Labor immigration

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, the Riksdag has voted to raise the maintenance requirement for labor migrants. Today, a labor migrant must have a salary of 80 percent of the median wage in Sweden. This means that a labor migrant coming to Sweden must have a salary of 28,480 kronor. When the Riksdag decided on this increase of the maintenance requirement, it was certain parties within the opposition that truly believed the end was near. But now we are here, two years later, and everything is rolling on as usual.

The previous salary requirement was as low as 13,000 kronor. Despite the increase, Sweden continues to function. It is possible to focus on highly qualified labor immigration without the dystopian descriptions spread by parts of the opposition coming true. Even the berry industry, which is one hundred percent dependent on labor immigrants, still functions. They adapt and recruit in an orderly manner, just as it should be. Now we know, therefore, that a raised subsistence requirement for labor immigration does not lead to Sweden falling to its knees, but that Sweden functions even with a restrictive labor immigration. It is simply about a labor immigration that should primarily benefit Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We have more than 480,000 people in this country who can work but who do not have work. More than half of these are foreign-born. Many of these are low-skilled, whether it concerns formal education or Swedish language skills. Their gateway to society and an independent life is a job – which reasonably will be a low-skilled job. How is it reasonable to have hundreds of thousands of unemployed in Sweden and at the same time bring in thousands of people from the other side of the world to work in grill kitchens? We must take care of the people who live in Sweden and who can work. Exclusion must never be normalized.

An evaluation was released from the Swedish Migration Agency at the end of last year. There, they looked at the consequences of a raised maintenance requirement for labor migration. What has actually happened then? Well, within high-skilled labor migration, there has hardly been any change in the number of applications and the proportion of rejection decisions. Nor has there been any major change within the green industries. Among nurses, the proportion of rejection decisions has even decreased. On the other hand, there are far fewer labor migrants within the restaurant industry and the cleaning industry. This is completely reasonable. We have unemployed people in Sweden. We do not need to bring in people from outside the European Union for them to clean or serve beer in Sweden.

More people in Sweden must start working. The increase of the maintenance requirement has hit exactly right. Fewer low-skilled labor migrants come to Sweden, while high-skilled labor immigration continues. There is room for an additional increase. The investigation report New rules for labor immigration etc. contains proposals for an additional increase of the wage requirement as well as a more flexible arrangement where exceptions can be made for shortage occupations.

According to the committee's report, certain occupations can also be excluded from the possibility of being granted a work permit. In that case, it concerns occupations where abuse of the rules surrounding labor immigration is extensive. It is important that Sweden obtains rules regarding labor immigration that have support among the general public.

Most understand that labor immigration promotes Sweden. At the same time, one does not want Swedish youth and people who have difficulty entering the labor market to compete with the whole world for the simple jobs. That is completely unreasonable. We can have a labor immigration that both promotes the Swedish economy and allows those who are unemployed today to get a reasonable chance to get their first job.

Labor migration to low-skilled occupations is simply unnecessary immigration. Sweden does not need such immigration. Sweden manages without such immigration. Sweden's migration policy shall, just like all other policies, serve Swedish interests.

In 2022, which was the Social Democrats' last year in power, over 24,000 labor migrants came to Sweden. The largest part of these were low-skilled. That number has now almost halved. In 2024, only about 13,000 labor migrants came to Sweden, and the proportion of low-skilled was at a record low.

Let me be clear: We are not interested in fortune seekers. We are not interested in people who do not thrive in their home country and only come here to avoid staying there. When Sweden needs exactly your competence, you are welcome to come here and work. That is our focus for labor migration moving forward.

I would, however, like to remind everyone that what we are talking about, namely labor immigration, only constitutes less than 1 percent of the workforce in Sweden. It is important to remember that.

There have been many alarmists who have tried to portray it as if Sweden stands or falls with labor migration. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner claimed that 200 municipal employees risked deportation in Skellefteå alone when the increase of the maintenance requirement for labor migration began to apply. It turned out that only twelve labor migrants worked for Skellefteå municipality, and it is unclear how many of them risked deportation.

This is one example of many where an organization that the public perceives as serious spreads pure disinformation. One wonders why an organization like SKR wants the wage requirement to be a miserable 13,000 kronor. We must be able to have a serious discussion about labor immigration without spreading myths that Sweden will collapse if a reasonable wage requirement is introduced.

Madam Speaker! What I can observe when I see the opposition's proposal is that there is total division. While the Social Democrats and the Left Party want authority-based labor market assessment, the Centre Party and the Green Party do not want any wage requirement at all. The Green Party wants to deregulate labor migration to such an extent that we have not seen anything similar since at least the 1920s. The Left Party voted no to a raised subsistence requirement regarding labor migration, while the Social Democrats voted yes. What does that mean? Does the Left Party also want to abolish the wage requirement? Will the Social Democrats agree to that?

One does not really know what one gets with the Social Democrats and their supporting parties. The risk is great that the Social Democrats will yield and that Sweden returns to an order where just anyone can get to Sweden to work as a kebab technician. It would mean that labor immigration would be multiplied many times – not because it is in Sweden's interest, but because certain individuals who do not thrive in their own home country want to get to Sweden through labor immigration, even though we in Sweden manage without that labor.

Madam Speaker! No one wants to stop labor immigration, but it is important that we have a labor immigration that is adapted to the Swedish labor market. Then we will have a labor market where the simple jobs need to go to the unemployed here in Sweden. These people, who are already having a hard time, should not have to compete with the whole world for these simple jobs.

At the same time, we have occupations that require higher competence. Most of these jobs go to Swedes and other EU citizens. A fraction of the jobs that require higher competence cannot be filled. Then we need labor from a third country, i.e., a country outside the European Union. I mean that it is only reasonable that a labor migrant who has higher competence should have a reasonable salary. I believe that most Swedes support such a sound position.

We Sweden Democrats have kept what we promised. Labor immigration is decreasing to levels that are adapted to Sweden's needs, not to what certain foreign citizens desire. The simple jobs are reserved for Swedish unemployed, and we ensure that the labor that is taken in is actually needed.

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)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

With this government, we will get mass unemployment of over 10 percent. Closer to 600,000 people are unemployed in Sweden, which is an increase of 114,000 people. This is happening at the same time as the introduction of the wage floor. Unemployment is rising in all ages, among both men and women and among both domestic and foreign-born. Youth unemployment is rising, as is long-term unemployment. What we get from the Sverigedemokraternas cooperation with the government is mass unemployment and more people living in economic insecurity.

My first question is: What are you, from the Sweden Democrats' side, doing about this situation at all, Nima Gholam Ali Pour? Please mention a single labor market policy measure that works as you proceed. So far, you have only increased unemployment in Sweden.

It is also not as simple as that Swedes should take these jobs. You have proven over the last few years that people continue to be unemployed with a wage floor. It does not automatically mean that more people will enter employment because you deport another group; it doesn't really work like that.

My second question is: What are you doing about the unserious employers? Now you continue with a system with some kind of artificial respiration. The unserious employers will still be able to bypass the system with wage floors. They can, for example, give money on paper but then exploit people.

The system remains. The Sweden Democrats have not moved forward with anything regarding this. People are still being exploited on the labor market. This destroys the conditions and the entire labor market for all wage earners in Sweden, but the Sweden Democrats have done nothing about it at all.

What do you intend to do about the exploitation on the labor market?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! If unemployment is high, as the member claimed, it is indeed easier for the unemployed to get a job if they do not have to compete with the rest of the world in the form of citizens from third countries; even the Left Party must admit that. It becomes easier for them to get a simple job if they do not have to compete with everyone. The first job one can get is a simpler, low-skilled job, for example, a job within the cleaning industry. Then one does not need to compete with people who come here from a third country, i.e., a country outside the European Union, and take these jobs.

The Left Party talks about what is being done about exploitation. The berry industry is a good example. There, all unserious actors have been excluded. Labor immigration has fallen when it comes to the berry industry, because controls have been strengthened and it has been ensured that all the unserious companies – those that do not follow the rules – cannot bring in labor immigrants.

This is something that the Swedish Migration Agency is constantly working on. I hope that the member follows the Migration Agency's controls of this as well as the agency's work and activities to ensure that the unserious companies are excluded and cannot bring in labor migrants. This is something that is constantly ongoing. I actually think that the Migration Agency is doing a good job, specifically when it comes to the berry industry.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It is not I who claim that unemployment has increased in Sweden, but there are figures on it. With this government, Sweden has a record-high unemployment, a mass unemployment, of 600,000 people – an entire Gothenburg – and just in the last year, unemployment has increased by 114,000 people.

The Sweden Democrats' logic is completely incomprehensible: If you deport people from Sweden, others will automatically take these jobs. But it has been shown over the past year that it is not that simple and that the labor market does not function that way.

Can the Sweden Democrats mention a single labor market policy measure that has been taken to reduce today's unemployment? Unemployment is only increasing, and it is putting pressure on people out there. People are told that they cannot stay at their jobs. But the Sweden Democrats are continuing as usual with the scapegoat policy and saying that immigrants should not compete with Swedes for jobs. But that is simply not true. If the Sweden Democrats are to negotiate on the budget and other matters with the government, it is important that they see what is happening in reality with people and industries that are losing jobs. This cannot be blamed on immigration.

I did not receive an answer to my question on how you want to make the system for labor immigration fairer, Nima Gholam Ali Pour. People are still being exploited in workplaces, including labor migrants. Exploitation is ongoing in entire industries. Therefore, one cannot continue as the Sverigedemokraterna do and pretend that everything is okay just because the authorities are working on it.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The problem in the labor market is the matching. Many are unemployed while at the same time there are many jobs. The important thing is that people educate themselves and take these jobs, and that requires incentives. The Government is working with activity requirements and benefit ceilings to create the incentives needed for people to take their first job and not go on benefits. This is very important. But the Left Party has never understood that one must create incentives for people to take a job.

Entrepreneurs often say that jobs are available but that many people reason in such a way that they have benefits and do not need a job to get money every month. Many are not prepared to take that first job with a slightly lower salary, but they actually should. There are many jobs, but some do not want to take them.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to exploitation, I urge the member to contact the Swedish Migration Agency. Many controls have been carried out in various industries, so it is not a free-for-all for unscrupulous companies to do as they please. That is not how it works. If the member knows of a company that exploits people, he can contact either the police or the Swedish Migration Agency. But it is a myth that exploitation is occurring without the government doing anything. It is not true.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to Nima Gholam Ali Pour, one can get the impression that nothing has changed or worsened since the government shock-raised the wage requirement to 80 percent of the median wage for everyone, regardless of occupation, who have immigrated to Sweden as labor. But that is not how reality looks. In November, SVT reported that 50 employees in Umeå's elderly care had quit because of the high wage requirement, either because they realized they immediately needed to find another job to meet the wage requirement or because they have been deported from Sweden. An additional 100 employees in elderly care in Umeå risk deportation because of the wage requirement. To lose 150 employees is a fatal blow for elderly care in Umeå.

In Sweden, more and more people are living longer and for longer periods, but it also means that we will need more people who want to work in elderly care. But the wage level is not above 28,000 kronor per month. The wage demand will therefore have incredibly negative consequences for the elderly who need elderly care.

Miljöpartiet believes that a reasonable wage requirement is a wage one can live on and that follows Swedish collective agreements.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I must, of course, have what Annika Hirvonen says verified. Quite a few myths have been spread about the wage requirement and its consequences. Member Jonny Cato has said that entire industries will collapse when the wage requirement is introduced, but so far no industry has collapsed, as far as I know. More serious organizations than Miljöpartiet have said things that are not true and spread figures that are not correct. I do not know how much of what the member says is correct.

The government says that there will be plenty of jobs in Sweden and that someone must take them. At the same time, the Left Party says that there is mass unemployment. This may sound crazy, but those who are unemployed can work in elderly care. Those who are unemployed should take the jobs that exist now and in the future. That is the most reasonable thing when we have so many unemployed, instead of bringing someone from Sudan or Afghanistan. My answer is that those who are unemployed in Sweden should take these jobs.

I mean that the wage requirement has not had any negative consequences whatsoever. Instead, it has had positive consequences. The companies that have not followed the rules have withdrawn and no longer bring in labor migrants, while the serious companies have adapted.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Those who cheated with the old regulations can probably continue to cheat with the new regulations as well. We need to target those who cheat, and therefore Miljöpartiet has submitted several proposals to ensure that those who are exploited by these cheaters can report the cheaters. That is not the case today. The person who is exploited risks being punished with deportation if they report it. That is where one can start. If one really wants to tackle the cheating, one must ensure to punish those who cheat, not the people who are being exploited.

Back to unemployment and labor immigration. The simple idea that the unemployed will get jobs just because we kick out all labor immigrants unfortunately does not match reality. In reality, it can be the case that thanks to the CNC operator that a company recruited from Georgia, jobs can be created for ten people in Sweden who are unemployed.

A key competence that exists in another country can therefore lead to more people with lower education being able to get work, but with the government's plans to further raise wage requirements, it risks becoming impossible to bring in labor migrants for many of these occupations.

I think that one must do it over and do it right. Invest in education and measures for those who are unemployed so that they can take the jobs that exist and that are vacant in large parts of the country, not least in northern Sweden, but do not throw out those who are already working here and taking care of our elderly!

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Hirvonen said that the Sweden Democrats have claimed that we are going to kick out all labor migrants. We have not said that, but we have raised the wage requirement and aim to raise it further. This means that labor migrants will come to Sweden, but there will be a wage requirement. When it comes to low-skilled occupations, we would prefer that unemployed people in Sweden do not have to compete with people from a multitude of countries outside the European Union.

When it comes to exploitation and fraud: As I stated in my speech, the cleaning industry, the restaurant industry, and personal assistants are the industries where labor immigration has decreased drastically due to the wage requirement. That is where there has been extensive fraud. One can therefore say that the wage requirement has already led to a decrease in fraud because the labor immigration to precisely those industries has decreased.

At the same time, we have higher labor immigration among nurses and doctors, where there is not so much fraud and exploitation. When high-skilled labor immigration increases and low-skilled decreases, then fraud also decreases. In that case, one does not need all the proposals from the Left Party and the Green Party, which I am sure do not work.

We have a strategy that works, and that is that Sweden focuses on high-skilled labor immigration that we are in need of.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The word "compete" is interesting in this context. Hiring labor immigration is a rather expensive and often lengthy process that one uses when one cannot find the competence one needs in Sweden. It is therefore a necessary procedure in order to be able to find the competence one is seeking. There is no one competing for those jobs in Sweden.

It is interesting that the Sweden Democrats always bring up the opposition. Therefore, I went into my mobile and searched for the Liberals and for labor immigration and could observe that Labor Market Minister Mats Persson as recently as in January this year opened up not only to stop the increase of the wage floor but even to lower the current wage floor. Instead of focusing on the opposition, perhaps one should focus on its coalition partners. Therefore, my question is: Is the government in agreement that the wage floor should be raised?

Another thing one can talk about is the surplus. Eight out of ten companies are directly worried about the Sweden Democrats' labor immigration policy. I agree. It is not the 28,000 that people have been most worried about, but what is to come and what we have talked about – the 35,600.

My question is quite simply: Does the overarching order mean that the Sweden Democrats do not want to listen to what Swedish companies need for Swedish growth to be able to continue in the right direction and for us to be able to reverse the development so that more small companies can grow and hire?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is a Tidö Agreement, and it is the framework for how the government works. Even if a minister has expressed an opinion, the government must adhere to the Tidö Agreement, and it states there that we are to further raise the median wage. It will likely be raised given that it is stated in the Tidö Agreement. It is not more difficult than that. That is why the Tidö Agreement is quite detailed – because one must be able to base actions on it. The answer to the member's question is that we have as our goal to raise the wage requirement.

There will, of course, be companies that have their own interests, but it is important to look at all interests in society, not just the companies'. We have many who are unemployed and who live in exclusion, and they cannot compete for low-skilled jobs with people from countries outside the European Union.

What the member Cato calls competition is not competition. In industries where extensive rule-breaking occurs and where people are exploited, it cannot be called competition. It is not the case that the companies that act in that way are engaged in fair competition; rather, they exploit people and make a profit in that way. It is in precisely these industries that labor immigration has decreased.

Even Member Cato should think it is positive that it is in the industries where labor immigration has not worked so well and where there have been rule violations that labor immigration has decreased.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I wonder if the member can tell me about the widespread fraud that exists in all the industries that need IT architects. It is a fact that 40 percent of the IT architects who have immigrated to Sweden as labor migrants have been forced to leave the country. I would therefore like to hear about the widespread fraud that exists linked to these IT architects, 40 percent of whom have been forced to leave the country.

It is not the case that IT architects grow on trees in Sweden, on the contrary. We have a major skills shortage when it comes to IT architects. It is not only Sweden that has it, but that is how it looks in large parts of the EU. That is why Sweden and other European countries need to look outside the EU to bring IT architects here.

Of the IT architects who have been in Sweden, 40 percent have therefore had to leave the country because of the wage floor that the government has already introduced. These are positions that have not been filled by anyone else, positions that stand empty. I find this very interesting.

I understand that one likes to highlight the examples that favor one's narrative, but there are other examples here that are perhaps more problematic. I hope and believe that IT architects are one such. That is why Mats Persson, despite the Tidö Agreement existing, has opened up for lowering the existing wage floor.

I take our ministers seriously. When the country's Minister for Employment says that he is considering lowering the current wage floor, we must be able to take it seriously, or does the member mean that we should not listen to Mats Persson?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! As I said earlier, the Tidö Agreement is the basis for the government's work. There are probably many things that the Moderates, Liberals, Sweden Democrats, and Christian Democrats want, but they must start from the Tidö Agreement. This is what the different parties have agreed upon.

I am raising examples, but I am not distorting the truth. When one talks about 40 percent of IT architects, one forgets to mention that it is less than 1 percent of Sweden's workforce that constitutes labor immigration. What number of IT architects are we talking about? It is important to raise that and not just mention a percentage. How many IT architects are we talking about? When one starts to look at the numbers, one sees that it often does not reach 100. Regardless of whether it is nurses or some other profession, the number is not so high. It is actually something that we should be able to replace in Sweden with Swedish labor. We are talking about less than 1 percent of the workforce in Sweden. How many IT architects are we talking about? The member may not be able to answer, but it would be interesting to know.

Somewhere, perhaps, it is also the case that we need a better education system so that we can ensure that we are not dependent on IT architects from third countries. It is also important so that we do not fall if the IT architects from Saudi Arabia or any country outside the European Union do not come here. We cannot be dependent on that. In the long run, we will manage, I believe.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Today marks 100 years since Hjalmar Branting died. His legacy and impact on this country cannot be underestimated. Together with comrades such as August Palm and Axel Danielsson, he sat in prison because he fought for freedoms and rights that we take for granted today.

Branting was a central figure for the introduction of democracy in Sweden and immensely important for the introduction of the eight-hour workday. His contributions for peace and for an order in the world where the strong do not oppress the weak resulted in him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. His entire mission was about creating freedom for all people, in a strong struggle against the conservative right-wing forces that fought against it at that time. Today we see that the same forces are back, both globally and in Sweden. Branting's struggle is the same struggle that we Social Democrats fight for today, and in that struggle, the right to work is fundamental.

Today, mass unemployment is back. A hundred years ago, the mills of war were grinding, and the right's dominance was so great that workers had to stand with their caps in hand. At best, they could get a day's wage. Today, wages for shop employees in retail are being slashed to levels that it is hardly possible to live on. One in three shop employees today has a wage that lies below the poverty line. While waiting for the next SMS about more hours so that the rent can be paid, anxiety and anguish grow, while the housing allowance is lowered and the child allowance is not adjusted upwards.

Madam Speaker! In January, Sweden had over 10 percent unemployment. Seasonally adjusted, it is almost 9 percent. Between half a million and 600,000 people in our country would like to have a job. Of these, approximately 6,000 are in labor market policy measures. At the same time, the right wing is lowering the unemployment insurance for large groups, primarily LO women – this autumn from day one. Everyone receives a reduction after 100 days.

In light of this development, the question of labor immigration is central. Labor immigration exists to fill a need in the Swedish labor market – a need for skills that cannot be filled by workers with full access to the Swedish labor market. Therefore, it is completely unreasonable that we bring in caregivers from Bangladesh or construction workers from Mongolia whose only task is to carry plasterboards. We have hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in Sweden who can perform these tasks.

With small educational interventions, large groups who today stand far from the labor market could be made employable. But instead of investing heavily in educating people, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are scaling back on labor market policy. Instead of getting the construction sector, which generates so much work, moving, they are withdrawing the housing funds, and instead of strengthening households' purchasing power in a fair and accurate way, the right wing is lowering taxes for the very richest.

Since it is the need that should govern labor migration – and by that I mean the need we in Sweden have to provide skills for our labor market – a government-based labor market assessment is the tool that performs the task most efficiently and accurately. In the absence of this tool, a subsistence requirement is reasonable, and the current requirement has done some of the work. However, the promised increase from 80 to 100 percent by the Government and the Sverigedemokraterna has not yet been implemented, despite them promising rapid processing when the 80 percent was introduced.

The assignment has been sent to the authorities, who are in the process of preparing exemptions. There is a great risk that these exemptions will significantly erode the effects of an increased maintenance requirement. We believe it would be better to make the maintenance requirement discretionary. With such an arrangement, the parties could give themselves a major competitive advantage over unserious employers without collective agreements, and the control would be decentralized in a much more efficient way than with the currently proposed arrangement.

Madam Speaker! The fight against unemployment has always been the labor movement's greatest task. A job with a wage that is livable and conditions one can live under is something that generation after generation of workers have dreamed of. For the right, the policy has constantly been about opposing this dream. Therefore, they have voted no to vacation weeks and reduction of working hours and dismantled institutions that research and review the working environment, and every time they get the chance they go for the cash – all to lower wage demands for those who are in the labor market and undermine Swedish trade unions.

It is that struggle that we in the labor movement have committed ourselves to leading. It is the struggle between labor and capital. We did that in Hjalmar Branting's time, and we will continue to do so today and in the future.

Madam Speaker! With that, I move for approval of our reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The government has, through its policy, succeeded in almost halving the labor migration that existed under the Social Democrats' rule. We have thus gone from approximately 24,000 labor migrants in 2022 to approximately 13,000 in 2024.

This halving has primarily occurred through a wage requirement. The Riksdag decided in November 2022 to raise the wage requirement for labor migrants from 13,000 kronor to today's 28,480 kr. The consequence of this has been that labor immigration has almost halved, so we can state that a higher wage requirement results in reduced labor immigration.

The Social Democrats are not so clear in their motions. It does not appear there whether they support a further increase of the wage requirement for labor migrants, which would reduce labor immigration even further. But what is clear is that all the parties that are to serve as the Social Democrats' government base should the opposition win want to abolish the wage requirement entirely. Both Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet clearly express that they want to abolish the wage requirement, which would multiply labor immigration many times over.

The question is how the Social Democrats will be able to maintain a restrictive labor migration policy with parties that, in practice, want to deregulate labor migration.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Before one begins to discuss the formation of a government, one should pose the question back to the Sweden Democrats, and I want an answer to that question. Will the Sweden Democrats demand to be part of a government to support Ulf Kristersson or another conservative Prime Minister after the 2026 election? I do not think one has the right to discuss the opposition's potential government plans until one has answered that question oneself. Will the Sweden Democrats demand a place in the government after the 2026 election?

When it comes to the question of the lower proportion of low-skilled labor that has arrived, it is the case that the Social Democrats did many things in the last years, when we had the opportunity to do so because this chamber agreed to it. We introduced requirements for binding employment contracts to be granted work permits, requirements for companies to report their responsibility to the authorities if they worsen the terms of the contracts and tightened their control of work permits, doubled penalty fees and so on.

The Sweden Democrats have played a large part in creating concern regarding labor migration because they themselves reversed the labor market assessment in August 2022. They previously said they were in favor of it, but they agreed to the subsistence requirement in order to position themselves as a partner for the Moderates. Otherwise, it came from an investigation commissioned by the Social Democrats. The entire policy being pursued now is due to the fact that the Social Democrats did a good job with two investigations: one on the subsistence requirement and one on the needs assessment, which were subsequently scrapped.

I also want to state, following previous exchanges, that there is a grave ignorance regarding the situation on the Swedish labor market on the part of Nima Gholam Ali Pour. It could also be that the reason why labor immigration has decreased is economic issues. I think it is too early to evaluate the 80 percent. Therefore, we cannot, without a sharp proposal being on the table, say straight out whether we will support the proposals or not. We must wait to see what the government proposes.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that the wage requirement has been decisive in reducing labor immigration. During the eight years the Social Democrats were in power, the wage requirement was 13,000 kronor. The Social Democrats then submitted the bill to raise the wage requirement, but it was a bill that was submitted ten days before the 2022 election.

It is quite strange that the Social Democrats did nothing for eight years to reduce labor migration, only to submit a government bill when there are ten days left until the election. At that point, one has reason to question the Social Democrats' will to actually reduce labor migration.

If the Social Democrats really want to reduce labor immigration, why didn't they do this during the eight years they were in power? It didn't turn out to be that difficult. If you raise the wage requirement, fewer low-skilled labor immigrants will come to Sweden. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that. Now, the Social Democrats were dependent on the Center Party and the Green Party. That means you have to open the gates and let people in.

The question is actually why one should trust the Social Democrats when, for eight years, they were passive and did not raise the wage requirement, which easily could have halved the labor migration. Was it that you did not want to reduce the labor migration, or was it that your coalition partners did not allow you to present a proposal that would lead to a reduction in labor migration, Ola Möller?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The parliamentary conditions did not exist to do so until they arose. It has been that simple. The Social Democrats have not had a majority in this chamber since 2006. It is very regrettable, and it has caused a great deal of disorder. If we had had a majority and could have passed our proposals, we would, of course, have pushed them through.

Regarding this matter of not needing to be a rocket scientist, I must say that it is very obvious that Nima Gholam Ali Pour is not a rocket scientist. If he had gone out to a construction site and spoken with members of Byggnads, he would have received a very good description of what it looks like on Swedish construction sites today.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour stands in this speaker's chair and says that the cheating, the exploitation, and the abuse that led to five people dying in a construction lift has now disappeared. It does not exist. It is even to the extent that Nima Gholam Ali Pour is involved in dismantling work environment research in this country.

It is actually the case that one chooses to scale back the work environment work despite the grave cheating that exists in Swedish workplaces. One denies regional safety representatives access to the workplaces – the best link for finding this exploitation. And then Nima Gholam Ali Pour stands here in previous exchanges and says: When one talks to the companies, they say that the cheating has disappeared.

It can actually be exactly the same way, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, that it is the companies that cheat that continue to recruit people. Nima Gholam Ali Pour doesn't know a thing about it, because he has not visited a proper workplace and spoken with the workers. He is now running errands for the employers. It is Svenskt Näringsliv's extended parliamentary arm that stands and speaks here when one says that the cheating and exploitation on the Swedish labor market is gone.

As a workers' party, we have those connections. We see it, we hate it, and we will do very much to combat it. The Sweden Democrats do not.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to make it very clear to the viewers and others that the subsistence requirement we are talking about here only concerns people coming from countries outside the EU. I think it is very important that this is communicated.

I did not intend to be any worse than the previous speaker, Ola Möller, in putting this subject into a historical context. I have an interest in occasionally bidding at auctions. I usually look for antiques on various auction sites. As all collectors with some form of self-awareness know, one must limit one's collecting to something. My girlfriend and I have chosen to limit it to metal objects that her ancestors have made in this country. From some time in the 1700s to some time in the 1800s, different ancestors of hers were active as blacksmiths here.

They came here as labor migrants. Her family was Walloon and came here as labor migrants to help with the Swedish metalwork, because we did not have enough skilled blacksmiths ourselves here in the country. First, they were very busy making weapons so that we could build a strong military power. Then some started making other objects, such as vases, spoons, or whatever it may be. Without labor migration, I therefore would not have had my dear Isabelle.

To continue in some kind of historical context, I have also been a little interested in marine archaeology over the past year, and the ship Vasa is certainly interesting to mention even in this context. The ship Vasa is some kind of symbol for the entire Swedish era of Great Power, and it was built by skilled Dutch and Belgian craftsmen and shipbuilders who came here.

Now, some joker might think that the Vasa ship is not a symbol of good craftsmanship. In that case, one should keep in mind that the ships built after Vasa sank were modified slightly and served the Swedish armed forces well. They were very successful in what they did when they were down and fighting and building Sweden as a great power.

Now, I don't think that Gustav II Adolf perhaps discussed supply support that much in his time. I don't think he discussed that much at all with others. He probably took decisions, and then it had to be as he thought. But if he had discussed supply requirements, I think it would have been in a slightly different context than it is now. At that time, perhaps one needed to pay one's rent and put food on the table for oneself and one's family. Today's society is a bit more complex than that.

In today's society, provision is not only about paying for one's food and one's rent. It is the case that the person who comes here to work also has the right to bring their partner, who has the right to operations if needed. One has the right to bring their children, who have the right to school, preschool, and to take the bus to football practice and everything else it could be. All of this is financed by working and paying enough in tax.

Today, the median wage in Sweden is approximately 35,000 kronor. Even with that median wage, we know that the welfare always needs more money. It is clear that if you fill in with a lot of people who earn far below the median wage, everyone else will have to help out to lift it up so that one can afford school, bus, pensions and everything else that this country needs.

I think we need to lift our gaze a bit when it comes to subsistence requirements and see what a Swedish subsistence really is. I believe it is something more than earning 13,000 a month, as it was previously. Then we do not have the possibility to pay for everything we want our welfare state to provide.

It is also about getting unemployed people into the labor market. We know that there are hundreds of thousands of people who today are without jobs and who should be able to take jobs. They should be able to take simple jobs. Instead of costing society money, they could generate money into this society. I truly believe that a good portion of the people who are here are fully capable of taking a good portion of the jobs we have historically given to people from all possible parts of the world outside of Europe. That is also what this debate should be about.

We are facing a debt of integration. We know that. Several previous governments have been far too poor at getting people to learn Swedish and perhaps learn to read, count, and everything one needs to be able to get a job in Sweden. That is what we are working on right now. We are trying to establish good integration measures so that the people who are here can more easily enter the workforce. But we are constantly facing a debt, for which previous governments, among others, must be blamed. Sweden took in hundreds of thousands of people year after year. We must get them into work, but they need a little help along the way.

I would like to highlight the dialogue that we have had with industry organizations. I think it has been constructive.

I would particularly like to highlight Gröna arbetsgivare, whom I have met a couple of times and whom I intend to meet again. I think they are very constructive in their way of conducting dialogue. They understand that this is part of the Tidö Agreement and that an agreement has been reached on this, but they are also very careful to describe the risks that some working groups might not be able to receive 100 percent of the median wage. Therefore, it is extremely important that we maintain a close and frequent dialogue now when we may eventually raise the requirement to 100 percent of the median wage, so that we can make certain exceptions.

I believe that we will see good exceptions – and several exceptions – in the industries where it will be needed. It is, for example, very important that we have an agriculture that works in this country, and if we cannot supply the agriculture with skills from Sweden or other countries in Europe, we may have to bring in people from third countries. In that case, it is very important that it works. It is a matter of preparedness; if there is war or another crisis in the world – there could be crop failure in the rest of the world – the Swedish agriculture must stand strong.

There I know that the government is responsive, and we will eventually return with which professional groups will be exempted from the livelihood requirements we introduce.

Something positive regarding the maintenance requirement and the reforms we have implemented on the labor immigration side is that high-skilled labor immigration can now get here in about a month. Previously, it might have taken half a year to get a work permit in Sweden, and now it takes about 30 days.

We know that people previously said no to coming to Sweden, because before you had received a work permit in Sweden, you could be up and working in some other part of the world. That made people hesitate to choose Sweden as a country to go to if they were highly qualified within a certain professional group. Today we see that they are coming here, because you don't even have time to move out of the apartment in your home country before you can be up and working in Sweden. It is incredibly positive, and I know that even the industry has been very positive about it. We have received those signals, and I am very happy about that.

Regarding the Social Democrats' labor market assessment, I do not think it is anything good. I think that the employer should actually be allowed to choose who should come here as long as they meet the requirements for a Swedish work permit in terms of salary, contribute to our welfare, and contribute to the companies' opportunity to grow and create prosperity in this country. Subsistence requirements are not about depriving companies of the opportunity to hire whom they want, but it is about the fact that we have rules for obtaining a residence permit in Sweden. If one comes here, one must still participate and contribute to the common good.

With those words, I would like to express my support for the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mats Sander (M) agreed.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! More people need to pay tax in this country. We need more tax revenues that can go towards improving school, healthcare and elderly care. We need tax revenues that go towards making sure the trains run on time – or sometimes at all – and we need to upgrade the Swedish defense so that we can defend our way of life. We need more tax revenues.

A report from Svenskt Näringsliv shows that the increase from today's wage floor to 35,600 kronor risks reducing tax revenues by 5 billion kronor. If one is truly worried about tax revenues, it is therefore a bad idea to raise the wage floor. That is the first thing I want to say.

The second thing is that I turn towards the rhetoric here at the end. It is said that people should contribute when they come here. If one introduces a median floor of 35,600 kronor, is that to be interpreted as that half of the Swedish population does not contribute? There are very many who get up in the morning, work, contribute and pay tax who do not earn 35,600 kronor – in fact, exactly half of the population.

That is why I become a little curious. Given that it is being delayed and given that the concern is great among the country's entrepreneurs out there, I wonder when the government will introduce a wage floor of 100 percent of the median wage.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! If the latter, the government may return. I do not speak for the government, but I am also awaiting a decision on that question. But it will surely come, and then we can debate exactly how it turned out.

Yes, it is absolutely a huge number of people who earn below the median wage. Just as you say, Jonny Cato, it is exactly half of the country's inhabitants. What I mean, and my point, is however the following: In a society where some earn above and some earn below the median, something good comes of that which lies in the middle. But if one only replenishes those who earn below, then everyone, even those who are included and earn below the median, will have to participate in lifting those who are added to the lower category.

That is why we want people who come here to earn the median wage or eventually more. Right now, we have said that the level is at 80 percent, and that is okay. Later, a good number of occupations will be exempt, namely those where we cannot find the competence in Sweden, and then it will be okay. It is not as simple as that one just generates wealth from the wage income one has, but one also generates a good amount of wealth by one's company perhaps selling a product to someone else and so on. Jonny Cato understands how that works.

We are, therefore, completely positive about people coming here and working, but we are also positive about them participating and, to the greatest extent possible, financing what they cost the country. If someone comes here who works for 17,000–18,000 a month and brings a partner and a number of children, it is clear that those individuals cost our society money every month.

I still think it is reasonable that one is involved in financing the children's school, an operation for one's partner, or whatever it may be that one actually is entitled to. It is sound that one is entitled to it, because one is still involved and contributing, but we have had to get the model that has applied previously in order. That is because it was not reasonable. Everyone understands that with a monthly salary of 13,000 kronor, one does not bear their own cost.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! We are not talking about a salary of 17,000–18,000, but we are talking about an increase from 28,000 to 35,600 kronor. That is what the discussion is.

I am getting so incredibly tired of Moderater who stand and talk about those 13,000 kronor as a wage floor. It was somewhere between 100 and 150 people, I believe, who had a salary of 13,000–15,000 kronor. No one thought that was good; we are in complete agreement on that. But what we are talking about here are those who earn somewhere around 25,000–26,000. It is they who constitute the large mass affected by the wage floor that the government has introduced.

Seriously: If you are a member of the Riksdag for the governing party Moderaterna, you cannot escape by saying that something is the government's responsibility. Moderaterna in this chamber are responsible for the government's policy. Therefore, my question remains: When does the government intend to introduce the wage floor of 35,600 kronor?

"To be honest, this issue ranks quite low on the companies' list." That is what Migration Minister Johan Forssell said about labor migration a while ago. It was a quote that received a lot of pushback from, among others, Gröna arbetsgivare and from unions, companies, and so on. This is not an issue that the opposition is making up to be big, but it is an issue that is big for real for the country's employers. There is a great deal of concern out there.

That is why I believe that the Moderaterna in the Social Insurance Committee must be able to answer the question of when the government intends to introduce a wage floor. Is it 2025, 2026, 2027, or 2028? Because it really matters for many of the country's entrepreneurs.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I have never said that I do not bear responsibility for the government's policy. It is clear that we do, to the highest degree – we are, after all, involved in working with the government. What I said was that we are not responsible for when a certain proposal will come into force because it is still being prepared in the Government Offices. Jonny Cato probably understands that too, but one can, of course, be funny and use slugger rhetoric.

I seriously believe that it is reasonable that those who come to Sweden participate and contribute to the general welfare, that one pulls one's weight, and that one finances that which one's children, wife, or oneself gets to take part in. I do not see how the Center Party's Sweden is to sustain itself. They generally do not want any wage requirements, but those who want to work a few hours a month can come here and bring their family, who then get access to our entire welfare state.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that we try to get the hundreds of thousands of people who are here in the country into work. I believe that they are fully capable of taking jobs. There are surely very many out there who every day just sit and long to get a workplace to go to.

We will work with integration measures and contribution ceilings. We will work day and night to get these people into work so that we can get back the Sweden that existed before the government that you were part of and supported, Jonny Cato. It sat for eight years and made a mess of this country.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I too must object to Magnus Resares rhetoric from the rostrum. With Magnus Resares' logic, nurses who enter with a starting salary of 28,000 kronor do not contribute to the welfare state. Neither do all those who toil in elderly care or clean our hospitals. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but if that is what the Moderaterna and the government stand for, many more should stand up and say stop.

To claim that everyone who earns below the median wage does not contribute to the welfare state is an insult to those who toil every day in just that welfare state. Often, it is women who are paid all too poorly.

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask the Moderates if they think it is good that elderly care in Umeå, which as a result of the wage floor that already exists has lost 50 employees and risks losing a further 100 employees because one has employees in elderly care who simply do not have as high wages as the government says should apply for migrant workers. It is about a municipality that has an incredibly difficult time finding people who at all want to work in elderly care and take care of our elderly.

Does Magnus Resare think this is a good consequence of the government's policy? From the Sweden Democrats, we heard claims that this hasn't even happened. But in reality, on the ground, it is the elderly with home care and those living in elderly care homes who are now paying the price for the government's policy.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have never ever claimed that the people who earn below the median wage do not contribute to our society. My party truly prioritizes work. We lower the tax for those who go to work and toil every day. I have never ever claimed that.

What I assert is that if Sweden has a median wage that lies at a certain level, there will be a need for those who earn more. Our society is based on the fact that some earn a lot and others earn a little less. Everyone participates and contributes as well as they can. But if we only supplement with people who earn very little, it will deplete our total welfare model in the long run. We need to have people who earn more money. As many as possible should work. As many as possible should pay as little tax as possible, but they shall still pay tax and do their part for the sake of our welfare. My party only fights to get as many people as possible into work. We believe in people who work, and we believe that people want to work.

Regarding Umeå, I think it is deplorable that we do not educate enough people here in this country who can take these jobs. It is remarkable that we do not get the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people into work today, so that they can take jobs within elderly care.

If one has been a governing party for eight years and has not gotten these hundreds of thousands of people into work, one must nevertheless look at oneself in the mirror. I remember that Social Democratic prime ministers, supported by Miljöpartiet, said 15 years ago that we needed a massive migration to our country to save elderly care, and people did come to work there. But what did one do with them when they arrived? They were not trained and were not even given the language. Now we must bring people from third countries instead of using the labor force that we have and which, just a few years ago, was the basis for all the rhetoric that went out about bringing people to Sweden who would work in these professions. But they have not come into jobs. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed today.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! No one who practices politics says that we should just fill up with people who earn below the median wage. It is a total distortion of the debate. What we are talking about is that the government says that no one who earns below the median wage, possibly except in some exceptional cases, should be allowed to come to Sweden with a work permit from a third country. That is what we are talking about now.

We are talking about that your wage demand, Magnus Resare, means that we deport people who have done nothing but work in Sweden, for example in elderly care in Umeå, where it is difficult to find people.

Do not come and claim that during our time in government we did not train people for jobs in elderly care! The elderly care initiative that was ongoing in Örebro at the same time as the mass murderer entered and shot people is policy to train more people for jobs in elderly care. It was we in Miljöpartiet who were involved in pushing that through.

From the government, we see zero bills concerning increasing education so that people can get jobs within elderly care. We also do not see any other measures to make unemployment fall. Unemployment is only going up now.

Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has calculated and concluded that even if every single person who graduates from upper secondary school got a job and even if every single person who is unemployed got a job, we would still need to bring more people to our country.

This is especially true as more and more people live longer. More people will need elderly care in the future. More people also need to work in the defense forces, which are to grow. More people need to work within the police, which are to grow. There are companies in all possible industries that are searching high and low for people who want to work. It concerns everything from berry picking to advanced engineering jobs. It is difficult to find people for them. Welcome to reality!

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! In my reality, I do not believe that labor immigration for jobs within the Swedish defense will be relevant. On the other hand, we shall ensure that more jobs are created there, and we will, of course, recruit them here in the country.

One must understand that a large part of the unemployment in our country right now is due to the fact that people do not master the language, are not literate, and can hardly manage to count. It is not their fault. They come to our country without having received any schooling in their home country. When they then come here, they receive no help out in society. It would have been good if we had implemented support measures ten years ago. Then a large proportion of the people who are unemployed today would have been out in the labor market.

We have had very large-scale migration to our country, and people have arrived whom we have subsequently not helped. Therefore, the government has said that we need to reduce migration to such low levels that we can integrate people into our country.

I view the future positively. I believe that Sweden in 15 years can be where Sweden was 15 years ago, but it requires hard work from us politicians, from people out in the municipalities, and from the people who today stand outside the labor market.

I am positive about the future, but all of this requires work.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! With this government, inequality is increasing. Cuts within the welfare system are being made across the entire country, and the increasing unemployment is left completely without measures. With this government and the Sverigedemokraterna, we reach a mass unemployment of over 10 percent. Closer to 600,000 people are unemployed in Sweden, which is an increase of 114,000 in the last year.

Unemployment is also rising in all ages, among both men and women and, lo and behold, among both domestic and foreign-born. When one heard the Moderates here earlier, it sounded as if the crisis is only due to immigration – that is not the case. With this government, unemployment is increasing among both domestic and foreign-born. Youth unemployment is also increasing, as is long-term unemployment. This is what we get with this government and the Sverigedemokraterna: mass unemployment and more people living in economic insecurity.

It is not just that the government is failing the unemployed; they do not seem to care about them at all. They do not care about their economic security. Had they done so, they would have started prioritizing them. They would have taken control of the labor market policy, and they would have invested and committed. But this government does not do that, and neither do the Sverigedemokraterna. Instead, they have staked everything they have on tax cuts for the very richest, and that is why they repeatedly need the scapegoat politics, which we heard here in the debate earlier.

The government perhaps thinks, as we also heard from the Sverigedemokraterna, that if one group is excluded through a raised wage floor, another group can take those jobs. But that is not how it works on the labor market. Had it been that simple, we would not have had an increase in the number of unemployed by 114,000 in the last year, despite a raised wage floor. This government has let everything go regarding labor market policy.

When it comes to immigration, we have today record-low, historically low, immigration to Sweden. At the same time, we have a record-high, historically high, unemployment.

Then the question arises: What is the government doing at all about the mass unemployment we have? I asked the Sverigedemokraterna twice in the exchange of remarks and asked them to mention a labor market policy measure that they are putting forward. I received no answer in either of the two remarks. I would say that the simple answer is: exactly nothing. This government leaves people at the mercy of the elements. And then we hear here in the debate and in the exchange of remarks from the Moderaterna that the blame is placed on the fact that many people have come to Sweden. I think that this government must at some point be able to take responsibility, quite simply.

One continues to hear things from the right that it pays to work. But how well has it paid off for workers who are told that they must leave the country? In what way has it paid off to work and pay tax for all those who are deported because the government sets wage levels instead of the parties in the labor market doing so, when the government's only purpose is to make people deportable?

First, one would have to earn 27,000 to be allowed to stay and work in Sweden. Last year it was 28,000, and soon one will have to earn over 34,000 to be allowed to stay and work in Sweden. It is nothing other than a deep class contempt displayed by this government and the Sverigedemokraterna, without any responsibility or consideration regarding the consequences for the individual and society.

People who are involved in building Sweden are having their work permits replaced with deportation decisions. Many workers have built their lives here. They have children who have been born here or moved here with them, and many do not know anything other than Sweden. Many of these children have their schooling, their leisure time, and their friends here in Sweden, just like everyone else. It is they who are deported or risk being deported. It is they who have their families split up and their lives destroyed, or risk having it.

For many who work openly and have done everything right in Sweden, there is a risk of being pushed into undeclared work and exploitation. Others will be forced in retrospect to pay back parts of their wages to the employer if the wages have been increased on paper, or they will not receive their wages at all. This concerns to a large extent workers who have long been established on the labor market and have wages in accordance with collective agreements. Many times, these people were needed in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We have many workers from other countries. They are part of and uphold our welfare. They also work in service, trade, and other industries. They work in industry, and they build and toil. They pay tax, and they fill gaps in the Swedish labor market. They contribute new knowledge and develop the Swedish economy. One can clearly say that labor immigration has been and is positive for Sweden and has contributed to our country's development.

But we also have an unequal balance of power on the labor market, which worsens the conditions for wage earners and for those who are exploited. We have long known about the cynical exploitation of labor migrants on the Swedish labor market. The worst of all is that when authorities finally realize what is happening, it often happens that individual employees are placed in Migrationsverket's detention while the employer can continue the exploitation of foreign labor.

But rather than tackling the crime in the working life and the exploitation that we have on the labor market, the government has largely focused on raising the wage floor. It sounded like from the Sweden Democrats at the beginning of this debate that by having a wage floor, one has solved the exploitation – that no more exploitation occurs on the labor market. Then one has not been out there.

Minimum wages have not been introduced to solve the problems we have in the Swedish labor market. They want to raise it even more in order to make people deportable. We have heard this in the boasting here about more people being deported from Sweden. This government has no ambitions whatsoever to punish unserious employers, only the wage earners.

When one also sets a wage floor for all workers, without having any clue at all how the Swedish labor market and its conditions look, equality is also pushed back. LO-occupations, for example, are gendered. That is how reality looks on the floor. According to collective agreements, the construction worker usually earns over 30,000, but the cleaner under 25,000. One can look at other industries that are female-dominated, for example, healthcare and trade or welfare and elderly care, which were taken up here earlier. Then one ends up far below the wage level. But when it comes to classic male occupations within construction, transport, and logistics, the wages are higher.

Insanely enough, the government justifies wage floors by arguing that one must be able to support oneself. It is interesting, because it is fine that the government at least acknowledges that wages for workers are so low in Sweden that one cannot get by on them. But will the government do anything about it? Of course not.

Mr. Speaker! When the government and politicians in this chamber interfere in wage formation through legislation in this way, it is an encroachment on the Swedish model, which all parties in here have nevertheless stated they want to safeguard. The government sets an unreasonable amount that makes the labor market suffer even more. The only thing being signaled now is that higher wages are always for the important jobs and for jobs where there is a labor shortage. It is a description of reality that we in Vänsterpartiet do not subscribe to. That is not how reality looks.

We shall let the parties in the labor market handle this through agreements and collective bargaining agreements. It should not be about satisfying politicians' desire to deport as many as possible.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should have secure and strong wage earners in Sweden. Those who build Sweden, from the assistant nurse to the industrial worker, regardless of where they come from, deserve more respect than the government parties here in the debate show.

When it comes to labor immigration, there are two paths to choose between. Either we have a fair system with guarantees that foreign workers are not exploited and used to dump wages and working conditions on the Swedish labor market, or we have an unfair system, which this government intends to continue with, with some kind of artificial respiration. It reinforces the unequal balance of power on the labor market and still involves a gross exploitation of people on the labor market. This is not solved with wage floors or a desire for more people to be deportable. Just as when it comes to rules for asylum immigration and the subsistence requirements in that context, one risks falling into the clutches of unscrupulous employers with this policy.

Vänsterpartiet has long demanded a fair system for labor immigration. There are proposals that the previous government has implemented, for example that the conditions offered should be legally binding and that one should adhere to wages and conditions at the level of collective agreements and industry practice. I think that is very good. It is an order that contributes to curbing exploitation and fraud.

But this is, of course, not enough. If we are to have a fair system for labor migration, we must reintroduce the authority-based labor market assessment. The question of shortage and labor need shall be assessed by Arbetsförmedlingen in consultation with the labor market partners, and work permits shall be granted in those industries where there is a labor shortage.

One must have the right to full-time employment, and a background check must be conducted on employers who apply for work permits. Labor migrants who come forward and report about poor conditions at the employer shall be allowed to stay in Sweden until the permit period expires and be given the opportunity to seek new employment. They shall not simply be deported. Employers who exploit labor migrants shall be punished.

But the basis is that a more even balance of power between the parties in the labor market is needed. As long as we do not have that, exploitation will continue. That is where the focus should lie, so that we get a fair system.

I therefore move for the approval of reservation 7.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party's motion on labor migration is quite contradictory. In the motion, there is some criticism of Reinfeldt's and the Green Party's system for labor migration. The criticism is that the system is rigged so that employers can bring in low-paid labor.

One gets the impression that Vänsterpartiet actually wants the labor immigration coming to Sweden to be highly qualified and well-paid. But that is not the case.

When it comes down to it, it states in the Left Party's motion that they are against the wage requirement. Actually, they do not want any wage requirement. But without a wage requirement, it will become easier for low-paid labor to come to Sweden. How does the Left Party actually want it: Do you consider it good to have mass immigration of low-paid labor, or do you think it is wrong? If you are against the immigration of low-paid labor, why are you against the current wage requirement and an increase of it? It is that wage requirement which the Riksdag voted for in November 2022 – which the Left Party then voted against – that has drastically reduced the number of low-paid labor immigrants who come to Sweden.

The Left Party says that they are critical of low-paid labor immigration, but their entire policy is aimed at multiplying the number of low-paid labor immigrants. What is it actually: Does the Left Party want a policy that leads to more low-paid labor immigrants, or do you want fewer low-skilled labor immigrants?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I just have to clarify one thing when the member speaks about mass immigration. The government goes out in the media almost every week and says that we have record-low immigration to Sweden. Then it is not mass immigration. What you have a problem with on the government side is mass unemployment.

I believe that the communication of the Sweden Democrats and the government should be changed slightly. Record-low immigration to Sweden is not mass immigration. Record-high unemployment is mass unemployment. That was my first clarification.

Since then, the Sweden Democrats have misunderstood the entire labor market policy. That is how it sounds in the questions. I spoke for ten minutes about how a wage floor would not solve the labor market exploitation. What the Left Party wants is a fair system. Reintroducing the authority-based labor market assessment is part of that. It is about the shortage and labor needs being assessed by Arbetsförmedlingen in consultation with the labor market parties.

What I am a bit shocked by is the low level that is being presented. It is true that we criticized the Reinfeldt government for the system it introduced. We saw that it would become an exploitation, and it became an exploitation with 13,000. It is very bad. That is why we advocate for wages and industries in accordance with collective agreements. That is a practice that we should have in Sweden.

I believe that the Sweden Democrats have misunderstood the entire issue. It is not about a wage floor solving things on the labor market. An employer can set a wage level and then still pay out something completely different to the employee. One can rig the entire system. It is called unfair competition. It is bad.

I think we should have a fair system. But that is not something the Sverigedemokraterna are careful about. The question then is: Why do the Sverigedemokraterna not want a fair system for labor immigration?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am really trying to understand what the member had to say. The wage requirements that have already been introduced have drastically reduced the immigration of low-skilled labor. That is a fact. There are reports from Migrationsverket that show this.

Vänsterpartiet now wants to abolish the wage requirement and go back to a situation where we get a return of an immigration of low-skilled labor. It is strange, because in their motion they say it was Reinfeldt who made it so that we got that low-paid labor immigration. Now Vänsterpartiet wants to do the same thing that they accuse Reinfeldt of having done.

What do you actually want? Do you want the immigration of low-skilled workers who compete with the unemployed here in Sweden – is that what you want, or do you want to stop it? If you want to stop it, why are you against the wage requirement, which has drastically reduced the immigration of low-skilled labor?

I do not think anyone understands how the member actually thinks. What is it for politics you want: is it more low-skilled labor immigrants or fewer?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I can be any clearer. We want to reintroduce the authority-based labor market test and that the labor market parties shall resolve this. That is what we want. I believe that is completely in line with the Swedish model.

The question is why the Sweden Democrats are deviating from this. It eventually becomes comical that the Sweden Democrats thought the same when it came to labor immigration but deviated a few months before the last election in order to keep up with the bourgeois group. Now, people are being allowed to be exploited and utilized on the Swedish labor market.

One can say clearly and distinctly that the Sweden Democrats blew off Swedish wage earners before the last election. I think the Sweden Democrats can still be honest about that. They stood for a means-tested labor market test, but a few months before the election, they threw Swedish wage earners under the bus to serve the employers' interests. There were surely a few dinners at Svenskt Näringsliv to get you to change your minds. I think you should be completely honest about that.

But I have not received any answers at all to my questions to the Sverigedemokraterna today. I have not received an answer regarding a single labor market policy measure or what they intend to do about unemployment. I asked the question twice. Now they had the chance again when I raised it in the rostrum. Four times I have raised it, but I have not received an answer. Not a single labor market policy measure has the Sverigedemokraterna as an answer to the escalating mass unemployment we have in Sweden.

I also did not receive a single answer regarding measures to put unserious companies in the system, that is, what one intends to do about unserious employers who exploit employees – not a single measure, not a single answer! I think that the Sweden Democrats, instead of throwing Swedish employees under the bus, should reflect on their labor market policy.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! If there is any brave viewer in front of the computer who has gone to the Riksdag's website and is following the debate, I want to make a clarification: We are not talking about labor market policy right now – we are talking about labor immigration.

Sweden needs labor immigration. That is beyond all doubt. So it has been historically. Here we have had a look back at the Walloons and Vasa's maiden voyage. We have had a development in Sweden that has required labor immigration.

We are not debating whether labor immigration is needed; that is what the discussion has been and continues to be about—how the labor immigration should be designed. This is what the motions from the Social Democrats and the Left Party should be about. But instead, one paints a rather gloomy picture, that one has their paradise if they only get to be involved in the decision-making.

We have seen the result of that over eight years, and that is what the Tidöre government now needs to handle.

To have a basis for welfare, we need to have growth, and for that, Sweden needs more companies that start, grow, and hire. To promote Swedish companies, we need a business climate that meets the needs that exist from the companies' side. Another one of the prerequisites for development and strong companies is a good access to personnel, who can contribute with their knowledge. It is therefore important to promote qualified labor immigration.

Just as I have said, the immigration of labor has contributed to growth and given people the opportunity to establish themselves in Sweden or work here for a period through their own work. We want Sweden to continue to be an attractive country for skilled labor immigration. In a global world, skilled immigration is necessary for the competitiveness of Swedish companies to continue.

But in light of the fact that the Swedish regulatory framework for labor migration has been quite unique, change was needed. Unlike practically all other countries in Europe, where they have specifically targeted highly educated individuals, we have historically had an immigration that accepted everyone regardless of education and occupation. That immigration increased sharply over a number of years while we received a large number of third-country nationals. We now see that many of those we received in the migration increase have difficulty establishing themselves on the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have long argued that the current system needs to be reformed. It needs to be tightened and adapted to societal developments. It was unreasonable to have wide-open doors for low-skilled and low-paid labor from countries outside the EU when we in Sweden had – and still have – high structural unemployment in groups that should be considered for that type of work.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement indicated a change of course for labor immigration. This meant tightening of the rules in a number of steps and a shift from having low-skilled labor immigration to promoting high-skilled.

More of those who are in Sweden should be able to take jobs within the low-wage sector. But at the same time, the measures need to be such that Sweden becomes more attractive and preferably number one in Europe when it comes to attracting international talent and competence.

Historically, approximately two out of three labor migrants have not belonged to any high-skilled occupational category. And we currently exhibit the third largest difference in employment rates between domestic-born and foreign-born individuals in Europe.

Mr. Speaker! One of the early requirements was that in order to obtain a work permit, one had to earn 13,000 kronor per month. Just as has been said in many posts here, we decided on a legislative change during the autumn of 2022, when we established a first wage floor at 80 percent of the median wage. We planned a continued step, and there is a commission proposal. The proposal that exists is that a wage floor should be set at the level of the median wage, but also have a model that shall define which occupational categories shall be exempt from the wage requirement. I might be able to anticipate the question and say that we do not know exactly when the proposal will come. But the government is working on it.

The government has also tasked the Swedish Migration Agency with promoting high-skilled labor immigration and drastically reducing processing times. We have now implemented changes, and the processing time, which a short while ago was 100 days, actually fell to 16 days in the median in December. This means that we can quickly obtain the qualified labor immigration that we need for continued growth.

Mr. Speaker! Today, a large number of people are judged to be unemployed. Naturally, a wage floor in itself does not make the journey for those who are outside the labor market in Sweden to seek and obtain a job. It is necessary to combine wage floors with other measures, and they are underway. This concerns benefit ceilings, qualification for welfare, and naturally additional active measures for Arbetsförmedlingen.

As a Christian Democrat, I want to emphasize the need for valves and exceptions from a high wage floor to ensure competence but also labor to meet needs that are important for municipalities, regions, and companies.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats therefore move, as a majority in the committee, for the rejection of all motion proposals.

I can finally state, as I usually do in these debates, that the opposition we have is divided. The Social Democrat did not speak so much in his speech about the labor immigration policy, but the Socialdemokraterna have, regarding migration policy, joined almost one hundred percent to what we want and what the Tidöre Government is now implementing. The Left and the Miljöpartiet usually say exactly the opposite: No, and we shall return.

It will be interesting to see: What will be the common line if, against all odds, one returns to the government base? Will we get an answer before the 2026 election? I doubt it.

We Christian Democrats belong to the majority in Sweden who have concluded that Sweden's migration policy needs to be changed. Through bills and investigations, proposals are submitted based on the support that was given in the 2022 election. And there will be further things in the change bag.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Just as Svenskt Näringsliv, we in Miljöpartiet are also concerned about the policy that Ingemar Kihlström is now speaking so warmly in favor of.

I really did not think we would see the day when both parties of the labor market – the employers in Svenskt Näringsliv and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner and the employees' organizations – would stand on the same stage and say to a Swedish government led by the Moderaterna: No, thank you! Do not interfere in the Swedish wage formation! But that is now the case.

What people are worried about is, among other things, that politics intervenes and directs wage formation, which the parties in the labor market have traditionally agreed upon very successfully.

We in Miljöpartiet believe that the level of salary one should have if one immigrates to Sweden for work should be determined by the parties in the labor market through the collective bargaining negotiations that govern the wage levels in different industries. We believe that it is a much better arrangement, where employers who cannot find labor in Sweden are given the opportunity to seek that labor in other countries.

Now we have a situation, which I raised with colleagues to Ingemar Kihlström, where people who have worked in Swedish elderly care, including in Umeå, are being deported. It is a problem.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Annika Hirvonen, for the comments and observations! I may not have understood much of one question.

We can say that we do not share the picture. We can state that the years we have behind us make Sweden differ from practically every country in Europe. Most other countries in Europe have focused labor immigration on highly qualified immigration, which is required to meet needs within the entire corporate sector and – I can guess – also universities and the like, but have not allowed labor immigration from third countries, that is, countries outside of Europe. There we have distinguished ourselves. In the same way, we have distinguished ourselves when we have received very many during the great migration years, 2014 and 2015, who still have not managed to get a job. That, in that perspective, introducing changes that make us aim to maintain highly qualified labor immigration is not wrong.

I can state that in 2022, 87 people applied for and were granted work permits as nursing assistants, out of a total volume of approximately 180,000 nursing assistants. It is therefore not these people who enable us to manage the healthcare and care. Then, it is a gigantic problem to meet all the needs we have within healthcare and care, but it is not by introducing these rules that we remove the possibilities to meet those needs.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is a bit nonchalant towards those who are now tearing their hair out in elderly care in Umeå, who had already lost 50 employees in November, to claim that the government's policy would not be a problem. They risk losing an additional 100 employees due to the increased wage demands.

The labor market looks different in different parts of Sweden, and I had hoped that the government could come up with a policy that both solves the labor shortage in, for example, the northern part of Sweden, where it is difficult to recruit for the welfare sector, and reduces unemployment. What the government is doing instead is throwing out people who are already working, and unemployment is increasing at the same time. It is a huge problem.

One who has understood that the wage demands the government has set are far too high is the government's own Minister for Employment, the Liberal Mats Persson. His party colleague is not here today. It is no surprise, for it must nevertheless be characterized as incredibly remarkable that a minister who is responsible for employment policy in a government goes out and says something while the colleagues from the other parties here in the Riksdag pretend as if that opinion is completely insane.

It is an opinion that is not only shared by us from the opposition who are here, but also by the parties in the labor market, namely that the bar that the government has set so very high is actually bad for the Swedish economy and bad for Swedish welfare. It does not solve any of the problems that we have in the labor market. To solve these problems, one needs to invest in different types of education. Not a single such proposition awaits us in the Riksdag.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker and Annika Hirvonen! The minister who is being lampooned here is the minister who, among other things, is responsible for labor market training, so it is relevant to ask him a question. A minister can also express themselves politically.

We can observe that there is a direction in the Tidö Agreement to establish a wage floor, but it also states in the Tidö Agreement that the exact design shall be negotiated. It also states in the investigation concerning the raised wage floor that there shall be opportunities for valves and exceptions for relevant shortage occupations. So it is. But that does not mean that we will solve either the labor market problems or anything else just because we allow a labor immigration for a significantly lower wage. That is the logical absurdity for both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. You do not want a high wage requirement, and at the same time, you do nothing.

We note that a higher wage floor creates job opportunities for those who are in Sweden and in Europe. One can actually recruit people within Europe at market-competitive wages. I think there is still a logic in that we in Sweden should try to get those who are unemployed into work. It is not reasonable to import labor from, for example, Africa or Thailand to perform work that can be performed by an unemployed person in Sweden. We shall promote qualified labor immigration to ensure our competitiveness. It creates jobs.

Then we also need to state that the government that both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have supported has not succeeded in solving the problems. We must deal with them now.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 2.

A restaurant owner in Falköping is left without a chef. A farmer in Fredrika lacks an animal caretaker. The ramsons entrepreneur in Gotland lacks pickers. All around Sweden, we see the same pattern: small business owners cry out for competence, but the government pulls the rug out from under them.

Last year, the government raised the wage floor for labor migrants to just over 28,000 kronor per month. The Tidö parties have now promised that the wage floor shall be raised further to 35,600 kronor, which means equivalent to a Swedish median wage.

Time is passing, and the future for Swedish business owners and entrepreneurs is very uncertain. The concern that many business owners feel at the moment is great, while the government's final decision on whether the wage floor should be raised further is conspicuously absent. It has now been a year since the investigation was presented without the government having issued any decision.

It is unacceptable to leave the country's entrepreneurs in this uncertainty. Entrepreneurs all over Sweden are very worried. Should one dare to invest in their growth, or do they risk no longer being able to recruit staff with the right competence?

The government seems to have forgotten that Sweden is a country of small business owners. It is they who create jobs, innovation, and economic growth. The current wage floor has already ruled out many competent chefs, animal keepers, and IT architects – professions where there is a major skills shortage in Sweden. Further increases risk, of course, ruling out even more and affecting even more industries.

To address the criticism, the government says it wants to introduce exceptions for certain professional groups. But it should not come as a surprise to the Tidö parties that exceptions are difficult to implement in practice. It becomes, in a sense, a labor market test, but instead of it occurring between the parties in the labor market, where both the unions and the companies themselves are involved, it is the Swedish Migration Agency, the Public Employment Service, and officials at the Government Offices who are to handle the exceptions. I do not think it is a better model, and in my world, it is still a type of reverse labor market test. But it is better that we let the companies themselves decide what competence they need.

Furthermore, the economic damage of yet another increase is enormous. Svenskt Näringsliv has warned that the government's proposal could reduce GDP by 16 billion kronor annually and lead to reduced tax revenues of 5 billion kronor. These are funds that today go to school, healthcare and elderly care, to more police officers, to the upgrading of the defense, and to ensuring that the trains can run on time, or sometimes at all. The government's wage floor prevents growth and small-scale entrepreneurship.

Fraud, irregularities, exploitation of people and pure and simple crime do not belong in any part of Swedish society. Therefore, both industry organizations such as Svenskt Näringsliv and political opposition parties have proposed things that make a real difference, things that ensure that crime can be addressed.

Even the government's own investigator has established that a raised wage floor does not at all need to lead to curbing fraud and irregularities. On the contrary, it risks leading to people receiving one wage on paper and another in reality. One therefore cannot say that one has addressed fraud with a raised wage floor.

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats claim that labor migrants are taking jobs from unemployed Swedes. But the reality looks different. Hiring someone from a country outside the EU is a long, complicated and costly process that no entrepreneur chooses if the right competence is available locally. The truth is that competence is lacking. That is why companies seek labor from abroad.

Last year, I had the opportunity to travel around the Malmö area for a day and visit three different companies with a focus on labor immigration. It was a packaging manufacturer, a laundry, and a video game company. All three companies were directly concerned about the government's wage floors – both 28,000 and 35,600.

The first company visit has stuck in my memory. It was a company with about 150 employees, which manufactures, among other things, boxes that you can see on the shelves when you buy toys for children or when you go and shop for drinks at a certain state monopoly.

A handful of those who work in the factory are a specific type of punch press operator. It is a skill that we hardly train for in Sweden or in the EU. Therefore, the labor comes from third countries. It was somewhere between 6 and 10 people. "It's not that much," the Sverigedemokraterna will say. No, but the problem is that at the factory, one then either has to raise wages for everyone or move the company abroad. Suddenly, we haven't lost 6 jobs. We have lost 150 jobs. That is the consequence if one does not find the competence one needs.

Mr. Speaker! I will not be long-winded at this late hour. I intend to conclude soon because of that.

The government often says it prioritizes Sweden's economy and entrepreneurs. But reality shows the opposite. The Center Party is the country's party for entrepreneurs above all others. Therefore, we demand an answer from the government. What happens with the wage floor? When will the introduction of 100 percent of the median wage become a reality?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is very important that we, whatever we think in the various issues, actually say things that are true in this chamber and that we do not make things up.

Now, Member Cato has twice brought up the affected IT architects. According to Unionen's website, an IT architect earns between 52,000 and 69,000 kronor. That is much higher than the median wage in Sweden. Which IT architects have been affected? How many are they? Member Cato must know something that we others do not know if there are IT architects who are affected by a wage demand of 28,480 kronor when their market wage is at least 52,000 kronor. How is that possible?

It is important not to spread incorrect information. We can have a debate and present our arguments, test them and counter them against each other. We do not need to spread incorrect information.

Unfortunately, the debate has been characterized by the spreading of incorrect information from various organizations and different parties. This is done to push a certain agenda. It is to keep certain people out of the labor market. It is to bring in low-paid labor. Unfortunately, that is the agenda that Member Cato is driving. I would like to have an explanation. How can IT architects, whose market salary is between 52,000 and 69,000 kronor, not be able to meet the salary requirement?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is claimed that others are lying, and then it is said that the Center Party wants to do this to keep people away from the labor market. That is a pure and utter lie. With the government's labor market policy, nothing is happening. That is the reason why it is necessary to bring in labor from third countries.

The Troll Party itself stands and accuses the Center Party of lying. I will therefore use my source. It is the newspaper TN, which is operated by Svenskt Näringsliv, that has produced a report on the consequences of the government's wage floor of 28,000 kronor. With the help of that report – which the member can easily Google up directly after our exchange of remarks – one can state that 40 percent of the IT architects who have been in Sweden have been forced to leave the country.

It is true that the salary is significantly higher than 28,000 – but that is after a couple of years on the labor market. It is precisely this type of profession that has a low starting salary but very high salary development. It is no lie that 40 percent of the IT architects who came here from third countries have had to leave Sweden. It is stated in black and white in the report. I have a source for my claim. I have facts. I know that the Sweden Democrats are quite resistant to that, but that is the reality. So it is not me who is standing there lying.

Mr. Speaker! In this case, there are both facts and sources stating that 40 percent of IT architects from third countries have been required to leave Sweden.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One should not believe everything one reads. One should actually double-check. The Riksdag's investigation service is also available, so that one does not solely need to read the business newspapers.

In December 2022, Member of Parliament Jonny Cato wrote a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet. There, he claimed that the increased wage requirement would lead to a decrease in the immigration of highly qualified labor to Sweden. Member of Parliament Cato has written several articles and made several statements where he has claimed that entire industries would collapse due to the increased wage requirement. But a report from the Swedish Migration Agency, published one year after the increased wage requirement came into force, shows that Member of Parliament Cato was wrong.

The high-skilled labor immigration to Sweden continues. The labor immigration to agriculture, forestry, and fishing is at the same level as before. The proportion of rejection decisions for nurses and nursing assistants has actually decreased.

The drastic reduction of labor immigration to Sweden has occurred among low-skilled labor within the cleaning industry and the restaurant industry as well as among caregivers and personal assistants. It is obvious that Member of Parliament Cato and the Center Party were wrong about absolutely everything.

Sweden has a high unemployment rate, and we need to ensure that those who are outside the labor market can get that first job. But the Center Party wants to go in the exact opposite direction. They want to abolish the wage requirement, which would multiply labor immigration and make it even harder for many Swedes to get a foot in the door on the labor market.

How can the Center Party still claim that they are right when all the facts show the opposite? Can we really trust the Center Party's assessments when they have been wrong about absolutely everything?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I must have a longer nose than Pinocchio because of all my lies and be responsible for all the evil that has happened in Sweden because everything is the Center Party's fault and nothing is the Sweden Democrats' responsibility.

I stand by the fact that a wage floor of 35,600 kronor will have major consequences for many industries. We have not seen the consequences of it yet, so we cannot evaluate it. But absolutely, we can leave the question to RUT for investigation and have interpellation debates about the investigation in the future with the Minister for Migration regarding what the consequences could be of a wage floor of 35,600 kronor.

No, exactly! There are already reports that it will mean 5 billion less in tax revenues. That is the consequence. It is 5 billion that cannot go to more police officers. It is 5 billion that cannot go to upgrading the Swedish defense. It is 5 billion that cannot ensure that the trains run on time.

I move on to this matter of the Center Party lying and that one should not trust everything one sees. I agree that one should not trust everything that is posted on X, especially not on troll accounts. But I truly trust serious actors such as Svenskt Näringsliv when, with the help of skilled investigators, they produce reports on specific problems. I can state that eight out of ten entrepreneurs in the country who have labor immigration are directly concerned about a wage floor of 35,600 kronor. I take that seriously.

One can claim that everyone who disagrees is lying. I can only state that we have different opinions. The future will show who is right. I am completely convinced that it will be the country's entrepreneurs and not the Sverigedemokraterna.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating motions on labor immigration that have been raised in the Riksdag. I am one of those who has written a motion. It contains many different proposals to both improve the regulatory framework and strengthen the rights for those people who come to Sweden as labor immigrants, and partly to increase the possibility for Swedish companies and public employers to solve the skills shortage that exists in many different industries by giving people from other countries the opportunity to work in Sweden.

Today we have a government that neither prioritizes the needs of Swedish companies and employers nor takes into account the people who have worked in Sweden from the day they moved here from another country, who have paid taxes, who have rooted themselves in our country and who now risk being deported because of the government's policy. I might actually say that it is due to the Sverigedemokraternas policy, because until the Tidö Agreement, it was still the case that the other government parties had a completely different attitude toward labor immigration and companies' ability to recruit the people they need for various jobs.

Until now, a wage requirement of 80 percent of the median wage for all occupations has been set, completely regardless of what the wage level is for others working in those occupations. This has had the consequence that, for example, nursing assistants in elderly care have left their jobs, either because they have urgently needed to find higher-paid jobs to avoid being deported together with their families or because they have been deported.

In Umeå, this has very serious consequences. Already in November, 50 employees had been lost, and there is a risk of losing an additional 100 employees in elderly care alone.

It is difficult to recruit in many municipalities in Sweden. The elderly are affected now as their nursing assistants and practical nurses are being deported.

Mr. Speaker! There is a great deal of reasoning in the debate that those people who have such low wages that they do not reach 80 percent of the median wage would not contribute to the welfare. This is based on some kind of reasoning that the tax they pay in does not correspond to the cost of tax expenditures that they use when they, for example, utilize the welfare. According to that reasoning, Sweden would become a better and richer country if no one worked as a nursing assistant or with cleaning Swedish hospitals or universities. It is argued that Sweden's economy would be much better if no one had such low-paid jobs.

The reality, however, is that in our country we are just as dependent on having people who work with caring for our elderly or ensuring that the cleaning in the hospitals functions as we are on other professional groups, which for various reasons have higher-paid jobs. The welfare needs all these people.

Each of us should reflect on how we talk about people when we talk about labor immigration or other labor market policy issues. Some throw around terms like low-skilled as if everyone with a low wage had the same educational background. All of us who have worked with equality know that is not the case – many occupational groups, for example, have long education but still receive far too low wages. We also know that there are many manual occupations where it is incredibly important to have qualifications even if one has not attended a university education to gain the competence.

In the technology industry, there are many professional groups that have very essential competencies – such as those we need more of in Sweden – but who have wages that lie below the median wage that the government has said it wants as a floor for labor immigration. This concerns over 90 percent of certain professional categories and furthermore concerns those where there is a shortage in Sweden.

Here, one often comes to another argument for why a wage floor would be so incredibly brilliant. It is said like this: If we deport people who today work in Sweden and who earn less than the median wage, other people in Sweden who are unemployed will be able to take those jobs. But the equation is not that simple.

If you succeed in recruiting a person who, for example, has the professional competence you are seeking for your factory, you might be able to recruit an additional ten people. These people might only need to have completed basic education to be able to perform the work. But if you do not get that first competence on site, you cannot hire anyone. Then perhaps even the entire factory must be moved to another country.

It is completely true that we have many who go without jobs in Sweden. We have many who are unemployed. We need to equip these people with the skills that are missing on the labor market today. In many cases, these educations take several years. The government should start immediately. The Minister for Employment should submit bills to us in the Riksdag so that we can pass new proposals that can provide more jobs. This is, however, not the government's priority. The government's priority instead is to kick out people who have jobs, so that it becomes even harder for employers to conduct their business. This applies regardless of whether it concerns elderly care in Umeå or a restaurant in Malmö.

We in Sweden will become poorer with the government's policy. We in Sweden will have a harder time maintaining the welfare with the government's policy. When you make it harder for people who want to come to Sweden and work, the companies will have a harder time growing. When you kick out people who already today take care of our elderly in the welfare, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner protests. This is happening here and now.

No one from the Liberals has participated in this debate, but in the newspapers, one can read that the Liberals' Minister for Employment, Mats Persson, has taken note. He has heard the companies in Sweden protest against the policy in the Tidö Agreement. He has said that one should listen and that the government can consider lowering the detrimentally high wage floor. The Green Party hopes that it is the Liberals' policy that will become reality, because a policy where families with children who have completed their entire schooling in Swedish schools are deported because the Sweden Democrats want a more homogeneous Sweden, as Richard Jomshof told me in another debate, makes Sweden poorer and worsens the welfare. This policy is also shameful towards the individuals who are affected.

Miljöpartiet has presented a policy that counters unscrupulous employers. We have presented a policy that will provide strengthened support to those labor migrants who are being exploited. We have presented a policy that ensures that companies and welfare services that need to recruit people will both be able to retain those they have hired from other countries and also be able to recruit expertise from abroad in the future if it is lacking in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Not everyone may think that strawberries are absolutely essential. But when I visited a strawberry grower, he told me that when he advertised for people who could pick his strawberries, only one Swede applied for the job, and he had his roots in Afghanistan. With the government's policy, it will become harder for strawberry growers to get their strawberries picked. There will be fewer strawberries at the Midsummer celebrations all around the country.

With the government's policy, people who take care of our elderly in elderly care are being deported. With the government's policy, people who are a prerequisite for other people in Sweden to be able to have a job to go to are being deported. With the government's policy, companies cannot grow and are considering moving abroad instead. With the government's policy, we all become a little poorer.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would still like to say something positive. We should not polarize unnecessarily, and there are some things we actually agree on, for example that it is good that the Swedish Migration Agency has become faster in processing applications from those labor migrants who still have the opportunity to come here.

I move for approval of reservations 6 and 7.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet dismisses in its motion what it calls an arbitrary wage requirement for labor migrants. Miljöpartiet thus argues that the current wage requirement of 80 percent of the median wage, which corresponds to 28,480 kronor, would be arbitrary. But what is it that is arbitrary? The purpose of the wage requirement is to reduce low-skilled labor immigration to Sweden and instead steer towards high-skilled labor immigration. This has worked. Low-skilled labor immigration has decreased drastically while high-skilled immigration is essentially unchanged. I would not call the wage requirement arbitrary, but here there is a clear direction that is favorable for Sweden.

What salary requirement does Miljöpartiet consider reasonable? What is a non-arbitrary level according to Miljöpartiet? Or does Miljöpartiet want to completely abolish the salary requirement and return to Sweden importing people from the Middle East to work in grill kitchens while hundreds of thousands of Swedes remain unemployed? The voters deserve answers to these questions. Miljöpartiet is, after all, a supporting party to the Socialdemokraterna, and if the Socialdemokraterna win the election in 2026, Miljöpartiet will have influence over government policy. Will you then abolish the salary requirement, or will you retain it, and if so, at what level? Miljöpartiet owes the voters a clear answer here.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants the wage requirement to be designed so that those who come to work in Sweden from other countries have the same wage level as the Swedes who work in the same profession. In other words, a doctor from another country should have as good a wage as a Swedish doctor, and a nursing assistant from another country as good a wage as a Swedish nursing assistant. The wage levels that are standard within different professions in Sweden shall apply, and these are agreed between the parties in negotiations on collective agreements. That is where the wages are set. Different wage levels shall apply for different professions, and we do not think that politicians should decide that everyone who comes from other countries to Sweden to work must have a wage above a certain level. That is what we mean when we call the wage requirement arbitrary. We believe that the wage for everyone who works in Sweden should be negotiated between the parties in the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! Let me take this opportunity to say that to me, it sounds wrong to speak about people in terms of import. For me, import and export are about goods, and Miljöpartiet does not accept trade in humans at all. Those who trade in humans commit very serious crimes, and these must be stopped. We know that there are people who exploit others under slave-like conditions, and to stop them, we must strengthen the protection of the crime victims and punish the perpetrators.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me state that the Green Party wants to abolish today's wage requirements, which will result in a manifold increase in labor immigration, especially low-skilled labor immigration. This is the Green Party's policy. This will again create competition for those who are to get their first job and a foot in the labor market.

Does the Green Party feel any empathy for the unemployed in Sweden? You seem to feel a lot of empathy for labor migrants. You want to let many labor migrants come here, and they are to receive new benefits. In your motions, it states, among other things, that labor migrants shall be able to change employers during the first two years. You thus feel a lot of empathy for labor migrants, but you do not seem to feel any empathy for the unemployed in Sweden.

If one abolishes the wage requirement, it opens the door for more low-skilled labor immigrants. How does that affect job seekers here in Sweden? That is the question Miljöpartiet should ask itself. The more one liberalizes labor immigration, the tougher the competition becomes for cleaning jobs and jobs within the restaurant industry. It is precisely in these sectors that labor immigration has decreased since the wage requirement was raised. If one abolishes the wage requirement, which Miljöpartiet wants, it will have consequences for vulnerable people in Sweden.

I ask in the utmost seriousness: How much empathy does the Green Party feel for those who are vulnerable and seeking work today? You want them to compete with people from third countries, who often accept lower wages, which makes it difficult to compete with them. The Green Party does not seem to feel any empathy at all for the unemployed in Sweden.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have empathy for vulnerable people, regardless of where in the world they come from. This applies to vulnerable people in many different situations. We formulate it as a solidarity with all people in our party program. It is a fundamental ideological starting point for Miljöpartiet.

What we also have, and which is perhaps even more relevant in this context, is a policy that leads to people who are unemployed getting better chances to get into jobs. It is this that we completely lack from the government. The bill with measures from the Minister for Employment to lower unemployment is empty. Here, policy is needed.

It is not enough to say that one cares about people who are unemployed, and empathy is not enough. What is needed are concrete initiatives on education for those who do not have the skills that are in demand on the labor market today. Instead, the government is cutting funding to the municipalities, which are responsible for things such as komvux.

Different types of measures are needed for people who may have a disability and who are waiting for decisions regarding the assistive devices they need to get a job. The waiting times are far too long today. Measures are also needed to change school policy. I hope that we can now join forces to abolish the Fbetyg and ensure that all young people can proceed to upper secondary school and get a chance at the education that is required today to get most jobs in Sweden.

It is the type of policy that can truly reduce the unemployment that is increasing today.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I chose to take the floor because the member spoke a lot about what I mentioned earlier in my speech regarding earning above or below the median wage. It is of course the case that those who earn a lot in this country also pay for those who do not earn as much. I think it is a completely reasonable model. It is the Swedish social model.

The members of the board understand just as well as I do that if everyone earned 20,000 kronor a month in this country, the welfare system would not hold together. But it is also the case that if everyone were bank managers, the welfare system would not hold together either, because then there would be no hands there.

In the social model we have and the tax system we have built in this country, which everyone is more or less in agreement on—even if we might want to tweak the tax tables slightly differently depending on which party we represent—it is still the case that those who earn a lot pay a lot and those who earn a little pay a little less.

We Moderates believe that it is central that everyone should be able to live on the fruits of their labor. If one works and strives every day, one should be able to live on that. That is why we have always thought it is important to direct job tax credits and tax cuts primarily to those who do not earn that much. We think this is super important.

I just want to say that I share the member's view regarding calling certain jobs low-skilled. One should be careful with that. I was at a nursing home in Årjäng some years ago, where they told me about the problems that many who come and work there today have. They do not know what it feels like to brush someone else's teeth. They have not received training in how it feels when someone else puts a toothbrush in one's mouth. I had never thought of this, but it shows that it is a skilled job to take care of the elderly.

An absolute qualification requirement for working at a nursing home must be the ability to speak the Swedish language. If it is as the member claims, that 50 people have arrived as labor migrants to Umeå from a third country, I wonder where they learned Swedish before they came here. Or are the 50 people the member spoke of perhaps some other group?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Magnus Resare has during the debate spoken about how not everyone can have low wages and that there must be a balance between how high wages one has. If we look at how it looks among labor migrants today, we see that 57 percent are people who have a wage above the median wage. It is thus more than a majority of labor migrants who have a wage that lies above the median wage. This can be compared with the entire labor market, where it is half.

I wonder if it is a problem that it is 57 percent and why one then has a policy that says it must be 100 in that specific category. We do not only have a shortage of people with competencies for which high salaries are paid in Sweden, but we also have a shortage of employees in, for example, elderly care, where many have a salary that is much lower. We have a shortage of nurses, where the starting salary is 28,000 kronor a month, and we have a shortage in a long line of manual occupations and technical occupations, where the salaries generally speaking lie below the median salary.

We in Miljöpartiet do not think it is right for the government to step in and say that companies are not allowed to hire the people they need and are in short supply of. We think that the government should invest heavily in ensuring that those who are unemployed receive the education and the skills they need to take the vacant jobs.

We believe it is the wrong path that the people who have the jobs today are thrown out of the country, when companies warn that they will not be able to grow if the government's policy goes through and when elderly care and other municipal activities warn that it leads to them having a competence shortage.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! In 2022, there were 87 out of 180,000 nursing assistants in this country who came as labor migrants from a third country. I am actually surprised that there are so many who have mastered the Swedish language and then moved here to work as nursing assistants. It is fantastically good. Of these 87, 50 appear to have worked in Umeå.

I really think it is positive with people who come here and work. I also think, as I said earlier, that it is important that exceptions are introduced if an industry for some reason cannot procure labor here in the country. The Government will return to this eventually.

I also think it is important that those who come here and take jobs that could actually be filled by people from the Swedish unemployment bank, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, contribute to the Swedish welfare to a large extent. We cannot have people who come here and do not generate what they cost.

Our society is built so that some earn more and some earn less than the median wage – that is how it is. I think it is very positive with all the people who are working.

To those of you who are concerned regarding strawberries at Midsummer, I want to conclude by saying that strawberry pickers and seasonal workers will not be covered by the maintenance requirement. It is important to have this said. We will continue to have strawberry pickers in this country, I hope. I look forward to enjoying a strawberry when spring and summer come.

Thank you very much for a good debate today!

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is fortunate that the government, at least when it comes to seasonal workers, has concluded that the policy that is pursued otherwise is quite problematic, to put it diplomatically. We in Miljöpartiet hope that one, just like the Minister for Employment, will soon realize that it is very problematic even for other parts of the labor market.

When I visited Värmland some time ago, I spoke with many young people who came to Sweden as unaccompanied minors in 2015 and who many have spoken quite poorly about. Sometimes when people speak poorly about immigrants, it sounds as if they do not generate enough prosperity compared to what they cost. It is one of the narratives that exists.

I remember that I told them that my child also came to Sweden in 2015. He was born then. Unlike all those youths who already had jobs, many within elderly care specifically, my child has not generated a single tax krona for society and does not perform a single major day's work other than occasionally putting his own laundry in the laundry pile.

What one must remember when talking about labor migration is that it concerns people who come to our countries when they are already adults. Many of them have already received their education, BVC visits, preschool costs, and everything of the sort elsewhere. If one is to start from the beginning here in Sweden, such things cost quite a lot of money.

It is important not only to avoid and not talk about people as costs, but if we do do so, we must also calculate the whole.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(The decision was to be taken on 27 February.)

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