Response to interpellations 2022/23:209 and 217 on the regulatory framework for labor migration

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Jonny Cato has asked me when the government intends to make a decision on the introduction of a wage floor for labor migration, what wage level the government intends to introduce for a wage floor, which occupations the government intends to exempt from the wage floor, and if the government can guarantee that seasonal labor migration is excluded from a wage floor. Furthermore, he has asked me if I have taken any initiative for an analysis to review the effects of a wage floor for labor migration and if the government intends to introduce a labor market test for labor migration.

Sofia Amloh has asked me what measures I intend to take to address the unregulated labor immigration, whether I consider a wage floor to be a sufficient instrument to tackle the problems caused by the rules for labor immigration, and whether I intend to take any initiatives to reintroduce a government-based labor market assessment.

I want to emphasize that it is important that there is order in the labor market and that laws, rules, and agreements are complied with. Good conditions shall apply to everyone who works in Sweden. That people who come to Sweden to work are exploited is unacceptable. Fraud, abuse, and crime linked to labor migration must be fought with full force.

Sweden has extensive labor immigration to so-called low-skilled occupations where the requirements for education and professional experience are low and where the wages are low. 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 low-skilled occupations. The Government therefore intends to - in a first step - raise the maintenance requirement for labor immigrants, in order to limit the low-skilled labor immigration to Sweden and counteract abuse. The maintenance requirement will be specified through changes to the ordinance.

The Government has also, on 16 February 2023, decided on additional directives to the Inquiry on a means-tested labor migration, which means that the conditions for labor migration shall be tightened but also that qualified and highly qualified labor migration shall be promoted. The original mandate to propose a new system for labor market assessment shall no longer be fulfilled. The investigator shall instead, among other things, investigate the issue of wage requirements, where the starting point shall be that work permits may only be granted if the work for which labor migration occurs in the normal case has a wage level corresponding to the median wage, even if the exact level will be a matter for the investigator to take a position on. In the additional directives, it is also emphasized that it is important that the wage requirement is designed so that it can follow wage developments over time.

A requirement for a higher wage level can reduce labor immigration within low-skilled occupations, while it can also mean that the labor force already present in Sweden can be better utilized. Such an arrangement can also contribute to fewer applications, which can lead to faster processing times for those labor migrants who meet the requirements and thus simplify the recruitment of skills for employers who have a need to hire qualified labor from a third country.

It is part of the investigator's mandate to conduct an analysis of the effects of the proposals submitted.

The investigator shall also submit proposals which, in accordance with the Tidö Agreement, mean that the government can prescribe a lower wage requirement for certain occupational groups. This could, for example, concern occupations within which special competence, experience, or skill is required, or occupations that are seasonal. The investigator shall therefore analyze and take a position on how a lower wage requirement for individual occupational groups can be designed, which occupational groups should be covered, and how the selection of these occupational groups can be changed over time. I cannot precede the investigation and the preparation and, at this stage, comment on which occupational groups will be covered by a lower wage requirement.

It does not appear what Sofia Amloh means by the unregulated labor immigration – for example, whether she refers to persons who work in Sweden without having applied for a work permit before entry or to persons who work in Sweden despite completely lacking a work permit.

To counter abuse, fraud, and crime within the system of labor migration, the aforementioned investigation has also been tasked with proposing how certain professional groups can be excluded from the possibility of being granted work permits, as well as analyzing and taking a position on which professional groups should initially be covered by such an exclusion and how the selection of these professional groups can be changed over time. The investigator may also propose other effective measures to counter abuse of the system of labor migration. The Government also intends to abolish the possibility of switching tracks, that is, the possibility to apply for a residence permit for work after having been denied an asylum application without first leaving the country.

The maintenance requirement for permits for seasonal work according to the seasonal employment directive, as well as for permits for intra-company transfers, currently implies that the salary must amount to at least 13,000 kronor per month. The Government considers that the position of even these foreigners on the labor market should be strengthened and that competition with low wages must be countered. The investigator shall therefore analyze and take a position on how the maintenance requirement for these permits should be raised. The maintenance requirement may, however, not be so high that compatibility with underlying EU directives risks being sidelined. This means that the requirement must be considered in a specific order.

The investigation on a means-tested labor immigration has been granted an extended investigation period and is to report its assignments on 31 January 2024. I very much look forward to reviewing the investigation's proposals.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister very much for the answer to my interpellation. It is exciting that so many want to debate this important issue this late Tuesday evening, even if one can guess that the other debaters will have a slightly different tonality than I and a slightly different attitude toward labor immigration.

Labor migration is an incredibly important tool for Swedish companies to find the competence that they are, many times, in such great need of. Labor migration has generally been very beneficial for Sweden as a country. Not least, it has been absolutely crucial for certain industries and certain individual companies' opportunities to find the competence they need. Labor migration contributes approximately 34 billion kronor to GDP and 12 billion in increased tax revenues annually.

Labor immigration is needed in many industries and across the entire country. It is about the small startup company in the middle of Stockholm's city center that is just at the beginning of its journey. It is about the large IT company down in Skåne that needs unique expertise to develop the company forward. But it is also about the potato grower in Kalmar and about the agricultural entrepreneur on Gotland who has specialized in wild garlic served at restaurants across the country. Furthermore, it is about the staff at the restaurants where the wild garlic and the potatoes are then to be served.

In the meeting with these entrepreneurs and so many others, it becomes completely obvious to me that labor immigration is not a made-up reform. It is about real jobs and real entrepreneurs. It is about the survival, development, and future of companies in the short and long term.

I am, as a member of the Centre Party, deeply unhappy with the Moderates', Christian Democrats', and partly the Liberals' shift in their view on labor immigration and, by extension, also on business and entrepreneurship. The Minister states in his response: "In many cases, it concerns jobs that should be able to be performed by persons who already live in Sweden." Hiring persons who already live in Sweden is, of course, simpler for the employer. It requires less administration and in many cases also becomes cheaper. Companies and employers use labor immigration to find skills that are in short supply in Sweden. Therefore, it becomes a very simplified argument from the Minister.

It is good that the government does not seem to want to introduce a labor market assessment involving state agencies, such as Arbetsförmedlingen, assessing which individuals companies should hire. But instead, we seem to be getting a political labor market assessment, where the government shall decide which occupations shall be exempted from a wage floor. Instead of state officials at Arbetsförmedlingen, it will therefore be a political negotiation between Liberalerna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Sverigedemokraterna that shall determine which industries shall be allowed to recruit competence from other countries.

33,200 is too high a salary, and there are many occupations with a median salary below 33,200 kronor that require special competence. There is now a great deal of concern in many industries and among individual companies. As recently as last week, Gröna arbetsgivare wrote: "The government's plans to significantly reduce labor immigration are worrying and show an obvious lack of insight into the conditions of the green industries." I wonder how the Minister views the concern that many industries and business owners are currently experiencing.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer and the opportunity to debate a very important issue.

Migration has always occurred and contributes to the development of countries and societies. It is positive that people can move freely in Europe and seek work. In some regions and within certain professional fields, there is a great shortage of labor, and the employer's supply of skills can be promoted through increased mobility. It can improve the matching on the labor market, and it enriches working life otherwise.

The Social Democrats welcome mobility across borders and see that people from other countries have much to contribute to our labor market, especially in times when we have a historically large skills shortage. The geographical differences can also be quite large in this country.

The previous Moderate-led government's regulatory framework from 2008 meant that Sweden received the world's least regulated labor migration. This has contributed to organized crime growing in several industries as well as to extensive wage dumping and gross exploitation of labor migrants. This is incredibly undignified, especially in a modern and developed country like Sweden.

It is against that very background that I have posed my questions to the Minister. But the answers are far from satisfactory. I hear the Minister say that it is important that there is order in the labor market and that laws, regulations, and agreements are complied with. That is an important clarification from the Minister. I can only fully agree. But as it stands today, we have extensive labor immigration to low-skilled occupations where the requirements for education and professional experience are low or non-existent. But it is here that there is labor in Sweden that can perform the work. There are also extensive problems with abuse of the regulatory framework, particularly within low-skilled occupations.

Both I and the Minister see the same problem picture, and we agree. Therefore, I do not understand why it is so important for this government and the Sverigedemokraterna to so quickly change the already appointed investigation and completely scrap the proposal for a labor market assessment. Labor market assessment means that one assesses the need for labor in Sweden. Is the labor available in Sweden, or does labor need to immigrate here because the competence does not exist in Sweden? Given the problem picture of how the current situation, the status, and the reality look, I do not understand that the government chooses to remove the assessment.

Why do the government and the Sweden Democrats not want a means test for labor migration when it is so obvious that it is what is needed to get the Swedish labor market in order?

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

The questions that Sofia Amloh poses to the Minister are not answered very much, I think. As a local ombudsman in Construction and during my time as a Member of Parliament, I have worked to counteract the work-life crime addressed in the question and which has spread across the Swedish labor market.

During the previous parliamentary term, at least twenty reforms have been implemented in an attempt to prevent crime in the working life. Among others, the Laval law has been repealed, which has prevented the trade union movement from signing collective agreements with foreign companies. This is incredibly important, and we are proud to have repealed it.

Another important experience I have with me from the work I have done is that there is not only one solution to the problem. One must work with many measures. A major problem has been, and still is today, that in the case of unregulated labor immigration, no assessment of the need for foreign labor from third countries is made today. No needs assessment is carried out at all. Instead, an arbitrary assessment of the company seeking the labor is made.

It is strange that the need for foreign labor is so great in, for example, the construction industry when approximately 10,000 construction workers and painters are unemployed today. It will become even greater when housing construction now grinds to a halt; or as one market actor said when we looked at the number of apartments sold during the beginning of the year: The patient is dead.

I want to clarify for the Minister what we mean by unregulated labor immigration. It is not a question of those who sneak in, but it is about the right to come to Sweden without a needs assessment having taken place. The unregulated labor opens the door for unscrupulous entrepreneurs to exploit labor from third countries.

I will give an example from when I was an ombudsman in Byggnads here in Stockholm before I entered the Riksdag. Workers from Mongolia had been lured here solely to carry in plasterboards on a large construction project here in the Stockholm area. The idea in this case was to dump the wages for the construction workers who would otherwise do the work. In the name of honesty, there are many in Sweden who can do the simple task. You do not need to fetch people from Mongolia to do it; or for that matter, people from the EU can do the job.

With the experience I have gained, I can state that a wage floor would not have stopped this problem. Wage floors and wage levels are easily bypassed, for example, by working more hours than those one is paid for. Or one has to repay part of the wage to the employer after having received it. Relying solely on a wage floor makes it almost impossible to control that the correct wages are paid out, and trying to rectify the fraud in hindsight is ineffective.

Therefore, it is better to try to stop the cheating before it happens. It benefits the serious companies that have a real need for labor immigration, and it also benefits the Swedish labor market.

Why are the government and SD, the Council of State, so afraid of even letting the question of a new labor market assessment be investigated? No one is forcing you to introduce it, but can you at least investigate the question?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Here we stand again, the Minister for Migration, and are to speak about failed moderate migration policy. That is what we actually do time and again in the chamber. This is the legacy of the Moderate government, where the current Prime Minister sat, who introduced the world's most ultra-liberal labor market laws which we now have to manage.

It is completely obvious that a paradigm shift, as it is so nicely called, is needed in migration policy. It is now in the area of labor migration that this paradigm shift needs to be made.

The Minister thought it was unclear what unregulated labor immigration entails. Let me take an example. Large battery factories are being built in this country. At such a place, there is a Chinese company whose task is to assemble machines. They have received the contract, but they in turn have hired a staffing company that pays out wages to employees in another staffing company. It is supposed to be 40 hours a week, but they do not work 40 hours a week. They definitely do not work 7-16, but they work seven days a week and much longer days.

The management is carried out from the parent company, that is, by Chinese managers. This means that they have no knowledge of the Swedish work environment, of Swedish laws or of Swedish workplace culture.

This continues with today's rules, and it will continue with tomorrow's rules - because the government is removing the labor market assessment. A labor market assessment would have handled this quite quickly by making an assessment of whether it is right and if it works. The authorities would have been involved from the beginning, and if we had been allowed to decide, the parties would have been involved. But the government does not want to see those solutions.

I shall be kind to the Minister for Migration, Madam Speaker. It is not actually the Moderates who are sloppily overlooking the most important piece of the puzzle, which the real power party in the Riksdag, the Sverigedemokraterna, calls labor market screening. I understand that a piece of the puzzle can disappear when one sits through long evenings at the palace with cognac and fine wines. Then a piece of the puzzle can fall off the table and then not appear again.

But the government does not even dare to investigate the issue once. The answer will be obvious, namely the examples that my colleague Leif Nysmed and I have given. Then we could have solved the problem that has previously been debated in the chamber, when the Minister for Employment became upset because we pointed out that the policy for the long-term unemployed that the government intends to pursue does not work so well. Foreign-born women could have been put to work instead of bringing in people from Mongolia and Bangladesh who are to clean or carry plasterboards. But that is the answer the government does not want.

Somewhere the minister must account for what is a problem with labor market testing. Why do you not even investigate the issue once?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by congratulating Maria Malmer Stenergard for having the Sweden Democrats back down regarding the plans to introduce a labor market test or a means-tested labor immigration.

We Social Democrats have fought for a long time - against the wind, one might say - to tighten the current incredibly liberal regulations for labor migration, which were introduced during the Alliance government in 2008. But finally, we succeeded in gaining support to take several important steps forward and several important initiatives such as binding employment contracts and increased maintenance requirements for relatives, and a law that enables a wage floor. That law is now in place, but the government and the Sweden Democrats have not yet made the decisions required to implement the wage floor itself. Instead, they are busy bickering internally about which loopholes and exceptions should be introduced at the same time.

The most effective way to bring order to labor migration is to introduce a needs assessment. We Social Democrats also commissioned an inquiry to get that in place.

This is an issue that the Sweden Democrats have had incredibly high tail-end support in previously, so I suspect it has cost the Moderates dearly to get them to agree to now scrap and bury the plans for such a means test.

I must admit that I am a bit curious about what price the Moderaterna have had to pay. I suspect that Maria Malmer Stenergard does not want to answer that, but I still want to admit that I am a bit curious. I think that perhaps it is this with the a-kassa. We know that the Moderaterna would have preferred a significantly lower level in the a-kassa than the one that now, thank goodness, is being established. This despite the fact that we are entering a recession and many are expected to become unemployed and thus dependent on a-kassa for a period.

I actually have a bit of difficulty understanding this deep opposition to means-tested labor immigration. It actually addresses both of the problem areas that we have had described here during the evening. It addresses both wage dumping and fraud, and against the need that actually exists to bring in highly qualified, specialized labor to, for example, meet the green transition that is now occurring, not least in northern Sweden.

There is, as I see it, actually only one reason to oppose a means test, namely that one wants to contribute to companies being able to compete with lower wages to press down costs. This even if it occurs at the price of people who already live in our country being pushed out from the opportunity to take jobs that companies instead bring in labor for from the other side of the globe, or at the price of the unscrupulous exploitation that today's system paves the way for and which I know the Minister for Migration is fully aware of and which I hear she wants to counteract.

What would be effective is, as said, a means-tested labor migration, but the migration minister is not prepared to go that far. I regret that, because the government's naive view on labor migration - which the Sweden Democrats now seem to accept - has essentially become a mechanism in the fostering of crime in the labor market.

Why do Maria Malmer Stenergard and the government not want to do what is required to stop work-related crime? Why this resistance to a means-tested labor immigration?

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! It is not entirely simple to respond to five debaters in four minutes, but I will do my absolute best.

We begin with the Centre Party and Jonny Cato. The question was how I view the concern expressed by companies in general and by companies in green industries in particular.

I want to be clear here that I see that concern. I meet with the companies regularly, and we have naturally taken in many of the views that have been submitted. That is why we have tasked the investigator to also look at the possibility of exceptions for certain industries but also for, for example, seasonal workers, who are very important for the green industries. The answer is therefore that we take this concern seriously.

There will also be good opportunities to provide comments regarding the regulatory amendment that is to define what good supply is, as it will be referred for consultation. There will also be good opportunities to provide comments when the investigator has presented their proposals in January 2024. We will do everything we can to ensure that there is a regulatory framework that is accurate when it comes to addressing fraud and exploitation while simultaneously ensuring that there is a good supply of competence for Sweden and for Swedish companies.

When it comes to the Social Democrats here, everyone is subject to labor market assessment.

I must say that I am utterly surprised by the definition that Leif Nysmed gave of what unregulated labor immigration is. It is, therefore, labor immigration where a needs assessment has not been made. It therefore does not matter how meticulously one designs the regulatory framework, I interpret Leif Nysmed as, or how many requirements one sets. It is still not possible to consider a labor immigration as regulated if there is no needs assessment. It is a definition that I find very tricky and that I believe very few would stand behind.

However, I am completely convinced that both I and the Social Democrats - and the Center Party, for that matter - are in complete agreement on the importance of there being order and clarity on the Swedish labor market.

The government parties and the Sweden Democrats are also not content with the tightenings of the regulatory framework for labor migration that we in the opposition finally managed to get the Social Democrats to present in a government position.

I must say that I am impressed by the courage shown by the debaters here. In all the contributions from the Social Democrats, they complain about the reform that the Moderates and the Alliance government introduced in 2008, when they then held government power for eight years and did nothing – except for what we forced them to do to tighten the regulations, stop the fraud, and stop the exploitation.

The answer can, of course, be found in the question that Teresa Carvalho poses. She implies that we have to pay a price for the directives that are now being presented. So it may have been in the cooperation that the Social Democrats had during the previous mandate period. The January Agreement bears witness to this in large part. But that is not how this cooperation works, because our four parties are thoroughly in agreement that we shall put a stop to the cheating and convict those who exploit. At the same time, we see the need for highly qualified and specialized labor immigration to Sweden.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I will not lie; I was almost as eager to debate with the Social Democrats as with the Minister. But I will refrain from doing so today. We may have reason to do so further ahead.

Centerpartiet and the Moderaterna still fundamentally have the same view – that people who come to Sweden and work are an asset. I think, however, that it is important that it is the companies' needs that guide, and not politics' needs. But we agree on one thing, and that is that there are major problems with the system – problems with fraud, cheating, and organized crime.

When people are exploited and companies cheat, it must be met with force. But we need to find specific solutions to specific problems and not tear down the entire system for labor migration.

Centerpartiet has been criticized, not least by leading representatives of the Moderaterna, for not seeing the cheating and the crime that exists in connection with labor immigration. We obviously do, and we take it most seriously. But we choose a different path that involves neither wage floors nor labor market testing. We choose proposals that we believe can make a real difference but still safeguard companies' needs for competence from other countries.

Let me therefore, for once, highlight three concrete examples of how one can tackle fraud and exploitation. One: Introduce a new law that makes it easier to reject an application for a work permit when the purpose is considered to be something other than work, for example, to exploit the welfare system. Two: Make it simpler to revoke a residence permit, through tightenings in the Aliens Act when it can be determined in hindsight that the purpose of the application was not work. Three: Remove the possibility of granting a residence permit to someone who has deliberately provided multiple identities or given misleading information.

These were some examples that would solve specific problems. There are quite a few such [problems] that require quite a few different specific solutions, and it is possible to do that instead of breaking down a system that so many entrepreneurs are in such great need of. But instead, the government insists on wanting to introduce a wage floor to solve the problems. The question of a wage floor was investigated as recently as a little more than a year ago within the framework of the investigation A better system for labor immigration. It was also an investigator chosen by the Socialdemokraterna, so one can imagine that they were not entirely well-disposed towards the system.

The investigation established that a wage floor does not in any way counteract either fraud or the exploitation of people and systems. On the contrary, a wage floor would risk leading to even more fraud, when a wage is written on paper while the employee in reality receives a completely different one.

Accurate legislative proposals are needed, not politically impactful communicative proposals that remove the possibility for companies to find the competence they need. When one breaks it down in the way I have now done, follows the debate, and takes part of the minister's and the government's proposals, one can only come to one conclusion: that it is not about fraud or accessing irregularities, but about the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and partly also the Liberalerna wanting to give the impression of having made a turn in migration policy.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The debate has touched on that a bit, and I would like to take the opportunity to say that just about a year ago - I believe it is quite exactly eleven months - the Social Democratic government tightened the rules for labor migration. It was a pure Social Democratic government at that time.

There were then requirements for binding employment contracts to obtain a work permit, an obligation for employers to report if the employment conditions changed, and subsistence requirements for family immigration. It was a better regulatory framework for retaining highly qualified labor. These were important steps along the way. More steps need to be taken. The next step would have been a needs assessment of labor.

We Social Democrats commissioned an investigation into that, and this government chooses to continue saying that it is about a means-tested labor immigration – but it no longer contains any such directives. I want to emphasize that it is not about any single proposal or example, such as my colleague Leif Nysmed took up.

For over 35 years, my father has built this capital. He has seen the changes that have been made at the large workplaces. Today, one sees both second and third-class workers there, but Sweden shall never compete with low wages and poor working conditions. There shall be order and regularity on the Swedish labor market - not different classes of workers.

Why did the government not let the means-testing remain in the investigation? You broadened it with what you wanted to add, through for example supplementary directives. Should I interpret this as that some ideological junk has collapsed? We Social Democrats agree with the Center Party on very little in this specific issue, but I completely agree with the description of the proposal that is on the table now. Is it a political labor market test that is to be conducted? Does the proposal deal with exceptions, lock-in effects, and complications instead of creating a robust system that can handle all the challenges in the common problem picture?

The question should not be difficult to answer, so I ask it again. What are the concrete, substantive arguments for why the government does not want to investigate a labor market test? It is known that it works. It did before 2008, and I am completely convinced that it would do so again.

The answer shows that a 180-degree turn is being made and that the investigation is being dribbled away and dismissed with increasingly complicated proposals. Is one trying to cover up for something else and make it look like it is just as good and is a solution, when one knows that it does not work? Where are the substantive arguments for removing the means test?

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister accuses us Social Democrats of not having implemented this reform during the eight years we were in government. The answer is quite simple: It is this assembly that decides, and here there has been a lack of majority for the proposal. The Minister knows just as well as I do that the Miljöpartiet was involved in pushing through the change in 2008. The simple answer is that there was no majority for the proposal.

I want to say that with all the potential exceptions being discussed regarding the salary requirement, the entire proposal risks becoming more hollow than Swiss cheese.

I have followed one of the Economic Crime Authority's prosecutions against a construction company. It lasted for over four years, and finally now in January or February, they were finally sentenced in the Court of Appeal. One of the major problems was the many different exceptions that apply to foreign labor. It varies depending on whether one, for example, is a Russian citizen residing in the Baltics or if one is married to or cohabiting with someone within the EU, and such things are completely impossible for the Economic Crime Authority to investigate in retrospect.

A labor market screening would with great probability have stopped several of those who work illegally in Sweden even before the construction sites were started. To, as the government does, propose a system that from the start already seems to have several built-in flaws will only benefit the criminals on the Swedish labor market.

I really want to believe the minister when she says that it is unacceptable for people who come to Sweden to work to be exploited instead. I really want to believe it, and then it becomes incomprehensible to me that a proposal to investigate a new system for labor market screening is being blocked. Why do the government and SD not even want to investigate how one can stop the crime and fraud on the Swedish labor market before it is committed?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I find it interesting that the Minister for Migration and other representatives for the government most often wonder why the Social Democrats have not rectified the Moderates' failures, even though the Moderates have had a majority here in the chamber on the right side since 2006. It is fantastic that it must take a Social Democratic government to sort out a Moderate mess. I suspect it will be the same in 2026.

There is another thing one can reflect on now that we have the Minister for Climate Transition here in the chamber. I do not think the Liberals quite share the view that one has not made concessions on important issues now that Sweden is to back into the climate crisis with the mind full of fossil fuels. That part about everything having been so good and pleasant in the chamber and in the negotiations, one can therefore reflect on that.

The timing for this is also interesting. Now it is to be investigated until January 2024. Then a government bill is to be written and taken to the Riksdag. It will take two three four years before this is implemented. This means that Swedish business will be able to continue to utilize the labor force, and this is what the Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna want.

The Sweden Democrats have played skillfully by saying that they were for labor market screening, and the Moderates have paid in the form of reduced legal certainty, deportation of prostitutes and addicts, the introduction of a reporting society, and the abolition of the right to an interpreter, for example. This is the price that the Moderates have paid. But both make Swedish business satisfied.

Answer the question instead, Minister! Why has the labor market assessment been removed from this investigation?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost – thank you, Minister for Migration, for clarifying that the governing parties have not paid any price for scrapping the labor market test without the governing parties and the Sweden Democrats being in full agreement on this, as the minister said.

I also want to take the opportunity, as the previous speaker touched upon, to clarify and answer the minister's question about why the Social Democrats did not do more, faster, to tighten labor migration during our time in government. It was simply due to the parliamentary situation. It was also a significant difference compared to how it is now, because this government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, actually has a majority in the chamber within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. It is a good clarification that there is complete agreement and that no price has been paid.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to state that immigration to Sweden may paradoxically increase this year. This is due to the government's and the Sweden Democrats' sluggishness when it comes to specifically tightening labor migration. In other words, the so-called paradigm shift is mostly talk. We Social Democrats made the major overhaul of migration policy. What the government and the Sweden Democrats are doing now is mostly symbolic politics.

The real paradigm shift that is currently taking place within the framework of the Tidö Agreement is rather a paradigm shift regarding society's decency. It is not a strict migration policy that is the major conflict issue in Swedish politics, but the will to break segregation. In that regard, a labor market assessment would have been an important piece of the puzzle.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall attempt to answer all five members again. I begin with Jonny Cato, who argues that it is the companies' needs that should guide and that one should not tear down the entire system. We do not want—and that is the answer to the Social Democrats' question—such a labor market assessment as the Social Democrats have preferred previously, where unions and authorities decide what competence companies need. Jonny Cato and I are in complete agreement that the companies themselves best determine their need for competence.

But it is also clear from all the studies and all the research being conducted that it is primarily in low-wage jobs that we see fraud and exploitation, and that we cannot accept. We also see that very many who are in Sweden cannot support themselves, and then I think it is highly strange that as a business owner one should feel forced to take the detour that it involves bringing in labor from third countries, i.e., countries outside the EU - people who are to work in, for example, the cleaning industry or as fast-food staff or newspaper carriers. I think that this is labor that should exist in Sweden.

Naturally, there is much that politics must do to better match. It is partly about matching, and partly about labor market training. It is about the important transition that the parties have negotiated.

But it is also about a new work line, and here there is perhaps the clearest dividing line between, on one hand, the government and the coalition parties and on the other hand, the Social Democrats. We believe that it should pay to work. We believe that there should be a clear difference if one moves from benefits to self-sufficiency. But unfortunately, there are not sufficient incentives today, and that makes it very difficult for companies with competence supply. Therefore, we argue that we, parallel to the major changes we want to make in the regulatory framework for labor immigration, naturally also must work with a benefit reform so that it pays better for people to take the jobs that exist, not least within low-wage sectors.

Sofia Amloh noted that this investigation has the same name. I want to clarify that it is the investigator themselves who decides the name - the government cannot control that. But since there is no proposal on means-tested labor immigration left to present, I would guess that it will be a different name when the investigator finally presents their proposal.

Leif Nysmed explained why the Social Democrats have done very little in eight years, actually only that which we in the opposition took the initiative for; it was because they did not have a majority. They have thus chosen to take government power and thereby refrained from pushing through their perhaps, as it appears here in the chamber, most important reforms - just to get power.

Instead, and I am very pleased about this, our four parties have a majority to now put an end to the cheating and exploitation that the Social Democratic members express such great concern about, which could not be implemented previously. I am very pleased about this.

Finally, since the Speaker did not react, I want to address Ola Möller and say that I do not think one should badmouth ministers who do not participate in the debate. There are every possibility of addressing the minister one has criticism against in a factual debate. I can also add that the only thing being phased out in the climate area is the extremely inefficient climate policy that the Social Democrats and the Green Party conducted during the previous term.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can observe that there are more and more Social Democrats in the benches every time I go up to the rostrum.

I think today's debate has become a bit strange. There is a difference between illegal labor and labor immigration - I hope we can distinguish between these in the future. It becomes a somewhat distorted debate, if I am to be completely honest.

I therefore thought I would try to lower the tone a bit again. I have a genuine question where I believe we are in agreement but where I know there is much concern, and it concerns the seasonal labor migration. It is simply a matter of speaking plainly: Within a large part of the green industries, in the countryside and throughout the country, one is directly dependent on the seasonal labor migration. I wonder how the government views the seasonal labor migration and how the government believes a wage floor could affect it.

Seasonal labor immigration is regulated in a separate EU directive and EU framework, and I think that is good. They are two quite different issues. But it is no secret that there are companies that are directly dependent on seasonal labor immigration. Not least, many companies down in Skåne, where Maria Malmer and I live, are completely dependent on seasonal labor immigration.

I therefore wonder if the Minister can give a somewhat clearer answer on how one views the seasonal labor immigration and the concern that many, not least agricultural entrepreneurs, feel regarding the upcoming seasons. It concerns berry cultivation, potato cultivation, and so on.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are now concluding this debate. I believe we will have reason to debate this more times.

Last month, notice was received that the government and the Sweden Democrats, with an additional investigation, are postponing rules on wage floors to the future and, as I have mentioned several times, are laying down the investigation we commissioned on means-testing for labor migration.

It will lead to the unserious labor immigration continuing to increase and press down wages and working conditions on the Swedish labor market. It is Swedish and foreign workers who will continue to pay the price. I only state that it is unworthy.

Let me return to the questions that I opened this debate with: What measures does the Minister intend to take to address the unregulated labor immigration, and does the Minister consider a wage floor to be a sufficient steering measure to tackle the problems we have today? I assume that the answer to this is yes.

My next question was whether the Minister intends to take any initiatives to reintroduce an authority-based labor market assessment. On that, the answer is no. We Social Democrats will take that fight on the day we have a means-tested labor immigration that is authority-based, as the Minister still forgot to mention the employers when she described it here in her previous statement.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! To Jonny Cato, I want to be very clear that the government sees the need for seasonal workers and how incredibly important they are for the green industries, as I said in a previous speech.

This first regulatory amendment means that, as the proposition was designed, those who come here with the support of the seasonal employment directive are not affected by the changes in step 1. But when it comes to step 2, that is, the investigation with the larger changes, we believe there is every reason to look at whether it is reasonable that 13,000 should be the wage requirement for someone. But there is therefore a possibility for the investigator to propose exceptions for some, for example for seasonal workers.

Our ambition is absolute to have a precise regulatory framework in place that does not undermine the green industries.

To say that it is only about wage floors, I think is to describe the government's policy somewhat incorrectly. Just as has been emphasized by several Social Democrats here, it is not the case that a single measure is sufficient when it comes to tackling the cheating on the labor market, but a number of different measures are required. There, one needs to work from different agencies and with different regulatory frameworks to combat it.

I believe fundamentally that we are very much in agreement that it is absolutely necessary to address the exploitation that unfortunately exists in the Swedish labor market. Unlike the Social Democrats, we are now taking important steps regarding the regulatory framework for labor migration.

I want to quote what Sofia Amloh writes in her interpellation: "Sweden shall never compete with low wages and poor working conditions. We shall have order and clarity on the Swedish labor market."

Then I wonder: Why have the Social Democrats not abolished the possibility of switching tracks? Why did they continue to allow labor immigration for personal assistance despite the law enforcement authorities screaming? We are now doing what the Social Democrats were unable to do.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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