Time-limited housing for certain newly arrived immigrants - a new law on settlement

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I hereby begin my final debate in the Committee on Employment in the Committee on Employment for this parliamentary term. It concerns report AU14, which concerns a new law on settlement.

The Sweden Democrats support the government's bill. We have been involved in negotiating it and therefore request approval of the proposal in the report. But we are, of course, not completely satisfied yet. We are therefore submitting a special statement, which I will return to later in my speech.

But first, we must clarify what the Settlement Act actually is, for those who are not fully familiar with it. It is not common for me to express myself in the form of a fairy tale when I give speeches. It has actually never happened before, but today I have dared to do just that.

Madam Speaker! There was once a Social Democratic-led government that just continued to fill our country even though it was actually already overcrowded. When so many newcomers arrived in such a short time, integration did not work. There were not enough preschools, schools or elderly care homes, and nor were there enough job opportunities.

"Oh, oh, oh, what shall we do?" Magdalena Andersson complained and put her hands over her eyes as if she did not want to face the situation.

The Center Party, which wanted to please the Social Democrats, campaigned at the local level for immigrated men, preferably from the Middle East, to work within elderly care. Said and done: The newly arrived men, a large part of whom could hardly speak or understand Swedish, had no insight into our customs, our culture or our traditions and sometimes lacked empathy, especially for Swedes in general and for Swedish women in particular, were assigned to work with care-needing, vulnerable elderly. Together with labor market measures, the statistics for unemployment looked good. But the insecurity and crime increased.

Unfortunately, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party still logged contentedly. But not everyone was really satisfied and happy – not at all, in fact. The Sweden Democrats were very dissatisfied. But most sad and dissatisfied were the elderly who were subjected to assault, rape, and humiliation from those who were supposed to make their final years in their own country beautiful, safe, and joyful. This was discovered and became public only much later.

Maggan thought: But bombs and grenades! The S-led government, which began to realize that they had completely lost control, came up with the next less-than-brilliant idea: We force the municipalities to accept newcomers, and they will be compensated for it financially!

Yes, then everyone was satisfied and happy again? But no, not this time either. The Sweden Democrats were not satisfied. Also dissatisfied were those municipal residents who were affected by gang crime, shootings and burnt cars.

The Social Democratic chairman of the municipal board in Norberg, in my home county of Västmanland, was also suddenly not satisfied. Norberg has, moreover, appeared on the map after the high-profile honor crime where a man simply pushed his wife down so that she would die in a mine shaft.

But back to the chairman of the municipal board in Norberg. She was initially very happy about all the newcomers and all the money and thought: What shall we do with all this money? Well, they built a huge arena! Then the money ran out. The Social Democrats cried out on the radio and were so sad that they couldn't manage to receive more. They had apparently missed that, after a while, the municipality would have to use the money they had received to support those who had already arrived there.

But bombs and grenades, Maggan thought again, now there is discontent even in our own ranks. Jojo, that's how it goes.

A large part of the electorate had had enough of the Social Democrats not being able to sort out Sweden. They sat at their kitchen tables and clenched their fists in their pockets when it was time to go to the polls again. They had heard that the Sweden Democrats, as the only party really, presented real solutions to the problems and decisive action against crime, gang criminality, and anti-Swedish sentiment.

In the 2022 election, the Sweden Democrats received great support, and a Tidö agreement with the government was initiated. We gained great influence over migration and integration policy, and now a new law on settlement is coming – a bit more order and tidiness. Now the opposition is no longer satisfied and happy. But presto, chango, presto, and so the highly flawed settlement saga was over.

Madam Speaker! It may not have been such a great fairy tale, but that is what happens when the Social Democrats, with their government base, are in power. Even if it was bad, because it was poorly managed, it is unfortunately true.

Dear voters, think about this when you go to the polls this autumn. It matters how you vote, and it matters who governs.

The legislative changes now proposed provide relief to the municipalities. Consideration will be taken of the possibilities to manage integration, how many newcomers the municipality wishes to receive, and so on. A municipality can therefore wish to receive zero newcomers, and that wish shall be taken into account when newcomers are assigned to the municipalities.

The Sweden Democrats actually want to go further than that. That is what our special statement is about. The municipalities' reception should be completely voluntary.

After the extremely large reception Sweden has had, it has become necessary that municipalities can and have the right to say no. If it is full, then it is full. A good school, good care, and a safe and secure existence for the inhabitants must be able to be ensured. If that is not possible, we cannot fill with more.

Madam Speaker! I am still a member of the Committee on Employment, but I have been elected as a working substitute in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, where I will serve for the remainder of the parliamentary term. I will therefore take the opportunity to conclude with a small session of appreciation.

I will begin by thanking the committee members for a pleasant atmosphere. Thank you, Tidögänget, for a constructive and forward-looking mandate period! With the Sverigedemokraterna, it will be workshop, and together we have made many important and necessary legislative changes for Sweden's best. Thank you for a good cooperation and all the positive conversations!

Our parties have together put forward a stable government base. With us, the Swedes know what they can expect. Our message is clear, and the so-called paradigm shift, where we have completely changed Sweden's direction, is a fact. Let us continue on that path!

The Sverigedemokraterna representative Magnus Persson is the committee's chairman. I would like to thank him for a very good job. He has led the committee's meetings professionally. And a big and warm thank you to the secretariat, our fantastic secretariat that guides us through EU regulations, consideration texts, and special opinions – all with a good mood and always a pleasant manner!

I take the opportunity to wish you all a nice summer, even though the work does not stop in any way. We will run into each other many more times before you get a well-deserved vacation.

But we members of Parliament are in the middle of the election campaign. We see each other out on the streets and squares. I conclude with an appeal: Vote pro-Sweden – for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and future generations, but also for those who have gone before us and built up our welfare and made Sweden a safe and good country to live and work in! Sweden shall become that again if we are given the mandate to govern.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! At this time of the mandate period, one risks becoming a bit hoarse when one is a clear election worker. But it is also a time of year when one looks a little extra at one's party comrades. One also looks a little extra at the opponents, because all members of the Swedish Riksdag have their history, a background to their political conviction and what they want with the trust they are entrusted with.

This, Madam Speaker, is my story. 15 years ago, I needed a side job, as it's called, alongside my legal studies. In Järva in northern Stockholm, where I lived, I heard a rumor that they were looking for staff for the youth center Blå huset in Tensta. I applied for the job and got it immediately. It was probably the case that no one else had applied for the job. In hindsight, I can understand why.

The job involved late evenings at a youth center with very many young people. Some evenings we had up to 70 youths on site. They were not just any young people. They were severely affected by overcrowding. They had parents without work and weak knowledge of the Swedish language. They had few opportunities for other leisure activities. The children were eager and constantly sought the security of the adult world.

I understand that children's living conditions in vulnerable areas are foreign to those who have grown up under materially and socially secure conditions – where unemployment is something temporary, where violence is something rare, and where help with homework and leisure activities is something taken for granted. In other places in our country, children can afford to feel bad and to occasionally fail and behave badly – because they receive care from the adult world and support to move forward and once again get back to that of doing right by themselves.

As a leisure leader, one becomes an observer of a local community. When the democratic forces withdraw, one sees how the vacuum is filled by other forces – criminal networks, drug sales, religious extremism, honor norms, and parallel structures. One hears about how dilapidated properties are taken over by unscrupulous property owners and that other municipalities unhindered dump people with social assistance into precisely vulnerable areas.

To Tensta, during the period when I worked there, families and young people moved in almost all the time. I remember that I spoke with the teachers at Enbacksskolan. They told me about a completely impossible task. It is not possible to conduct teaching in a class that constantly has to receive newly arrived students who also have great resource needs.

What could we do then? Well, we started homework help. And one by one they came – Sihem, Alan, Alex, Anna, Lemis, Mohammed, Emanuel, Brita, Faisal, Akrem, Sara and Ali. And outside stood Taha, who had far too much spring in his legs. He still has far too much spring in those legs.

Ten years ago, the Swedish Police Authority made a list of residential areas in our country that were designated as vulnerable. Tensta was designated as a particularly vulnerable area. Today, 65 areas in our country are vulnerable, according to the police's list. 60 percent of all cases involving shootings and explosions in our country over the last two years have a connection to the vulnerable areas. Either the crimes have occurred in the areas, or citizens in precisely these areas are involved.

Over the years, I have asked myself why politics has not succeeded in mastering – overcoming – the emergence of vulnerable areas. Why do unemployment, overcrowding, language deficiency, and poverty seem to persist in these areas over time? Today I know that it has to do with the very extensive migration in combination with a lack of integration and weak social governance, which has plagued Swedish society over the last 30 years. Of course, the economic policy that has been pursued has also developed increased inequalities in our society. Poverty is also seen in these areas.

In the 1990s, the conservative government thought that the Swedish reception should be characterized less by care and more by increased individual responsibility. The consequence of the policy was that the state abandoned the responsibility for integration. In 1994, the possibility was introduced for asylum seekers to arrange their own housing in Sweden, the so-called EBO law.

Quite soon it was realized that the majority of the asylum seekers ended up with relatives, kin, and compatriots in Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö, Botkyrka, Uppsala, Huddinge, Borås, Södertälje, Haninge, Örebro and Järfälla. The majority of the asylum seekers thus ended up in 11 of 290 municipalities.

During these Alliance years, immigration to Sweden also accelerated. The 2008 labor immigration agreement between Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet had an ideological purpose. It was to keep conditions and wages down. The state labor market assessment was abolished. All industries could suddenly recruit from abroad without having to comply with whether there was available labor in Sweden.

The policy of open borders resulted in low-productivity jobs, low-productivity sectors, work-related crime, and higher unemployment. In the vulnerable areas, slumlords could offer ten construction workers mattresses in a three-room apartment. In Tensta, many were employed in the gig economy. Very many of the men are Uber drivers, who soon enough learn that there is no earned occupational pension.

Since the migration agreement of 2011, which led to a tripling of the number of asylum seekers over a period of four years, before the Alliance-led policy came to an end. Many ended up in substandard and empty dwellings, purchased by those who wanted to profit from the migration crisis. I have myself heard how it all went down in Filipstad, Perstorp, Lindesberg, Bromölla, Hultsfred, Norberg and a number of other municipalities that today suffer from both integration challenges and very high unemployment. These are municipalities that today want to demolish properties in order to never expose their municipalities or asylum seekers to anything similar again.

At the same time, we could see that 40 to 60 percent of all asylum seekers during these years settled in vulnerable areas. It should be added that 80 percent, when they were granted asylum in Sweden, chose to stay in the vulnerable areas and, in the worst cases, in the same households. That in itself is a factor that explains why the integration process has been hindered for many, why language development has been slowed, how it is that cultural integration has taken longer, and why people have been driven into unemployment.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the strict migration policy must remain in place for the foreseeable future. It is a fundamental prerequisite for strengthening integration and recreating a state-controlled integration process and in this way counteracting the emergence of parallel societies.

In the government statement in the autumn, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said that he would abolish EBO. I have publicly welcomed that. But at the end of the mandate period, it turns out that even this is a broken election promise.

In the proposal for new legislation, which was debated last week, there are still possibilities for asylum seekers to live in private housing. We all know that it will once again be 40 to 60 percent who end up in vulnerable areas. I can state that it has been exactly the same thing with the Tidö parties in power during these four years. During these four years, 60 percent of all asylum seekers have chosen private housing. I cannot map out exactly where they have ended up, but you hear the point.

For the past two years, Madam Speaker, I have visited almost all the vulnerable areas in our country. I have had time to speak with teachers, with principals, with real estate companies, civil society organizations, preschool educators, police officers, and local business representatives. I have had perhaps about fifty open town hall meetings, very well-attended. There have been highs and lows and difficult conversations. I notice that many feel disappointment over how the politics have handled integration.

What affects me the most are the conversations I have with young people who are born and raised in Sweden, whom some call second-generation immigrants and whom I want to call first-generation Swedes. When they enter the workforce or higher education, they notice that despite being Swedes and being born and raised in Swedish society, they have deficiencies in the Swedish language.

Simon is studying at the Stockholm School of Economics. He told me – in harsh words: It is not my fault that you politicians have packed all immigrants together in one and the same residential area.

Today's report concerns a new law on settlement for newcomers after the asylum process. That it is being introduced is very positive. It shows that the Tidö parties have realized something that we Social Democrats have long been pushing for: that the reception must be fairer, that municipalities must take their responsibility, and that the system must not be able to be prolonged through appeal processes.

But the point where we Social Democrats are most clearly critical concerns that all municipalities must pull their weight. One must understand that it is an important measure. But it is, of course, about ensuring that consideration is taken for those municipalities whose reception has been large during this time or which have vulnerable areas. These criteria must carry significant weight in relation to other criteria if we are to succeed in combating segregation.

If we maintain a strict migration, abolish EBO and exempt vulnerable areas from the placement of newcomers, it will have a significant impact on the vulnerable areas – I am convinced of that. However, this only applies if we complement the policy by strengthening Sfi, combating unemployment and introducing more labor market training, vocational training and training in shortage occupations. It is also about extra services and improved matching between the unemployed and employers, as well as ensuring that young people can get a driver's license and have the right to SAO jobs, trainee jobs and summer jobs.

We need to ban profit-taking in schools and preschools and ban religious independent schools in the areas that Säpo is now monitoring. We have ended up in an absurd situation. We need to take public control over center facilities, parking lots, and properties owned by criminals or unserious actors.

There will be vacancies in the vulnerable areas when we tighten migration. People do not want to live in vulnerable areas, they move away from them. Then it is time for us to think anew. Perhaps it is time to demolish some of the properties and build things that do not exist in these areas, such as villas, terraced houses, and student apartments. This is lacking in all vulnerable areas.

I mean that this policy should not be so difficult to support. It is actually being implemented in Moderate-led Helsingborg and Liberal-led Landskrona. Many are requesting the state's involvement in the activities.

After nearly four years of Tidö politics, I realize at least that the integration issue has practically been abandoned. It is noticeable in the lack of reforms and in the silence surrounding unemployment and segregation. What is the plan? I do not know. I only hear fear propaganda when I meet my opponents, but a great interest is aroused when the chance is given to describe what we have intended.

The political language increasingly signals that certain Swedes do not quite belong here. It is gaining a foothold in the vulnerable areas. People feel that this direction is truly dangerous.

I hope that the government parties do not continue to be held back and made reckless by the Sweden Democrats, the party that in all debates with me openly declares that they do not even believe in integration as a social idea but which has nevertheless been promised the position of Minister for Integration – for wasn't that what Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said at the press conference?

Madam Speaker! We have greater diversity today. In a changed Sweden, I believe that shared experiences and national moments can do very much to bind us together. We must work with what is common – the common language, common institutions, common meeting places, and common welfare. The sharp line must be drawn between the threatening and exclusionary nationalism and the desirable democratic patriotism and pride in collectively being part of a Swedish community that we all belong to.

I feel pride in having served as a member of the Riksdag for three terms. I have lived with the desire to one day be able to do what is required so that Tensta in the future will not be a vulnerable area and so that the residential area will be characterized by all that we love about Sweden: well-being and prosperity, growth and work, well-functioning schools, a common language, leisure activities that provide joy and meaning, renovation, order and safety.

Almost everyone who went to that homework help is today successful young Swedes. They are teachers, civil engineers, nursing assistants, and self-employed. The young guy with speed in his legs is named Taha Ali. He is today a national team player for Sweden. I am so proud to have been his leisure leader. He says himself: I am so proud to come from Tensta, but it must become a better residential area in the future.

They broke their promises to me as a youth leader. They promised that they would fight hard in school and move forward. My promise to them remains, however: Sweden shall be a country without vulnerable areas. We Social Democrats are running for election on that. What are your proposals, dear opponents?

I move for approval of reservation 1 under point 1.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Lawen Redar, for the keynote speech that we have now had the opportunity to hear!

I thought I would start by asking about what I perceive as a shift in the Social Democrats' policy in this area. When I was a municipal councilor in Växjö and introduced establishment housing – long before it became a discussion about legislation in the national debate – Lawen Redar's party colleague, the then responsible minister Ylva Johansson, went out and thundered in national media that this was a clear departure from the intentions of the legislation. She even threatened in national media that it might be necessary to intervene with clarifications of the legislation.

She meant that the municipalities must understand that the housing distributed to those who were received within the framework of the Settlement Act would, of course, be permanent. Of course, it must be the case that it did not involve time-limited rules for the housing, but here it would be permanent housing.

She praised that housing was being built in what she expressed was the million program class, i.e., more housing than we had seen previously with the exception of when the million program was being built.

Madam Speaker! I was not quite as convinced that that was an entirely positive part of the development. I now want to ask Lawen Redar: Is it the case that the previous idea of forcing the municipalities to provide long-term, permanent housing is no longer part of the Social Democrats' policy? Do you stand behind our direction, i.e., that it should be temporary establishment housing?

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Oliver Rosengren for the question.

I cannot comment on what the former Minister Ylva Johansson said on individual occasions or when she visited the municipality that the member represented. What I know is that the long-standing discussions I have had with Ylva Johansson have been about our ambition to abolish EBO. Many of our municipal councilors, not least those in Botkyrka and Södertälje, pushed for this for a very long time.

I experience that the legislative proposal that the Riksdag is now to vote on is a compromise. What is being said is that one shall offer housing for two years. After that, one of the criteria is that the municipality shall make it possible for the newly arrived family to establish themselves in the existing housing queue. One must ensure that there is a long-term plan for the family.

The Speaker may point out if my positive inputs on this issue are actually not positive at all. I thought it had to do with wanting to break segregation and the emergence of vulnerable areas. When one has such a reception system, it should be the municipalities that have growth and the opportunity to offer jobs and housing that receive newcomers. This is what the entire policy is about.

Therefore, one of the criteria that you yourselves have developed is that a family shall be offered housing in the municipality after the two years that is now to be legislated on. Is that not correct?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! I understand that some ambiguities can arise when one enters the debate, as Lawen Redar is, of course, very welcome to, without having been part of the preparation in the committee.

The legislation that is now being proposed, and which we are discussing here today, concerns establishment housing. One shall be granted access to housing for three years instead of two years. These 36 months are associated with requirements for participation in establishment measures.

Exactly that type of measures we implemented in Växjö many years ago. It is almost a decade ago. When we did this, the then responsible minister meant that it was not in accordance with the legislation one had at the time. They were to be permanent housing that were not conditioned with that type of requirements.

I perceive that the Social Democrats have changed their minds and now think it is good to demand that people who have come to Sweden themselves try to establish themselves on the housing market. It is very positive.

I move on to the second part of my question. It appears very clearly from the committee report that there are four different views on this policy among the parties in opposition.

My question to Lawen Redar is whether we should perceive it as a requirement from the Social Democrats to form a left-wing government after the election that this policy shall remain in place. Can you guarantee the Swedish people that the new Social Democratic policy involves stricter immigration and requirements for people who come to Sweden and that it is that which applies – not the Center Party's, the Green Party's, or the Left Party's requirement-free and borderless policy?

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Oliver Rosengren! I am pleased that he notes that we Social Democrats have overhauled both migration policy and integration policy. It is a strict migration that shall apply for the foreseeable future. That means that we shall take care of the areas we prioritize.

We set requirements, yes. We go as far as saying that there shall be activity and a language obligation in the subsistence support and that people must make themselves employable. The established establishment program is very good. That it concerns three years is also very wise. We present proposals on how the distribution of newcomers should look and how the housing opportunities in the municipalities should be. We also put forward very sharp measures against those who do not stay where they have been allocated a place, because we want to see a policy against vulnerable areas.

It is clearly evident when I meet voters that this reorganization is welcome. I perceive strong support for the policy also in our vulnerable areas, and I am of the opinion that we will not be able to counter the emergence of parallel societies if migration is liberalized.

I can tell the member that the party that implemented the West's most liberal labor migration was not the Social Democrats. It was done in 2008 with the Moderates at the helm. The reorganization of the refugee policy that was launched in 2011 was a settlement with the Alliance parties, where the Moderates to the highest degree entered into a cooperation with the Green Party. The reorganization came in 2015, and we are prepared to stick to that policy for the foreseeable future. We will do so even now as we go to an election and review what cooperation opportunities exist.

We have told the Moderates that we are prepared to reach agreements on a number of issues. I believe it would have been wise of the Moderates to turn to us instead of to a party that is not even interested in integration.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! The copying machine has overheated at the Social Democrats. Not a word of what the member has said here in the speaker's chair can be trusted. You have had power before without succeeding in doing anything of what the member now so wisely speaks of, and you will not succeed in implementing it if you get power again.

I have a few questions for the member. From the rostrum, we heard that the Social Democrats are now for a strict migration policy and that you have been that lately – that was why I just spoke about the photocopier. But in your government basis, the other three parties want to increase immigration to Sweden. How will the Social Democrats then succeed with their "strict" immigration policy and migration policy going forward?

Another question is why it has taken so long for the Social Democrats to discover that neither the migration policy nor the integration policy has functioned well during your time in power. You have filled up this country, year after year. How can it be that the Social Democrats have suddenly discovered that it actually did not work?

The third matter I want to ask about is the much-discussed forced mixing in residential areas, which the member himself has been talking about in the media. I want to hear what the idea is with that. The member spoke a lot about vulnerable areas. How are the Social Democrats going to forcibly mix Sweden's population?

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Ann-Christine Frohm!

Forced mixing is a term I do not use. It has never come from my side. On the contrary, it is the member's party with adjacent channels that is driving the quite clear propaganda. It has devastating consequences for my personal safety and gives the debate an unserious tone.

I have, to the highest degree, emphasized that we must change the conditions in the vulnerable areas. It is a matter of national importance for Sweden. Of the shootings and explosions that have occurred in our country over the last two years, 60 percent are linked to the vulnerable areas. In that case, it is obvious that we must implement changes there. It is about improving schools, combating unemployment, achieving changes in the physical environment, taking back properties from slum landlords – for example, shopping centers where it rains in and where no one has renovated in 20 years. The member is warmly welcome to visit these places together with me. She will probably be shocked by what she sees.

The member is a powerful power-holder in Sweden's Riksdag, because the Sverigedemokraterna also hold the keys to Rosenbad and have strong influence over the government's policy. During the member's time in power, I have noted that the pursued policy has led to 100,000 more in unemployment. The promises one went to the election on have been betrayed one by one. What happened with the cash register, the dental care, the care deduction and so on? There were supposed to be improvements for "ordinary people", but the Sverigedemokraterna have shown themselves to be a right-wing party that prioritizes that high-income earners' taxes should be lowered.

My perception is that an ordinary worker does not get better off with you at the helm, nor are you combating parallel societies with the policy being pursued. The entire policy from your side is rather about pointing out groups that do not belong in Swedish society.

In conclusion: Regarding how the Social Democrats shall achieve solutions with other parties, I just want to say that we go to the election as an independent party. The Swedish people shall decide how this is to end.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! There was a whole series of things that I will not have time to answer. I also did not receive answers to the questions I asked the member, so I will take a different approach to the whole matter now.

Locally, the Social Democrats' representatives have spoken about forced mixing to the highest degree. It has been clear. I know that the member himself has not wanted to talk about it. But with what other words does the member then want to describe the forced mixing? It is interesting for the voters to know and for those who live out there.

Yes, I am outside this house sometimes, I am too. I live in Västerås. There has been a particularly vulnerable area there for a long time called Bäckby. The member surely knows about it. The member may even have been there?

I thank you for the invitation. We can certainly go somewhere together sometime, but perhaps not just in this election campaign. We can certainly talk to each other afterwards and see if we can arrange something.

The changes to the residential areas that the member is talking about – how should they look, concretely? I hear nothing concrete. The schools shall be improved. In what way will the residential area be improved and less vulnerable by people being mixed? In Bäckby, for example, they tried to build away the crime. I debated that in the municipal council there. It is not possible to build away crime; it does not work.

I will just quickly say something about the dental care reform, because it is interesting anyway. We have completed the first part of it. It is very successful.

When it comes to tax, the member also gets a tax reduction, just like many working people here in the country – not just us.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an interesting discussion!

What should the policy look like in the future? It is strict migration that matters. An abolition of EBO will have great significance in the vulnerable areas. There will be investments in the schools and in removing religious independent schools and profit-taking from independent schools. We shall remove the unserious actors.

It is about legislating to give the municipalities the opportunity to reclaim central facilities, i.e., properties, from slum landlords and to build good properties in the areas. I think we should see more student apartments, terraced houses, and villas in the vulnerable areas. Why would that be something negative? I believe it would be very good to carry out an upgrade.

The feeling for children and young people, wherever they grow up in our country, should be that it is safe. It is completely incomprehensible to me that Noa and the rest of the Police Authority for ten years have listed vulnerable areas but have not allocated police resources to these areas to be there permanently.

It is questions that we look at in order to reverse the development. It is about increasing safety and strengthening the language.

We are also working day and night on the labor market policy, unfortunately in opposition. There, you are heading in completely the wrong direction. Now there are over 100,000 more in unemployment.

Finally, I want to speak for a second about Västerås, which is a very fine city. At the hospital in Västerås, I believe that up to 45 percent of the employees have a foreign background. These are doctors, nurses, and nursing assistants. In Bäckby, a change has occurred in the area. People feel safer. Local initiatives are being made to strengthen people so that they can get a job. I hope that the policy continues in Västerås and that the member sees the value of the citizens she has in her own city.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! When we took office, Sweden had received 320,000 asylum seekers in a few years. Inflation was high, and unemployment was among Europe's highest. Now inflation is low, integration is getting better and better, and Sweden has the lowest asylum immigration in 40 years.

We have changed the course for the policy. Activity requirements ensure that people who receive benefits also need to exert themselves full-time to secure their own livelihood. One must attend vocational training, do internships, learn Swedish, and participate in the measures that one needs to participate in to become a part of society.

A Sweden course or Sweden introduction ensures that those who come to Sweden are equipped with better knowledge about what is expected of them in Sweden. They receive knowledge about what is expected of them when it comes to values, participating in the labor market, regardless of gender, our view on secularity, and that this society is a society that we build with the human being in focus.

Regarding establishment housing, which we are debating here today, we have introduced requirements to participate in activities in order to receive housing benefits during the time one undergoes an establishment. It is the end of benefits and housing for persons who stay illegally in the country. We have introduced stricter requirements for SFI. One must actually learn Swedish and not loiter around in language courses where no progress is made.

Madam Speaker! These are measures that are finally being put in place. But for me, none of it is news. I became a municipal councilor in Växjö several terms ago and, for two terms from 2014, was responsible for social services, adult education, the labor market, and integration in Växjö Municipality. All the reforms I mentioned now – activity requirements, Sweden introduction, establishment housing, a stop to benefits and housing for illegal immigrants, and stricter requirements for participation in SFI – we implemented as a municipality already during my years as responsible. They were then included in the Tidö Agreement to be implemented across the entire country, with Växjö as a model.

Madam Speaker! These measures matter. They ensure that people leave exclusion and enter work, and that more children get to experience what it is like to grow up with parents who are integrated into society and speak Swedish. One gets better conditions from the start in this country.

When we did this, we implemented all of these changes, which I have mentioned – all these reforms – despite great, strong and compact opposition from the local Social Democrats. Every attempt to tighten a requirement, every attempt to offer someone who has come to Sweden somewhat higher expectations that one can actually exert extra effort to become a part of our country faster, was met with strong, compact opposition.

The Social Democrats voted no to all our reforms to strengthen integration, Madam Speaker. It went so far that it did not stop with our municipal Social Democrats. In Växjö, we introduced establishment housing, two years of housing in parallel with participating in establishment measures, and if one did not participate in the establishment measures, one lost their housing. One had, in fact, own responsibility to participate in the measures and should not see the housing as a right one received just because one came to Sweden and that municipality, but as a benefit associated with exerting oneself to become a part of society.

Then the responsible minister, Social Democrat Ylva Johansson, stepped forward and threatened to ban our way of handling the issue by law and to tighten the legislation so that municipalities would not circumvent what she meant was the obvious intention of the existing legislation: permanent housing.

Madam Speaker! We saw this not only in media interviews with the responsible minister – absolutely not – but also in row after row of Social Democratic-led municipalities.

In Lund Municipality, student housing was purchased to be distributed as permanent housing for newcomers. It was a policy that fundamentally threatened the legitimacy of immigration and fueled conflicts in society, as groups were perceived to be clearly pitted against one another. People who had worked and struggled in Sweden and hoped that their children would have the opportunity to get a student apartment when they started studying were instead told that the apartments had been taken out of the student housing queue to be handed over to persons who had not been a part of building this country. It is clear that it breeds resistance. It is clear that it fuels contradictions. There, one must show leadership and take responsibility.

The establishment housing reform that we are now debating involves regulated temporary housing and finally a legal basis for what we introduced in Växjö in 2017, almost a decade ago. Now, the housing shall be time-limited, in this case for 36 months, three years. It shall also be conditional in exactly the same way as we ourselves came up with in Växjö. One must participate actively and make an effort in the establishment measures and actually take part in the measures that society offers, Madam Speaker, in order to be integrated in this country. If one does not participate in the measures, the housing and the allowance shall be withdrawn. That type of requirement is a completely reasonable principle in a society.

At the same time as we argued for establishment housing in Växjö, we had substantial problems with the establishment measures in Sweden, Madam Speaker. The Unemployment Insurance Inspection reviewed the requirements in the establishment program. They found that in eight out of ten cases where the participants had not fulfilled the requirements, Arbetsförmedlingen did not issue any sanctions. In eight out of ten cases where the requirements were not met, Arbetsförmedlingen did not apply the existing legislation's requirements that the compensation should be withdrawn.

Arbetsförmedlingen was indeed, just like so many other parts of society, permeated by a culture of indulgence. People have been abandoned, hidden and forgotten in exclusion in vulnerable areas, instead of asking for them and setting requirements because you care, which is of course what is reasonable and just to do. People who work probably feel that a good deal of requirements are placed on them in everyday life. Why then should those who do not work not also meet reasonable requirements? We believe that is what is just.

But it is not only fair, it is also good. It makes people enter society faster, get into work faster, learn Swedish faster, and acquire the competencies and skills needed to be able to take a job faster.

Madam Speaker! Requirement is to care. The establishment housing reform is one of many examples from this government of how we set requirements because we care. We want to ensure that the people who have come to Sweden also enter society and into a working community and get opportunities to build their lives according to their own abilities.

Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal. The establishment residency reform that we are now going to make a decision on will improve integration and become yet another reform in the line of measures that make structural unemployment decrease in Sweden now for the first time in about 20 years. This means that the establishment time is shortened and that more and more immigrated persons enter employment ever faster. With the measures we now take, we ensure that society is held together better. It is these reforms that make it possible, Madam Speaker, and therefore we must hold the course.

We have embarked on a path to ensure that the people who have come to Sweden also enter into society. Therefore, we know that we need a very strict asylum immigration – little or none. We will, of course, continue to ensure that people who want to come here to work, behave themselves and strive have the opportunity to do so. But our task is not to abandon people in vulnerability.

The dismantling of Arbetsförmedlingen that was carried out under the Social Democrats is over. Now, personal contacts are being reintroduced for all unemployed people. How can one believe that an immigrant woman who cannot read or write will be able to get into work when she is abandoned in an area of exclusion with an app as the only support from society? That digitalization experiment – that dismantling – which was carried out by the Social Democratic government is finally finished. The lack of requirements that we had in integration policy is finally over. Now we are working to re-establish Arbetsförmedlingen and strengthen the work line, so that the people who come to Sweden get good conditions to stand on their own feet, grow with their own strength, become their best selves and be able to make this society even better.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! The Government's proposal for a new law on settlement for certain newly arrived immigrants says a lot about the direction Sweden is being steered in right now. Behind all the technical formulations, paragraphs, and administrative language lies a clear political idea: that people should be pressured into integration through insecurity. Vänsterpartiet does not share that idea. We believe that integration is not built through threats of losing one's home. Integration is built through security, education, work, language, and the opportunity to become a part of society.

The government wants that the right to housing should be able to terminate prematurely for those who do not meet certain requirements linked to labor market policy programs. It is one of the parts in the legislation that the Left Party reserves itself against, Madam Speaker. There are already sanctions linked to participation in labor market policy measures. But the government is not satisfied with that. Now they want to make the housing a tool for punishment.

It is said that this is to strengthen integration. But how do you strengthen integration by making people homeless? How do you strengthen establishment by creating greater uncertainty for families who are already in a vulnerable situation? How do you help children succeed in school by increasing the risk that the family loses their housing? The answer is clearly: You don't. On the contrary, the government's policy risks creating even greater social problems, greater insecurity, and higher costs for the municipalities.

What worries me particularly is that the government seems to view insecurity as a political steering tool. If people are just pressured a bit harder and the conditions are made a bit tougher, integration will suddenly work. But reality does not work that way. It is not like the Sweden Democrat fairy tale we were told earlier. The person who is constantly worried about their housing has a harder time focusing on their language studies, their education, and their work. The person who does not know where the family will live next month will obviously have a very difficult time planning their future, if they even have any future. Security is not an obstacle to integration. Security is a prerequisite for integration.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party also opposes the government's rigid view on the establishment period. It has been decided that it shall be 36 months. But people are not standardized projects or blocks that clearly fit into different holes in a box. Establishment looks different. For some, it goes very fast, for others it takes longer. Those who come to Sweden with traumatic experiences, limited educational background, or responsibility for small children often need more time. It should be reality that governs policy, not arbitrary time limits. We therefore believe that the time for establishment housing should be adapted to how long it actually takes to establish oneself in society.

Madam Speaker! The most remarkable thing is perhaps still that the government once again chooses to attack people who stand at the bottom of the social hierarchy while standing helpless before the real problems. We have unemployment that is becoming entrenched. We have a housing shortage in large parts of the country. We have municipalities that lack resources. We have cuts in the labor market policy. It is reasonable to invest in addressing that, is it not? But instead of investing in jobs, education, and housing, one chooses to focus on further sanctions against people who have already lost power over their lives. It is not integration policy – it is symbol politics. It is a policy that risks deepening the problems that the government says it wants to solve.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party wants a society where people are given the opportunity to establish themselves through work, education, and security. We want to build cohesion, not increase vulnerability. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation number 2.

Something larger than just adjustments of individual legislative proposals is needed. A new political path is needed. After four years of increased divisions, dismantled labor market policies, and an integration policy built on suspicion and harsher conditions, Sweden truly needs a new direction. In September, the voters have the opportunity to choose that direction: for a Sweden that holds together, for security instead of insecurity, for investments in people, not sanctions against them, and for a shift in power that puts equality, solidarity, and faith in the future before division and blame.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Ciczie Weidby accuses her intended coalition partner, the Social Democrats, of an inhumane policy, of turning with measures against the most vulnerable in society, of wanting to whip people with insecurity into society, and for using tools that will not be able to function because they are based on some kind of principle that hungry wolves hunt best. This applies given that the Social Democrats have planned to vote for the proposals that Ciczie Weidby has just pointed out here in the debate.

Madam Speaker! It will be interesting to see how it is going to be possible to reconcile that view of integration policy, where every requirement is to expose people to severe insecurity, where every expectation is to want to drive people towards ruin, with what the Social Democrats previously meant by a reshaped integration policy where the requirements are self-evident.

My question to Ciczie Weidby is therefore: Will Vänsterpartiet demand a more permissive migration policy with lower requirements in the unemployment insurance and in the establishment program?

Will it be demanded that the establishment housing reform be torn up so that the people who will now receive temporary housing, and requirements to participate in establishment programs to have access to establishment housing, should instead receive a fast track to the housing market and permanent housing from the municipalities?

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the questions, Oliver Rosengren!

It will be exciting to see how it turns out. It is exciting that Oliver Rosengren already knows that there will be a Social Democratic Prime Minister in the autumn. Almost everyone else knows that too.

(Applause)

I do not know what demands will be put forward or what negotiations will take place. It is not impossible that these questions and many others will be discussed. What I know is that Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna share a great deal of politics, far more than with Moderaterna.

What is exciting now is how the Moderaterna, for the second time in a very short period, cannot hold together their support base and carry out all the reforms they have said they want to do. They have promised very much and cannot keep the promises. One wonders how they will ever be able to find common proposals. There are, for example, no representatives for the Liberalerna here in the debate today.

How does Oliver Rosengren think people who are placed in exclusion and feel no sense of security at all react? If people have nothing to look forward to, if they do not know what lies ahead of them, how does Oliver Rosengren think people can do their best and their utmost to become a part of society?

It is always a prerequisite that people know: I can do this and this thing, and then it becomes this matter. How are people who have no prospects for the future or who feel insecure to be integrated into society?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Two well-tested alternatives are indeed being set against each other in the autumn election. Magdalena Andersson has been Prime Minister and led a left-wing government. Ulf Kristersson has been Prime Minister and led a Tidö cooperation.

During these four years, we have passed all budgets in the Riksdag. The government has held together. We have put in place more propositions than any previous government. One can, of course, note that there have been instances of unrest in votes in the chamber on a few occasions.

Madam Speaker! I can still take the opportunity to perhaps refresh Ciczie Weidby's memory. One of the proven alternatives is the one I have just described. It is a government that has held together, budgets that have been passed, and proposition after proposition for which decisions have been made with majority support.

The second tested alternative is not quite as steady. It was budgets that fell in the Riksdag, prime ministers who were voted out in votes of no confidence, ministers who had to resign in crises, parties that left the government and settlements with wildcards. It was a bit messier. One can still say that the result was from the left.

Ciczie Weidby will obviously know that no one needs to be worried about losing their home. It will not be chance that determines whether one gets to keep it. Everyone who meets the requirements that are set will obviously get to keep their establishment housing.

Therefore, no one needs to be worried every month. One simply has to follow the requirements set out in the establishment program. Then one will also have an establishment housing.

In my final seconds of speaking time, I would like to thank Ciczie Weidby for many very rewarding debates during the term. As a new member of the committee, it has many times been a pleasure to debate here in the chamber with you. I have been very grateful for that.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Oliver Rosengren, for those words!

When Oliver wanted to refresh my memory, I thought I could refresh his memory a bit. He spoke about the Social Democrats leading a left-wing government. One can, of course, discuss philosophically how much it was that.

The Left Party was not in any way part of that government at all. We were not even allowed to be included. The Centre Party said: The Left Party shall not be allowed to be included.

I do not intend in any way to take responsibility for exactly that which was negotiated and the proposals that were submitted during the previous parliamentary term. I want to have said that so that it is clear and so that we both have the same memory.

Then I do not believe that any party is unwilling to lean towards one side or the other to find a good way forward. I am completely convinced that the Moderaterna have also done so at some point along the way during this mandate period. That is how it is when you sit in a government and produce legislative proposals, isn't it?

No one will lose their home, as long as certain requirements are met, it is said. It is not about Vänsterpartiet saying that there should never be any requirements, and that we say: Everything for everyone, and no requirements.

Of course, there must be requirements. But they must be achievable. There must be an opportunity to see each individual and what they can do to, for example, meet the requirements so that everyone can truly get through and establish themselves on the labor market, with studies and so on.

I do not think the Moderaterna will succeed with that. It is the Moderaterna who most often think that one should hit those who are lying down a bit more so that they might get up.

In my final minutes of speaking time, I naturally want to turn to Oliver Rosengren. He is one of my favorite Moderater. I don't dare say that you are the best, but thank you so very much for all the debates that it has been a joy to have you with!

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: As Speaker, I must refresh my memory regarding the address in the Chamber, which is always via the Speaker. This also applies at this late hour in the term of office.)

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

Anna Lipinska (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposal on time-limited housing for certain newly arrived immigrants. Fundamentally, it is about more than housing. It is about how we view integration, responsibility, and people's ability to shape their own lives.

For a long time, Swedish integration policy has been characterized by an assumption that society can create integration through public interventions, grants, and various forms of support. The intention has been good, but the results have not been the desired ones.

We still see extensive exclusion. Unemployment is high in many groups, and segregation persists. Far too many people live year after year without self-sufficiency and without a natural path into the community. It is time to conclude that integration does not happen by itself.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats start from a different view of humanity. We believe in the inherent value of the human being, but also in their ability to take responsibility for their own lives. People who come to Sweden are not passive recipients of society's efforts; they are individuals with ambitions, experiences, and resources. Most want to create a better future for themselves and their families.

Therefore, the integration policy must be built on both support and responsibility. Society shall offer language instruction, education, and pathways into the labor market. But society cannot learn Swedish for anyone else. Society cannot go to work for anyone else. And society cannot create participation without the individual's own involvement.

Integration occurs when people become part of society through work, language, and community. It happens when people work together, meet their neighbors, drop off their children at daycare, engage in community life, and become part of society. Therefore, it is also important that we have systems that strengthen people's own drive and do not risk creating long-term dependency.

Madam Speaker! It is against this background that the Christian Democrats welcome the new law. The proposal means that the housing offered by the municipality shall be time-limited. It shall provide security during the first period in Sweden, but it is not intended to be a permanent solution.

Housing should be a starting point – a place where the establishment begins. From day one, however, there must be a clear expectation that the next steps follow: to learn Swedish, to get into work, to create one's own livelihood and gradually arrange one's own housing.

I want to emphasize that this is not about reducing society's responsibility. But I strongly believe that people do not grow from being made dependent on a system. People grow when they are given the opportunity to take responsibility, make their own decisions, and shape their own lives.

Municipal housing should therefore be a way into society, not a permanent solution. It should provide people and families with stability and a foundation to stand on during the first period in Sweden, but the goal must be participation, self-sufficiency, own housing, and a stronger sense of community.

Those who receive society's help must also actively participate in establishment efforts. Rights must be linked to duties and responsibilities.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 June.)

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