A higher maintenance requirement for labor migrants

Zara Leghissa (S)

Madam Speaker! This is my debut debate in this forum. It feels good. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

About a year ago, we received the unions' alarm regarding the battery factory in Skellefteå. More than 2,000 workers from 50 different countries worked on building the factory, and more than 250 different companies were active in the area. The unions reported that between 600 and 750 worked for companies without contracts. Whether they were insured was very uncertain. They testified about unprofessional, cheating companies, wage dumping, and exploited labor. Many worked 90 hours per week and sneaked into the site without registering at the gate. The police, the Work Environment Authority, and the Tax Agency conducted inspections that revealed major deficiencies.

Madam Speaker! The new government has now presented a proposal that the previous S-led government worked out. In the bill, proposals are submitted that a labor migrant shall, through their employment, achieve a good livelihood in order to be granted a work permit. The purpose is to strengthen the position of labor migrants on the labor market and counteract competition and low wages.

A higher subsistence requirement for labor immigrants

In order for a work permit to be granted, a labor migrant must fulfill the maintenance requirement and other conditions in accordance with the Aliens Act. The maintenance requirement means that the income must be of such a magnitude that the person does not need maintenance support according to the Social Services Act to cover their costs for, among other things, housing and maintenance. According to practice, the maintenance requirement also means that income shall, as a rule, amount to a standard fixed amount. The Swedish Migration Agency has calculated that the salary, regardless of employment rate, must amount to at least 13,000 kronor per month.

From the investigation's mapping, it appears that the abuse of the system for labor immigration consists, among other things, of people working for an excessively low wage, long days, and sometimes without leave. The investigation's assessment is that the problem is significant and very serious.

When the system for labor immigration from third countries was introduced in 2008, the government at the time considered that the circumstance that a foreigner must support themselves was not a sufficient requirement for wage setting. Therefore, a statutory requirement was also introduced that Swedish collective agreements or practice for the profession or industry shall serve as guidance for the employment conditions that shall apply in order to be able to obtain a work permit.

The current regulatory framework has however, as the investigation's mapping among other things shows, come to facilitate for unserious employers to hire cheap labor and exploit the system. The Economic Crime Authority also states that abuse of the system for labor immigration is one of the individually largest crime areas within serious economic crime.

Madam Speaker! In addition to suffering for the individual, abuse of the possibility for labor migration entails large costs for society. These costs for the public sector and for society can be difficult to measure, but in the long run, they will cause great damage. In the long run, it can also undermine trust in the labor migration system. For us Social Democrats, it is also an important starting point that Sweden shall not compete with low wages.

The Crime Victim Authority's view is that a raised subsistence requirement still brings improvements for the employee, for example by making it easier to determine if someone is working under obviously unreasonable conditions. The Swedish model shall be protected, and requirements for collective agreements are a good guarantee that all workers will receive a reasonable wage regardless of where they come from. But that does not mean that the problems disappear regarding persons who, for example, come here for part-time services and for that reason receive low wages.

A subsistence requirement already exists today. A raised subsistence requirement can therefore not be said to affect the right of free negotiation between the parties in the labor market. It is instead a matter of regulating under which conditions it is reasonable and justifiable for a labor migrant from a third country to be able to come to Sweden and work. It is, as the investigation is on, not sufficient that a person who comes here from a third country to work does not need to utilize the welfare systems or the social security systems. An increase in the subsistence requirement can thus contribute to preserving the legitimacy of the system for labor migration and cannot be said to fundamentally change the Swedish model.

Madam Speaker! In our strong society, labor migration is an asset, not a way to exploit people. Labor migrants are vulnerable in the labor market. Several of them cannot speak the language, have poor knowledge of their rights, and are dependent on their employer in such a way that they risk losing their jobs if they express themselves critically or try to achieve any change.

Labor immigration is needed when necessary. Jobs in occupations where there is no labor shortage shall go to unemployed persons in Sweden. We Social Democrats stand up for fair wages and secure working conditions, regardless of industry, occupation, or who it is that works. The challenge in the coming years is to continue to push back unemployment, especially among newcomers. Then, jobs in occupations where there is no labor shortage in Sweden shall not go to anyone other than those who live and reside in Sweden. We shall not compete with low wages and poor working conditions. We shall have order and clarity on the labor market.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

My first question to the Social Democrats concerns the fact that you have had eight years to fix a fair system for labor migration. What happened? Why did you do nothing before the spring or summer of 2022?

The second question concerns the fact that the Social Democrats had a unique opportunity to reintroduce the authority-based labor market assessment, i.e., that one starts from the need and shortage of labor, as the member just spoke about. Firstly, the proposal had the support of a majority here in the Riksdag. Secondly, there was a completed, referral-processed proposal from the Equality Commission on returning to the authority-based labor market assessment.

The Social Democrats, however, chose not to submit any proposal to the Riksdag. Instead, another investigation was commissioned. Why did the Social Democrats not submit a proposal to reintroduce the authority-based labor market assessment when they had the chance and a majority here in the Riksdag was for it?

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Madam Speaker! For us, there is a value in that one should not be exploited on the labor market. We can see that the number of granted work permits so far this year, when there are only two months left of the year, has reached record levels. And next year, a large increase is expected to remain, over 9,000 cases, compared with the previous forecast.

We have always talked about having fair conditions in the labor market. But during the eight years that we have sat in the government, we have not been able to control our own budget.

I will stop there. I feel that I cannot quite address the member's question. As I said, I am quite new here. I apologize.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The reason I asked the question is that a majority in the Riksdag was in favor of returning to the authority-based labor market assessment. I am speaking to all the Social Democrats sitting here in the chamber. It is a pity that you did not take that chance. There was a majority here in the Riksdag to get this back. A large part of what the Social Democrats spoke about here, regarding ensuring that people are not exploited in the labor market, could have been resolved. But you did not take that chance.

I understand that in this situation you want to team up with the palace parties regarding raising the income requirements and all those parts and call it a good livelihood. But this also means that people who build Sweden will be deported. We do not share the opinion that one should simply make more people deportable.

You could have ensured that we had received a fairer system. It is very disappointing that you did not take that chance. It is also very disappointing that you do not vote for us to return to making full-time work a requirement for labor migrants.

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

Zara Leghissa (S)

Madam Speaker! More needs to be done in the matter of migration and labor immigration. We need to hold up the good examples and be role models for the continued work. It is also important that the parties in the labor market are involved.

We Social Democrats consider an increase in the maintenance requirement to be a good step forward. It is also something that we can introduce here and now, since a maintenance requirement already exists today. Therefore, it should not result in any major administrative additional costs.

We will always stand up for fair conditions in the labor market. One should not compete with poor working conditions and low wages.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Labor immigration has historically been positive for Sweden and contributed to our country's development. People from other parts of the world fill gaps in the Swedish labor market and develop our economy and knowledge. We know in Sweden that labor shortages within industries and professions can be managed. But for labor immigration to contribute positively for the worker, the employer, and the whole society, there must be guarantees that foreign workers are not exploited on the labor market and are not used to dump wages and working conditions on the Swedish labor market.

The regulatory framework and system we have today is totally distorted and puts the employee at a disadvantage compared to the employer. It has led to a situation where cleaners are forced to work long days and nights without rest, construction workers are forced to work in poor working environments with risks to life and health, cleaners are forced to pay a portion of their wages to the employer to be able to keep their jobs, and restaurant staff are forced to sleep on mattresses in the warehouse and sometimes even be sexually exploited and silenced.

We have long known about this cynical exploitation of labor migrants on the Swedish labor market. And the worst of all: when authorities finally realize what is happening, it often happens that individual employees are placed in the Swedish Migration Agency's detention while the employer can continue the exploitation of foreign labor.

Madam Speaker! This situation has not emerged from a vacuum but is a result of political decisions in this chamber - just like the shadow society, which many politicians in this chamber often refer to and which they themselves have created. The current system for labor immigration, which was introduced by the Alliance government and the MP in 2008, is rigged so that employers can bring in low-paid labor without any stronger protection for the worker. It has meant gross exploitation of workers, exploitation, wage dumping, unhealthy competition, and crime. The employers' demand for cheap labor rules. It has led to people being deceived into coming here from other countries, being exploited under slave-like working conditions, and risking punishment if they report the employer.

Vänsterpartiet and the trade union movement predicted this already when the system was introduced. We noted then that it reinforces the unequal balance of power in the labor market and worsens the conditions for the country's wage earners and those who are exploited. We have also since demanded – and for a long time pushed for – a fair system for labor migration.

Firstly, we must reintroduce the authority-based labor market assessment. The question of shortage and need shall be assessed by Arbetsförmedlingen in consultation with the labor market parties. Secondly, full-time employment shall be a requirement for work permits. Thirdly, a background check shall be conducted by employers who apply for work permits for foreign workers. Fourthly, workers who come forward and report about poor conditions at the employer must be allowed to stay in Sweden until the permit period expires and be given the opportunity to seek new employment as well as receive legal aid. Fifthly, employers who exploit employees must not get away with it. Here, punishment is needed for the employer and compensation to the affected worker.

In order to address the real problems with labor immigration, these proposals need to be implemented. The previous government met us halfway regarding the requirements for employment contracts and that employers should be obliged to report if the employment conditions deteriorate. This is naturally good and important to curb exploitation and fraud. But it is not enough, especially not when one has had eight years to arrange things so that we get a fair system.

Madam Speaker! What is being proposed here and now, and which is based on a proposition from the previous government, is that one must have employment that enables a good livelihood in order to be granted a work permit. What "good livelihood" means is to be regulated by ordinance, which makes the proposal unclear and difficult to assess.

I note that LO, TCO and Saco have objections to the proposal and point out that wages should primarily be granted in accordance with collective agreements and in accordance with the Swedish model. TCO and Saco also state that the proposal does not have the prerequisites to counter the abuse that exists and which I previously referred to. According to LO, full-time work should primarily be made the norm for labor migrants. Not even that did the previous government want to fix.

Vänsterpartiet shares the view of the trade union central organizations. We consider, for example, that a requirement for full-time work for a residence permit is a better way to go than an increase of the maintenance requirement. You do not solve the problems with the maintenance requirement and do not meet the needs that exist. That is not how reality looks on the labor market. Need should determine who is granted a residence permit for work.

That is why I am also critical of introducing a new sharp income requirement for labor immigration. Solving the problem through an income threshold signals that there are always higher wages for 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. But the fact that we are here now shows what a mistake it was for the Socialdemokrater to not reintroduce the labor market assessment when they had the opportunity, but instead rely on a higher income threshold.

The right-wing nationalists' support for a higher income threshold is fundamentally about their desire to reduce immigration to Sweden at all costs. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats are also buying into that story. But it is also one of the core principles in this government's political project. The fact that it primarily concerns closing the door for people with relatively low wages fits well into the strategy of consistently pointing the spear towards the working class in Sweden.

Vänsterpartiet's policy regarding labor immigration is about reducing exploitation in the labor market, about cohesion, and about taking advantage of the competence that wants to seek out Sweden and that is needed here. We will never agree to making more people deportable and to them losing their work permits for the jobs they perform.

The notion that a higher income threshold would result in reduced exploitation of labor migration can simply be seen as naive. And hand on heart, those of you sitting here – do you yourselves believe that? All you want is to make more workers deportable. It is not that this solves the problems we have in the labor market with labor migration. As long as the controls are insufficient and the balance of power between the parties is as uneven as it is with the current regulations, the exploitation will continue.

We believe that the focus should be on countering the exploitation and abuse with the requirements we propose, not on restricting immigration to Sweden and making it more difficult for those who have sought out our country. We intend to return when the right-wing nationalists present their concrete proposals in the Riksdag. Until then, I move for the approval of reservations 1 and 2 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to hear the Left Party. They are always on the side of the working class. The working class stands behind the Left Party. But then it is strange that one went backwards in the election and that social democracy, this evil force that wants nothing else than to do the working class harm, went forward in the election, despite the terrible January Agreement. What we hear here now are tones of how terrible it was with social democracy - oh dear! The Left Party would have received a double-digit result in the election. One would have become as large as the Social Democrats. But it went that way.

Somewhere it is what the voters see. It is big words and little delivery. It is not truthful descriptions of history. Tony Haddou stands here and says that we do not want and do not shall.

Member of Parliament Haddou sat in the Riksdag this spring and is aware that a lot of things happened. It was an illegal war from Putin against Ukraine. Furthermore, we still had measures from the pandemic to handle. We Social Democrats had just entered the government alone. There was no consensus in the old government on this, but we acted when we could.

It was also something else, and I would like Member Haddou to tell me. When did the majority in the Riksdag arise for this? When did the Moderaterna turn? It was the Moderaterna who stood and called it what we proposed for guardianship. Please describe exactly when the Moderaterna turned and when the investigations were initiated!

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! If I had known that my speech would make the Social Democrats so offended in eight minutes, I would have spoken for 16 minutes, I can promise you that. I shall keep that in mind next time.

To be honest, in response to the question that was asked, there was a majority in our [group]. I am quite uninterested in the Moderaterna. They had already decided what they wanted regarding the labor immigration.

What I can put together, and how it works in a government, is that the government presents its proposal for the policy it wants to implement on the floor of the Riksdag. If they had done that, one would have had a majority for the authority-based labor market test. There would have been 189 mandates in the Swedish Riksdag.

The Speaker wants to hide behind the fact that there was disagreement in the government here. It is a bit strange. It was an S-government. You were alone in the government. Still, the Social Democrats did not want to present the proposal.

Of course, one wants to hide behind the fact that there is a war. The Riksdag does not stop because there is a war. That is a somewhat strange statement. A great deal of politics has been done despite the pandemic and the war. There has been parliamentary work. It is not that it simply stops at the ministries.

You chose, despite that, not to present the proposal and to make it even more fair for labor migration. It is nothing that I can do anything about. I understand that the Social Democrats are offended by it. They have had eight years to do it and have also had a majority during the spring, and they still have not done it.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not often that I quote Ulf Kristersson. But if there was anything he harped on about during the previous term, it was that the Riksdag decides. Vänsterpartiet used this generously during the previous term together with and in cooperation with Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna.

Then there were no problems with moving forward. Why didn't the Left Party demand that last year? Why didn't they take a committee initiative, submit the proposal to the Riksdag, and pass it through?

The parties in the labor market were not really on board with this. That brings us to why the Left Party is unable to handle the working class. It is because the Left Party wants to conduct political trade union activity.

He wants the labor market parties to do as the Left Party wants. We Social Democrats promote trade union-political cooperation. In trade union-political cooperation, one goes hand in hand with the union. Then the union must be involved.

It is also about the entire Swedish model with the parties. Then one must do a thorough job. But Vänsterpartiet has never sat in a government, and it shows. It is just a matter of fixing, and it is just a matter of doing.

It is exactly the same with the Sweden Democrats. There was talk of 6.50 kronor less for petrol before the election, and it became 14 öre after the election. It is impressive how easy it is to sit and say that, and it is impressive how quickly everything can go. Then reality hits with a bang.

It is easy to say that it is just a matter of submitting a few proposals. It is only for the department to write a memorandum. But it is the same officials who write the bills and handle these issues who are handling the war. Then one cannot here in the Swedish Riksdag think that one should rush.

If Tony Haddou instead takes it a bit easy and joins forces with the Social Democrats for the sake of the working class, we can probably achieve great things. But do not make us your worst enemy!

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! There is a great deal to address here. It is somewhat absurd that M and KD wanted to give additional directives to the inquiry on labor immigration during the previous parliamentary term. The Moderates and Christian Democrats wanted to do more than the Social Democrats. That is a fact. It is a bit absurd to say it now in hindsight. But you have had eight years, and you have not wanted to do this.

To join forces with the Social Democrats is very difficult. The Social Democrats have their political project to, in every possible way, just like the Sweden Democrats and the government we have, reduce immigration to Sweden, and the people who are here shall be given hell.

It is the political project that the Social Democrats are also driving. I find it difficult to even find anything in the palace agreement regarding migration and asylum that the Social Democrats would oppose. I believe you should be very careful with that.

The Social Democrats talk about trade union cooperation and so on. One can only note what LO has said about the proposal and expressed in the referral, what Saco has said and expressed, and what TCO has said and expressed. They have had objections to the proposal. Above all, their political proposals are in harmony with the Left Party's political proposals. They are not the Social Democrats'. You had your own majority in the Swedish Riksdag with 189 mandates to fix the labor market assessment. Then some parties here in the Riksdag turned in anticipation of this.

You did nothing during eight years in government. You cannot be so happy about that.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The present proposition submits a proposal that labor migrants shall achieve a good livelihood through employment in order to be granted a work permit. The purpose of the proposal is to counter competition with low wages but also to deter unscrupulous employers as well as migrants who abuse the system.

The current regulatory framework assumes that a labor migrant can earn as little as 13,000 kronor per month for a work permit to be granted. This has resulted in an abuse of the system where many labor migrants work for a low wage with long days and without leave.

It also means that the employers who have fair conditions for the workers cannot really compete with these unscrupulous employers who exploit the labor immigrants.

According to the Economic Crime Authority, the abuse of the system for labor migration is one of the largest individual areas of crime within serious economic crime. That several labor migrants do not know the Swedish language and have poor knowledge of their rights strengthens the cultural exclusion that all too many immigrants already find themselves in today.

It is obvious that the current regulatory framework is not sustainable. It affects both the business community, safety and cohesion in the country, as well as individual migrants who end up in the vulnerable situation that today's labor migrants find themselves in.

The proposal in the bill and what the Social Insurance Committee supports is that the maintenance requirement shall be raised from today's 13,000 kronor to a sufficient maintenance level to be regulated by the government in a decree. This proposal has positive consequences for society. Among other things, it means that the low-wage entry-level jobs will now hopefully go to youth and newcomers here in Sweden instead of bringing in non-European immigrants to work in a kiosk or a grill kitchen. Again, these simple entry-level jobs will strengthen the local community. Those who today are on benefits will have more opportunities to get a foot in the door of the labor market because the simple jobs that previously went to labor immigrants must now be staffed by the Swedish workforce.

Furthermore, it will be a great win for the business sector when the unfair competition decreases where certain employers could outcompete others with the help of cheap labor from abroad. I myself have eaten at some grill restaurant once where I heard the owner complain that it is not possible to run a business as one did before now that the competitors can hire cheap labor from abroad who work more hours for lower wages. The unfair competition will not cease because even illegal migrants function as cheap labor. However, this proposal is a step in the right direction.

Labor migration must serve Sweden's interests. A labor migration that strengthens unserious employers is not a labor migration that serves Sweden's interest. A labor migration that can be abused and become a way into Sweden for economic migrants is not a labor migration that serves Sweden's interest.

This proposal also means that labor migrants will have a salary that does not cause them to become part of the exclusion that many immigrants have fallen into. This, in turn, leads to Sweden becoming a more attractive country for qualified labor migrants.

During the preparation process, the Sweden Democrats have submitted a special statement. We see this proposal as a step in the right direction. However, the proposals in the Tidö Agreement will go further than this. Given that there is a reform agenda in the Tidö Agreement regarding labor immigration, the Sweden Democrats have not submitted any follow-up motions regarding this bill.

It is important to emphasize that there is much more to be done regarding the regulation of labor immigration. Today, for example, there is no requirement that a foreigner applying for a work permit must have a residence arranged before entry. Given the housing shortage in Sweden, this is unreasonable. Therefore, the Sverigedemokraterna argue that a condition for a work permit should be that labor immigrants arrange a residence before entry. That is not the case today is noteworthy.

The Sweden Democrats move for approval of the Social Insurance Committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! This spring, the Sweden Democrats wrote a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet with the headline "With the Riksdag behind them, what is S waiting for?". In the article, the Sweden Democrats' Members of Parliament argue for the reintroduction of the labor market test and question why the Social Democrats never deliver on their promises to reintroduce this control. They describe the labor market test as "the most important piece of the puzzle in future rules for labor migration".

In August, just before the election, Jimmie Åkesson announced that the party was ready to drop the requirement for the labor market test. Instead, the party was suddenly ready to consider a wage floor, which the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna proposed.

In the negotiations between M, KD, L and SD, SD dropped its demand to reintroduce the labor market test, even though it had previously stated that the labor market test is the most important piece of the puzzle in future rules for labor migration.

What was it that made you change your opinion on the labor market test? What did you get instead that made you choose to drop what you previously described as the most important piece of the puzzle? Why do you want to retain a system where the employers and not the needs of the labor market decide who comes to Sweden and works?

And why do you want to retain a system that likely lacks support among a large part of your voter base, namely LO members? LO wants the labor market test to be reintroduced and that labor immigration be limited to shortage occupations. This view is likely shared by those LO members who chose to cast their vote for the Sverigedemokraterna in the hope that you would reintroduce the labor market test. What do you have to say to all those LO members who voted for you but were let down?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! What we have to say to the LO members and to you, Tony Haddou, is that in negotiations with the Moderates, we have worked out a broad reform agenda regarding labor migration. This is to be investigated, and then we will see where we land.

But we will do more, Madam Speaker, than the Left Party has done in its collaborations with the Social Democrats. Here we actually have a government with the Tidö Agreement as its basis that has several proposals regarding how to tighten labor migration. I think even Tony Haddou should appreciate that, considering that we have had governments that have hardly done anything on this issue.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not feel that it was really an answer to my question.

My purpose is not to tighten immigration or labor immigration, but to have a fair system for it. But that SD has no backbone and is prepared to change its position on issues that strengthen the position of wage earners in the labor market is nothing new. SD has changed its opinion on a number of issues to adapt to the other right-wing parties and to the business community.

SD voted no to requirements for conditions on par with the collective agreement in public procurements and, after a few dinners at Svenskt Näringsliv, no longer wanted to see any limitations on profits in welfare.

SD:s shift regarding labor market testing for labor migrants is just one of many examples where the party has abandoned the wage earners to adapt to the other right-wing parties and the business community.

At the same time, SD claims to have taken the role of Sweden's most employee-friendly party. That does not add up. It is low and unserious to deceive such a large part of the population and the workers in Sweden.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The problem is that the Left Party does not want to tighten the labor migration.

The point is that we have young people here in Sweden who need a first entry-level job. We have newcomers who need a first entry-level job. What we do then is bring in unqualified people from other countries who take these jobs.

In some way, Madam Speaker, Tony Haddou calculates that one helps the wage earners in Sweden when one removes the simple jobs and gives them to people who come from other countries and who cannot speak Swedish. It is good labor immigration, according to Tony Haddou.

We do not agree. We think that we should have a labor immigration that serves Sweden's interests. One should bring in qualified labor when there is a need for it. We should not bring in personal assistants or people who can work in a falafel shop or a grill kitchen when we do not need it. We have youth here who do not have jobs today and who need to get a job to be able to move and get their own housing. We have newcomers who are on benefits. We have many people in Malmö, where I come from, who are on benefits. They need a first entry-level job, and then we need a labor immigration where these simple entry-level jobs are not taken by people coming from other countries as labor immigrants. That is the most important thing we can do.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, we have a broad reform agenda regarding labor immigration that has not been seen in a long time. We have not had many reforms regarding labor immigration to tighten it.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I must say that I was somewhat surprised when I listened to the speech and heard "great profit for the business sector".

Then I wonder: Has one really looked at the debate that is taking place out there right now? Has one listened to the companies? Has one talked with Svenskt Näringsliv? Has one talked with Almega? Has one talked with the tech companies? Has one talked with the green industries? They are now very worried about where they are going to find their competence.

Now, it is being said in the speaker's chair that we should not have low-skilled labor immigration to Sweden, but that high-skilled labor immigration is good. According to the Tidö Agreement, it is desired to introduce a limit of 33,200 kronor in salary. We can look at those who are here as labor immigrants with a salary below 33,200 kronor, who would no longer be allowed to stay but would be deported. That is one of seven system developers, one of seven engineers, and one of seven IT architects. That is high-skilled labor.

My question to the member is therefore: How are companies to obtain the competence they need here today, and not in five years?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to tell Jonny Cato that a safer society is a win even for the business community. This is important to know.

I assume that Jonny Cato has read the underlying material, Madam Speaker. It states there that the unregulated labor immigration we have today benefits organized crime. This means that those behind the shootings and explosions we see today get their revenues from the labor immigration we have, because it is so unregulated.

I believe, given that I have also spoken with entrepreneurs, that they want security, especially in the large cities. Then we cannot have organized crime that derives its income from labor immigration because it is so unregulated.

We must, of course, do something about this. I mean, as I said, even the business community benefits from us having a safer society. I hope, Madam Speaker, that Jonny Cato can also realize this.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I was asked if I had read the underlying document. Let me therefore quote from the underlying document: "A higher income requirement or a limitation of the employment degree to be granted a work permit does not need to be introduced because it is not purposeful to counter the abuse that the investigation has mapped out." This means, therefore, that the investigator himself says that this will not counter fraud, organized crime, or irregularities within labor migration.

There are major problems within Swedish labor immigration, which we need to address with solutions that target exactly those problems. Of course, companies want security. But they also want the right competence. I honestly do not understand how it can be harmful and bad for Sweden that someone is here and working as a systems developer or IT architect and earning 32,000 kronor a month.

My question therefore becomes again: How are the companies to get the competence they need here today?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The proposals in the Tidö Agreement will be prepared, and during the investigation, it will of course be ensured that the skills shortage that exists in the country today, which I am also aware of, will in no way be exacerbated. It is a self-evident matter. We know this because we meet with business owners all the time and they speak about the skills shortage. It is nothing that anyone wants to exacerbate right now.

But I also want to quote something from the underlying material, Madam Speaker. It says as follows: According to the Economic Crime Authority, the abuse of the system for labor immigration is one of the largest individual areas of crime within serious economic crime.

That is how it looks today, Madam Speaker. It is regrettable that labor immigration has been so unregulated that it has become a way for criminals to sustain themselves and expand their activities. Therefore, it is self-evident to me that something must be done about this. We cannot have a labor immigration that benefits criminals. Obviously, it must be regulated even further.

If one thinks that we should let the criminals benefit and receive their funds from the labor immigration, one stands for completely different values than I do, Madam Speaker. I want a safer society, and I do not want the labor immigration in Sweden to benefit the criminals.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Animal keepers, tractor drivers, cooks, nursing assistants, animal healthcare workers, engineers, systems developers and IT architects - what do they have in common? Yes, they are shortage occupations. What else do they have in common? Yes, they are some of the occupational groups that will be hit hard by a significantly raised wage floor. People who today go to work, who right now are at workplaces all over the country and are working, would no longer be able to meet the wage demands that both the old and the new government want to introduce.

The proposal from the previous government is bad for Swedish companies, our labor market and our competitiveness, and not least for Swedish GDP. Labor immigration contributes 33 billion to GDP and 12 billion in tax revenues every year. The proposal means that the government, through a regulatory change, can establish exactly how high a wage floor should be. But the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna have now, together with Sverigedemokraterna in the Tidö Agreement, agreed on a wage floor of 33,200 kronor.

Let us look a little closer at what it would actually mean. Within health and social care, three out of four labor migrants would lose their work permits. It is assistant nurses that the Swedish healthcare system needs. Within crafts and construction, almost two out of three labor migrants would lose their work permits. It is labor that Sweden needs.

The government claims to want to protect and attract highly qualified labor. With a wage floor of 33,200, it will do precisely the opposite. Even though the average wages among, for example, engineers and IT experts are relatively high, the starting salaries for primarily younger people are lower. More than one in seven labor migrants within these professions do not reach the intended wage floor of 33,200 kronor. Over 450 engineers and over 700 IT architects and systems developers would no longer be granted work permits in the country.

Looking at the statistics from 2019, one sees that more than half of all those who had work permits would be deported. This concerns over 12,700 people who went to work in Sweden and contributed every day. The requirement would hit many industries hard, not least within the service sector, and not only against occupations that require short training but also against more qualified occupations.

Hiring foreign labor is many times a time-consuming process that demands a lot from companies. It is not done because it is easy or cheap. The reason for choosing to hire foreign labor is that there is a shortage of skills. An overwhelming majority of all the labor migrants working in Sweden do so precisely within shortage occupations.

There are already today requirements that those who come to Sweden as labor migrants shall have a salary that is in accordance with collective agreements or according to industry practice and thus at the same level as the salary for other persons within the same industry. Collective agreements are the primary instrument used for wage regulation on the labor market. Introducing a politically determined wage on the Swedish labor market according to the proposals in the bill risks therefore affecting the Swedish wage formation model. A wage floor could act both as wage-driving within occupations where the general wage level lies below the level and as wage-pressing within occupations where the general wage level lies above the level. This risks, in addition to affecting the Swedish wage formation model, leading to diminished competitiveness for the companies.

A main reason why the government, both the former and the current, wants to introduce a significantly higher maintenance requirement for labor migrants is that it would curb the fraud and abuse that exists within labor migration. I am the first to agree that there are major problems with the abuse of work permits, which has been noted by several authorities in recent years. Fraud, crime, and irregularities do not belong in any part of Swedish society, nor within labor migration.

A number of reforms to prevent the problems have been implemented by the government, and more needs to be done. It is, however, important that the reforms that are implemented are purposeful and actually lead to a reduction in cheating and do not break the entire system. And that is what a raised subsistence requirement would actually do.

In the investigation that this proposal is based on, it is said that this is not a proposal that reduces cheating or counters crime. Now we have therefore established that this does not counter cheating. This leads to the fact that the shortage of labor within shortage occupations will increase and that it will become harder for companies to find the right competence.

If the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals truly want to be the bourgeois, liberal and business-friendly government that they claim to want to be, this is a golden opportunity to show it in action - to scrap the proposal, throw it in the bin, redo it and do it right, for the sake of the companies, for the sake of the economy and for the sake of the welfare.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of reservation 1.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! High-skilled labor immigration enriches Sweden in many ways and is important for many companies to be able to find the right competence and to strengthen Sweden as a knowledge nation. But it is equally true that fraud and abuse occur on a large scale, especially when it comes to low-skilled labor immigration. It is a problem that politics must handle.

Sweden also has an extensive problem with a lack of integration and an exclusion of far too many people, not least foreign-born people, who do not go to work and who need to become self-sufficient. In that case, it is unreasonable for people to travel from the other side of the world to clean or wash dishes here in Sweden. There are people in our country who can perform these jobs and who need to move from benefits to self-sufficiency.

Furthermore, we can observe that the abuse of the system is one of the largest areas of crime within serious economic crime. It is therefore fully reasonable that the maintenance requirement for labor migrants is raised from today's 13,000 kronor. It is not the entire solution, as several have pointed out, but it is an important step on the way, and it is part of a palette of measures that must be implemented to curb the abuse.

Madam Speaker! If people come here to work, it is also perfectly reasonable that they should have a wage that allows them to support themselves. This proposal is also about actually strengthening the one who immigrates to Sweden as a laborer. It is about strengthening the individual's rights not to be exploited through worse conditions or lower wages.

We know that today's regulatory framework has made it easier for unscrupulous employers to use cheap labor and exploit the system. The Swedish regulatory framework for labor migration has also in many ways been pointed out as unique. Unlike many other countries in Europe that specifically target highly educated individuals, Sweden accepts everyone regardless of education and occupation. We also have, to a large extent, a very extensive labor migration that applies specifically to low-skilled occupations.

We see that the number of labor migrants is increasing sharply. So far this year, over 50,000 applications have been received, and nearly 38,000 have been granted. This makes labor migration the absolute largest part of immigration to Sweden today. And as I was mentioning, in many cases it concerns occupations and jobs that can already be performed by people who live here. Therefore, the new government also wants to tighten the regulatory framework for labor migration through a raised maintenance requirement for people from third countries. It is a way to counter the abuse. It is about labor migrants achieving what is called a good maintenance through their employment.

The government's starting point is therefore that work permits shall only be granted if the work for which labor immigration occurs in the normal case has a wage level corresponding to the median wage. As the bill states, the exact level will be a matter for the government to decide on. The bill is a step in the right direction. However, there is no possibility in this bill to make exceptions from the maintenance requirement for certain professional groups, which is something that the new government wants to look into.

The Government also sees a need to be able to completely exclude certain professional groups from the possibility of labor migration, for example personal assistance. This is also not covered by the bill.

This will therefore be a first step, but more needs to be done in the future. The Government will, as soon as possible, produce the regulatory amendments required to, in a first step, apply a higher subsistence requirement than what applies today. Then, investigations will have to return with supplements in line with what I just said.

Apart from specific exceptions or completely excluding certain professional groups, the Tidö Agreement includes proposals that requirements for comprehensive health insurance should be introduced and that we should remove confidentiality barriers between authorities that can counteract labor exploitation. Additionally, we want to look at a major benefit reform with benefit caps that also makes it worthwhile for more people who are already in Sweden to take the jobs that exist on the Swedish labor market and move from benefits to self-sufficiency. A scrapped track change for asylum seekers is another tool in the palette of measures that will be required.

Furthermore, we will work to facilitate the immigration of highly qualified labor. Shorter and smoother application processes are, for example, absolutely fundamental. The processing times in this area are also far too long today.

Madam Speaker! It was the parties in the current government, with the Moderates at the helm, that pushed the previous S-government to introduce many of the tightenings of the rules for labor migration that were implemented earlier this year, as well as the decision we are making today. I may not agree with the Left Party on everything in the debate, but I can state that too little has happened in eight years. Where the previous government and the Social Democrats have dragged their feet, the new government will intensify the work to prevent abuse.

Mr. Speaker, let me state that just as it is important to limit labor immigration to low-skilled jobs where fraud and abuse occur, it is also important to strengthen Sweden as a knowledge nation. Therefore, we will do everything we can to strengthen the opportunities for high-skilled labor immigration and shorten processing times.

In conclusion, I move for the bill to be approved and for the motions to be rejected.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates and the Centre Party have done very well together for Sweden. It is clear that one misses the Alliance sometimes. I believe many of us do.

Labor immigration is something that I truly believe has been good for Sweden in many ways. But I agree with Jessica Rosencrantz that there are deviations that need to be countered.

I was surprised when the Moderaterna made their sharp turn in the labor migration policy, but I have all the time been pleased that the Moderaterna have stood firm that highly qualified labor is important and good for Sweden. I believe it is a genuine will from the Moderaterna's side to continue supporting highly qualified labor in the country.

But with a wage floor of 33,200 kronor, it is professional groups such as systems developers, engineers, and IT architects that will be affected. Therefore, I wonder a bit about the exception that both the Minister and the Member have spoken about. Can Jessica Rosencrantz give some examples of which professional groups could be covered by such an exception? Are chefs, systems developers, IT architects, and IT experts such examples? I would very much like to have an answer to this.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jonny Cato, for the questions! I want to start by acknowledging that we have done very well together throughout history. I also think there is a great reason to be proud of parts of the regulatory framework surrounding labor immigration, what has worked, and not least to continue to stand up for the immigration of highly qualified labor.

With that said, I note that Jonny Cato in his speech does indeed say that there are problems, but one does not have very many solutions from the Center Party's side on how we should curb the abuse. I am the first to say that this might not be a perfect solution. And it is definitely not the only solution, but as part of a palette of measures, I believe that this is right and proper. But from the Center Party's side, I call for more than a statement that there are problems. One should rather also present own solutions and not just complain about others'.

It is my firm conviction, regarding a large part of the shortage occupations we have and where we need labor immigration, that we will be able to have labor immigration. This applies, for example, to engineers, IT architects and network technicians. Unionen has, for example, described that the market wage for a network technician lies somewhere between 36,000 and 47,000, so I believe that we will continue to be able to have labor immigration when it comes to many of these occupations. It is required in the case of the highly qualified occupations. I can surely reassure Jonny Cato by saying I experience that it will be so.

I could stand and reason about the specific exceptions, but perhaps I should not do that. It should be the subject of a forthcoming investigation to further specify what those exceptions might entail. It is important, as said, to make exceptions for certain individuals who are not to be covered by the requirement. I also believe that there are other professions where one should not have labor immigration at all. We will have to return to both of these parts.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I still think that one is responsible if one is to make such a large change as it entails to introduce a wage floor of 33,200 kronor. What exceptions does the government intend?

There are very many companies and industries right now that are worried about what this will mean for their ability to find the right competence. Almega, for example, has written a number of articles on the subject. There is concern over system developers, IT architects, and engineers. Therefore, I would appreciate it if one could reason about that. Is this a group that could be covered by an exemption? Even though the average salary is higher, there are many within these occupational categories who have a lower salary. And we know that one in seven who are here today and work in these professions does not reach 33,200 kronor. It is, as I said earlier, 450 engineers and 700 IT architects. This is labor that Sweden needs. Therefore, I want answers: Will they be exempted or not?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker and Jonny Cato! I will not give any exact answers today. I believe it would be inappropriate of me to anticipate the investigation. If one were to reason in some lines, one could possibly state that what has been discussed, for example, are seasonal workers and green industries. There we know that immigration looks very different compared to many of the other occupations. But I do not intend to lock myself into any exact occupational groups today, but this we must look closer at.

But I want to return to what I said earlier. I note that the Center Party has a very high tone and a great deal of criticism towards the proposal being put forward, but in principle no own proposals. What I mean is that one is not taking this issue as seriously as it deserves. One cannot, therefore, just look at the positive parts of the system and talk warmly about the immigration of highly qualified labor and then have no own proposals for measures to rectify the fraud and the abuse.

There, I hope that a sobering up occurs within the Center Party, and I hope that one welcomes a discussion and a cooperation regarding how we can actually deal with the cheating. The cheating is nothing that benefits Sweden. It is definitely nothing that Sweden needs in a situation where we already have extensive problems with lack of integration and a gigantic exclusion for people who would need to go to work every day.

As long as there are people who can take the low-skilled jobs, I am not worried that these restrictions will cause harm. I see that in the case of many shortage occupations, we will still be able to have immigration of highly skilled labor. But we have to look at certain exceptions.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to participate in this discussion, but it became a bit too much, even though I have previously heard Tony Haddous' lies, when Jessica Rosencrantz in her contribution said that the Social Democratic government has pulled back. We have introduced binding employment contracts, sanctions, and fast tracks for newcomers. Where then is it that we have pulled back? Yes, we have pulled back in terms of abolishing the Moderate legislation. It was the Moderate-led government that introduced the world's most liberal labor immigration - the world's most liberal labor immigration.

It may be possible to have this rhetoric in the first debate after the change of government – it is only a few months with a Moderate-led government. But it becomes a bit strange when we have a bill on the Riksdag's table to tighten this. Now we have a Moderate-led government. Today, at 16:21, the Riksdag will make a decision that enables a wage floor in accordance with the Tidö Agreement. Tomorrow, the government will have a meeting.

My simple question to Jessica Rosencrantz, after she complained that the Social Democrats have backed out, is: Will you take advantage of the Social Democratic legislation at tomorrow's government meeting and set a wage floor in accordance with what you yourselves have negotiated in the Tidö agreement?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anders Ygeman, for the questions! I welcome the third Social Democrat to this debate. It is nice to see such great engagement.

We can go back in time. I am proud of large parts of the reform that was implemented, because I see that Sweden has a need for immigration of highly qualified labor. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. There are many parts in what was implemented by the previous Alliance government that were positive. It is about strengthening Sweden as a knowledge nation by making it easier to attract foreign expertise and about moving towards a system where the employer's need for labor is also actually governing, so that it is not just authorities and unions pointing out which professions should be subjects of labor immigration. There were parts that were good and parts that were less good.

I think this is a welcome step. The Government will, as soon as possible, make a decision on the wage level that Anders Ygeman is asking about. But I want to state that we probably will not be able to go all the way as described in the Tidö Agreement in the first stage. We want to fundamentally raise this requirement quite significantly, corresponding to the median wage for these occupational groups, which probably amounts to just over 30,000 kronor. But one cannot do that in a first stage and go all the way if there are not simultaneously exceptions for certain groups, which we also want.

Yes, this should happen as soon as possible. But it should also be an investigation that looks at how one can, for example, make exceptions for certain groups but also completely exclude other groups, for example personal assistants.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Now it is creeping out. This will not be done. When one has the opportunity and sits in a government position, one will not raise the wage floor. Instead, one will investigate the issue further. On Thursday, Madam Speaker, the government has the opportunity to raise the wage floor to 90 or 100 percent of the median wage. Now Jessica Rosencrantz says that such an increase will not come. It needs, in fact, to be investigated further.

First, people complain that the Social Democrats have pulled back when they wanted to limit the Moderate reform. Then you sit in a government position. We have a Social Democratic proposition on the table of the Riksdag, which we will decide on at 16:21. Despite that, you will not take advantage of the opportunity to make the decisions required to remove the 60 percent of labor immigration that has consisted of low-skilled labor immigrants or of labor immigrants where we do not have a skills shortage.

Instead, an investigation will be conducted. And what is to be investigated, Madam Speaker? Yes, further exceptions are to be investigated. Instead of a labor market assessment and instead of a real wage floor, we will get a Swiss cheese of exceptions. It is a high wage on paper, but in reality, it is continued wage dumping and continued exploitation on the Swedish labor market. It is the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna who stand there with the flag flying high. They blame the Socialdemokraterna, but they themselves hold the power. So, is it the Swiss cheese, the wage dumping, and an increased labor immigration to Sweden that will be applicable?

(Applause)

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I am constantly impressed by the Social Democrats' rhetoric. But one does not get very far with empty rhetoric, even if it sounds very nice here in the speaker's chair when one is bombastic.

What I said was that we will make decisions on a wage floor, but we will not be able to go all the way in a first step. In the long run, we probably want to raise the wage floor even further, but that also depends on other changes being made in the system at the same time. This involves, for example, looking at some exceptions but also completely excluding certain occupations from even being considered for labor migration, regardless of how high a salary one claims to have on paper. One such group can, for example, be personal assistants, where we see that there has been extensive abuse.

The proposal contains no exact figure regarding the wage level. We will make a decision on that as soon as possible. In addition, we will investigate steps to go further. For those who wish to delve deeper into this, there is, among other things, in the Tidö Agreement a long list of measures that the new government will take to curb the abuse and fraud with this system – measures that the previous government had had eight years to present, something that they did not do.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a bill that is said to lead to reduced utilization, even though those who wrote the proposal themselves have said that this will not be the case.

We in Miljöpartiet want to take measures to reduce the exploitation of people who come to Sweden to work. This proposal does not lead to that. Therefore, we reject the proposal in our reservation 1, which I move for approval of.

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, I served on the Education Committee. I was contacted by industry after industry who said: We need more people who can take jobs with us!

It was the concrete industry, the construction industry, shipping, the steel industry, welfare. I spoke with Svenskt Näringsliv. There is a shortage of labor in almost all industries, and those who are unemployed in Sweden today are often because they do not have any upper secondary education.

Madam Speaker! We must do much to invest in education so that more of those who are unemployed in Sweden can take the jobs where companies and the public sector are crying out for labor.

Here and now, however, it would be completely devastating to deport more than 10,000 people who today work within all these shortage occupation sectors. It would affect both the welfare and Swedish entrepreneurship. It would also be totally irresponsible towards these people, who have built their lives here and contribute to building our country. Do not make Sweden poorer!

Madam Speaker! What we have read in the Tidö Agreement is about all those who have a lower salary than the median salary not being allowed to stay and work in Sweden. It is therefore all those who have a lower salary than 33,000 kronor a month who would lose their jobs and be deported from Sweden if they come from countries that are not members of the EU, from Ukraine or other European countries. The Ukrainians would admittedly have the right to stay right now when there is war, but you understand the point.

It would be devastating, and it is not only we in Miljöpartiet who say that, but also Svenskt Näringsliv. In Företagarnas survey to members, more than every third company says that it is precisely the lack of suitable labor that is their biggest obstacle to growth.

The proposal that we are now going to vote on would provide the opportunity to implement the proposal in the Tidö Agreement that would undermine the foundations for many entrepreneurs. Some might see themselves forced to raise the wages very much more for those who are labor migrants than for others, which could also lead to a rather skewed injustice.

Madam Speaker! Instead of punishing the people who work honestly and contribute to Sweden's welfare today, we in Miljöpartiet want to go after those who abuse the rules and exploit people. In today's system, it is often the one who is exploited who is punished, which means that many do not dare to report to the police or speak out. An important step would be to ensure that workers who have not received the correct compensation have a right to damages and to give the workers support to also pursue that.

Madam Speaker! The investigation behind this proposal has also clearly ruled out imposing requirements for full-time work. I want to tell the Chamber of the Riksdag about an email I received this week. It was a man writing about an acquaintance who works at 80 percent and studies at 20 percent at SFI, Swedish for immigrants. I am glad that it will continue to be possible and that the proposal for full-time requirements has not proceeded. The important thing is that people can support themselves on their salary even if it were a part-time salary. And that is actually how the regulations look today.

Madam Speaker! In the debate, quite a few things have been said that are very strange and which indicate that the debaters do not quite have a grasp of what reality looks like today. The Sweden Democrats' member spoke, among other things, about personal assistance and the work of assistance as a simple entry-level job.

I just want to say one thing: It is possible that there are some users who are incredibly easy to work with. But it must absolutely not be regarded as and called an easy entry-level job to be the person responsible for ensuring that another person can stay alive. This is an advanced job that unfortunately has far too poor conditions.

It is difficult to find personal assistants in Sweden today. I have people in my own circle who are affected by this in a devastating way. A friend of mine had to cancel his studies in the law program because it was not possible to find personal assistants who were skilled enough and wanted to take this job with the poor conditions. He was simply too afraid of being injured.

The proposal to totally prohibit the possibility of employing personal assistants who do not live in the EU would make it even more difficult for those who have a right to assistance to have that right met in practice. You are going the wrong way. Improve the conditions instead, and train people who live in Sweden and who are unemployed. Ensure that those problems are solved, and do not go the other way. Do not put a stop to all those who are now actually participating and contributing and building our country strong and who ensure that Sweden functions.

Madam Speaker! This proposal does not solve the problems that are intended to be solved. We in Miljöpartiet therefore move for the proposal to be rejected.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

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

Sweden needs labor migrants. We have debated that here, and there is no doubt about that. What we are actually discussing is in what forms and under what rules this should take place.

We Christian Democrats want to promote the immigration of qualified labor. We also want to stop the competence expulsions but at the same time tighten the rules for labor immigration to counter fraud, exploitation, and the displacement of residents in exclusion. This is done, among other things, through a wage requirement for labor immigration. In our eyes, it is natural that the requirements will be supplemented with exceptions for shortage occupations, for example seasonal work as well as certain agricultural occupations.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish regulatory framework for labor migration has been pointed out as unique. Unlike practically all other countries in Europe, which specifically target highly educated individuals, Sweden accepts everyone regardless of education and occupation.

It is quite clear that labor immigration 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, labor immigration is necessary for the competitiveness of Swedish companies. The Christian Democrats consider that labor immigration is important for a dynamic Swedish economy.

Labor immigration has long been strictly regulated in Sweden. There were trade union demands for protection against wage competition in combination with a narrow and difficult-to-manage regulatory framework that created significant problems for companies' skill supply. The Alliance, with the support of Miljöpartiet, implemented the system that prevails today in 2008. The system has given many people the chance to try their luck in Sweden and has provided important contributions to our country.

At the same time, it can be noted that the number of labor migrants who have come to Sweden has increased significantly. In the beginning, when the system had stabilized, the number stood at approximately 14,000 applications per year around 2012. Before the pandemic, the permit level rose to 20,000. This shift has occurred at the same time as Sweden has received a large number of third-country nationals, many of whom have had difficulty entering the labor market.

So far this year, over 50,000 applications have been submitted, of which nearly 38,000 have been granted. Labor migration therefore currently constitutes the largest part of immigration to Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats argue that the current system for labor migration needs to be reformed. It needs to be tightened and adapted to societal developments. Sweden stands out in the Western world by offering relatively large opportunities for people to immigrate for work, also to perform relatively unskilled tasks.

The current regulatory framework also needs to be reformed to move away from deficiencies that have led to cheating, exploitation of people, and crime in the labor market. This applies primarily to occupations with lower wages.

The unhealthy companies that abuse the system and exploit workers from third countries, but also EU citizens, create unequal competitive conditions on the Swedish labor market.

Companies that do not pay sufficient wages, provide poorer working conditions, and do not comply with the work environment legislation can, in the long run, if these are not stopped, outcompete honest companies that follow the rules in certain industries. For many of these honest companies, it is therefore necessary that we ensure that unhealthy companies cannot exploit the system of labor immigration.

The abuse of the system, Madam Speaker, for labor migration that occurs is significant and serious. It does not only affect the individual but is also a threat to healthy competition.

The Christian Democrats therefore agree with the reasoning presented in the bill and what we are discussing now regarding the introduction of a higher maintenance requirement for labor migration.

Even though it can be stated, and we share that opinion, that the maintenance requirement alone cannot stop the abuse of the system, the measure will nevertheless strengthen the position of labor migrants on the labor market and benefit the system as a whole. For example, a raised maintenance requirement can act as a deterrent for less serious employers and also have an effect in cases where labor migrants are employed at a lower wage than a Swedish worker would receive. We also believe that this opens up new opportunities for work for those who are unemployed in our country today.

Madam Speaker! It is proposed in the bill that a labor migrant must achieve a good livelihood through the employment in order to be granted a work permit. The closer scope of the concept good livelihood is not defined in the bill but shall be specified in a forthcoming ordinance. As has been said before, the government parties in the Tidö Agreement have provided a number of starting values in the discussion. We will have to see what the decision ends up being. But the bill is an important step toward addressing the problems.

The Christian Democrats also consider that, with regard to the need for competence supply, there may be advantages in maintaining the possibility of part-time employment.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats, based on my reasoning, move for approval of the proposal in the bill, which means that a labor migrant must achieve a good livelihood through their employment to be granted a work permit. The proposal in the bill aims to strengthen the position of labor migrants on the labor market and counteract competition with low wages.

This bill and this decision are one of the pieces of the puzzle to promote and create greater opportunities for jobs in Sweden, but the decision also needs to be combined with, for example, a reformed benefit system.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström says that he wants to strengthen the position of labor migrants in Sweden. At the same time, his party proposes in the Tidö Agreement that labor migrants working in Sweden should lose their jobs and be forced to move away from here.

Ingemar Kihlström also speaks about improving the competitiveness for honest companies. At the same time, the Christian Democrats want to deport those who work for the honest companies.

In what way does it strengthen the position of labor migrants to be deported and lose their jobs? In what way does it strengthen honest companies that their employees are forced to stop working for them and move away from Sweden?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions, Annika Hirvonen.

I can state that the situation in Sweden is such that there is an unhealthy competition. The companies exploit the system as it is constructed today.

We can also observe that Sweden, as I said in my speech, stands out in all of Western Europe. Sweden accepts very low wage levels for labor immigration, which distinguishes Sweden. Companies that exploit the situation drive out honest companies that are forced to close or go bankrupt.

We can see that there is currently broad support in the chamber to move in the direction of the bill, that is, to take steps to create a serious labor immigration and labor market in Sweden. It promotes honest companies and is a step forward in controlling how job opportunities are created for those who are in our country today and do not have work. It is in the best interest of all residents and companies.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Would it not be best to punish those who exploit – those who cheat – instead of punishing those who are exploited and the honest companies? These honest companies have staff that the Christian Democrats want to force out of Sweden so that they cannot continue to do the jobs they do today. There is talk about the fear of forcing companies into bankruptcy, and I find it difficult to imagine anything more dangerous for a company than suddenly being deprived of the staff it needs. It risks forcing companies into bankruptcy.

I therefore want to ask Ingemar Kihlström if he is prepared to at least ensure that people who have worked in honest companies in Sweden for many years are not deported. That would, in fact, make Sweden poorer.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Annika Hirvonen for the follow-up question.

I can state that in the mandate we have agreed upon in the Tidö Agreement, one shall review both levels - as Jessica Rosencrantz mentioned - as well as exceptions and special wage demands for individual professional groups. I believe we need to get this right. It is a fundamentally good reform from 2008 that has given us much in Sweden, but it needs to be supplemented with requirement levels. It shall be done in such a way that both employees and companies are taken into account and rules are created that are predictable for everyone.

I believe that this is one of the pieces to create a good situation. I will have to come back with the exact content when we see what the investigation that is to complement this proposition yields.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! It is the Liberals' opinion that the proposal in the bill A higher maintenance requirement for labor migrants should be adopted by the Riksdag. On the other hand, the Riksdag should reject the motions by Tony Haddou and others, by Jonny Cato and Martina Johansson, and by Annika Hirvonen and others.

Madam Speaker! The new system for labor immigration from third countries introduced in 2008 has made it possible for Sweden to obtain a significant and much-needed influx of labor. Between 2009 and 2021, more than 200,000 people from third countries were granted work-related permits in Sweden. If we base this on the figures for 2021, we can state that around 40 percent of these people worked in occupations requiring either university competence or – in the majority of cases – advanced university competence.

This does not mean, Madam Speaker, that it was only these persons who made an important contribution to our country's prosperity. The need for labor is multifaceted, and the system that came into force in 2008 enabled many jobs that would most likely not have been performed to be carried out. In other words, Sweden would have become poorer without the contribution of work and creativity that tens of thousands of labor immigrants have brought.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, we can summarize that the reformed system for labor migration introduced in 2008 has, in the large whole, been a very successful measure. At the same time, we have to note two troubling circumstances in this context.

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

The Swedish labor market has over long periods been characterized by a strange paradox: We have had a record-high long-term unemployment combined with a record-high shortage of labor. To import labor for jobs that could be performed by people who today live in a labor market exclusion is, in principle, a very questionable way to solve the need for available workers. It is a serious systemic error that must be addressed urgently.

Sweden would be much better in all respects if exclusion regarding the labor market, but also exclusion socially and culturally, were reduced. Therefore, we Liberals believe that it is our common duty and one of the new government's primary tasks to break the exclusion that today affects so many people in our country and which in the end can also threaten social cohesion.

Madam Speaker! The second troubling circumstance in this context is that in a good number of cases it has been established that the current rules for labor immigration have been abused and continue to be abused in various ways. The final report of the investigation on labor immigration is quite extensive in this regard.

The consequences of such abuse are serious for the people who come here and are subjected to exploitation, which must not be tolerated, but also for other workers - as well as employers - who are subjected to unfair competition and wage dumping. If the abuse is not addressed, as stated in the bill, trust in the entire labor migration system can be undermined.

Madam Speaker! It is for these reasons that we support the government's proposal that the employment justifying the work permit shall provide a good livelihood. As it stands now, it is only required that the person in question shall be able to support themselves. The requirement for a good livelihood is also in line with what is stated in the Tidö Agreement regarding the need to review the regulatory framework for labor immigration in order to raise the income threshold for granting work permits.

Naturally, other aspects concerning the conditions and regulation of labor immigration will be investigated according to the Tidö Agreement, with the aim of continuing to strengthen the Swedish economy and competitiveness. This includes, for example, the government's possibility to prescribe that a lower wage requirement shall apply for individual professional groups, as well as the possibility to prescribe that certain professional groups are exempted from being able to be granted work permits at all.

At the same time, it shall be investigated how Sweden's competitiveness as a research nation can be strengthened through the introduction of specific provisions regarding the possibility for doctoral students and researchers to stay in Sweden after a certain period of continuous employment.

In summary, Madam Speaker, we liberals see the proposal on adequate provision presented in the bill we are discussing today as a first step in the work to reform the regulatory framework for labor immigration. The main direction in this work shall be to preserve and strengthen the many positive aspects of the reform introduced in 2008 and simultaneously rectify the aspects that can be regarded as problematic.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In his speech, Mauricio Rojas highlighted how important labor immigration actually has been for Sweden. That pleases me. But in what way does Mauricio Rojas mean that Sweden - or anyone - benefits from people who work here today being prohibited from going to work?

There is an idea that if one expels the labor migrants who work in Sweden today, the unemployed will get those jobs. It has not been understood that the reason we have the unemployment we have today in Sweden is an all-too-low level of education. That is not solved quickly by changing the requirements for labor immigration.

We take an example: nurses. The starting salary for nurses is 25,000-28,000 kronor. That is several thousand kronor lower than the median wage that it states in the Tidö Agreement that one must have to be a labor migrant in Sweden.

The hospitals are desperately recruiting nurses from all over the world so that the surgical queues will become shorter and so that the waiting times at the emergency room will not become too long. Those people should not be allowed to participate and should not be allowed to come and work in Sweden with the Tidö Agreement's proposal.

Dismissing the nurses who work in the hospitals today and who are labor migrants is not possible. You cannot pick someone from Arbetsförmedlingen who does not have a high school education or a nursing education for that job. That is not how it is going to work. The proposal in the Tidö Agreement will only lead to fewer people being able to go to the jobs they have today.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the Speaker pronouncing my surname correctly!

In no way, Annika Hirvonen, would Sweden benefit from people who work being deported. I am completely convinced of that. Therefore, we must proceed with caution with these reforms. We must reform the labor migration so that we make it better and take into account the abuse that may exist.

We must also - and there the member and I are in complete agreement - bring in the tens of thousands of people who today stand outside of the labor market. It is not easily done. It will require a lot of work. We will be able to cooperate on how these people are integrated in a better way. It is very important. It is crucial for Sweden's future.

The investigation to be conducted will most likely look at all industries and situations where one must take into account that it does not fit with a general rule. It is very important, and therefore we have written that one should be able to make exceptions - something that is not included in the current bill. It is a problem for us, and therefore the government shall not be able to raise the wage limit directly.

There are no possibilities for exceptions, but they are very important to avoid situations of the type that Annika Hirvonen is concerned about - and I am too. We share that concern. We will ensure that it does not turn out that way.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that Mauricio Rojas answered that question and that, at least from the Liberals' side, one does not want to kick out all those labor migrants who today work and are needed in Swedish companies and for the Swedish welfare.

I also want to ask whether the government, which the Liberals are part of, will look at the regulatory framework regarding who is punished when something goes wrong. When an employer exploits a labor migrant or pays out too little in wages, it is today the one who is exploited who is punished with deportation from Sweden. We in the Green Party think it should be the opposite; it is the employer who abuses the system and exploits people who should be punished.

Employers should have an obligation to pay damages, while at the same time employees should be given the chance to seek another job and leave employers who have exploited them. Employees should also receive help in recovering damages for, for example, promised wages that they have not received or if they have been exploited in other ways.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Again: I sympathize very much with what Member Annika Hirvonen says. It is clear that we should punish those who commit crimes, and why not demand damages? I hope that the upcoming investigation also looks at these aspects. They are very important, because regardless of what rules we have, there will be companies and people who exploit the systems in a way that is not intended. Then we must have the opportunity to punish these behaviors, which undermine the credibility of a system that is very important for our country's prosperity.

Madam Speaker! I say once again to the member: Everything that can in an unfair way affect people who today contribute to Sweden's prosperity shall, if possible, be avoided. I cannot, of course, say what the investigation will come to, but our intention and meaning is that is how it shall be. Therefore, it is important that there is an investigation and that these aspects are looked at, that referrals are issued and that all possible proposals and comments are received regarding what is proposed.

This must be done well. It concerns people's lives here in Sweden. It concerns people's common prosperity. We are just as concerned as the member is that this is done carefully and in a good way.

I thank the member for the questions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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