New rules for labor immigration

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a country built on hard work. It is people who have gotten up early every morning to get to work who have financed our welfare, created our prosperity and given generations of Swedes the opportunity to live a good life. And it is precisely work that shall continue to do that.

Labor migration plays an important role in the Sweden we want to build. Successful Swedish companies – world leaders in technology, life science, industry and innovation – need to be able to recruit top expertise from all over the world if it is not available in Sweden. It is a self-evident matter for us Moderates.

But – and this is an important "but" – a system that is not well-regulated is a system that is abused, and the Swedish system for labor migration has for a long time been abused in a way that is unacceptable. Perhaps the clearest example of that is the Riksrevisionen's stinging criticism of the "spårbyte" (track switching), which we abolished last spring. But even labor migration in general, which we are debating today, has been abused.

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear about what we are talking about. In recent years, extensive labor immigration has occurred for jobs in labor-intensive industries with lower requirements for education, for example, the cleaning industry, the restaurant industry, and the assistance industry. These industries are heavily overrepresented when it comes to abuse of the system and exploitation of labor immigrants with false employment contracts, trade of work permits, sham employments, and criminal networks that exploit vulnerable people. It is not a marginal phenomenon, but it is a systemic error that we are now successively addressing.

At the same time, there are approximately 360,000 people registered at Arbetsförmedlingen in Sweden. It is not reasonable to bring people from the other side of the globe to perform low-skilled jobs when there are unemployed people in Sweden who should be able to take these jobs. It is not a question of being strict or not. It is a question of common sense and fair competition.

Mr. Speaker! The report we are now considering contains three central parts that we Moderates wholeheartedly support.

Firstly, we propose a raised salary requirement for work permits. From June 1st this year, the salary requirement is raised to 90 percent of the median wage, corresponding to just over 33,000 kronor per month. It is right, and it is a reform that M has pushed for a long time. Already in 2021, we proposed that labor immigration should as a rule only be permitted for jobs with a salary above the Swedish median wage.

A high wage requirement is important for several reasons. It deters unserious employers who want to press down wages and exploit the system. It strengthens the position of the labor immigrant. And it creates better conditions for those who are already unemployed in Sweden to take the jobs that would otherwise have gone to low-wage labor from third countries.

Secondly, we introduce a regulatory power for the government to exempt certain occupations from the wage requirement. Even though the exemptions are expected to be limited, this makes labor immigration more flexible. Healthcare and care occupations in particular shall be prioritized in this exemption work. The government will also be able to do the opposite, that is, to prescribe that certain occupational groups shall not be granted permits at all. This applies primarily to high-risk occupations where there has been an enormous amount of cheating, for example, personal assistants.

For the third, we criminalize the trade of work permits and the exploitation of foreign labor, and we introduce clearer possibilities to refuse work permits when the employer has been imposed sanctions. These are measures that have long been missing. The trade with work permits has in practice functioned as a source of income for the gangs. It will now become a crime.

Mr. Speaker! From the other side of Swedish politics, we hear a chorus of complaints. Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet object to the increased wage demand. They argue that it harms the competitiveness of Swedish companies and that cheating will not decrease. I do not share that analysis.

Centerpartiet says that the increase leads to many who contribute to Swedish companies' competitiveness being unable to work in Sweden. But it is the opposite, that is exactly the point: The high-skilled labor immigration, which truly contributes to competitiveness, is what we want to focus on when we set a salary requirement of 33,000 kronor. It is the lower-skilled and the more easily abused permits that we are putting a stop to.

Vänsterpartiet argues that the requirement does not contribute to reduced exploitation, but Migrationsverket's own analyses show that the increased maintenance requirement from 2023 has partially achieved this purpose. The number of applications for work permits has decreased and the number of rejections has increased in the industries where abuse is most common. It is evidence that the tool works.

The answer cannot be, as the Left Party, the Green Party and the Centre Party want, to continue as we always have done. Then the result will be as it has been so far.

Mr. Speaker! One can truly wonder how the Social Democrats and Magdalena Andersson are going to put together their government base regarding migration policy and labor migration, since at least the Social Democrats themselves want to present themselves as strict in these matters. In all material respects, they vote with us on the Moderate-led government's reform of labor migration today. But how do they do it when they have to cooperate with V, MP and C?

A qualified guess is that all of this will be thrown overboard when the keys to Rosenbad are beckoning, if the misfortune should arrive after the election this autumn. Sweden will be thrown into a dangerous left-wing experiment, not only in terms of economic policy with higher taxes for ordinary people with ordinary incomes but also in the area of migration policy.

As long as Magdalena Andersson gets to be Prime Minister, it matters less whether Nooshi Dadgostar becomes Finance Minister or Amanda Lind becomes Migration Minister. That would be bad for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! There is a principle that permeates the Moderates' view on labor migration – or all immigration, for that matter – and that is that it must be good for Sweden.

Highly qualified labor immigration is good for Sweden. It strengthens our competitiveness, fills gaps in the skills supply, and contributes to innovation and growth. It should be protected and facilitated.

But low-skilled labor immigration used to press wages, bypass labor law, and enrich criminal networks is not good for Sweden. It is not good for the Swedish workers, and it is not good for the foreign workers who are exploited.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be the obvious country for hardworking and enterprising people from all over the world, but that requires a system that is fair, well-regulated, and free from abuse. The bill we are now voting on is an important step in the right direction. It protects the serious employers from unfair competition. It protects the unemployed in Sweden who deserve a chance on the labor market and the foreign workers who would otherwise risk being exploited. It is responsible politics – it is Moderate politics.

I therefore wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member concluded by saying that it is responsible policy, but I would call this very inhumane. Not a word was said about those who are affected by this policy. The government's policy has a high price for all of Sweden – for the individuals who are directly affected, for their families and children, for the Swedish labor market and skills supply, and for entire local communities all around Sweden.

The Perez family, consisting of mom, dad, and eight-year-old Gabriella, were deported from Forsbacka last month, after the application for a renewed work permit was rejected. Gabriella was born here because the parents had been here for nine years. They had steady jobs, were members of the union, worked for employers with collective agreements, and had contractually agreed wages. Together they earned over 50,000 a month, lived in a condominium, and had a good economy.

Gabriella grew up in Forsbacka, and it was there she had friends, school, and club life. She broke down when she found out that the family would be deported. Instead of a happy and lively eight-year-old, she became a child who cried from anxiety – a healthy child who suddenly had to be taken to the emergency room when stomach pains would not let up, her father tells.

I received a text message from a friend who told me about the tense atmosphere at the roller derby practice, where Gabriella was missing. You are sending out children who have lived here their entire lives and parents who have established themselves here, who have salaries according to collective agreements and fill gaps in the Swedish labor market. Right now, children miss their friend, and coworkers miss their colleagues. This has also sparked large protests in Forsbacka and a great commitment among people.

What will get better in local communities when you deport people like these? What will even get better in Sweden when you continue to deport these people?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have the greatest respect for individual human fates and individual cases. But it is precisely individual cases that we should not have any opinions on in the Swedish Riksdag's speaker's chair. We do not know all the circumstances in all these individual cases that have featured in the debate over the past few weeks. We do, however, know that the circumstances that are not presented in a number of cases can be such that people who have received these decisions, for example, have lived in Sweden illegally for a number of years. That is not brought up. There are different circumstances that we do not always know about, and we should therefore not judge in the Swedish Riksdag.

I stand for the principle of regulated immigration; so do the Moderaterna. The Vänsterpartiet and the parties that have now blown these issues into a debate do not. It is therefore not about new phenomena but about something that has been ongoing for several years, since we changed the rules and moved from permanent to time-limited residence permits. This is, therefore, nothing new.

We appointed an inquiry to see if there was anything we could do regarding this. We have also announced that we will now return with reforms to rectify the problems and deviations that exist regarding this, so that it will become more fair and just – naturally. But individual cases should not be handled in the speakers' chairs of the Swedish Riksdag to win cheap political points. That is what I think the Vänsterpartiet is doing here.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Individual cases that are raised year after year with this government eventually become a structure. The government is deporting these people – it is no longer about individual cases. It is about people who have lived their entire lives here, children whose parents have established themselves and have wages according to collective agreements.

But now they are setting a wage floor that is totally unreasonable. Here, it is about two parents who earn over 50,000 a month, but the government does not think that is enough. They have established themselves here and lived here for nine years.

I understand that the member absolutely does not want to talk about individual cases. That is what has not been wanted to be done in the media either over the last few months, when the government has repeatedly received criticism because of these circumstances.

It is an inhuman and appalling policy. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that for this government, it is no longer about what people do in Sweden. Regardless of whether it is about law and order and regardless of whether these people have done everything right and correctly, work and have the right income and so on, they shall not be here. That is the only signal that has been very clear from this government. They do not want these people to be here, and they are rolling out an appalling deportation policy.

When protests are then made, when people all over the country get involved and raise their voices, this government no longer wants to comment on individual cases. If they find an individual case where a criminal from another country has done something in Sweden, the Moderaterna are the quickest to come out and call Expressen, Aftonbladet, and Dagens Nyheter – look, here is a criminal with a different background! Then they would like to talk about an individual case. But Gabriella, whom you are deporting, who has lived her entire eight-year life here, you do not want to talk about at all. It is terribly cynical.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now going to debate new legislation concerning labor immigration – Tony Haddou has done everything except this in this exchange of remarks. I have great respect for the fact that this issue evokes many emotions, and the Left Party now thinks they have found something that sticks, where they can win cheap political points.

But fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, this is about the principles of the rule of law. Sweden's Riksdag enacts laws, and we have independent authorities and courts that apply the legislation. I would say that we in Sweden have one of the most legally secure systems in the field of migration in the entire world. Despite this, there are naturally individual parts that we need to reform, and there we have announced that we will return with legislation which means that we will review those parts where it is simply not right and reasonable.

But fundamentally, this is about the Left Party standing for something completely different. They do not believe in the principle of regulated immigration. They believe in completely open doors. They want to go back to the legislation that applied in Sweden when we received over 160,000 asylum seekers in one year, without any consequence analyses whatsoever. What does this mean for society, the municipalities, and the schools? The Left Party completely ignores that. They pretend to be for the principle of regulated immigration, but they are not.

I think it is a relevant order that we now tighten this so that Sweden does not stand out – that we settle on a level that gives us the possibility to integrate all these people who have come to Sweden and that we uphold the principle of regulated immigration. It is not a free choice to come to Sweden, but here we have rules. Fundamentally, it is only Sweden's citizens who have an unconditional right to be in the country. Otherwise, one is here on a permit. If one does not have a permit, one must leave the country. That is the order we stand for. Where there are inaccuracies and deficiencies, we shall correct them – of course that is the case.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I shall be part of the left's complaining together with the left-wing bastion Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. Go to their website and see if it drips with moderate feeling or left-wing feeling when you look at the pictures! The entrepreneurs – the left-wing pack, perhaps SD would have called them. Or what are we supposed to think? Svenskt Näringsliv – left, we all know that.

It is somewhat problematic that the Moderaterna claim that the criticism of the regulatory framework is some kind of left-wing complaining when every business organization says that this is nonsensical. They use worse words than nonsensical regarding this legislation. That is the reality.

A wage floor of 33,390 kronor according to the 2024 regulations is not what prevents the cheating. We are for the other parts of the package. We are part of tightening the screws on the companies that cheat. We are part of all that, and we have actually pushed for some of the things before the Moderaterna even thought of it. To claim that it has anything to do with us wanting to go back to 2015 or 2016, when Ulf Kristersson – not I – pushed through the legislation that you are now complaining about, is simply not correct. And I am a bit tired of us having a debate in this chamber based on falsehood instead of on truth.

What we are saying is that we do not want a wage floor that penalizes people who are here and working, contributing, paying tax, making Sweden stronger and contributing to our growth. It also has a negative effect for families. It is not about other types of regulations; it is only about the wage floor. This government is raising the wage floor to a level that harms Sweden's development. That is the question.

We do not want to go back to what we have always done. We want good legislation. The question is: Why do the Moderaterna not consider it good that people come here and contribute to Swedish welfare and growth?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates think it is very good that people come here and contribute to Swedish growth and Swedish innovative power. Naturally, it is so.

That is why we are now shifting the policy. From previously having focused on low-skilled labor immigration with all the social problems we have seen linked to it, with parallel societies and other structures that have been built up when we have had too low requirements, too little control and too little order and discipline, we now focus on high-skilled labor immigration. We are shifting from low-skilled labor immigration and asylum immigration to high-skilled labor immigration.

It is this that makes us now, as part of this package, land on that 90 percent of the median wage is a good floor to set. We see that the highly qualified labor immigration in all material respects reaches that wage level. Furthermore, we will have the opportunity to introduce exceptions, for example regarding healthcare and care professions, if it should be needed.

I have the greatest respect for the Center Party's view on this and also for the companies, which naturally want to find labor when it has been difficult to do so in Sweden. But it is also linked to another issue, where we on our side in politics agree to now carry out the largest benefit reform in Swedish history. We ensure that it pays off better to work than to live on benefits. We place higher requirements on those living on benefits to take a job and so on and approach the labor market.

It is clear that it has been problematic that there have been people who have not taken jobs that otherwise could have been filled. That is why we are doing this as a package solution with other reforms, something that the Centerpartiet could never implement with Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna or even Miljöpartiet. It is about who one cooperates with in politics to ensure that this becomes a holistic solution that is right and reasonable.

I have, as I have said, full understanding that companies and the business community want as much flexibility as possible. But for us, this is about looking at the whole and reducing abuse and cheating. That is why we are doing this.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I note that once again the Left Party card is being played. Previously, it was about Nooshi becoming Finance Minister. I believe that the Moderates' biggest problem is whether Jimmie Åkesson should be Prime Minister. I believe that is a bigger problem for them, so to speak.

We are on board with stopping the cheating, but you don't stop the cheating with a wage floor. No one who has a grip on the situation thinks that the cheating is stopped with a wage floor, especially not one at 90 percent. What is happening is not that we punish those who cheat. In what other area do we penalize everyone to punish those who cheat? We do not do that.

There are many companies that benefit from this and that have grown. Again: The last time we had this debate, I had to explain to the Moderaterna how growth works. It is sad that you have lost that economic competence. But it is nevertheless the case that even those who earn under a wage floor of 90 percent can contribute to Swedish growth, because they pay tax.

If one looks at the statistics on labor migration, one sees that it contributes 57 billion kronor to GDP and 17 billion in taxes. The transfers are more than 30 times less than what is received in tax revenues. This contributes to Sweden.

Yes, we shall demand that those who are unemployed come out and attend training and get a job. But when a nursing home in northern Sweden suddenly lays off 20 people and a hotel in Malmö lays off 20 people, it is not the case that a lot of unemployed people suddenly appear who can take the jobs at the home in Norrland. They are not there, because there is no unemployment there. Yes, it is very nice if we can get the people of Malmö to go there and take the jobs. I want that too. But to simultaneously say "You old people have to manage without help; that is actually the most important thing for the Moderaterna," that is an absurd policy. It harms Sweden.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually think, in connection with what Niels Paarup-Petersen took up here last, that we should stick to the truth.

We can look at how many people received work permits in Sweden before the new rules were introduced, that is, when we had a requirement of 13,000 kronor – in practice what the Center Party and the Left Party want, i.e., open for everyone to come to Sweden however they wish. When we had that arrangement, it was 87 nursing assistants who were granted permission to come to Sweden in 2022. It was 13 nurses that year, before we made these changes.

To stand and say that the entire Swedish welfare state is collapsing because we are raising the requirements for labor migration and have a wage floor of 90 percent of the median wage is to state falsehoods. It is to mix up migration policy in all areas. That people have come here and sought asylum and been granted permission to be here because they simply have grounds for protection and then have started working in the welfare state is, of course, very good. But one mixes this up with labor migration. It is not the same thing. If we look at the statistics, we see that what is put forward in the debate by, for example, Centerpartiet, is not correct: that the Swedish welfare state would go to its knees if we make this change.

This is about us wanting to get order and clarity in Swedish migration policy – also in the area of labor migration, where we have seen fraud, abuse, and exploitation of people who have come to Sweden and received very low wages. This means that we must now rectify this, set higher requirements, have better control, and introduce new types of penalties for those who abuse the system.

Against us and against this policy for law and order stands, among others, the Center Party, which thinks there should be zero law and order in this area. They want to cooperate with a left-wing party that does not stand for the principle of regulated immigration. How this is supposed to fit together, we are puzzled by, should the misfortune occur after the election this autumn.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! This week I accounted for more in principle for how we Social Democrats view labor immigration, as we then debated the report on the motions in the area. The conclusion of that reasoning is that Sweden and its needs shall govern labor immigration, and it must never ever be used as a way to undermine the goal of full employment. It is therefore a needs-based labor immigration that is a key issue for maintaining the possibilities for trade union organization and thus also the workers' possibilities to demand reasonable wages and conditions.

Now that the government has delivered its bill to raise the salary requirement from 80 to 90 percent, I want to point out some flaws in the proposal.

Firstly, we should introduce a means-tested labor immigration with today's bill. We had such an arrangement before the Moderates' reorganization of the policy in 2008, when some of the world's most liberal labor immigration laws were introduced. Furthermore, that arrangement did not only lead to the rules becoming much simpler for employers to handle, but also to dumped wages, worsened trade union organization, and pure exploitation of vulnerable people. Then one must remember that the purpose of this legislation actually was to worsen the trade union organization, lower the wages, and worsen the conditions.

Secondly, we see that the salary requirement as it is currently designed actually misses the mark, partly because the design itself is very rigid with these rigid 90 percent, and partly because it is the government that is to decide the exceptions.

What is so ingenious about the Swedish model is that it keeps politicians away from wage formation. That the government, which has proven to be very susceptible to lobbying and all kinds of special interests, especially on the corporate side, should decide the exceptions is extremely problematic for many reasons.

Instead, this should of course be delegated to the parties, especially in a situation where there is no means testing. By making the wage requirement optional, one would decentralize the issue of labor immigration to the local parties to decide, and it is also they who know the local labor market best. This would, for example, handle the issue of regional wage differences and additionally strengthen the role of collective agreements because everyone with a collective agreement would then receive an advantage.

Mr. Speaker! For the third time, we turn to the fact that it is not the employer who should be responsible for ensuring that there is comprehensive health insurance in all cases. This obviously opens the door to unfair competition, for the exploitation of workers, and for fraud. With the employer's responsibility comes a responsibility to ensure that what occurs in the workplace in the form of injuries and illnesses is handled as work-related accidents.

If one then chooses to recruit labor from countries outside the EU – which can be hundreds or even thousands of miles from here – one should, as an employer, reasonably also ensure that there is comprehensive health insurance for the entire life. It is, after all, because one is bringing in labor that one acts as one does. Otherwise, it implies a competitive disadvantage for all those companies that choose to take their responsibility and sign a health insurance policy while other companies can skip it. We have also seen that this type of certificate and the like can be faked, which we do not want to open up for.

For the fourth, it is not desirable for us to extend the seasonal work from a six-month to a nine-month term. A general change where all seasonal labor can be used for nine months involves great risks that this will be seen as a more permanent labor reserve. Since the conditions for seasonal work also look different, it would create displacement effects for Swedish wage earners, and unemployment would consequently become higher in Sweden. That we cannot accept.

Mr. Speaker! I will conclude by stating that the bill also contains parts that are actually good. Something we Social Democrats have long advocated for is that we should introduce the two types of crimes that are placed on our table in this proposal to take a position on. It is about both stopping the trade with work permits and introducing a new crime regarding the exploitation of labor.

We think this is very positive. It is of course a bit late to deliver on this so late in the mandate period, but better late than never.

We would have liked to see the government also move forward with clearer measures to strengthen the control of the employers who import labor, especially when it concerns those who have previously committed irregularities. The National Audit Office has pointed out with all clarity that the system does not work today, when one can wait 18 months and then jump on the labor immigration train again. We do not think that is reasonable.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for approval of reservation 6.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are speaking today about the need for order and clarity in migration, specifically regarding the labor migration. This is welcome, and I truly mean that. A strong majority in the Riksdag was needed for a strict migration policy. It is in Sweden's interest.

During eight years in government, the Social Democrats did, however, accept that work permits could be granted based on salaries around 13,000 kronor. During these years, the abuse in the restaurant and cleaning industries grew. I believe that the Social Democrats are well aware that such a low subsistence requirement for labor immigration as 13,000 kronor leads to extensive fraud. I believe that many wonder why the Social Democrats, during the years they held government power, did not raise the subsistence requirement for labor immigration.

The Social Democrats' proposal to raise the maintenance requirement was submitted one week before the 2022 election. For eight years, nothing was done from the Social Democrats' side. Was it the case that the Social Democrats' coalition partners prevented the Social Democrats from introducing rules for labor migration that would be fair and counteract fraud?

How can one have confidence in the Social Democrats if, over eight years, they did not handle the problems surrounding the labor migration? What is it that has changed now?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer is that there were no parliamentary conditions, i.e., a majority, in here to make these changes. We also know that the Sweden Democrats have wavered on this issue. The line was indeed means-testing until the point where one was to make oneself possible for the Moderates to cooperate with. One could then throw this out the window just to make oneself possible as a cooperation partner, and this applies to many of the Sweden Democrats' principles.

The short answer is, therefore, that the conditions were not there. It was the Moderaterna who changed the labor migration policy and, together with their alliance partners, set this wage requirement of 13,000. They also had the support of Miljöpartiet. This majority was constant during the two preceding terms.

The Social Democrats made a huge reorganization of the migration policy in 2015–2016 and even after that through the work in the Migration Committee, which meant that we reorganized a very large amount of the policy that was conducted in the area of migration policy.

It is clear that we wished the conditions had looked different and that there had been opportunities to make this change then, but the conditions simply did not exist because the majority here failed.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive it as the member implying that the Social Democrats will not govern with the parties that today oppose this bill and which will pursue a liberal migration policy. That is, in my view, what the member is implying.

The government and the Sweden Democrats will now introduce a wage requirement that is at 90 percent of the median wage. This should have been done a long time ago. It is about protecting the simple jobs on the Swedish labor market so that those who are unemployed in Sweden can take these jobs. We should not have people living in exclusion because politicians enable a labor immigration that makes it difficult for the most vulnerable on the labor market to get their first job.

Now the Social Democrats have put forward a proposal that there should be a labor market test and that labor immigration should only be allowed when it is not possible to find the right person in Sweden. Okay – but where was this proposal during the eight years that the Social Democrats sat in Rosenbad?

When the Social Democrats had the power of government, they did not even raise the maintenance requirement for labor migrants, but now there are big words about it being Swedish jobs for the Swedes. Where were those words when the Social Democrats had the power of government? At that time, it was the Green Party that got to decide on migration policy.

How can the Social Democrats guarantee that it is not the Green Party that decides on migration policy and the labor migration the next time the Social Democrats, against all odds, obtain government power?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The proposals regarding means testing have been present in the Social Democrats all the time – one only has to read our congress documents. It is also possible to access all parliamentary motions and committee debates since the Moderates changed the legislation in 2008.

We have constantly argued that we should return to the authority-based needs assessment of labor immigration. The problem has been that there has been a strong liberal majority in the Riksdag that has blocked this – that is, the Moderaterna, their alliance partners, and Miljöpartiet.

If the member had spent more time listening to what I say first and foremost and reading what the opposition parties have written – instead of reading pre-written speaking points – he would have noticed that we in the parties that do not want Ulf Kristersson or Jimmie Åkesson as Prime Minister are in complete agreement that it is the collective agreements that shall govern.

The difference is that we think the salary requirement of 90 percent should remain because it clears out [applicants] at workplaces where collective agreements do not exist, but if there is a collective agreement, we can clearly be in agreement with these four parties that it applies.

If the member had focused on this instead of arguing that one wants to return to 13,000 – which no one in this chamber wants – he would be completely okay with us governing. The member can also vote for us now that he has received assurances that it will work even after the autumn election.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say initially that I think it is fundamentally good that the Social Democrats, just as I mentioned in my speech, in all essential respects support the Moderate-led government's proposal regarding new rules for labor immigration.

There are some exceptions, as Ola Möller has accounted for, but it is good that there is fundamentally a broad parliamentary support for what we are now implementing. In various reports, it is sometimes even portrayed as if the Social Democrats are the fifth Tidö party when it comes to migration policy, because one now wants to align very closely with the governing parties in order not to arouse mistrust among the electorate ahead of the election in the autumn. And I understand that, because the electorate stands behind what we are now implementing in all essential respects.

Given the exchanges of remarks and all other debate that has taken place, where the Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet have quite strongly presented alternative positions – Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet essentially stand for free immigration and strongly question the principles for regulated immigration – there is, however, reason for the voters to reflect on what the consequences will be when the Socialdemokraterna are to negotiate with these three parties.

That is why I have, on repeated occasions in this speaker's chair, asked Ola Möller what it will look like after the election if the Social Democrats are to form a majority together with the Left Party, the Center Party, and the Green Party. If they are even to be included in a government all four, they must indeed agree on every proposal they put forward on the Riksdag's table. It will therefore not be possible to be in agreement on only some parts; if they want to come forward with any proposals for changes, they must be fully united; that is how the rules look when one sits in a coalition government together.

Therefore, the question to the Social Democrats is perhaps formulated somewhat differently now than before, but I would like to know – and I hope that Ola Möller can answer – whether there are any red lines at all for the Social Democrats in migration policy, i.e., issues where one will not yield to C, V and MP.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by being clear that we in the Social Democrats are not at all some kind of fifth Tidö party in migration policy.

We have said no to the unlawful proposal to withdraw permanent residence permits, which the government continues to pursue. We have said no to the disclosure law. We have said no to deporting teenagers; we have said that it must be frozen. We have pushed for what the government has now finally agreed to, namely that one could increase the number of opportunities to apply for work permits from within the country.

We have wanted to ensure that we do not privatize defense activities. We have not wanted that, at the shelter, children should be separated from adults with glass panes. We thought that Sweden would receive more quota refugees before the government dismantled the reception activities. We thought that the municipalities would be supported in the reception of people from Ukraine. We think that we should have a needs-based labor immigration – and so on.

Point by point, the Social Democrats do not think like the Tidö parties on migration policy. We are, in fact, pursuing a strict migration policy, not a stupid migration policy, which is de facto what the Tidö parties are pursuing.

That is also why one repeatedly has to back down from one's fine statutes – for example, the question of the salary requirement. In the Tidö Agreement, it stated that it should be 100 percent, but there one had to back down to 90 percent. One has had to back down when it comes to throwing out teenagers – one had to stand at a press conference and state that one had been wrong. One has backed down regarding the track-switching issue because one concluded that it did not work. One has backed down regarding the reporting law, where one realized that we cannot turn individual civil servants into informants in the state administration – and so on.

The narrative that the Tidö parties are right every single time – that everything becomes perfect when the Tidö parties do something – is simply not true. Above all, it is not true at all that social democracy would in any way fully back up the Tidö parties' migration policy. We are pursuing a strict migration policy, not a stupid one.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Did anyone at all hear the answer to my question in what Ola Möller just said? It was not a word about whether the Social Democrats have any red lines regarding the activist currents that exist in Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. It was not a word about where one draws the line for the other parties that one will, after all, need to cooperate with after the election.

No party in this chamber has anywhere near 50 percent of the electorate's support. Therefore, we must unite and find different coalitions in order to be able to implement our policies. Therefore, it is also relevant to get answers to the question of where the limit lies for the Social Democrats.

I understand that there are some quite strong groups within the Social Democrats who are rather frustrated with the reorganization of the migration policy that we are now carrying out and which has broad support among the electorate and among the Swedish people. We shall not distinguish ourselves from other European countries. We shall ensure that in all essential aspects we stay at the EU's minimum level so as not to receive further waves of asylum seekers to just Sweden, which would make it difficult for us to integrate the people who are already here.

We know that it is so, and that is why we know that the Social Democrats are positioning themselves so closely that they are even called the fifth Tidö party in various media reports. It is not my words, but it is about the voting results – how you vote, Ola Möller. It is about how it has looked here in the Swedish Parliament's chamber when you have voted in the votes on the legislative proposals that we have submitted.

That is why I repeatedly ask the question to Ola Möller and the Social Democrats: What will apply if luck is on their side and the red-green parties get a majority? Where do the Social Democrats draw the line? Is it free immigration that will apply in Sweden – what the Green Party and the Left Party want most of all – because they are so eager for the Prime Minister's office? Or what will apply after the election?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! We will not reintroduce EBO – absolutely not. It is a red line. We will also not reintroduce permanent residence permits as a general rule, as in the legislation that the Moderaterna introduced in 2011 and which led up to the migration crisis in 2015 – absolutely not. There you have, therefore, two clear red lines, Viktor Wärnick, which we absolutely will not – as Fälldin said – compromise on.

Furthermore, we will obviously not agree to subsistence requirements at the collective agreement level. That is also an extremely important issue. We intend to safeguard the Swedish collective agreements. So, there you have three issues where the Social Democrats will definitely not back down in government negotiations, whoever they may be in agreement with.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have promised the voters to introduce a strict immigration policy. We have a mandate to carry out exactly this.

In the bill being discussed today, there are many legislative proposals that shall ensure that we obtain this strict immigration policy regarding labor immigration. One of the most important proposals is that a work permit for foreigners from third countries is granted only when one has fulfilled a salary requirement which means that the foreigner's salary amounts to at least 90 percent of the median wage in Sweden.

It is important to point out that the salary requirement of 90 percent of the median wage applies specifically to labor migrants from third countries, i.e., countries outside the EU and EEA. In the debate, parts of the opposition make it appear as if this applies to all labor migration, but that is not correct. The salary requirement will not apply to the approximately 220 million people who are part of the workforce within the EU and EEA.

This question, just like all other immigration-related questions, has been distorted in the debate. Something that has not been highlighted in the debate on labor migration is that only about 0.5 percent of the total workforce in Sweden consists of labor migrants from third countries. In most workplaces in Sweden, there are no labor migrants. Sweden does not stand or fall with labor migration.

I have been following this debate for a while now, and many professional groups have been presented as examples of groups where labor migration is of utmost importance. We have heard about the doctors. Last year, 87 doctors came to Sweden through labor migration, and there are approximately 46,000 practicing and licensed doctors in Sweden. We have heard about the nursing assistants. Last year, 30 nursing assistants came to Sweden through labor migration, and there are about 129,000 nursing assistants in Sweden.

I can go through every profession that exists. It appears then that only a fraction come to Sweden through labor migration. That entire industries or businesses would stand or fall with labor migration is a lie. The figures do not support such a claim. This statistics are available on the Swedish Migration Agency's website for everyone to read.

Since I started engaging in politics, which was some time ago, Sweden has had a labor market dominated by high-skilled occupations. In an international comparison, the simple jobs that do not require any education are quite few on the Swedish labor market. Therefore, it is strange that we bring people here from the Middle East for them to work in a street food stall in Sweden, when we have more than 400,000 able-bodied people standing outside the labor market. It is the unemployed in Sweden who should get these simple jobs.

This is the basic idea behind an increase of the wage requirement to 90 percent of the median wage. It is unfair and immoral to let people who are in a vulnerable situation on the Swedish labor market compete with the entire world. It is enough that they need to compete with all EU citizens. Why should the unemployed in Sweden compete with people in India for the few simple jobs that exist in Sweden? This is what certain parties in this chamber need to explain when they oppose this proposition.

An increase of the wage requirement to 90 percent of the median wage means that labor migrants need to earn approximately 33,000 kronor to obtain a residence permit in Sweden. That is exactly what it is about: a residence permit. This is not about politicians deciding on wages, which is yet another distortion from the opposition. It is about the conditions for labor migrants' stay in Sweden.

Before the Tidö parties came to power, the conditions for the stay of labor migrants were completely different. Back then, it was sufficient for a labor migrant to have an income of 13,000 kronor. The Tidö parties first raised the limit to 80 percent of the median wage. Now we are going to raise it to 90 percent of the median wage, which corresponds to approximately 33,000 kronor.

This is about something as fundamental as the fact that labor immigration to Sweden shall serve Sweden's interests and nothing else. It is not about realizing dreams for someone in Bangladesh and giving a foreigner a better life. We look at our society and our labor market and see what Sweden needs. Based on this, we shape a labor immigration that serves Sweden's interests.

Part of this is that the government shall be able to grant exemptions from the wage requirement through a decree. There may be individual occupations where a labor shortage in Sweden, in combination with a labor shortage in the EU and EEA, can lead to a need for exemptions from the wage requirement.

There will also be professional groups where there is so much fraud that the government must decide not to accept labor migrants in that specific professional group. It concerns professional groups where the abuse is extensive. It concerns labor immigration within professional groups that are currently used for criminal schemes and where human exploitation and work-life crime occur to a large extent. The government must have tools to stop such things.

Mr. Speaker! In this bill, it is also proposed that a provision shall be introduced clarifying that a foreigner may be denied a work permit if the employer or their representative is reasonably suspected or convicted of a crime according to Chapter 20 of the Aliens Act or for human trafficking or human exploitation according to the Penal Code.

It is about employers who cheat and employ illegal migrants. It can also be about employers who engage in human smuggling. These employers should, of course, be prevented from employing labor migrants. It should be clearly stated in the law that this is the case, which this bill intends to establish.

Even the special fee for the employer who has employed an illegal migrant shall be increased from one price base amount to two. This means that the special fee is increased from approximately 59,000 to approximately 118,000 kronor. Employers who cheat and enable illegal immigrants' stay in Sweden shall have to pay for it. For violations that have lasted longer than three months, the fee shall be increased from two to four price base amounts.

Despite the fact that the special fee for employers who hire illegal migrants was increased in 2018, hundreds of illegal migrants working in Sweden continue to be found during workplace inspections. This must be stopped. It must be made clear that businesses that employ illegal migrants cannot be profitable. Therefore, we need legislation that prevents these employers from hiring labor migrants, and those who use illegal migrants must pay a high price.

It is precisely those employers who hire illegal migrants who compete out the employers who follow the rules. Here, the role of politics is to establish rules that ensure that employers who break the rules do not compete out the business owners who actually follow the rules.

Mr. Speaker! A new penal provision shall also be introduced in the Aliens Act against the exploitation of foreign labor. It shall target employers who have a foreigner employed or who otherwise have decisive influence over the foreigner's working conditions and exploit him or her in work under obviously unreasonable conditions. The penalty for exploitation of foreign labor shall be imprisonment for a maximum of two years. The penalty for gross exploitation of foreign labor shall be imprisonment for a minimum of six months and a maximum of four years.

We know that the liberal immigration policy has resulted in many foreigners being exploited on the Swedish labor market. In Malmö, at restaurants in Möllevången that are popular among Vänsterpartister and Socialdemokrater, foreigners have been found working under slave-like conditions.

We cannot have it that way in Sweden. Now we are signaling from the political side that no more people shall be sacrificed on the altar of mass immigration. We shall have a regulated and strict immigration to Sweden, and those who are here shall be treated with dignity.

In this bill, it is proposed that an additional penal provision shall be introduced: that trading in work permits shall be prohibited. Anyone who employs a foreigner or assists a foreigner in applying for a work permit and, for this, requests or receives a fee from the foreigner that is in obvious disproportion to the consideration has committed a crime. One simply must not be able to sell work permits to foreigners.

This has occurred – just a single job offer has cost 30,000 kronor and upwards. The labor migrant may then have had to pay as much as half a million kronor to complete the process of obtaining a work permit. It is outrageous.

Red-green governments have been passive and accepted these problems. Now the Tidö parties are acting. We refuse to accept that one can buy their way into Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! For years, people have been exploited on the Swedish labor market. Work permits have been sold. Wages have been dumped. People have worked and lived under slave-like conditions in the Social Democrats' Sweden, but that time is coming to an end.

Sweden is not a market where one trades with residence permits. We are putting a stop to this here and now. We do it because it is right. We do it because it is fair. We do it because Sweden's regulated immigration shall serve Sweden's interests and because the people who stay legally in Sweden deserve a decent life.

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

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I shall begin by congratulating you on your position in the government and on the potential post of Prime Minister.

From the fact that it states in the Tidö Agreement that the wage floor should be 100 percent – my perception is that this is a requirement from the Sverigedemokraterna – I would like to know how it looks going forward. We are starting to approach an election. Will you, before the election, demand that it becomes 100 percent as you have demanded until now?

The policy being pursued right now is truly the Sweden Democrats' policy. The Moderates have not demanded a high wage floor for labor migrants, but rather have trusted that business owners have had the ability to determine the need. We also believe that, together with collective agreements, is the order that should apply. But instead of the companies being allowed to determine the need, the Sweden Democrats have now been given the power over what type of labor is allowed to enter Sweden.

Both the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates have mentioned that there are professions for which exceptions can be made. Which professions do the Sweden Democrats consider that exceptions should be made for? Healthcare and care professions have been mentioned, but are there other professions that the Sweden Democrats consider that exceptions should be made for?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly: In the discussions I have participated in, it has not been relevant to return to this matter in the near future, and the law we are enacting now will apply for a long time.

Secondly: The large increase was when we raised from 13,000 kronor to 80 percent of the median wage. Now we are going from 80 percent to 90 percent, so it is not as large an increase. The big difference was when Sweden moved from the Social Democrats' labor immigration, which actually allowed anyone to come in, to a labor immigration where we ensured that those who came here were highly qualified. For the low-skilled occupations where extensive fraud occurred, we reduced immigration.

For the third: If the member has read the bill, the member knows that it is not the parties who decide which professions should be exempted. It is Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket that prepare the basis, and then the government receives certain proposals based on this basis. After that, the government makes the decision. These are therefore not arbitrary proposals. I assume the member thinks this is better than the Socialdemokraternas bill, where there was no possibility for exemptions at all.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is correct that the limit was previously 13,000 kronor. But it was Ulf Kristersson who pushed it through, not the Social Democrats. Let us have a fact-based discussion in the chamber.

But of course, neither the Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Liberals, the Moderates, nor the Christian Democrats have previously done enough about the cheating. I take responsibility for that, even though I haven't been here for very long. The cheating should have been handled earlier, and we in the Centre Party support the proposals in the bill to punish companies that cheat. We are completely on board with this.

What we do not like, however, is the salary requirement of 90 percent of the median wage, because that means that more than 10,000 of those who work in Sweden and who in practice earn more than 30,000 kronor a month will be told no to continuing to work in Sweden. I find it very difficult to see that this is something that strengthens Sweden.

When it comes to occupations, it is correct that there should be a basis, but according to the bill, it is ultimately the government that is to make the decision. The Sweden Democrats are not in the government, and therefore it would be interesting to hear which occupations the Sweden Democrats consider the government should make exceptions for. According to some representatives on social media, there are none. But at the same time, representatives for the government say that there may be such occupations. How do the Sweden Democrats actually view this regarding exceptions? Do they see that, at the current stage, there is a real opening to make exceptions?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! How am I to explain this to the member? No party would arbitrarily make such decisions; instead, one starts from a basis that Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket have prepared, which shows that there is a labor shortage in certain occupations. It can vary from year to year, and therefore the exceptions will be renewed all the time. The bill states that one will start from a basis. It is not based on a political opinion but on in which occupations there is a labor shortage.

I do not believe that the Centre Party is against the cheating, because if they were, they would support this proposal. There are reports from the Swedish Migration Agency showing that when higher subsistence requirements and wage requirements have been introduced, labor migration to low-skilled occupations decreases. And it is in low-skilled occupations that the cheating is extensive, so the cheating will also decrease. I hope the member followed along.

Since there are reports and evidence from the Swedish Migration Agency, it is strange that the Center Party opposes this and argues that fraud can be reduced in some other way. We know that extensive fraud occurs within certain professions and that criminal organizations have already extended their tentacles into a number of industries. If labor immigration decreases in these industries, the fraud also decreases, and that is what this wage requirement will lead to.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! 52 billion kronor – that is how much labor immigration contributed to Sweden's GDP in 2024. Labor immigration also contributed 17 billion in tax revenues, which corresponds to the wages, including tax and employer contributions, for practically all of Sweden's police officers. Nima Gholam Ali Pour claimed that labor immigration is not significant for Sweden and that we do not live or die by it. No, it is clear that Sweden does not live or die by 17 billion in tax revenues and 52 billion to GDP, but we will become much poorer with the Sweden Democrats' deportation policy.

There has been a clear common thread in how the Sweden Democrats have spoken about immigration, namely as the root of all of Sweden's problems. The immigrants' fantastic contributions to our society are waved away as individual cases and insignificant examples. But all around Sweden, employees and colleagues, users in home care with several every day, see what incredible importance immigration has for the local community, for the elderly care homes, and for Sweden and our economy.

The government's policy is about one thing: to deport even more who work and contribute to the country. It is about nothing else.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are not against labor immigration, even though it sounded that way from the member. It is about that we should receive the labor immigrants that the Swedish labor market needs. Sweden needs people in highly qualified professions.

When it comes to simple jobs within low-skilled occupations, Sweden already has more than 400,000 able-bodied people who are outside the labor market. They cannot compete with everyone in the world to get these simple jobs; instead, there must be fair competition here so that these people can enter the labor market and can contribute to society just like everyone else.

It would be unfair to them if one let employers, for example, bring in someone from a third country, India or somewhere in the Middle East, who could work at a street food stall when it is a youth in the local community who can take that job. We are not against labor migration. We want a labor migration that benefits Swedish society.

One can also add that, given the crime that occurs within the labor immigration and the industries that received many low-skilled labor immigrants, it also cost the society. We cannot just count what it gave the society. One must also see what the crime within those industries has cost the society.

Finally, I just want to add that we Sverigedemokrater do not think that immigration is the root of all problems. The member claimed that we think that. That is not true at all. I stand here and contradict the member, so presumably immigration contributes to something.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Immigration does not just contribute to something, but to a fantastic amount in our country. I look forward to hearing a fiery speech from the Sweden Democrats where they actually talk about it.

I have even stood right here in the chamber and debated how Sweden declined in the corruption index because the Sweden Democrats fiddled with the party contributions. Even then, Richard Jomshof from SD spoke about how it was the immigrants' fault.

Mr. Speaker! Nima Golam Ali Pour just said that he thinks we should have labor migrants ”as the Swedish labor market needs.” We in the Green Party also think that. What we differ on is the view on how we decide and arrive at what the Swedish labor market needs.

The Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties intend to sit in Rosenbad and make lists where they decide which employees the companies need and who is not allowed to come here as labor migrants.

We in Miljöpartiet think that it must be based on what the employers themselves see. It can look different. In northern Sweden, both public and private employers are crying out for labor in very many different occupational groups with a very wide range in wages. The situation looks different in Stockholm or in Skåne.

We believe that employers should be allowed to hire whom they need as long as they ensure they pay wages in accordance with collective agreements according to industry practice. It is simple. That is how we strengthen Sweden.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say about the member's contribution. I can begin by saying that if we were to base it solely on collective agreements, it would be the parties in the labor market who would decide who should be granted residence permits. It has never been that way.

Before 2008, we had labor market testing. There, the state had an even larger role than Miljöpartiet perhaps wants the state to have. After 2008, we had a subsistence requirement. It was at 13,000 kronor, and since then it has been raised.

It has never been the case that collective agreements have decided who gets a residence permit in Sweden. That would be bizarre. The parties in the labor market cannot decide who gets a residence permit in Sweden.

At the same time as the government does this, we do much else to ensure that those who are outside the labor market get into jobs. Among other things, the activity requirement shall ensure that more people activate themselves and try to enter the labor market.

Arbetsförmedlingen shall also take on a more mediating role, something that was given up under the Social Democrats. Now, one must ensure that one begins to mediate jobs.

Exemptions will not mean that someone will sit in Rosenbad and tick off which jobs or professions should be exempted. It is as I told the member from Centerpartiet: Background material will be prepared, and one will proceed based on that material.

The reason for that is that exceptions exist for those occupations where there is a labor shortage. It is not for just any occupations. It will not be arbitrary. One will see where there is a labor shortage, and based on that, certain occupations will be exempted.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a country where people come to work. They build houses, care for our elderly and work in industry, in trade and in the welfare sector. They pay tax and fill real needs in the labor market.

Labor immigration has historically been positive for Sweden. If it functions well, it can contribute a great deal both for the individual who comes here to work and for the Swedish economy and labor market.

But if labor immigration is to be able to contribute positively to society, there must be guarantees that those who come here to work are not exploited, nor are they used to dump wage and working conditions on the Swedish labor market.

This requires a fair and sustainable system for labor immigration, with a clear, transparent regulatory framework and wages and conditions in accordance with collective agreements, while at the same time providing employers with good opportunities to recruit the labor that is needed.

Vänsterpartiet has repeatedly put forward demands for changes in the legislation regarding labor immigration. Our main demand is that we need to reintroduce the authority-based labor market assessment. The question of shortage and subsequent labor demand shall be assessed by Arbetsförmedlingen in consultation with the labor market parties.

We stand behind parts of the bill that the government presents today, but we are strongly critical of other parts of the legislative proposals. Looking at how the government has handled labor immigration so far, or its inability to handle the issue, it is much more than just trying to patch up a broken system that the government has worsened, among other things, with increased wage demands.

One shows no serious ambitions to ensure that we get a fair system for labor immigration. The wage requirement that is proposed, for example, cannot be viewed in any other way than that the government wants to make more people deportable and ensure that fewer come to Sweden.

The proposal is also a principled departure from the Swedish labor market model, without solving the exploitation on the labor market in that respect. People who work, pay tax and have wages in accordance with collective agreements risk having their work permits revoked.

They have built their lives here. Their children go to Swedish schools. They are a part of our local communities all over the country. Many are threatened with deportation, and many have already been forced to leave Sweden. It is not because they have done anything wrong at all, but because their wages do not reach a politically established limit, despite them having wages in accordance with collective agreements. The limit is set by politicians who are obsessed with deporting people and splitting families, and they never take responsibility for the consequences.

Madam Speaker! There are fundamentally two alternatives ahead. Either we have a fair system that ensures that labor migration takes place in an orderly manner and with respect for Swedish collective agreements, or we continue on the path already taken where policy is primarily used to make people deportable.

Vänsterpartiet chooses the first option. We want a labor market where those who build Sweden – nursing assistants, industrial workers, or construction workers – are treated with respect, regardless of where they come from. A society that accepts exploitation and creates fear among workers weakens the entire wage-earner collective.

One does not create order and tidiness by imposing this wage requirement. One does so by strengthening workers' rights and restoring the balance in the labor market. That is how we achieve a fair and sustainable system for labor migration.

A fundamental difference between the Left Party's and the government's view on labor immigration is that our primary focus is to counter the exploitation and abuse of labor migrants, not to make it harder for those who have sought out our country.

We believe that it is the labor market's needs that should govern labor immigration, not the right-wing government's obsession with reducing immigration in general. I move for approval of reservation 5.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet is against the proposal for a raised wage requirement for labor immigration. This is stated in a reservation that the member has written together with Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet.

In another reservation, Vänsterpartiet argues that they want to go even further than the government. They want to introduce authority-based labor market screening, and the purpose is that labor immigration should only take place when labor cannot be found in Sweden.

When we voted on raising the maintenance requirement for labor migration in November 2022, Vänsterpartiet was against the proposal because it was considered that such a raised maintenance requirement was only about reducing immigration. Vänsterpartiet wanted to maintain a maintenance requirement where a labor migrant from a third country only needed to have an income of 13,000 kronor to obtain a work permit in Sweden.

It is very difficult to understand what the Left Party actually wants in this issue. Even a government agency-based labor market assessment would lead to less immigration to Sweden, so the consequence is actually the same.

If one truly wants the state to have greater control over labor immigration, which the Left Party says it wants, why then do you not support the proposal for a raised wage requirement where the government decides on exceptions if there is a labor shortage within certain occupations?

It appears that Vänsterpartiet in practice wants a liberal labor migration, because the proposal on wage requirements gives the authorities and the government greater control over labor migration. Either one wants to limit labor migration or one does not. Right now, Vänsterpartiet is saying both things at the same time.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament asks why we are opposed to the government's exceptions in these matters. It is clear that we do not want the government to sit with lists of which people shall be allowed to come to Sweden and which not. That is why we oppose this policy. It is unprofessional.

This will end with the Sweden Democrats sitting and blocking people and deciding who shall be allowed to come to Sweden and who shall not. The proposal that they put forward implies a serious problem.

We see what the wage requirement has led to. This is an incredibly unserious proposal, because the wage requirement has led to people who work here, who have established themselves, who are needed and who fill gaps in the Swedish labor market being deported. It has led to people who work and are needed in elderly care being deported. It is not easy to recruit anyone to elderly care at all; we are talking about shortage occupations.

I am also asked why we want the means-tested labor immigration. It is no more strange than that we want order and clarity on the labor market.

The problem with the Sweden Democrats is that they do not want any order or structure at all. They do not have a single serious proposal for organizing labor immigration in Sweden, but they have only one single thought. What is central in the Sweden Democrats' heads is to deport as many people as possible, regardless of how it harms individuals, the Swedish economy, Swedish local communities, and the Swedish labor market. It is incredibly unserious of the Sweden Democrats.

I think the member should review what the situation looks like on the Swedish labor market. Many in this group work in shortage occupations, and they are needed in Sweden. It is insane that the Sverigedemokraterna block people from working in these occupations and instead deport them. It is a terrible policy.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! One reason why Vänsterpartiet wants to introduce authority-based labor market screening is to prevent wage dumping by ensuring that fewer immigrants come to Sweden via labor migration. The supply decreases, which prevents wages from falling.

According to the Swedish Migration Agency's February forecast, labor immigration will decrease significantly due to the raised wage requirement, which we are debating today and which we will later vote on.

The supply of labor from third countries will decrease, and as a result, the risk of wage dumping, which the Left Party says it is against, will also decrease. But the Left Party is also against the increased wage requirement. How does that logic hold up?

The increased wage requirement reduces labor immigration, according to the Swedish Migration Agency, and it will in turn reduce the risk of wage dumping. So why is Vänsterpartiet against the increased wage requirement?

Madam Speaker! I wish that the member does not talk this away. The increased wage requirement therefore reduces the risk of wage dumping because the supply of labor migrants decreases. Why is the Left Party then against the increased wage requirement? Do you want wage dumping in Sweden?

The Social Democrats are voting for the increased wage demand. That shows at least that they are not abandoning the Swedish workers. Why is the Left Party abandoning the Swedish workers?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Does the member have the nerve to speak about abandoning the Swedish wage earners in Sweden? Is this what the member stands here and expresses? The safety net has been lowered, compensations have been lowered, and workers have been thrown under the bus during the last nearly four years. This is exactly what the Sverigedemokraterna have done. Then they turned in the issue of labor immigration in order to rule with the Tidö parties. Abandoning Swedish wage earners is probably the last thing the Sverigedemokraterna should stand here and talk about.

I shall make a correction, Madam Speaker. Collective agreement wages were what I spoke about entirely in my speech. It is that logic that holds our policy together: We must have collective agreement wages.

What the Sverigedemokraterna are doing together with the government is to ignore the Swedish labor market model. They are introducing their own politically set wages solely for the purpose of deporting as many people as possible. It is in the Sverigedemokraterna's DNA. The Sverigedemokraterna are the absolute last ones who should be standing here and talking about Swedish wage earners and their conditions and what is good for the Swedish labor market.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We stood here a few days or perhaps a few weeks ago and debated labor migration, and now we are here to discuss it again.

It concerns one of the important changes that this government is implementing to get order on migration in our country. It is about the bill on new rules for labor migration.

Madam Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, it is important to maintain the shift in migration and migration policy that we collectively began implementing with the Tidö Agreement. It is a whole of reforms in a totally complex regulatory framework that is important to bring order and clarity to migration policy and strengthen the sense of community.

It is important to reduce immigration to Sweden and that we adapt migration to the capacity for integration that we have. It is also important that those who behave, integrate well, support themselves, and live up to the requirements we set for staying can feel at home. Equally important is that those who have no reason to be in Sweden or who have forfeited that opportunity, for example by committing crimes, cannot remain.

Immigration to Sweden is changing. Asylum immigration is now at its lowest since the mid-1980s. But in the historical reorganization of migration policy, it is not only the levels regarding the number of people who come here that are changing, but also the composition itself. Sweden is now moving from primarily being an asylum immigration country and a country where labor immigration was about low wages and low requirements to becoming a country for highly skilled labor immigration and a country where those who need protection receive protection.

Let me be clear: This shift in the composition of immigration and the increased focus on talents and talent attraction to Sweden is good for our competitiveness. It is ultimately about speaking plainly about the fact that immigration provides resources and capacity to our country, and it is about our country's opportunities for economy and growth.

Madam Speaker! The red-green government left behind, after eight years, an insufficient policy with long processing times and a tangled legislation.

The government has worked purposefully since day one to reverse this. It is about reducing bureaucracy, creating smoother processes, shortening processing times, and having legislation that favors the industrious but hits hard against fraud and abuse.

When we took office, the maintenance requirement for labor migration was only 13,000 kronor per month. It was an unreasonably low level. In November 2023, the level was raised to 80 percent of the median wage. Still, even after the now proposed level increase to 90 percent, we are lower than other comparable countries – for example, Denmark, which is significantly higher.

Madam Speaker! What is the case regarding today's bill?

First and foremost, the government agrees to adjust the level of the salary requirement to 90 percent of the median wage. With this, we obtain a straightforward and understandable provision. This is another step in the government's offensive where it is made easier for those who behave correctly and at the same time the bar is raised for abuse. It is fundamentally about the fact that we must be careful about who enters the country and also careful about what requirements we set.

The government will be given the opportunity to determine exceptions to the main rule and also to exclude individual professional groups from the possibility of being granted work permits. That process is underway. A regulation will be drafted, and the Swedish Migration Agency and the Public Employment Service have been tasked with presenting a list of potential shortage occupations, which will be delivered this week.

Further information was provided just a few weeks ago when our four party leaders stated that the coalition parties agreed that a limited number of occupations shall constitute shortage occupations, and that a list shall be prepared in connection with the law on raised wage floors entering into force on June 1. The priority is to safeguard a high capacity within health and care.

Madam Speaker! It is important to remind that the adjustments we are presenting concern the work line and that the government takes the skills shortage within certain occupations seriously. The fact is, however, that Sweden has for a long time had a large labor immigration to low-wage sectors. At the same time, we exhibit the third largest difference in employment rates between domestic and foreign-born in Europe. A large low-skilled labor immigration is therefore not reasonable. More of those who are already in Sweden should be given the opportunity and be encouraged to take the vacant jobs that exist.

I also want to emphasize that everyone who comes to Sweden to work shall have good working conditions. Higher income requirements contribute to ensuring that. Abuse of the regulatory framework has occurred and surely still occurs, not least within more low-skilled industries.

The work line needs to be expanded. That is why the government is moving forward with major reforms to ensure that those who can work are also motivated to do so and to secure their own livelihood.

A subsidy ceiling will be introduced so that it pays to take a job instead of receiving benefits. As mentioned earlier in the debate, there will also be requirements for activation for recipients of social assistance. It is about breaking the passivity among people who are far from the labor market and giving them support and motivation to seek a job. We assess that the changes we make will significantly increase the incentives to take the jobs that are available.

Madam Speaker! One can, in Olympic times, even though they have passed, use some sports references. It is fortunate that there is a coordinated team leading Sweden forward, a team that can meet and agree in discussions about tactics and find a way out in troublesome issues. That is precisely what is happening, and it has also happened in this issue.

But what does it look like on the other side of the pitch? The opposing side doesn't even seem to be playing on the same pitch, and if they did, they would probably be shooting at their own goals. The reservations in this section are not common, and in some cases, they run completely contrary to each other.

The Left prefers to speak about other issues in its exchanges. We know that they want a much lower requirement in the migration policy.

The Social Democrats are probably quite grateful that we are now implementing much of what they talk about, the firm line that they actually largely failed to implement during their eight years in government. Here in the debate, the Social Democrats are, as usual, making a lot of noise. It was already known eight and a half years ago how it should be done – it is strange that it wasn't done. They never changed their minds, even though they actually voted in the same way as the government at that time, for example regarding the 18-year-olds. They also like to use a somewhat mocking style to describe how they have always been right. But then the question is: Did they get anything done?

We can observe that there is no realistic government alternative among today's opposition parties. The strict migration policy that the Social Democrats speak of and claim to have pursued for a long time will not be possible to implement. We see what the other parties are presenting, and this report makes no difference. One can see with horror the potential red lines and ultimate demands in a future government negotiation.

I want to address the citizens who are listening to this debate. There is a coordinated and realistic government base in this chamber, namely those of us who have cooperated and cooperate in the Tidö Agreement and the government. Do not let the diverse and uncoordinated red-green combination create chaos during another mandate period!

Madam Speaker! Through today's bill, the conditions for labor immigration are tightened, while immigration of highly qualified labor is promoted. This is good for Sweden and creates opportunities for both work and integration for the residents in our country. Therefore, I move for approval of the bill and rejection of the reservations.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I like the reference to the Winter Olympics. We can observe that the Tidö government is about as skilled as Denmark was there. It is not that impressive.

Ingemar Kihlström was in the Nordic countries in connection with the labor rules and mentioned Denmark then. But Denmark is the only country that has these high wage levels, approximately the same as Sweden. We can state that Norway and Finland do not have the same levels. Why is it only Denmark that one can look at? That is my first question.

Then the Christian Democrats would like to appear as a party that represents all of Sweden. But this regulatory framework does not take into account regional differences, which means that the person who works in Stockholm gets to stay while the person who does the same job in Jämtland, in Kalmar, or for that matter in Skåne is deported. Why is it reasonable legislation? I still have not been able to get an answer from anyone on the government side as to why the regional perspective is not important.

Yes, the work line shall be strengthened. It is obvious that those who are unemployed shall be required to work. That is what we have always thought. But the work line is not the only line we parties usually agree on. We also have the growth line, and I can only state that the Christian Democrats and the Moderates have completely forgotten it.

This creates growth. The one who increases the cake creates more jobs. The Christian Democrats and the Moderates used to understand that, and so did the Liberals. Now it is as if they have become socialists and only see each job for itself – they cannot become more. That perspective harms Sweden.

When 20 employees at the same residence are deported due to changes in the government's policy, it is clear that it affects welfare across the entire country. I hope that the Christian Democrats, despite the exception, now begin to realize that this flip-flopping back and forth in migration policy must end.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the sports references, Niels Paarup-Petersen! Sweden did take quite a few medals in the skiing in the regular Olympics, significantly more than the Danes. However, the Danes can play football better than we can.

If we leave the sport, we can state that my moderate colleague here and I are being accused of being socialists. In the context where the Centre Party now feels most at home, I think it is perhaps Niels Paarup-Petersen who should reflect on what one becomes a socialist for and what policy should be implemented.

It would be exciting to hear Niels Paarup-Petersen's reflection here: What business-friendly policy will he pursue with, for example, Nooshi as Finance Minister? What business-friendly policy will he pursue with Amanda Lind as Environment Minister? What business-friendly policy will he pursue with some other Green Party member as Transport Minister or Infrastructure Minister? One should probably consider what policy can be implemented in different ways.

Then we can state that it should be good with facts. Niels Paarup-Petersen talks about it. Niels Paarup-Petersen says that the healthcare will stop, that the industry will stop and that everything will stop because we set a wage floor. Yes, that is actually what Niels Paarup-Petersen has said. He says that we are not coming with facts.

We can observe that the majority of the labor migrants who arrived during the period with the low wage floor were in industries and occupations where the 400,000 who are unemployed could have made a contribution instead.

We are discussing exceptions specifically for health and social care. I believe it is important to state that much of the labor migration that exists and has existed concerns highly qualified labor. They will come to Sweden regardless of the requirements.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I have not said that industry and healthcare will come to a standstill because of wage floors, I am only saying that it has negative consequences. They are still two different things, if we are to speak facts.

We do not want 13,000, but we want collective agreements as the basis – those that take into account what the labor market actually looks like, and that take into account regional differences so that the person who works in Jämtland receives a salary that corresponds to the wage level there.

The Christian Democrats truly think that the wage for Jämtland should be defined in an office in Stockholm. How can that be the view on wage setting of a purported rural party? It is an absurdity. It is the policy, that is to say, to set a wage ceiling that should apply to the whole country. That is what we oppose because it does not hold.

Would I want Nooshi as Finance Minister? No! That won't happen either. Everyone knows that. The question instead is: Will the member get Jimmie Åkesson as Prime Minister? That is the actual question on the table, if we are to talk ministers. It is much more likely.

We can also talk about infrastructure. There we can observe that the infrastructure in Skåne is undermined when one removes Västkustbanan. Is that what we are going to talk about? Then we can do that. But now it is not the topic of the day.

We consider, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce considers, Företagarna considers and Svenskt Näringsliv considers that this is an unsustainable policy that harms Sweden. Then one can talk about future potential government formations. One can spend time in the chamber on that, if one wishes. I would prefer to discuss the policy that Member Kihlström intends to vote for today, which all companies and institutions say harms Sweden. They say it is idioti. Those who have heard the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce talk about bourgeois politics know that they do not usually call it idiotic, but they usually praise it. But right now it is called idioti, and perhaps that is what one should take to heart.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Given the high tail-dragging that Niels Paarup-Petersen has regarding business issues, I can only say good luck in the new potential constellation. I cannot see it.

During the years that Niels Paarup-Petersen's party supported the previous government, much of what Niels Paarup talks about was not carried out. We have different starting points and may have different values, but we create workshop. It is not just empty talk.

There may not be negative consequences. One must take note of the facts. Who are they – and who were they – who come to Sweden as labor migrants? The vast majority are IT architects, systems developers, engineers, and civil engineers. A small number come for the occupations that were just mentioned within health and care, which we also speak of removing. It has instead become easier.

During the time that the S-government ruled, with the support of Niels Paarup-Petersen's party, there were extremely long processing times. This also applied to the highly qualified workforce that Sweden needed in order to be a successful country.

Now we have changed that. It is about perhaps three weeks to get a decision and to get the necessary competence needed to build our country strong. We ensure that we deliver, and we ensure that we create opportunities for companies to grow. We also create incentives to ensure that those who are unemployed have jobs to apply for and receive motivation. I promise Niels Paarup-Petersen that I will carry this out.

Good luck with implementing something equivalent in the law that you will be playing in.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström began his speech by saying that he wants order and clarity and that he wants to strengthen the sense of community. The government's migration policy and the government's deportation policy contribute neither to order and clarity nor to strengthening the sense of community.

We do not know today how many people will be deported from Sweden because they work here but have a lower salary than the government's new salary requirements. But we know that in 2023, there were almost 15,000 labor migrants who earned less than 80 percent of the median wage. We are talking about significantly more than that, at least before we have seen the list of exceptions that the Sverigedemokraterna are to negotiate together with the government.

Madam Speaker! The unreasonable deportations, deportations of people who work in accordance with collective agreements and who support themselves and their families, are tearing apart communities and businesses all over the country – and they are bad for the Swedish economy. Idiocy, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce said, and I can only agree.

We in Miljöpartiet want order and clarity, and we want to strengthen social cohesion, which means stopping unreasonable deportations of people who work, support themselves, and contribute to Sweden.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that the concept of order and tidiness means somewhat different things for me and Member Hirvonen.

We can observe that after seven years of governing and continued support for an S-government, we have a situation in Sweden that is anything but order and tidiness. We can observe that the migration we have had in Sweden has been at such a level that to say that there is order and tidiness in marginalized communities and that there is order and tidiness in the legal sphere is to fail to see the real situation.

We in the Tidöregeringen have noted that we need to bring the migration flow down to a level so that we can manage to integrate those who come here and also make efforts to integrate those who are already here. That situation is obvious to many in the chamber, a significant majority in the chamber, and also for the intended cooperation partner the Socialdemokraterna.

We can observe that from that perspective, it is not realistic that people travel from far-away-in-the-city, from another country, to perform simple jobs at fast-food restaurants, in cleaning companies and as distributors within various logistics chains. It is therefore that we carry out these changes to strengthen Sweden and make Sweden competitive.

We ensure that labor immigration concerns individuals who move our country forward in terms of technology, development, and research. That is where we differ. We believe in order and tidiness even in migration policy in order to create order and tidiness in our entire society.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In what way does integration in Sweden become better if people who are integrated, work here, and earn 30,000 a month are to be deported? Sweden becomes poorer if we go that way. The social cohesion is torn apart when we tear neighbors, classmates, friends, and colleagues from the lives they have built up here.

To be honest, I wonder if Ingemar Kihlström has a grasp of the wage situation in the occupational groups he lists. The employees at fast-food chains that he talks about do not, after all, earn between 80 and 90 percent of the median wage. Because that is what we are talking about now. What we are talking about today is whether the wage requirement should be raised from 80 percent of the median wage, which applies now, to 90 percent. It is not the low-wage occupations we are talking about.

What we are talking about, however, is a long line of professions that require some form of professional competence. We are talking about newly graduated engineers, we are talking about employees on the workshop floors, and we are talking about those who take care of our elderly in home care services. We are also talking about personal assistants, which is, frankly, incredibly difficult to recruit today. I know that from my own experience from my family.

Sweden will become poorer if this policy from the government is passed. It is not just me who says it. Representatives from the business community, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and several others, are also saying it. They have done the math. But the government has simply laid flat for the Sweden Democrats' ideologically motivated deportation policy.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! If Annika Hirvonen had listened to my representative here in the Social Insurance Committee, Hans Eklind, she would have heard that he already during the previous parliamentary term spoke about a high wage floor with relevant exceptions. In just this question, it is therefore not, despite what Annika Hirvonen claims, new policy from us Kristdemokrater.

For us Christian Democrats, it is relevant to ensure that we have the capacity, the resources, and the competence we need in Sweden, such as engineers etcetera. I do not believe that particularly many of the engineers who have come here as labor migrants are newly graduated and fall below that wage requirement. In 2022, the median wage for the engineers who came here as labor migrants was 41,150 kronor. I believe that it is a fictitious problem, a fictitious model that Annika Hirvonen is creating. We shall, of course, ensure that those who come here as labor migrants receive relevant conditions and have relevant competence.

I can also state that the labor migrants who came here to work as fast food staff, cooks or cleaners had a median salary of 23,000.

In the question regarding the transition and order and tidiness that we create, I still believe that it is more important that we create incentives for those who are in our country to take the jobs that are available.

But it is naturally areas where actions are needed to help, such as in health and care, that shall be prioritized. That was what we said here a few weeks ago. I do not see in the crystal ball exactly which professions will be mentioned. But health and care have priority. I am quite sure that with that priority we will meet the needs that exist, both in healthcare and in our country.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

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

Then I can start with the positive aspects of the government's policy here. It is that the controls of the companies shall be tightened and that the cheating shall be stopped. Follow-up controls shall be carried out and sanctions shall be imposed against employers who have provided false information. Employers shall be able to be shut out from the system. Human exploitation etcetera shall be punished. And if one actually cheats, it can lead to claims for compensation.

Everything is very good, and we support it. Claims that we do not support the government's policy in those areas are therefore not correct. It may be worth mentioning, now that one hears what others are claiming.

Madam Speaker! I and others have today been asked: What applies in the event of a change of power? The Moderaterna, for example, wondered.

It is actually not the most essential question today. The question is: What applies today? And what applies tomorrow? The government is changing its opinion on migration policy every single week these days. There is no order or clarity. One comes up with rules, and then realizes how stupid they are. One realizes that we are right, and then one needs to make exceptions.

When it comes to all this about it becoming more uniform, I can say that it really isn't becoming that. Right now, exceptions upon exceptions and change after change are coming. The person who is here in the country with a work permit according to the rules for labor immigration or with another permit does not know what the conditions will be the day after. It creates a completely unreasonable anxiety for the individual. It also creates huge problems for employers who need to devote an incredible amount of resources to keeping track of what they should do this week in order to be allowed to keep their employees. It is not sustainable. It is irresponsible politics.

When the Member of Parliament from the Moderates stood in this speaker's chair earlier, he made many false claims, including about our policy, instead of taking responsibility for the Moderates' own policy. The Moderates have also claimed in the speaker's chair that those who earn less than 37,000 are an economic burden for Sweden. They also claim that Sweden becomes better by being able to deport people who earn 30,000 kronor a month.

I do not understand this. What happened to the Moderaterna? The Moderaterna claim that Svenskt Näringsliv, Stockholms Handelskammare and Företagarna are the left's complaint department in this area. It is not serious.

I assert that the Moderates actually know how crazy it is and that it harms Sweden that so many people who contribute and have good salaries are deported. But they are dependent on a party that thinks the most important thing is that these people are sent out.

Madam Speaker! What does the Centre Party want? The Centre Party wants collective agreements to be the basis for the Swedish labor market also in this area. It should be what the parties in the labor market – the companies, the employers and the employees – have agreed upon that are reasonable wages which shall form the basis for what is a reasonable wage also for labor migrants. SD's feelings for populism this week should not be what decides it.

The 10,000 who today work in Sweden and who contribute and earn more than 30,000 kronor shall be able to be allowed to stay if they have wages in accordance with collective agreements, which the vast majority have. And if they do not have it, they must ensure that they get it. A no must be a no, and a yes must be a yes. But we must also achieve a seriousness in migration policy, which does not exist right now. It is absolutely crucial.

I still do not understand why conservative parties, such as the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats, want to deport 10,000 people who earn over 30,000 kronor a month. How does that make Sweden better? I cannot understand it.

The second part that is very problematic with the wage floor is that it hits differently. We are standing here in Stockholm, and in Stockholm, one earns well. One earns much more than one does in the rest of the country. The median wage is based on the whole country. That means that if a person who in Stockholm earns a wage that one would be allowed to stay at would have the same job in Jämtland, that person would be deported. How can that be reasonable legislation for an entire country? It is not reasonable legislation.

Is it that working in a profession in Stockholm is what makes one get to stay? But is one to be deported if one works in the same profession in Jämtland or in Skåne? It is a policy that is tearing Sweden apart. All of Sweden's conditions for growth are decided from an office in Stockholm and salaries that exist in Stockholm. It is not reasonable.

I wonder about one thing and would very much like to get an answer if possible. Have the Moderaterna now understood that we in Centerpartiet want collective agreements and not 13,000 as a base? I would very much like to know if it is understood that an additional 10,000 people who earn over 30,000 kronor will now be deported as a result of the new wage floor. Can you explain how that makes Sweden better?

I would also very much like to know why the Sweden Democrats think that collective agreements are so bad. Why are they bad? Why can we not build Sweden on that, just as we do in all other areas?

I would also like to know who prepared the basis for the press conference where health and care were granted exemptions. Here in the chamber, we are told that it is always the authorities that provide the basis for which exemptions should be made; it is absolutely not the government that just makes things up. I would very much like to see that basis and find out who it came from. It was not presented at the press conference. Was SD involved in and approved the exemption, or was it just an authority that proposed something that the government then approved? That is a relevant question based on what the Sweden Democrats have claimed here today.

I hear the Christian Democrats saying that it will be a workshop with this government. Yes, it will be. It will be a huge workshop – of the deportations. We see it with people all over the country. It will be Gabriella Perez and her family times 10,000 now if the Christian Democrats get to decide. Even more will have to leave the country, even though they go to work and contribute every single day. The children who go to school and do their homework shall be deported because their parents do not earn a pittance that someone has sat here in Stockholm and made up. It is strange.

From the Liberals, I would very much like to know how Sweden becomes better by even more families like the Perez family being deported because they earn a little under what has been invented here in the chamber.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party has a habit of describing labor immigration in a way that does not correspond to how reality looks. In several debate articles and in this speaker's chair, the Centre Party's members have argued that an increase of the maintenance requirement to 80 percent of the median wage would cause entire industries to collapse. That has not happened. Then, it has been argued that an increase of the wage requirement to 90 percent of the median wage would cause everything to collapse. These dystopian forecasts are put forward without stating what proportion of the companies employ labor immigrants from third countries or what proportion of the workforce in Sweden is made up of labor immigrants from third countries.

A report that SCB published last year shows that the labor migrants who received work permits in 2021, that is, at the time when Sweden had a liberal labor immigration, worked at 2,930 workplaces. That is 0.5 percent of all workplaces in Sweden. More than 99 percent of all workplaces have no labor migrants from third countries. These are facts that Centerpartiet never mentions.

What the Center Party is proposing instead is that these 0.5 percent of all workplaces in Sweden should somehow affect entire industries or the wage formation model in Sweden. These are strange claims. I wonder if the Center Party is aware that it is only on 0.5 percent of all workplaces in Sweden that labor migrants from third countries, whom this legislation concerns, are working. I also wonder how one reasons in the Center Party when one believes that these 0.5 percent are going to affect the entire Swedish labor market in a noticeable way.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I wonder if the Sweden Democrats know that most workplaces in Sweden do not have any employees at all. That is actually the first step – most have no employees at all. Then there are companies that have few employees, and then there are companies that have many employees. Then it is clear that it becomes a bit strange when one looks at the proportion.

The question is why the Sweden Democrats think that 3,000 workplaces with workers who earn over 30,000 kronor should be punished. Why does the Sweden Democrats think that 10,000 people who are going around here in Sweden today without committing any crimes, paying taxes, contributing to GDP and earning over 30,000 kronor a month should be deported? In what way does that make Sweden better? This is what the Riksdag shall decide on today. What we question is not that there should be a wage floor. But it must be based on collective agreements – that is the difference.

Why do I then believe that the Swedish model is the best? Yes, we can call it the Nordic model as well. This is the way we have built our countries. We have a model that fundamentally is based on the fact that it is the parties in the labor market that create the structure for wage formation instead of having politicians sitting and inventing minimum wages etcetera. It is the foundation for the entire Nordic region.

I think that model is important to include even in this area. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party also think so. In the past, the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats thought the same. I do not know why the Sweden Democrats do not think that collective agreements are important as a basis for wage formation on the Swedish labor market. The member is welcome to answer that question.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can provide other statistics, if we are not to look at the workplaces: Approximately 0.5 percent of the total workforce is made up of labor migrants from third countries. It is a fraction of the total workforce, and it does not have a noticeable impact.

Not obtaining a residence permit in Sweden is not a punishment. It simply means that one does not meet the conditions. If one does not meet the conditions and does not fulfill the salary requirement, which was previously a subsistence requirement, one does not receive a residence permit.

We have never had the arrangement that the member mentions: that one would receive a residence permit just because of a collectively agreed wage. Before 2008, a labor market assessment was conducted. After 2008, there has been a subsistence requirement. Now, there will be a wage requirement. After 2008, there has always been a requirement for a certain income, and before that, the state had a much larger role when it came to labor immigration.

The Nordic model that the member mentions has, therefore, never existed, and it is a fact that it would make Swedish labor immigration more liberal than ever. If the member thinks otherwise and wants to tell about a time when a wage according to a certain collective agreement was sufficient to obtain a residence permit and when there were no subsistence requirements, he may do so. But in reality, no such arrangement has ever existed.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that those who do not have the right to be in Sweden should leave the country. That is not strange. The question is whether the rules for who is allowed to be in the country and why are stupid or wise. What the government is doing right now is not particularly wise, and that is what the discussion is about.

That is always the case with the regulatory framework – we change the legislation here in the chamber, and then there are new rules to live up to. Then you are punished, deported, or whatever it may be if you do not live up to them. It is nothing strange.

But this regulatory framework is not smart. It harms Sweden. No, one does not destroy entire industries, but one destroys Swedish growth. It is clear that one does. If 0.5 percent of the employees are removed, regardless of which area it concerns, it is clear as hell that it affects Swedish growth and the companies' opportunities negatively, especially when it concerns labor that one has not been able to get hold of in Sweden and that one has lacked so much that it has been profitable to do all the work it involves to fetch it from other countries.

No, we have never had the arrangement that it should be collective agreements that lie as the basis. We have also never had the arrangement that one should sit in the government's chambers and ask SD if the salary is okay, as is being done now. Never before has the government had a ballpark figure based on the median salary. That has also never existed.

Previously, it was a minimum wage of 13,000 kronor that was the basis. It was obviously more liberal than what collective agreements would be, and I believe that Nima Gholam Ali Pour understands that. What we are proposing is therefore not the most liberal legislation ever. It is, however, the most Swedish legislation ever, where it is the parties in the labor market who define what are reasonable wages in Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats think instead that they and the government should sit as board members over all of Sweden's companies and decide whether these pay wages that are large enough. It is an absurdity. To think that one should sit at the top of Sweden as some kind of politburo and define wage setting in the whole country is actually a bit socialist.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! For a long time, the debate on Swedish migration policy has been reduced to two concepts: strict and generous. All proposals that different parties in the Riksdag have put forward have been placed under these simplified categories.

In recent weeks, we have seen how the migration debate has been nuanced and shifted. When it turned out that so-called strict migration policy means deportation of lone infants or deportation of teenagers who have established themselves in Sweden and whose families are allowed to stay here and are even sometimes Swedish citizens – yes, then people have spoken out: Thanks, but no thanks to that deportation policy!

When it turned out that a strict migration policy means the deportation of colleagues at Södersjukhuset or in home care, or the deportation of an entrepreneur in Norsjö, the protests were not long in coming. Many people have felt deceived by the government. It was believed that a strict migration policy meant the deportation of rapists and other criminals. Now we see the result.

Today we are debating further proposals to deport more people who have actually done nothing other than work and support themselves and their families from the first day in Sweden: New rules for labor migration. The core of the proposal is that everyone who earns less than 34,200 kronor a month shall be able to be deported if they have come to Sweden specifically to work here.

Is it then such a low salary that one cannot survive if one earns 34,200 kronor a month? I believe that if those who work, for example, in caring for our elderly in elderly care heard that, they would have difficulty keeping from laughing. For many, 34,200 kronor a month is a dream salary. It is something that could finally make everyday life add up and that, instead of taking those extra evening and weekend shifts, one could have energy left over and perhaps do something fun with the children. There could be a little money left over to add some gold to an everyday life that in recent years has increasingly been limited to counting every single krona.

Why does the government choose to raise the salary requirement from 80 percent, which is slightly less than 30,000 kronor a month, to 90 percent of the median wage? Yes, the only answer is that the figure is completely arbitrarily chosen. The figure became the result when the Sverigedemokraterna wanted to deport as many as possible and Svenskt Näringsliv protested against the anti-business deportation policy. Then they landed right in between 80 and 100 percent of the median wage.

Madam Speaker! In an exchange with the representative from the Christian Democrats who spoke earlier, he spoke about wanting to avoid chefs and fast-food staff being granted residence permits for work in Sweden. But when I look at the figures, it turns out that those professional groups are already below today's wage requirements. They have an average salary of 23,000 kronor. I become a little worried when I hear representatives for the Christian Democrats reason in that way. It is precisely representatives for the Christian Democrats and the other Tidö parties who are now to sit and negotiate lists on how much money different professional groups should earn to get labor immigration to Sweden. They do not seem to have a grasp of what applies today, and they also do not seem to have a grasp of what is changing today.

The representative of Kristdemokraterna also dismissed the issue of newly graduated engineers. Yes, I am raising this because Teknikföretagen has identified them as a professional group for which the government should make exceptions, because we are in great need of recruiting more.

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, we in Miljöpartiet believe it is the wrong path to have negotiations between Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and KD at the Government Offices in Stockholm regarding what salary people should receive at different workplaces in the country. We believe that the parties in the labor market handle those negotiations best.

We also think it is unreasonable that politicians, on ideological grounds, should choose which professions we have a shortage of in Sweden. We have heard in the chamber today that the Sverigedemokraterna have decided that there is no shortage of personal assistants, even though the authorities point out personal assistant as one of the largest shortage professions, a profession that should be granted an exemption from the wage requirement. But according to the politicians, personal assistance ends up on the other exemption list. They are therefore not even allowed to come here if they earn significantly above the wage requirements.

For me, this is not just a question of a principled nature – that it is wrong to make Sweden poorer and that it is wrong to deport people who are here and contribute to taking care of some of the most vulnerable. It is also a question that is deeply personal.

In my family, we know what happens when it is not possible to find people to hire for personal assistance. It leads to burnt-out family members, long-term sick leave, and life-threatening situations when one has to find an emergency solution so that a dear family member in need of personal assistance does not die without care. You tie yourself into knots because you have to, because you have no choice. In our family, we know the value of competent labor migrants who come to Sweden to work, among other things, with just personal assistance. It means freedom. It means life. It means security.

The policy that the government is pursuing now regarding labor immigration will make Sweden poorer. It will also lead to fewer colleagues where colleagues are needed most: on the workshop floors and in elderly care across Sweden, but most in the parts where unemployment is already very low today.

In northern Sweden, it is difficult to find staff in almost all industries, especially in the welfare sector. There are departments in elderly care where every fourth employee has been affected by the government's deportation policy.

Madam Speaker! It was not long ago that we saw an unexpected press conference. Suddenly, the government had listened to the protests and backed down on several points in its deportation policy. Thousands of asylum seekers affected by the government's changed laws shall now be allowed to stay instead of being deported. The deportations of teenagers are also apparently soon – we do not know when – to be stopped. These are very welcome announcements.

Another welcome announcement that we in Miljöpartiet have long demanded is a long-term solution and security for the Ukrainian refugees who have lived here on borrowed time year by year, constantly worried about soon ending up on the list of those to be deported from Sweden.

I stand, Madam Speaker, behind all the Green Party's reservations. But I move for approval of the Green Party's and the Centre Party's joint reservation 12, which concerns how we want to ensure that the regulation of labor immigration becomes reasonable. It is the wages in the collective agreements that shall set the requirements, also for the wage levels for labor migrants.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet is against the wage requirement regarding labor immigration of 90 percent of the median wage. Miljöpartiet was also against a subsistence requirement of 80 percent of the median wage. On the other hand, Miljöpartiet was satisfied with the subsistence requirement that existed during the Socialdemokraternas time, at 13,000 kronor. Only 13,000 kronor in income was required for people from countries outside the European Union to be able to come to Sweden to work.

One can look at what Miljöpartiet proposes now. It is precisely the same low subsistence requirements that existed before. The reason why the subsistence requirement was as low as 13,000 kronor during the Socialdemokraternas time was that the requirement was that labor migrants should not need subsistence support, which is a very low-set requirement. But this is precisely what Miljöpartiet wants to have back.

In a follow-up motion to the bill, Miljöpartiet writes that the maintenance requirement shall be based on what is actually required to support oneself. That was exactly how it worked before, when the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court of Appeal concluded that 13,000 SEK was required to support oneself.

During the time of the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, it was therefore sufficient to have approximately 13,000 kronor per month to obtain a work permit in Sweden. It was the result of a system where the requirement was that one would not need social assistance.

When Miljöpartiet now writes in its follow-up motion that the subsistence requirement shall be based on what is required to support oneself, it sounds very much like the same system again.

My question to Miljöpartiet is simple: Is this really what you want to reintroduce? If not: What should the supply requirement be?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I cannot count the number of times I have told Nima Gholam Ali Pour and the rest of the Riksdag that Miljöpartiet is not at all satisfied with 13,000 kronor a month – absolutely not. It is not possible to survive on such little money. We think it is far too low.

We have also pointed out that it is far too low even for other groups – for students and for those who are too ill to work. It is a problem that people in Sweden have been left to manage on far too little. We think that limit should be raised, not just for labor migrants but for all people.

We have also, since this time, had sky-high inflation. Prices on everything from food to rents have gone up very much.

The core of our demand is that it is the levels agreed upon between the parties in collective agreements that should set the norm for wage demands for everyone, not just Swedes but also labor migrants. This means that there will be different wage demands depending on what the profession is. Naturally, it should not be the same wage demands for employees in, for example, restaurant operations as it is for doctors. This is what we propose.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! What recurs in the Green Party's reservations is that there should not be a wage requirement decided by politicians. But this wage requirement is about a condition for which labor migrants can come here from third countries, i.e., countries outside the European Union.

There has been such a wage requirement for a long time, even if it was previously called a maintenance requirement. When Miljöpartiet sat in government, a maintenance requirement applied, where the law stated that the labor migrant must be able to support themselves. In practice, this meant a maintenance requirement of approximately 13,000 kronor per month.

Before the subsistence requirement was introduced in 2008, Sweden had a government-based labor market assessment. Is it this that Miljöpartiet wants to reintroduce? Or does Miljöpartiet mean that we should have a new arrangement where the parties in the labor market shall agree on which subsistence requirement shall apply without politics and the state interfering at all?

I would be grateful if the member could explain the Green Party's position on how we can have a wage requirement for labor immigration that politicians have no influence over. Politicians do not have influence over collective agreements.

Madam Speaker! The reason why the government decides on the requirements for labor migration is that labor migration is a part of migration to Sweden. The government cannot abdicate its responsibility for migration policy. In the same way, the government cannot abdicate from managing the consequences of migration policy.

I just want to know if the member is proposing that it is the parties in the labor market who should decide who should be granted a residence permit to come here as a labor migrant, because it sounds like that is what the member is proposing.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is strange that Nima Gholam Ali Pour asks when he has just received the answer. Perhaps it is the case that he had written his follow-up question before he came here and that he did not listen and has not read our proposals.

It is very clear what Miljöpartiet proposes. We are proposing that the salary requirements for different professional groups should be based on the salaries that the parties negotiate, which is the practice in each respective industry, not that one should negotiate exactly which person should be allowed to come. Now we are talking about what the salary requirements should be, and then it is a higher salary for doctors than it is for, for example, employees in the hotel industry or the restaurant industry. This is what we propose.

We do not agree with the proposals that some parties have that Sweden should have a labor market assessment. We think, just like the Center Party, that Sweden needs a system based on what the employers actually need. That is what we propose. I think it is very clear in the report.

We in Miljöpartiet know that Sweden becomes wealthier if companies and employers in the public sector can recruit the personnel that are needed. Sweden has a labor shortage in large parts of the country – in many industries and in different wage segments. It concerns both highly qualified professions and very many professions that require vocational skills.

This policy from the government is so poorly thought out that one already knows from the very beginning that one must include a long series of exceptions so that it does not become completely unmanageable.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

I am stepping in for my colleague who unfortunately has a conflict today. When I came in here and listened to the debate, I noted that the figure 13,000 is used very often, and that figure would be relevant if it were the case that people who were to work for that wage in Sweden also received that wage.

What we have seen with labor immigration to very low wage levels is extensive exploitation. We have seen a shadow society emerge in Sweden. People have come here, sometimes been deceived into coming here, and received sham employment contracts. People have lived under housing conditions that we would never accept for the general population in Sweden. People have been made to work up to 18 hours a day without being aware of their rights. They have been indebted to the employer for the housing and the journey to Sweden. Employers have deceived them by deducting and deducting until only a few thousand remain for the worker in the end.

It is simply not reasonable, Madam Speaker. Sweden has, perhaps as the only country among countries that resemble us, had an arrangement where we in practice make no distinction between low-skilled and high-skilled labor immigration. The result of that we see, not least in this exploitation. Unserious, less accountable employers exploit the regulatory frameworks to bring in labor as cheap as possible.

I am a Liberal, Madam Speaker. I think that labor immigration is something very important from the ground up. My party thinks so too. We want to simplify as much as possible for labor immigration, but we realize that it is not reasonable to import labor on such a large scale at such low wage levels, with the consequences it has for the individual.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, we have a situation today where we have had a rather large immigration to Sweden. We have quite a few foreign-born people who are unemployed and have difficulty entering the labor market. The jobs and employment opportunities that do not require long education and that also do not necessarily require that one is fully proficient in the Swedish language, we must make possible for people who will remain in Sweden for the rest of their lives. They must be able to get these jobs.

I also think one should ask whether it is reasonable that we should have labor immigration for subsidized jobs, for example, household services. In the preparatory works for that legislation, it is actually very clear that it aims for newly arrived persons in Sweden to be able to enter the labor market, be able to work legally and so on. That is, therefore, the purpose of the reform, while simultaneously importing labor from outside. One can wonder if it is reasonable.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: In the vast majority of cases, labor migration works very well, and it is very important for companies to be able to have their competence needs met. That makes this not solely a migration issue but in many cases in practice an industrial policy issue concerning the companies' supply of competence.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by agreeing that it is a good liberal position that labor immigration is fundamentally good.

We are in complete agreement that we are to increase the efforts against fraud and the abuse that has existed. These are proposals that we vote for together today. It is about follow-up controls of employers, sanctions against employers who provide false information, about being able to completely shut down employers who have cheated, and that human exploitation shall lead to exclusion – all these parts that are very important, we are taking action on, and that is very good.

Regarding the part about the wage floor that the member highlighted, I have not received a very good answer as to why exactly 90 percent of the median wage – which hits unevenly and much harder in rural areas than in metropolitan areas – is the best way to regulate wage levels. Why is it better than collective agreements? The Liberals are very welcome to answer that.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! When I stepped in here to replace my colleague, I was struck by the fact that in several of the contributions in the debate, it was argued as if labor immigration and work permits were to be part of Sweden's humanitarian commitments. In the same way as one has protection needs in Sweden, one has, so to speak, some kind of labor need that we are to satisfy, and therefore Sweden cannot set wage levels.

We must start from our country. What needs does Sweden have today? Does Sweden have a need for a comprehensive import of labor at very high wage levels? No, our country does not have that need.

It is enough to look at our neighboring countries, Madam Speaker. We can, for example, look at Denmark, where they have significantly stricter requirements. I believe it is over 40,000 Danish kroner a month, and the Danish krone is stronger than the Swedish krona. In other countries, they also have tougher rules in this area. Additionally, we in Sweden have had regulations that in different ways mean that we have burdened the asylum system in an unreasonable way by people seeking asylum even though they actually want to work and therefore switch tracks.

The reasonable thing, therefore, is that we set a level that is related to the median wage. There is nothing strange about that, and it is also good that it becomes clear to the employers which rules apply. This is about work permits for a number of years for a certain competence that the companies need, and then I think it is reasonable that one sets this level. Some parties in the government base wanted an even higher level, but we in the Liberals fought for 90 percent of the median wage. I think that is reasonable.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! When we talk about wage levels, it is not from some kind of humanitarian perspective but from a growth perspective. It is companies that lose competence, who have to let go of competence that they have trained. That is what we take our starting point from.

It is not that there is any kind of right to come to Sweden and work at all. On the other hand, Swedish companies have a need for more employees who can contribute. When they cannot find them in Sweden, they can ask in Europe, and when Europe cannot deliver, they can ask in the whole world. That is what happens. But then the government comes and says that even if that person can come to you and work and earn a salary in accordance with a collective agreement, we sit here in our office in Stockholm and agree that that person shall not do it. That is how the new legislation is.

We oppose that it is not the local working life and the employees who are to agree together on what constitutes a reasonable collective agreement-compliant wage according to the Swedish model. Instead, it is the government that, together with SD, agrees on reasonable wage levels for everyone. It is this that undermines the basic idea that the employer who truly needs competence to grow, increase the pie, and contribute to the 57 billion in GDP that labor immigration contributes with – 17 billion in tax revenues, which provides enormous opportunities for growth that otherwise would not have existed in Swedish companies – cannot do so. Why is such a made-up thing being devised?

One can talk about it being very low wages, but I do not think that most people think that 30,000–33,000 kronor is a very low wage. Our neighboring countries have much lower levels overall – it is only Denmark that has higher, because one also earns more in Denmark – and I do not think that they think that this is the best model.

I ask again: Why do the Liberals consider that collective agreements are not enough?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The central point in this is that Sweden has had an order where we have actually not made any distinction between highly qualified and low-qualified labor or labor immigration to higher wages versus lower wages. This has led to very extensive problems and exploitation, even social misery, for many people in Sweden who have been deceived here and exploited by unscrupulous employers.

I am a social liberal. I think that we should also see the people who live in that vulnerability. These are people who are disenfranchised and who also do not always get help from the union, because they do not know where to turn and so on. There are also pure health risks in many workplaces as a result of this. We must deal with this. It means that we need to raise the minimum level of what one receives in the paycheck, quite simply. That is what we are doing now.

Madam Speaker! Eight parties sit in the Riksdag. My view is that five of those parties, including the three largest – the current government base and the Social Democrats – fundamentally have a similar perception that something really needs to be done about this issue. Then there are three parties – Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet – that want to go a different way.

We will certainly be able to have continued debates on this, but the change being made now, I mean, is reasonable. I do not see that it is growth-inhibiting to any significant extent. Labor immigrants were not needed for wage levels of 15,000, 16,000 or 17,000 kronor and low-skilled jobs that do not require education. That labor force exists in Sweden, and it does not come at the expense of growth.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In his speech, Fredrik Malm spoke a lot about the people who are exploited when they come to Sweden to work. It is a major problem that people are treated in that way, not only because it is of course inhumane but also because it completely distorts competition and disadvantages serious companies that pay real wages to their employees.

No human being should be forced to sleep on a construction site, lose their passport because the employer takes it, or be burdened with debt because they want to come here and work. The problem is, Madam Speaker, that the government does not solve this problem with its proposals. It is not the case that those who cheat will get caught just because the wage requirements are changed. Those who cheat can continue to write the wrong wage or even the wrong occupational category in the application.

Those who cheat hardly care about what level of wage requirements apply in Sweden or whether it is 29,000 or 34,000 kronor that honest employers should pay in wages to their employees. They will cheat anyway. What would have helped against the cheating would be if more cheaters were discovered.

It is good to have new crime classifications, but if one knows that they will get away with it and that no one will speak out about their vulnerability, the risk of getting caught is still low. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet have proposed strengthened rights for those who are exploited, so that more people dare to report crimes. What do the Liberalerna say about that?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen says that no one should have to sleep at their workplace, that no one should have to be indebted to come to Sweden to work, and that no one should be deprived of their passport. I agree, but there is a small "but" in this context. There are many who have been affected by this.

I perceive it as that Miljöpartiet sees the problem and has come to the conclusion that one should not do anything about it. That is approximately Miljöpartiet's stance. All proposals put forward to get order and clarity in the migration policy are, in fact, opposed by Miljöpartiet.

Miljöpartiet is also largely against all proposals to strengthen the justice system. But the justice system is needed if we are to be able to carry out controls to deal with this. We have a very important homework assignment to do in Sweden to get the migration policy in order.

Regarding Annika Hirvonen's specific question about individual rights, they are extremely important. I think, for example, that it is reasonable for the trade unions to consider how they can better help undocumented persons in Sweden. In practice, it is the case that if one works in Sweden but does not have the right to be here, one violates our Aliens Act and must leave the country. But persons who are in Sweden without a permit and nevertheless have a workplace, a boss, and receive a salary do have an employment relationship with an employer, regardless of what status they have in Sweden. In that case, I think it is reasonable that the trade union movement views them as employees and tries to protect their rights.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm does not work with these issues on a daily basis. When one lacks knowledge, one can choose to either admit that one does not know so much about the Green Party's policy to stop labor exploitation or make up and assert things that are not true. Fredrik Malm unfortunately chose the latter.

Miljöpartiet has presented a long series of proposals to counter labor exploitation. We also vote for the proposal that the government is presenting today in that part. The Liberals, on the other hand, have voted no to all our proposals that make it possible for more people who cheat to get caught and ensure that the people who are subjected to this horrific exploitation actually dare to report it.

Today, the situation is that if you are exploited by your employer, you risk in many cases a worse punishment than the employer. People risk being deported from Sweden if they tell about their vulnerability. That makes many not dare. If we instead ensure that the person who reports that they have been subjected to exploitation receives compensation and the opportunity to seek a job with fair conditions in Sweden within a reasonable time, I am convinced that it would quickly become terribly unprofitable to conduct labor exploitation and exploit people in this ruthless way.

I agree that it would be great if the trade unions engaged more in these people's rights. But it is not the trade unions we vote on in the Riksdag, but the laws. I think we should have stricter penalties and sanctions for those who exploit people and strengthened rights for the people who are exploited, so that more people dare to report it.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! There is a solution to everything Annika Hirvonen is rambling about. It is to raise the wage floor, and that is exactly what we do with the policy we pursue. It means that fewer people will end up in the situations that many are in today.

I recently read a book, if I remember the name correctly, called Imperiets barn. It is about the shadow society in Sweden populated by people from post-Soviet countries and also Russia. They have only one thing in common, and that is that they understand Russian and can speak with each other. It is a completely separate world in Sweden, beneath the surface. I would like to urge everyone to read that book. The author has been inside these environments and met people who live in this shadow society. Some have residence permits, others do not. Some have work permits. It describes how people are promised a certain salary but do not receive it, and so on. We are not kind to people in Sweden if we pursue a migration policy that leads to that type of social misery.

I think we must have a social perspective and that what we consider decent living conditions for people born in Sweden should also reasonably apply to persons whom employers bring here to work. I am a social liberal and think that one must see them. But I perceive Miljöpartiet to be a party that wants practically unregulated immigration to Sweden. Neither the Swedish people nor I want that, and it would not work either.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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