are affected by what we call social dumping. It is a mockery of the municipalities that already previously struggled to keep their heads above water and now find it even tougher to manage to provide support and help to the people who are in their municipalities.
Social dumping is not worthy of Sweden. It is a disgrace, and it is outrageous that the Minister for Civil Affairs does not seem to realize how important the issue is. I believe nonetheless that this SD government would be able to do a bit more than what is being done today and focus not only on those who already have but also on those people who need support and help to get into jobs and manage their own livelihood.
It is a betrayal that nothing is being done about this, and that is why I will, with a fool's persistence, continue to raise the issue. I ask the Minister for Civil Affairs: Make a visit! Visit these residential areas and see what it looks like, and then think particularly of the children who are in these apartments. Take action against social dumping!
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I must give it again here and say that I think Eva Lindh listens poorly.
I actually said that I am also out in the municipalities a lot. I have visited very many municipalities during the mandate period and will continue to do so, both during the autumn and during the coming spring, until this mandate period is over. Then we can add that to the records.
Then it is claimed that the government is doing nothing. I believe that through a number of measures, which I have detailed in my two posts, we are creating conditions for a reduced occurrence of so-called social dumping. This applies in particular to the homelessness strategy. There, we have invested in the Housing First concept, and we are now providing increased funds. These have also been sought-after funds from the municipalities' side. They have very quickly gone out and sought funds from this. It is also for that reason the government strengthens this work with an additional 50 million kronor for the 2026 budget.
This is a very important measure to address the issue of homelessness and the very great scourge and the suffering it entails for both children and adults. It will probably also contribute to facilitating the work to tackle social dumping and a good deal of other things that I have also accounted for during the debate.
The work continues, then. As mentioned, there is also an ongoing effort to map the occurrence of this and the structures behind it. We will have to see if the government intends to take further measures based on that.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.