(cont. from § 5) Labor immigration (cont. SfU11)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! A hundred years ago, Swedes were hard-working migrants in the USA. They left Sweden and poverty and built the new country. The Swedes built houses, roads, and railways. They planted and harvested. No matter how hard the Swedes toiled, they were only more exploited and many times very poorly treated. But the Swedes protested against the injustices, organized themselves unionally to the extent they could, and challenged the employers. They demanded justice and dignity.

Labor migration

In Sweden today, Mr. Speaker, we have thousands of workers from other countries. They are part of and uphold our welfare, and they work in service and trade. They work in industry, they build and they 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 the labor immigration has been and is positive for Sweden and that it has contributed to our country's development.

But for labor immigration to contribute positively for the worker, the employer, and the entire society, there must be guarantees that foreign workers are not exploited and are also not used to dump wages and working conditions on the Swedish labor market.

If there is a labor shortage within industries and professions, it must be able to be handled in a serious manner. The system we have today has undeniably facilitated employers' recruitment and the labor supply. But it has come at a high price, and it has involved a gross exploitation of workers, which has followed in the system's tracks.

It is a distorted system that is rigged in favor of the employers and which puts the employee at a disadvantage compared to the employer. It reinforces the unequal balance of power in the labor market and worsens the conditions for the country's wage earners and for those who are exploited.

We have long known about this cynical exploitation of labor migrants on the Swedish labor market. The worst of all is that when authorities finally find out what is happening, it often happens that individual workers are placed in Migrationsverket's detention while the employer can continue with the exploitation of foreign labor.

One does not dare to speak out if one is forced to work long days and nights without rest. One does not dare to report poor working environments on construction sites that involve risks to life and health. One is silenced, threatened, and punished if one tells about slave-like working conditions or is sexually exploited.

Mr. Speaker! Rather than tackling crime in the labor market, the government has, among other things, presented a wage floor for labor migrants. This has not been done to solve the problems we have in the Swedish labor market, but only to make people deportable.

This government has no ambitions whatsoever to punish unserious employers, but only immigrants. It has been a kind of bidding between the right-wing nationalist government and the Social Democrats which has now landed in that one must earn over 34,000 to get their work permit. It is nothing other than a deep class contempt that the government and the Social Democrats exhibit, without any responsibility or consideration whatsoever regarding the consequences.

This means that thousands of people who build Sweden risk having their work permits replaced by deportation decisions. These are workers who have built their lives here. They have children who have been born here or who have moved with them and who do not know anything other than Sweden. The children have their schooling, their leisure time, and their friends here like all other children. They will risk deportation, family separation, and ruined lives.

For many who work legally and have done the right thing, there are risks of being pushed into undeclared work and being exploited. Others will be forced to pay back parts of their wages to the employer afterwards 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 who have wages in accordance with collective agreements. They are needed in Sweden.

It is exactly in this way that this government creates tomorrow's undocumented people and deepens what it calls the shadow society. The government has an incredibly strong policy for pushing people into undocumented status; one has to give it that much.

Mr. Speaker! When one also introduces a wage floor for all workers without having any idea at all of what the Swedish labor market and its conditions look like, it is equality that is pushed back.

My expectations for this government might not be very high when it comes to equality in the labor market, but for example, LO occupations are gendered. That is how reality looks on the ground. According to collective agreements, the construction worker usually earns over 30,000, but the cleaner earns under 25,000. One can look at other industries that are female-dominated, for example, healthcare and retail. There, one ends up far below the new wage level. When it comes to classic male occupations within construction, transport, and logistics, the wages are higher.

We can count on women being deported at a higher rate than men. Insanely enough, the government justifies wage floors by stating that one must be able to support oneself. It is nice that the government at least acknowledges that wages for classic female occupations in Sweden, which are the absolutely most important jobs we have, are so low that one cannot get by on them. But will the government do anything about it? Of course not.

Many also work within the welfare sector, in a sector that is already understaffed and underfunded today. Forecasts indicate that thousands of jobs will be needed. In Boden Municipality, staff within elderly care are receiving deportation decisions. In many municipalities, especially in northern Sweden, this is not something that can simply be repaired. Nursing assistants are a shortage occupation in Sweden. One must be trained. It is not many who apply for it either.

But it does not really stop at the betrayal of workers, female-dominated professions, or the welfare state. 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 said they want to safeguard. The only thing one signals out now is 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. That is not how reality looks.

We shall let the parties in the labor market handle this through agreements and through collective bargaining agreements. It shall not happen through politicians' desire to deport as many as they possibly can.

This shows what a historical mistake it was by the previous government not to reintroduce the labor market test. They relied on a raised wage floor. And for this government, it has, as they say, never been about order and tidiness on the Swedish labor market. It is fundamentally about that they, at all costs, want to reduce immigration to Sweden and make as many as possible deportable. It is the underlying principle in this government's political project.

Mr. Speaker! We must have secure and strong wage earners in Sweden. Those who build Sweden – from the nursing assistant to the industrial worker – deserve respect. When it comes to labor immigration, there are two paths to choose from. Either we have a fair system with guarantees that foreign workers will not be 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. The unfair system reinforces the unequal balance of power on the labor market and implies a gross exploitation of workers. This is not solved with wage floors or their desire to make more workers deportable. Just as when it concerns the rules for asylum immigration and the subsistence requirements, more risk falling into the clutches of unscrupulous employers.

Vänsterpartiet has long demanded a fair system for labor immigration. There are proposals that the previous government fulfilled, 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. It is an important measure to curb exploitation and fraud. But it is not enough.

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

One should have the right to full-time employment, and a background check must be conducted of 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 a new employment. They shall not be deported.

Employers who exploit labor migrants shall be punished. 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, the exploitation will continue. This is where the focus should lie, so that we get a fair system for labor migration.

I therefore move for the approval of reservation 1 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet writes in its committee motion regarding labor migration that the current system for labor migration is rigged so that employers can bring in low-paid labor. But when the Riksdag voted in November 2022 to raise the maintenance requirement for labor migrants, Vänsterpartiet was against it.

If I understand correctly, Vänsterpartiet does not want low-paid labor to come to Sweden, but you also do not want to raise the requirement so that labor migrants will have higher wages. Vänsterpartiet argues that they do not want wage dumping, but they accept a low maintenance requirement, of 13,000 kronor, which leads to low-paid workers being able to come to Sweden and dump wages.

Can Member Haddou explain how all of this fits together? It is not the system that is rigged, but it seems that Vänsterpartiet is rigged. If you want higher wages for labor migrants, so that they are not exposed to criminal actors and other scammers, I wonder: Why do you oppose a demand that the wage should actually be higher?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! Had the Member read the Left Party's motion on the issue, he would know that we want to reintroduce the authority-based labor market assessment. It is the basis for obtaining a fair system for labor immigration. The question of shortage and labor demand shall therefore be assessed by authorities. This must be taken seriously.

Regarding the question about wages and rigging and so on: Had the member read about the Left Party's policy, he would have known that we want it to be wages in accordance with collective agreements. Politicians in here should not interfere in this. We want industry practice to be followed. We want what the parties in the labor market have agreed upon to be followed. It is not more difficult than that. It is not rigged anywhere.

We have a set of demands, which I hope the Sweden Democrats can read about.

But there is something that becomes a bit incomprehensible in this. Vänsterpartiet has had this policy regarding the labor immigration for many, many years. What shocks me is that parties like Sverigedemokraterna said one thing to the wage earners and then did something completely different after the election. They discard the authority-based labor market screening and completely ignore it. They told the wage earners that they did not want to dump wages and that they cared about the wage earners' conditions. But then there were perhaps a few business dinners, for they had to get into the good graces of Svenskt Näringsliv and the Tidö parties. Then it was a matter of discarding the wage earners' rights completely and letting the exploitation continue in Sweden. Because that is exactly what has happened. Sverigedemokraterna blew the LO members before the election, completely. They went to the election and did something completely different. They said this themselves in a press conference. One does something else after the election.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I want to say: There is no support in this chamber for a government-based labor market assessment. When the Sweden Democrats submitted the proposal during the eight years that the Social Democrats were in power, the Social Democrats chose not to support it. Nor is there support for it today. We have compromised with the three parties that we cooperate with, and as a result, we have pushed through a wage requirement that the Social Democrats did not get through during the years they were in power.

I think it is better to get something through that actually stops wage dumping and cheating and that stops the labor immigration that applies to the low-wage jobs than to not get anything through at all. That was exactly what happened with the Left Party's and the Social Democrats' policy: They did not get anything through at all.

Member of Parliament Haddou says that politicians should not set wage requirements. There has always been some kind of requirement if one comes to Sweden as a labor migrant. Previously it was 13,000 kronor. It was a requirement that one should earn 13,000 kronor. To say that one must follow the collective agreements is also a requirement, that is to say that labor migrants must earn that much to come to Sweden. Now the requirement is being raised. Vulnerable people in the labor market in Sweden should be able to take the low-wage jobs and not compete with people from third countries.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are clear, namely that they call their lies compromises. It is quite something; one can also do that in the chamber.

I have been clear and explicit throughout the entire debate that wage demands solve absolutely nothing on the labor market. Exploitation will continue because the Sweden Democrats gave their warm hand to the Tidö group. That group wants the exploitation of wage earners to continue on the labor market. It is very clear that the Sweden Democrats have taken that side. Repeatedly, the Sweden Democrats align themselves with such.

I said earlier that the Sweden Democrats got a lot through in the Tidö Agreement, but the price has shown itself to be that the Sweden Democrats blow over ordinary wage earners time and again. You blew them over when it comes to the deteriorations in the unemployment insurance. You said that you would make the unemployment insurance better, but then you said that you intended to give lower benefits to those who have been unemployed for a long time. It is the scam of the year.

Then you do the same thing with labor immigration. You said it should be means-tested, but after the election, you left all LO members in the lurch. Then you stand here and claim that you are solving this with the help of a wage floor. That doesn't solve anything. The exploitation on the labor market will continue. The difference then from now is that it is the Sweden Democrats who bear the responsibility for the exploitation on the labor market.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. 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. Therefore, it is important to promote qualified labor immigration.

But in parallel with this need, we believe that the rules for labor migration need to be changed. The Swedish regulatory framework for labor migration has been pointed out as unique. Unlike many other countries in Europe, which specifically target highly educated individuals, Sweden has accepted everyone regardless of education and occupation.

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 qualified labor immigration. In a global world, labor immigration is necessary for the competitiveness of Swedish companies. The Christian Democrats believe that labor immigration is important for a dynamic Swedish economy, but it must concern areas where there is a shortage of job seekers or where skills are lacking within our country.

The number of labor migrants to Sweden has increased significantly over a number of years. This shift has occurred at the same time as Sweden has received a large number of third-country nationals, many of whom have difficulty entering the labor market. Labor migrants thus constitute a part of the immigration to Sweden.

We must tighten the rules for labor immigration to counter fraud, exploitation, and the displacement of residents in social exclusion. This is done, among other things, through a wage floor for labor immigration, but in our view, this wage floor at a high level must be combined with measures that motivate the unemployed in our country to take a job. It also needs to be combined with relevant exceptions for shortage occupations. We also want to remove the possibility of switching tracks because the system is being misused, among other things, through false work permits which can leave people in very vulnerable situations.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats argue that the current system for labor immigration must be reformed. The regulations need to be tightened and adapted to societal developments. It is unreasonable to have wide-open doors for low-skilled and low-paid labor from countries outside the EU when we in Sweden have our own high structural unemployment in groups that should be eligible for this type of work. The unemployed in Sweden must be prioritized.

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, especially within occupations with lower wages.

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

One of the requirements previously set for a foreigner to be granted a work permit was that the income had to amount to 13,000 kronor per month. This was too low a level to address the problems.

The Tidö Agreement indicated a course for decisions on labor migration that involves tightening the rules in a number of steps and measures. A legislative change was decided with the support of a large majority in this Riksdag during the autumn of 2022, which opened up for changing the requirements for labor migration.

The government base presented the first step to tighten the requirements for labor migration during 2023. The decision was that from November 1, 2023, a wage floor of 80 percent of the median wage - today 27,360 kronor - shall apply as a requirement to obtain a permit for labor migration.

This first step will be complemented by a second step which is currently being handled by the government. The investigation initiated by the government, which received an updated mandate, was reported on February 15. Now a referral process and handling by the government begins, which will lead to a government bill on stricter conditions proposed to enter into force on June 1, 2025. The investigation's proposals largely consist of establishing a wage floor at the level of the median wage in Sweden but also provide proposals for a model that shall define which occupational categories can be exempted from the wage requirement in order to ensure operations that are important for Sweden in terms of competence but also regional needs.

Mr. Speaker! Today, approximately 400,000 people in Sweden are judged to be unemployed, and naturally, a wage floor for labor immigration does not constitute the entire journey to get those who stand outside the labor market in Sweden to get a job.

Step two regarding wage floors therefore needs to be combined with measures that are also currently under investigation. This concerns subsidy ceilings, qualification for welfare, as well as further active measures from Arbetsförmedlingen.

As a Christian Democrat, I also want to once again emphasize the need for valves and exceptions from the wage floor to ensure both competence and labor to meet needs that are important for municipalities, regions, and companies in different parts of our country. If it turns out that the first step's wage floor is already creating problems for recruitment, I know that some of my party colleagues in a debate article in the autumn raised the question of creating a fast track to investigate the issue of exceptions.

From my point of view, we need to analyze the application and the outcome of step one. If necessary, I believe that the handling of any problems may need to be prepared. But the change was made recently, and we must follow up on how the implementation becomes.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats move, as a majority in the committee, for the rejection of all motion proposals. But despite these motions for rejection, many changes occur. Together with the Sweden Democrats, the government tightens the requirements for labor migration in two steps based on the Tidö Agreement.

The proposals aim to counter labor immigration from countries outside the EU to low-wage jobs that unemployed people in Sweden can apply for and obtain. But this needs to be combined with proposals that facilitate high-skilled labor immigration so that the skills and knowledge that Sweden needs in various areas are ensured. These changes also need to be implemented with the perspective that, despite tightenings, it must be possible to meet the needs of municipalities, regions, and companies for skills and personnel.

I can finally state that so far, the proposed changes regarding migration have been supported by the Social Democrats. I can also state that no social democrat from SfU remains in the debate any longer, which is also a sign of how one prioritizes this area.

Other opposition parties have been opponents, to varying degrees, of the changes we are making now. Some have even stated that they want to tear up the changes.

This report shows, like many others, that the opposition does not have a unified line. One can ask what the future policy will be if, against my hopes, it becomes another government basis after some election in the future. One can ask who it is that is driving then, like on Christmas Eve, and which of the reforms we are now implementing will remain and which will be torn up. Will we and the Swedish people get an answer before the election in 2026 or perhaps 2030? I doubt it.

Many of us have come to the conclusion that Sweden's migration policy needs to change, and we now see how the government, through decisions and inquiries, is delivering proposals for change. As they say to keep the interest up at the end of an episode: To be continued.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström highlighted in his speech the importance of stopping fraud and exploitation, and there we are indeed in complete agreement. But the proposed wage floor does not solve the problems with fraud and exploitation, because those who want to cheat will cheat even with the new regulations.

If we are to tackle the cheating, we need to ensure that we work harder with outreach and with agency cooperation against crime in the labor market, and we must ensure that those who are being exploited dare to report it and seek help.

Right now, workers coming from a third country are completely at the mercy of the one who exploits them, because if one reports that one's employer breaks the rules and treats one wrongly, it is one's self who is punished. That makes people terrified to demand their rights.

We in Miljöpartiet think that we must change this misconception. We must ensure that it is the one who cheats and exploits who is punished and not the one who is exploited.

I want to ask Ingemar Kihlström if he is prepared to continue working with proposals that actually lead to stricter sanctions against companies that exploit people in the labor market and the right to damages and the possibility for those who report their employers for this type of fraud to stay and seek another job instead.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Annika Hirvonen, for an important question!

Sweden needs employers who follow the rules. Sweden needs employers who take responsibility. Sweden needs employers who take their work environment responsibility.

As mentioned earlier in the debate, we have workers, regardless of which country they come from and what origin they have, who have employers who do not follow these rules. We know that is the case. It is naturally important that we as a country and we as decision-makers see what we need to do to create a situation where workers have the safe and secure workplace with a work environment that functions as they have a right to. Naturally, we shall continue to work on that. It is not my specialty area, as it is very much about what falls within the Committee on the Labour Market.

I can state that in this proposal we, as has been noted previously by among others Jessica Rosencrantz, also make tightenings regarding the employers' responsibility. This applies to both reporting responsibilities and what requirements we set regarding sickness insurance and fees. But naturally, we need to constantly revise what we need to do further, because it must be so that every employee in Sweden shall have a safe workplace to go to with the right working environment and the right conditions. It is important to continue with this.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that my and the Green Party's proposals can still be included in that work, as they are designed to ensure that people who are being exploited can demand their rights and, ultimately, the right to a safe working environment where they do not risk their lives.

I have another question for Ingemar Kihlström. It concerns the way in which they now want to implement the raised wage floor. It will lead to that people who have done nothing other than work and pay tax and in that way contribute to the welfare will be mass-deported when their residence permits expire if their salary, for example, is only 34,000 kronor a month.

We in Miljöpartiet find this completely unreasonable. Why should serious companies and the welfare system be affected? Why should people who contribute to our country by working here, who perhaps have children who have established themselves in Swedish school and a partner who also works here, be deported from the country because they have a salary that is under 34,100 kronor if that salary is actually livable and is in line with the terms of collective agreements? For us, this does not add up.

We have a labor shortage in this country. Even if every unemployed person got a job, we would still be in need of people who come from other countries and want to work in Sweden. The situation looks the same in much of Europe. We have an aging population. Fundamentally, it is fantastic – it means that we live longer. But it also means that we need people who are prepared to work here. Why should we kick out those who have done so from day one and whom our companies need?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that we can choose to look at the glass in different ways, as half-full or half-empty.

We can observe that there are approximately 400,000 in Sweden who do not have a job. We can also observe that many of those who currently have permits under labor migration have jobs that do not require much education. We must, of course, make efforts to increase that it is Swedes, who are unemployed and exist in Sweden, who take the jobs.

Then there are, as I also said in my speech, valves. We shall take into account the needs of the municipalities and regions. We shall take into account the needs of the companies. In a previous exchange of remarks, it was mentioned that the industry lacks workers. But we can state that those who work in the industry in many cases have a wage level that meets the new wage floor. There are also valves to be used when the competence and the person who is to fill the gap is missing here in Sweden. In that case, a person can be granted a permit for labor migration.

I believe it is important to say what has been said earlier: Having people who come from countries far outside the EU to do low-wage jobs, which stands out for Sweden compared to many other European countries, is not sustainable when we have so many who would need to get a job within our borders.

I think that with our proposal we balance those things. We can have different opinions about it. I believe that when we land on a decision in not too distant future, we will also have weighed in the different reasons for it.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Who is it that is actually driving? the member asked. It is quite clear who is driving in the government - it is Jimmie Åkesson who is at the wheel.

I thought I would talk a bit about the countryside. Labor immigration is very relevant for the countryside specifically, and the Christian Democrats have made themselves – or tried to make themselves – a countryside party. But it is not enough to have nice election posters with hunting clothes or to talk about the countryside when it suits you when you are out with the right target group. Being a countryside party carries an obligation, and just as equality is touched upon in all committees, so too is countryside policy touched upon in all committees.

Labor immigration is completely essential for the countryside. The Minister for Rural Affairs has so far ducked questions on labor immigration and referred to Migration Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard. Therefore, I thought I would take the opportunity to ask about the Christian Democrats' view on labor immigration. I wonder if the member can promise, guarantee, or assure that the Christian Democrats will fight and struggle so that livestock keepers, tractor drivers, and forest workers shall be exempted from the wage floor?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that we both have a burning interest in the countryside. During the last parliamentary term, the Center Party chose to ally itself with parties that perhaps did not have the countryside at the top of their agenda, and then I perceived that it was not the Center Party that was steering the policy. You would probably have felt more comfortable and at home on our side of the field, and you are very welcome back.

The countryside is important. The green industries constitute a large base for our country. In the continued work, it is obviously important to analyze which occupations are required for us to maintain both our important forestry industry and our important agricultural industry, which, among other things, provides us with food on the table and energy, and the various horticultural industries. Many of these occupations are seasonal, and in the investigation, an extension of seasonal employment from six months to nine months is proposed, which would meet certain requirements. In the first response I saw, LRF gratefully accepted this.

I can promise Jonny Cato that we will ensure that the Swedish green industries can continue to operate in various ways. But that may not always require a low-wage employment for someone who comes from far away from Sweden and the EU.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am getting a bit irritated that the Moderates, Christian Democrats, Liberals, and Sweden Democrats do not want to talk about substantive politics. It is just game theory all the time, and it is only about what happens in the opposition. These proposals are creating real concern out in the country. Let us focus on the labor immigration, and then we can discuss who takes over from whom after the 2026 election.

How did it go when the Center Party had influence over the labor migration? Well, we have heard that here today. There were no changes. When the Center Party has influence, we always stand on the side of the countryside and the companies.

I am the first to say that it is good that one moves from six to nine months for seasonal employees. I am also the first to say that there are several good proposals in this. But it is the small proposals that are good while the large ones are bad.

The chairman says that it may not always require low-paid labor, but a farmhand or livestock keeper in the countryside deserves to receive a salary that is above the median wage. Is it the case that the government wants wages in the green industries to be raised? I do not think so, because they say they want to safeguard the Swedish model. We can, however, discuss whether it is done with this or not.

I ask again: Can the Christian Democrats promise to fight to exempt the green industries, the agricultural industries, and forestry from the wage floor of 34,000 kronor, which for many within the green industries is an imaginary wage?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In opposition, it is always easy to complain about those who make the decisions, and we were perhaps quite critical of the decisions that were or were not made during the previous government. Now Jonny Cato clarified that it was C that hindered the steps that S now stands behind in many respects. It is a pity that no S member is in the chamber and can verify this.

What is Jonny Cato's model to ensure that we do not get a low-wage labor immigration? Perhaps we might hear that in his main speech. The green industries are important, and I can promise Jonny Cato that we will monitor this area to ensure that they continue to be so. At the same time, it is not in those areas where the most people are, and I do not hear Jonny Cato say anything about workers at fast-food chains and other restaurants, newspaper delivery, and similar jobs. I am convinced that a motivated resident in Sweden could take these jobs.

During the previous parliamentary term, someone put a spoke in the wheel to prevent changes to the rules. It may have been Jonny Cato and Centerpartiet, but there are other parties in the chamber. But now we see that it is happening and that there is a majority to change the rules. We do, however, ensure competence and a recruitment base for municipalities, regions, and companies, including the green industries.

I promise, Jonny Cato, that we will monitor the area.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Let me start where we left off. It was obvious in the long negotiations regarding the January agreement that it was the Center Party's victory that no changes would be made to the labor migration. What the Social Democrats think, they have to answer for themselves, but I want to agree that it is unfortunate that the Social Democrats choose to leave the SfU debate before the other parties have spoken.

I vote in favor of reservation 4.

When talking about labor migration, it is obvious that many, including politicians, confuse asylum migration with labor migration. Therefore, I want to begin my speech by answering the question of what labor migration is. One can say that it is a recruitment tool for companies when they cannot find the labor they seek in Sweden. Then, one can hire from other countries. The labor migrant has a job from day one and works, contributes, and pays tax. One is, therefore, a plus for Sweden.

Now that we have clarified what labor immigration is, we need to clarify why it is good for Swedish companies, the Swedish economy, and our common welfare. Economically, labor immigration contributes 44 billion annually in GDP and 14 billion in increased tax revenues. There has been criticism regarding the figures that have been used in the debate, so I will instead take the figures that Svenskt Näringsliv and SKR use. There, it is 43 billion in GDP but still 14 billion in increased tax revenues – tax revenues that can go to school, healthcare, elderly care, police, and defense.

A full 77 percent of companies in Sweden believe that they do not find the competence they are looking for. Labor immigration is therefore an important complement - to have the whole world instead of just having Sweden as the search field. A full 90 percent of labor immigration goes to shortage occupations. The competence shortage is an obstacle for Swedish companies to grow and develop. It hinders Swedish growth, and that is bad. Therefore, labor immigration was needed.

The government-commissioned investigation on what future labor immigration should look like was recently presented. I can unfortunately state that it is a pure and utter mess. Above all, it is tone-deaf towards the companies and industries that are actually demanding it. It is not only the companies that are clear in their criticism, but also the Swedish municipalities and regions.

There will be a wage floor at currently 34,200 kronor and a system for those who are exempt from the wage floor, which involves both an authority-based and subsequently a political labor market assessment. This is extremely problematic and means that, in the final analysis, it is the government that decides which occupations there is a shortage of in Sweden, instead of the companies, municipalities, and regions that need to hire.

A wage floor of 34,200 kronor is extremely remarkable and risks destroying the Swedish model. No, says the government. But trade unions, employer organizations, and even the Medling Institute claim that the risk exists.

The system for exceptions, which was intended to address the criticism that previous decisions on the wage floor have received, is also clumsily and bureaucratically designed. First, Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket shall investigate whether they consider there to be a shortage of a certain profession. Thereafter, the government shall decide whether it agrees. It will be both bureaucratic and time-consuming and risks becoming more a question of which professions politicians think are important rather than which professions Sweden actually needs.

If the industry in western Sweden is to continue to flourish, if northern Sweden is to continue to be a leader in the green transition, and if the farmer in Småland is to find the labor he needs – yes, then labor immigration is needed.

Mr. Speaker! The Government seems to believe that we only need labor immigration within occupations with high wages and long education, but that is not the case. Already today, as has been said, 90 percent of labor immigration occurs within shortage occupations.

I had a bit of fun yesterday – we all have our different interests – with reading the Swedish Migration Agency's list of shortage occupations. I will honestly say that I have never done it before, and I was very surprised by how short it was. Animal keepers are not there, and there is no farmhand, veterinarian or sheet metal worker, nor machine operator, chef, bricklayer, construction worker, CNC operator, process operator, miner, agronomist, head chef, sous chef and so on. I believe you have understood the point. Occupations where we today are dependent on labor immigration are, according to the Swedish Migration Agency, not shortage occupations.

I often place the responsibility for migration policy on the Sweden Democrats. But I will not do that this time, because we must not forget that this is actually the Moderates' policy, as was assumed in my dear hometown of Helsingborg. I have tried to genuinely understand why the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals are pushing this issue so hard. If I have understood it correctly, the government has three arguments: It is about fraud, about people who are already in Sweden taking the jobs, and about the fact that the wage levels for labor migration have previously been too low.

We can start with the argument that wages were previously too low and that 13,000 kronor is an unreasonably low wage for labor immigration. I agree with that, but 13,000 kronor was never the wage floor. What did reality actually look like then? It was wages in accordance with collective agreements or industry practice that applied. The only way to end up on a lower wage and land near 13,000 kronor was if one worked part-time.

Looking at the statistics and the figures from 2020, one can observe that 87 percent of all labor force earned more than 20,000 kronor and that 5 percent earned between 17,000 and 19,900. Thus, 92 percent of labor force immigrants earned more than 17,000 kronor. There were only 142 people who during 2020 earned between 13,000 and 14,000 kronor. Had the government wanted to reach these 142 people, one could have, for example, introduced requirements for full-time work.

Then we can conclude that the 13,000 kronor that we have heard so much about here today - I understand, it is an argument that sounds good - cannot be the reason why the government wants to tear down the entire system.

Then we have the argument that these jobs should be taken by Swedes who are in unemployment and social exclusion. Had the government been serious in its will to reduce unemployment among Swedes, they would have started by equipping the unemployed with the skills needed so that they could take the jobs that exist. But when it comes to reforms to improve the labor market, it echoes empty at the Ministry of Employment. Some things are being investigated, I agree with that, but no reforms are coming.

Centerpartiet received quite a lot of criticism from L, M, KD and SD for the fact that it was investigated within the framework of the January agreement. This government is absolutely not better, rather the opposite.

From the government's side, it is often heard that labor migrants take jobs that could have gone to an unemployed Swede. Right now, there are approximately 430,000 unemployed. In comparison, approximately 20,000 labor migrants come to Sweden annually.

It is a long and complicated process to hire a person from a country outside the EU. When asking the companies themselves why they hire labor migrants, the answer time and again is that they cannot find the skills they need in Sweden or the EU. It can be about highly qualified labor such as civil engineers, but it can also be about animal keepers in agriculture or chefs at a restaurant.

We agree that more Swedes must have a job to go to. The matching between the unemployed and employers must become better. But limiting labor immigration does not automatically mean that the unemployed in Sweden will get the right skills to take the jobs. Instead, the companies, municipalities, and regions will be left without labor. The government knows this. Therefore, this also cannot be the reason why they want to tear down the entire system.

Then we only have one argument left, namely this one regarding fraud, irregularities, and organized crime. I agree that fraud, irregularities, and pure and simple criminality do not belong in any part of society, nor within labor migration.

I often hear from Jessica Rosencrantz that the Center Party has no proposals of its own, and I have repeatedly said that we do. Therefore, I want to announce that on February 21, 2021, the Center Party presented seven sharp proposals that will truly eliminate fraud, irregularities, and crime within labor migration. Among other things, we proposed a new law that makes it easier to reject an application for a work permit when the purpose can be considered to be something other than work, for example, to exploit the welfare system.

A wage floor, on the other hand – the government's own investigators have stated – does not solve the problem. According to the investigation, the problem lies not in wages being too low from the start, but in that the labor immigrant needs to pay back a portion of the monthly wage to the employer. Therefore, fraud and irregularities cannot be the reason either.

What is the reason then? The government is currently conducting an extensive campaign aimed at showing the voters that migration will be tightened. No legislative proposal that fits into the government's narrative that migration is a problem is too stupid, not even when it involves taking away crucial skills from Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I shall conclude in just a moment. One would think that a party like the Moderaterna, which claims to want to safeguard companies' opportunities to employ the right competence, has enough backbone to resist reforms that actually do more harm than good.

I would like to conclude by appealing to my former alliance friends to rethink and to do the right thing. Stop destroying the reform that you yourselves were once involved in designing! But we know that this appeal is in vain, because the fact that the reforms fit into the government's migration-critical narrative carries more weight than a functioning, rational, and functional regulatory framework.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the debate on labor immigration, the Center Party is known for its distortions. I will take one example here and now. In its committee motion regarding labor immigration, the Center Party describes wage requirements for labor immigrants from third countries in such a way that it is the state that decides who should be employed and how high the wage should be. It is a strange description. There have always been requirements that one must have a certain wage when arriving in Sweden as a labor immigrant.

Before the increase that the government and SD implemented, the requirement was 13,000 kronor. Now we have a new requirement, and there will be an increase ahead. What does the Center Party actually mean, if it is not the case that they are distorting the debate: Is the state to have wage requirements at all when labor migrants come here from third countries? Or should it be completely without requirements so that the Center Party feels that it is the companies that decide who they hire and how high the wage should be?

How is it that a wage demand of 13,000 kronor did not mean that the state decided everything, but that our increase up to the median wage suddenly means that the state has taken over? How does the Center Party arrive at these arbitrary conclusions?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party, of course, believes that there should be requirements, reasonableness, and common sense. The Centre Party believes that it is reasonable to have a salary in accordance with collective agreements or a salary according to industry practice. It is not anything strange, but there is a difference between having a salary in accordance with collective agreements and having 34,200 kronor.

Then we have this with distorting the truth, where the Sweden Democrats are honestly best in class and perhaps even playing in a league of their own. People continue to talk about the 13,000 kronor when I have just stood and accounted for every single figure. It was, therefore, 142 people who had a salary between 13,000 and 14,000 kronor. I agree that it is unreasonable, but there are other solutions such as introducing requirements for full-time, which many industry organizations are now requesting.

However, there is a difference if one introduces a wage of 34,200 kronor. What strikes me in this debate is that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna seem to think that everyone who has a wage under 34,200 kronor is a low-wage worker. My mother has a university education and works as a social services caseworker, but it was only after she passed 50 that she no longer had what the Sverigedemokraterna classify as low-wage work.

I think this is remarkable for a party that says it wants to be a workers' party.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It feels as if the Centre Party is confusing the wage demand from the state side, which has varied, with wages in general, as the member Cato went through from the rostrum.

There are interests that are pitted against each other here. It is obvious that the Center Party is fighting for the companies' right to hire whoever they want from across the entire globe at sufficiently low wages. It is a rather narrow interest because most companies are responsible and strengthen their local community. There are few companies that collapse because labor immigration is tightened.

But there are other interests. There are young people seeking their first job. Not all young people can become members of Parliament. There are people who are on benefits but who want to enter the workforce. There are newly arrived immigrants who are unemployed and who are seeking one of these low-wage jobs that have gone to labor migrants.

These were some examples of groups with weak anchoring in the labor market that previously have had to compete with the whole world for the low-wage jobs in Sweden. That time is now over, but the Center Party looks back and wants to return to the time when one brought in labor migrants from third countries to grill sausages in the street stalls.

Can Member Cato explain why he wants the low-wage jobs to go to labor migrants from third countries when we have groups in Sweden with weak anchoring on the labor market who need these jobs in order to be able to leave exclusion? Why does Member Cato prioritize foreigners over Swedish citizens?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! The legal requirement was not 13,000, the legal requirement was a salary in accordance with the collective agreement or a salary according to industry practice. Then there was, speaking of distorting the truth, an absolute salary requirement of 13,000 kronor, for example if one worked part-time.

When it comes to whether the Centre Party stands on the side of Swedish citizens or on someone else's side, the Centre Party stands on the side of the companies in this issue. I genuinely believe that the farmer in Småland and the large industry in Norrland know better than the Swedish Riksdag what competence they need.

We should also not believe that it is easy to employ labor migration migrants. For the first thing, one must advertise the jobs in Sweden so that everyone gets the opportunity to apply for them before one can have labor migration. Then one can choose to have the whole world as a search field, but it is more expensive, more complicated and more bureaucratic. This is something that one chooses to do because one cannot find the competence that is needed here at home.

But I am not surprised. This fits the Sweden Democrats' narrative well. The Sweden Democrats always mix up the cards when they talk about asylum migration and labor migration, even if perhaps not here in the speaker's chair. Whether this is deliberate or unintentional, I will leave unsaid, but I can at least state that it fits the Sweden Democrats' narrative that all immigration is bad and that everyone should leave.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jonny Cato, for the speech!

As usual, migration policy is very black and white for the Center Party, without room for nuance, and everyone who in some way tries to adjust the regulations is accused of not wanting, in this case, any labor immigration at all.

The truth is that the government is trying to find balanced legislation, and there I maintain that it is reasonable with tightenings that will lead to there being somewhat fewer mail carriers, newspaper delivery people, fast-food employees, and berry pickers, to mention a few examples. It is reasonable that we shift the focus to a more highly qualified labor immigration, just as many other countries do. I do, however, take the concern that exists in many industries seriously, and it is precisely for that reason that we are looking at which exceptions can be made.

As I asked Jonny Cato in a previous exchange, it is not entirely obvious what the Center Party wants regarding wage requirements. Let me therefore be very clear and ask: Is it Jonny Cato's opinion that we should stick to the regulatory framework which – Jonny Cato must still concede – previously made it fully possible to come here and work for a wage of 13,000, 14,000 or 15,000? Is it the Center Party's answer in this debate that is where you think the wage requirement should lie?

It would be very enlightening for the Swedish people to find out what the Center Party's alternative is. This also obviously has consequences for the authority handling the applications when two-thirds are applications that do not concern highly qualified labor. This obviously means that the companies that really need to bring in top competence and talents have to wait longer due to long processing times.

The government has now given a mandate to the Swedish Migration Agency to transition and rather prioritize the immigration of highly qualified labor.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Again: It is about 142 people who were between 13,000 and 14,000 kronor.

Centerpartiet thinks that wages in accordance with collective agreements or wages according to industry practice are reasonable. But just as many others have opened up for, we can imagine looking at a solution where one does not stay at 13,000 kronor but where 17,000-18,000 kronor is a more reasonable level for labor migrants. That is what Centerpartiet has said for several years. But I do not know if it has been unclear. In that case, I apologize. I do not think I have been asked the question so clearly before. It is good that it was a straightforward question. We can absolutely open up for that. Then we can also have a more honest debate.

As said: 92 percent are above a salary level of 17,000 kronor. It is these people we are fighting for, those who are somewhere between 17,000 and 32,200 kronor.

I understand that it fits the Moderate narrative to talk about fast-food restaurants, berry pickers, and newspaper delivery people. But does it fit the Moderate narrative just as well to talk about tractor drivers, veterinarians, livestock keepers, sheet metal workers, CNC operators, machine operators, and so on?

The fact is that if one looks at the Swedish Migration Agency's list of shortage occupations, it is very narrow. My counter-question therefore becomes: Will the government and the Moderaterna expand this list significantly? It probably needs to be expanded by a couple of pages.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was good to get an answer. I then understand that the Center Party's answer is that one is not satisfied with a wage floor of 13,000 kronor, but 17,000-18,000 kronor may be sufficient. That is good, and then we know the alternatives. It may not be fundamentally different from the 13,000 kronor, but then we have the answer.

I think it is reasonable to set higher requirements than that for those who are to come here as labor migrants.

But I intended to, just as Jonny Cato did in his speech, stick to talking about figures, GDP, costs, and revenues for society. For Jonny Cato, these are very clear figures. Does Jonny Cato also have figures on what it costs society and Sweden that 400,000 people living in our country do not go to work every day? Does Jonny Cato share the view that quite a few of them should still be able to take a job in Sweden? Even if Jonny Cato dismisses this argument, it is a rather important factor for me, namely that very many people have come to our country who today have not entered the Swedish labor market and who need to be integrated. There are many problems for which, in fact, the previous government that Jonny Cato supported also bears a high degree of responsibility, for example, that we do not have a sufficiently good matching and do not have a public employment service that succeeds in delivering this matching.

I mean that it is a problem that 400,000 people do not go to work but who could be able to perform many of these jobs. Jonny Cato has never spoken about that type of figures. But these figures must, of course, also be spoken about. They are costs that ultimately fall on taxpayers and on companies in the form of higher taxes and expenditures for the public sector.

I therefore maintain that with a raised wage requirement, but with possibilities to make exceptions for shortage occupations and also look at regional differences, we will get a more purposeful system. Exactly how these shortage occupations and exceptions should look, I cannot go into today. The Government received the investigation two weeks ago. But it needs to be referred and analyzed carefully, of course. But for me, this combination is important, i.e., raised wage requirements but also the possibility for exceptions. I had hoped that Jonny Cato also wanted to stand for more nuanced and purposeful legislation.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! No, it is true that Jessica Rosencrantz does not usually hear me talk about labor market policy, because I usually do that when we have debates on the Labor Market Committee's matters. At those times, I also often highlight these issues. Just as it concerns Arbetsförmedlingen, the Center Party pushed through changes during the January agreement, changes and reforms that the government now, in my view, does not safeguard. But the matching, perhaps we can take up in another debate.

It is clear that I truly believe that some of these 400,000 Swedes can take some of the jobs that labor migrants perform today. But then one must start with investments in the labor market before changing the system for labor immigration.

We still have to be honest in saying that the government has been very fast regarding the parts concerning migration. But the labor market measures are a couple of years ahead in time. One starts, therefore, by withdrawing the possibility for companies to hire labor migrants. Then it will take a couple of years before the reforms for work arrive. One should have started at the other end. Then I might have been able to stand behind the fact that more people could have taken these jobs.

Again: Two bills will come from the Ministry of Employment during 2024, one of which is to be debated here tonight, namely the Swedish National Audit Office's report on Samhällens samhällsuppdrag.

That is why I do not think I am mocking, but rather I am demanding a real answer from the government on delivering a labor market policy before the system for labor migration is changed.

If we are to be truly honest, the only thing that has happened regarding labor market policy is that the government has raised the unemployment insurance.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Jonny Cato is a committed speaker who highlights the issue with great enthusiasm. Many of the examples that Jonny Cato raises, besides the green industries, concern areas and professions for our industry's development. It is actually the case that many of the engineers, civil engineers, IT architects and so on who are needed for the industry and who today receive work permits have a salary level that is far above any potential salary caps.

It is somewhat interesting that Jonny Cato from C thinks it is relevant that the approximately 500 work permits, for example for cleaners, concern people coming from a country outside the EU. Is that C's intention when we, as mentioned, have approximately 400,000 unemployed in Sweden? Is it relevant that there is also a hundred newspaper delivery people who also get permission to work in Sweden when we have people who are unemployed here? One can wonder what C wants to do.

The labor market policy also contains parts where we motivate people to take a job. In addition to the proposal that is in the investigation, there are proposals regarding benefit ceilings and qualification for welfare in order to motivate people today to go to a job.

I would very much like to hear how Jonny Cato views these proposals. And, as was said, for the occupations that do not require a high level of education, for some hundred people who come from third countries, should it not be relevant that they at least come from the EU?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I honestly believe that the Center Party was one of the first parties in this chamber to push the issue of qualification in welfare. Everyone who was involved in the migration policy negotiations, which we pushed hard against, among others the Social Democrats' will, knows this.

Again: One can mention newspaper delivery people, letter carriers and fast food staff. One can also choose to mention welders, sheet metal workers and machine operators. One can, therefore, somewhat choose how to make this appear. For me, this is genuinely about me believing that the Swedish companies give an honest picture when they say that they do not find the competence they need.

It may certainly be the case that it is quite simple to find local caregivers in Stockholm's inner city. But Ingemar Kihlström, who, just like me, does not live here, knows that the needs are regional and even local, and that it might not be the same labor market up in Norrland.

Then my question is: How is the government going to get people who live in central Stockholm to move to, for example, Arvidsjaur?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answers, Jonny Cato!

I still think it is a relevant question: Regardless of whether it is a local caretaker, a newspaper delivery person or fast food staff we need, is it really necessary to hire a person who comes from a third country? I do not think so, and the government does not think so. A majority in the chamber does not think so. I can state that I do not quite know what C thinks.

We can set aside the green industries. This is about getting people into work. Regarding qualified labor, whether it concerns CNC operators or engineers, there are clauses. The proposed change, as mentioned, is combined with a benefit ceiling. I mentioned qualification for welfare, but Jonny Cato can gladly answer when it comes to the benefit ceiling.

I would also like to get a final answer from Jonny Cato. In the previous exchange we had, Jonny Cato spoke about the party being fortunate during the previous mandate period. Regarding the wage floor that is now being established – right now it is at approximately 27,000, and if the investigation's proposal goes through, the floor will be at 34,000 or perhaps 35,000 when this is implemented – I wonder: Will it be an absolute requirement from Jonny Cato and C that this be overturned, regardless of which government C supports?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! There is talk about contribution ceilings and what the Centre Party thinks. I can state that there has been only one contribution reform that has passed the chamber under the current government, and that is the proposal on increased unemployment insurance. I understand that there are many thoughts about what one wants to do, but one should start by raising the unemployment insurance and completely overhauling the system for labor migration that we have today.

There is much positive in what the government wants, and I hope that we will see bourgeois liberal politics. Ingemar Kihlström does not need to be worried either: If there are proposals regarding tax cuts, the Center Party will vote for them. If there are proposals regarding qualification into welfare, the Center Party will vote for them.

However, the Centre Party will not talk about the theoretical game plan that the Christian Democrats so want to talk about. It is not relevant to me who will govern with whom and what the ultimate requirements should be in 2026. I practice politics. I am here because I believe in something. I believe, so to speak, in growth, in companies, and in the Swedish countryside. That is why I sit here. I do not sit here to give power to either the Moderates or the Social Democrats, but I sit here to get politics through. The Centre Party got that in the January Agreement. Did the Christian Democrats get it in the Tidö Agreement? No, that is the Sweden Democrats' party program.

Sweep clean in front of your own door and deliver bourgeois liberal politics! I promise to vote for it, and it is a promise I will not betray.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are considering 28 motions from the general motion period concerning labor immigration. The motions contain a total of over 30 requests.

The Liberals' position is that all of these motions should be dismissed, in accordance with the committee's proposal. The main explanation for this is that important work is underway within the Government Offices with the aim of fundamentally reforming the rules that currently govern labor migration.

The objective is to tighten the conditions for low-skilled labor immigration and simultaneously promote an immigration of highly skilled labor. The starting points for this work are, on the one hand, that there is a significant labor reserve in our country which, if appropriate measures are taken, can match the demand for low-skilled labor, and on the other hand, that regarding qualified and especially highly skilled labor, there is a genuine and difficult-to-solve labor shortage.

We in the Liberals therefore believe that it is appropriate to wait for the result of this important reform work without introducing partial reforms into the current order, which entered into force as recently as November 1, 2023.

Mr. Speaker! Still, it may be interesting to comment more closely on some of the motions we are discussing today, not least because they clearly show how divided the opposition is on everything related to migration. There are parties, for example Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who do not want a wage floor for labor migrants at all, while others, for example Socialdemokraterna, want a wage floor that corresponds to the median wage on the Swedish labor market.

Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet do not want any labor market assessment at all, but rather an immigration system that, in their opinion, should be completely demand-driven – or, to put it another way, completely employer-driven. On their part, both Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna want to switch to an agency-led system that resembles the rules that applied until the reform that came into force in 2008.

Some opposition parties want to abolish the so-called "spårbyte" while others want to keep it - and so on. It is not about details but about completely different principles for how labor migration should be regulated. How it would actually turn out if a government were formed in the future with these parties as a basis, not even the gods know.

Mr. Speaker! If we now proceed to consider some of the opposition's committee motions individually, a number of interesting aspects can be noted. I will begin with the Social Democrats' committee motion and how it describes the current government's efforts in the fight against crime in the labor market and the exploitation of immigrant labor.

In the opinion of the Social Democrats, the new government has slackened off considerably in this regard, and therefore it is claimed that the year 2023 was a lost year regarding the work against the already mentioned conditions. Is this a truthful description of what has occurred or just another chapter in the historical revisionism that the Social Democrats have recently engaged in within the migration area? Let me state a few figures in order to shed light on the truthfulness of the Social Democrats' claim, Mr. Speaker.

During the years 2015-2021, an average of 1,554 workplace inspections were carried out per year. That is the result from the Social Democratic government years. How has it then turned out under the new government? Has it neglected this, the most direct measure we have in this area? Not in the slightest – on the contrary: In 2023, 3,200 workplace inspections were carried out, thus twice as many as the average during the Social Democratic government years and far above what the Social Democrats ever achieved in this regard.

Regarding the Social Democrats', but also the Left Party's, flagship proposal to reintroduce a labor market test, we have an instructive history to look back on. It was the Social Democrat-controlled trade union movement that, in the late 1960s, demanded a stop to competing labor from abroad, and they received the stop from the then Social Democratic government. The labor market test became the tool to achieve this purpose, and the result was that our labor market was in practice almost completely closed to foreign labor from the beginning of the 70s until 2007.

This was an extreme form of labor market protectionism that damaged our growth capacity in a time of increasing globalization, where the shortage of the right labor hindered our international competitiveness.

This almost hermetic closedness was a product of precisely the type of authority-based and fundamentally trade union-controlled labor market assessment that both the Social Democrats and the Left Party seem to want to reintroduce. At that time, the permit was to be applied for in advance from abroad to the Migration Board, which in turn consulted the Swedish Public Employment Service, which in turn referred the matter to the relevant trade union organization. The result was, as could be expected, a labor immigration from third countries that came as close to zero as was at all possible. Such an order, or something similar, would today be even more devastating for Sweden's development than it was previously.

Mr. Speaker! Let me now consider the committee motion that is the exact opposite of the Social Democrats' and the Left Party's authority-led approach, namely the Green Party's. This also largely applies to the Centre Party's committee motion.

The Green Party's motion initially emphasizes the importance of safeguarding a demand-driven labor immigration to Sweden, where the individual employers' assessment of the labor need is the starting point. It concerns something that some would certainly regard as an extremely neoliberal position.

The problem with this approach is primarily its principled one-sidedness, that is, that it only highlights one governing principle – demand – or one interest, in this case the employers', as a guide for the regulation of labor immigration.

Mr. Speaker! No one denies that the employers' need for labor is important, but there are other important aspects that should be considered in this context, not least how the employers' demand for labor can be satisfied in a way that benefits the country's overall development needs. It is a self-evident fact that employers want to gain access to the labor they need in the easiest and fastest way available. This legitimate but narrow perspective must be complemented by a more comprehensive and long-term perspective, which I would like to call a supply and integration perspective, where the country's labor reserve and the need to break an increasingly socially threatening exclusion are taken into account.

It is precisely such a balanced approach, where the demand-driven perspective is combined with a society-led perspective, that the government is working with at this time and which will become the basis for new legislation on labor migration.

This middle ground is for the Liberals the right way to go regarding the labor migration. It is a way between, on one hand, the Social Democrats' and the Left Party's one-sided labor market assessment and, on the other hand, the Green Party's and the Center Party's one-sided and employer-driven approach. It is in this way that the employers' interests can be combined with a more overarching societal interest that in the long run benefits everyone who lives in our country.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We should be grateful that there are people who have chosen to bring their competence to Sweden, contribute to our welfare and to our companies and pay tax.

Labor immigration has been of great importance. Not least, it is central now when we have a green industrial revolution taking place in northern Sweden. This would be significantly hindered if the companies did not have the opportunity to seek the competence they need.

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to highlight some things that there is a consensus on here in the chamber.

It must become easier and faster for companies to recruit the key competencies they need. I think it is good that the government is trying to ensure that processing times at the Swedish Migration Agency are reduced.

Something that the government, however, has missed is that Sweden does not only need more engineers and programmers but also needs more workers, not least within industrial occupations. Welders, CNC operators and sheet metal workers have been mentioned. Within many of the manual occupations within the technology industry - assemblers, process operators and so on - however, most have a lower salary than that which will become the government's new requirement.

The median wage in Sweden is 34,200 kronor. Half of those in Sweden therefore have a higher wage than that, while half have a lower wage. This is an arbitrary limit if what one wants to address is poverty. It is an arbitrary limit if what one wants is to stop labor migrants in industries where there is no shortage of labor in Sweden. It is also an arbitrary limit if the purpose is to ensure that one gets rid of fraud.

Mr. Speaker! As I have mentioned in several exchanges: Those who cheat will cheat regardless of the wage ceiling. What the wage ceiling does is make it impossible for employers within the welfare sector and for our companies to hire the people they need in occupations that are in the lower half of Swedish wages. This will create problems.

Yes, we have unemployed people in our country who need to be invested in so that they can acquire the skills that are in demand on the labor market. The government should make powerful efforts in labor market policy, in adult education, in folk education, and in SFI. The investments are lacking. But even if we were to succeed in getting every single person in Sweden who is currently unemployed to take one of the jobs that are vacant or that are currently performed by people with residence permits for work, we would still have many positions to fill. There is a shortage of people in almost all industries.

During the previous parliamentary term, I was a member of the Education Committee. I had meetings with almost every industry in Sweden – from welfare, with a shortage of teachers and a shortage of nurses and midwives, to shipping and the concrete industry. Everyone needs more people.

The toughest it will be will be within elderly care. There, the number of employees will need to increase dramatically in the coming years.

At its core, the reason for this is something positive. It is that we Swedes are living longer. But just as in other EU countries, we find ourselves in a demographic challenge where fewer people of working age are to take care of and support more people who are getting older. We should be happy that so many people have chosen to come to our country and take these jobs, and not least within elderly care specifically.

When I visited Karlstad during the election campaign, I listened to a presentation round where young people who had come to Sweden as unaccompanied minors stood up, said what their names were and where they worked. Some worked as pavers and electricians. But the most common work was precisely within elderly care.

We have in Sweden today many people who, with the government's new wage floor of 34,200 kronor, would be deported from Sweden. It is not because they have committed crimes and not because they have done anything wrong, but despite the fact that they have been in Sweden legally, worked from the first day, paid tax and strengthened our welfare.

It is not possible to justify in any rational way why this would be good for Sweden, for our companies, and for municipalities and regions that are currently struggling with ever less money to manage the increased costs.

No, introducing the government's new wage floor will be an expensive affair for Sweden. It is also an incredibly strange policy if one looks at it from people's perspective. It is difficult to understand why we should mass deport people who have done right by themselves, paid tax and worked from day one.

Mr. Speaker! What we should do instead is to convict those who exploit people and those who commit crimes within labor market crime. It is they who state a wage on paper but in practice pay slave wages, or who pay the wage that is on paper but then demand it back through, for example, extortionate rents for apartments where people are forced to live.

If we are to tackle that abuse, completely different measures are needed. That is why I and we in Miljöpartiet have proposed a series of interventions that would have an effect, in contrast to the arbitrary salary requirement.

We need to ensure that we do not punish those who are being exploited, the workers. If they know that they risk deportation if they report that they have been subjected to a crime, they will be afraid to do so. It increases the employer's opportunity to exploit people and the employer's power over the worker.

Instead, we want tougher sanctions against those who cheat and exploit people. In the same way that a person who charges an extortionate rent has to pay back in arrears, we want to ensure that workers who are exploited can be awarded damages in arrears.

We also want the authorities to invest more in supervision and prioritize the work against the exploitation of migrant workers. We want to strengthen the supervision. We want to ensure that those who come to Sweden as labor migrants receive knowledge about their rights. It is the basis for being able to demand their rights.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind the Green Party's all proposals, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of reservation 10.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet writes in its committee motion regarding labor immigration that they oppose arbitrary wage limits, which Member Hirvonen also presented in his speech. However, it is not explained why Miljöpartiet considers the higher maintenance requirement to be arbitrary, while the lower maintenance requirement of 13,000 kronor that applied when Miljöpartiet sat in government is not arbitrary. It is not actually about arbitrariness. Miljöpartiet's goal is to constantly make it easier to immigrate to Sweden, even if the immigration were to result in wage dumping and fraud.

I have a simple question for Member Hirvonen, Mr. Speaker: Does Member Hirvonen consider it fair that those who today have difficulty getting a foot in the door on the labor market should have to compete with labor immigrants from Asia and Africa for the low-wage jobs? Can Miljöpartiet not also understand the value of us, through a higher wage requirement with the possibility of exceptions, reserving certain low-wage jobs for the people in Sweden who need to enter the labor market?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I shall begin by explaining how the old system functioned. There, there were two requirements that applied. Requirement number one was that one should have a salary in accordance with collective agreements or industry practice. The second requirement was that one also should be able to support oneself on that salary. There were two requirements.

It was not the politicians who decided the level of what constitutes industry practice or in accordance with collective agreements. That is decided by the parties in the industries. Nor was it the politicians who decided the level of what wage people are considered able to live on, but that was done by the authorities.

I was not involved in setting the practice of 13,000 kronor. But I believe that it might be because that is approximately where the level lies for students and for those with sickness compensation. It is the level for these groups in society that the policy has determined they should manage on. It is low.

We in Miljöpartiet want to increase both the student grant and the sickness benefit. We do not think that 13,000 kronor a month is a sustainable level, especially not after the skyrocketing inflation and with food prices that have risen by 25 percent.

We also write that in our reservation. We definitely think that the level must be questioned. Is it possible to make a living in Sweden on 13,000 kronor? No, we need to raise the level for those who today live so economically vulnerable.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that Member Hirvonen does not state where the level should be.

Switching tracks means that a foreigner who has had their asylum application rejected under certain conditions can be granted a residence permit for work. After having had an asylum application rejected, one does not leave the country, but then one is suddenly a labor migrant. None of our Nordic neighbors have such a system.

The government intends to phase out track-switching. There is nothing strange about that. If one has been denied an asylum application, one should leave the country. But the Green Party writes in its committee motion regarding labor migration that track-switching should be retained because the asylum seekers who are denied should have a "good alternative".

An audit from the Swedish National Audit Office in 2022 showed that every fourth track-changer comes from one of five countries, which together account for only 6 percent of all asylum seekers. Every sixth track-changer also comes from countries that have been on the Swedish Migration Agency's list of so-called safe countries of origin since 2021. In other words, quite a few are taking advantage of this system to come to Sweden and work.

My question to Member Hirvonen is the following: Why does the Green Party want to maintain a system that gives migrants the opportunity to cheat and gives migrants who have had their asylum applications rejected the opportunity to stay?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am open to discussing what level should apply in Sweden and where the limit should be set for what it is possible to live on. We should talk more about it - for all those who today live on sickness and activity benefits and for all those who are to make do on student grants. We need to raise that level.

In the Green Party's budget, we have a long series of proposals where we ensure that the banks, which are now making excess profits, pay more in tax so that those living on the smallest margins will have the opportunity to manage on the income they have.

However, I do not think that we here in the chamber of the Riksdag should decide a fixed wage limit based on whim. The median wage is not a reasonable limit for what one can live on, because then we are saying that half of all those who work in Sweden cannot live on their wage. And that, Mr. Speaker, is not true.

I welcome the government to reconsider this and come back with a basis for what would be a reasonable level for what one can subsist on. I then expect, of course, that it is ensured that also students, sick pensioners, and persons with disabilities who cannot work and receive activity compensation are raised to that level.

Regarding track switching, I believe we should listen to the National Audit Office's recommendations. We need to tighten up and close the gaps that exist in the system. But what we should not do is remove the system, because that would mean that people who are here and working and behaving correctly would be thrown out to, for example, countries like Afghanistan. No thanks!

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! It has been mentioned, with all due right, that there are 400,000 people who are unemployed in Sweden. Even more important than this figure, however, are the 138,000 who are long-term unemployed. That is where the real problem lies. The other is quite natural—that one changes jobs and such—but 138,000 long-term unemployed is a major problem. The majority of these are persons who are foreign-born.

Member Hirvonen and other members have said that the government is doing nothing to facilitate for these people to get a job tomorrow. I do not know if they have read the budget for 2024. If they had done so, they would have seen that 1,362 million is being invested in reinforced regional vocational adult education. They would also have seen that 385 million is being invested in vocational college education. In total, it is 1,747 million. That is not a little, that.

This represents an increase of 16,500 full-year study places in regional adult education (komvux) and 3,000 places in vocational higher education. Regarding regional vocational adult education (yrkesvux), it is a 33 percent increase.

Then I want to ask Member Hirvonen: How can she say that the government is doing nothing when I can refer to these figures?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding places in vocational adult education and the like, I want to say that the government started by cutting back in its first budget, and now they are increasing it again. It is good that they realized their mistake, but we have already paid for that. The adult education (komvux) that exists in the municipalities adapts to cuts, and it takes time to scale up.

At the same time, a massive slaughter is being carried out in popular education. If any institution can reach, for example, long-term unemployed women who are foreign-born, it is popular education.

Recently, I visited Ölands folkhögskola, where a Swedish course has been started. On that course, it is essentially only foreign-born women who have been unemployed for a long time who attend. These are women who did not manage the regular SFI teaching, but here at the folkhögskola, they have felt a sense of security and have begun to be able to take in the Swedish language. This is an integration initiative of enormously important character. It is this target group that we primarily need to direct efforts toward.

We also need to redesign the SFI education that we have today, so that more people pass it faster. It needs to be more adapted to the students' own circumstances and at the same time combined with internship or work, because that is how one learns the Swedish language best and fastest.

Policy on labor immigration will not solve the problem of long-term unemployment. And even if every unemployed person in Sweden were to get a job, there would still be vacant positions that we need to recruit people for from abroad.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! One can at least state that today there are almost 120,000 full-time places within adult education. That is not a small amount, actually. It is a major investment that costs a lot of money, but this is what this government is doing because one must invest in getting people into work, especially the long-term unemployed and not least foreign-born women.

One is also investing more in SFI, almost 30 million. If one sums that with 80 million for Ukrainians, it becomes 109 million that one is investing in this.

It is absolutely true that one must reform Swedish for immigrants. Not least, it is about the fact that today no requirements are set to perform anything. We know that many start, but many leave the education during the process, and not even half achieve the results that one could expect. It must not be that way. Requirements must be set, and people must know that if I do not invest in this and do everything possible to pass Swedish for immigrants, it will have tangible consequences. One cannot receive all benefits without performing something. Such demarcations are important.

As it is today, Swedish does not work for immigrants as it should. We must set higher demands, but we must also invest more resources. Both parts are very important, and this government will do both.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is very telling that we have an entire exchange of remarks about real integration policy. The matter we are debating today, regarding labor migration, is not about improving integration but simply about mass deporting people who have worked in Sweden from the first day here. These are people who have done right by themselves and paid taxes and in that way contributed to our common welfare.

I welcome real initiatives on integration. I welcome real initiatives against long-term unemployment and unemployment in general. I welcome a discussion on what level we should have in benefits so that people can live on their income. But, Mr. Speaker, neither is this what the government's and the Tidö parties' proposals regarding the area of labor migration are about.

We need to ensure that the green industrial revolution can continue and that companies can find the key skills that are sometimes needed to be able to hire those additional ten people who do not need to have an education with them. Labor immigration is a part of the Swedish skills supply that is necessary to make the equation work when the police and the defense are to grow, when more people become older and need elderly care, and when more people are to support many who are old.

Labor immigration

Labor immigration is an asset for our country. I want to extend a big thank you to all of you who have come here to contribute to our common Sweden.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 6 March.)

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