Response to interpellation 2025/26:153 on personal assistants' eligibility for work permits
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers it justified to exclude personal assistants from work permits because the profession is systematically exploited by organized crime, which risks tax funds and the safety of users 1. M argues that labor immigration is not the solution to the shortage, but that the need for unskilled labor should be filled by people already in the country through investments in vocational training 1 2. M argues that there are serious problems with the abuse of work permits and the exploitation of people with links to organized crime and extremism 3 4. M argues that there are many unemployed people who could take these jobs 3 4. MP argues that the government's decision lacks an empirical basis 5. MP argues that the shortage is acute and that restrictions risk worsening the situation for users 5. MP argues that the fraud is primarily due to unprofessional assistance companies 5. MP argues that there is a gigantic need for labor within health and social care 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Nils Seye Larsen has asked me three questions regarding personal assistants' eligibility for work permits. He has asked what basis I have that differs from the Swedish Migration Agency's and the Public Employment Service's assessment of occupations where there is a risk of labor exploitation and other abuses. Nils Seye Larsen has also asked on what grounds I justify the proposal to exclude personal assistants from the possibility of obtaining work permits. Furthermore, Nils Seye Larsen has asked whether I intend to take any initiatives within my area of responsibility to resolve the situation regarding the labor shortage within personal assistance here in Sweden.
In February 2025, the Government tasked the Swedish Migration Agency to, with the support of the Public Employment Service, establish a list of occupations that can be exempted from a salary requirement for the granting of work permits. The assignment was part of the preparation of the report New rules for labor immigration etc. (SOU 2024:15) and constitutes an important part of the government's path towards a system for labor immigration that contributes to Sweden's competitiveness.
The assignment was reported in a report from Migrationsverket. In the report, the authority has carried out a limited analysis of occupations where there is a risk of labor exploitation and abuse. I can state that it clearly appears that the analysis, due to the methodology chosen, has been delimited to focus on two specific occupations. These occupations are cleaner and cook/cold butcher. The choice of these occupations is justified by the fact that they are occupations with the most applications and sufficient data for the method chosen. It is not correct, as Nils Seye Larsen claims, that Migrationsverket has thereby made an assessment of the occupation personal assistant and excluded it as a risky occupation. The occupation is not covered by Migrationsverket's limited analysis.
I also note that the investigator in the report New rules for labor immigration etc. (SOU 2024:15) proposes that the occupations that should initially be excluded are precisely personal assistant and baggage handler.
There is also other evidence showing the occurrence of abuse and exploitation within the areas of personal assistance and work permits. In the report Olle, prepared by Försäkringskassan and Migrationsverket in cooperation with other relevant Swedish authorities, it is stated that personal assistance and work permits are systematically exploited by organized crime, with the consequence that Swedish tax money ends up with criminals and that employees and users risk being harmed. The expert group within the Delegation against workplace crime has highlighted personal assistance as an industry particularly vulnerable to workplace crime. I therefore assess that the government's position on the issue is in line with our agencies' conclusions. The starting point of excluding the profession of personal assistants from the possibility of being granted work permits is therefore justified.
Regarding the third question, the government takes seriously that there is a shortage of labor in various parts of the labor market. Labor immigration, however, cannot be a solution to the problem of a potential shortage of personal assistants. An arrangement that promotes organized crime exploiting our welfare systems through criminal schemes cannot be defended. It is the government's position that the need for labor that is not highly qualified should to a large extent be filled by the labor we already have in the country. In the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), the government therefore invests more than 500 million kronor which shall, among other things, go to more places in vocational training at the upper secondary level for adults, within the university college, as well as on labor market training within the healthcare area, in order to give more people the opportunity to educate themselves to meet the labor market's needs for competence.
Nils Seye Larsen (MP)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer. As a user, there are few things that upset me more than when welfare is abused. Welfare crime does not only strike against taxpayers and systems. It strikes against those of us who are dependent on the support functioning every day. Personal assistance is unfortunately not spared from crime. We must act powerfully together to combat it.
It is also completely unacceptable when people are exploited and utilized on the Swedish labor market. I have personally helped people who have worked in the restaurant industry in desperate situations when they were stuck in employers' hands, were extorted on their wages and forced to work around the clock under completely despicable conditions. We can never accept that such things happen in Sweden and that there are employers who, without any shame in their bodies, conduct what cannot be regarded as anything other than pure slavery.
Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, several problems remain after the Minister's answer. Firstly, the Minister asserts that the Swedish Migration Agency's and the Public Employment Service's analysis was limited to two occupations and that personal assistance therefore could not be included in the assessment. It was too small a proportion to look at. But then the question naturally arises on what basis the government's conclusion actually rests. Why should personal assistants specifically be excluded? That an occupation cannot be analyzed is not evidence that it should be subject to restrictions. The government's conclusion risks appearing politically motivated rather than empirically grounded.
When the Minister refers to the report by Olle and the Delegation against work-related crime, it is important to stick to what they actually show. No one disputes that there are problems in the assistance industry. But the problems concern primarily unserious assistance companies, not individual users or personal assistants seeking work permits.
Much has happened since the report Olle presented. When it comes to work permits within personal assistance, there have been major improvements. The Swedish Migration Agency's review, requirements, and control of both providers and users are today at a completely different level than before. It is something I have witnessed myself and think is good.
I also want to be clear that large parts of the assistance industry function well, with serious employers and thorough controls. That picture is not nuanced in the government's proposal, even though it is crucial for understanding the whole.
The Minister did not answer my central question on how the shortage of personal assistants is to be solved. To say that labor immigration is not the solution is not the same as presenting a solution. Educational initiatives are nothing new; they have existed for many years throughout the country. The opportunity to train in health and social care already exists, but it has not solved the shortage.
The shortage is acute now, particularly in certain occupations and regions. It affects both users and employers every day. Already today, municipalities and assistance providers are sounding the alarm about how difficult it is to fill the work shifts. Closing the door at the same time for people who want to work as assistants without presenting an alternative only risks worsening the already serious situation. Therefore, we must ask ourselves why the government is closing the door for the few people involved who fill an occupation where the shortage is acute. How do we solve the labor shortage within health and social care occupations, for example, personal assistance?
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Nils Seye Larsen, for an important interpellation! I also believe that it is the interpellant's first here in the chamber.
(NILS SEYE LARSEN (MP): Exactly.)
Personal assistance is not my area of responsibility in the government, but it is of course a very important area. It is important not only for the users but for a good society where we care for one another and where we ensure that all people in Sweden, regardless of where one comes from or what circumstances one has, have good chances to live the life one wants and succeed in life. On that, the member and I are in complete agreement. It is an important priority for the government.
Our opinions may differ slightly in other respects. From the government's side, we see that we are in the middle of a paradigm shift in migration policy. We are restructuring the policy in several key areas. One of the reasons for that, if one looks specifically at labor migration, is that the reforms that have occurred previously – unfortunately – have not always led to the results that were perhaps hoped for.
I am a supporter of labor migration and believe it is important and central to a good society. But there has occurred a fraud and an exploitation of people that one should not take lightly. There are actually major problems within several parts.
Part of our work is to try to place the focus on the highly qualified labor immigration within shortage occupations. It is a fact that we today in Sweden have half a million people who are without jobs. We therefore have high unemployment – far too high. Among the long-term unemployed, we also know that nearly half are foreign-born.
There is a large pool of people who should take the jobs that are available. We are doing a great deal from the government's side. We are investing in better matching in the labor market. I mentioned that we are investing 500 million kronor in this year's budget on more places for vocational training. We are lowering the tax on work. We are increasing the controls. We are making it more profitable to work and seek the jobs that actually exist. There, I believe that much of the answer moving forward linked to the skills supply in this area lies.
Being a personal assistant is an important job in itself, but it can also be a good job for someone who perhaps wants to work full-time or part-time and have a job alongside studies or whatever it may be. Many should be able to take these important jobs.
When it comes to personal assistants, we have received evidence in several different reports that there are problems. This naturally does not apply to everyone. It is important to establish that. I dare say that the vast majority are reliable, honest people. But all too often we have been described to us that there are links to organized crime, even violence-oriented extremism.
The report by Olle establishes that work permits within personal assistance are systematically exploited for assistance fraud, illegal migration, labor exploitation, user import, and other economic gain. One conclusion in the report was the questioning of the granting of work permits within personal assistance. That was only one example. There are others who have looked into it.
We have reviewed this and think there is clear support that the changes we are making are important and reasonable to tackle the cheating. At the same time, we are investing in other measures for skills supply in this area, among others.
Nils Seye Larsen (MP)
Madam Speaker! I will return to the subject of cheating later. I will start with something that I am often confronted with and which I believe is highlighted here, namely the question of how we can have high unemployment in Sweden and at the same time a shortage of personal assistants. More people should be able to take that job.
Is it okay if I use the Minister for Migration as a pedagogical example? If the Minister for Migration were to become unemployed after the election, could the minister then imagine moving to Umeå to work for me as a personal assistant? I cannot offer the same salary that the minister has now – very far from that. It is, after all, a low-wage occupation.
It would probably have been difficult for the minister, or for any father or mother, to explain to their family why they had to uproot their lives in Stockholm, Malmö, Gothenburg, or somewhere else to move to northern Sweden because one of the parents has obtained a low-wage job that is far from able to support the family.
This is part of the explanation of how we can have general unemployment in Sweden and at the same time a shortage of labor within certain occupations and in certain regions.
Even if the minister were to seek work as a personal assistant for me, I am not sure that I would hire the minister, and it has nothing to do with our ideological differences. I just don't know if the minister is purely suitable. I do not want just anyone who is available on the labor market to work as a personal assistant for me. I want someone who is rightly suitable, who has the personal qualities to be able to do a good job as an assistant. The assistant is absolutely crucial for me in my life, in my everyday life, for my health and for my ability to be able to work and function.
Even though the educational requirements are not high to work for me specifically, the personal qualities are absolutely crucial. Far from everyone has what is required. I am full of admiration for all those who have the ability to work as a personal assistant for me day in and day out, week after week, month after month. With short notice, they are ready to cancel their plans and jump in when the user suddenly is left without an assistant, regardless of what time of day it occurs.
There are users for whom the work can be very challenging and demanding. Therefore, I am ashamed of the very poor employment and wage conditions we can offer to assistants, but that is another debate. But my point is that it is precisely the combination of poor working conditions, structural problems in the labor market, and suitability to be able to work within health and social care that causes us to have a shortage of labor within health and social care and personal assistance. This applies in particular in the northern regions, such as in Västerbotten where I live.
Why is personal assistance singled out in the report New rules for labor immigration, which the minister mentioned? The answer is simple. It states clearly in the investigation that it is because the government, in its supplementary directive to the investigation, specifically tasked it to point out just personal assistance. The investigation has done what the government asked.
There are, however, many other occupations that have been pointed out but which action has not been taken on. Furthermore, it is not a large proportion we are talking about. It concerns 232 granted work permits within personal assistance, and there are 68,000 personal assistants in Sweden. But each and every one of them can be completely decisive for the user, who would otherwise be left without a valuable assistant.
That is why I implore. Why must we close this door? Can we not work in another way to deal with the fraud among the assistance providers?
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Audience! I stand firm on the fact that there is a strong basis indicating that there are very serious problems within this area. I believe it is my responsibility as minister to act on these problems.
We have a basis from Migrationsverket, Försäkringskassan, and Delmi, and we also have the report Olle, which I mentioned earlier. This constitutes very serious criticism and no minor errors in the margins. The basis points out that there is an abuse of work permits and an exploitation of people within personal assistance. It points to connections to organized crime and violent extremism. That people are being systematically exploited for assistance fraud is very serious. I believe we can agree on that.
It does not belong on the Swedish labor market. Ultimately, it is about both the trust in the migration system and the taxpayers' money. The taxpayers – police officers, teachers, and nurses – should know that their tax money, which they have worked for, goes to the right things. The money should go to personal assistance and to the users, not end up in the hands of criminals. That is why we are making this change. This is also a conclusion that several authorities have pointed out: We should move in this direction.
Then, of course, it is completely crucial and very important that there are skilled, engaged and motivated employees who can take these important jobs; Nils Seye Larsen and I are in complete agreement on that. I believe that such people exist. I have no plans to lose the election next year. But I am absolutely convinced that among the 500,000 unemployed people in Sweden today, there are very many who would be absolutely excellent personal assistants. Why wouldn't they be? We must have high expectations of people and believe that they can take these jobs.
Nils Seye Larsen is worried that they do not want to move to Umeå. Why would they not want to move to Umeå? There is nothing wrong with Umeå, is there? Or with living in Norrland? Here, perhaps we think a bit differently.
Everyone wants their dream job immediately, but it is quite few who get their dream job. I am a strong supporter of the work line and believe that it should always pay to work. We shall always demand that people take the jobs that are available. One might not get one's dream job immediately, but one must start somewhere. I think that one can also demand of people that they should move and not live on benefits. One should take the jobs that are available on the labor market, and then one can work one's way up.
But what happens in a society where it does not pay to work, when it is better to live on benefits and stay where one lives than to take a job? What happens then to Sweden? What happens to the resources we actually should be able to allocate to healthcare, school, elderly care, the justice system, or important welfare activities such as personal assistance if they are instead to go to benefits for people who do not want to work?
For me as a Moderate, this is a very important assessment. The foundation of a good society is to ensure that it always pays to work and that we demand that people take the jobs that are available.
In this year's budget bill, we are allocating half a billion kronor to various vocational training programs at the upper secondary level for adults, universities of applied sciences, and labor market training within the healthcare sector. We do this to give more people the opportunity to train to take the jobs that actually exist.
Nils Seye Larsen (MP)
Madam Speaker! I stand by the fact that I do not want anyone who desperately takes whatever is available on the labor market. I want someone who is properly suited and can do a good job.
I see an enormous difference. When I posted an advertisement for a job as an assistant 15 years ago, I received a hundred applications. Today, I have almost given up hope of going to Arbetsförmedlingen. This situation also exists in other parts of Sweden. It is a more difficult situation.
I do not share the view that there are half a million people who are without work because they do not want to work, but that is another debate. We can gladly take that another time.
The Minister raised the report Olle and the discussions about cheating within the assistance industry, and I must address what he said. Part of the analysis was that an enormous increase in the number of work permits within personal assistance was observed. Since that report was presented, the number of work permits for assistance has decreased by over 80 percent. Something has happened somewhere. It is not the same situation now. We are talking about 232 work permits among 68,000 personal assistants.
There is a great need, for it is not only within assistance that labor is lacking. SKR's reports on how many are needed within health and social care show that the need is gigantic. It can explain why there are 33,000 nursing assistants and healthcare assistants all over Sweden who have come here in the last ten years. Thank you for that! We needed them.
I want to conclude with an appeal. Of course, it is also personal. I myself have a personal assistant who has been deported and who has worked for me for six years. She has been absolutely wonderful – a security and a rock in my life. Now we are waiting for her to receive a work permit. I have a serious employer. She does a serious job. Why should we close the door for her and for others who are serious instead of going after those who are criminals and commit crimes?
Crime exists within all the other industries that were also pointed out: the construction industry, the restaurant industry, the transport industry, the cleaning industry, and so on. Why do you target specifically personal assistance?
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! The reason we are moving forward with a change regarding personal assistance is that we have received several reports pointing to very serious fraud and abuse within the system. It is serious, and we believe it is reasonable to act on it. Several authorities have also pointed out that there is systematic fraud with very serious connections to, as I mentioned, even extremism.
It should not be described as if we do not think it is important that we get the right people to take these jobs, because we do think it is important. I am very distressed when I hear Nils Seye Larsen's description that no one is applying for the jobs. If there are 500,000 people who are unemployed in Sweden today but still no one is applying for the jobs, that is something that tells me that is where we should focus.
If one is unemployed, one must take the jobs that actually exist. Then we must ensure that it becomes more profitable to work. We must ensure that it becomes less profitable to go on benefits. We must also probably increase the expectations on people to take the jobs that exist.
Here we differ. Miljöpartiet would rather raise the unemployment insurance and make it less profitable to work and more profitable to receive benefits. I do not see how that will solve the problems. It is also a political difference between us.
I also believe that one perhaps has to work on one's attractiveness as a city and municipality to get people to move there. Umeå should have very good conditions, but it might be required that one works more with business development and shows why one should move to just Umeå and not to other cities. There is also a responsibility from the side of municipal politics.
In conclusion, I also want to point out that the rules for labor immigration we have today also continue to enable recruitment from the entire EU. There are currently 450 million people living there.
Thank you, Nils Seye Larsen, for this important interpellation debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.