Labor immigration

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats, together with the government parties, have through the Tidö Agreement established an agenda for how the conditions for labor migration shall be tightened. It is about ensuring that those who come to Sweden as labor migrants shall have reasonable conditions. The starting point is that work permits shall be granted if the labor migrant receives a salary that corresponds to the median wage. Work permits may not be granted if the foreigner lacks comprehensive health insurance for the initial permit period.

Certain professional groups will not be granted work permits at all. It could be about personal assistants or simple jobs for which recruitment can easily be carried out among people in Sweden. If one wants someone to work in a falafel stand or a hot dog stand, there is no point in bringing someone here from another country.

There are far too many here in Sweden who go around without a job. In some cases, it is about special circumstances that prevent the person from working. Most often, however, it is about people who are healthy enough to work but who abstain. Either there is a misunderstanding regarding the Swedish welfare system that makes people see the benefits as a universal basic income, or these people lack a work ethic.

I recently saw an analysis from Svenskt Näringsliv which showed that 183,000 people of working age in Skåne were not self-sufficient in 2021. This corresponds to 26 percent of the population of working age in Skåne. In the country, the corresponding proportion is 23 percent.

The solution is not that these people continue to live on benefits and that people from other countries come here and take these simple jobs, which many can perform. The solution is instead that we have a labor immigration that provides Sweden with the highly qualified workforce that we sometimes may lack, while the jobs that our own citizens can take go to those who actually live in Sweden.

This question also borders on integration policy. Many of those who are not self-sufficient in Sweden are actually foreign-born. That so many foreign-born are not self-sufficient is a greater problem among women than among men.

It is quite ironic that we have had a regulatory framework that has caused migrants to come here to take jobs that could have gone to migrants who have already lived in unemployment in Sweden, but that is how labor immigration has looked in the Social Democrats' Sweden. That is what is to be changed now.

Unlike the Social Democrats, we do not only have ambitions when it comes to a restrictive labor immigration, but it is about ambitions that are to be realized during this mandate period. A change that can be seen must take place.

Already today, a press conference was held where the government informed about its new regulation, which is to be sent out for consultation. According to this regulation, the salary must amount to at least 80 percent of the median wage for work permits to be granted. This will be a salary requirement of approximately 26,500 kronor. When the Socialdemokraterna were in power, the salary requirement for labor migrants was 13,000 kronor. In other words, the Sverigedemokraterna together with the government have already now, before even a year has passed since the government took office, doubled the salary requirement for labor migration. This was something that the Socialdemokraterna could not do during their eight years in power.

This will also mean that fewer work permits will be granted. Unserious business operators who have abused the labor immigration will no longer be able to exploit people.

This is what it looks like when you stand up for your politics. You get things done. This is only the first step towards a labor immigration where there is order and clarity, where Sweden is prioritized and where Swedish needs determine who gets to come here and work.

What is planned moving forward is to develop proposals to raise the wage requirement even further, so that it actually corresponds to the median wage. Furthermore, people in certain occupational groups shall not be granted work permits at all. People in other occupational groups, which Sweden would have a need for, will have a lower wage requirement. Those who come to Sweden as labor migrants shall also obtain comprehensive health insurance for the initial permit period before they arrive in Sweden.

All of this will be done during this mandate period. In other words, labor immigration will become a way to contribute to Sweden - not a way to burden Sweden.

I read a press release from the Social Democrats a few days ago where the Social Democrats' migration policy spokesperson said that SD and the government have allowed the unqualified labor migration to increase. That is chatter. The Sweden Democrats and the government will significantly raise the wage requirement for labor migration. That is what will happen in reality. Then the Social Democrats can chatter as they wish, just as they did for eight years while a liberal labor migration was exploited by criminals as a tool.

One has not even properly followed up on to what extent criminals have exploited the labor immigration. The low wage requirement of 13,000 kronor, which was accepted by the Socialdemokraterna, and the lack of controls over eight years have resulted in insecure employment that has strengthened the black economy, as those who apparently have worked within the legal economy have actually worked within the illegal economy.

Despite all the chatter, there are some facts that cannot be denied. The Social Democrats had eight years, but nothing was done to raise the wage demand.

Five days before the 2022 election, the Social Democratic government submitted the bill A raised subsistence requirement for labor migrants, in which they promised some form of raised wage requirement. Why did the Social Democrats wait eight years before acting? Did they not see the problem?

There are politicians who chatter and politicians who act. The Swedish people are tired of chatter. Now it is time to get things done and ensure that we have a labor migration that does not become a tool for criminals, as it has been under the Social Democratic government.

Madam Speaker! Labor migration must be about quality - not quantity. It must be Sweden's needs that are at the center. Labor migration must not become an excuse for economic migrants to get themselves to Sweden.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

There is quite a lot with this that one could correct. For the first thing, I do not want to give the Social Democrats the credit for the labor immigration, but it was actually a very good bourgeois and liberal alliance reform that the member's party's coalition partners carried out together with the Center Party. That was the first thing.

The second point concerns economic migrants. A group that comes to Sweden and works, who get up in the morning, go to work, pay tax and contribute to our Swedish welfare and to our GDP, is being pushed down.

There are many groups and industries that will be affected by a raised wage floor. What happened today was, if one is to listen to the government, a first step in a two-stage rocket. The two-stage rocket will mean that the wage floor in the future will be somewhere around 33,000 kronor, and it will indeed affect the so-called qualified occupations that the member says they want to protect. It will affect the green industries. It will affect IT technicians and IT engineers.

I also wonder about the member saying they want to curb crime and fraud. I believe we all agree that it does not belong in any part of society, and therefore not within labor migration either. But the investigation that presented the proposal that the government today bases its new wage floor on concluded for itself that a raised wage floor does not counteract fraud and crime. I wonder why the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are making a different assessment than the investigation that they base their own proposal on.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Cato!

What I said in my speech was that S were passive for eight years. Nothing was done at all to curb the cheating or raise the wage requirements for labor migrants in any way, instead, they waited until five days before the election before submitting a proposal.

There is nothing wrong with labor immigration itself, but on the other hand, there must be order and clarity. What has been introduced now is a wage requirement of 26,500 kronor, and I can think that it is reasonable. The wage requirement that exists today is 13,000 kronor. Do we want to bring someone here from another country to work for a wage of 13,000 kronor? It is completely inhumane to have such low wage requirements.

Madam Speaker! Member Cato must surely know that the current rules for labor migration have resulted in criminal networks being able to use labor migration as a tool. This is even stated in the Social Democrats' reservation, so the majority in this assembly sees the problem that labor migration according to the current rules – which Member Cato supports – has been used as a tool by criminal networks. Member Cato must also understand that there are those who fall victim to these criminal networks, Madam Speaker. We absolutely must not have a labor migration that strengthens crime in Sweden.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that fraud, irregularities, and crime do not belong in any part of society – so neither do they belong within labor immigration. But the fact is that the investigator who presented the proposal himself says that a raised wage floor does not counteract crime or fraud. In practice, it looks as though one can write one salary on paper and pay another in reality.

Therefore, other proposals were needed if one says one wants to counteract fraud, irregularities, and crime. Therefore, I wonder if there are other grounds for the government, because one obviously does not want to counteract fraud and irregularities. Or is it the case that one thinks the investigator has conducted a poor investigation? In that case, I think it is strange that one bases its salary floor on precisely that investigation.

No, it is not a wage floor of 26,500 that is being introduced. Someone who wants to come here and work for 26,500 would be rejected, because it is 26,660 kronor that is the wage floor. You who are listening might think it is a bit unnecessary to bring up these 160 kronor, but it is precisely about the fact that this is an arbitrarily set wage that has been agreed upon between the Tidö parties. I wonder why one landed on exactly 26,500 and not on 28,000 or 24,000. It would have been interesting to know.

When it comes to a salary of 13,000 kronor, very few are at that level. This is evident from the investigation. It is collective agreement and industry-based wages that should apply for the labor immigration, and I think it is important that we safeguard the Swedish model - that it is the parties themselves who set the wages on the Swedish labor market, not the four Tidö parties.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! First, I shall answer the question of why the salary requirement is 26,500 kronor. It is because 26,500 kronor is 80 percent of the median wage for the year 2021. For every year that passes, the level will therefore be raised.

I wonder if Jonny Cato and I truly agree that labor immigration should not benefit criminal networks, Madam Speaker. If one has a wage requirement of 13,000 kronor, one is essentially inviting criminal organizations to use labor immigration as a tool. I believe that most citizens who see this understand that it is not reasonable to have a wage requirement of 13,000 kronor. A dishwasher in Sweden earns 16,000 kronor – what kind of people are it that are supposed to earn these 13,000 kronor? It is a very low wage, and it is there to be exploited not only by criminal networks but also by unscrupulous business operators.

Then the member Cato asked if there were other grounds for movement, Madam Speaker. Yes, we have many who are on benefits here in Sweden, and when it comes to the simple jobs, it is those people who are on benefits and living in unemployment who should take them. It is they who take the simple jobs in the falafel stand or the hot dog stand; one should not bring someone from a completely different country outside the EU to perform these simple jobs. They should go to people who have lived on benefits for a long time. Receiving benefits is the cause of child poverty and all other poverty we have in Sweden. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a job.

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that we stand behind all our motions, but for the sake of simplicity, I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

There is no doubt that as a country we need to get the competence we lack here. Sweden needs a regulatory framework that meets companies' needs for labor from other countries, and labor immigration can help companies grow and develop when it is not possible to find the right competence here in Sweden.

The abolition of the labor market test has led to extensive labor immigration, often in low-skilled occupations where there is no labor shortage, while more and more people are becoming unemployed in Sweden. It is also within these occupations that most problems with abuse of the system and exploitation of labor immigrants occur. The trade union movement, employer organizations, and authorities have sounded the alarm that the legislation is designed in such a way that it can easily be exploited by organized crime.

Madam Speaker! We must address the problems with foreign workers who are exploited on the Swedish labor market and a system that contributes to insecure conditions and wage dumping. An important challenge in the coming years is to continue to push down unemployment, especially among newcomers and the long-term unemployed, and we Social Democrats propose that labor immigration should only be permitted when it is not possible to find the right people in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The jobs should primarily go to unemployed persons in Sweden, and we shall never compete with low wages and poor working conditions. That people seek out Sweden to work here is fundamentally a statement of strength for our country and for our economy. With the right regulation, labor immigration contributes to a better functioning labor market, growth, and more new jobs.

Today's system, which was introduced in 2008, broke with the balanced model that had served Sweden well for many years. The system is designed to provide the maximum possible flexibility for the employer, at the cost of all uncertainty being borne by the individual worker. It has become a source of income for criminal networks while serious companies risk being competed out.

The experience from nearly 15 years with OECD's most liberal labor migration shows clearly that a functioning regulatory framework cannot be replaced by surveillance and control in hindsight, even though such must naturally also exist and be effective.

The Social Democrat-led government implemented a number of improvements during the previous term that improve protection for workers, including requirements for binding employment contracts, requirements that the employer reports worsened working conditions, and livelihood requirements for family immigration.

But more needs to be done. We must stop patching and repairing. It is high time to put a stop to the abuse, benefit fraud, and exploitation that both affects individuals and feeds serious crime. It is high time for order and clarity on the Swedish labor market. Persons who have received protection in Sweden have not yet entered employment, while at the same time, persons from other countries are being exploited here. The initiated reform work needs to continue, and further sanctions against employers who violate the regulations are introduced.

Madam Speaker! The Government should promptly return to this, because a new system for labor immigration is also needed that focuses on the labor needs that exist on the Swedish labor market. It is a reasonable order that the jobs that exist should primarily go to people who are already in Sweden and lack work.

Labor migration should therefore only be possible in cases where it is not possible to find anyone in Sweden who can take the job. At the same time, it should also be easy to recruit from other countries when the competence is lacking.

A labor market assessment for work permits therefore needs to be introduced. But now the Sweden Democrats and the government are scrapping the investigation regarding the labor market assessment. They want instead to investigate measures that tighten the conditions for labor immigration, including by proposing regulations, requirements for a comprehensive health insurance, and a certain wage level to be granted a work permit, but with the possibility of prescribing a lower wage requirement for individual professional groups.

Today's announcement from the government regarding a subsistence requirement of 26,560 kronor per month, which is intended to cover maintenance, food, and comprehensive health insurance, guarantees that the low-skilled labor immigration will not decrease. This also includes that certain occupational groups shall be able to be excluded from the possibility of being granted a work permit.

The investigation period is extended, and the assignment shall instead be reported in its entirety by January 31, 2024, at the latest. This strategy creates a system where the government can itself decide which occupations shall be subjected to wage dumping. The extended time means that it will take another year and a half before the potential improvements this entails can be realized. Until then, completely open labor immigration prevails.

The government is missing the mark. There is a simpler solution, and that is means-testing. That it was abolished has led to thousands and thousands more labor migrants in occupations with no or low requirements for previous professional skills being deceived, exploited, and victimized over the last 15 years.

The new directives that the investigation has received do not make the system simpler – on the contrary. That an investigator should submit proposals for wage floors with a number of different exceptions leads to an even more tangled and even more complicated regulatory framework for both the labor migrants and the companies.

We cannot have it this way. There must be order and clarity in the Swedish labor market. We need to accelerate Sweden's growth. An uncontrolled labor market in Sweden never leads to anything positive.

A new industrialization and a green transition are underway. Development of new technology is constantly occurring. We have a welfare state where there is never a recession. Our society cannot function when safety in the workplaces fails and where competition between companies occurs at the cost of a poorer work environment and conditions.

We know that the proportion of people in Sweden of working age will decrease in the coming years. At the same time as there is unemployment, investments in education and transition support are conspicuous by their absence.

It is not the right way to go. Sweden needs a government that is capable of maintaining a labor market that benefits Sweden and that does not abdicate its responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I was quite confounded when I read the Social Democrats' reservation. In it, one can read that the market-based regulations on labor immigration introduced in 2018 have benefited unscrupulous companies and become a source of income for criminal networks, while decent companies risk being outcompeted.

It is quite interesting that the Social Democrats make that assessment, because it was only a few months before the 2022 election that the Social Democrats submitted proposals regarding requirements for employment contracts in labor migration, which, however, were only to be followed up in a few cases. At the same time, the Social Democrats made labor migration even more liberal by opening up for certain foreigners, despite not having found a job, to be granted permits so that they could come and look for work in Sweden. The proposal on stricter wage requirements was submitted by the Social Democrats five days before the 2022 election.

If the Social Democrats make the assessment that the current labor immigration benefits criminal networks, one wonders why you did nothing about this during the eight years you were in power. Why did you wait until 2022 before you acted? Why did you let criminal networks and unserious companies benefit from a liberal labor immigration for a full eight years?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the reflections and the question!

Of course I can stand here and describe Social Democratic policy, but today it is you who are the support party for the government, and the Swedish people have the right to know what you want.

The Social Democrat-led government has, among other things, made decisions on measures against labor crime. We have demanded employment contracts and better controls and cooperation between authorities. We have submitted a committee directive on means-tested labor migration. We have also invited [the opposition] to crisis talks for broad agreements with the government, but the government has declined. That is how you want it.

To return to the member's reflections: In the debate in the chamber in April last year regarding tightening and improving rules for labor immigration, it is possible to note this: "For the sixth, a real, authority-based labor market assessment is needed so that the public can actually exercise some control over which professions can be filled through labor immigration and which vacancies should be fillable by people who are already here. It is simply not reasonable that we bring in fast-food staff, cold-cut workers or berry pickers at the same time as almost 700,000 people with a foreign background are already here and do not manage their own livelihood. There is plenty of staff for these jobs in Sweden."

Member Aspling said that. That last piece of the puzzle was missing, namely a government agency-based labor market assessment for labor migration. I wonder, Madam Speaker, what the member's position is on this today.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am very positive about authority-based labor market screening. However, the Sweden Democrats have had to gather different parties together to actually do something because the Social Democrats did nothing at all for eight years and waited until 2022 before you submitted any proposals at all.

When one gathers different parties to actually get order and clarity in the labor migration, one must compromise, and what we have done today is to double the wage requirement for labor migration. It is something that the Social Democrats did not even come close to during their eight years in power. In the Tidö Agreement, there are several other proposals, which I explained in my speech, which will be implemented during the mandate period.

The Social Democrats had eight years. The only thing they did was submit a proposition/pamphlet five days before the election and say that they had an ambition to raise the wage demand. Since then, they have done nothing at all.

At the same time, the Social Democrats say that labor immigration has benefited criminal networks.

I asked the member a question. Why has nothing been done for eight years? Why has one waited? Criminal networks have their victims. People have been shot, and children have bought drugs from various criminal organizations. Why have you waited? Does not the Swedish people have the right to receive answers after all the acts of violence we have seen through the years? Since you say that labor immigration benefits the criminal networks, why were you so passive?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Madam Speaker! The strange thing is that the member's and the member's party have not wanted to make broad agreements on this. We nevertheless submitted a committee directive.

We want a needs-based labor immigration because it promotes serious companies and employees in Sweden. It prevents fraud, exploitation of people and labor crime. It helps people in work and makes it easier to do the right thing. It is good for all of Sweden.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me pose the question to the member again because we did not receive any answer to it in the previous exchange. Why did you not do this during the eight years the Social Democrats were in power? You are presenting this policy now that our side has taken over. You must actually answer this question.

Given who you want to govern the country with, does the member believe that you will manage to pass any of the migration policies you are now presenting?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Madam Speaker! We are going to have an election first before we start talking about which parties we are going to govern with.

When it comes to the question of what the Social Democrats have done, both the member and the government know what it is like when one has to reach an agreement. In the Tidö Agreement, you have had to give way on the welfare requirement, so the member should be fully aware of this.

Instead of questioning what the Social Democratic-led government did, I think the member and the member's party and government should focus on Sweden here and now. We are in a recession where families with children are affected by poverty and municipalities and regions receive far too small resources to be able to provide adequate care and nursing. This is what the member should focus on instead.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! My understanding is that if I reply to the member's speech, it is the member who should answer my questions, not the other way around. I will shortly deliver my speech, and after that, there will be an opportunity to ask me questions.

Since I apparently did not receive any answers to my questions, I can ask another question. I perceived that the member had views on us introducing certain exceptions from the supply requirement. What answer does the member have for all those entrepreneurs who are risking their businesses given that it is a very rapid transition that is now taking place?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Madam Speaker! Our proposal in the committee directive is that labor immigration shall be means-tested in order to stop the fraud. This is also desired by entrepreneurs, employer organizations, trade union organizations, and authorities. Something must be done. I therefore do not agree with the member.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing to follow the government's work to improve the rules for work permits. We Moderates always think that it is good and important with people who work. That people work lays the foundation for our society and for our welfare. Every hour worked in our country is an hour that contributes to everything that is good with Sweden.

I also want to point out right at the beginning that many foreign-born people contribute in a great way to our society by working. We must be careful to remember that. I naturally hope that it will continue to be so even in the future.

The debate should not be about it being a problem with people who want to work.

Madam Speaker! However, we have a problem in Sweden today with people who do not work. This is worth talking about, because it is a problem.

Year after year, not least Social Democratic representatives have stood at this very rostrum and explained the importance of extreme migration, an extreme reception, and defended it by saying that we need labor that can work within the welfare system. All of us who grew up during the 90s and the early 2000s were taught to believe that without immigration, the welfare state would collapse. Who will then work in our elderly care homes, they said. Everything with immigration was good, and to think otherwise was racism. The more people Sweden took in, the richer our country would become. So it was truly claimed.

Madam Speaker! Did it happen? Did immigration really become the cash cow that was promised when I grew up? Today, Sweden has over 700,000 foreign-born people who are not self-sufficient. In total, over 1.3 million people in the country are not self-sufficient. Still, we stand here and debate labor migration. I think it is a bit strange.

To maintain a system in this situation that causes people who are already here to continue to remain outside the labor market because the jobs go to people from the other side of the globe is unreasonable.

We know that people in Sweden turn down jobs because benefits provide more than a salary or, in any case, as much as a salary. We can probably be quite sure that many without loyalty to the Swedish welfare state therefore abuse our systems.

It is therefore good to know that the limitation of the possibility to bring labor here for low-paid jobs is happening at the same time as we will introduce a benefit ceiling. It can be good to know for those who today exploit and abuse the welfare systems that we intend to put a stop to it. If you can work, you shall work. Only then can we maintain the Swedish welfare.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish labor market shall primarily be filled by people who already live in the country. We also know that a lot of people want nothing more than to get a job. We shall help them.

When it comes to jobs that do not require language or education, we politicians should reform the systems needed to get people who are already here in the country into these jobs. This includes, among other things, reducing the possibility of abusing benefits.

When it comes to jobs that place higher demands, we shall enable a supply of skills through the Swedish education system. That is important. But we understand that the supply of skills can take time, and therefore we are raising the supply requirement significantly, but not infinitely, so that necessary skills can still be brought to Sweden. It is extremely important that Swedish companies can compete on an international market.

It would be naive to believe that the 700,000 non-European born who today are not self-sufficient could jump in as engineers at Scania or as IT developers.

We also see it as positive that the government opens up and enables certain exceptions from the wage floor, or the subsistence requirement. Primarily, this concerns certain seasonal jobs where we see today that the companies otherwise cannot be supplied with relevant personnel. But let this be an exception and nothing else.

Madam Speaker! Let us agree that there must be order and clarity on the Swedish labor market. Through the reforms, we believe we will tackle much of the abuse we know has occurred with sometimes directly criminal arrangements where people have bought a work permit, not because they primarily want to come here and work, but to gain access to Sweden. In reality, it is a hidden asylum migration for people without grounds for asylum.

By raising the subsistence requirement and otherwise tightening the regulations, we make it more difficult for this to continue. But obviously, it is never possible to become completely free from abuse of the system.

Madam Speaker! I would like to particularly emphasize the good cooperation with the governing parties on this issue. Our friends in Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna are cooperating constructively with us to change Sweden's course and direction in this issue as well as in many others. It is obviously much easier to achieve good policy when everyone identifies the same problems and jointly reason out solutions to them. It is also pleasing to see that Socialdemokraterna are supporting the government to such a great extent in migration issues. In itself, it may be a somewhat late and sudden awakening for Socialdemokraterna in these issues, but still. It is good to have broad agreement on the major societal issues.

The Social Democrats are leaving behind a chaos in the migration area. That is unacceptable. However, it is perhaps not only they who should be blamed for this, even though they are obviously ultimately responsible for the development of the last eight years. The Social Democrats seem, moreover, to really want to make amends after their migration failure. Just look at Anders Ygeman's move the other day when he got a feeling and started like a propeller and presented his own Ygeman-style wage floor, or whatever one should call it. It was completely based on the Tidö parties' proposals and politics, but perhaps that didn't quite come across at the press conference.

The Moderate-led government presented today its own proposal for a raised subsistence requirement. It is a proposal that is anchored in the Riksdag, in contrast to the Yngeman copy. We say in this situation that the wage floor, or the subsistence requirement, shall be just over 26,500 kronor. It is 80 percent of the median wage, and it will then increase to over 32,000 kronor in the next step. We are in agreement among the Tidö parties that that step shall be taken.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes I can still feel a certain sympathy for the Social Democrats, perhaps not for their party but in any case for their previous situation. One must nevertheless take into account that they have been forced to conduct their politics with the Left Party, the Green Party, and the formerly bourgeois party but now the red training-wheel party, the Center Party. With that constellation, it probably cannot go much better than quite poorly in these issues. The voters must take into account that this is actually the alternative that will press the Social Democrats ahead of it if there were to be a change of government. The Center Party seems, moreover, to use labor immigration as an additional loophole to continue its struggle for open borders. This can be easily stated if one looks at their motions which we now propose be dismissed. So how will the Social Democrats get their politics through? I believe it will be as usual: the migration issues are the first thing negotiated away when one wants to get into power. So I think that is how it will be.

In other respects, the opposition motions quite a lot in line with the government's policy and proposes, above all, things that the government is already working on. As a Moderate, I therefore think it is pleasing that the Social Democrats and several of the other opposition parties now nevertheless seem to concede that we are the answers to the major societal issues.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! The member spoke a lot about people in Sweden who do not work and that one should work if one can work. My reflection is that we still have shortage occupations in Sweden and that we have historically had a labor immigration that has served Sweden well, both in terms of social utility and economically.

No matter how you turn it, there are shortage occupations in Sweden where a labor immigration would be needed. On that, I have a short question. I wonder how it is that the Moderaterna cannot see that a regular, authority-based labor market assessment could be the solution, in combination with collective agreements and the labor market parties, where there could also be a security system to stabilize the work environment and secure workers in the market - to have a counterparty against labor crime and be able to meet it. How do the Moderaterna view an authority-based labor market assessment given that we have shortage occupations in Sweden and will continue to have them?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We also think it is important to emphasize that there shall be exceptions from the supply requirements that we are now introducing.

We have an acute problem to solve, namely that we have had a supply requirement of 13,000 kronor. So we cannot have that. It seems quite a few parties here are in agreement regarding this. We must raise it. Therefore, we are now taking step one and raising it to 26,500 to evaluate and calmly look at where we need to make exceptions, where we have a need that we cannot cover through the Swedish unemployment pool of people.

We are in agreement regarding the fact that we will have a need for labor immigration even in the future. We perhaps just have slightly different views on how we should solve it. We concede that there should be the possibility for exceptions, because in certain industries and occupations we will need it. We do not want to cut the legs out from under a single entrepreneur by implementing this. We want to cut the legs out from under those who abuse and exploit the system, and we want to help people who today stand outside the labor market and who are already in our country to get into the labor market if they have the opportunity to work. I believe it is important for all people in this country who do not have a job and who want a job that they have the opportunity to get a job and that they are not outcompeted by someone who is on the other side of the planet.

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! What I understand from the member's answer is that it is still not a shortage in the shortage professions that will rule, but it is an economic floor. Whether it is 13,000 or 100 percent or 80 percent of the median wage, I do not have much to say about that.

But I do not feel that I am getting answers. There will be labor shortages. How are we to match that? How are we to meet that? How are we to be able to identify them? We will continue to have a labor shortage in Sweden. A proper labor market assessment follows the Swedish model, and the Swedish model is something that has served Sweden well - both employee and employer organizations think so - instead of politics stepping in and dictating wages in the labor market.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not experience that we in any way dictate any wages or conditions on the labor market.

We are not finished with this issue. The government had a press conference today where we presented what our subsistence requirement shall be: 26,500 kronor. Now we are setting this as a first step, and then we will work on it. We want to review which professions there will be a need for in the future, where we should make exceptions, and where we should set the median wage. 32,000 we have said is our goal in the future. We will get there, that we agree on, but some exceptions will need to be made. Where we are now at 80 percent, it hits quite hard at approximately the level where all cooks are situated, and we know that there is an enormous need to get cooks here from other parts of the world. The member perhaps knows this himself, as I know he has a background in the profession. We see this, and then perhaps we should not set the floor at 32,000 just now, but we will wait and investigate the matter.

But there was an urgent need to establish some form of subsistence requirement so that we do not continue to have 13,000 kronor employments as some kind of minimum level in Sweden. It was not a sustainable system, and we seem to be in agreement on that in the chamber. We are heading in the right direction, that is my absolute opinion.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I reacted to the fact that Magnus Resare, in his speech, repeated a figure on how many people in Sweden are not self-sufficient. It is a figure that I think we must question the use of. The figure 700,000 comes, as I understand it, from a report that the Moderaterna have ordered and which answers the question of how many people earn less than 15,500 kronor a month. The report does not take into account whether they actually support themselves on these 15,500 kronor a month. The figure 700,000 includes, for example, students.

When one uses such a figure and claims that so many foreign-born people cannot support themselves, when this is in fact not what the figure shows, I mean that one contributes to a black-painting and a more negative image of foreign-born people in Sweden as a group than is justified.

I think it is important that Members of Parliament are objective in the chamber. Especially when we talk about people who are already subjected to a great deal of racism today, it is important to be clear about what one is talking about.

I have a question for Magnus Resare regarding the students, those on parental leave, and the disability pensioners who are among the 700,000: Does he mean that one simply does not want these people in Sweden? Do you not think it is okay that students have the income that students in Sweden have today?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I began my speech by pointing out that it is important to remember that many people born outside of Europe and born abroad work and contribute to society. I do not forget these people and their contributions.

As I also mentioned, we have 1.3 million people in the country who are not self-sufficient, and of these, 700,000 were born outside of Europe. I feel that this is a problem that we must take seriously, and I feel that my speech is about the fact that it is these people whom we must help into self-sufficiency.

I understand that not all of these 700,000 can work. I understand that these 1.3 million people cannot or should not work because they are in studies, have a disability, or whatever it may be that makes them not available to the labor market. But one must nevertheless state that of the 1.3 million people in Sweden who are not self-sufficient, there are quite a few people who surely dream of getting a job. I mean that we have a system today that makes us compete out these people from the Swedish labor market by letting people from the other side of the planet come here and work.

I feel that we should seriously consider whether the labor immigration that we have had and implemented in this country has been of benefit to the people who are already here or if it has actually helped to place them in social exclusion. This is a major problem, and we want to create conditions for these people to get a job. I believe that a large part of these people want to enter the labor market.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I heard and understood this. I think it is very good that Magnus Resare highlights the many immigrants who live in Sweden and who work and contribute in various sectors in a way that we would not manage without.

I still think we need to talk about the figure. It is claimed that a person who is a student and who lives on the same compensation that students do, which is not much money, is not self-sufficient, and in that way, one draws a fairly large group of people into a discussion about unemployment – a group that is both occupied through studies, which we in Miljöpartiet think is good, and lives on their income.

In that way, the figures for how many foreign-born people are not self-sufficient are inflated, and I find this problematic, especially in a time when immigrants are both being blacklisted by other politicians sitting in the Riksdag, not least from the Sverigedemokraterna, and are subjected to a great deal of racism in society.

I also have a question. In the report that the Moderaterna themselves have used, the limit for self-sufficiency has been set at 15,500 kronor. Today, it has been decided that the limit for what should be considered self-sufficiency for labor migrants shall be 10,000 kronor more than that. I wonder how this adds up.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, it is desirable that the member themselves presents some kind of figures that the member considers more reasonable and relevant. We can perhaps return to that in a later debate. The figure of 700,000 non-European born who are not self-sufficient, I stand by until the member convinces me otherwise.

Regarding today's maintenance requirements, we have said that 80 percent of the median wage is a good first step. That way, we do not pull the rug out from under entrepreneurs who still have a need to bring in staff. For example, non-European chefs who have been brought here to work are at approximately that average wage. We believe this is a reasonable figure as a first step, and then we want to review it.

We think it is important that Swedish jobs primarily go to people who are in this country, regardless of origin.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Government held a press conference today regarding labor migration. The Member of Parliament from the Moderaterna could have spoken a lot about what they want as a party and as a government. It is sad that a party that claims to be state-bearing, to take responsibility for Sweden and be unifying, spends time in its speech putting labels on the opposition instead of presenting what they themselves want.

"The needs of companies can never be determined through a politically decided regulatory framework. Politics is supposed to facilitate things for the companies." "It is a wage limit that is far above the collective agreement in many shortage occupations." These are quotes from the vice president of Svenskt Näringsliv regarding the wage floor of 33,200 kronor that Maria Malmer Stenergard said today should be introduced next year.

I, who am not red, who do not share the Social Democrats' view on labor migration and who stand on the side of the companies, become worried when I learn what Svenskt Näringsliv, Almega, Gröna Näringar and many others out there are feeling right now. I wonder: Do the members and the Moderaterna share the worry that Svenskt Näringsliv and many other entrepreneurs and industry organizations feel right now regarding the tough times that many companies are facing?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We identify the same problem as the member, and that was also why I thought it was important to mention in my speech that we want to enable exceptions from the regulatory framework. We think it is an extremely important difference compared to the legislation that has previously prevailed. Even if the livelihood requirement was lower then, there were no exception rules. We want to introduce this because we identify the same problem and because we do not want to put the companies in a bad situation.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I still think there are many question marks regarding the messages both at today's press conference and now here in the chamber. When it comes to the gap between today's wage floor and the wage floor that you are going to introduce, Magnus Resare, probably next year, which occupations do you not intend to make exceptions for? Which occupations are those that are at 31,500 kronor and where it is not okay that one comes to Sweden, works, contributes and pays tax?

You have understood that I like quotes, and now I thought I would quote the member. He has said that one does not want to cut the legs out from under entrepreneurs, but that is precisely what is being done with these proposals.

I have another quote from Svenskt Näringsliv: "The wage floor will further exacerbate the skills shortage in the business sector." In other words, the largest employers' organization in Sweden - Svenskt Näringsliv - is saying that it is a directly anti-business proposal.

I know that the Moderaterna want to appear business-friendly. One says one thing, but what is presented today is something completely different. And I think one becomes liable for the answer. Which industries should not be exempted? In which industries is it not okay that one comes here and earns 31,500 kronor?

This is a two-stage rocket. Somewhere, people are afraid of where it is headed. In my world, today's announcement is a major announcement, namely an announcement that the Moderaterna no longer stand on the entrepreneur's side.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! There we have essentially different views.

We always stand on the side of the entrepreneur, and we think it is important that entrepreneurship works in this country. Entrepreneurs create jobs. Working people are those who ensure that there is a functioning welfare and a functioning society.

Therefore, we say that in the first step, it is a question of approximately 26,500 kronor, in order to move forward in the next step with what will be our core policy for a long time to come. We must put a stop to what has been with 13,000 kronor as a subsistence requirement. It has not worked, but has only created a criminal black labor market - and we do not want such a thing.

Now we have taken the first step, and then we will certainly return to exactly which industries will be granted exemptions. The members and interest organizations can be sure that the Moderaterna will ensure that it turns out well.

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! The issue of labor immigration to Sweden from third countries has been treated very poorly in Swedish politics. In 2008, the Alliance and the Green Party introduced extreme legislation that gave the employer free rein to control labor immigration, with exploitation and vulnerability as a result. Since then, some improvements have been implemented, but the fundamental problem remains, namely that it is still the employer who controls.

Vänsterpartiet considers that it should be the needs of the labor market that should govern the immigration of labor, not individual employers' needs for low-paid labor or the desire to press down conditions and wages on the Swedish labor market. We have therefore long advocated for the requirement to reintroduce the labor market test ever since it was abolished by the former Alliansen in 2008.

The question of shortage and subsequent labor demand shall be examined by Arbetsförmedlingen in consultation with the parties in the labor market, and work permits shall only be granted to those industries where there is a labor shortage.

During the spring of 2022, there was a majority in the Riksdag to submit such a proposal, as there was also a referral-processed investigation proposal from the Equality Commission. The S-led government chose, however, not to submit any proposal but instead appointed an additional investigation. After that, the Sverigedemokraterna managed to change sides, and now we are once again without a majority to reintroduce the authority-based labor market screening. Vänsterpartiet regrets this.

Sweden is a country that has never been able to sustain our society without labor that has sought itself here. We will also not be able to do so in the future. Our entire welfare system is staffed by people with foreign backgrounds. It is they who take care of our elderly and our children in preschool, transport us to work, school, and leisure activities with public transport, as well as work on the floor within the industry. Labor immigration has been positive for Sweden and contributed to our country's development. This type of immigration can also continue to contribute much both to the labor market and for Sweden's economy, but it requires a fair system for labor immigration.

Madam Speaker! The new directive from the right-wing government means that the investigation shall no longer propose a new and efficient system for the labor market assessment in labor migration. Instead, a proposal for a certain wage level for granting work permits shall be developed. It is a clear indication that the government wants to tighten immigration, even if there are to be exceptions and deviations from the wage levels.

With the government's new directive, the need for labor will not be what governs. Instead, predetermined wage levels shall determine the possibilities for residence permits. It will become a complicated and rigid system that does not solve the important problems, for example, the destructive balance that exists on the labor market between employees and employers.

Reintroducing the labor market test is in line with the Swedish model. Politics should not set wages; instead, wages should be set by the parties in the labor market through collective agreements. Introducing a wage floor is a clear departure from the Swedish model. Detailed employment contracts with wages and conditions should be in line with collective agreements.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a fair system for labor immigration, and here are our main demands fixed. We shall reintroduce authority-based labor market assessment in consultation with the parties in the labor market, full-time employment as a requirement for work permits, and a background check of employers who apply for work permits for foreign workers before the work permit is granted. Labor immigrants who come forward and report about poor conditions at employers shall be allowed to stay until the permit expires and be given the opportunity to seek new employment. Penalties shall be imposed for employers who exploit labor immigrants and damages shall be awarded to the employees who have been affected.

Industries where labor migration is common are also the industries where labor-related crime frequently occurs, and labor-related crime has not arisen in a vacuum. There will always be employers who choose to exploit people in vulnerable positions and positions of dependency.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet does not believe either that the ban on track changes is the right way to go to counter the fraud. Other tightenings of the law are needed to create a fair system. The focus should be on countering the exploitation and the abuse, not on restricting immigration to Sweden.

The system that the government proposes is also complicated, meaning that it sets a high wage level while simultaneously having exceptions. In which industries should a lower wage floor be accepted? For Vänsterpartiet, it is clear that a better way forward is to demand wages in accordance with collective agreements for the relevant industries in combination with a labor market test. Sweden can benefit from the labor immigration that has historically been positive for Sweden, which has been necessary for the construction of society and will be so also in the future.

I conclude by moving for approval of reservation 3 from Vänsterpartiet.

Just for fun, I would like to tell here in the chamber that I have worked as a chef for 17 years, and I note that the new subsistence floor that the government presented today lies exactly 118 kronor above the starting salary for a chef. It could be that it is a commissioned job.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more companies that grow, start up and hire. This places demands on a competitive business climate but also on access to qualified labor.

We Christian Democrats want to promote the immigration of qualified labor. We also want to stop the competence exclusions and at the same time tighten the rules for labor immigration to counter fraud, exploitation, and the displacement of residents in exclusion. One method to do this is to introduce a wage floor for labor immigration. But we believe that it needs to be combined with exceptions for shortage occupations.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish regulatory framework for labor migration has been pointed out as unique. Unlike practically all other countries in Europe, which specifically target highly educated individuals, Sweden has accepted everyone regardless of education and occupation. Labor migration has contributed to growth and given people the opportunity to establish themselves in Sweden through their own work.

We want Sweden to continue to be an attractive country for qualified labor immigration. In a global world, it is precisely this immigration that is necessary for the competitiveness of Swedish companies. The Christian Democrats see that labor immigration is important for a dynamic Swedish economy. The system has given many people the chance to try their luck in Sweden and has provided important contributions to our country.

At the same time, we have also seen that the number of labor migrants coming to Sweden has increased significantly. This shift has occurred at the same time as we in Sweden have received a large number of third-country nationals, which has meant that many still have difficulty entering the labor market. Labor immigration today constitutes a large part of the immigration to Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats argue that the current system needs to be reformed, tightened, and adapted to societal developments. It is unreasonable to have wide-open doors for low-skilled and low-paid labor when we have our own high structural unemployment. This applies to groups that should be considered for this type of work. The unemployed in Sweden need to be prioritized.

The current regulatory framework for labor immigration has come to facilitate for unscrupulous employers to hire cheap labor and exploit the system. The abuse that occurs is significant and serious and does not only affect the individual; it is also a threat to healthy competition.

One of the requirements that exists today is that the salary shall amount to at least 13,000 kronor per month. This needs to be raised. Even though a higher subsistence requirement cannot alone stop the abuse, it will nevertheless strengthen the position of labor migrants on the labor market and benefit the system as a whole. For example, a raised subsistence requirement can have a deterrent effect on less serious employers and also have an effect in cases where labor migrants are employed at a significantly lower salary than what a Swedish worker would receive. We also believe that the changes open up new opportunities for work for those who are unemployed in our country today.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö Agreement indicated a course for change where decisions on labor migration would entail a tightening of the rules. The legislative change that was decided with the support of a large part of this Riksdag in November last year opened up for changing the requirements for labor migration. However, this bill did not specify any specific wage level, but it was instead to be defined in a government ordinance.

This morning, the government parties together with the Sweden Democrats presented the first step to tighten the requirements for labor migration. We have presented a proposal that entails a wage floor of 80 percent of the median wage right now, that is, a wage floor of 26,560 kronor. This ensures that the exploitation of labor is countered and that the opportunities to get residents who currently lack work into employment are increased by making more jobs with lower requirements for competence and education available.

Naturally, a wage floor in itself does not complete the journey for those who are outside the labor market. It needs to be complemented with educational initiatives and, naturally, benefit ceilings so that more people in Sweden can get into work. This first step, which we have now referred and for which a decision is to be made during the spring, will be complemented by a second step which is currently under investigation. The investigation is aimed at establishing a wage floor at the level of the median wage in Sweden but also analyzing which occupational categories need exemptions to ensure operations and entrepreneurship that are important for Sweden. This investigation shall be reported in January 2024.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats move for approval of the committee's proposed decision in the report and the rejections of the motions that this entails. As I have presented, changes anchored in the government base are now occurring, which in several steps tighten the requirements for labor migrants. The proposals aim to strengthen the position of labor migrants on the labor market and counter competition with low wages.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats have not kept it a secret that they want to be the voice of the countryside. They have even been graced with the important position of Minister for Rural Affairs.

Agriculture and the green industries are incredibly important for all of Sweden, not least for our countryside. But the countryside deserves so much more than a party that takes a few pictures when you are out hunting. The countryside needs a policy that always stands on the side of the farmers and the green industries. Many farmers and entrepreneurs in the green industries often have incredibly small margins, not least in these times. Every krona really makes a difference.

The wages for those who work as animal keepers, farmhands, or tractor drivers are often low. These jobs rarely require any specific education. Many times, experience and, not least, drive are sufficient. Why do the Christian Democrats think it is a problem that a person who works, for example, as a farmhand, earns 25,000 kronor, contributes and pays tax, should be allowed to continue working in Sweden? Why do the Christian Democrats want that the person who now works as a tractor driver and earns 25,000 kronor should receive a decision on deportation instead of approval upon application for an extension?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jonny Cato very much for the empathy.

We Christian Democrats saw that there was a need to have a proper rural party in the Riksdag. We can well state that the government that the Centre supported did not directly take steps to meet the needs we see in the countryside. Those needs are great. We see in today's situation that we, both in terms of security and naturally in terms of supply, need to have a Swedish food production. We also need to ensure that breeders have the opportunity to conduct their operations without it being too many wolves that eat up the lambs and sheep on our fields.

We shall look at what needs exist in the countryside, and we promise that we will fight to meet them. But I cannot see that we meet the countryside's problems or the needs that exist in the countryside by allowing a low wage level for third-country nationals who come here and perform jobs that - just as Jonny Cato says - perhaps have slightly lower requirements for education. It is, of course, so that we shall see what needs exist.

With the decision we have made today regarding a wage level of 26,560 kronor, we are establishing a first level to ensure that employees are not exploited. I sense the question somewhere in the debate: What is an appropriate wage for a tractor driver? Should it be 25,000, or perhaps 22,000? We make decisions continuously, and it is naturally the case that we analyze and investigate what needs exist within industries and companies. We have landed on a higher ceiling, but exceptions may be made. I received a direct question about this in connection with the press conference, and the green industries may personally be such an area for me. But we shall see what the investigation shows.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! That is exactly the point. It is neither I nor the member, nor the Minister for Migration, who shall set the wages. They are set by the Swedish parties according to the Swedish model.

I think it is good that the government should make exceptions, even though I would have wished that they were not needed. But now we are talking about those affected by today's announcement, that is to say those who have an average salary of under 26,560 kronor, which is the case many times, not least for those who work as farmhands and tractor drivers. Instead, the government should present solutions to improve the conditions, so that wages can be raised for those who work in our green industries. What is done instead with today's announcement is to undermine farmers and green industries with labor from third countries who now drive tractors or work as farmhands on the farms.

Once again we hear the Christian Democrats' rural policy. One says that it is the Center Party's fault, and then one talks about whatever one wants. But then one does something completely different in practice.

It is actually what is being done today. One is making it difficult for many of the entrepreneurs in the countryside who are fighting so that we in here get good Swedish-produced food when we eat lunch or dinner.

I have a lot of empathy. This is for me a truly important issue. I am proud to belong to a true rural party that stands on the side of the farmers and the green industries.

It is okay to say that 25,000 kronor might not be a high salary. But there are many who choose to do that work so that we get good Swedish-produced food on our plates tonight and at lunch tomorrow.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We can state that many of us are passionate about the needs of the countryside. The Centre Party is very welcome to join the new government. I believe there is a greater chance of pushing through a countryside-friendly policy in the constellation that now holds government power.

I also think that green nutrients are important. We see that there is a need for personnel within agriculture, gardening, and forestry. I can only state that in the statistics we have as a basis for the decision, we see, for example, that the average wage for the 923 forestry workers who received work permits during the last year was 28,000 kronor.

The 621 work permits that went to those who were plant growers and helped in agriculture and gardening show that the average salary was 25,700-27,600 kronor, naturally depending on where they work.

It shows that we are on the right track. We are setting a wage level that prevents third-country nationals from being exploited, not by farmers but in other areas, to fill the labor needs that exist in Sweden.

We will review this. The investigation will give us a number of directions that I am completely sure will ensure the needs of agriculture and satisfy Jonny Cato. It is good that there are more of us who are passionate about agriculture.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! More Swedes should have a job to go to. More young boys and girls should see their parents go to work every morning. Everyone who can work shall work. For that, a business-friendly policy is needed, a corporate policy of world-class standard. That is a policy where the needs of companies come before the policy's need for big headlines in the media and many news flashes on the phone.

One of the absolute biggest challenges of running a business in Sweden today is finding the personnel that one is looking for. One of many important tools for that is labor from other countries. Labor immigration is needed in many industries, in various stages of companies, and above all, throughout the entire country.

It is about the small startup company here in the heart of Stockholm's inner city and about the large IT company down in my home region in Helsingborg. It is about the potato grower in Kalmar or the agricultural entrepreneur on Gotland who has specialized in wild garlic. It is about the restaurants that are to serve the wild garlic or the potatoes.

There are problems with labor immigration, but labor immigration in itself is not a problem. It is, on the contrary, something very, very good. As a small country in a global world, we need to have an open economy towards the rest of the world.

The Moderates', Christian Democrats', and Liberals' shift in their view on labor immigration and, by extension, on the business sector and entrepreneurship is deeply unfortunate. Let me quote the Minister for Migration: In many cases, it concerns jobs that could be performed by people who already live in Sweden.

For the employer, it is obviously both simpler, less administrationally demanding and in many cases also cheaper to hire people who already live in Sweden. Companies and employers use precisely labor immigration to find skills that there is a shortage of in Sweden.

The majority of labor migration occurs within shortage occupations. It is therefore a very simplified reasoning that we have previously heard from the Minister for Migration and from many members here in the chamber today.

Madam Speaker! The government has today presented new proposals for labor immigration. It is a directly business-hostile policy. Today's wage floor that the government presented shall be 26,560 kronor. It will undermine many industries and companies' ability to use labor immigration as an important tool to find the employees that they are, in many cases, in such great need of.

A few thousand people who today go to work, who are an important resource for their employers and who contribute and pay tax, will be deported upon application for an extension of residence permit. We are talking about honest people who today work in our country who, with the Moderates' new work line, will no longer be allowed to work in Sweden.

Of course, 26,560 kronor is better than 33,200 kronor. But unfortunately, this is only a first step, or as the Minister for Migration himself said today: This is a two-stage rocket. The wage floor is to be raised further. According to the government, the wage floor is to affect more companies, more industries, and more people who are here today and are working and contributing.

For many, 33,200 kronor is a high salary. There are many occupations that have a median salary below 33,200 kronor which require special competence. There is a genuinely great concern in many industries and among individual companies regarding what a salary floor of 33,200 kronor will mean.

I will honestly say that I was a bit worried before today's press conference. I thought that the Sverigedemokraterna had had their long-awaited proposal on labor market screening passed. I believe that will come sooner or later.

It is good that the government does not currently seem to want to introduce a labor market assessment. It means that state agencies such as, for example, Arbetsförmedlingen shall assess which persons companies shall be allowed to employ.

Unfortunately, it seems we are getting a labor market review, but it will become political instead, if I am not misinterpreting today's press conference. The government is to decide which professions shall be exempted from a wage floor. Instead of state officials at Arbetsförmedlingen, it will be a negotiation between the Liberalerna, Kristdemokraterna, Moderaterna, and Sverigedemokraterna that decides which industries shall be allowed to recruit competence from other countries.

I am genuinely convinced that employers and entrepreneurs themselves know what competence they need without involvement from the Government Offices and the Tidö parties' coordination office.

Centerpartiet does not share the view of the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals that the person who comes here, works, and pays tax is a burden. But one thing we agree on. There are problems with the system, problems with cheating, fraud, and organized crime linked to labor migration.

Let us find specific solutions to specific problems and not tear down the entire system. The Centre Party has been criticized, not least by leading Moderates – including the committee chairman, who unfortunately is not here – for that we do not see that cheating and crime exist in connection with labor immigration. We do, of course, and we take it most seriously. But we choose a different path. We choose proposals that truly hurt those who cheat, exploit, and commit crimes instead of destroying for those companies that want well and do right by themselves.

Let me raise three concrete proposals on how to tackle cheating and exploitation.

Firstly: Introduce a new law that makes it easier to reject an application for a work permit when the purpose is considered to be something other than work, for example, to exploit the welfare system!

Secondly: Make it easier to revoke residence permits through tightenings in the Aliens Act when it can be established in hindsight that the purpose of the application was not work!

Third: Remove the possibility of granting a residence permit for someone who has deliberately provided multiple identities or given misleading information!

This, Madam Speaker, is some of the many specific solutions that the Center Party presented two years ago that would truly ensure that one can tackle fraud and organized crime.

The government instead intends to introduce a wage floor to solve the problems. The question of a wage floor was investigated as recently as a year ago within the framework of the inquiry *A better system for labor immigration*. The inquiry established that a wage floor in no way counters either fraud or exploitation of both people and systems. On the contrary, a wage floor would risk leading to even more fraud by writing a wage on paper while the employee in reality receives a completely different wage.

We need accurate legislative proposals, not politically impactful communicative proposals that remove the possibility for companies to find the competence they need. When one breaks it all down in the way I have now done, follows the debate, and takes part of the government's proposals, I can only come to one conclusion: This is fundamentally not about cracking down on fraud. This is about creating the image that the Moderaterna have revolutionized migration policy. But unfortunately, it is the business community and the entrepreneurs who end up caught in the middle.

Madam Speaker! Let us speak plainly. Without labor immigration, some companies will have difficulty remaining in existence. In the long term, this risks wiping out entire industries in the Swedish business sector. It concerns the green industries, many times in the countryside, all around our country.

Madam Speaker! I would like to apologize for exceeding my speaking time, but when I began planning today's debate and wrote my speech, I could not have known that the Tidö parties would have a press conference in the morning.

I conclude by moving for approval of reservation 2.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party writes in its reservation that today's framework for labor migration must be protected. A majority of the parties in this assembly, however, make the assessment that today's framework for labor migration benefits criminal organizations.

With today's regulatory framework, unscrupulous business operators and criminal organizations can exploit both people and systems to strengthen themselves. If one does not wish to care about what the majority in this assembly thinks, one can read a report from Svenskt Näringsliv from May 2021 which states that crime occurs within the framework of regulated labor migration and that it is a problem that must be addressed.

It is strange that the Center Party seems to deny that this problem exists at all. One sticks one's head in the sand and argues that a labor immigration that is exploited by criminals should be protected.

My question to the member is why he wants to safeguard a labor migration that, according to most assessors, strengthens criminal actors. Should we not move towards a labor migration that strengthens Sweden instead of strengthening the criminal organizations' economy?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the member heard my speech, but I was very clear that there is cheating, irregularities, and criminality linked to labor migration. I even gave three concrete proposals on how to curb just cheating, crime, and irregularities within labor migration. They are three concrete proposals that make a real difference.

The member says that many assessors put forward criticism and that there are irregularities, fraud, and crime linked to the labor immigration. I agree with that. But I wonder if the member can inform me which assessors, experts, and commentators believe that a wage floor counteracts crime. Because the only answer I have received, among others from the investigation on which you are basing your proposal today, is that a raised wage floor does not counteract fraud, crime, and irregularities.

One can safeguard today's system where people come here, work and pay tax, while simultaneously removing the problems within the framework of labor migration. But one does not do it with wage floors - not according to a single assessor does one do it with wage floors. One does it with other proposals, for example by introducing a new law that makes it easier to reject an application for a work permit when the purpose is considered to be other than work, for example to exploit the welfare system. That would have been better.

We want to see specific solutions to specific problems instead of undermining people who are here and working, contributing, and paying tax.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party cooperated with the Social Democrats during the previous parliamentary term, and these were not issues that either you or the Social Democrats raised then. On the other hand, we have prioritized these issues together with the other Tidö parties.

When it comes to crime: If one has a wage requirement of 13,000 kronor, those who work for these low wages can quite easily end up within the illegal economy. If one has a wage of 13,000 kronor, one cannot support oneself in Sweden.

Therefore, it is strange that from the Center Party's side, one defends such a wage requirement, which is so low that people often end up within the illegal economy. That is how it is connected. If one raises the wage requirement, one gets a wage requirement where people can live on their wages and do not need to turn to the illegal economy.

Labor immigrants constitute 0.8 percent of the total number of employed in Sweden, and labor immigration is higher in the Stockholm area than in the countryside. I was truly amused when Member Cato spoke about the drängar from Syria who work in the countryside and that the green industries will collapse without the drängar who come from the Middle East and Asia. It is just made up!

If you go to the countryside, you meet people who can speak Swedish, who know the culture in the area and who know the area. It is such people who are often hired. It is not farmhands from Syria. Don't make things up now, Member Cato!

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I must say that I don't quite know where to begin. But I can start with that thing about us, the Social Democrats and the Centre Party, not doing anything. The investigation to which you today presented supplementary directives is the investigation that we commissioned and which is to look at fraud, crime and irregularities. I begin with this, for it was the first lie.

The second lie was that there are no labor migrants from third countries working in the countryside. That is not true. There is statistics on this. The member from Kristdemokraterna was even up there talking about the median wage for these groups.

I live alone in the countryside, and I know that there are many entrepreneurs in the countryside who are dependent on labor from third countries. That is the truth.

We do not need to have the same image of or the same view on the countryside, but it is clear that one can protect the people who do the right thing and the companies that do the right thing, in the countryside and in Malmö, Helsingborg, and Stockholm, while simultaneously tackling cheating, irregularities, and crime. But that is done, as said, with specific solutions to specific problems.

The investigation that the Tidö parties base their wage floor on establishes that a wage floor does not counteract fraud, irregularities, and crime. In that case, it becomes completely incomprehensible to me how one can say that one is doing this to counteract fraud, irregularities, and crime.

This is about something completely different. It is about the fact that you do not want people from other countries to come here and work, pay tax and contribute. I have no problem with that. It is good for Sweden and for Swedish companies. It is good for all of Sweden, even for the countryside.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to the debate!

Speaking of a previous exchange of remarks and Jonny Cato's feelings about being called red, we probably won't have any major debate about that, but a side note is that if one chooses to vote for social democratic prime ministerial candidates, vote against bourgeois prime ministerial candidates and form red constellations in, for example, SKR, one should probably accept that they are identified as a red party by other parties. If Jonny Cato and his party friends feel that they want to become bourgeois again, they are warmly welcome back.

I subsequently have two questions for Jonny Cato that I would very much like to have answers to.

Should I interpret Jonny Cato as that you do not want any wage floor or subsistence requirement at all, or do you identify 13,000 kronor a month as some kind of ultimate level that shall apply forever?

Then I wonder how the member views this matter of filling positions. When a position is to be filled, should it primarily go to a person who is already in the country, should it go to someone who is brought here from the other side of the planet, or does it not matter?

My assessment is that, in the first instance, one should fill Swedish jobs with people who are already here. Does Cato share that view, or does he have another?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! There was a lot to answer. We can start with the 13,000 kronor.

The Center Party believes that we should safeguard the Swedish model. It is the parties in the labor market who should set the wages. It should be industry-specific and collective agreement-based wages that apply.

No, we have been clear, and were also earlier, that 13,000 is a low salary and that we can imagine raising it. But it is a very large step to go from 13,000 to 33,000.

Who should be allowed to stay? Who should take the job? One can turn it around: Is it Arbetsförmedlingen, is it the Moderaterna, or is it the companies themselves that know who is best suited to perform the work that one wants to hire someone to perform? I believe it is the companies themselves.

Madam Speaker! This is my third debate in three weeks. This is the third time in three weeks that I have received a reply from someone from the government base where they want to talk about the opposition, how we are to put our basis together and whether we are red or not.

Often, one wants to shift the focus when one is having a very tough time oneself, and I understand that people on the side of the Tidö parties have that. It has been the abortion issue, and this weekend the government base here in the chamber became weaker. Let us keep the focus on the politics, not on who is red, who is a racist, or who will cooperate with whom after the next election.

I understand that you are worried about how you will manage to hold together this mandate period and therefore want to shift the focus to what will happen next. But let us focus on what is happening here and now, and what is happening here and now is that you are making it harder for companies to find the competence that is needed.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It is fantastically good if the member is of the same opinion as I, namely that we shall discuss what we are discussing here and now. This day we have stood and discussed a maintenance requirement of 26,500, let's say, approximately 30,000, say the Social Democrats. Member Cato has had quite a few views on these levels and said that none of them are particularly good. What I can understand from the member's answer is, however, that the Center Party thinks some form of maintenance requirement should exist, but one does not quite know what.

It becomes a bit strange to have the perception that everyone else is wrong and that one is right when one actually has nothing of one's own.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I am beginning to wonder if the new members of the SfU have read the entire investigation. Very few have a salary of 33,000 kronor, almost none. But I understand that it fits the rhetoric.

Centerpartiet thinks that it is the parties in the labor market who should decide the Swedish wage formation. We can imagine introducing a wage floor that is higher than 33,000 but which does not undermine the legs of the entrepreneurs who do the right thing. I think it is important that an investigator, in that case, looks at the exact level. It is better than doing what the government did today, that is to say, "killgissa" [guess] a little - excuse my English, Madam Speaker - and say that today we land on 26,560 kronor but next year we want to raise it to 33,200 kronor, we think, for some at least, but we cannot say which ones we want to exempt.

It is quite bold to stand here and say that we do not know what we want when, after the six-month period that the government has had as a trial period and which has now expired, you cannot give a single answer on whether you want to exempt the green industries or not. The only time I actually heard such a direction of intent was when the Christian Democrat member spoke today. I was pleased by that. But we all know that it is the Sweden Democrats who decide, so I hope that they share the Christian Democrats' view that the green industries should also be exempted.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with a brief historical reflection in order to explain why a new system for labor migration was introduced in 2008.

As we know, we had extensive labor market-related immigration during the post-war period. At that time, there were very few restrictions for those who wanted to come to us and work. The demand for labor was so great that many companies, especially within the metal and manufacturing industries, started recruitment campaigns all over Europe. In some large corporations, up to a third of the workforce could consist of immigrated employees.

This openness came under attack in the late 1960s. The trade union movement then demanded a stop to competing labor from abroad and received it. From the beginning of the 1970s and until 2007, our labor market was in practice completely closed to foreign labor. It was an extreme form of labor market protectionism that damaged our growth capacity in a time of increasing globalization where access to the right labor was a key factor in maintaining our international competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! Let me give an example of what this closed-door policy meant in practice. I take it from the partial report that the Committee on Labor Immigration, the committee that was to propose the new labor immigration policy, presented in 2005. According to the figures reported in that report, it can be stated that between 2000 and 2004, a total of 231,411 permanent residence permits were granted. Of these, it was less than 1 percent, or only 1,806, that were granted to third-country nationals for labor market reasons during these five years. On average 361 people per year, Madam Speaker - so closed was our labor market.

This almost completely hermetic closedness was a product of precisely the type of authority-based and fundamentally trade union-controlled labor market review that both Social Democrats and Left Party members now want to reintroduce.

At that time, the permit was to be applied for in advance from abroad from the Migration Agency, which in turn consulted the Swedish Public Employment Service, which in turn referred the matter to the relevant trade union organization. The result, Madam Speaker, was a labor immigration that came as close to zero as it was at all possible. Such an arrangement or any similar one would today be even more devastating for Sweden's capacity for development than it was before the new rules came into force in 2008.

Madam Speaker! The new system for labor immigration from third countries introduced in 2008 broke with the isolationist and anti-immigration policy and has made it possible for Sweden to receive a much-needed influx of labor. Between 2009 and 2022, around 230,000 people from third countries have received work-related permits in Sweden.

If we start from the Swedish Migration Agency's figures for 2022, we can state that almost half of these people work in managerial positions or occupations requiring higher education competence or also, as in the majority of cases, advanced higher education competence. That does not mean that it was only these people who made an important contribution to our country's prosperity.

The need for labor is multifaceted, and the system that came into force in 2008 enabled many jobs that would most likely not have been performed to be carried out. In other words, Sweden would have been poorer without the contribution of work and creativity that tens of thousands of labor migrants have given us during these 15 years.

We must not forget this, Madam Speaker, so that we do not paint an unnuanced and fundamentally false picture of the labor migration we have had since 2008 or, even worse, be tempted to relapse into the type of extremely protectionist and growth-hostile systems we had previously. Therefore, we can summarize by saying that the reformed system for labor migration, which was introduced in 2008, has on the whole been an absolutely necessary and, moreover, very successful measure.

At the same time, we must note two troubling circumstances. The first is that we have a significant untapped reserve of labor in the country, not least among many immigrated persons with a relatively low level of formal education who often end up in a dependency on benefits that is very harmful and costly for everyone.

The Swedish labor market has for long periods been characterized by a strange paradox: we have had record-high long-term unemployment combined with a record-high shortage of labor.

Importing labor for jobs that could be performed by people who today live in a labor market exclusion is, in principle, a questionable way to solve the need for labor. Sweden would be much better off in all respects if the exclusion regarding the labor market, but also socially and culturally, were to decrease.

Madam Speaker! The second troubling circumstance in this context is that in a good number of cases it has been observed that the current rules for labor immigration are being abused in various ways. The final report from the Inquiry on labor immigration is quite extensive in this regard.

The consequences of the abuse of labor migration rules and the exploitation of vulnerable persons that occurs today are serious for the individuals who are subjected to it, but also for other workers and for employers who are subjected to disloyal competition and wage dumping. Those who wish to take part in a more in-depth and shocking account of how this shadow society of vulnerability and exploitation functions should read Liza Alexandrova-Zorina's recently published book Imperiets barn.

Madam Speaker! If the abuse is not addressed, the trust in the entire labor migration system can be undermined. This is something the representatives for the parties that fundamentally propose unchanged rules, namely Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet, should reflect upon. In these parties' motions, there is talk of the need to protect the so-called green industries. That is noteworthy. But then one should propose special rules and exceptions for these industries and not a kind of status quo that de facto protects those who abuse the system and exploit foreign workers.

Madam Speaker! The Government is now preparing a number of important changes in this area. This concerns the implementation of the Riksdag's already made decisions to raise the income limit for granting work-related permits to third-country nationals, but also to investigate an entirely new system for labor immigration.

Important in this context are both the general income level, which shall correspond to the median wage in the country, and the exceptions that are required so that we do not affect certain sectors of our economy with unreasonable wage requirements.

At the same time, it shall be facilitated for highly qualified labor to come to and work in Sweden. It is extremely important for Sweden's competitiveness within high-tech industry and Sweden as a research nation to be strengthened.

In summary, Madam Speaker, we Liberals are fully committed to achieving a modernization of the rules for labor immigration where openness and flexibility are reinforced in those areas where Sweden needs a supplement of foreign workers. The main direction shall be to take advantage of and strengthen the many positive aspects of the reform introduced in 2008 and simultaneously rectify the aspects that can be regarded as problematic.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sweden and Swedish welfare are completely dependent on people from other countries working in our country. This applies to all foreign-born people who today work in elderly care, in healthcare, in childcare and in the business sector.

We have a huge shortage of labor. When I sat in the Education Committee during the previous term, I received invitations to speak with industry after industry about their challenges in finding competent staff. Their message then was: You politicians must ensure that more people receive the education they need to be able to handle the vacant jobs that exist.

It is very important that we equip those who are unemployed today with skills so that they can take the vacant jobs. But, Madam Speaker, even if every person who is unemployed in Sweden today received a job, we would still not be able to meet the need for skills supply that we face.

Recently, the Miljöpartiets parliamentary group was visited by the chief economist of Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner. She had a very pedagogical diagram where she showed how many teachers we will need in the future, how much the police are to grow according to the Riksdag's wishes, and how much the defense and other parts of the public sector are to grow. Already there, we are talking about so many people that there would not be people left to hire for all the companies that also say they need more competence to grow as much as they would like and are able to.

Madam Speaker! Even if we succeeded in the important task of equipping every unemployed person with the education required to take available jobs, we would still have a great need for labor immigration to our country. Sweden is, in this regard, not in as bad a position as the rest of Europe. We have a great challenge in our entire surrounding area.

An increasingly aging population - something that is fundamentally very positive because it means that we are all living longer, or are expected to do so and can hope for it - leads to an increased need for people of working age, i.e., people who can fill the needs in elderly care which will grow all around Europe but of course also in the rest of society.

This means that we in Sweden also cannot solve our need for labor immigration solely within the EU. Together with our neighboring countries and the rest of the EU, we also need to be attractive to people from other parts of the world who are seeking work. It is that part of the skills supply that is being debated today: the labor immigration.

From the perspective of the Green Party, it is very positive that companies, or for that matter the authorities or the welfare sector, can find the competence they need even outside the EU. It is positive that people who have competence and want to contribute and work in Sweden can come here and do so. That combination is positive.

We think it is unfortunate that from the government's and the Sweden Democrats' side, it is now being trumpeted out that they want to reduce all immigration - even that which concerns people who want to come here and work according to the conditions that apply in Sweden, Swedish collective agreement levels and all conditions that follow from the collective agreements. Even that they want to limit, among other things with the wage floor that they have announced today. 26,500 kronor is higher than the collective agreement levels in many of the occupations where there is a shortage today.

Just the other day, we heard about how the entire staff of an elderly care department in Boden were deported. The consequences of a policy that aims to deport people who work in Sweden, have jobs, pay taxes, support themselves, and contribute to the welfare will be felt. They will be felt in the elderly care in Boden when more people with dementia are to be cared for by fewer nursing assistants.

The consequences will also be felt in companies where there are currently people who, for example, earn 24,000 kronor a month - entirely in accordance with collective agreements - with the government's new wage floor, it is their staff who will be kicked out of Sweden. We in Miljöpartiet strongly oppose this kind of policy. It is bad for Sweden to implement that kind of proposal, and it is said that it is only the first step. They want to worsen things for even more.

Madam Speaker! There are deficiencies. There are criminals who exploit people. There are gaps to be closed. We need to tighten the sanctions. It must cost more for those who exploit. It must become harder to get away with and easier to detect abuse.

We need to ensure that those who come here and work receive a fair wage - not just on paper but actually also paid in the pay envelope. That type of measure counteracts what many have spoken about today. The general solutions will make Sweden poorer when we deport people who receive fair wages, pay tax and work in our country. The consequences of this policy will also affect many more. Children attending school are torn away because the parent earns 24,000 kronor in wages.

Madam Speaker! With those words, I move to approve Miljöpartiet's and Centerpartiet's joint reservation 2.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, the salary requirement for labor migrants will be raised from today's 13,000 kronor and at least doubled. But Miljöpartiet wants, according to its reservation, to retain the regulatory framework that exists today, where it is sufficient for a foreigner to earn 13,000 kronor to be allowed to come to Sweden as a labor migrant.

I must ask: Does the member seriously believe that a working person in today's Sweden will be satisfied with a salary of 13,000 kronor or even manage to survive on it? Then the member must also take into account the effects of inflation.

The median wage for a dishwasher in Sweden is approximately 16,000 kronor after tax. Why should one maintain a wage requirement that leads to people being able to come to Sweden and work for inhumanly low wages? The problem is that it does not end there. If one receives these low wages—or sometimes no wages at all, as is the case for some labor migrants—one turns to the illegal economy. This, in turn, leads to sources of income for criminal organizations. Why does Miljöpartiet want to maintain a wage requirement that in a very obvious way leads to suffering, not only for individual people but for the entire society?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today's regulations state that one should have a salary that one can live on. Those are the rules that we, together with the previous Alliance parties, have stood behind and want to uphold.

One should have a salary that one can live on. That level has been interpreted by the judges in a certain way. I agree that one can absolutely question – not least in light of skyrocketing inflation – whether it really is the correct salary level. But it is even easier to question the very arbitrarily set level of 26,500 kronor, because with that, one says that very many people who today have a lower salary by definition cannot live on it. I do not understand what basis one has for that.

The rule should be that if one has a job with fair conditions on par with Swedish collective agreements, a salary that one can live on, and a job that has been advertised in accordance with the existing regulations, one should also be granted a work permit and be allowed to work in Sweden.

I do not think we should throw out people - and their families - who work here today and who can support themselves on their wages. It makes Sweden poorer, and it is wrong towards these people.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! This sounds a bit strange, because Member Hirvonen does not want to raise the wage requirement by 13,000 kronor which is now to be raised. The Member speaks of reasonable wages even though she does not want to see such. 26,500 kronor sounds like a reasonable wage, while 13,000 kronor, which Miljöpartiet stands behind, is no reasonable wage. No one can survive on that in today's Sweden.

It is therefore strange that one is on the one hand against poverty and child poverty, but on the other hand wants a wage requirement for labor migrants of 13,000 kronor. It does not add up. Why should one at all bring someone from the other side of the world so that this person shall work for 13,000 kronor? It is not reasonable at all.

I believe that Member Hirvonen must explain why she supports such a low wage requirement. As I said before, it leads to people being unable to live on their wages, and instead, they turn to the illegal economy, which becomes a source of income for criminal organizations.

If MP Hirvonen does not stand behind an increase in the wage requirements, she must explain how people are to be able to live on 13,000 kronor, for it is this wage requirement that Miljöpartiet stands behind. If one is now against poverty and does not want labor immigration to benefit criminals, I wonder how one can stand behind a wage requirement of 13,000 kronor.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I believe that one must distinguish here between the regulatory framework on the one hand and the interpretation that the judges have made of the requirements on the other hand. The requirement is that one must have a salary that one can live on. We stand behind that. We do not think that politicians in the government should set arbitrary salary requirements that are much higher than what we normally consider what one can live on in Sweden.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament himself brought up Boden and the resignation of an entire healthcare department there. It does not feel particularly good in the stomach to hear such a description; we can probably all agree on that.

We in the Tidö Agreement group are now moving forward with a policy where exceptions can be made from the rules on supply requirements. There have not been any exceptions in the regulatory framework previously.

The new government's policy has not yet come into force, which means that the consequences up in Boden are a result of the old government's policy. It was the government that the member's party was a part of. I must therefore ask: Are the layoffs in Boden a consequence of your policy or the policy that the new government pursues?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have actually intended to contact them and ask, because a group that often risks ending up in this situation are asylum seekers who have been granted residence permits according to the upper secondary school act and who meet the requirement of having a permanent job today. Very many of them work within elderly care.

A new ruling from the Migration Court of Appeal has changed at which point the requirements must be met: from the day the case is being examined to both that day and a day long ago, when one's time-limited residence permit to seek work expired. Since I have not had time to investigate the example, I cannot answer whether the reason is the unwillingness of several Moderater to rectify this or if it is due to completely other things.

The reason I brought up the example was that what we now see in Boden will, with your policy, happen at workplace after workplace in Sweden. People who may have worked in Sweden for many years and who can support themselves on their wages will, with your proposal of a wage floor of 26,500, lose their right to work in Sweden. They will lose their jobs. The companies will lose their workforce. I think it is a huge problem.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It sounds as if the member is mixing up the cards considerably. We have a discussion here about labor migration, and we have presented a proposal for a maintenance requirement of 26,500 kronor. Then the member comes with arguments about an entire department being laid off in Boden, which one might, for that matter, think sounds devastating for this operation. But one cannot mix in that it concerns people other than labor migrants who would have been laid off due to the new government's regulations presented today at eleven o'clock.

The question remains. Is it our fault that they have been dismissed as labor migrants, or is it the fault of the previous government, of which Miljöpartiet was a part?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! What I want is that Sweden should not deport people who work here. People who support themselves on their wages should be granted the right to stay here. We will speak more about it in a few weeks when we are to discuss route changes, which concerns persons who perhaps first came to Sweden to seek asylum and then have obtained work here and support themselves through it.

Today, under certain circumstances, they have the opportunity to apply for work permits and residence permits based on work. That is something positive. We in Miljöpartiet want to prevent people who work here today from being deported, which will happen both by worsening the opportunities for switching tracks and by introducing arbitrary politically set wage floors. It will not only make it harder to recruit people in the future, but it will also hit a lot of people who work and support themselves in Sweden today.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! There are many residential areas in Sweden where not even half of the adults of working age living there are working and employed. Among the women, not least immigrant women, the situation is much, much worse. This situation, I think at least, cannot be tolerated.

What we do today and what we will do in the future through the wage floor is to send a very powerful signal to the employers in the public and private sectors that they must now make use of the reserve we have in Sweden. They shall not be able to take the easy way out of importing people to do the jobs that these persons with the right education could do if we invest in them.

What does the member think about sending the powerful signal that it is time to truly integrate these tens of thousands of people who are in exclusion in today's Sweden?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I dream of, and would truly welcome, the government making a massive investment in countering housing segregation and lifting foreign-born women through education so that more enter the workforce. I think that would be incredibly good.

Deportation of people who today work in Sweden and support themselves does not lead to that, but rather it leads to companies and other employers losing staff who are sometimes actually necessary in order to be able to employ people with lower education. At Svenskt Näringsliv's business days, I met such a company, which said the following: For every labor-migrant expert who operates the machines the company has in its factories, they can employ ten people in Sweden who do not have particularly long education. But they must be able to import these operators through labor migration, because we do not have enough in Sweden.

There is no contradiction between labor immigration and creating jobs for those who are already here; sometimes it is precisely the opposite. Sometimes it is precisely the case that it is by bringing in certain key competencies that it becomes possible to employ more people with lower education.

I believe that we must invest heavily in education, especially for women born abroad. Even though women born abroad work as much as women in Europe in general, we in Miljöpartiet want women born abroad to work as much as those born in Sweden.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I agree exactly with the member that certain labor - this concerns, for example, specialized workers and technicians, i.e., the key personnel, as they were just defined as - is very important for us to be able to hire many more. But these many more do not need to come from Africa, Asia or Latin America today, because they are already here.

We have had a policy of indifference. We have pushed people here in the country into exclusion. Already in 2004, we made an exclusion map. At that time, there were approximately 480,000 people living in what we then called – and what everyone today calls – exclusion areas. It has become worse and worse. It must end, and for it to end, we must invest in education, in the work line, and in making it profitable to work.

We must also create incentives for the employers to see these people. We need to understand that we will not have the labor force that we can currently import. It would do a great deal of good - not only for the entrepreneurs, who would certainly get very good labor, but above all for Sweden. Sweden simply cannot handle the exclusion we have. We have let it grow. It is time to change that and stop the exclusion.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Mauricio Rojas and I truly agree on much here, for example, that we need to put a stop to the large segregation we have regarding housing.

We also agree that we need to ensure that everyone gets access to Swedish language instruction. We need to ensure that we improve SFI, for example through the possibility of combining 15 hours of SFI with internship or vocational training, so that people can either study full-time or work and use the Swedish language while they are studying at SFI. I believe that there are some reforms that would equip more people so that they can enter the workforce faster. There are quite a few obstacles, not least for women, for example the difficulties in getting access to SFI while being on parental leave. There is a lot that needs to be done.

I think it is very problematic that a large part of the systematic work against segregation that was carried out by the authority that specialized in this, Delmos, was discontinued. There, one had a completely new, systematic approach. Previously it has been much more project-based, and it has not been persistent. We must instead work systematically within the school, adult education, and Swedish language instruction - and of course through matching against the labor market.

But none of these problems are solved by throwing out people who today work on the Swedish labor market and support themselves. That is not how we solve exclusion. It only makes Sweden poorer.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 May.)

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