Labor immigration

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Labor immigration is important for Sweden. Successful companies need and shall have the opportunity to recruit key competencies from Sweden, the EU, and third countries. Therefore, the government is investing in promoting high-skilled labor immigration, among other things through a mandate for shorter processing times at the Swedish Migration Agency. The Swedish Migration Agency shall prioritize employers who recruit high-skilled labor and make decisions faster in these cases. A complete application shall be processed within 30 days. That makes us second only to Finland as the fastest in the entire EU. It shall simply become easier to recruit and retain high-skilled labor.

Sweden has, however, for a long time had a very large labor migration to low-wage sectors. Approximately two out of three labor migrants today do not belong to any highly qualified occupational category. At the same time, we know that Sweden has the EU's third highest unemployment, approximately 400,000 unemployed. When it comes to the employment rate, Sweden has the third largest difference in all of Europe between domestic and foreign-born. Against this background, it is not reasonable that people come to Sweden from the other side of the world to, for example, clean and wash dishes, when there are people here who should be able to take those jobs, enter the labor market, and be integrated into society.

Furthermore, authorities testify that there is fraud, abuse, and even organized crime schemes linked to labor immigration. Persons who come here as low-wage labor immigrants have been assessed as a risk group for labor exploitation. People are exploited and suffer badly, quite simply.

There is therefore a need to tighten the conditions for labor immigration, and the center-right government is therefore reforming the system for a better balance with a greater focus on highly qualified labor.

Previously, Sweden had a maintenance requirement of 13,000 kronor for those who wanted to come here to work. It was far too low to prevent people from coming here to work without reasonable conditions. As a first step, the maintenance requirement for labor migrants was raised on 1 November 2023. The new maintenance requirement means that a labor migrant must have a salary amounting to at least 80 percent of the median wage in Sweden, today 27,360 kronor.

The next step in the government's work to tighten the conditions for labor migration was to, in accordance with the Tidö Agreement, investigate the issue of a more nuanced wage requirement. The investigation into a needs-based labor migration was therefore given additional directives in February 2023. The government's purpose was partly to tighten the conditions for labor migration with a new main rule regarding a wage requirement amounting to the median wage on the Swedish labor market, and partly to promote high-skilled labor migration. The assignment also included analyzing and taking a position on how a lower wage requirement for individual professional groups could be designed, as well as whether certain professional groups should be completely excluded from the possibility of labor migration due to extensive abuse.

The investigation's proposal was recently submitted, on February 15. The investigation proposes a requirement for a median wage with a possibility for exceptions for shortage occupations. Exceptions are also proposed to be made with regard to regional differences, that is, if there is a shortage of skills in a certain part of the country. In those cases where exceptions are made, the wage shall amount to the minimum wage according to collective agreements or practice within the profession or industry. According to the investigation, the Government shall be allowed to issue regulations on exceptions based on data prepared by Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket. The rules are proposed to enter into force on June 1, 2025.

The investigation also proposes a number of other things; I can go into some of them.

Newly graduated students and doctoral students who have come to Sweden to study often have lower incomes when they enter the labor market than highly educated persons with more work experience. To facilitate matters for these persons, the investigation proposes that they should be exempted from the wage requirement.

The investigation also proposes that foreigners who have completed a degree equivalent to a medical degree, nursing degree, or dental degree in another country and who apply for a work permit for the purpose of obtaining a job that requires a Swedish license should also be exempted from the salary requirement.

Within the green industries, many seasonal workers fall under the EU's seasonal workers directive. They are therefore covered by a completely different regulatory framework. The investigation proposes that the permit period for seasonal work be extended from six to nine months. This would make it easier to employ seasonal workers and is something that the green industries have requested.

As I was in, it is also proposed that the government should be allowed to issue regulations stating that certain occupations shall be completely excluded from the possibility of labor immigration due to extensive abuse. The investigation provides in its report a couple of proposals, namely to completely exclude the possibility for personal assistants and shelf stockers.

The wage requirement is one part, Mr. Speaker. The investigation also contains other proposals to tighten the system. Requirements shall be placed on a comprehensive health insurance for those who apply for a work permit. The investigation also proposes greater responsibility and more tangible sanctions for employers. A new reporting obligation for employers is proposed to be introduced, which means that an employer is obliged to report in writing to Migrationsverket if the employment ends or if the employment never begins.

The special sanction fee for those who violate the regulations and have a foreigner employed who does not have the right to reside or work in Sweden is proposed to be increased from one to one and a half price base amounts. For violations that have persisted for longer than three months, it is proposed that the fee be increased from two to three price base amounts.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the so-called "track change" system be abolished. This means that the possibility to apply for a residence permit for work and a work permit from within the country after a legally binding rejection of an application for a residence permit as a refugee or alternatively a person in need of subsidiary protection will cease. The track change system currently poses a risk that the asylum system is burdened by unnecessary costs if persons who lack grounds for protection apply for asylum in Sweden in order to gain access to the Swedish labor market via track change, which also reduces the system's legitimacy. The system should therefore be abolished.

At the same time, proposals are presented to facilitate the immigration of highly qualified labor, including that the permit period for those who have a so-called ICT or an EU blue card and are employed by a company outside the EU/EEA but will work at the company in Sweden is extended from two to four years. Relaxations are also proposed so that researchers and doctoral students can apply for residence permits for research or studies at a research level from within Sweden.

The investigation therefore contains a number of different proposals, Mr. Speaker. My hope is that we now, as the government proceeds with this, can establish a more nuanced regulatory framework that nevertheless sets higher requirements for those who wish to come here as labor migrants. The proposals will be sent for consultation and, of course, will be carefully analyzed.

Increased wage requirements mean that it will become more difficult to obtain work permits for certain occupations. There will be fewer mail carriers and fast-food employees coming to Sweden from countries outside the EU. But these are jobs that should be able to be filled by people who are already in Sweden. As I was mentioning, we have the EU's third highest unemployment and approximately 400,000 unemployed. In that situation, a large influx of low-skilled labor migration is not reasonable.

In order for these jobs to be filled, however, the labor supply must increase. The work line must be expanded. That is why the government is moving forward with major reforms to ensure that those who can work also do what they can to secure their own livelihood.

There will be a subsidy ceiling, so that it will always be worthwhile to take a job instead of receiving benefits. There will be requirements for activation for recipients of social assistance in order to break the passivity among people who are far from the labor market. In the longer term, those who are not Swedish citizens will need to qualify for the welfare state through work. This will significantly increase the incentives to take the jobs that are available.

I would like to take this opportunity to address some incorrect claims that have appeared in the debate. There have been a number of exaggerated figures, partly regarding how many are affected by a wage floor, and partly regarding the effects on GDP and tax revenues, which in some calculations appear to be exaggerated.

Since there unfortunately seems to be a misunderstanding among the employers out there, I also want to emphasize that the wage floor, that is, only applies to persons from countries outside the EU. It remains free to both recruit and retain labor that one has recruited within Europe.

The number of granted first-time applications for non-European labor corresponded in 2023 to less than 0.5 percent of the total workforce in Sweden. Of these, many have a salary above the intended wage floor.

Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner initially spoke of that 2,500-5,000 people in their sectors would be affected. SKR has now backed away from these figures and refers to Migrationsverket, which instead points out that there are approximately 800 active work permits with the regions as employers, of which 15-20 percent can be assessed to fall below today's maintenance requirements upon extension.

As an example, I can mention that 87 nursing assistants arrived in Sweden as labor migrants in 2022, and this is to Sweden's largest professional group with 180,000 employees. It is between the thumb and the index finger 0.3 nursing assistants per municipality. Still, there have been claims that hundreds of welfare workers would be affected in certain municipalities. I say this because it is important to keep the proportions in mind.

Many of the calculations made also do not take into account the social cost it entails for Sweden as a country that we have 400,000 people who do not go to work every day and who are largely supported by the public - by the taxpayers. It is something that both society and the entrepreneurs ultimately have to bear the cost for.

When the government now expands the work line, these people will to a greater extent be at the labor market's disposal. In addition, a model with exceptions for certain shortage occupations is proposed, as I was mentioning.

Another claim in the debate is that this would restrict the Swedish model. Let me emphasize that the Swedish model is important and that the requirements we are now setting do not affect the right of free negotiation between the parties in the labor market. There has always been a maintenance requirement for labor immigration in modern times. This is instead about under what conditions it is reasonable and justifiable for labor migrants from third countries should come here to work.

The number of employed persons in Sweden exceeds 5 million people. In 2023, 21,000 first-time applications for work permits were granted. This corresponds to less than 0.5 percent of the workforce, and only a portion of these are affected by the salary requirement. Taken together, the salary requirement is not expected to significantly affect wage formation in most industries.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: Labor immigration is extremely important for Sweden. Successful companies need to be able to recruit key competencies from both Sweden, the EU, and third countries. But it is reasonable to shift the focus towards more qualified labor and the labor that is most difficult to find in Sweden. It is unreasonable that two out of three labor immigrants to Sweden do not belong to a highly qualified professional category. This naturally also affects the processing times for those who want to bring in top-tier expertise.

At the same time as people come here to clean and wash dishes, we have 400,000 unemployed people who could take many of these jobs. With the changes the government is now making, we will get a more balanced and purposeful regulation of labor immigration to our country.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for the adoption of the committee's proposal in the report and the rejection of the motions.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. The Moderates called a press conference last week to talk about labor immigration and that it must be tightened. They are not entirely satisfied with the neoliberal system that they themselves introduced and which has given the power over the wage earners to the employers.

What they are proposing now is some kind of artificial respiration where unserious employers will still be able to bypass the regulatory framework and exploit wage earners. They do not even propose a reputation check of employers, damages to labor migrants who have been exploited, and so on.

The Moderates were supposed to bring order to Sweden. But on the labor market, they are creating disorder. A wage floor that is to rise to 34,200 does not solve the problems that exist on the labor market, and wages should primarily be set in accordance with collective agreements and the Swedish model.

Unserious employers will continue to be able to bypass the system by offering one salary on paper and another in reality. All those who lose their work permit and who, for various reasons, cannot go home when they receive a deportation decision will be pushed into undocumented status. It is, therefore, a matter of pushing out workers who are inside the systems and letting them move from white jobs to black jobs outside the systems. It concerns, to a large extent, workers who have long been established on the labor market and who have wages in accordance with collective agreements.

It is exactly in this way that this government creates tomorrow's undocumented people and deepens what it calls the shadow society. Why are the Moderaterna creating this disorder instead of dealing with the actual problems we have with labor immigration, that is to say, that we have unscrupulous employers who exploit employees?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for the question! It is obvious to everyone who has followed the debate that it is quite fragmented on the opposition side. Some do not want any regulatory framework at all, it seems, and some want to go even further.

From the government's side, the increased wage requirement is an important part of getting the system for labor immigration in order. But as I mentioned, the investigation to which we gave additional directives also proposes a number of other measures to address the fraud and abuse that unfortunately occur regarding labor immigration. This involves, for example, setting requirements for health insurance and tougher sanction fees or fees for the employer who hires someone they do not have the right to hire.

I would like to say that the proposals from the investigation that are now to be analyzed at the Government Offices can collectively contribute to bringing more order and clarity to the system. It is long-awaited. Although very large openings of the system have been made historically, we have for a long time pointed out that changes are required. During eight years with a Social Democratic government, which you supported, very little – not to say nothing – was done, except possibly at the end. The increased subsistence requirement that was recently introduced therefore needed to occur under a Moderate-led government because it took so long for the previous government.

To get order and clarity in the system to the benefit also of those who come here – that is what this government is putting forward. If there are any who suffer because there is no order and clarity, it is those people who come here and who are exploited under unreasonable conditions. It is also these people whom the authorities many times assess are victims of precisely labor exploitation.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The problem with the Moderates is that you punish wage earners from other countries, and not unserious employers. What you are putting forward is, of course, not sufficient.

The proposals in the government's investigation do not, for example, address the imbalance it entails that only the employee is punished if the employer breaches the employment contract. There are a number of measures that you do not want to take, and you let unserious employers go free. This is a system that makes it easy for unserious employers to exploit labor migrants. You do not want to address the problem in the Swedish labor market.

I will be completely frank and clear: The exploitation of labor migrants will continue even if the proposals from the investigation are sharpened and voted through here in the chamber.

If we are to have a fair system for labor immigration, we must reintroduce the authority-based labor market assessment. The question of shortage and labor demand shall be assessed by Arbetsförmedlingen in consultation with the parties in the labor market. Work permits shall be granted to the industries where there is a labor shortage.

Shouldn't the Moderates just say it as it is instead? You don't want a serious system. You have also had a long time to arrange a serious system for labor migration.

I must ask the question again. You are doing nothing about unserious employers in the labor market. One example is: If you are exploited and oppressed in the labor market today, you do not dare to step forward, because you will be deported. Then this is not addressed. How is one then supposed to step forward? It is completely impossible. One is in the clutches of unserious employers. That is the problem the Moderaterna do not want to address, because you have never stood on the side of the wage earners, regardless of whether they are from third countries or whether they are born in Sweden.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! On whose side did Tony Haddou stand during the eight years when the previous government essentially did nothing to change this regulatory framework? More is happening now regarding getting order and clarity in the system for labor migration than what happened during those eight years.

I have accounted for a number of different measures that I believe collectively will contribute to reducing the exploitation of people. The problem is that on your side of politics, there are several parties that either seem to want to go back to the 13,000 that was previously the requirement for one to be allowed to come here, or perhaps do not want a regulatory framework at all. It is actually a bit unclear, but it is obvious that it will be extremely difficult on your side to agree on how you want to see the labor migration moving forward.

Here we have a government - and four parties - that agree that we need to bring order and clarity to this system. A raised wage requirement is an important part regarding certain sectors where there is indeed a lot of exploitation and abuse. It should not be as easy to get here within those occupational categories. In addition, requirements are made for higher sanction fees for the employer who violates the regulations. There are requirements for health insurance, and there are a whole lot of other reforms that I believe collectively can contribute to bringing order and clarity, something that you did not succeed with during eight years.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! It seems to be important for Jessica Rosencrantz that we stick to facts and common sense in the debate. In that case, it becomes a bit strange to talk about a wage demand of 13,000 kronor, because in fact, there was previously a requirement for a salary in accordance with the collective agreement or industry standards. But if one worked part-time, one could end up lower. We can look at the year 2020. Then there were 142 people who had a salary between 13,000 and 14,000 kronor - just so we have that clear.

I must say that I am incredibly surprised that the Moderaterna are so tone-deaf in this debate right now. Industry after industry, employer organization after employer organization, and company after company have pleaded with the government: Do not do this! Do it over, and do it right!

The CEOs of Gröna arbetsgivare, Almega, and Visita wrote in Aftonbladet Debatt this week in connection with the new investigation:

"Our message to the government is clear: Scrap the investigation and listen to the employers whose operations are dependent on foreign labor. The immigration of labor is and has always been necessary for Sweden, our business life, our competitiveness and our prosperity."

My question is very simple: Will the Moderates take to heart the very clear criticism that the business community is now directing towards the government's proposal?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jonny Cato, for the question! The government takes the risk of labor shortages in certain occupations very seriously. That is also why the government is now proposing a more nuanced wage requirement or a nuanced model. It is indeed a requirement for higher wages generally, but there is the possibility of exceptions for, for example, shortage occupations. There is also the possibility of regional exceptions where the needs are particularly great, within certain categories.

We will, of course, have to analyze the investigation. It arrived only two weeks ago. It is to be sent out for consultation and carefully analyzed. But for us, it is important that there is a more nuanced design with the possibility of exceptions.

I maintain, just as I said in my speech, that labor immigration is extremely important for our country. It is important for companies to be able to find high-level expertise and talent. But it is quite unreasonable that two-thirds of those who come here are in low-wage sectors. In many cases, there are people here at home who should be able to take those jobs.

For society, politics and ultimately actually the taxpayers and the companies, we also need to take into account what it costs that 400,000 people do not go to work. Sweden has had a high immigration, and we have the third largest difference in employment between domestic-born and foreign-born. There is a mismatch here. It is clear that many of these jobs should be able to be taken by people who are here.

But it is extremely important that we are attractive when it comes to bringing in highly qualified labor. That is why the government has directed a mandate to the Swedish Migration Agency: They shall prioritize highly qualified labor. It shall take 30 days to receive a decision with a complete application. I believe it is important to inform about this. Many companies are struggling today with long processing times precisely because the Swedish Migration Agency is drowning in applications concerning very many occupational categories, and then the highly qualified labor is also affected.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I think it is something that is somewhat remarkable both now and in previous statements.

One must analyze carefully. One must take this to heart. But this is a very politically commissioned investigation. The same investigators investigated salary demands just two years ago and concluded that this does not solve problems with cheating, crime, and irregularities. This is a Tidö-commissioned product on exactly how it should be according to the Tidö Agreement, and the government must now take responsibility for it.

The second thing I object to is that people talk about low wages. 34,100 kronor - is that a low wage? In that case, more than half of the Swedish wage earners are low-income earners. I think the worldview perhaps needs to be re-examined a bit in that case.

Then there is this matter regarding the 400,000 who are unemployed. I agree that there are far too many in Sweden who do not have a job to go to, but then one needs to deliver concrete labor market policy. The Ministry of Employment is the ministry that has the fewest number of propositions during 2024. One of them we shall debate here tonight. It concerns the National Audit Office's report on Samhall. Then there is one remaining.

One must deliver proposals so that people can get to work. It is not the case that more people have a job to go to because one makes it harder for companies to bring in the competence they need.

I appreciate that Jessica Rosencrantz and the Moderaterna are opening up for many exceptions, but I have a simple question: Does the Moderaterna mean that it is the government or the companies themselves that best know where there is a skills shortage?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is simply not true that the government is doing nothing to increase the motivation to enter the workforce. I mentioned three examples of investigations currently underway to achieve exactly this.

It is about, for example, benefit ceilings and ensuring that it always pays to go to work compared to stacking benefits on top of each other. We are going to set requirements for activation for those who are recipients of social assistance in order to break the passivity of people and get them to approach the labor market. In the slightly longer term, it is about introducing a model with qualification for welfare through work, which also increases the incentives for work. These are just a few examples, but very concrete ones when it comes to precisely the incentives for more people to enter the workforce.

The government thinks it is important to set requirements for a minimum wage level, but beyond that, it is the companies that are free to decide whom they want to recruit. Your political friends on the left have always advocated for a different model - we just heard that from Tony Haddou, and we often hear it from the Socialdemokrater - where it should be political decisions or trade unions that are allowed to veto when it comes to people's right to come here.

Yes, we want to raise the floor and ensure that people receive a certain wage level when they come here and also a number of other conditions, but beyond that, it is the companies that shall decide. I find it a bit difficult to see how Jonny Cato will manage to get his side of politics to stand behind his system, which I, for the record, do not fully understand. In the Centerpartiet motions, one can read that something should be done to reduce the cheating, but it is a bit unclear what. We can discuss that at another time, but it is a bit tiresome to just complain about what is being done and not have any proposals of one's own.

We think it is important with labor immigration, but it should be shifted to focus to a greater extent on highly skilled labor immigration. For that, we are introducing a number of different measures so that it becomes easier to come here.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Once upon a time, we in Miljöpartiet reached an agreement with Moderaterna, Centerpartiet, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna regarding labor immigration that would give Swedish companies the opportunity to recruit the personnel they need. We in Miljöpartiet pushed very hard in those negotiations to also include mechanisms that make it difficult to cheat the system.

Today we are debating a number of proposals where I and my colleagues in Miljöpartiet have put forward sharp proposals that could address the cheating. People who come here from other countries to work in Sweden are sometimes treated in a slave-like manner.

The most important proposal we are putting forward concerns the fact that it is the one who exploits who should be punished, not the victim. If a company today exploits a labor migrant, it is the labor migrant who is punished with deportation if it comes to light. The company may lose its workforce, but there are cases where the companies are not affected at all because the employee has moved on.

We believe that the companies should be liable for damages in the same way as if they have rented out apartments at extortionate rents, and we think it is remarkable that the government speaks of their policy leading to reduced fraud. What it leads to is that masses of people will be deported who have never done anything other than worked and paid tax at honest companies. It is hypocrisy.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if there was a question from Annika Hirvonen, but I can state that she said that we once agreed on a different model – or however it was expressed.

I can only state that reality has changed since then, and quite a few parties have taken in how reality looks. I know that Miljöpartiet has not done so fully, and neither have all the other parties in the chamber. But many parties have taken in how it looks today. A large wave of migration to our country has put large parts of our society and our political and regulatory systems under great pressure.

In the rearview mirror, one can observe that Sweden could not handle the large reception, and austerity measures and changes in general have had to be made in migration policy. That conclusion has not reached Miljöpartiet, but it has reached Moderaterna and the government. We are implementing a number of different changes, both within migration policy in general and within labor migration. We see systems where people can come to harm, and where it is also not reasonable that one can come to Sweden and work under any conditions whatsoever. There is a contradictory situation where 400,000 people here at home do not have a job to go to. This is, of course, connected with the large migration wave with a large difference in employment rate between domestic and foreign-born. All of this we must address in a more purposeful way than the current regulatory framework has done.

Given the high tone from Annika Hirvonen, I become curious as to whether it is a future requirement for a Social Democratic government, in order to support it, that they do not proceed with the tightenings that the Moderate-led government is making now. It is obvious that Annika Hirvonen opposes the changes. Is it a requirement that will be placed on the Social Democrats in order to support them?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Government says that it improves integration to deport persons from Sweden who work, pay taxes, and contribute to the Swedish welfare. It is believed that those jobs should go to the group of people who are currently unemployed because they lack the education needed on the Swedish labor market.

There is such a great shortage of labor in Sweden today that those who have relevant education and competence are practically in jobs. If one wants those who are currently long-term unemployed to get into jobs, one needs to invest heavily in education. Then one needs to invest heavily in improving, for example, Swedish language instruction, not tear down folk education, which now reaches that group for whom the ordinary SFI has not worked.

I have spoken with companies that tell me that if they get an employee from Georgia with specialist expertise in the manufacturing industry, they can hire ten people from Sweden who do not have education.

The government does not see reality. The government will destroy the conditions for companies today to make the rational decisions that benefit Sweden, which lead to tax revenues and are good for those who can get a job.

To kick people out today and hope that those who are furthest from the labor market will be ready to step in is well naive. But honestly, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the government even believes in this themselves. I believe that this is yet another of all the concessions to the Sverigedemokraterna in order to simply throw out as many immigrants as possible.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Given the strong closing remarks, I assume that this will become a demand on the Social Democrats in any potential future government formation. It seems completely impossible for Annika Hirvonen to even consider agreeing to tighten the system around labor migration.

It sounds to me as if Annika Hirvonen is saying that we should give up on the 400,000 individuals who do not go to work every day. It is apparently completely impossible for them to enter the workforce. I do not agree with that analysis, but I believe it is extremely important for Sweden, for society, for the human factor, and for the individual to be able to enter society and be integrated. It is of the highest priority. Therefore, we have commissioned a number of inquiries and are now proceeding with proposals to increase the incentives to enter the workforce.

There are few things in the migration policy reorganization that the Green Party stands behind. But for us, it is important to get more order and clarity in our systems. It is important to have labor migration, but it is also reasonable to have labor migration to categories where it is most difficult to find the competence here at home. The matching to many sectors should be able to be improved here. It is still important that companies can get high-qualified labor and talents from all over the world here, but then there must also be reasonable and fair requirements on wages. Other proposals that we are putting forward here – requirements for comprehensive health insurance, stronger sanction fees for employers who violate the regulations – will collectively contribute to getting more order and clarity in the system so that Sweden can continue to attract competence and do so under reasonable conditions.

(Applause)

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is no doubt that Sweden needs to bring in the competence that we lack. Sweden needs a regulatory framework that meets the needs of companies and the public sector for labor. Labor immigration can help growth and development 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. Within these occupations, most of the problems with abuse of the system and exploitation of labor migrants also occur. At the same time, more and more people are becoming unemployed in Sweden.

We must address the problems with foreign workers who are exploited on the Swedish labor market and a system that contributes to insecure working conditions and wage dumping.

An important challenge is to continue to push down unemployment, especially among newcomers and the long-term unemployed. Jobs shall primarily go to unemployed people in Sweden, and we shall never compete with low wages and poor working conditions.

Mr. Speaker! That people come to Sweden to work is fundamentally a sign of strength for our country and for our economy. With the right regulation, labor immigration also contributes to a better functioning labor market, growth, and more new jobs.

But today's system, which was introduced in 2008, broke with the balanced model that served Sweden well for many years. It 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 Social Democratic-led government implemented requirements for binding employment contracts, tightened controls, and doubled sanction fees for employers who hire foreign labor without work permits. But more needs to be done. We must stop patching and repairing. It is high time to put a stop to the abuse, cheating, and exploitation that both affects individuals and feeds serious crime. It is high time for order and clarity on the labor market.

We Social Democrats want to reintroduce authority-based labor market screening in cooperation with the labor market parties. Labor immigration shall only be possible when it is not possible to find anyone in Sweden who can be employed. We also want to tighten the sanctions for companies that abuse the rules, and we want a raised subsistence requirement to strengthen the position of labor immigrants on the labor market. Wage dumping and exploitation shall cease.

We stand behind all our motions, but for the sake of simplicity, I move for approval of only reservation 1 in the committee report.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats write in their committee motion regarding labor migration that one "needs to tighten the regulatory framework for labor migration by swiftly introducing a maintenance requirement corresponding to 100 percent of the median wage in Sweden".

During the eight years the Social Democrats held power, between 2014 and 2022, they did not raise the maintenance requirement for labor migrants, so it is interesting that they now "promptly" want to raise the maintenance requirement to 100 percent of the median wage.

The Tidö Agreement requires that work permits should only be granted if the salary level corresponds to 100 percent of the median wage. It is interesting how quickly the Social Democrats were inspired by the Tidö Agreement. Even better would have been if, during the eight years they governed Sweden, they had used their power to raise the subsistence requirement for labor migrants.

Now the government and the Sweden Democrats are in the process of fulfilling the promises of the Tidö Agreement, and it is happening quickly. After less than two years in government, proposals have been put forward that there should be a wage requirement of 100 percent of the median wage. It is not difficult to tighten labor migration if the will truly exists.

I want to ask Member Leghissa why the Social Democrats abstained from raising the maintenance requirement for labor migrants during the eight years the Social Democrats were in power.

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

Yes, why did the Social Democrats refrain from raising the requirement? It was actually we Social Democrats who initiated an investigation into how to secure labor immigration and make it more sustainable. We did that last year. The current government added that the requirement for labor market testing should be removed.

What we have also done during these eight years, as I said in my speech, is to introduce requirements for binding employment contracts in order to grant work permits and requirements that companies must report to the responsible authority if the terms of the contract are worsened, tightened controls of work permits, doubled fines for companies that cheat, and subsistence requirements for family immigration.

We have also decided on a government bill regarding a raised wage floor for labor migration, which the Riksdag adopted on 30 November 2022, and we have appointed the investigation that I previously mentioned.

We need to get the Swedish labor market in order. It is our absolute conviction that we need to do something about it because people are suffering today, while at the same time we have unemployed people in Sweden who need to get jobs and security.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The problems that exist with labor immigration, everything from modern slavery to the use of people with disabilities as commodities to make money, existed during the eight years the Social Democrats were in power.

The investigation was commissioned close to the 2022 election, which meant that it was simply seen as some kind of electoral tactical move to win votes.

During eight years, nothing was done about these problems, so how can we now believe that the Social Democrats will actually do something?

You use the word promptly. You had eight years. These problems just grew and grew, and you chose to do nothing.

Now you have coalition partners who do not want any wage requirements or any increased subsistence requirements. How are you going to implement your policy with those parties?

I believe that the Swedish people need an answer from the Social Democrats, because one cannot write one thing in their committee motions before every election and every year and do something completely different once one is in power.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the Social Democrats owe the Swedish people an answer to this question. Why did you do nothing? Did you not see the problems? Will the Social Democrats in the future act according to what they say in their committee motions and according to what they say to people?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

I repeat what I said in my previous turn regarding safe working conditions. The Social Democratic government worked very much forward.

Then we cannot be satisfied, not in any party, when it comes to the exploitation and cheating on the labor market.

I want to remember that the Sweden Democrats were the party that pushed for this regarding the regulated labor market assessment. It was an important issue for the Sweden Democrats. But now they have shifted on that issue. I actually find that very amusing.

It is strange that the member's party is against the Swedish model. The Sweden Democrats claim to stand on the side of the wage earners, but what happened to that? Today we have a healthcare crisis, a welfare slaughter, and deteriorations in the unemployment insurance, and who knows what will happen with the sickness insurance? How did it happen, and how will it be? I would like to say that the Sweden Democrats owe their voters an answer. They have also contributed to putting a stop to housing construction, which creates unemployment in Sweden. How then does one protect Sweden's unemployed, which is very important?

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I was a bit shocked when I heard the Sweden Democrats. On the issue of labor migration, no party has hit the wage earners as hard for as many years as the Sweden Democrats. It came as a shock, because they want to get into the good graces of the business community.

We need a serious system for labor immigration. In that case, we need to reintroduce the labor market assessment, and I am very pleased that the Social Democrats are driving this in opposition.

I share much of what the member said in their speech, but it is incomprehensible that the Social Democrats, just like the government and the Sweden Democrats, want a high wage floor. In their motion, they are not satisfied with 27,000 but want to go up to 100 percent of the median wage, and we can probably assume that is where they will land, i.e., at 34,000. They want to make people who work here deportable despite collective agreement wages and conditions.

A high wage floor comes with a high price of consequences. Besides interfering in wage formation, it becomes deeply unequal because female-dominated occupations have lower wages to a greater extent than male-dominated ones. It also pushes people into undocumented status. It affects those with work permits who work within, among others, the welfare sector and in the municipalities and regions that have major problems with the supply of skills.

Social Democratic municipal and regional councillors, especially in northern Sweden, have openly protested against the wage floor because they need and care about their staff in the welfare sector. But the Social Democrats in the Riksdag want a high wage floor.

A high wage floor does not solve the problems we have with crime in the workplace or the exploitation of migrant workers.

How do the Social Democrats view the consequences that follow from a wage floor? Does it correspond to your expectations? What do the Social Democrats say to their own municipal councilors and regional councilors in northern Sweden who say no to the wage floor?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Haddou for the questions.

The maintenance requirement is an important part of how we tackle the unserious labor migration and the exploitation of people, but it absolutely needs to be done more. The maintenance requirement is necessary in a shorter perspective, but in the long term, it is not sufficient to get order on the EU's most liberal legislation for labor migration. It is also why we want to reintroduce a government-led labor market assessment, and it is very important that the labor market parties get to participate in it.

In the short term, it may be necessary to raise the maintenance requirement in order to clearly change the direction of labor immigration to Sweden, from largely being about low-wage jobs with poor working conditions to primarily being about occupations where there is a shortage of certain skills and which cannot be solved in any other way. The focus must at all times be on ensuring that wage dumping and exploitation disappear. We need to have the human being at the center. In the long run, we can imagine a certain amount of labor immigration at wage levels that are below the median wage in Sweden, but only in occupations and sectors where there is order and where the parties in the labor market agree that there is a shortage. They can work it out themselves – the Swedish model, quite simply.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds good, but the tragicomical thing is that in addition to all the consequences I listed, the wage floor serves to round off unserious employers, which exposes wage earners to greater risks and exploitation. The problem with the wage floor is that it doesn't solve anything, but the only thing it does is make people who work here with wages in accordance with collective agreements and have their families in Sweden deportable. It is completely incomprehensible that the Social Democrats are taking this line.

Many of them also work within the welfare sector, a sector that is already understaffed and underfunded today and where forecasts indicate that thousands more employees will be needed in the future. In Boden Municipality, staff within elderly care are receiving deportation orders. Staff on an entire care ward are disappearing due to the wage floor. It is not just repairable. For example, assistant nurse is a shortage occupation in Sweden. Many municipalities and regions are struggling with the supply of skills.

The government, the Sweden Democrats, and the Social Democrats have been blinded in their eagerness to deport people. The only effect of the wage floor is to make people deportable. It is only to be lamented that the Social Democrats continue on this line. I have a correction: the Social Democrats were actually ahead of the Sweden Democrats with a wage floor during the last parliamentary term. I can only regret it, because it solves nothing but only makes people deportable.

It would be good if the Social Democrats could stick to means-tested labor immigration through labor market testing so that we get a serious and fair system. Let people who have wages in accordance with collective agreements, have their families here and have established themselves in Sweden stay.

(Applause)

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! We need to have secure and fair conditions on the Swedish labor market. The Swedish model must be followed fully, and therefore we say that there can be some flexibility when it comes to the wage floor. But it must be the parties in the labor market who agree on the measures.

This with labor immigration and people's vulnerability is not easy. It is not an easy issue to handle. But we believe in our proposals, and we believe that it is best for the individual and also for Sweden. Labor immigration is an asset for Sweden, but it must take place under organized forms. We want order and clarity in the Swedish labor market.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Leghissa for the speech.

The Social Democrats are aligning themselves closely with the government's policy in many areas. It is exactly as the member said that late in the previous government period, the government started work on preparing a basis for changing the rules for labor migration. The Riksdag made a decision during the autumn of 2022, and the Social Democrats were part of that. The government has now presented a decision on a wage floor of 80 percent, so my first question is: How do the Social Democrats view the current situation with a wage floor of 80 percent?

In the reservation, it states that the Social Democrats want it to be 100 percent of the median wage in the long term and fewer exceptions. I assume that the Social Democrats have at least managed to skim through the investigation with proposals based on the Tidö parties' direction. There are models there for how one could handle 100 percent of the median wage. Is it the case that the fewer exceptions the Social Democrats are talking about are fewer than in the investigation's models? It would be interesting to hear.

I want to ask a closing question: In connection with the effort to get 400,000 into work, which we on the government side see as important, there are proposals for, for example, subsidy ceilings and qualification for welfare. Have the Social Democrats also here aligned themselves closely with our proposals, or are there other proposals to get these 400,000 into work, which could take many of the low-wage jobs that labor immigration concerns today?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions. We want fewer exceptions. We want it to be settled with the labor market parties, entirely in accordance with the Swedish model, if it is the case that there is a need for it, where there is a shortage. That question must be owned by the labor market parties. We will have every reason to debate the investigation in the chamber ahead. A report will eventually be produced.

When it comes to getting 400,000 into work - yes, Mr. Speaker, we have a government that helps drive up unemployment. We have a healthcare crisis where there are many layoffs in almost all regions. We have a welfare system where they are cutting back on healthcare, school, and elderly care, for example. That makes the working conditions worse, you get fewer colleagues, and people are forced into layoffs there as well. We have a construction crisis where people are thrown into unemployment as investments in housing construction were removed. To that, the intervention on adult education must be added. Adult education has had great importance for people's integration. It is that glue that holds society together. The class divides are also increasing. It is not fat to be unemployed; you do not get healthier because you become poor when you are sick.

This is a signal that I am giving to the member. Think about that instead!

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Leghissa, even though the answers to my questions were not crystal clear.

I can state that the Social Democrats left their period in government quite quickly. It is easy to say that the current government has managed to cause such chaos in a year, but I want to remember that the minister during the previous mandate period from the Social Democratic side stood here in the chamber significantly later and said that all the unpleasantness and all the problems were due to the previous government.

I believe that one should also be a bit self-critical from the Social Democrats' side on all these areas. In many regions, it is actually S government.

Unfortunately, I did not find many answers regarding getting 400,000 into work, but it is fortunate that the government is taking the baton and moving forward with the proposals.

But I would like to ask a final question. We have already during the exchanges here seen that the opposition perhaps cannot even unite in a common reservation on any point, and that it varies not just a little, but quite significantly, between the different parties that might consider cooperating in a future government. I would like to ask Member Leghissa, based on the exchange, the work in this area, and the almost ultimate demands that have occurred on this: How does the Member view the possibility of creating an S-led government together with the other parties? There is the entire spectrum from a fairly strict – and which I think is good – immigration and migration policy from the Social Democrats to considerably looser lines, looser contours, and perhaps lower-set rules. Does the Member see that one can create a consensus in migration policy? That is something both the Riksdag and the voters would probably like to know.

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the member is curious about how we in the opposition will unite ahead of the 2026 election. But the member will have to wait. It is up to our party leaders to deliberate on that. We will likely provide an announcement when the time comes.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is always pleasing when many want to talk about the Green Party's policy, and that is actually what I intended to do as well. It stands out a bit because I, unlike previous debaters, actually represent the policy that is the Green Party's.

I wanted to ask how it is that the Social Democrats have not stood behind our well-elaborated and well-thought-out proposals that would actually strike against those who exploit people in the labor market. These are, for example, the proposals to ensure that it is not the one who is being exploited who is punished with deportation and has to pull the children out of their schooling in Sweden if it turns out that the person has been exploited and, for example, received too low a wage or too poor conditions.

I truly believe that it is important to change this logic. Today, workers who are exploited are held almost hostage. They do not dare to report it, and they do not dare to demand their rights. The price is that they lose the opportunity to work and continue the life they have established in Sweden.

We in Miljöpartiet think instead that it is those who have exploited who should be punished. That is the logic in the rest of society: The one who makes money from extortionate rents shall be liable for damages retroactively, and the one who commits a crime receives a punishment, not the crime victim. I simply wonder why the Socialdemokraterna have not stood behind the proposals that we have put forward, which would actually tackle the fraud.

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! It feels strange to stand here, as I think the member could have spoken with us beforehand. But I will nevertheless address the example the member raised – to ensure that it is not those who are being exploited who are punished.

In our committee motion, we write exactly that we want to "increase the pressure on unserious employers and introduce tougher preliminary checks of companies that apply for permits for labor immigration. Workers who are exploited or affected by employers who misconduct themselves shall have the right to damages."

We want to increase the sanctions for those who misbehave. That is our underlying purpose. We cannot have it this way. People should not be exploited and subjected to [harsh conditions] in working life.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is very pleasing. It sounds a bit like from Zara Leghissa that if we talk to each other, perhaps next time we will see the Social Democrats back up our proposals. That would be incredibly pleasing. I have not been spoiled with that, I must say, in the migration policy debates, so it is an incredibly positive message.

In all seriousness, I want to say that this is what we must do. For the proposals on raised wage floors that are being presented now by the government, they are being cut down by practically all instances. I stood on a stage with a moderate, the chairman of LO, and a representative for Svenskt Näringsliv, and we were three against one who said: The wage floors do not solve the problems. Those who cheat will continue to cheat. They can write a new figure on the paper, such as 34,100. It is what happens in reality that is what is interesting.

The serious employers will be hit hard by these proposals and lose their workforce. People who have never done anything other than work, pay tax, and contribute to the Swedish welfare will be affected by being uprooted from Sweden, having their children pulled out of school, and being deported from the country. The fraudsters, on the other hand, can continue to cheat unhindered with these wage floors.

I think it is central that we focus our efforts on bringing to justice those who are unserious and that we do not, in the long run, obstruct the fantastic industrial revolution that is now taking place in northern Sweden and which is dependent on labor in all categories and at all wage levels.

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with Member Hirvonen that it is not just about one thing, but we in our party believe that there are many things that need to be done and many parts that are important.

Something that one also needs to consider is that politics should not set wages. One also needs to think about the fact that incentives are needed to tackle the wage discrimination that exists within different industries today.

As we know, the public sector is financed by, among other things, tax money, and therefore support to the municipalities and regions needs to be strengthened. One also needs to think about control. To counter fraud and pure work-life crime in workplaces, various agencies have been given a mandate, and they are now working with different measures to see what constitutes a criminal act and so on. It is also a very important part that needs to continue.

Last year, tragically, 65 people lost their lives at work. Some of those people who passed away so tragically were labor migrants. The number of deaths has increased, but we must remember that every year approximately 3,000 people die because of work, because it is strenuous. In that case, one also needs to provide incentives to create safer working conditions and a better work environment.

There are many pieces of the puzzle that form a whole where we together need to make good politics with the human being in focus.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Zara Leghissa, for the speech!

As is usual in migration policy, the opposition is completely split. Three out of three coalition parties have, in this debate, criticized the Social Democrats for wanting a raised maintenance and wage requirement.

The Social Democrats want to go further, says the member, and introduce a labor market assessment and also give the union, among others, a veto right when it comes to who should be allowed to come here as a labor migrant. The truth, Zara Leghissa, is that you had eight years to implement the changes.

The bill that the Social Democrats submitted regarding a raised subsistence requirement came so late that it was passed here in the Riksdag under a Moderate-led government. It was certainly because the Social Democrats were dependent on the Green Party, the Left Party, and the Center Party, who said no.

I think it is important consumer information for the voters to know what would happen if the Social Democrats were to win the next election. Can you promise that a tightened regulatory framework for labor immigration will remain in place after the next election if the Social Democrats were to take power with the support of, among others, the Center Party and the Green Party?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

I understand that there is a curiosity about what policy will be pursued going forward. We are an association and a party where we always need to hold up a finger and reflect on what is happening in our society and our surrounding world, and thereafter, based on this, we need to conduct a policy. I think that is sound. I think that is being in reality. We need to have this scanning of the surrounding world around us and thereafter design policy based on the needs of the Swedish people and so on. For us, this is important.

We stand by the policy and the proposals that we have put forward. We will also debate the investigation. We think there are good things in it but also less good things that we are against. It is exactly as it should be.

It is a sign of freshness that we are allowed to think differently in our different parties. We stand for different things. This is a sign of health and a part of democracy.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

The party leader says that she can understand that there are those who wonder what policy the Social Democrats will pursue. It is, after all, the point of political parties that you know what you get if you vote for a certain party.

If I interpret the Social Democrats correctly, they want to reserve the right to put a finger in the air and see which way the wind blows. One can stand for that, but I still wonder: Is there any red line for the Social Democrats? Can they, for example, imagine going back to the previous regulatory framework, with a requirement of 13,000 for people to be allowed to come here and work? Is this something they can imagine compromising on with their coalition partners?

I can, to some extent, understand the member's answer, that it is about a number of parties having to talk to each other. The history in the migration policy area is, however, very clear: When the Social Democrats are to gather a majority together with their coalition partners, they are three or more, and then the Social Democrats will yield. It becomes very clear there that the Social Democrats are only for a strict migration policy when they are in opposition.

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats stand for freedom, equality, solidarity, justice, and the equal value of all people. This is the foundation of what the Social Democrats stand for.

It would be strange if we were not to say that we need to sense our surroundings and what is happening in the world around us. Politics needs to be changed and improved based on that. This is nothing strange, but one needs to start from how reality looks and be able to look ahead. One cannot shut oneself in a bubble, just keep going and be tone-deaf to reality and the world around us and how it looks.

One must listen to the needs of the municipalities and regions when it comes to state support. One must listen to people who are on sick leave or unemployed: Benefit ceilings do not make people healthier, they instead make people poorer when they receive reduced compensation.

We need a labor market policy that puts the human being in focus and that reduces the need for labor immigration so that we can get everyone who is unemployed in Sweden into work. This is very important, and it carries Sweden forward.

The Swedish model, where trade unions and employers reach agreements, has carried Sweden forward and is why we are where we are today, as we have the green transition and people reach agreements on the steps. The jobs, the jobs, the jobs!

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are working together with the government to reform the regulatory framework for labor migration.

The maintenance requirement, which previously stood at a sum as low as 13,000 kronor, has been raised to 27,360 kronor, which is 80 percent of the median wage. A report now proposes that the maintenance requirement should be converted into a wage requirement of 100 percent of the median wage, which in 2022 corresponded to 34,200 kronor.

This is a regulatory framework that covers citizens from a third country outside the European Union. It is important to remember this in the debate. The restrictive regulatory framework does not apply to labor immigration from the European Union, where there is free movement of labor.

Approximately half of the labor migrants who came to Sweden in 2022 had a salary below the median wage. On the other hand, it is important to remember that not even 1 percent of the workforce in Sweden is made up of labor migrants from third countries. This means that the regulations that are now being tightened do not affect even 1 percent of the workforce in Sweden.

Those who predict some kind of dystopian scenario if we tighten the regulations surrounding labor immigration will be wrong. This is about returning to a regulatory framework where Swedish youth and other people seeking their first job or wanting to re-enter the labor market do not have to compete with the entire world. It is sufficient that they compete with the labor force within the European Union. Why should Swedish youth have to compete with people from India or Bangladesh for low-wage jobs? We must have a regulatory framework that prioritizes the prosperity of the Swedish people.

Today we have approximately 350,000 able-bodied people who receive benefits and other social compensations instead of working. This means losses of tax revenues that could have strengthened the welfare. These people must return to the labor market, and they should not have to compete with the world's entire workforce when they seek to return to the labor market.

Those who criticize a stricter regulatory framework regarding labor immigration ignore certain prerequisites that require a stricter regulatory framework. It is obvious that someone living in Lebanon, a country that is on the way to collapsing, is willing to work in Sweden for a lower wage than the wage that a Swedish citizen would accept. It is obvious that someone living in Uganda sees labor immigration to Sweden as their chance to come to a country with more opportunities. Consequently, this labor immigrant is prepared to accept a lower wage than what a Swedish citizen would accept.

This is partly about the companies' competence needs. But we must also see all the people in Sweden who are forced to compete with labor migrants coming from countries where people want to get to Europe at any cost. At any cost means, in this case, a lower wage that Swedish workers are not willing to accept.

Labor migration shall strengthen Sweden and not lead to us having large groups in this country who live on benefits and social compensations instead of working. Labor migration shall not lead to wage dumping. We cannot have a labor migration that worsens integration by having newly arrived immigrants have to compete with future immigrants for the low-wage jobs. This is exactly what happened with the generous regulations that applied during the government period of the so-called workers' party Socialdemokraterna.

No one denies that the skills shortage is a problem. This skills shortage exists, by the way, throughout Europe. Therefore, some parts of the proposed regulations regarding labor immigration will be exemptions from the wage requirement. If there are occupations where it is judged that there is a need that cannot be met with labor in Sweden, or occupations where it is judged that there is a need that cannot be met with labor in a certain part of Sweden, the wage requirement will not apply to these occupations.

When it concerns shortage occupations, lower maintenance requirements or wage requirements will apply instead. The basis for which occupations are shortage occupations will be prepared by Migrationsverket with the support of Arbetsförmedlingen. Naturally, the parties in the labor market shall be given the opportunity to comment in this process.

There will also be occupations where labor immigration will not be possible. It concerns occupations where the abuse of the system for labor immigration is so extensive that the occupations should be excluded from the possibility of being granted work permits. It is obvious that there will be occupations where, at certain times, a need will arise to prohibit labor immigration when the industry has completely lost control over the abuse and the fraud.

Some lobby organizations and parties argue that employers should be able to recruit exactly whom they want from across the entire globe without any real requirements being imposed. That is one way to think about it. But it is also the state's duty to protect people from being subjected to various forms of abuse. When a generous labor immigration has resulted in people with disabilities being used as commodities, we must have a regulatory framework in place that gives a certain level of control back to the authorities.

To the companies that are critical of this, I want to say a few words. Apart from the abuse that has occurred, most Swedes are shocked that the maintenance requirement for labor migration has been as low as 13,000 kronor. Swedes in general are surprised that people from Asia have come here to take the low-wage jobs when so many in Sweden are on benefits. In other words, there is no significant support for the extremely generous labor migration policy that brought in cheap labor that Swedes would have to compete with.

There are small parties with an extremely liberal agenda that want to bring back the old regulatory framework. But it is obvious that this regulatory framework harmed both Sweden and the labor migrants who came to Sweden to work.

The new regulatory framework that will soon be in place will work for the business sector but also strengthen Sweden. It is a regulatory framework that has the support of the Swedish people. It will therefore be rules that hold and that the business sector can rely on for a long time to come. While this regulatory framework is being put in place, several other reforms are being implemented to create the strongest incentives ever so that those who today receive grants and social benefits shall seek work and be prepared to move to where the jobs are.

The Social Services Act and other relevant legislation shall be tightened so that all municipalities in Sweden impose equivalent and clear activity requirements on those who receive social assistance due to unemployment. We will establish an order where non-citizens will need to qualify for social insurance benefits and financial assistance. This means that migrants who come to Sweden shall be allowed to work from day one. A foreigner who does not work will not feel welcome in Sweden. A benefit ceiling will be developed so that it pays to work instead of receiving benefits. Welfare Sweden will be shut down, and benefit recipients will be forced out into the labor market.

All this will complement a strict policy for labor immigration.

Some companies that have relied entirely on cheap labor from third countries will need to transition. It is not a sound business idea. Companies cannot rely on a regulatory framework that enables unreasonable labor immigration from countries outside the EU. These companies must transition and pay reasonable wages to attract domestic labor.

But again: labor immigration from third countries constitutes less than 1 percent of the total workforce in Sweden. For most companies, the reforms regarding labor immigration will be painless.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish model is not threatened by these reforms. There have always been requirements to come to Sweden as a labor migrant. Now we are raising these requirements for labor migrants who want to come to Sweden from countries outside the EU. If one wants to come to Sweden from countries outside the EU and work, one may not take the jobs that are intended for Swedes who already have a vulnerable position on the labor market, that is, the low-wage jobs. Higher requirements also lead to that Sweden will attract qualified labor migrants who will not be exploited by criminal actors and other fraudsters.

The parties that oppose this are the parties that have always tried to deregulate immigration. They are parties that have stood behind refugee amnesties. It is a party whose previous party leader wanted Sweden to receive 30 million immigrants. They are parties that want more immigration all the time without considering Sweden's interests.

The Sweden Democrats and the government bring sanity and common sense back to labor immigration. It will be a labor immigration that benefits the Swedish people and not criminal actors. It will be a labor immigration for the serious companies that rely on value creation and not for the unserious companies that rely on cheap labor from abroad.

We do what is best for Sweden. Those who are unemployed shall receive greater incentives and opportunities to obtain jobs, while labor immigration will be greater within those occupational groups where there is a skills shortage in Sweden. Now we set reasonable requirements for a reasonable labor immigration - for Sweden's best.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats got very much through in the Tidö Agreement, but the price has turned out to be that ordinary wage earners in the labor market are repeatedly being cheated.

It was said that no deteriorations would be made in the unemployment insurance fund, and then one turned completely around and intends to have lower compensations for those who have been unemployed for a long time.

The Sweden Democrats want to squeeze the unemployed into the labor market by threatening with lower benefits without any tools whatsoever to get more people into jobs. On the contrary, they cut back on placement services and labor market training and have no active labor market policy at all.

In the question regarding labor immigration, it was said that we should have labor market testing so that Swedish workers are not competed out. Then they turned completely around, blew off the LO members and adapted to the right-wing parties and the business community.

One completely and utterly sided with the Moderaterna and the rest of the right. It was apparently more important to get into the good graces of the business community than to stand up for the wage earners in the labor market. Now the Sverigedemokraterna are placing all the power in the employers' hands, and time and again, the wage earners on the Swedish labor market have been blown off.

Is there anything else that is being lied about that the member can tell here and now, so that Sweden's benefit recipients can avoid being cheated again?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Tony Haddou for the question – if it was a question.

When it comes to the employers, there are certain parties here who say that the employers are upset because we have gone against the employers' interests and so on, and then there is another party - namely the members' - who say that we are sitting on our knees for the employers. I am getting a bit confused. Which is it? What have we done? Are we on the employers' side or are we against them? I don't quite understand. I shall look into this and see what the employers think.

I have, however, not delved into what the employers think, as they are one of many interests. We stand on the side of the Swedish people here. An order was needed for the labor immigration so that ordinary Swedes get the opportunity to get their first job and so that newly arrived immigrants can enter the labor market.

When it comes to us having blown ordinary wage earners, it is not serious to throw out such platitudes in a debate like this, Mr. Speaker. One must explain what one means.

When it comes to the unemployment insurance fund, this may not be the right forum to have that debate in, but I do not quite understand what the criticism is against that proposal. This is, however, as said, not the right forum to have that debate in.

Unemployed people belong in the labor market. We must have more reforms to get the unemployed into the labor market. Of course, we will support these reforms, especially the reform regarding qualification for welfare. Migrants who come to this country should not enter into benefits, but they should try to get a job – preferably from day one. That is what we support.

I did not really see the criticism of our policy in Member Haddous's post.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Then perhaps the member could leave the Riksdag and head out to workplaces to meet wage earners. Then perhaps he would know what is happening. I am shocked when I hear that the party which is the largest in the government support says it does not even know what is happening. It is completely incomprehensible. One sits in power, but one does not know what the employers are saying. That is what the member says here.

Nor even regarding the unemployment insurance fund does the member know what has happened. He says that the debate should not be conducted here, but it is precisely here that it should be conducted. The Sweden Democrats intend to give lower compensations to those who have been unemployed for a long time. It is the Sweden Democrats' policy, and it is the biggest deception in Swedish politics right now. It is completely incomprehensible that the Sweden Democrats pretend as if nothing is happening.

When it comes to the employers, we can look at municipalities and regions. Nursing assistants are a shortage occupation, and it is incredibly difficult to recruit new ones. The nursing assistants are losing their jobs and work permits because of you, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, and there are many municipalities and regions that do not even have the possibility to recruit new ones. A major reason for this is that the Sverigedemokraterna are moving forward with a wave of cuts across all of Sweden.

This is the problem: You are destroying Sweden, destroying it for the wage earners, and standing here pretending it isn't raining. I don't know what is happening, says the member. When it comes to labor immigration, you in a government position are therefore doing nothing about the exploitation on the labor market, nothing about the wage dumping, nothing about the unfair competition, nothing about the crime in the working life, and nothing about the cheating. Not a single proposal is made to put unserious employers behind bars.

Workers will continue to be exploited, and what has been made very clear is that one will never offer security or better conditions and wages for workers. If one seriously wanted to rectify the problems in the labor market, everything from wage dumping to the exploitation of workers, one would have demanded that it be done. However, it was more important to get into the good graces of the business community, so one threw Sweden's workers under the bus and blew off all LO members. Then one stands here in the Swedish Riksdag and pretends not to know what has happened.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to listening to the employers: the Sweden Democrats are not at the mercy of the employers, nor are we against them.

This week I had a meeting with an industry organization. You sit there and listen, but it is not that you listen one hundred percent to what they have said - as some of the members in this chamber do. Instead, you listen in and see where the problems are, that is, how the report and the proposal for legislation can clash and create problems for certain people. You listen in, and then you try to solve the problem.

When it comes to labor shortages: Please mention the figures! Less than 1 percent of Sweden's total workforce is made up of labor migrants from third countries, who are the ones affected by these proposals. The opposition has spoken about this as if different industries are going to collapse. That will not happen. What these proposals will lead to instead is that we get a highly qualified labor immigration, but also that those who today lack work will enter the labor market and have a reasonable chance of getting a job. That is what will happen.

When it comes to the abuse and the cheating, I assume the member knows that legislation is normative. If one has a higher wage requirement, there will be fewer labor migrants working in the low-wage jobs, where most of the cheating has occurred. Then we get less cheating. It is a good way to move forward.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! There is certainly one entrepreneur or another listening to this debate, and they feel a real concern about the changes that await. It is directly unserious to start talking about asylum migration, because now it is labor migration we are talking about.

It sounds to the member that there is competition for these jobs - as if it is about Swedish youth or labor migrants. The truth is that it is about labor migrants or no one at all. Over 90 percent of labor migration concerns shortage occupations.

The chairman said in his speech that this will work for the business community. It is remarkable that the Sverigedemokraterna seem to know better than the business community and the companies themselves.

It was not long ago that the member and I shared a stage at a seminar where we were allowed to listen not only to what industry organizations such as Svenskt Näringsliv think, but also to listen to entrepreneurs. Representatives for a large hotel chain in Sweden spoke about what problems this will create. It cannot be that the Sverigedemokraterna think that large actors such as Volvo and Scandic are small and unserious companies?

I have a simple question for the member: Is it politics or the companies that create jobs in Sweden?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is entrepreneurs who create jobs in Sweden; there is no doubt about that.

I want to address some other things that the member raised. I will start with that which concerned the competition for the jobs.

If you bring in labor immigrants to work in the nearest street food stall, it is difficult for a young person or an immigrant without education, but with a residence permit in Sweden, to enter the labor market. It is perhaps precisely at that street food stall that the person has a chance to get a job, but instead, you bring someone from India to work there. It is absolutely not reasonable.

I would like to know where Centerpartiet stands on this issue. Is it reasonable to bring in labor migrants from third countries to work in various restaurants and street kitchens, where it is easy to hire young people and people without education and experience and let them get their first job?

This will absolutely work for the business community. It is, again, less than 1 percent of the total workforce in Sweden that comes from labor immigration from third countries. When it comes to the rest of the workforce, the viewers, the voters, and Member Cato should remember that it is either labor from the European Union or domestic labor. Sweden and the business community will manage even with this legislation.

There is concern among some business owners, but I believe this is due to certain campaigns and certain messages that, among others, Member Cato has spread.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not really know where to begin. It can hardly be the Center Party's fault that companies feel anxiety over the government's actual policy. I would be proud if it is the case that the Center Party can influence the entirety of Svenskt Näringsliv, the entirety of Almega, and all green employers. What influence the Center Party has in Sweden - oh oh oh!

To be honest: They are worried about the actual policy that Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna are pursuing.

Speaking of this with it being a Swedish-European labor market, it is a fact that the shortage occupations we have in Sweden are often the same as the shortage occupations in the entire EU. When it concerns sheet metal workers, for example, there are 14 EU countries that have a greater shortage than Sweden. Then one may need to look outside the EU and all around the world.

One can say that it is now becoming some form of political labor market screening. First, Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket are to produce proposals, and then Statsrådsberedningen and SD's coordination office are to negotiate and approve the whole thing. I wonder whether the Sweden Democrats in these negotiations will accept that, for example, construction workers, CNC operators, process operators, miners, agronomists, head chefs and sous-chefs are allowed to come to Sweden. It is interesting for the voters to find out what the Sweden Democrats' demands will be when this is to be politically labor market screened at SD's coordination office.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If the Center Party spreads incorrect information and if there are lobby organizations spreading these pieces of information, it unnecessarily worries the companies. As I said, it is important to look at what proportion of the total workforce is domestic or comes from the European Union and what proportion comes from third countries. Then one understands that this legislation will not have a decisive influence over the operations of most business owners.

There is nothing to worry about. We have a wage requirement. If a skills shortage arises, relevant authorities will look at where there is a skills shortage, and thereafter the government will decide on exemptions.

Mr. Speaker! These agencies are not political. Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket are independent agencies. The basis they prepare is not politically oriented, as Member Cato wants to imply. Therefore, there will be no political labor market assessment. The basis is prepared, and on that basis, the government will make decisions. It is not the case that the Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna will sit in a room and come up with their own proposals; instead, proposals will come from Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket, which have different competencies in this area. After that, the government will make decisions. That is exactly how Sweden's public administration usually functions.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! My first question to Nima Gholam Ali Pour is: What is the point of deporting people who have worked in Sweden for several years, who pay taxes and contribute to the welfare system, and whose children have established themselves in Swedish schools, when their employers need these people today?

Mr. Speaker! There is a lot of talk in the debate about street food and other things. The technology companies have, in their report, listed what proportion of the manual occupations within their industries will be affected by the new wage floor. We are talking about that 85 percent of machine operators within metal, CNC, etc., will be below this wage floor. When it comes to personnel within, for example, warehouse, terminal, assembly occupations and work with metal and plastic products, it is about over 90 percent. A majority of the manual occupations within these industries will be affected.

We are currently in the midst of a green industrial revolution in Sweden. Companies are contributing to the transition so that the world can meet the climate goals. If we stifle their opportunity to hire labor even from other countries, we slow down the fantastic development that is taking place in our country today. It would be devastating. Let us focus our efforts on fighting those who cheat instead of placing a wet blanket over northern Sweden's development and green transition.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understood the question to be what is the point of deporting people who work in Sweden. Working in Sweden does not automatically lead to obtaining a residence permit. We have already previously had a maintenance requirement, and moving forward we will have a wage requirement.

I also want to use this opportunity to say that staying in Sweden is not a popularity contest. That one works hard in a small village and perhaps is the only hairdresser in a small locality does not mean that one is allowed to stay. We have an Aliens Act that is to regulate who is allowed to stay here and who is not allowed to do so. Those who are not allowed to stay in Sweden shall be deported, even if they have children who go to school and so on.

We have a Riksdag that decides on the Aliens Act. It is not that we are to make decisions on these issues emotionally, but we are to follow a certain legislation. It is stated there who can stay in Sweden and who cannot stay in Sweden. Therefore, certain people are deported. That is the answer to that question.

When it comes to the occupations that are affected, these occupations and companies need to transition. It is necessary to recruit domestic labor. The government should help with various reforms to get those who are currently benefit recipients out into the labor market so that it becomes easier to recruit them. But it is also about labor from the European Union.

One simply has to transition. We have been out and told newspapers that one has to transition. It is another form of transition where one helps those people who today are on benefits and are suffering.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I did not ask Nima Gholam Ali Pour why we should have a regulatory framework for migration policy. We are, of course, in agreement that we should have a regulatory framework for migration policy.

What I am asking about is why the regulatory framework should be changed so that people who work in Sweden today, pay tax, contribute to our welfare, and are needed in companies and in the welfare sector now should be thrown out of the country. The Sweden Democrats and the government are changing the regulatory framework in a way that leads to people who have never done anything other than work and pay tax being sent out.

It is not about feelings. I ask: What are the concrete arguments that Nima Gholam Ali Pour thinks justify that we should mass deport workers who have had residence permits according to the regulations we have today and contribute to the Swedish welfare?

I and the representatives for companies that I meet cannot understand why one wants to reduce their companies' opportunities to contribute to our country. They cannot understand why one wants to stop the emerging green industry in northern Sweden from recruiting the labor force it needs. It was needed both in the factories and for preschools, elderly care, restaurants, service, and everything else that is required around the factories for the communities around the factories to function.

It was my question.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question!

If we have a regulatory framework, it means that some are deported. Not everyone will agree that it is fair that a certain person is deported. Certain people must be deported according to the regulatory framework. As I said earlier, we have had a maintenance requirement. Those who did not meet it were also deported. There is nothing strange about that. Now we are going to get a higher wage requirement. Today we have a higher maintenance requirement than what was had under the Social Democrats.

Member Hirvonen asked about arguments. There are many arguments. But if I am to take the primary argument, it is that it is unreasonable for people to come here from other continents to take low-wage jobs. If one has a restaurant in a certain district, it is strange that one brings a person from Burma or some other country for them to work at this restaurant in Sweden. One can, through a fairly simple recruitment campaign, get someone from one's own city or perhaps from one's own district to start working and perhaps get their first job at the restaurant.

It is probably the primary argument. Labor immigration to take low-wage jobs appears unreasonable to quite many Swedes. Our party and our coalition partners take this to heart and understand that we in this chamber must realize the will of the Swedish people. It is quite many Swedes who consider it completely unreasonable to bring people from other continents to take the simplest jobs in Sweden.

(cont. § 7)

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