Response to interpellation 2022/23:47 on the maintenance requirement for labor migrants
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the government's management of maintenance requirements for labor migrants. M wants to raise the income threshold to limit low-skilled immigration and counter abuse 1. M argues that the current legislation lacks possibilities for exceptions for certain professional groups, which requires an investigation in order to be able to introduce a higher income requirement with possible exceptions 1 2. S considers that the government is postponing decisions and investigations despite previous promises 3. S argues that the proposal for exceptions risks creating a "Swiss cheese" that leads to increased immigration to low-skilled occupations 3 4. S instead advocates for labor market assessment and stricter controls 5 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! He has asked me when the government will raise the income limit for labor migrants. He has also asked what grounds the government has for announcing further investigations instead of moving forward with concrete proposals.
Initially, it should be noted that Anders Ygeman, in his interpellation, includes the Swedish Migration Agency's forecast for asylum seekers in a context concerning labor migration.
Sweden has extensive labor immigration to so-called low-skilled occupations where the requirements for education and professional experience are lower. In many cases, it concerns jobs that could be performed by persons who already live in Sweden. There are also extensive problems with abuse of the regulatory framework, particularly within industries where these occupations exist. The Government therefore intends to raise the income threshold for work permits in order to limit low-skilled labor immigration to Sweden and counteract abuse.
The bill that was just voted through in the Riksdag is a step in the right direction. But the government sees flaws in the legislation that the Social Democratic government drafted. The legislation makes it possible for the government to raise the maintenance requirement for those applying for a work permit, but there are, for example, no possibilities to make exceptions from the requirement for certain professional groups.
According to the Tidö Agreement, the starting point shall be that a work permit shall be granted if the employee has a salary at the level of the median wage in Sweden. At present, this means just over 33,000 SEK per month. Sweden is primarily in need of qualified and highly qualified labor, but for various reasons, there may be a need to be able to allow labor immigration within certain occupational groups where the wages are below the established income limit. Exceptions should therefore be able to be made for individual occupational groups. The Government also sees a need to be able to completely exclude certain occupational groups from the possibility of labor immigration, such as personal assistants.
The Government will as soon as possible produce the regulatory amendments required to, in a first step, apply a higher maintenance requirement than that which applies today for work permits. In addition, an ongoing investigation will be commissioned to propose an arrangement in accordance with the Tidö Agreement.
Anders Ygeman (S)
Madam Speaker! It has been half a year since I announced the bill on a raised subsistence requirement for labor migrants and several months since I tabled the same before the Riksdag. On November 30, the Riksdag adopted the government's proposal.
My question is why the government has not made a decision on such a ceiling, something that was promised during the election campaign. The Minister herself has repeatedly during this time and in the election campaign said that it has gone all too slowly from the Social Democratic government. Now she sits in the chair herself, but has not made any decision. Instead, the provision requirement is being pushed into the future. It shall instead be investigated. That which previously was so urgent shall now be pushed into the future.
If the Minister saw deficiencies with the government's proposal, as she now claims in the response, my simple questions are: Why has the Minister not submitted a motion? Why has the Minister's party not submitted a motion? Why has none of the government parties submitted a motion? In that case, the deficiencies could have been adjusted by the Riksdag before the parliamentary decision. But despite the almost half-year period during which one could hear, debate, and read the proposal, no motions regarding deficiencies have been raised from any of the current government's parties.
I assert in the interpellation that labor immigration is increasing. The Minister says that I am mixing up the figures. I continue to assert that labor immigration to Sweden is increasing. That was also the forecast that the Swedish Migration Agency expressed when they visited the committee.
The consequence of the change of government, the so-called paradigm shift that was to be achieved, will paradoxically mean that Sweden receives increased immigration, not reduced immigration, because one pushes the ceiling and announces a number of exceptions from the ceiling. In the worst case, it could mean that we get tens of thousands more labor migrants to occupations with low skills or low wages, contrary to what was promised during the election campaign. That, Madam Speaker, one might perhaps call a paradigm shift, but it was hardly what the voters expected.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! First, I want to emphasize that I believe Anders Ygeman and I have quite a lot of common ground on these issues. When Anders Ygeman was Minister for Energy, I experience that our cooperation and our dialogue were very good. I hope that we can continue to have a good dialogue regarding this.
To be fair: When I initially pointed out that Anders Ygeman mixed up asylum migration with labor migration, I was referring to the beginning of the interpellation, which reads: "The latest forecast from the Swedish Migration Agency shows that the number of asylum seekers has started to increase again." Then come questions about the labor migration. That was all I wanted to point out. But it is not actually at the center of this debate.
A raised subsistence requirement was unfortunately set quite far back for the Social Democratic government. We could have had it in place earlier, I believe. It was only when the Green Party was not in the government that a proposal for legislation came forward.
The bill that allows the government to increase the subsistence requirement by decree was voted through by the Riksdag six days ago. I am very grateful that Anders Ygeman has very high expectations for the pace of this government's work, but I believe he still understands that it takes a little more than six days to work out a decree. Now, one might have imagined that when rummaging through the filing cabinets at the Government Offices, there could be a draft of the decree. I have not found that yet. But if Anders Ygeman has it, he is welcome to supplement it with that.
This increase is coming. Anders Ygeman can be completely at ease. This will take place in two steps. First, we will decide on a regulation in accordance with what the proposition allows regarding a raised subsistence requirement. That is step one. I believe we are fundamentally in complete agreement that it is important to get it in place. Since we see deficiencies in the proposition that the previous government presented, in step two we will proceed and investigate how one can raise this and add an income requirement from which certain exceptions can be made and also exclude entire industries.
Anders Ygeman (S)
Madam Speaker! First, I would just like to acknowledge. I believe that we fundamentally have a consensus on very many areas and a good cooperation. It is perhaps why I am a bit surprised by the discrepancy.
First, it is criticized that we did not have it in place earlier, which is repeated in the government's response. Then, a number of exceptions are to be investigated, despite having the opportunity to motion for it. This postpones the introduction of a reasonable floor.
Since then, the ordinance has not been prepared. When it comes to our work, I think it is just a matter of rummaging a bit in the filing cabinets, and then one will find what we have done. It may be that one has a slightly different focus than the one we had.
We had no plans to exempt entire industries. We had no plans to do it in several steps. Our plan was that we would first have a high floor in place. Then we would proceed with labor market testing in order to thereby achieve an effective stop to unserious labor immigration.
Furthermore, half a year earlier, we had submitted a number of other proposals to the Riksdag to make it more difficult to engage in unserious labor immigration. These concerned, for example, the requirement for legally binding employment contracts, stricter controls, and harsher sanctions.
I believe that the things in combination are what is required to address the labor immigration that was actually introduced by the Moderate-led government.
Now it won't be like that. Now it will be a bit slower than it could have been the case. Now there will be a bit more unserious labor immigration than would otherwise have been the case. We simply have to wait. The reason for that, perhaps Maria Malmer Stenergard can express.
If we had had a different government, we would have had sharper legislation or regulations in place. We would have had fewer exceptions, and we would have moved forward with the proposal on labor market testing. It would have been a combination of proposals that would have cleared away the unserious labor migration in Sweden.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! To begin with: Why did the Moderaterna not submit a motion? I am not sure that the major change that would have been required could have fit within the framework of a supplementary motion. Here, it is stated in the bill that it concerns a raised subsistence requirement. That also imposes certain limitations on how far one can go.
It will go quickly. We will move forward with the increased maintenance requirement, just as Anders Ygeman argues that the previous government intended to do. Furthermore, we will move forward with an additional increased income requirement. From that, there shall be a possibility to make exceptions if it is judged that there is a need for it.
Anders Ygeman does not even need to have much patience. A regulation will come that will mean a raised maintenance requirement. I believe that, fundamentally, we both think that is good.
What we do not agree on are the parts regarding a labor market assessment that the previous government wanted to proceed with. There, we fundamentally have different views on how the regulatory framework should be designed. But we can leave that aside.
Anders Ygeman said: If we had had a different government, it would have moved forward faster. I am not at all sure about that. It would have been quite likely that it would have had Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet as a basis. They, as is known, have a different attitude, which also appears from the reservations in the report where the bill was discussed.
I am not entirely sure that it would have gone faster. I believe that Anders Ygeman should rely on the fact that the government and the coalition partners will deliver a raised maintenance requirement and subsequently a raised income requirement.
Anders Ygeman (S)
Madam Speaker! The parts we agree on are the increased requirements. The parts we do not agree on are the timeline and the exemptions where the requirements risk becoming a Swiss cheese.
My fear is that it will not solve the problems. We will continue to have high labor migration to industries where it is not needed. It will burden the Swedish Migration Agency and make the processing of the labor migration we need far too slow.
The risk is that we get tens of thousands of labor migrants to the industries that we otherwise would not have had, and thereby complicate integration and drive segregation. I believe that labor market testing is an effective tool. I regret that the government plans not to proceed with such.
The risk is that the government only takes the measures that Maria Malmer Stenergard is now expressing and that the majority of the problems in the Swedish labor market and with Swedish immigration continue with great segregation and a lack of integration as a result.
I naturally hope that I am wrong and that the government's, albeit slow, regulations and propositions will solve the problem. But I suspect that I am right and that we will have to return to the issues in future interpellations.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Initially, I note that it is tardy of the government not to deliver a regulation in six days, while it is not considered tardy by the previous government, of which Anders Ygeman was a part, not to deliver a bill until after almost eight years. It seems to be somewhat different standards depending on which government one is talking about.
Anders Ygeman expresses a concern that it will become a Swiss cheese as a result of the possibility of exceptions from a future higher wage requirement. I want to say again, for the sake of clarity, that we are now moving forward with a higher subsistence requirement, just as I understood that Anders Ygeman intended to do. There is no possibility of making exceptions there.
Then an investigation shall look into introducing an additional wage requirement that is significantly higher. It is around the median wage, which means just over 33,000 kronor. In that case, it may be that there is a need to have the possibility of exceptions below that level. But I can guarantee Anders Ygeman that I will not be satisfied if this risks becoming a Swiss cheese.
I see exactly the problems that Anders Ygeman points out regarding labor migration to low-skilled jobs that we have had for a long time under Social Democratic rule. These are jobs that to a large extent could be taken by those who are already here.
When we now speak about labor immigration, it is easy for us to emphasize the negative parts. There are many problems, primarily linked to low-skilled labor immigration. But I also want to emphasize how incredibly important it is for the government to promote high-skilled and qualified labor immigration. It is a matter of shortening the processing times that have truly run away in recent years under the Social Democratic government.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.