General political debate

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Democracy is never finished. It needs to be defended, developed, and earned by every generation. We live in a time when human rights are being questioned in many places, the institutions of the rule of law are being subjected to pressure, free media is being restricted, and increased corruption risks undermining people's trust in the social system. This is not only happening far away, but it is a development that also concerns Sweden and Europe.

I would like to draw attention in this context to three recently submitted reports that should be regarded as warning signals.

International IDEA shows in its democracy report from 2026 that the democratic decline continues from a global perspective. Freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and access to justice are weakening in many countries.

Transparency International's corruption index for 2025 shows that Sweden still belongs to the world's least corrupt countries, which is pleasing. Sweden's results have, however, deteriorated over time. This is also confirmed by a review that Dagens Nyheter reported on as recently as these past days, which is based on Sveriges Kommuner och Regioners compilation of the municipal audit bodies' work. It bears witness to a lack of democratic control, several private contractors who have profit in welfare as a driver, and that improper influence can affect individual officials and decision-makers in everyday life. This is an area where measures are required. Trust in our social model – that welfare functions when we need it – is the foundation of our democracy.

The third report that I want to draw attention to is the Institute for Human Rights' annual report 2026, which points out deficiencies in the protection of rights and the legislative process, as well as that people's opportunities to obtain redress have deteriorated.

Madam Speaker! For me as a Social Democrat, human rights and the principles of the rule of law are not something that can be set aside when politics faces difficult challenges. Therefore, it was significant that the Social Democrat-led government took the initiative for the Institute for Human Rights, which began its work in 2022. The Institute's independence needs to be protected and its activities given long-term conditions. Its recommendations need to be taken seriously. It strengthens the quality of the legislative work and ensures that people can have their rights reviewed.

Sweden should be a driving force in these issues in the European Union and in other international contexts. The EU's annual rule of law reviews are important. It is also important that the EU can be driving when it comes to economic and legal tools if member states disregard the principles of the rule of law.

I also want to highlight the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, based in Lund, which carries out important work for human rights, the status of international law, and the principles of the rule of law through research, education, and international cooperation. This is an activity that Sweden should be proud of and take responsibility for. I have personally been involved in ensuring that the institute receives long-term state funding. Recently, an initiative was launched in Ukraine to contribute on-site to democratic development and the EU membership that is in sight.

When democratic institutions are pushed back, Sweden should not reduce its commitment but instead strengthen it.

(Applause)

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! On 24 February 2022, Russian forces launched an unprovoked and full-scale attack against Ukraine. Russia's war is a war not only against Ukraine and their will to live in peace and freedom, with democracy and a market economy. It is also a war directed against the West and against the liberal democracy we have taken for granted.

On October 7, 2023, terrorists from Hamas committed the largest massacre of Jews since World War II. Among those murdered were women, children, and elderly people. There were peace activists, Holocaust survivors, and visitors at a music festival.

Antisemitism became visible in one stroke not only in the Middle East. It also became visible in Sweden. Antisemitic slogans have been shouted at demonstrations and expressed on social media. These are comments that have even been liked by Swedish members of parliament.

Before the autumn elections, political candidates were excluded at a late stage because they had expressed antisemitism, romanticized terror, and encouraged political and religious violence. They had not been expelled by their party but were exposed by the media.

Madam Speaker! The recent years have been dramatic. But never during the eight years that I have sat in the Riksdag have I worried about Swedish democracy, about our inability in Sweden to uphold universal and equal suffrage or that our electoral system could be corrupted – not until now.

On September 21, the news broke that a prosecutor was investigating suspected electoral fraud in Borlänge. But the case in Borlänge turned out to be only the tip of an iceberg. The editorial writer Peter Wennblad wrote on September 26 in Svenska Dagbladet about systematic problems with improper electoral influence in Järva in Stockholm. And on September 28, Aftonbladet reported that the police had received 76 reports of suspected electoral fraud across the country. Yesterday, the news came that a person has been served with a suspicion of a crime linked to electoral fraud in Järva specifically.

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that no one is convicted. But the situation is serious as it is. Just the fact that we have a discussion about electoral fraud and that individuals are being suspected of crimes causes the legitimacy of the election to be undermined. It is a situation that I did not see as possible when I was elected to the Riksdag in 2018.

Madam Speaker! When I was young, antisemitism and national socialism were discussed a lot in the Swedish school system after the then Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson had initiated the campaign Living History and had the book If This Were You Published. A central question was how one would have acted if one had lived in the 1930s. I reflected on that a lot. I no longer do. The answer lies in how one chooses to act now.

All parties have a responsibility not to let religious and political extremism into the elected assemblies. Everyone has a responsibility to respect the general and equal suffrage and to not accept terror romanticism, violence-seeking tendencies or antisemitism – whether in their own ranks or in the parties they choose to cooperate with.

Madam Speaker! We must not lose what Ukraine is fighting to defend.

(Applause)

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! In today's general political debate, I want to raise some parts of the Swedish electoral process. One can, in fact, quite simply assert that this election was decided by 50,000 voters and that the previous election was decided by 46,000 voters. It is, therefore, the difference between the blocs in Swedish politics. If one had halved that number and if that number had gone to the other side of the bloc, we would have had a completely different majority in Sweden's Riksdag after both the previous election and this election.

This shows that it is truly difficult to say that every vote does not count. The person who goes and casts their vote in the election has a great opportunity to ultimately actually influence which constellation shall govern the country.

It also points out how incredibly important it is that our Swedish electoral system functions fully and correctly. When it comes to how it functions in a polling station, I think there are a number of things that should be looked at more closely. This includes, among other things, the control of the ballot paper stations. Today, there are no clear guidelines for how often the ballot paper stations should be checked. The Election Authority has handed over the responsibility for that to the municipalities. I mean that it is important that there are clear rules for how that control should take place, so that ballot papers do not disappear or be hidden behind there.

Another thing is how one identifies oneself when going to vote. Today there are three ways: that the voter identifies themselves with identification, that someone else certifies the voter's identity, or that the poll worker recognizes the voter. I can think that we have a somewhat too generous system in Sweden today when another person is supposed to be able to certify a person's identity or that a poll worker is supposed to be able to confirm that the person is recognized. Unfortunately, it opens up for the fact that it is actually possible to let in people to vote who do not actually have the right to vote or who vote in another person's name.

I mean that we need to tighten the possibility of how one should be able to identify themselves when they are going to vote. A poll worker who has bad intentions, when it comes to working with voter fraud, can nevertheless build up a system for how voters are identified. Unfortunately, there are possibilities in Sweden today for such a system to be developed. I began my speech today by saying that every vote counts and that the situation is extremely close. It can be tight, and this again points to what opportunities exist for those who want to work with that type of unworthy methods in a Swedish democratic society.

If we are to maintain confidence in the Swedish electoral system, we need to ensure that it works straightforwardly. We also know that there are many voters – one can always define what many means – who have gone to vote but who have already been crossed off in the electoral roll because an election official crossed off the wrong row for a previous voter in the polling station. This has meant that this voter did not get to vote, because they had already been crossed off in the electoral roll.

We need to tighten the Swedish system in various ways, so that such things cannot happen in Sweden today, and ensure that we secure our democratic systems in Sweden.

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

Linnea Bengtsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I have chosen to devote this speech to the most important thing we have: the children. Every child is our future but to an equal extent also our present. Children are independent rights-holders for whom we have a special concern.

In all decisions made, the best interests of the child shall be considered, and the child shall be given the opportunity to be heard. This we passed together the day the Convention on the Rights of the Child became Swedish law. It may be a few years ago, but I remember it particularly clearly.

Allow me to be somewhat personal in my speech. I had then begun my studies to become a fully qualified social worker. At that time, there was a clear and stated ambition that Sweden should be a pioneering country when it comes to precisely children's rights. Judge my surprise when I now hear the incredibly high tone, which has characterized the debates of recent years, and what is almost an obsession over who can come up with the most barbaric and dehumanized proposals against the group we say we protect most of all.

As a school counselor, I had the privilege of meeting this group daily. Wise, imaginative, and spunky are just some of the epithets I gladly attribute to the fifth graders, but unfortunately, it is not possible to ignore the fact that it also requires terms such as hungry, exhausted, and poor.

Madam Speaker! What is then needed for children to have a secure upbringing? Are it isolation cells, electric shackles and surveillance cameras that are the miracle cure? Of course not. What children need is a school where there is time and resources – a place where someone discovers when the reading is not working or when everything is not right at home.

Children need a school health service that has the possibility to work preventatively, not just put out fires. Above all, children need to be allowed to be just exactly children and be given the opportunity to develop, make mistakes, and start over. All of this needs to be allowed to happen at the same time as a secure adult world stands behind them, ready to catch them if and when it is needed. Children need to get to feel that we adults actually believe in them and that they are capable of succeeding, instead of being portrayed as potential perpetrators. Here, we all have a common responsibility.

Before I conclude my speech, I want to emphasize that I feel immense pride in the policy that Vänsterpartiet is driving for children's safety, with everything from smaller child groups in preschool and stronger student health to increased oversight of coercive measures.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is about faith in the future, for every child.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Wherever that vile antisemitism sticks up its ugly snout, it shall be met openly, clearly and without compromise.

The antisemitism in our contemporary time makes me not only worried but also saddened. On October 7, 2023, the worst massacre of Jews since World War II took place. Over 1,200 children, women, and men became victims of a indiscriminate killing by the terrorist organization Hamas.

I remember that day and how the shock, but also the disgust, spread to every cell in my body when I saw the images from the massacre. But it became even worse in the evening when I experienced how the indiscriminate killing was celebrated on Swedish streets and squares. It is insane, and it is impossible to excuse. In my book, those people who do so in our country have forfeited every ounce of right to remain, if they are not Swedish citizens. They have nothing to do here.

During my years as a priest and parish pastor back in Örebro, I took my confirmands to Auschwitz-Birkenau every year. It was costly for the parish, but we were and are convinced that it was worth doing and that prioritizing just such a trip. The purpose was to demonstrate what happens when we divide ourselves into a "we" and "them" and when we embrace the notion that certain people do not have equal value.

Through the journey, it became about this Christian view of humanity, that is, that all people have a unique, inviolable and equal value, not just theory but something that one carries with them. During the years that have passed since then, when many of the confirmands have become adults, I have been able to observe that the journey made and makes a difference. One does not fall for the allure when it comes to antisemitism.

Madam Speaker! Israel must do everything in its power to avoid innocent people dying. It is a humanitarian tragedy. We Christian Democrats have ensured that humanitarian aid reaches the Palestinian people while we simultaneously try to ensure that not a single Swedish tax krona shall finance terrorism or propaganda that plants hatred and fuels conflict.

Antisemitism has always existed in Sweden. It is not a new phenomenon, but the extent is new. It is high time that we all realize that the threat does not come from neo-Nazis but from old Nazis. There is no better way to describe what we see, because there is a Jew-hatred that bears many similarities with that which Nazism tried to propagate in its time.

We must all embrace the commitment against antisemitism. In the UN, the special rapporteur states that antisemitism, if left uncontrolled by governments, poses a risk not only for Jews but also for members of other minority groups.

I do not believe that dialogue police, clever wristbands, or courses in Swedish values will be the answer, but the answer is our firm signal that hate crimes will never be tolerated in Sweden. For this – so that we shall be clear – a decisive heavy responsibility rests on all politicians here in the Riksdag, to signal in both words and actions that this, and nothing else, is what applies in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Bassem Nasr (MP)

Madam Speaker! On an October evening 39 years ago, my family came to Sweden. We came as stateless Palestinians to a foreign country in northern Europe. Here we received education, housing, and jobs. We were welcomed by Swedes with warmth and curiosity.

I and many others have much to thank Sweden for, but gratitude must never be confused with being submissive or subordinate. We who have immigrated to Sweden have exactly the same right to raise our voices against various injustices. Sweden is also our country, and it is at its strongest when we collectively stand up for tolerance, openness, and solidarity.

In the spring, many of us looked forward to the election campaign, with launches, debates and conversations, but quite a few Swedish Muslims told me that they were worried and afraid of what the election campaign would bring. They were afraid of being collectively blamed, afraid of a one-sided negative focus, afraid of some of the members of the Swedish Riksdag. They know, after all, that when political leaders spread racism, the hatred will trickle down into society and affect their everyday lives.

When we now look back at the election campaign, it is obvious that the fears of Swedish Muslims have been stoked. We had a dirty election campaign where a religious minority was incited against. It is polarizing, unworthy, and dangerous. Miljöpartiet wants to fight Islamophobia. Sweden can do better.

Another question that has unfortunately become relevant is this: Why are Swedish Somalis subjected to so much hate? It is because they are subjected to several types of racism simultaneously: racism based on immigrant background, racism based on skin color, and racism based on religion. At that intersection, the racism is multiplied and becomes even more dangerous.

To the Swedish-Somalis listening to this debate, I want to say the following: You are not alone. Miljöpartiet and many others stand by your side. We anti-racists are in the majority.

Alongside the aggressive racism, which incites against immigrants, there is the silent racism. It is committed by politicians who in their party programs write very nicely about everyone's equal value but who do not say a word when certain groups are subjected to racism. A Quran with bullet holes outside a mosque – silence. An afrophobic attack against children waiting for the train – silence. A teacher who is subjected to a xenophobic prank by their students – silence. For those of us who are subjected to it, this racism is not silent. At maximum volume, we hear the betrayal, the cowardice, and the hypocrisy.

Miljöpartiet stands for a different kind of anti-racism. We raise our voices regardless of whether it is Swedish Muslims, Jews, Roma, or any other group that is being targeted. It is a consistent anti-racism, and it is the only anti-racism that is worth its name.

(Applause)

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

Markus Selin (S)

Madam Speaker! I will admit one thing: I am starting to get quite tired of attempts at political conversation in social media.

Yes, I use social media daily. For politicians, it is important to be where people are. But more and more often I wonder if social media is a good place for political conversations, because politics actually works quite slowly. One listens. One argues. One negotiates. One compromises. One changes one's mind sometimes. It can be frustrating, but it is also the strength of democracy.

Social media works in a completely different way. On social media, that which evokes strong emotions – anger, fear, outrage – is rewarded. A nuanced argument or a well-thought-out compromise can pass completely unnoticed. A truly angry or toxic post can achieve wide distribution. Here, I believe the fundamental problem lies. What happens to the political conversation when the digital infrastructure rewards conflict over compromise and emotions over reflection? And what happens when it can also be exploited by those who wish Sweden ill?

We know that organized influence campaigns occur. The Psychological Defence Agency has, among other things, mapped networks with automated accounts. Additionally, Säpo disrupted a Russian intelligence operation in August that was intended to influence decision-making and polarizing issues.

The biblical story of Gideon lights small torches so that the enemy will believe they are many more than they actually are. Today, technology can do exactly the same thing. It doesn't even have to be about what we think, but about depicting the conflict as much larger than it is, making us distrust each other – distrust your journalist, distrust your closest politician – and making all people stop trusting their own society.

This can also affect individual people – a politician, a journalist, a researcher, a civil servant. If coordinated accounts are used to intimidate or silence, yes, then democracy is lost, because democracy is not only built on the right to speak. It is also built on people daring to speak.

Madam Speaker! That is why we must begin to see social media as something other than a new channel for political conversation. These channels are largely controlled by global private companies, whose business model is built on our attention.

We Social Democrats have presented several proposals to limit this, for example regarding protection against AI-generated forgeries, a national cyber police, and greater responsibility for platforms. The question is also broader. How do we protect democracy from a digital environment that rewards what tears us apart?

999811765121100285910138611I do not know if it is possible to make social media a democratic meeting place, as many of us believed. But we cannot let the algorithms decide how our democracy should function. Let us make social media more compatible with our democracy, because democracy must be significantly stronger than the algorithms!

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Lantz (S) agreed.

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

Katarina Stenström Ros (M)

Madam Speaker! The election on September 13 may go down in history not only for the complicated government formation we are now seeing but also for the amount of reports of suspected electoral fraud that have emerged in different parts of Sweden.

It began with suspicions of electoral fraud in my hometown Borlänge, in my constituency in Dalarna. Since then, suspicions have been added in Järvafältet in northern Stockholm, in Norrbotten, in Västmanland and in Skåne, and today there are 17 different investigations ongoing regarding suspected electoral fraud at the National Anti-Corruption Unit.

999811759024The Election Authority has received 5,200 incident reports after the autumn election from polling stations, election officials, and vote counters. They have also received 3,400 reports from the general public.

I am a new member of Parliament, and in my professional life, I am a prosecutor. I have worked at the National Anti-Corruption Unit, but I have not worked with investigations into suspected electoral fraud.

It is important that we have a well-functioning electoral system because it is an absolute cornerstone of a functioning democracy. The ongoing investigations into suspected electoral fraud and the amount of incident reports and reports from the public mean that there is reason to reflect on whether our electoral system functions in the best possible way.

I am thinking of four areas. How well does today's ballot system work? Are we satisfied with the scale of penalties for electoral fraud, if someone were to be convicted of it after the autumn election? Are we satisfied with the voting process itself? And are we satisfied with how the vote counting is carried out?

Regarding our ballots, the so-called Ballot Committee is now investigating whether we should keep today's system or if we should instead have party-common ballots or perhaps even completely neutral ballots. The committee will report on its assignment in August 2027.

Electoral fraud today has two criminal designations: improper influence during voting and receiving an improper benefit during voting. Both of these crimes have a penalty scale of fines or imprisonment for a maximum of six months. This corresponds to petty theft, or shoplifting as it was previously called. That penalty scale is far too low and should be raised.

The next question one should ask concerns the voting procedure itself. There, I think Member of Parliament Hedlund raised a couple of examples of flaws in the voting procedure, including the identification of eligible voters. Another example is how we preserve the secrecy of the vote, that is, that no one should find out what someone else is voting for. Does it work well as it does today, or should we have it in some other way?

The last question concerns vote counting. Does it work well today, or can one, for example, use artificial intelligence for vote counting?

Free and independent elections are an absolute cornerstone of a functioning democracy. In light of ongoing investigations into suspected electoral fraud and the number of incident reports, a review should be conducted of the sentencing for electoral fraud, the voting process, and the vote-counting system.

(Applause)

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) concurred.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has gone to the polls again, and a new Riksdag has now been elected. Even though the parliamentary situation remains unclear, it is by a small margin that the parties that did not belong to the governing coalition during the previous mandate period have obtained a majority in Sweden's Riksdag. That is how the situation looks when the people have had their say.

Something that has become increasingly clearer during recent elections is the occurrence of clan voting as well as mobilization in mosques and among persons who stand far outside Swedish society but who, despite everything, in some cases are Swedish citizens. It is a trend that we do not only see in Sweden but also in other Western countries that have had a high immigration from distant cultures, and this is to a large extent a reality in both new democracies and semi-democracies around the world.

It is quite obvious that clan voting, bussing of ethnic groups and – in suspected cases – bribes damage Sweden's reputation on the international arena. If this is allowed to continue or intensify, Sweden's democracy is in jeopardy.

Disinformation such as the LVU campaign or that one should vote for a certain party in order not to risk being deported from Sweden are just two examples of what that type of false accusations can look like. That is why certain parties preach their message in mosques and spread election information in other languages as well as spread false information about their political opponents. They spare no means to win elections, and it is nothing other than a shame for Swedish democracy.

Sweden is our home, and our home and Swedish democracy are worth preserving. Our culture is worth preserving, and the West is worth preserving, but the development we have seen in the West over the last decades is leading our country and many of the countries in our vicinity completely astray.

The Swedes have no other homeland than just Sweden, and we love our country – not because it would be better than any other country but because it is ours. It is also just the Swedes who are to decide Sweden's future.

In the autumn elections, nearly 600,000 non-citizens had the right to vote in the municipal and regional elections, and it is clear that this affects the election result. During the previous parliamentary term, I debated this issue with the Minister for Civil Affairs, and it was then perfectly clear that the Sverigedemokraterna stand alone in the question that the right to vote in Sweden in all elections should apply only to Swedish citizens.

During the previous parliamentary term, we made it harder to become a citizen in Sweden. It now requires a period of residence of at least eight years, tests in Swedish and social studies, and that one must be self-sufficient and have no criminal record. This makes Sweden the country in the EU where it is hardest to become a citizen. In the long term, it is likely one of the most important democratic changes that occurred during the past parliamentary term.

My hope is that more European and Western nations follow in Sweden's footsteps and that they re-evaluate their respective citizenships, limit migration, and protect their countries against what in the long run could cause Western civilization to be transformed beyond recognition.

Sweden and the West must be defended at all costs, and it is our duty as politicians to ensure that it is our home that we are still defending.

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

Banesa Martinez Roldán (V)

Madam Speaker! Fellow citizens!

Sweden's gold is not the chanterelles, but Sweden's structured data about us residents. Our welfare has made this gold mine possible, and we must democratically safeguard it. It is our duty as elected representatives.

This requires oversight and a transparency that ensures that data protection laws are followed by companies that handle our Swedish gold. We must have insight into what prediction within, for example, surveillance is based on to ensure that residents are not unnecessarily suspected and so that a segregated delivery in affluent areas does not result in blind spots in crime fighting.

The problem resembles the theory of Schrödinger's cat: We cannot know how the algorithms are constructed, what data is used, or how they are weighted. This is, in fact, part of what companies within predictive data analysis, such as the American Palantir, call trade secrets.

Without opening the box and killing the cat, we therefore cannot guarantee that the cat is alive, that is to say that personal data is handled lawfully and with legal certainty. We also cannot ensure that the algorithms are not based on incorrect assumptions and so-called AI hallucinations, because if we demand to see how the algorithms work, the companies hide behind the excuse that they are trade secrets.

Digital sovereignty is slipping through our fingers.

A legal collision arises when our Swedish gold is handled under the EU's GDPR legislation but the software and algorithms are governed by laws in third countries. The EU tries to ensure transparency through the AI Act, but the clash with American surveillance remains.

In the midst of the storm stands the Swedish welfare state. Vänsterpartiet views technology that can give healthcare staff and social workers more time for patients and clients positively, but it must not happen at any cost. If new laws place a greater legal responsibility on municipalities and regions, state funds and technical support must be in line with the responsibility. Otherwise, it will have direct consequences for core activities.

Madam Speaker! It is we, the elected representatives, who have the responsibility to counter the risks that technical possibilities entail for human rights, privacy, and the country's sovereignty. We cannot place our gold in the hands of an extremely wealthy tech elite whose systems are simultaneously used in war zones and support genocide.

An extreme concentration of power in a few individuals weakens our national sovereignty and deprives us of full oversight and transparency, and it is our democracy that bears the burden.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have worked for a long time with the rights of LGBTQI persons, both as an elected politician in the Riksdag and previously in civil society.

I was chairman of RFSL from 2010 to 2016. During that time, there were threats against RFSL and various hate messages, but it was not something that characterized the entire operation. In 2017, I was a special investigator for a government inquiry concerning the rights of trans people. We organized public hearings and had an open site where trans people could submit their stories about living as a trans person in Sweden today. The work proceeded without any major disruptions to speak of.

Today, RFSL has told me, has as an example RFSL Jämtland Härjedalen nearly 50 security incidents per year. Significant resources are spent by the organization on handling the hate that flows into social media. The difference compared to how it was a decade ago is brutal.

The deteriorating situation for hbtqi persons is not unique to Sweden. Hbtqi persons are increasingly becoming punching bags in the political debate, and hbtqi-political issues are used as material for negative campaigning. As an example, it can be mentioned that this occurred in 51 out of 60 elections during the so-called super election year 2024, according to Outright International. Perhaps even more serious is that this is a reflection of the development for democracy as a whole.

V-Dem, which is an institute at the University of Gothenburg, stated in this year's report on democracy in the world that for the average world citizen, democracy is now back at 1978 levels. Of the world's population, 74 percent live in autocracies and only 7 percent in liberal democracies. It is a terrifying development.

The pace of autocratization has never been so high before. Furthermore, we see that this is occurring in our immediate vicinity, in the EU. The most common elements of autocratization involve censorship of the media and repression of civil society.

We in Sweden have the privilege of belonging to the 7 percent who live in a liberal democracy. But it is not a constant state that we alone can count on being in forever. During the last parliamentary term, developments have led to strong reactions and protests from civil society.

Civil Rights Defenders has launched the campaign Backa demokratin, where anyone who wants to can sign up to receive newsletters and reviews of political proposals and decisions that conflict with our democratic rights. One can also receive an email every time the organization needs to act against something – which happens often right now, they write on their site.

Another initiative from civil society is #jutoo. More than 2,000 lawyers are protesting against the fact that central rule-of-law principles are being weakened at a rapid pace, with consequences that risk undermining the foundations of the democratic rule of law while the mechanisms and bodies that are supposed to function as a safety net are being questioned and weakened.

In March this year, I was in Budapest at a conference on feminist perspectives on democracy. The Hungarian participants naturally had their own upcoming election in focus, and their message to the rest of us was clear. We must guard our democracy and the rule of law before it is too late. They did not think either that it would go that far in Hungary. One of the speakers said: "Do not sleep. You can wake up in Hungary."

Now we know how it went. Hungary succeeded in mobilizing and voting out Orbán. Most recently yesterday, a very joyful announcement came as a consequence of this, namely that the anti-LGBTQI law has been voted down.

Here in Sweden, the voters have voted out the Tidö government. That is pleasing. But the responsibility to safeguard our rule of law and democracy continues to rest on all of us, both in the majority and in the opposition.

(Applause)

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Honorable Speaker, members and listeners! All public power in Sweden emanates from the people, and now the Swedish people have spoken. It is a great and important trust to represent the Social Democrats and the people of Örebro in Sweden's Riksdag. It is to be part of the history of Swedish democracy.

The history of Swedish democracy is present here in the Riksdag in the chamber halls, through the portraits and busts of former speakers and prime ministers, in the Women's Room and in all the exhibition displays.

Sweden as a country has made a long democratic journey. Gustav Vasa, whom we often set as the starting point for our modern Sweden, had as his motto: "All power is from God" – that is, not from the people, but from God. The rulers of the Swedish realm had God behind them and in their mottos until Gustav IV Adolf was deposed in a coup d'état in 1809. It became the start of a different Sweden. A new form of government was written, and it has since been revised. The perspectives have changed. The pyramids have been turned.

All public power emanates from the people – but not entirely. There is an exception. We still appoint our head of state according to the same pre-democratic principles as were practiced in Gustav Vasa's time, that is, through the order of succession in a selected family. It does not occur through democratic elections and is not done by the people but through copulation.

Many of us throughout history have pointed out that hereditary monarchy as an idea is not compatible with the democratic principles of all people's equal value, free elections, eligibility, representativeness, trust, and accountability.

We continue to live with a pre-democratic system of government, out of tradition and old habit. But tradition and old habit is not an order given by God. It is an order and a system of government that we can make democratic decisions about.

Our current king and head of state has a significantly more modern motto than Vasa's "All power is from God". Carl XVI Gustaf has chosen "For Sweden – in the time". I believe it is time that we in the Swedish Riksdag take our head of state's motto seriously. A system of government for Sweden in the time should stem from the Instrument of Government's preamble paragraph that all public power in Sweden derives from the people.

A form of government for Sweden in this time should mean that the head of state is appointed through democratic processes and not, as today, through copulation, birth, and inheritance within a certain family. A form of government in this time should rest on the principle that all people are equally worthy and should be treated accordingly. This applies to all people, also in matters of hereditary privileges, freedom of religion, and immunity from prosecution.

It is time for us in Sweden to take the next step in our democratic development. It is time to investigate what a modern system of government should look like. It is time to make Sweden a modern republic.

(Applause)

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Politicians from other countries and anonymous bureaucrats, whom we can neither elect nor dismiss, govern a large part of Swedish society through an organization. This supranational organization is constantly growing. It is taking on more and more powers. That organization is the European Union.

Now, at the beginning of the parliamentary term, we can remind ourselves that the parliamentary election also determines Sweden's approach to the EU. We can also remind ourselves what the EU means in practice. Let me be clear. I welcome the mutual economic advantages that the internal market, the common market, entails. But no market advantages can weigh heavier than national sovereignty. No market advantages can justify tolerance towards what increasingly resembles an authoritarian system of government – especially not when one can have the former without the latter.

Madam Speaker! I request to note that the largest expenditure items in the EU are not market and innovation. They are "cohesion, resilience and values". At the same time, we pay between 25 and 30 billion kronor net to the EU. I want to make a few observations to exemplify what I am talking about here.

My first example concerns chat control. It is a proposal that would essentially make anonymous and secure communication impossible for ordinary citizens. They even went so far as to propose scanning messages before they were sent. Now they are moving more towards talking about age verification.

My second example concerns the Digital Services Act and the so-called democratic shield. One is completely open about wanting to limit the spread of actually completely legal expressions on the internet. One wants to give the EU more power over election administration and make persons without a democratic mandate into some kind of fact-checkers.

Example 3, example 4 and example 5 – the list can be long: Swedish forests, our cars and minimum wages in the member countries, for example.

Ahead of the upcoming budget, a new version of the crisis mechanism is also being presented, where a qualified majority shall apply for joint loans. In practice, this means that Sweden may, against its will, have to stand as guarantor for other countries' national debt. At the same time, Sweden votes yes to legislative changes in approximately 97 percent of cases. We are not alone in this, but it is a remarkably high figure.

If it continues in this direction, the Sverigedemokraternas old EU-critical election poster also continues to be true, namely that we kept the snuff but not the freedom.

Madam Speaker! Supranationality and authoritarian tendencies do not become anything good just because one wraps them in an EU flag. No! European cooperation should be about precisely trade and mutually beneficial agreements, not about supranationality and control of the continent's free nations.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Lindqvist (MP)

Madam Speaker! Throughout my entire life, we have talked about equality. Yet today, we hear more and more often that feminism has gone too far. But then I wonder: Too far in relation to what? We live in a society where women are still being murdered by men they are or have been in a relationship with. Young girls are sexualized, and women are subjected to threats, hate, and discrimination. And far too many still do not feel safe in their own homes.

As long as women are subjected to violence and oppression because of their gender, feminism has not gone too far. In that case, we still have a long way to go.

Madam Speaker! An equal society must also be the society that protects those who are subjected to violence. During the recent years, 37 shelters with connections to the women's shelter movement have closed. It is not just about activities that disappear, but it is also a question of a loss of experience, competence, and places where women can turn when they need to leave violence and threats.

We must be able to set requirements for quality and safety in our protected residences, but we must also provide the operations with the conditions to meet the requirements we set.

We need long-term and predictable funding for the women's shelters and a broader work against men's violence against women. When a woman finally gathers the courage to leave a violent relationship, it is precisely then that society needs to be there. Her opportunity to live a life in safety, without violence, without threats and without harassment, must never be determined by where she lives or if there happens to be money left in the municipality's budget. The same principle must apply beyond Sweden's borders. It cannot be that it depends on where you live.

In the 1960s, Swedish women traveled to Poland. At that time, Poland could offer the opportunity that Swedish legislation denied women. Today, the situation looks completely different. Women from Poland are forced to seek across borders to gain access to safe and secure abortion care. Therefore, initiatives such as My Voice, My Choice are so important. Over 1.2 million people have signed for the right to safe abortion within the EU.

Now there is the opportunity to use our EU funds to actually ensure women's safety. But it is not enough. It is not enough with solemn declarations and beautiful words on a piece of paper, we must ensure that we put them into practice. Sweden shall be the country that takes responsibility. We shall be prepared to offer safe and secure abortion care for women from other countries.

Abortion is healthcare. The right to one's own body should never depend on which country you happen to be born in or how much money you have. Sweden shall be and remain a pioneer in the fight for equality. As long as there are women who cannot live in safety, decide over their own bodies or shape their own lives, we have not done enough. It is not feminism that has gone too far, but it is equality that has fallen too short.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Vencu Öhrlund Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, we saw how support for the development of democracy around the world decreased. This also applies to the support from Sweden. I remember that during the election campaign, many from the then majority mocked us because we wanted to strengthen the work for democracy around the world. That is fine; one can have different opinions. But I am very proud that my party stands up for strengthening the democratic values we guard so fiercely here at home as well in the world.

Promoting democracy requires patience, will, and resilience. All over the world, there are states that want nothing more than for countries like Sweden to reduce support for civil society, that is, to reduce support for those who every day fight for a country as free as the one we live in.

Madam Speaker! One of these countries is Turkey. There is much to say about the country and the imprisonment of dissidents, but I will confine myself to the unlawful imprisonments of LGBTQ+ activists in recent weeks.

Over 200 people are imprisoned today following a coordinated attack from the Turkish state against LGBTQI organizations. Many social media accounts have been blocked. It is not the first time I have spoken in this rostrum about just LGBTQI activists in Turkey, and it certainly will not be the last.

Many Swedes share my view – and the views of many others – that everyone around the world should be able to live free lives. Where you were born should not dictate the conditions for how you can live your life. For that very reason, we in Sweden have for a long time committed to allocating a part of our prosperity to strengthen people's opportunities around the world. The democracy work being done in Turkey and in other countries depends on long-term and resilient support, and that is something the previous government totally failed in. The bourgeois government did what the bourgeoisie always does, namely weakens Sweden's voice internationally and thereby worsens the democracy work around the world.

It was remarkable during the last parliamentary term, especially during the election campaign, how one mocked aid projects that have been established to find ways for people to live the free life that everyone at least says they want to facilitate. Our international voice has become weaker, Madam Speaker, and it is noticeable not least in Turkey. The number of bilateral agreements with civil society, also hbtqi organizations in Turkey, decreased during the last parliamentary term from 20 to seven in one year.

I cannot emphasize enough how serious the situation in Turkey is. A friend of mine in Turkey has said: The entire society is a prison, and I just want freedom.

If we in Sweden can do something to make society less of a prison for hbtqi persons, it is our duty to do something. That was why, Madam Speaker, we Social Democrats in the election campaign campaigned to appoint an hbtqi envoy at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs who shall work strategically and in a coordinated manner to support hbtqi persons' human rights around the world.

I know that Sweden must be a voice around the world that not only defends the human rights of hbtqi persons but also fights for them. That is the only right thing, and it is also to stand up for a rules-based world order and build democratic resilience.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides and Therese Kristiansson (both S) agreed.

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

Peter Söderström (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to make a speech here today, and I have some thoughts and proposals on topics, including those concerning housing policy, labor market policy and policy concerning energy supply and infrastructure, to mention a few examples.

Mr. Speaker, I will instead take the opportunity to speak and reflect for a moment on something else, namely faith in the future. Perhaps it is a somewhat abstract subject, but I mean and actually dare even to assert that getting people to feel a clearer faith in the future is one of the great challenges of our time. Perhaps this applies primarily to the young generation, the one that is to come. Measurements from, among others, the Youth Barometer support this assertion. The proportion of young people who believe in the future of society has halved over the last ten years.

We are characterized by a world that provides us with amounts of information in real time. It is a constant flow to process, where worry often takes up more space than progress. It is a steadily recurring reporting of conflicts, crises and problems because it captures our attention.

Only one in four young people in Sweden experience that they have fairly large or large opportunities to influence society, a study from the Youth Barometer 2025 shows. In 2019, the figure was just over 50 percent. At the same time, concern for the future of democracy is growing, and more young people question democracy's ability to handle today's societal challenges.

Why there is a lack of faith and curiosity about the future today is a multi-layered issue, and I want to assert that it is our collective responsibility to take this perspective seriously and use a language that contributes to creating that vital faith in the future and that we all have the opportunity to shape it.

Unfortunately, I see and hear tendencies that people today do not have that feeling. It is likely a challenge we share with other countries, but that makes it no less important. Even from a preparedness perspective, it should be important to have a strong faith in society's ability.

We live in a good country, and we need to believe in and feel that there is an opportunity to influence the direction. There are still things that can be improved, but they will not improve by themselves. The message to convey is then that together we can build a future worth looking forward to.

Madam Speaker! The questions that follow for me from this are: How can I manage my time as an elected representative and in my own rhetoric contribute to building a trust so that my fellow citizens will feel secure, curious, and hopeful about the future? How do we use politics to convey the message that there actually is a possibility that tomorrow's society will be a little better than yesterday's? How can we together create a society where people want to bring children into the world and feel security regarding old age? The answers we have only ourselves, and they vary, of course, between us, even outside this chamber.

It feels good to be given the opportunity to highlight the issue here today. Even if I may perhaps generalize to some extent when it comes to how few in our present time feel a waning faith in the future, this question nevertheless gnaws at me. The question is also not applicable to a right-left scale but is more all-encompassing.

Our ambition should therefore be to, at every given opportunity, try to raise this perspective in debates and contributions on substantive political issues. We all remember that Karin Boye wrote:

There is goal and meaning in our journey – but it is the path that is worth the effort.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides and Therese Kristiansson (both S) agreed.

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

Therese Kristiansson (S)

Madam Speaker! At 01:42, a message was sent in a group on Snapchat that a young woman's body was available for anyone to exploit. 57 young men were in the group chat that night. No one raised the alarm. No one spoke out. No one stopped it.

Madam Speaker! Many agree that more must be done to stop men's violence against women. At the same time, it is something that is jarring. If we are now so in agreement about the seriousness, why does the issue not take up a larger place on the political agenda? Why are the political press conferences so few and the headlines likewise?

Madam Speaker! Every three weeks, a woman is murdered in Sweden by a man she has or has had a relationship with. But we know that the violence rarely begins there. The violence exists in schools, in workplaces, in homes, and online. Sexual harassment is normalized, jealousy becomes control, control becomes threats, and threats escalate into violence.

But this is not just about the men who commit the violence. It is also about those who see what is happening but choose not to act.

Madam Speaker! For four years, the Tidö government has spoken warmly about standing on the side of crime victims. At the same time, at least 37 voluntary protected shelters for women exposed to violence have been forced to close after new legal requirements were introduced without sufficient funding. Now, the women's shelters warn that there may be too few places and that women and children fleeing violence cannot receive the protection they need.

The placement of children in sheltered housing has also decreased in recent years, despite it becoming a crime in 2021 to let children witness violence in the home. A new report from the Swedish Crime Prevention Council shows that 72 percent of the children who were subjected to exactly this still live with the suspected perpetrator.

Madam Speaker! It is not enough to say that one stands on the side of crime victims if, at the same time, one does not provide those who protect the crime victims with the conditions to do their job. Now there is finally a majority in Sweden's Riksdag to significantly increase the support for the country's girls' and women's shelters and introduce a placement fee. It is important.

We must prevent violence among young people. We must strengthen the protection for vulnerable women and ensure that the perpetrators' freedom is restricted, not the women's. Men's violence against women is one of our greatest societal problems, and it must be treated as such.

Madam Speaker! I am thinking of all the 57 young men in the Snapchat group that night. I am thinking of the silence and of all those who did not speak out. We cannot change what happened that night. But we can decide what kind of society we want to be. Do we want to be a society that looks away or a society that acts? For those of us sitting in this chamber, it is our duty to never become yet another group of people who saw what happened but did not do enough to stop it.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides (S) agreed.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Madam Speaker! We live in historical times and find ourselves in the midst of a geopolitical shift in power where the international legal order is being challenged and the struggle for influence is intensifying. This is a power struggle that is not only played out on the battlefields. Even trade routes, energy supply, strategic natural resources and technological dependencies have become means of power.

Great powers are also shifting their positions. Authoritarian regimes use economic dependence to exert political pressure, and international institutions that have been built to establish peace and security are being continuously weakened. What we are witnessing is not just a changed balance of power; it is a struggle over which principles should govern the international world order. Is it to be international law and common rules of the game, or is it to be the right of the strongest?

In this situation, it is a serious strategic mistake to conclude that Sweden's security is best protected by us limiting our international engagement. When democracies withdraw, a neutral vacuum does not arise; instead, the space is filled by other actors with other interests.

This is one of the most important foreign policy conclusions we need to draw after the developments this summer. Sweden's security is not determined solely at our own borders but is also influenced by which powers gain influence, which institutions survive, and which societies manage to withstand oppression and conflicts.

Sweden needs a foreign policy that is present, strategic, and long-term – a foreign policy that builds alliances with democratic forces, defends international law even when it is inconvenient, and uses both the EU's collective strength and the UN's international legitimacy to prevent conflicts and secure peace. If we are not involved in shaping the world order that is now emerging, others will shape it for us, and we will have to submit to it.

Madam Speaker! I want to bring up another dimension that is given far too little space when it comes to long-term strategic thinking in foreign and security policy, and that is the children. Just during September, we have received devastating reports from Yemen, Ukraine, Sudan, Darfur, and Gaza. We are talking about hundreds of millions of children living in war zones.

Madam Speaker! We count the dead, we count the injured, and we count the number of people in flight. But there is something that is significantly harder to measure, and that is what happens to the children who survive. What happens to a generation that grows up with the violence of war as an everyday reality? What happens to children who have seen their parents killed, lost their schooling, or themselves been forced to commit abuses in order to survive?

We know that long-term exposure to violence and traumatic experiences affects children's development. It affects their ability to learn, create relationships, and feel trust in other people. The consequences do not stop there either.

Madam Speaker! For the Social Democrats, international solidarity is not about charity. It is about the equal value of all human beings and the insight that poverty, inequality, oppression, and instability do not stop at national borders. Therefore, children's rights, above all, should be a central part of how we assess the long-term significance of aid. It also needs to be a central part of our foreign and security policy, because if we invest in children, we build the peace of the future.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! It is easy to talk about freedom. It is harder to pay for it – to stand by it when it costs.

Ukraine enters its fifth war winter. Tonight, Russia attacked Ukraine with 39 ballistic missiles and 120 drones. The power supply was knocked out, the water supply as well, and this morning 600,000 Ukrainians woke up without electricity. But what is worse: There are families who have lost their loved ones. My deepest sympathy goes to them.

This was a Russian ballistic attack specifically aimed at the energy sector, for which the US President had declared a ceasefire. The attack was intentional and demonstrative. Russia has never before shown such disrespect towards the USA. It was a clear signal that Russia cannot imagine peace. It is therefore now time to react powerfully. Russia has wasted the opportunity for de-escalation and has clearly chosen to continue its insane war of annihilation.

Madam Speaker! The government's two-point plan is clear: more support for Ukraine and harder pressure on Russia. We shall choke off Russia's oil revenues, because Russia must pay a real price for its aggression.

The USA is still crucial for Europe's security and prosperity, and therefore we must now dare to ask questions of the American people. What does freedom mean if Ukraine is not allowed to decide its own future? What does moral leadership mean if the aggressor is rewarded while the victim is forced into concessions? Peace through strength must mean that the aggressor is pressured, not that the victim is abandoned.

Madam Speaker! The state's primary task is to protect its citizens and safeguard Sweden's security. When Russia now escalates its risk-taking and conducts hybrid warfare against Europe, our security policy course must be crystal clear. We shall strengthen cooperation with our allies, deepen our engagement in Nato, and increase our ability to defend our immediate vicinity – not decrease it.

Therefore, it was utterly surprising to read Magdalena Andersson's message in Politico, where she criticized the government for placing too much focus on the immediate vicinity. She desired instead more focus on the global south and designated the strategy "Sweden is Back". My most humble question is: Back to what? If Sweden shifts focus from our immediate vicinity and lowers the importance of Europe's security, we go back to a more dangerous time.

The question becomes even more relevant given that Vänsterpartiet may gain influence over a future government. The party opposed Sweden's NATO membership and wanted to leave the DCA agreement with the USA. This runs contrary to the need for a strong defense and close cooperation with our allies. How will the Socialdemokrater be able to guarantee Sweden's security if their government base wants to go in the opposite direction?

Madam Speaker! When the threat grows, our defense cooperation must be strengthened, not weakened. Freedom, after all, does not defend itself. Sweden's security begins in a free Ukraine and a stronger Europe.

(Applause)

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates speak of the global south as if it were a competitor to Europe's security. We know, however, that we can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time; we have done so before. Geopolitics does not work by pitting different parts of the world against each other. When Sweden withdraws from countries and regions where poverty, conflicts, and instability increase, a vacuum does not arise; instead, other actors move forward their positions to strengthen their wars – including China and Russia.

I therefore want to ask the Moderaterna: How does it strengthen Sweden's and Europe's security that we reduce our long-term influence in parts of the world where the geopolitical competition is becoming increasingly tougher?

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Azra for the question.

It is a justified question, but that was really not what my criticism was about. My criticism was that the Social Democrats, through Magdalena Andersson in the article in Politico, talk about that we have had too many resources in our immediate vicinity instead of spending more time in the global south, which I understood that Magdalena Andersson wants to do. It is this that my criticism is about.

You say it yourself, Azra: It is possible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time, and that is exactly what we must do. It is obvious that we should have good relations with Asia, Africa, and Latin America, but in this security policy situation, we must prioritize. To prioritize our immediate neighborhood and prioritize the support for Ukraine is what provides safety and security for Sweden and Sweden's inhabitants.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Madam Speaker! It sounds as if the upgrading of Sweden began when the Tidö government took office, but that is not true. Already in 2014, the Social Democrats began building up the defense again, because during the Reinfeldt government, that task was either forgotten or it was chosen to scale back.

There is no contradiction between standing up for Ukraine and understanding that Europe's security is determined by other countries. The question is why the Moderaterna believe that Sweden should reduce its presence just when the great powers are increasing their rivalry in the world.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to tell you about a scenario that is currently unfolding in Ukraine. It is not possible to get any grain out from the ports in Ukraine, because Russia is attacking so heavily.

Madam Speaker! I would like to proceed in that scenario and ask the members to consider what it would be like if we did not prioritize the support for Ukraine but let Russia destroy these outlets to Africa. This means that the food will not arrive, and it implies a greater catastrophe than we can oversee.

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

Malin Björk (V)

Madam Speaker! I must emphasize that there is an enormous consensus regarding the support for Ukraine. All the parties in the Riksdag, including the Left Party, stand firm on that support, and there is no reason to question any of the parties. Like the member, I have been to Ukraine and seen how the country, with courage and determination, resists Putin's war of aggression. It is extremely important that we continue to support it.

When our prime ministerial candidate Magdalena Andersson says that we also must have the global perspective, it is naturally about the fact that the Tidö government has abdicated regarding both international law and justice and the need to contribute actively to a world order where small states have the opportunity to make their voices heard, which is not the case in a world order where one allows the law of the strongest to dominate.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Björk for the question. I have not questioned the Left Party's ambitions and will to support Ukraine. I questioned the Left Party's policy regarding Nato and our security there. You want to work towards leaving Nato. You want to oppose the DCA agreements, which are absolutely crucial for us to receive help from the USA. That was my criticism.

I also want to mention the situation in Sudan. It is the most horrible catastrophe one can imagine. This is something that the government, with Maria Malmer Stenergard at the helm, has really tried to highlight, even though there has simultaneously been a crisis in Gaza and Ukraine. It is absolutely possible to hold several thoughts in one's head.

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

Malin Björk (V)

Madam Speaker! Again: It is no secret that we in Vänsterpartiet were not a strong advocate for Nato and do not think we should have these agreements with a completely unpredictable president in the USA. We would rather see strong cooperation in the immediate vicinity with the Nordic and European democracies. But that is nothing our party is pushing for today in that way.

We in Sweden shall ensure that we have a strong defense. But we shall also be a defender of international law, and in that, this government has actually failed.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! I am completely convinced that those listening know that this government stands up for international law in all situations. I hope that the member did not wish to convey that we are doing anything else.

I am very grateful for the one hundred percent support for Ukraine that is present here in the chamber. It is an existential question even for us that Ukraine stands free and independent.

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

Malin Björk (V)

Madam Speaker! Members of the House! We live in a restless world, with despots and men of absolute power. I am thinking, of course, of Putin, but also of Trump, who is unpredictable but at the same time consistent – consistent in undermining international law in favor of the law of the strongest. For small states like Sweden, there is no future in such a world order. We must stand up for international law and stand up for international regulatory frameworks that have been negotiated with great effort and with knowledge of the gravity of the situation. Many of these regulatory frameworks, such as the Geneva Convention on the rights of refugees, came into being in the aftermath of the Second World War. Others are newer, such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. All of them, in different ways, are about our continued existence.

But for Kristersson's government, the talk of following and defending international law has been a lip service. It is not enough. The determination that all Swedish parties have shown regarding Ukraine's sovereignty and Putin's war of aggression must prevail everywhere. One cannot have different standards when it comes to international law and international law.

Madam Speaker! Members of the House! Do you remember what this government did almost first of all? Yes, it abolished the feminist foreign policy, dancing to the tune of the Sweden Democrats. Apparently, women's rights and hbtqi rights were an eyesore for the entire Tidö. These very rights are being attacked more and more brutally. I think this is shameful.

Furthermore, we often hear from the government that action should be taken via the EU. I must be honest: the EU is not an institution one can hide behind. The EU is an institution one must be an active member of in order to shape what the EU does and what the EU does not do. Here, the government has failed. No measures have been taken to stop the genocide of Palestinians. Regarding climate policy, they have been a brake.

A new government, in which we in Vänsterpartiet are included, will restore Sweden's credibility in international contexts. We must ensure that Sweden once again becomes an independent voice that stands up for international law and justice and actively supports international institutions, not least the UN, in a time when they are attacked and undermined. We must ensure that Sweden in an EU context becomes a force that accelerates and does not brake. And, my friends, we must ensure that we reintroduce the feminist foreign policy.

Another basic principle in international politics naturally concerns aid. Even though we must have more structural measures to reduce global inequality, aid is an important piece of the puzzle. Even here, Kristersson's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy has been a complete catastrophe. This applies to both the level of aid and the direction. Tidö has, as you know, prioritized lowering taxes for the richest instead of investing in many other things here in society, not least aid. We have never been further from achieving the one percent goal. Furthermore, the international principles for aid policy have been abandoned.

A new government must change the direction and appropriations of aid and invest in ensuring that we reach the one percent goal. We will see to that. We will invest in feminist foreign policy, in sexual and reproductive health and rights, and in the rights of hbtqi persons. We will once again become a global voice for international law.

(Applause)

In this speech, Daniel Bernmar (V) concurred.

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

Martin Hallander (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today is 290 days since the large protests in Iran began. Millions of Iranians stood up against a malfunctioning economy. They stood up and protested against a brutal and despicable use of violence. A people rose to stand up for their freedom – their freedom to decide their own destiny. It is the same freedom that we, every single one in this chamber, count on and which makes it possible for us to stand here today. It is about a hope and a dream for a new generation of a better future.

We all know, however, what the answer was. The answer was terror – an extreme and indiscriminate violence against its own population. Tens of thousands of men and women, boys and girls were murdered by the Iranian terror regime. It is tens of thousands of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters who will never see their country become free. And even today, here and now as we stand here, Iran continues with executions of people who legitimately protest for their freedom. It is our duty to stand up for them.

The Iranian people's struggle is also our own. When the Iranian people cry out for freedom, we must stand up and say: We stand behind you! We must act. We must act with powerful sanctions, give international legitimacy to the opposition, and cooperate with the forces and states that are fighting for a democratic shift.

Madam Speaker! It is not up to us or me to decide who should rule Iran or what the country's form of government should look like; that right belongs to the Iranian people and only them. But it would nevertheless be an act of arrogance on our part to ignore the millions of Iranians on streets and squares around the world who point to Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as the man they want to see lead the country through a transitional period toward democracy and free elections. We should support and listen to them.

To those who do not believe that this conflict affects us here in Sweden, I want to say two things.

First of all: A people's freedom is our common responsibility.

Secondly: Iran's terror regime does not only threaten the country's own population. It is a regime that supports Russia's heinous war of aggression against Ukraine, which supports and sponsors terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and which has a very active intelligence service here in Sweden, where it threatens and has even attempted to murder Swedish citizens of Iranian background. If this is not a threat to us, I wonder what is.

Let me therefore conclude with the words: Long live freedom in Iran! May the Islamic Republic fall and be banished to the dustbin of history as a footnote and a terrible time for a completely fantastic civilization!

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

Bassem Nasr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Martin Hallander gave a speech that I largely agree with, not least when it comes to the terror regime and its abuses against the Iranian population.

Another thing, which was not mentioned but which I know Hallander agrees with, is that many disappearances occur. People disappear, and one does not even dare to ask what has happened to them.

Hallander speaks about how this affects us in Sweden in two ways. It is about how one people's freedom is everyone's freedom, and it is about the terror regime's tentacles and activity in Sweden. But it also affects us in Sweden in a third way, namely by us deporting people to Iran. People who have come here as teenagers have since been deported.

I therefore want to ask Hallander whether, based on what he has now told about the terror regime in Iran and the terrible situation there, he will act so that Sweden will produce legislation which means that we do not deport people to such countries.

(Applause)

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

Martin Hallander (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Bassem Nasr, for the question!

The question is naturally very important, and it is naturally important that there are legally secure ways for authorities and courts to ensure that people are allowed to stay in Sweden if there are grounds for protection.

I do not think that the right way is necessarily to point out countries in different ways. If one has grounds for protection based on the reasons that exist in legislation and international conventions, one also has the right to be in Sweden.

The deportations of teenagers are a very pressing issue for the entire chamber. New legislation has just come into effect, and I think it is too early to say what the exact consequences of it have been. That is something to be seen, and it is something to be evaluated.

It is clear that it is important that there are legally secure and good ways for people who have genuine grounds for asylum to also be able to stay in Sweden. I am myself a product of this, and I know that Bassem Nasr is as well. It is important that there are legally secure and good processes.

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

Bassem Nasr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I still notice a contrast between what was said first and what was said later. It is clear that the whole thing must be carried out in a legally secure manner. But it is we who sit here who decide what the legislation shall look like, and it does not become less legally secure because it is more humane.

I therefore want to once again pose the question to Hallander: Will the member act so that Sweden receives more humane migration laws so that we do not deport people to countries such as Iran?

(Applause)

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

Martin Hallander (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

Somewhere it is important that we have legislation that works. People who have a right to asylum shall be granted asylum, but people who do not have a right to asylum shall not be granted asylum, and they shall leave the country. It is an important basic principle.

This concerns people from Iran, where there will certainly be an increased need. We also have incredibly many people from Iran who are already in Sweden and who have received international protection. That question is still important to address.

I do, however, think that Sweden has a humane migration policy, and that is what we should continue with. But it is also a matter of having reason and sense in the debate.

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

Gurgin Bakircioglu (MP)

Madam Speaker! Turkey has found a rather practical way to handle troublesome political competition. They speak warmly of democracy while two of the country's most well-known opposition politicians are forced to follow the election campaigns from prison – a way to avoid uncomfortable follow-up questions from opponents in a TV debate.

On November 4 – quite soon – Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ will have been deprived of their liberty for ten years. It is ten years of birthdays, school graduations, and completely ordinary Tuesdays with family that they will never get back.

This is part of a longer story. The parliamentary opposition movement that has stood up for Kurds, Assyrians/Syrians, Armenians and many other groups that have been affected by Seyfo, the genocide of 1915, LGBTQ+ persons and many other minority groups has been represented by HEP, DEP, Hadep, DTP, HDP and today's DEM – that is many letters! Several of the parties I just mentioned have been banned, while others have been reorganized. In Turkey, one hardly has time to order coffee mugs with the party name before it is time to print new ones.

The European Court of Human Rights has established that Demirtaş's deprivation of liberty had an impermissible political purpose and has demanded his release. Turkey has had plenty of time to read the judgment. It therefore does not seem to be the reading speed that is the problem in Turkey or with Erdoğan.

As late as September, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers again demanded that both Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ be released immediately. At the same time, Turkey is speaking of peace – this has been very significant internationally – ahead of the upcoming national election, which is to take place in 2028 but could be moved forward to 2027.

Even Erdoğan's ultranationalist ally, Devlet Bahçeli, has said that Demirtaş should be allowed to come home. It is quite remarkable that even a party that has made itself known for its fascism has said that Demirtaş should be released. But peace also presupposes that the opposition is allowed to organize and participate in an election.

Madam Speaker! In 2023, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party, and we in the Green Party wanted the Riksdag to explicitly urge the government to act. The Moderates, the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, and the Sweden Democrats opposed the announcement, but the majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs nevertheless assumed an active effort for Demirtaş's release. Within Swedish politics, one has thus succeeded in being principally in agreement while simultaneously discussing exactly how much agreement one is allowed to have on paper.

During the NATO application, the Swedish criticism of Turkey was absent, very cautious, or hardly existent. Now we are sitting at the same table, and the good thing about sitting at the same NATO table should still be that one should actually be able to say something to each other. A NATO alliance is not a subscription to uncritical appreciation. The responsibility applies regardless of whether the government is led by Ulf Kristersson or Magdalena Andersson.

After nearly ten years, Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ do not need any more beautiful Swedish formulations about how they should be free. They need to become free. Sweden needs to continue to work for that in the EU, in the Council of Europe, and directly with Turkey.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mursal Isa (MP) agreed.

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

Paul Sabo (KD)

Madam Speaker! No human being should have to choose between their cross and their life. Yet, that is the reality for many Christians in parts of the world today. Churches are attacked, families are displaced, and in some parts of the world, Christians are left with three choices: to convert, pay a penalty tax, or die. My message is very simple. Sweden's voice for persecuted Christians must be so clear that no perpetrator can ever count on our silence.

Madam Speaker! In 1915, Christians in the Ottoman Empire were subjected to genocide. Syrians/Assyrians/Chaldeans, Armenians and Greeks were murdered and expelled because of one thing: their Christian faith. Lives that had been built up over generations were destroyed, and approximately 80 percent of the Syrian/Assyrian/Chaldean group were murdered. We know this tragedy as Seyfo, which means the sword in our ancient language.

For me, with roots in both the Syrian/Assyrian and the Armenian community, this is a history that lies very close. It lives on in our families and in our churches, and it becomes extra relevant when we see and hear about the spread of Islamism in Sweden.

Acknowledging and remembering genocide is also about what responsibility we take today. When abuses are denied and perpetrators escape responsibility, the protection for the next generation is weakened. Therefore, memory must be followed by action.

Madam Speaker! The Middle East is the cradle of Christianity. Christians have lived there as Christians for around 2,000 years. They have a right to a future there, a right to practice their faith and a right to participate in society as equal citizens. Yet, war, persecution and insecurity have forced many to leave their homes. In June last year alone, the Mar Elias Church in Damascus was attacked during an ongoing service. People who had gathered to pray never made it home again. Just a few weeks ago, new attacks occurred against civilians in the Christian town of al-Suqaylabiyah, which truly underscores how urgent protection is even today.

Madam Speaker! For me as a Christian Democrat, the starting point is the inviolable value of the human being. Freedom of religion belongs to everyone. It must also apply to the one who is in the minority, the one who lacks influence, and the one whose prayer awakens the perpetrator's hatred. Behind every report we read about persecution, there is a human being: a mother who worries about sending her children to church, a family who once again considers leaving their home, or a congregation that wonders if it will still exist in ten years. No one should have to grow up with that fear, and no one should have to abandon the place where the family has lived for generations in order to be able to live openly with their faith.

Christians in Syria and the Middle East belong in their countries. Their churches, languages, and identity are a living part of the region's history and future. Their right to be there is self-evident.

Madam Speaker! When I speak of Seyfo, I speak of a history that still hurts. Although it has now been 111 years since the genocide, the sorrow remains with us, as does the disappointment that a proper restitution has not yet occurred. The memory of those who were killed obliges us to see those who are threatened today. My absolute conviction is that Sweden has a great responsibility to stand on the side of the weak. Christians in the Middle East shall have a future in their home countries, and no human being shall ever have to choose between their cross and their life.

(Applause)

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Madam Speaker! The Ecumenical Companion Program was created at the initiative of church leaders in Jerusalem. For more than 20 years, it has contributed an international presence to protect civilians, including Palestinian Christians. In 2025, Sida's funding ceased, and the operations were forced to be paused. Since then, it has been resumed on a smaller scale.

My question is: How does the member view the consequences of Sweden withdrawing the funding at the same time as the settler violence increased and the Christian Democrats actually sat in the Tidö Government?

(Applause)

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

Paul Sabo (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

When it comes to the support for Sida and other organizations, we, as the members surely know, have sat in government with three parties. The Christian Democrats' policy is that aid should be at 1 percent, precisely to help vulnerable groups in the rest of the world. Unfortunately, we do not have 51 percent, but this is the Christian Democrats' policy.

Regarding the settlers on Västbanken, the Christian Democrats have quite recently been out and criticized the settlements through our party leader Ebba Busch. We have, therefore, criticized this.

I would like to hear what the member thinks about the ongoing violence against Christians in the Middle East by, for example, Islamists.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats always stand up for all people's equal value, regardless of religion.

I noted that the member did not answer the question regarding what consequences he assesses his party's government decisions have had. Therefore, I want to ask about the Christian village of Taybeh, where there are reports of settler violence, land encroachment, and families who risk being forced away from their homes. What concrete measures does the member believe Sweden and the EU should take to protect these Palestinian Christians from settler violence and forced displacement?

(Applause)

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

Paul Sabo (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe I have answered the member's question.

We can go back to something that happened not so long ago. In 2014, Stefan Löfven was in Södertälje and promised the population there that in the government he would drive seyfo as genocide. A few years later he was there again with an active decision from the Socialdemokraternas congress not to drive seyfo as genocide. One only has to check it up.

The question you can ask yourself, Azra Muranovic, is which side of history one wants to be on.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have had the privilege for a very long time, since around 2000, to be able to visit Ukraine. I have been there on a number of occasions and given lectures to young people who have dreamed of democracy and freedom and of becoming a part of Europe. I was there before the Orange Revolution. I had the privilege of being there for an entire week during Euromaidan. I was also in Ukraine a couple of days before the major Russian escalation.

During all these trips and in all these contexts, I have met, above all, young people in different political parties, from the left to the far right. I have had the privilege of talking to them about how Sweden is built, about how we are organized and about our local democratic system. There has been a great interest. What I experience in Ukraine is that one has a dream. One even has a concept for it: the European man – and not man in the sense of gender but human, the European human. One dreams of being part of something larger that stands for peace and freedom.

I have therefore also had the privilege, even if it is an unpleasant privilege, to be present when we in this chamber, in one hundred percent agreement, with the exception of the first vote, voted for the various defense packages for Ukraine. I want to praise ourselves for that, because it is not all countries in Europe that manage to do that. Above all, the USA does not manage to do that, in connection with previous remarks on international law. This chamber has, however, stood up together when it comes to the horrific atrocities that are ongoing.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, my experience is that Sweden, Europe, and Nato generally are intervening with too little and too late. Somewhere we should have learned, and not just from World War II. My mother worked at the Migration Agency when we had the terrible situation in the Balkans. I have many friends from the Balkans, many of whom, especially women, have been able to testify to terrible sexual assaults and how closely and dearly they were murdered by the Serbian forces. We see exactly the same situation now in Ukraine.

I have time and again, both here in the chamber, in the form of motions and in posts on social media, tried to say that we should do more. I was an early advocate for talking about sending Jas. Then I was told that it was unreasonable. Today we finally have such an agreement.

Madam Speaker! There are seven measures that I believe we would need to take, which we need to drive, and which I hope will become European policy.

Stop all Russian tourist and business visas to Europe.

Close the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea to all trade with Russia.

Establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. We have done this previously in other conflicts, and we should be able to do it here as well.

Deploying a peacekeeping troop between Ukraine and Vitryssland – or Belarus as one can also say, but I deliberately choose Vitryssland because it is currently a regime there that I do not stand behind. According to international law, one has the right to request support and assistance. The EU or Nato could very well deploy forces on the Ukrainian side that protect against Belarus. It would lower the ability to threaten.

Protect Ukrainian shipping in the Black Sea so that we can manage trade.

Ensuring long-term military support.

Ensuring long-term civil support.

We must do more, and we must do it now.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, I believe that Putin's regime must be destroyed.

(Applause)

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

Johan Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Defense policy is an issue that truly affects us all. It has truly been accentuated recently. From having a defense that was restructured to a completely different organization due to the so-called golden peace, we now have a situation where events that have occurred in our global environment have caused us to invest significantly more in defense than we have historically.

We have a defense industry in Sweden that today employs approximately 22,000 workers, partly directly linked to companies, partly indirectly through subcontractors and other means.

A year ago, on October 22, we adopted a defense industry strategy here in this chamber by broad agreement. It was a strategy that we Social Democrats had worked a lot to get through. We believe that the state must also take a major responsibility when it comes to the industrial investments.

Today we are world-leading in many respects in these areas. We are good when it comes to submarines, artillery, combat vehicles, advanced sensors, robots and combat aircraft. It is important that we develop the Swedish defense industry.

We also see that this is something that also benefits the civil market. Several technical gains within defense materiel can also be used in the civil market. It is important that we sharpen this.

We Social Democrats think it is important that we also gain control over production in the defense materiel industry. We have pointed out that we want state ownership in strategically important matters when it comes to the defense industry. It is primarily Saab that we have talked about.

Saab faces a huge challenge ahead regarding the future of combat aircraft. Everyone knows the Viggen, the Draken, and the Tunnan, and now we also have the Gripen – very good and evolving deliveries that one has been fantastically skilled at developing and which have also grown and today are exported to many countries, and for some time now also to Ukraine.

It is truly a matter of building further on this. I come from Östergötland, where the aviation capital Linköping is located, and when it rains on the priest, it splashes on the bell ringer – or however one puts it. We have very many small industries in Östergötland that are subcontractors and are also affected by this. Here, it is truly a matter of stimulating so that more can deliver to the defense and to the defense industry.

There are, therefore, many parts. We Social Democrats will follow this based on our strategy and the direction that the transitional government gave linked to that part, where we were also politically in agreement in the Riksdag, in order to ensure that the strategy is truly realized fully.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Göthberg (M)

Madam Speaker! A telegram arrived from Aftonbladet tonight at two o'clock stating that two people were killed and 20 injured in Russian attacks against Kyiv. 16 people are being treated in hospitals after a nine-story building was hit in another Russian attack.

It is one thing to read about the war, which is now soon entering its fifth year. It is another thing to do what many of my colleagues here in the chamber have done with me, that is, to be on the ground in Kyiv to support and see what Sweden can do more so that Ukraine can win. There, one can also see a city that lives, where the cafes remain open and where the dream of Europe still persists despite the massive attacks that have occurred over so many years.

In January, Military Times interviewed Ukrainian soldiers at the front about the peace negotiations, which had then been initiated by the USA. One of them said that he would never support a peace agreement that means his children could be forced to fight against the same enemy that his father and he himself had fought. That is worth taking in: three generations against the same enemy. Still, Ukraine perseveres.

Madam Speaker! Security is not a one-time effort. The support for Ukraine is broad and great, not least in this chamber. It is a strength for Ukraine, and it is a strength for Sweden. But we know how quickly it can shift in defense policy. I am glad that Johan Andersson raised exactly the position and importance of the defense industry, but it has not always sounded that way.

In the defense decision of 2004, the Social Democratic government decommissioned massive amounts of war units. In Gothenburg, the helicopters disappeared from Säve airport. The local Social Democrats were obviously against it, but they did not have much to say when the Social Democratic eagerness to decommission gained a foothold.

We know that it costs to upgrade. Support for this is compact in the chamber. We shall know that, and we shall take it with us. But we shall also carry with us that the essence of the upgrade of the military and civil defense in Sweden right now is not just about frigates, aircraft, drones and technical systems. It begins fundamentally with the individual person's will to defend, with the conscript who has stepped up at Amf 4 at home in Gothenburg, with the officers who train the next generation of soldiers and with the home guard man or home guard woman who always stands ready.

On March 7, 2024, Madam Speaker, Sweden became a full member of Nato. After decades of non-alignment, we found our home with the largest shift in security policy since 1809. Membership in Nato is a major commitment. Sweden has contributed, shall contribute, and will contribute to Nato becoming safer and, thereby, also our part of the world becoming safer.

This is where it starts to get a bit complicated. As is known, a government formation process is underway, and a Prime Minister is to be voted on in this chamber tomorrow. What will Social Democratic security policy look like, if the worst happens and a government is formed?

We know that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet are against Sweden's NATO membership. The Socialdemokratern, on the other hand, have pushed for Swedish membership on good grounds and with good results. This creates a security policy divide, Madam Speaker. One cannot both have the cake, eat it, and at the same time think about something else.

Sweden cannot risk being affected by the uncertainty that such a security policy line would entail if the worst were to happen. Our allies should not have to wonder what actually applies.

In contrast to this, there is a broad consensus in defense policy. It is worth noting, not least because it strengthens Sweden, our defense, and our support for Ukraine.

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

Johan Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Gustaf Göthberg, for your speech! There were some questions in it that I reflected upon.

One was about when we, in the middle of the 00s, phased out previous defense decisions. I myself was active as a municipal politician in Östergötland. There, we were also hit very hard. Linköping phased out three large regiments with everything that entailed.

Afterward, one must nevertheless say that in the vast majority of places, it was handled in a good way. New activities moved in. One filled in with other things, everything from housing to administrative premises and so on.

Now we are instead facing an expansion. We Social Democrats have proposed a few areas. Kiruna is one such area. Gotland is another. And we would very much like to have a regiment in Kvarn.

Gustaf Göthberg did not mention much about that, but today it is difficult to get the Armed Forces on board with this. It feels like they want free rein. How does Gustaf Göthberg view this?

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

Gustaf Göthberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, my dear colleague Johan Andersson, whom I would like to take the opportunity to praise! We have a strong and fine cooperation in defense policy in the Swedish Riksdag. It is well worth remembering and reminding that we are eight parties who jointly stand up for the Swedish defense policy and the defense line.

I was about to say that we have it quite cozy together. Fundamentally, we agree with each other and work broadly together for Sweden's interest and Sweden's best. It is important to keep that in mind in this discussion.

Then we come to the famous bone of contention: a new regiment in Kiruna and a new regiment in Kvarn in Östergötland. The question has been addressed. The Defence Preparation Board has been involved in it and discussed and reasoned about it among themselves. It has been concluded that new organizational units are not prioritized in the buildup that the Swedish defense is currently in. It is more important to get a bit more bang for the buck in Swedish defense policy.

Then things can change. That is something Johan Andersson does not know, at least. Then one might have reason to return to that.

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

Johan Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gustaf Göthberg, for the answer!

Now a new defense preparation has been installed, and we are naturally hopeful that the questions about locations of establishment will arise again. Of course, it is very much about bang for the buck. Incredibly large orders are in the pipeline, unfortunately with long delivery times. I look forward, however, with confidence to a new defense decision or a decision in the Defense Preparation.

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

Gustaf Göthberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I can only agree. I look forward with great interest to what the Defence Preparation Committee will land on.

Johan Andersson pointed out that we should not give the Armed Forces full autonomy in the matter, but that there must also be room for political guidance. I can fundamentally agree with that attitude. But most importantly, it is the Armed Forces that should set the framework and specify the standard for what is actually needed. That is how we get bang for the buck and a strong will for defense. To be continued.

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

Denice Westerberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! In Jämtland, an American tech billionaire has recently purchased 15,000 hectares of Swedish land, an area approximately as large as the entire land area of Malmö municipality, with a price tag of 240 million kronor. It concerns mountains, forests, and lands where people have lived, hunted, and hiked for generations.

When the deal became known, several local hunting clubs were informed that their hunting rights would not be extended. For people who have lived with the forest as a self-evident part of their existence, the change of ownership meant a sudden and great uncertainty.

The buyer has since informed local hunters that new hunting grounds will be offered. That is obviously positive, but it does not change the fundamental question of how much of our country's land and natural resources should be allowed to be gathered in the hands of foreign, capital-rich interests.

Madam Speaker! I have nothing against foreign investments. Sweden is a country that has built much of its prosperity on trade, entrepreneurship, and openness towards the rest of the world. But there must be a difference between investing in the Swedish economy and acquiring significant parts of the Swedish territory.

The forest is not just any asset. It is a part of our country's history, our economy, our future and, perhaps most importantly, our freedom as individual persons. Property rights are fundamental. But it is also our responsibility as legislators here to determine which conditions shall apply for future acquisitions. For me, it is ultimately about stewardship – about ensuring that what we have inherited from previous generations will also remain for those who come after us.

There is also a security policy dimension.

In Västerås, the location of a Russian Orthodox church next to the airport has raised serious security questions. The municipality has requested to take over the property, and the matter is still with the government. In a situation where Russia is conducting a full-scale war of invasion in Ukraine, in our immediate vicinity, Sweden must have the possibility to protect strategically important sites and critical infrastructure.

What I have raised here now are just two examples, but they bring into focus the same overarching question: What control should Sweden have over the land within our own national borders?

I therefore believe that the rules for foreign acquisitions need to be tightened, for our country's security and future in both times of peace and war. Sweden is more than just a place on the map. Our land is not just an economic asset. It is a heritage to manage and a responsibility to pass on.

(Applause)

In this speech, Kevin Sahlin and Leonid Yurkovskiy (both SD) agreed.

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

Nila Vikhe Patil (MP)

Madam Speaker! In a restless and uncertain global situation, cooperation is more important than ever. It is true that Miljöpartiet did not want to join Nato. But now we are in, and we are making the best of the situation.

The major actors, Russia, China and the USA, repeatedly show that they disregard international law and the international order that we have built up. It is important that both Sweden and the EU stand strong in the defense of our and Ukraine's freedom and that we together stand up for justice and democracy in Europe and the world.

In this serious security policy situation, Sweden needs to strengthen its total defense and its cooperation with other democratic countries to defend democracy and our rights. Miljöpartiet has stood behind all important defense decisions since the reconstruction gained momentum in 2015, and we are prepared to continue contributing constructively in the defense deliberations.

To increase Sweden's security, we must build a robust society with resilience. We need a strong total defense, both a military and a civil defense, with strong institutions and a strengthened sense of community. Crises and wars can, in the worst case, hit us simultaneously. We need to prepare society for storms as well as for pandemics and secure a strong welfare.

After the Cold War, the world moved towards disarmament and diplomatic dialogue. Support for the UN and the international order was strong, and democracy was on the march. To disarm was also to show a belief that another way was possible.

But Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the great powers' return to a world order where the strong take what they want has changed that picture. The world order we have built, based on international law, has been put out of play. Democracy and freedom are retreating drastically in the world. These factors mean that a strong military defense is absolutely necessary to protect democracy and freedom in Europe. A credible total defense is a protection for our values and our population.

Miljöpartiet has worked hard so that Sweden will also invest in civil defense – a strong civil defense with a robust healthcare system, a stable energy system, and a well-developed rescue service that can protect our population against crises other than war, such as forest fires, floods, or pandemics.

Investing solely in military defense is a dead end. To increase our security, Sweden must also invest heavily in diplomacy and conflict prevention. We must strengthen the UN's role when the great powers disregard international law. Investing in aid to reduce poverty and prevent climate change and conflicts in other parts of the world is also a security policy investment for Sweden.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! A society does not become stronger by a few getting more while more are left without jobs and welfare is pushed back. A society becomes stronger when more get the opportunity to support themselves, children get a good start in life, the one who becomes ill receives care, and the elderly can rely on care. This is the social democratic basic idea: We build a stronger society when more get freedom and opportunities and when we take collective responsibility for the security we all need.

Economic policy is never just about numbers; it is about what kind of society we want to be. After four years with the Tidö parties, Sweden has seen higher unemployment, underperformed regarding growth, and received larger deficits in the state's finances. Half a million people are now unemployed. It is not just about numbers. It is about people who want to work, support themselves, and be a part of society.

For us, employment is about freedom. Everyone who can work should have the opportunity to do so. Own work provides independence and power over one's own life. When more people work, the economy is also strengthened and the possibility to finance the welfare is increased. Therefore, education that leads to jobs, investments that develop Sweden, and better conditions for companies to grow are needed.

Madam Speaker! We must also use our common money correctly. Tax money should go to what it is intended for: a school where children receive support, healthcare when we need it, and elderly care with time for the elderly – not profits in the school, companies that cheat their way to public contracts, or criminals who exploit the welfare system. Therefore, we want to stop the profit-seeking in schools and preschools, choke the criminal economy, clean up in public procurement, and reduce unnecessary administration.

It is about respect for the taxpayers and about justice. It is not reasonable that welfare staff should have to save and run faster while billions are lost through fraud, waste, excess profits, and criminal exploitation. Those who safeguard the welfare must also stop the waste.

Madam Speaker! We want a society where no one is left alone when they become ill, where children get a good start and where the elderly can age with dignity – where welfare provides security and opportunities, regardless of income or place of residence. We want a stronger welfare in the whole country. It is good for the people, for social cohesion and also for the Swedish economy. When more people receive education, work and the opportunity to contribute and when we strengthen welfare, we make better use of the whole country's strength.

Sweden needs a new economic direction: more people in work, responsible use of tax money, and investments that build the country strong.

We Social Democrats take responsibility for the economy. But we also know what the economy is for. It should not just make the numbers add up. It should also make society hold together. That is how we build a more equal and egalitarian Sweden, where more people can stand on their own two feet and one can trust that the welfare is there when it is needed.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides and Leif Nysmed (both S) concurred.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is rising again.

I have met countless young people who have grown up in a Sweden where problems have accumulated and hope has faded. There has been a feeling that no one is really doing anything about the problems, that no one is tackling what is not working and that politics is not up to the task. It has been about someone being shot to death every week, that the money is not enough to both fuel the tractor and go out with friends on the weekend, that one feels unsafe on the way home from training or the club, that it is so rowdy in school that one cannot learn and that there are no jobs.

These young people have now streamed in by the thousands as voters for the Moderaterna and as members of the Moderata Ungdomsförbundet. Why? Well, because over the last four years, problems have been solved. Shootings have decreased by 75 percent, and the number of police officers is increasing. Fuel has gone from the world's most expensive to Europe's cheapest. Healthcare queues have shrunk by 40 percent. Unemployment is falling. Integration is improving. Reforms are making a difference. The young people have felt that the politics might actually be managing this and that we might manage this together.

Hope is not a beautiful fairy tale alongside the problems. Hope is the solution to the problems. Hope is a reality and an everyday life that becomes better step by step. It is the feeling of a restored conviction that we as a country, as a people, as a union, as a team of workers, as a family and as human beings will manage.

Sweden is rising, but we have a long way to go. We need to do as we have always done when faced with trials and problems. We need to work our way through the difficulties.

There is no more solidary act than to set the alarm and go to work. There is no fairer way to distribute wealth than through work.

The work line is that work must always pay off and pay off more than benefits, that everyone who can work shall work and that everyone who works shall be able to live on their wages.

Now we need to hold the work line. Some will try to entice you with that you do not need to exert yourself and that it will work even if we do not strike – we can certainly work a bit less. They will tell you that the work you perform will pay off less and that you do not need to receive quite so much salary for the effort. Do not listen to them! They are trying to trick you. They are trying to lead you behind the light.

The truth is that it will be tough, difficult, painful, and harsh. It is the price we will have to pay for a better future for ourselves and for our children. But we promise that your effort will pay off. We will not just manage. We will win.

The work line is not only the solution to Sweden's problems. The work line is also the path to the best Sweden can become. The work line is you and I – when we go to work, use our skills and our abilities in service to others and do what is best for ourselves and what is best for Sweden. The very simple reason is that Sweden is at its best when Sweden works.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to hear Oliver Rosengren. We have had an election. The voters have signaled that they want to see a different direction. So do I.

It felt as if Oliver Rosengren in his speech was very satisfied with the results, despite the fact that unemployment has increased by almost 100,000, despite the fact that the national debt increased by 200,000 kronor per minute during the entire parliamentary term, and despite the fact that our Swedish economy has underperformed.

I just want to ask Oliver Rosengren: What is it in the results that he means the Swedish people should be satisfied with?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! When we received the voters' confidence to get Sweden in order in 2022, Sweden had an inflation of 10 percent. We had a weak economy and low growth. Swedish growth was at the bottom of Europe's scrap heap. Now, instead, it is at peak levels. It is 3 percent growth during the year, according to the latest forecasts.

Unemployment has decreased every month and is now at the lowest levels since 2023. We have a structural unemployment, i.e., an underlying unemployment beyond the cyclical fluctuations, which is decreasing for the first time in 20 years. According to the expert agency Konjunkturinstitutet, it is a result of us having gotten the benefit migration under control, that we have achieved better establishment of newcomers, and that we have strengthened the drivers for work through lowered taxes on labor and a reformed a-kassa.

None of this was achieved by the Social Democrats during the eight years they governed Sweden. What was done instead? We can return to that in the next exchange of remarks.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that we have completely different perceptions of reality. That is perhaps why Oliver Rosengren is satisfied and I am not satisfied.

Inflation has gone down – absolutely. It has done so in the entire area. It would have done so with our budget as well. But what the Tidö Government actually has not managed to do is lift the Swedish economy out of the recession, and unemployment has increased. Not even during the pandemic did we have a lower increase in employment than with the Tidö Government. That is, after all, underperforming.

What is Oliver Rosengren satisfied with?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is possible that we have somewhat different pictures of reality.

You abandoned newly arrived women, who could hardly read in their own language, in areas of exclusion. An app was the only help from society – after you had dismantled Arbetsförmedlingen. Now we have reinstated Arbetsförmedlingen. Now we have tightened requirements and controls. Now we ensure that everyone who is unemployed receives a personal contact, that the interventions increase, and that the motivation to work is strengthened in the compensation systems.

For you, labor market policy is to hide and forget people who are unemployed in exclusion. It will never be our answer because we know that everyone is needed.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Elfström (C)

Madam Speaker! That people work and contribute is the foundation of wealthy societies and for Sweden to be able to deliver in everything. It is about defense investments, about the climate transition, and about a healthcare system that is there when you need it.

But a first job is more than that. It is about gaining experience, independence, colleagues and faith in the future – not least for Sweden's young people. But for many young people, the path into the labor market has become all too difficult. Unemployment in Sweden is consistently high, and all too many who want to work never get the chance to enter the labor market.

Youth unemployment has apparently stalled at a gloomy European record. Nearly one in four young people is unemployed.

Madam Speaker! This is not a law of nature. It is the consequence of political choices and priorities. The thresholds to a first job are too high. The connection between studies and working life is too weak. At the same time, smaller companies face costs and red tape that make them hesitate to hire. The result is that people who want to work are held back, while companies that want to grow are not given the right conditions. This is bad both for young people and for the Swedish economy.

We in the Center Party do not just want to sugarcoat and speak in grand words. We also want to solve the problems through three concrete reforms.

Firstly, it shall become cheaper to employ young people. We want to remove the employment tax for young people and for those with low wages. When an employer considers giving someone the chance to enter the labor market for the first time, the policy should facilitate and not complicate. We can tax things that are bad, such as environmental emissions and environmental toxins. But we shall not tax companies that employ.

Secondly, we shall make it easier for small companies to grow and hire. Many first jobs are created in small and medium-sized companies that are growing. It is the companies in the local area, the shop around the corner, or the craftsman who is expanding, that give young people their first opportunity. There, we want to remove the employment tax for the first ten employees in growing companies and reduce the red tape that holds back growth and new hires.

Thirdly, we must build stronger bridges between studies and working life. It is an area where Sweden has underperformed for far too long. There are examples if we just look across a bridge to Denmark. There, they have introduced a system with student employees. No young person should complete their education without contact with working life. We therefore want to introduce student employees as a new form of employment so that more can gain relevant experience already during their studies.

Madam Speaker! Young people do not need more lectures. They need opportunities. Companies do not need bureaucracy. They need better conditions to hire. It is time for a policy that makes it easier to get your first job, easier for companies to grow, and easier to go from studies to self-sufficiency.

The Center Party will always choose more paths to jobs for young people. It is not only good for them. It is good for the companies, and therefore it is also good for Sweden.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the previous speaker, for a speech that is in line with what I am going to say!

I live in the heart of the Gnosjö spirit. I am proud of the world-leading companies that have emerged there. But I am also proud of the small and medium-sized companies that create jobs and generate tax revenues for the welfare system.

In the heart of the Gnosjö spirit, we know what a job can mean. It is, of course, salary and experience, but also community, faith in the future, and a place in society. More young people in work means fewer young people at risk of being recruited into criminal networks. The youth are important for companies to find the employees of the future. Therefore, the Kristdemokraterna want to permanently lower the employer contribution for young people aged 16–22.

For many companies, it is about daring to hire a young person, giving that person their first chance and investing in the future. Permanently lowering the employer contribution for young people improves the conditions for many to give youth their first job. A permanent reduction of the employer contribution for young people also gives the companies more long-term and predictable conditions, which is not at all unimportant when they are to plan their operations and make decisions about future recruitments.

The Gnosjö spirit is precisely about this, seeing opportunities, daring to invest, and creating jobs through entrepreneurship. But we cannot only talk about creating an opportunity for young people to get a foot in the door on the labor market. For the Christian Democrats, it is also about making it possible for companies to open the door. For every young person who gets their first job, it is a win. That is obvious for the one who gets the employment, but also for the company and for society as a whole.

Madam Speaker! It should be cheaper to hire a young person than to refrain from doing so. When the cost of hiring becomes lower, more companies get the opportunity to take the step. It is not just about creating jobs, but also about increasing the number of hours worked for every youth who gets their first job.

I had my first summer job in the service sector. It was at a café at Stenfors Kvarn in Vimmerby municipality. There, I got the opportunity to meet people and practice my shaky English and German with tourists who chose to visit Astrid Lindgren's home region. A first job is about so much more than just a salary in the account. It provides experience. For me, it gave confidence and also a path forward into working life.

At the same time, an employment represents a cost and a risk for the employer. This applies particularly for smaller companies, which often have small margins and must think carefully before they hire. Therefore, reforms were needed that make it easier to hire and not harder. Permanently lowering the employer contribution for young people is a way to create better conditions for more jobs and strengthen companies' opportunities to invest in the next generation.

Madam Speaker! Our young people are the future. Let us therefore give our young people a greater chance at their first job. Believe in our young people!

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for a very fine speech to take part in!

It was about the importance of being able to get into work and what it does to young people. What has been done by the government that the member from Kristdemokraterna has been a part of has led to fewer people getting into work. There are more unemployed.

The question is why the government, with its deterioration of the unemployment insurance (a-kassan), has deepened the recession. The a-kassan has many important roles. But it has not had the important role of stabilizing the economy in the bad times. Unemployment has resulted in poverty. It does not lead to more jobs.

My question to the member is: Why have the Christian Democrats pursued a policy where people become poorer and do not get into work?

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Amloh, for the praise for the speech and for an important question!

When we reformed the unemployment insurance, the reason was that we wanted to give people a motivation to return to work, to seek work, and not end up at home in some vacuum where they can still withdraw money.

For me, it is quite important that people try to seek jobs. We strengthened the unemployment insurance fund so that the person who becomes unemployed now has a higher initial compensation than they had previously.

There is a staircase, and I believe it is important. One hundred days is the first step. It is just over three months. For me, the wish is that no one should end up in long-term unemployment without being given the tools to find work. I have spoken about the employer contribution for young people. That is a step.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! There are thousands and thousands of stories from individuals out there describing that they have applied for 50 jobs a month, 100 jobs a month. There should be jobs to be able to go to.

When people seek jobs and seek so many jobs, it must be able to lead to employment. That has not been the case with the Kristdemokraterna's policy.

The A-kassa has become so bad and the compensation so low that people cannot eat properly. It is one of the many stories that we have been made aware of.

My question is: Why has the Christian Democrats' policy led to people becoming poor?

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my speech, it is important for people to have a job, not just for the salary into the account but also for the sense of community and for feeling needed and in demand.

The unemployment insurance reforms, with their changes and new rules, meant that those who become unemployed initially receive a higher compensation than before. That was important for us, but it was also important to create tools so that one should try to find new paths to work and not stay at home without getting a job.

(Applause)

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

Ajda Asgari (MP)

Madam Speaker! During 2025, we had over half a million unemployed in Sweden. At the same time, we have employers who cannot find staff, welfare professions lacking competence, and people who are wearing themselves out at work. It is an equation that does not add up.

We have people who want to work, who want to set the alarm for the morning but who do not get the chance. We also have people who work but who are affected by an unsustainable work environment. These are two sides of the same failed labor market policy.

Madam Speaker! Much has been said about the work line and about effort paying off. But the work line cannot only be about setting higher demands on people who lack work. It does not help to raise the demands on the unemployed and cast suspicion on individuals if, at the same time, one lowers the ambitions for the labor market policy.

We need to invest in education, strengthen the opportunities to retrain in the middle of life, and give employers better conditions to employ people who are far from the labor market.

We must also dare to talk about the obstacles that are not about the individual's competence or will. We must talk about the structural racism and discrimination that exists in the labor market and which causes people to be screened out because of their name or their background.

We cannot demand that everyone should work at the same time as we accept that not everyone gets the same chance to get a job.

Miljöpartiet wants to create future jobs through investments in the climate transition, renewable energy, railways and green industry. But creating more jobs does not solve the problem if we do not simultaneously build better ways into the labor market.

In my previous role as responsible for labor market policy in Tyresö municipality, it was clear how dependent the municipality is on cooperating closely with authorities and other actors for people to enter employment. For someone who, for example, needs support from both Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan, the path to work can become complicated and unnecessarily long. Far too many people need to be their own project manager for their own rehabilitation.

Better conditions are needed to be able to cooperate, and here all the country's coordination associations can play a decisive role. Their opportunities to cooperate and find new forms of collaboration must, however, be strengthened. The legislation on financial coordination needs to be reviewed, because otherwise it risks hindering the purpose of the law: to get people into work. We need legislation that promotes cooperation, not the other way around.

Madam Speaker! We also need to talk about how we work, because while more people need to enter the workforce, we must also ensure that those who are already working can endure a full working life. That is why Miljöpartiet wants to move towards shorter normal working hours with maintained wages, with the goal of a four-day work week. It is about better opportunities for recovery and that people should be able to work without being worn out.

We cannot only talk about how more people should enter the labor market. We must also talk about why people are being worn out and how we are to get them to hold on all the way to retirement.

Sweden needs a new labor market policy that creates new jobs, combats discrimination, invests in people's skills and lets authorities cooperate instead of bouncing people between one another.

We need a labor market policy that believes in the human being and gives people the conditions to maintain a full professional life. The goal cannot only be that more people should get a job. The goal must be that more people should get a place in the working life – and be able to keep it.

That is the path Miljöpartiet wants to take.

(Applause)

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! The labor movement organized people to gain more power over the means of production and improve their own lives. Despite strong opposition from the privileged, the struggle for democratic freedoms and rights led to success during the beginning of the 1900s.

It was followed by a continued striving for increased social and economic justice, and the Swedish model emerged. Through political reforms, the growing prosperity could be distributed fairly and in solidarity, a general welfare was created, and the Swedish folkhemmet was built. In 1972, the UN's first environmental conference was held here in Stockholm with an opening speech by Olof Palme.

During the 1980s, however, the economic gaps began to widen again. Globalization reinforced the imbalance between capital and labor to the benefit of capital. The climate changes caused by human emissions were now known.

The 1990s were characterized by major societal changes in our country with high unemployment, a banking crisis, and significant cuts in welfare to sanitize the state finances. The credit markets had been deregulated, and Sweden had received an independent Riksbank. The school system was fundamentally changed through the friskola reform and free school choice. Sweden became a member of the EU.

Sweden also became the country within the OECD where inequality and class divisions perhaps grew the most. Increased capital income and reduced redistribution in the tax, transfer, and welfare systems contributed strongly to this. A right-wing majority here in the Riksdag has since 2006 counteracted the possibilities of pursuing a more progressive policy, which is seen not least in that the climate transition, in the wake of injustices, is now limping precariously in our country.

Madam Speaker! A more progressive policy has great opportunities to turn the development around – both to reduce inequalities and emissions and to create hope and faith in the future. We Social Democrats believe that the goal of economic policy should be full employment and that it must therefore be offensive. When more people work, we enable a better welfare. Welfare is at the same time a prerequisite for good economic development. All Swedes benefit from the welfare and contribute together to financing it.

But to secure the funding of the welfare state, tax revenues need to increase. We Social Democrats want to implement a tax reform based on broad tax bases. The imbalance in how labor and capital are taxed must be addressed. The very wealthiest must contribute more.

We Social Democrats want to establish a comprehensive loan-financed total defense fund for powerful investments in our civil and military preparedness. Through loan financing, we ensure that the investments do not come at the expense of welfare activities. As a result of this increased borrowing, the level of the debt anchor may need to be raised. We are also open to loan-financing certain strategic infrastructure projects with great climate benefits. We also want to see a state investment bank based on an international model.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a new direction for economic policy – a social democratic direction!

(Applause)

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

Amanda Thonander (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more people who work and fewer who live on benefits. Nevertheless, we have built systems where people can remain on social assistance year after year despite having the ability to work. It is bad for Sweden, but above all, it is bad for the people who get stuck in exclusion. Those who are dependent on benefits have less power over their own lives. Supporting oneself provides an independence and a freedom that no benefit system can ever replace. That is why we Moderates put the work line before the benefit line.

Sweden has a labor market policy problem that can sometimes seem contradictory: At the same time as people are unemployed, companies are crying out for labor. This is particularly clear in my home county, Skåne. Skåne has high unemployment, but at the same time, around 70 percent of Skåne companies report that they have difficulty finding the right skills. For 30–40 percent, the skills shortage is so great that it directly prevents the company from growing. We have people who need jobs, and we have companies that need labor. This is not sufficient.

In my constituency, there are some of Sweden's strongest environments for research, innovation, and entrepreneurship. In my hometown Lund, technology is being developed that is used all over the world, and just a short journey away – across the Öresund – there is another large labor market with employers who need staff.

We must ensure that more Swedes take the jobs that are available. It requires education and better matching, but it also requires that we set requirements.

During my years as chairman of the labor market and social services committee in Lund Municipality, I met people who were far from the labor market and needed a lot of support to take the step toward self-sufficiency. I became increasingly convinced of one thing: The greatest betrayal against a person is to stop having expectations of them and to accept the notion that that specific person does not need to contribute. Society shall offer support and opportunities but also expect people to do what they can to change their situation. It is to believe in people's ability.

A society that content itself with paying out subsidies to people who could work has far too low ambitions. Everyone who can should contribute to our common good based on their own circumstances.

I grew up in a Sweden that gave me opportunities. This is a fantastic society that gives people the power to shape their own lives, but it also presupposes that people take responsibility for the opportunities they receive. This is the core of the Moderate work line, and Sweden needs more of it.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Berggren (S)

Madam Speaker! What is a fair labor market? For me as a Social Democrat, it is a labor market without the unfair carens deduction. It is high time that after four years with the Tidöregeringen, give Sweden a new direction and abolish the carens deduction in the social insurance.

Abolishing the travel deduction is a matter of economic justice and the work environment, especially in occupations where working from home is not possible. Many of us met employees in preschools, shops, and elderly care during the election campaign. Something I was met with during virtually every workplace visit was the recurring demand on us politicians to abolish the travel deduction.

Today, an amount corresponding to 20 percent of your average weekly working hours is deducted when you fall ill. With a full-time position, this means in principle a lost day's wage. If you are a nursing assistant, work at a nursing home, and earn 30,000 kronor a month, your day's wage is approximately 1,400 kronor. When you fall ill, under the current system, you receive 0 kronor on the first day of sickness and thus lose 1,400 kronor. With an abolished waiting period deduction, you would instead receive approximately 1,100 kronor on the first day of sickness. There would therefore be a deductible of 300 kronor even with an abolished waiting period deduction.

The carency deduction is about economic injustice. Everyone loses financially by being ill, but today's system hits certain groups – workers and women – significantly harder than others. The possibilities to manage a sick day look very different. The person who can work from home with a minor cold can sometimes avoid both sick leave and carency deductions. The person who works in a shop, preschool, healthcare, or public transport rarely has this opportunity. Furthermore, the carency deduction hits working women particularly hard. Calculations from LO show that almost every fifth working woman has at least five carency deductions during a year. This means that these women lose income equivalent to at least one full week's pay.

Madam Speaker! It is about the working environment. Karensen is driving up sickness absence. Already in 2015, the trade union Kommunal showed in the report Healthy Life in Sight? how common it was that members worked despite illness, for economic reasons and to avoid putting colleagues in a difficult work situation. Today's sickness absence, however, risks becoming tomorrow's long-term sick leave.

The documentary film *Det omätbara – utan omsorg stannar allt* was shown here in the Swedish Riksdag in the autumn of 2025 thanks to some colleagues from the Socialdemokraterna. Over 600 texts about Swedish care were handed over. One of the texts came from the former childcare worker Matilda. Her message to the Members of Parliament was: Get rid of the care allowance! We are exposed daily to stomach bugs, lice, colds, and so on. Shape up!

Madam Speaker! Now it is time for the new Riksdag and for me, as a newly elected member, to be heard. Abolish the unfair quarantine deduction!

(Applause)

In this speech, Åsa Andersson, Markus Kallifatides, Adrian Magnusson and Andrine Winther (all S) concurred.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Katarina Berggren, for this Social Democratic manifesto for us to work less!

All points regarding the fact that unfair situations can arise when jobs look different must be taken very seriously and treated with all respect. We know, however, both from our own experiences from Sweden and from international experiences, that for example, worsened actuarial soundness in health insurance systems and the abolition of sick pay deductions lead to more people being signed off sick more often. This risks leading to things becoming worse in many workplaces and that the pressure increases on those who remain at the workplace.

Therefore, my question is: Why do the Social Democrats want the working environment to become tougher at workplaces because fewer people are there and share the work tasks?

(Applause)

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

Katarina Berggren (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Oliver Rosengren!

For me as a Social Democrat, it is obvious that we should have a labor market where people – men and women, young and old – can manage to work throughout their entire working lives. Today, it does not look like that.

As I described in my speech, there is research showing that sick leave risks leading to higher absence further ahead, because one cannot recover from shorter periods of illness.

There is also a deductible. I believe you might have heard it in my speech. Even with a scrapped period of absence (karensavdrag), it is 80 percent of the salary one receives. It thus becomes a deductible as well with a scrapped period of absence.

(Applause)

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind the members that we speak through the Speaker and do not address each other in the chamber.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces difficult trials. We will manage to make important investments in defense, criminal justice, infrastructure, and research. We will strengthen the welfare and ensure that we achieve higher growth and a more competitive economy.

In all of this, the Social Democrats want us to become less solidary with one another and not share the work burdens. They want instead that fewer people should work, that those who work should earn less from it, and furthermore that we should have fewer rules and fewer requirements in these sickness insurance systems.

Why do the Social Democrats want to dismantle the work line?

(Applause)

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

Katarina Berggren (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats stand for full employment. Today, there are 100,000 more people who do not have a job to go to. It is a very important and prioritized issue for us Social Democrats.

But in that regard, the quarantine deduction is very unfair. It hits hard economically. I want people not to risk infecting children and frail elderly people without them having the means to stay home to treat their illness.

(Applause)

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

Ilan De Basso (S)

Madam Speaker! Few things have such a great impact on and significance for a person's everyday life as when he or she is given the opportunity to have their own livelihood. Unemployment, in fact, holds the person back and simultaneously weakens the economy of the society.

The question of active labor market policy is therefore central for our time and for the Swedish economy. It is fundamentally about the individual's opportunities to realize their dreams, to be in a context together with others, to simply receive a recognition that one, as a human being, is participating and contributing.

It is naturally equally important for our society, where we constantly have a significant skills shortage in a number of industries. For some, the situation is also directly acute and critical. This applies in both the public and private sectors.

Every government that seriously prioritizes the economy and our competitiveness must place the fight against unemployment at the top of the political agenda. For that, commitment is required, beyond slogans. It is about politics that makes a difference, where we move from passivity to activity.

Madam Speaker! Today, nearly half a million people stand outside the labor market. It is nothing other than a major failure. The fact that billions of kronor have been sent back to the state from Arbetsförmedlingen confirms exactly that there has been a lack of ideas on how unemployment should be combated. Long-term unemployment has been allowed to take hold, and people have been left to their fate, with limited and in many cases no opportunities at all to come back.

Unemployment is now also hitting more and more groups in society. Many, especially young people who have invested in education and are left with large CSN loans, risk today of completely losing contact with the labor market.

Madam Speaker! An important question is therefore whether we can even afford the mass unemployment that prevails in our country. Can we afford today's right-wing politics, which throws people into unemployment? The Social Democrats' answer to that question is a clear no. We cannot afford to continue on the path we are on.

The active labor market policy implies a new direction. It emphasizes the individual's responsibility as well as the fact that unemployment is also society's issue and responsibility. Perhaps the most effective measure in this context is nothing other than investments in education and skills development. For that, resources and an awareness are required that the responsibility also lies with society and not solely on the individual.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides, Adrian Magnusson and Andrine Winther (all S) concurred.

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

Åsa Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! We are talking about what kind of Sweden we want to build – a stronger Sweden, a safer Sweden, a more equal Sweden. But if we are to build a stronger and safer Sweden, we must start where people spend a large part of their lives. We must start at work.

It is there that many people's everyday lives begin. It is also there that many of society's problems become very concrete. It is there that one feels the stress when the staffing is insufficient. It is there that one feels the insecurity when the employment is only temporary. It is there that one notices when the salary is not enough. And it is there that one notices what happens when the human being is pushed aside for the pursuit of efficiency and short-term profit.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats' congress pointed out a new direction for Sweden. For me, that direction is about something very simple: Those who work should be able to live a secure life. It should be obvious, but it is not for everyone. Therefore, we need to strengthen the Swedish model. We need strong trade unions and strong collective agreements. We need more permanent employment and a better working environment.

We must also continue to push back against crime in the labor market. It is not reasonable that companies that take responsibility for their employees should be competed out by companies that dump wages and conditions. It is not free competition. It is a race to the bottom and a deterioration of people's living conditions.

Madam Speaker! For me, this is also a question of social sustainability. We cannot call a society sustainable if people become ill from working. Social sustainability is also about the workplace and about being able to go to work and knowing that one will come home with energy left. It is about being able to support oneself on one's salary and about being able to be a parent, a friend, and a human being, not just a worker. And it is about having a voice when working life changes.

Madam Speaker! Working life will change. AI, digitalization, and new ways of working will affect our workplaces. Then the question should not be: How can we get people to run even faster? The question should be: How do we use the development to create a more sustainable working life?

There, the trade union movement has a decisive role. Those who are at the workplaces every day know what works and what does not work. Therefore, employees should be involved not only when the change is already decided, but they should be involved in shaping it.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats know which side we stand on. We stand on the side of the workers. We stand for a working life where work should provide freedom and security, not stress and insecurity. We stand for a welfare system where the staff should have the strength to stay and where quality is not built by running faster. And we stand for a society where the person who works should be able to feel: I am needed. I have rights. I have a voice. And I can build my life on my work.

It is for me social sustainability. It is for me trade union politics. And it is part of the social democratic direction forward. A sustainable Sweden does not start somewhere far away. It starts at work.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides and Andrine Winther (both S) concurred.

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with something that I consider a self-evident truth: All people who can work shall also work. The reasons for this are many.

That people work is a fundamental prerequisite for the financing of our welfare, as our tax revenues increase together. It is also a fundamental prerequisite for the way the welfare model itself functions. We need people who work as nursing assistants, local caretakers, and teachers.

That people work, however, is not just a matter of tax revenues and organizing the next parade, but it is also a matter of freedom – the freedom to have one's own livelihood, make one's own decisions, and live an independent life. Work is also a matter of community – to be part of a context where one is given the opportunity to contribute. A job is a matter of feeling needed – to have a task, contribute something, and know that what one does matters.

Madam Speaker! Today, there are simply too many people in our country who do not have a job to go to. The government agency SCB says that almost 500,000 people in this country lack a job to go to every day. That is 100,000 more than four years ago.

The reasons may be many, but I still want to say here that the absolute majority of that half a million people are not unemployed of their own free will. Broadly speaking, it is a matter of lacking the prerequisites to take a job. It is a societal challenge that we must handle together.

Today, the obstacles to entering the labor market are all too great. First and foremost: That there is a lack of job opportunities in this country is due to the lack of growth policy, but I leave that to another debating group. What we can do purely in terms of labor market policy to bring people closer to the freedom that work entails is spelled an active labor market policy.

An active labor market policy is a policy that is not passive and that does not sit on its hands when challenges are seen in the labor market and people lack the tools to take a job. It is a policy that ensures people are equipped with the practical skills required to get a job. It can be about practical craft skills, language, and much more. Fundamentally, it is a policy that equips people.

Unfortunately, the politics of recent years have not been a politics that has empowered people. What Sweden needs is an active labor market policy that meets unemployment with active measures – a policy that has the explicit goal of full employment. A completely fundamental prerequisite for this is that the labor market policy and the education policy receive the funding needed to be able to work in that direction.

It is about the fact that the training programs that the unemployed are referred to must be designed based on the needs of the Swedish labor market. It is about increasing the amount of labor market training and ensuring that all people with disabilities are welcomed into the labor market and that young people are equipped with new tools for the new labor market that is emerging. It is also about a public employment service that has the muscles required to, for example, be able to match people with the jobs that exist, which can offer individual support and which can work closer to the people who are far away from the labor market.

Madam Speaker! As I began by saying, it should be a self-evident matter that all people who can work also work. It is a fundamental prerequisite for the functioning of our society but also for people's livelihood, community, and freedom. Unfortunately, during recent years, we have not had a policy that has prioritized this. That, Madam Speaker, should hopefully change now.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides (S) agreed.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Edith Södergran's words "It does not suit me to make myself less than I am" are words that have followed me since I worked in the industry as a young woman, later as a trade union representative, and now as a Member of Parliament. I often think of Edith Södergran's words when I look at Sweden and Swedish equality policy. It does not suit Sweden to make itself either less or worse than what we can be.

The differences are increasing between women and men in several ways. Women's ill health has increased more than men's, the take-up of parental leave is still unequal, and single mothers cannot manage the month's expenses. It stands clearly clear that the most fundamental equality issues have not been prioritized by the Tidöre Government.

Madam Speaker! The job tax credits implemented during the previous parliamentary term have cost tens of billions of kronor annually and have increased economic inequality. The Tidö parties have pursued a highly conscious policy aimed at those with the highest incomes, not at women working in the welfare sector. Nearly three out of four women work in the Swedish welfare sector. Not to prioritize it is a betrayal of all the women who uphold it every day.

Rich men get more in their wallets while working women are brought to their knees and forced to work part-time. These women wear themselves out and often cannot work a full career. Thousands and thousands of women are signed off sick for stress-related illnesses, and the figure is only increasing. Furthermore, working women are overrepresented among poor pensioners.

It is a deeply unjust distribution that has been carried out by the previous government. We Social Democrats have long been driving the work to strengthen women's self-determination, and we do not intend to slow down. Women shall have the same freedom as men to shape their own lives and make their own decisions. Anything less than full equality we can never accept.

Economic inequality between the genders is fundamentally a question of social economy. We Social Democrats want to strengthen the resources for the welfare system, in order to create better working conditions, push back the unworthy sickness absence rates and achieve a working environment that one does not get sick from. We want to strengthen the finances of vulnerable households and increase the child allowances. We want to fight poverty, not nourish it.

Sweden needs a conscious equality policy that prioritizes welfare and an economic policy that puts single mothers ahead of the wealthiest. We need to reduce the economic gap between the poor and the rich, not increase it. We need to reduce health inequalities, so that working-class women do not pay the absolute highest price through shortened life expectancy.

It is fundamental for us Social Democrats that we cannot leave the other half of the population behind. Equality is not something that can be chosen or opted out of. It is not a plus menu for good times. Equality is the foundation for the Social Democratic social construction and for the Swedish welfare state.

(Applause)

In this speech, Isak From, Markus Kallifatides, Adrian Magnusson and Andrine Winther (all S) concurred.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I thought I would take the opportunity to remind you of the conduct in the Riksdag and that we begin our speeches with "Madam Speaker" or "Mr. Speaker" and that we maintain a good tone.)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating business and regional policy, and as we will see here, there is a large number of Moderates who are interested in being part of that debate. The Moderates are a party for all of Sweden that sees all of Sweden and cares about all of Sweden, and it was naturally why the Moderates moved forward very strongly in the election. It is for that we are grateful, dear voters – you who are watching this debate.

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, Thomas Bodström, former Social Democratic Minister, was on Aktuellt, and he was brutally honest. He spoke about how if the Social Democrats had gone to the election with a common policy with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, they would have scared away the voters.

Think about being a political party that cannot go to an election with honesty. Think about being a political party that goes to an election by trying to hide its politics. That was what Thomas Bodström said in Aktuellt yesterday, and now we stand here in a red-green chaos with four parties that obviously cannot form a government together.

But now I believe, unlike the former Minister Bodström, that the voters had discovered the Social Democrats' policy: shock-increased fuel prices, worse roads, aviation tax, and removed freedom of choice in welfare. We could see this here last week, when a newly appointed Left Party member said that we should no longer be able to choose school. If you live in Gävle, Ljusdal, Bollnäs, or Hudiksvall, you should not have the right to choose either elderly care or school. That would be very bad for those who live in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! There is a Sweden beyond the capital's subway. We Moderates see this Sweden, and we will hear it from many of my Moderate colleagues in this debate.

We Moderates believe that one should be able to drive on the roads in all of Sweden. Regardless of where one lives, one should be able to drive on the roads. There are other parties that do not want road maintenance. Miljöpartiet wants to cut back significantly on road maintenance.

We Moderates believe that there should be reasonable fuel prices. If you are a single mother of two in Ljusdal, you should actually be able to afford both taking the children to their practices and driving to work. We saw just yesterday, Madam Speaker, how the Finance Committee blocked the Moderates' attempt to ensure that we do not shock-raise the price of diesel. We could soon have a diesel price of 30 kronor per liter, because of the Social Democrats and the red-green chaos.

Madam Speaker! During the election campaign, there was a large forest fair in Ljusdal. Then a large forest owner came forward and said: May you Moderates win the election, for if the other group in politics wins, I might as well donate my forest to Miljöpartiet!

Madam Speaker! The forest industry is important for Sweden. It creates jobs, and it creates growth. And we shall safeguard the basic industry throughout Sweden.

We Moderates see all of Sweden. We care about all of Sweden, and we will pursue a policy here in the Riksdag for all of Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Congratulations on your re-election, Lars Beckman! It is nice to see you here again.

At the same time, we can see that Lars Beckman, just as before, is quite careless with the truth. He describes something that the Social Democrats absolutely do not stand behind.

What is true is that during the Tidö years, layoffs increased in the basic industries. The forestry industry that Lars Beckman says he stands behind laid off over 1,500 people across the country. The automotive industry, which is one of the basic industries for Sweden, was forced to see that the climate ambitions that the previous Sledda government had disappeared and that the products that the companies developed could not be sold in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Isak From on his re-election.

It is quite a few other MPs, Madam Speaker, who have not been re-elected. Not least in northern Sweden, the Social Democrats have had an almost catastrophic election. MP From might not watch Aktuellt, but there is a series on SVT Play now that deals with the Social Democrats' crisis.

It naturally becomes so, Madam Speaker, if one goes to the election together with Miljöpartiet, a distinctly urban metropolitan party that has more to say regarding the Stockholm metro than regarding caring about the roads in Västerbotten, the diesel price for those living in Lycksele, the hunter who wants to hunt, and not least the forest industry.

I remind of what was said at the forest fair in Ljusdal: Let the Miljöpartiet not have any influence, for then I might as well donate my forest to Miljöpartiet! I hope that the Socialdemokraterna do not allow that.

(Applause)

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! We can look back on a parliamentary term where the Tidö parties, at the end, borrowed for large tax cuts – tax cuts that went entirely to the most well-off and which did not reach the rural areas and the countryside, which did not reach the roads, which did not reach the forest owners, which did not reach the hunters.

In area after area, the Tidö parties have betrayed, especially the Moderaterna. It is a fact that in area after area, the state has withdrawn from rural and countryside areas.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Imagine belonging to a party where one has a colleague or party friend who appears on Aktuellt and says: If we Social Democrats had run for election with honesty, if we had told the voters clearly that we are running for election with Vänstern and Miljöpartiet, then we would have made a catastrophic election. Imagine belonging to such a party, Member of Parliament From. Now tell the people of Västerbotten why it is good to have a diesel price of 40 kronor per liter!

(Applause)

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: The final question may be seen as rhetorical as there are no further remarks in this debate.)

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

Andrea Kronvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! I come from Norrtälje municipality. It is a municipality with both city, urban areas, countryside and archipelago that actually constitutes a third of the entire Stockholm County's land area, with long distances within the municipality. That says a lot about how different conditions people can live under even within one and the same municipality.

After many years in local politics, I have seen firsthand how decisions can have enormous consequences for the individual. A clear example of this is the issue of water and sewage.

All over Sweden, there are people who have invested in their own wells and private sewage systems, solutions that they themselves are responsible for and which in many cases work perfectly well or can be rectified to meet newer requirements. Nevertheless, property owners can be faced with requirements for connection to municipal water and sewage with costs of hundreds of thousands of kronor, sometimes half a million kronor. For a family with children or a retiree, for anyone for that matter, that is an enormous financial burden. But we must remember that it is not just about economics. It is about houses where children have grown up and families have created memories, and about properties that in many cases have been inherited for generations. To then risk having to leave one's home because one cannot afford a water and sewage connection is an incredibly hard blow.

Madam Speaker! Must the solution always be municipal? My answer to that question is no, not if there are other solutions that work and meet the environmental requirements.

Today, there is good technology for individual sewage systems and opportunities for shared facilities. Naturally, we shall have supervision, and facilities that do not meet the requirements shall be rectified. In some cases, where above all the water issue cannot be rectified, it can obviously sometimes mean that the municipality actually needs to expand. A poor sewage system does not, however, automatically mean that municipal sewage is the only solution.

In 2023, the Act on Public Water Services was amended so that special consideration shall be taken of the possibility of private solutions. For us in the countryside, it was a very welcome step from the Riksdag, but I believe we need to go further. I want to see a tightening of Section 6 of the Act on Public Water Services.

Before a decision is made on municipal [pipes/infrastructure], it must be clearly shown why acceptable individual or collective solutions are insufficient. The alternatives must be properly investigated, the conclusions must be justified, and the costs for the property owners must be factored in. It should not be obvious to bury municipal lines for hundreds of millions of kronor when there may be other functioning solutions.

Madam Speaker! As a Sweden Democrat, I also want to see a clearer rural perspective in Swedish legislation and the exercise of authority by authorities. We cannot always base our decisions on the conditions of the large cities when we make decisions that affect people in the countryside. It is about water and sewage as well as roads, community services, and the possibility of living and working outside our larger cities.

We shall, of course, protect the environment and people's health, but we shall also protect the security in one's own home and people's opportunities to influence their own lives.

After my years in local politics, I know how much these issues mean for people's finances and faith in the future, and I am taking that perspective with me into the Swedish Parliament. The countryside is not just a place to visit but a place to live in, and politics must make it possible to live there.

(Applause)

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

Agnes Hultén (V)

Madam Speaker! The amount of arable land is decreasing in Sweden. The most common reason for arable land disappearing is that it ceases to be cultivated and grows over again. This is happening at the same time as we are to be able to have a reasonable and sustainable food security. We need to have an increase in our food production, not a decrease in available arable land.

Researchers at SLU argue that an overly one-sided focus on increased production means that we risk missing a lot of other vulnerabilities in the food system. It concerns things such as infrastructure and energy and fuel supply, access to different types of inputs, storage and logistics. These things play decisive roles in a crisis situation.

To broaden the discussion, the concept of robust systems is highlighted. These are systems that to a greater extent contain locally produced, organic and, in the long run, fossil-free production. The need for robust and sustainable food and agricultural systems simultaneously clashes with a development towards increasingly intensive large-scale production.

To achieve a long-term sustainable agriculture, it is required that the ability to deliver food is combined with values such as animal welfare, innovation, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, a living countryside, and open landscapes. To achieve this balance, both small and large agricultural enterprises are needed, which have different focuses on production and different methods.

Organic production is of great importance for such an orientation. In Sweden, it has successfully combined food production with reduced negative environmental impact. The use of pesticides is very limited, and no synthetic fertilizer is used in organic production. This favors biodiversity and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases and nitrogen.

That organic farming is less dependent on imported inputs and to a greater extent consists of circular production makes production more robust and less vulnerable, which contributes to increased self-sufficiency in the entire food chain.

Sweden has good conditions to develop a sustainable agriculture that can both contribute to the global food supply and strengthen our national self-sufficiency of food.

To achieve an ecological and sustainable fossil-free agriculture, support and steering measures must be designed so that they contribute to us reaching our environmental and climate goals and the global sustainability goals. In addition, there need to be good opportunities for generational transition and a living countryside with functioning service and infrastructure. This also includes school, healthcare and elderly care, as well as such things as housing and public transport.

It must be possible to live a functioning life if we are to have a functioning food production. Without it, the amount of arable land will continue to decrease in Sweden, and we will move further and further away from a robust and sustainable food preparedness as well as a living countryside.

(Applause)

In this speech, Andrea Andersson Tay, Daniel Bernmar and Birger Lahti (all V) concurred.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Hultén for raising a very important issue, namely how we are to increase Swedish food production. It is indeed an issue that the previous government worked hard on during the last parliamentary term.

I believe we agree on the problem: We must increase Swedish food production. I believe there is a large difference between the Moderate and Left Party views on how it should be done.

I intended to ask a few questions. When I meet farmers, they say: The rules are too many, the rules are too complicated, and the state and authorities want to decide too much over us. We know best ourselves how to manage the farming.

It is a rather elementary matter. Another thing that very many are worried about is an abolished quarantine deduction. It would cost the Swedish business community 40 billion. It would increase the costs dramatically for those who produce milk, for example.

I would therefore like to know one thing. The proposals you have will reduce food production in Sweden, but the member said that she wanted to increase it. How do you make the policy fit together?

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

Agnes Hultén (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lars Beckman, for the question! When I meet farmers, they talk about needing to receive a larger share of the money that food production creates. They talk about how, together with the consumer, they receive a very small part of every krona that the food produces.

They also talk about protection systems – not so much about the quarantine day as about the ability to participate in the social insurance system and be able to be on sick leave and safely on parental leave, as well as having a society that can take care of one's children and the elderly.

I believe that we probably have more in common than the member thinks, and the "karensdag" is not something I have heard farmers complain about.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! The member and I have probably met different milk producers. I have never heard a single farmer tell me that they will produce more milk if it becomes easier to be on sick leave. It is possible, however! I will not rule out that the member has met such a farmer, but I find it very difficult to imagine.

I would like to repeat my question: What does Vänsterpartiet want to do to concretely facilitate for the farmer to produce more food? To raise the diesel price to 40 kronor per liter would, for example, be stupid.

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

Agnes Hultén (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I say it again: What we want to do is, among other things, to ensure that the farmers receive a larger share of the value that food production generates.

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

Birte Sandberg (C)

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, 35 state service offices were closed. It is devastating for the state's presence at the local level. A stated goal in many regions' development strategies is that one should be able to live and work in all of Sweden. The state's presence cannot consist only of Systembolaget's sale of alcoholic beverages. We must be able to do much more.

Four out of five jobs are created in small companies, which are often located in rural areas. That business owners can do things right – quickly and easily – is important so that they will want to and dare to hire an additional person. We cannot make it harder for business owners to create jobs. The local authority service cannot be dependent on how digital people are or where one lives in Sweden.

Proximity to advice, support, and service contributes to a vibrant business life and is a security for individual individuals. In a society where more and more is centralized to the larger cities, the distances become greater, both physically and mentally. It becomes "us and them," and it becomes an exclusion where one distinguishes between those who have close access to service and those who live outside.

A dull and for me close example is Simrishamn, where the service and tax office was shut down as recently as in April this year despite very good deliveries and good results. There was even special expertise at that office. It was 40 employees who lost their jobs. It hits hard in a smaller town. As a comparison, one can say that if it were Malmö, 900 state jobs would disappear there.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party knows that local services must be close to the residents so that companies, jobs, and the individual can have the opportunity to receive good service.

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! What is it really that builds a society strong? Is it political decisions in Stockholm? Is it good rules? Is it new government inquiries? No, I mean that a strong society is built from the bottom up, by people who take responsibility for their family, for associations and for the local community, but also by entrepreneurs who every morning get up and do their utmost for their company. A strong society is built by the craftsman who dares to hire one more person and by the family business owner who dares to pass it on from one generation to the next. It is people who not only create their own livelihood but also opportunities for others to support themselves.

For us Christian Democrats, entrepreneurship is about much more than economics. It is about freedom, responsibility, community, and people's opportunity to realize their ideas. The task of politics is, I believe, not to direct every step a person takes. The task of politics is to create the conditions for people to grow.

Starting and running a company is to, as a person, dare to take responsibility. Taking responsibility is to invest one's time and one's money – sometimes one's entire security – in an idea one believes in. But in Sweden, far too many entrepreneurs encounter costs and requirements that do not always stand in reasonable proportion to the size of the company. A clear example is the red tape.

There is something strange about Swedish business policy. We all say we want entrepreneurs. We say that we all want small businesses to grow. At the same time, we impose new rules, new requirements, and new administrative burdens on them. This is obviously done with the best of intentions, but it becomes a burden for the individual entrepreneur. Time that should be used for customers, employees, and development is instead spent on forms and bureaucracy. It is not reasonable.

The Christian Democrats have proposed a principle: One rule in and two rules out. When new rules are introduced, two old ones shall be removed. It is about reducing the regulatory burden and giving entrepreneurs more time for what actually creates value. We want a society built on trust and not on mistrust. For every unnecessary regulation that disappears, the space for entrepreneurs to engage in their core business increases.

We want to give all young people the opportunity to become entrepreneurs. The entrepreneur does not start with a corporate identity number. The entrepreneur starts by daring to believe in their idea. Here we meet another central Christian Democratic thought, namely that of stewardship. We must ensure that we can manage young people's ideas and take them further in one way or another.

We humans have received different types of gifts, abilities, and opportunities. We see this already in school, which should also be aimed at developing young entrepreneurs. A good society helps people develop these abilities and use them for the benefit of both themselves and others. That is how we build responsible people. That is how we build faith in the future. And that is how we lay the foundation for the next generation of Swedish entrepreneurs, whom our welfare state needs.

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

Marianne Littke (L)

Madam Speaker! Skåne is a lovely landscape. A while ago, this summer, I visited one of the vineyards in northern Skåne. The grapevines stretch dramatically across the landscape, and the winemaker spoke passionately about the work that lies behind every bottle. I got to taste the wine. It was good. I also had the opportunity to buy a couple of bottles to take home, thanks to the reform on farm sales.

The farm sale is a long-awaited freedom reform, especially for Skåne. Skåne has, in fact, become Sweden's wine landscape. Here, the majority of Swedish wine is produced. Behind every vineyard are people who have had a dream, who have believed in it and dared to invest money, soul, and heart in their production and in something that perhaps not everyone thought was possible. It is such people who build our prosperity. They create jobs, they attract tourists, and they give life to the countryside.

When a vineyard receives visitors, the restaurant located next to it also benefits. The local hotel gets more guests, and the small farm shop gets more visitors. But I want to ask the question why we politicians, with one hand, encourage entrepreneurship and with the other, create restrictions. Even though farm sales are now permitted, they are surrounded by a number of rules.

If you want to buy a bottle of wine, you must first participate in a paid tour of at least 30 minutes. There is a limit on how much you can buy, and there is also a limit on how much the vineyard is allowed to produce.

Experiences of this reform are starting to come in, and here the winegrowers are clear. They want simpler visiting arrangements. They want less administration. They want smoother permit processes. And they want production limits that do not hinder growth. I think we should listen, because what is the reasonableness in that the vineyard that succeeds, which gets more customers and can employ more, should risk losing the opportunity for farm sales because the production becomes too large?

Madam Speaker! I would like to send some liberal demands to a future government.

Firstly: Trust the entrepreneurs more. We need comprehensible and proportionate rules that facilitate entrepreneurship.

Secondly: Do not punish growth. Review the production limits. A company that succeeds should be able to continue to develop.

For the third: See the full value of farm sales. It is not just about wine or beer, it is about jobs, the tourism industry, and faith in the future of the countryside.

Madam Speaker! Skåne is proud of its winegrowers. They have shown that it is possible to grow high-quality wine in a Nordic climate. Skåne has long been Sweden's granary, but now Skåne is on its way to becoming Sweden's vineyard.

Let us give Sweden and the Scanian wine growers something that every entrepreneur deserves, namely the freedom to succeed and the freedom to grow.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your re-election! My speech is based on the principle that what is good for the industrial workers is good for Sweden. Swedish industrial workers have built this country and made welfare investments possible. When the industry's competitiveness improves, the industrial workers earn more. Then Sweden also benefits from it. When the willingness to invest in industry decreases, everyone loses.

Madam Speaker! The past parliamentary term, the past Tidö period, has been telling. There have been bankruptcies, warnings, layoffs, reductions, withdrawn granted supports, rejected applications, increasing land conflicts, and sky-high electricity prices, especially in electricity price area 4 but now also in the whole country. This does not attract any investors. It does not enable our and the EU's self-sufficiency or that we should increase competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! There is still war in our vicinity. China is taking over area after area. Our preparedness and our self-sufficiency must increase. The past parliamentary term has not been good for Sweden, for the industry, or for the industrial workers.

This also applies within previously strong areas, for example the automotive and forestry industries. Previously strong Swedish brands are now being challenged in a way we have not seen before – primarily from China. It would have been possible to increase demand for domestic sawn wood products by increasing housing construction and building more in wood. Then we could have gotten construction workers into jobs. We could have increased the extraction of biofuels and chemicals from the forest. Instead, investments were stopped or paused, or they were put in the "malpåse" (the scrap heap).

Madam Speaker! Scania and Volvo's investments in fossil-free heavy trucks must not be lost. Right now, other countries are running ahead. Other countries are overtaking us. Was it the previous government's intention that we should have Chinese trucks on Swedish roads? I do not think so, but the effects of the policy pursued by the Tidö government are telling.

Let us look at the mining and minerals industry. We need to extract more strategic metals, and we need to increase recycling. The latter is associated with high costs. As soon as a company invests and wants to extract one of the strategic minerals, China dumps the price. Therefore, we Social Democrats have proposed that the EU should guarantee price floors. We believe that the extraction of strategic minerals is completely central for a functioning competitive industry. We have also pushed that the minerals office should be located in Sweden together with SGU in Luleå or at SGU's Malå office.

With this said, I want to make it clear that all those investments would have been good for Sweden, they would have given industrial workers jobs and they would have provided welfare revenues.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! In a previous exchange, I asked a question to Member From. I wondered how a diesel price of 40 kronor per liter – or more, we do not know what Miljöpartiets limit is – can be good for those of us who live north of Dalälven? How can it be good for the forest farmer, and how can it be good for the small business owner in Lycksele or in Ljusdal or for the electrician who fuels his car?

Why are shock-increased fuel prices good for those of us who live in Norrland?

I have another question. We completely share the ambition that Sweden should be a mining nation. But the Social Democrats have gone to the election with the Green Party, who do not want to lift a single stone. I am a bit curious about how you will get the Green Party to agree that Sweden should be an important mining nation.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lars Beckman for allowing me to respond.

Under the Social Democratic-led government before 2020, we had gasoline and diesel prices at 14–15 kronor. We also had requirements for the blending of biofuels. We made investments in new biofuel production, for example e-methanol or HVO100, which we could extract from our forest industry.

All of Sweden and the whole world, except for Lars Beckman, know that those who have driven up the diesel price are Putin, Trump, and the thugs in Iran. Everything else is pure lies and nonsense from Lars Beckman.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I understand that Isak From does not have time to familiarize himself with all parliamentary work. Yesterday in the Committee on Finance, the blue-yellow parties tried to ensure that diesel would not be shock-raised in a couple of weeks, but you voted no along with other parties. This means that from November 1 onwards, diesel can cost 28–29 kronor per liter due to political decisions made here in the chamber. Why is that good for Norrland?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! War in our vicinity, Trump and Putin, as well as the turmoil in Iran, are not good for northern Sweden, for Sweden as a whole, or for the world at large.

That we should get industrial production started and increase investments in more alternatives is good for Sweden. We need a long-term policy in several areas. A Social Democratic-led government will ensure a policy for transport, for industry, and for ordinary people across the entire country. One should, of course, be able to get to work.

(Applause)

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member From for the speech. We are in complete agreement on one point, namely that what is good for Swedish industry is good for Sweden and Swedish prosperity. Swedish industry and Swedish entrepreneurship need the best conditions.

Which are these? We have a number of proposals and ideas, but we also note the proposals and ideas from the Social Democrats that perhaps caused the greatest individual concern during the election campaign. This concerned the Social Democratic proposal on abolished care deductions and on legislated reduction of working hours.

Will the Social Democrats make the two threats a reality if they succeed in forming a government?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for at least one Moderate believing in industry, Anna af Sillén! We see it as very significant. Our parties have made major agreements that have been good for Sweden, and I believe we can do that too in the future.

My speech was based on the principle "what is good for the industrial workers is good for Sweden," and it is not good for Sweden that the industrial workers do not have the strength to work all the way to retirement.

Anna af Sillén forgot a proposal: We want to introduce "knegarpension" (kneeling pension), which means that one should be able to scale down so that one can manage all the way, work a little longer and be involved and contribute with their knowledge.

We Social Democrats think it is bad that it is the employees who pay for their illness. We think that this must occur in another, more just, way.

Madam Speaker! We do not, however, have a proposal on legislated reduction of working hours, as we believe that should lie with the parties.

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member From for the answer.

Abolishing the care deduction would completely pull the rug out from under Swedish industry and, above all, Swedish small businesses, which are often subcontractors to the large companies. Here, the Social Democrats are making a serious miscalculation of a cost that will land massively and heavily, also on the workers who need the jobs that industry creates.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! We think it is unreasonable that those who need to do the work at work should be punished and bear the cost themselves. This applies regardless of whether one is an industrial worker, works in healthcare, or drives a bus.

We also think it is a bit strange that our Nordic neighboring countries have much more generous conditions in the event of illness. So it would be even if Sweden removed the first period of quarantine, because we would still have two periods of quarantine left.

Madam Speaker! We believe in Sweden and Sweden's workers.

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I come from Dalarna, which can be heard in my dialect. We in Dalarna have Sweden's fourth largest tourism industry, with among other things the Sälen area, which is Northern Europe's largest ski resort. Our unemployment lies clearly below the national average, we have a strong cultural history and we are a large export county, among other things regarding timber products.

Is everything peace and joy, then? No, Madam Speaker, unfortunately it is not. Speaking of timber, I read in Mora Tidning how Naturskyddsföreningen and Älvdalens Besparingsskog are once again in conflict with each other regarding the preservation of species and the logging of forest. The forest owners experience that Naturskyddsföreningen systematically targets them to hinder their activities and argue that if this is allowed to continue, it will lead to fewer job opportunities in both the production forests as well as in companies that deliver goods and services to the production forests.

Älvdalens Besparingsskog and Särna-Idre Besparingsskog provide contributions of 40–50 million kronor annually to shareholders and the community. The contributions go, among other things, to the shareholders' forestry, to small and large farms, to village halls and associations, and to road maintenance and landscape management. These contributions will decrease sharply if the savings forests continue to be hindered in their activities. This is unfortunately not an uncommon matter but a conflict that exists in many more places than in Älvdalen.

Naturskyddsföreningen argues that all that is required is to follow current legislation, and that must, of course, be done. But perhaps we should have legislation that takes into account both biodiversity and the interests of the forest owners. I mean that the forest owners are the ones who create good forest management, because they want to leave a forest in good condition for the next generation. And the biodiversity has been created by the forest owners themselves through good forest management.

It is strange that it can be enough for a three-year-old woodpecker to have landed in the forest, pecked in its characteristic way, and then flown off in all directions for there to be a logging ban. Can we have it that way? No, I want to assert that we cannot.

Something that concerns not only my county but all counties are the impending dam removals. Environmental measures are important, and the environmental conditions for hydropower plants and regulating dams are now being reassessed throughout Sweden. This could lead to major changes where dams may need to be removed. The EU directives that exist regarding fish migration and dam removals as a consequence make many who live and work around the approximately 9,000 dams in Sweden truly concerned. With these directives, a large number of 200–300-year-old dams also risk being removed.

The consequences of this would be devastating for cultural values, individual property owners, businesses, and ecosystems. Not least, many of these dams produce stable electricity, and given the global situation, robust electricity production is important. The dams are also helpful during large water flows, and they prevent floods. Additionally, the rescue services can fetch water from them during large forest fires.

So here we also need to rethink.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I share most of what Crister Carlsson said from the rostrum and could probably have said it myself.

Before the Tidö period, the Moderaterna and several of the Tidö parties raised exactly the issues that Crister Carlsson raises, such as the right to cultivate and fell one's forest and that cultural heritage should prevail when it comes to hydropower dams and small-scale hydropower. But now we actually have even stronger legislation regarding species protection and through the birds directive, and regarding the water directive, it has gone completely in the wrong direction.

The question therefore becomes: Why did the Moderaterna do nothing about this in a government position?

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are waiting for a government where the so-called red-green parties will reach an agreement. They declared themselves winners and even ate cake together before the government negotiations had even begun. But then reality caught up with them.

Isak From seems to uphold both the environmental aspects of forestry and species protection, but how are the Social Democrats to reconcile this with the Green Party based on the theory Isak From has?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! One of the first things the Tidö parties did was to remove the compensation to landowners. In some areas, there are protected forests with species that need protection, but we also have forest owners who have saved long stumps and older trees where the three-toed woodpecker thinks it is fantastically nice to be.

I mean that we must enact a law that enables relocation support for the woodpeckers. Are Crister Carlsson and the Moderaterna willing to be helpful in enacting such a law?

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Property rights must be what comes first. We cannot have it so that certain species result in a complete logging ban in the forest. I raised the example of Älvdalens Besparingsskog, which is losing a significant part of its income. One can provide grants to the landscape in Älvdalen. This, of course, we must review in the future.

(Applause)

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

Emma Altenhammar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I grew up in Onslunda, a small village in central Skåne. When the land reforms were carried out in 1832, Onslunda was one of Skåne's largest villages with 53 farms. Over time, there have been a church, a railway station, a community center, and a general store. When I was little, the general store was still in operation. Today it is gone, as has been the case for a long time with the railway station. The mail arrives less and less often in Onslunda. Public transport is limited, especially during evenings and weekends. This is, therefore, not a small village in the inland of Norrland but a village in Skåne. The car is for most a prerequisite for everyday life to function.

This may seem like a small story, but what has happened in Onslunda has happened in hundreds of places around the country. That is exactly why it is so worth telling. People want to live in the countryside. They want to raise their children there. They want to run businesses there. They also want to grow old there. The question is not whether there is a future for the countryside. The question is whether the politics want it to have one.

The countryside has not ended up in the shadows by chance. For decades, decisions have been made far from the places they apply to. Police stations, health centers, bank branches, and post offices have disappeared. These institutions have been closed one by one, so that no single closure felt like a political direction. But all these closures have contributed to a policy that means that what is remote is expensive and that what is expensive must wait.

For eight years, between 2014 and 2022, Sweden was governed by Social Democratic-led governments that allowed this development to continue. Fuel became more expensive. Predator policy was managed by those who rarely encountered the predators. Entrepreneurs faced constant resistance if they wanted to build, farm, and invest. Many who live in the countryside remember what it felt like to be listened to but not heard.

But four years ago, it turned. I will not say that everything has become good, because it hasn't. But the direction from politics has changed. We have lowered the fuel taxes and the reduction obligation. We have changed the hunting and predator policy. We have improved the conditions for agriculture. But there remains very much to do. It would be dishonest of me to say anything else. We have just begun, and the work is far from finished.

Madam Speaker! That is why I view with some concern what is to come. I do not know how the government question will play out, but if the presumption is that the Centerpartiet is to hold together a cooperation with the Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet, I believe there are many in the countryside who will be questioning that.

The Center Party is for reducing the regulatory burden for entrepreneurs and protecting property rights. How is that going to fit with three parties that want to limit landowners' rights to cultivate their own land and want more regulations? The Center Party says that all of Sweden shall live. How is that going to fit with the Green Party's desire to tighten the reduction obligation and make it more expensive to drive a car? My party does not agree with the Center Party on everything. But to be completely honest, I do not think the red-greens are the natural cooperation partner for those who want to protect the conditions of the countryside.

For the Sweden Democrats, the countryside is not a separate issue. It is our starting point. When decisions clash – what is convenient in the center and what is needed in Onslunda – no one needs to guess where we stand.

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I and the member share the description of reality – there are great challenges, not least for our rural and sparsely populated municipalities around the country. But under the Tidö Government, the support for municipalities with rural and sparsely populated areas has decreased. There is less money to spend on schools for rural and sparsely populated municipalities. The service centers have been withdrawn, which are important for providing municipalities, regions, and citizens around the country with the state services they deserve.

The Tidö parties have lowered the state grants to rural and sparsely populated municipalities. Why, then, do they beat their chests because they want to protect rural and sparsely populated municipalities?

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

Emma Altenhammar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for your reply, Samuel Pettersson! It is nice to meet you. I have never seen you before.

I have posed an open question to the Center Party. In front of me now, I have a member from the Social Democrats. I know that many questions may come. I do not think the member wants to pre-empt the events in the government issue when it comes to what one can and cannot promise. But if the member would like to do so and say that one will absolutely allocate more money than has been done previously, I would welcome that, because this is something that is very close to my heart. The truth, however, is that you negotiate with parties that you do not agree with on rural issues. I will follow with great interest how this plays out.

On our side, we have at least reached an agreement. We have done a very good job that I hope you will not destroy.

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Support to municipalities and regions has not been increased under the Tidö government, and thus the community services for rural and sparsely populated municipalities have deteriorated. Why has the Tidö government, when it had the chance, not increased the grants and ensured that local services for the citizens throughout our rural and sparsely populated municipalities are protected?

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

Emma Altenhammar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that in a few moments we will enjoy the confidence regarding the driving of rural policy in this country. We have ensured to lower fuel prices and have, with new initiatives, accelerated the pace regarding the self-sufficiency rate.

Should we see this as a promise from the member before the upcoming government negotiations with Miljöpartiet, or will we see a shift? I do not think the member will answer that today. We shall have to see how events develop, but it would be very pleasing if one could continue to invest in this area.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

This may be seen as a rhetorical question, as there is no right to further remarks.

I kindly remind you that we use the form of address via the Speaker and therefore not "you" (dig/du) in, for example, exchanges of remarks. I know that there are many new members in the Riksdag now. We will be quite repetitive from the Speaker's side to ensure that we manage the issue of form of address moving forward.

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

Andrine Winther (S)

Madam Speaker! Only 48 kilometers as the crow flies from here, the Riksdagshuset, lies the island of Möja in the Stockholm archipelago. Möja is one of five core islands in my home municipality, Värmdö. Five miles is no long distance, but it is in many ways a completely different world. There are certainly many who have taken a boat out into the archipelago on a beautiful summer day. But for those permanently residing in the archipelago, life must function every day, even in autumn storms and when the ice lies thick.

We Social Democrats see life in the archipelago as a chain where all links – housing, school, communications, care and service – must function for the archipelago to be viable. One must be able to live and reside in the archipelago year-round.

Firstly, more housing and rental apartments are needed for permanent residence that cannot be bought and converted into expensive summer cottages. Housing is needed for ordinary people with ordinary wages even in the archipelago. Here, investment support for rural areas could be an idea.

Secondly, it is about school and preschool, which are crucial areas for life on the archipelago islands. Without functioning preschools and good school transport, entire communities risk being weakened.

Thirdly, for those living on an island, boat traffic is as self-evident as roads are on the mainland. Long travel times are a challenge, and in that regard, coordination between bus and boat as well as better frequency throughout the year are important aspects for making everyday life work.

Madam Speaker! I want to mention one more challenge, and that is the home care service. According to the National Board of Health and Welfare, Värmdö is the municipality in Sweden that receives the most summer guests with home care needs. I am glad that many want to spend their summers with us, but the compensation system for the home care service is poorly designed. Other archipelago municipalities around the country, for example on the west coast, have the same problem.

Let me give an example: The municipality of residence – in this case Värmdö – is only paid for what the home care costs in the municipality of settlement, say Danderyd. But there is a big difference between these two municipalities when it comes to providing home care.

The distances in the archipelago are much longer, and most often there is not even a bridge connection. Even housing forms can differ so much that there might not even be a shower or an indoor toilet in the summer house. It simply cannot be compared, and therefore this needs to change.

Finally, I want to mention civil preparedness in the archipelago. In May this year, Sweden's first service and preparedness point was inaugurated in Möja. It is a unique solution that secures electricity, food, and fuel even during prolonged power outages by combining a commercial grocery store with crisis support. It is a completely new model within Swedish crisis preparedness.

It simply needs a policy that takes the archipelago seriously.

(Applause)

In this speech, Åsa Andersson and Samuel Pettersson (both S) agreed.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Winther, for an engaged speech about the Stockholm archipelago! One could have thought it was my former parliamentary colleague Kjell Jansson who stood at the rostrum. He has always highlighted the Stockholm archipelago and spoken about how important it is.

I have two short questions for Member Andrine Winther. One concerns the fact that the Social Democrats' party leader has campaigned on significantly expanding wind power in Sweden. I would like to know how the Member views that. Very many people all over Sweden have had their living environment ruined by noise and light from wind power. It is very windy in the Stockholm archipelago. Does Member Andrine Winther, like the Social Democrats' party leader, want to significantly expand wind power in the Stockholm archipelago? I would very much like to know that.

The second question concerns what we heard here about the archipelago being a different environment, five miles from this house. How does a diesel price of 40 kronor per liter benefit those who live outside the urban area in Stockholm?

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

Andrine Winther (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Beckman, for the questions!

I am pleased that there are more who want to protect the archipelagos and that people should be able to live, reside and work in the archipelagos. All types of energy are needed, so is also offshore wind power.

When it comes to the conditions for living in the archipelago, I can only state that the Tidö Government, during the mandate period it has governed, has borrowed for tax cuts for those who already have the most. But there has been no money for welfare in the archipelago. We have not received more schools or more teachers. We have not received a better home care service. This will not benefit our archipelago.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! As everyone heard, I asked two simple questions and did not receive an answer to either.

We heard the Social Democrats' talking points. It seems that all members from S have received the same talking points: "You borrowed..." and so on. But what no Social Democrat says is that one borrowed twice as much during the government that ruled before the Tidö government, or the blue-yellow government.

Is wind power good in the Stockholm archipelago? In what way does a diesel price of 40 kronor per liter benefit the Stockholm archipelago?

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

Andrine Winther (S)

Madam Speaker! I answered the question: All types of energy are needed, so is also offshore wind power.

The price of diesel does not play such a large role out in the archipelago because there are other types of activities there that are much more important, including ensuring that one receives a welfare system that works. It is about teachers in the school so that the school can stay open. It is about having a viable archipelago instead of borrowing for tax cuts.

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I come from Sörmland – Sweden's most beautiful county, where people work hard to contribute to Sweden's prosperity and the best possible future. It is an enterprising county.

The people of Sörmland are also a patient people. Many have waited for 30 years for a railway and some for over 10 years for a power line. A number of people tend forests and produce food on land they own but do not have full disposal of. Several drive important technological development in areas that the state opposed for decades. Far too many spend far too much time and money on unnecessary administration – this at the same time as the threat from criminals increased sharply during a period.

Just like people in the rest of the country, the people of Sörmland have over time faced far too much trouble. But during the last parliamentary term, Madam Speaker, something happened that was hopeful. We got a government that, so to speak, changed direction.

Under Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson's leadership, structural measures were put in place to clear out the Swedish regulatory jungle and stop the gold-plating of EU directives that we have seen. Swedish authorities received sharp mandates to trim bureaucracy and strengthen service. The issue of competitiveness was forced onto the EU's agenda and it was ensured that also small businesses were given space in the Swedish export and investment strategy.

Both entrepreneurs and private individuals could see the threat from criminals gradually decrease as the penalties were tightened and the police received sharper tools – this at the same time as the country's borders received a significantly stronger defense.

During these four years, a historically large investment was also made to strengthen the infrastructure, and the work to recreate a stable energy system gained momentum. At the same time, a number of freedom reforms were carried out that both create jobs and free us Swedes from an undignified state guardianship. Now we can visit one of Sörmland's growing vineyards and buy a bottle of wine to take home, just like any other adult European.

Madam Speaker! I ran for election on the promise to continue this work: to make Sörmland and Sweden more reasonable, fairer, and more fun. The Moderates continue forward with a clear simplification agenda: We shall reduce the regulatory burden by a third, introduce the principle "one rule in, two rules out," streamline the permit processes, and reform the Environmental Code which has also become a blocking law for environmental initiatives.

Reasonable conditions are also about justice. Effort should pay off. Justice is also not to impose unreasonable costs on those who create our jobs. Right now, such a threat hangs heavy over the country's companies and taxpayers. The S proposals on abolished quarantine deductions and the idea of statutory reduction of working hours risk placing massive costs on the entire society. These are two unreasonable proposals that the Moderaterna say no to.

Madam Speaker! After four years with a Moderate-led government, Sweden is on the right track, and it would be wise to maintain the course. Sweden does not become stronger from higher taxes or more political clumsiness. Sweden becomes stronger when people are given the freedom to realize their ideas, when companies are allowed to grow, and when it pays to work, invest, and take responsibility. That is how we build prosperity and faith in the future. That is the direction I want to see for Sörmland and for the whole country: a Sweden that becomes more reasonable, fairer, and actually also more fun!

(Applause)

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

Sarkis Khatchadourian (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a small country but has a large and respected export industry. Our prosperity has been built by people who develop, manufacture, and sell advanced products to the whole world. The industry has created jobs, economic growth, and resources for our common welfare. The industry does not only create jobs in the factories. Calculations show that a new job within the industry can provide additional employment opportunities in other parts of the Swedish economy.

If we seriously want to combat unemployment, we must also dare to invest in the Swedish export industry. But the competition for future investments is fierce, and the outgoing Tidö Government has not taken the task seriously. The technology companies have warned that political short-sightedness is hindering investments. The Climate Policy Council has criticized the previous mandate period's climate policy and called for long-term conditions for the industry's transition.

Madam Speaker! We need an offensive policy that not only stimulates investments but also creates demand for Swedish products and services. The Social Democrats therefore went to the election on a growth pact between the state, the business sector, and the unions. It is about strengthening Industriklivet, reintroducing green credit guarantees, expanding fossil-free electricity and charging infrastructure, and using public procurement to create demand for new products.

The export industry needs a strong home market, both in Sweden and within the EU. When US tariff policies and Chinese state subsidies challenge European industry, Sweden must push for fair competition conditions and a European market for climate-smart technology.

Madam Speaker! The industry of the future also needs the competence of the future. Let me take my home municipality, Södertälje, as an example. In Södertälje there are Scania and Astra Zeneca, two world-leading export companies that make billion-dollar investments in Sweden. At the same time, KTH has decided to phase out its campus and move the engineering programs away from the city. It is a regrettable development. Swedish export industry needs a strong academic environment with education and research on-site near the industry.

The question one should ask is: How can one of Sweden's most important export cities lack an academic presence? I want the state, the educational institutions, and the industry to take responsibility together to strengthen higher education and research on-site in Södertälje and other export cities.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall never compete with the world's lowest wages. We shall compete with the world's best technology, competence, and the strongest innovative power. We shall invest in the export industry to create more jobs, reduce unemployment, and strengthen our common welfare. Sweden shall move forward and sit in the driver's seat, not be overtaken.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! The member spoke of an offensive, and I must agree. I have not seen such an offensive from the Swedish business community in an election campaign since the employee investment fund battle. Why did the business community mobilize so much – unfortunately a bit too late, I think – in the final weeks before the election?

It was completely unique, Madam Speaker, that so many representatives for the Swedish business community went out and spoke about the risks of a red-green government. The reason is likely that the Social Democrats, with their coalition partners, want to increase the costs for the Swedish business community by over 100 billion. Just as a colleague spoke, it is desired in certain parties to have both a reduction in working hours and a removed quarantine deduction.

The question must be asked: How will jobs increase in Sweden, and how do we strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish business, if one raises the costs for Swedish companies by over 100 billion?

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

Sarkis Khatchadourian (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

The Chairman selects things and items in his remarks. The industrial companies that I have spoken with are very concerned about the cuts in, for example, Industriklivet that the Tidöregeringen has engaged in and the culture war that is being waged against Swedish export companies and Swedish industry, which have invested so many billions of kronor to create jobs and growth in Sweden. To these companies, Tidöregeringen chooses to turn its back.

My question back to the member is: Why does the Tidö government want to put spokes in the wheels of the green transition and the Swedish industrial companies' opportunities to have jobs in our country?

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! The member is right. I only chose two issues that cost over 100 billion. I could have stood and rattled off as many as I wanted, but unfortunately, time does not suffice.

I am adding the electricity supply. How are we to have an industry in Sweden if we do not have a predictable fossil-free energy production? The Social Democrats want to give the power over energy policy to the Green Party. Fuel will cost 40 kronor per liter. How does it benefit Swedish business to make transport more expensive?

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

Sarkis Khatchadourian (S)

Madam Speaker! A lie does not become the truth just because it is repeated several times. Who is talking about 40 kronor per liter for diesel?

The chairman pointed out that we voted no to a proposal in the Committee on Finance. It was a proposal that could not even be implemented. It was unrealistic, the date was wrong, and one needed to ask the EU. It is stomach-turning to stand here and talk about diesel prices when one is presenting a proposal that cannot even be implemented in practice.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Hermelin (M)

Madam Speaker! Why do we serve food in schools, in hospitals, and in elderly care homes that has been produced using methods that Swedish farmers are forbidden to use? It is completely unreasonable. To live as one learns is one of the first things we try to teach our children. Is it not reasonable that we also try to do it ourselves, as politicians and as a society?

This is my first speech in the Swedish Riksdag, and I come almost directly from the fields at home in Östergötland. There we walk and wonder – and not just us on our farm; very many farmers do the same: How has it become like this?

Or many, for that matter – those who still remain. The farmers are becoming fewer and fewer, in fact.

We have high requirements for animal welfare, plant protection, and working conditions. Many of these requirements are really good. But Sweden is often, and wants to lead the way by being, best in class.

For me, it starts to grate there. We simply do not live as we teach. It doesn't help to be the best in the class if those with lower standards take home all the deals. Already then, we have done a real disservice to both Sweden and the environment.

Take the chicken nuggets in the school cafeteria, for example. The chicken may be imported from countries such as Thailand or Poland, with different rules for antibiotics and animal welfare. Or take the cabbage rolls served at my mother's nursing home. How are those pigs doing? Have they kept their tails? Probably not.

This is food we buy with common tax money.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe in free trade. But there is a big difference between what we humans choose in the grocery store and what we choose to buy with the taxpayers' money.

We all agree that we are to produce more food in Sweden, not less. But if we are to be able to do that, the requirements must be reasonable. It is perfectly clear. Just look at how it looks! 50 percent of the food comes from imports, and that has increased steadily over the last decades.

We must protect biodiversity, but a single bird species must not put a spoke in the wheel of an entire industry.

We must reduce emissions and electrify agriculture. But before we impose new costs on the farmer, we must ask: Are the machines there? Is the technology there? Is the electricity there? And above all: Can the farmer afford it? We cannot tax a technology that no one can afford yet. Then we will continue to move production abroad, along with the jobs and the control over the environment.

Madam Speaker! Now we must move from strategy to action, but not with more rules, grants, and enthusiastic projects. That is not how companies grow. Companies grow when we give entrepreneurship opportunities and create competitiveness.

My message is simple: In order for the environment in the world and in Sweden to improve through food production, the rules need to be eased here in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! When people think of Sweden, many imagine a red cottage, a Dala horse or a midsummer pole. It is no coincidence that much of what has become symbols for our country has its roots in Dalarna.

For me, Dalarna is not just a picture of Sweden. It is my home and the constituency I have the privilege of representing here in the Swedish Parliament.

Dalarna has a history that extends far beyond the county's borders. It was among the men of Dalarna that Gustav Vasa won support for his struggle for liberation. It was in Falu mine that the copper was mined which for centuries contributed to laying the foundation for Sweden's prosperity. Even today, Dalarna's companies, mills and industries create jobs and export revenues.

But we also carry another wealth: our cultural heritage. It lives in the folk music, the folk costumes, the craftsmanship, and the Midsummer celebrations. It is passed on by people who engage in local heritage societies and in local traditions, often entirely voluntarily. It is a cultural heritage that not only tells of our history but which even today is a living part of our identity and which we have a responsibility to pass on to future generations.

Madam Speaker! Safeguarding Dalarna's history and traditions is important. But at least as important is creating the conditions for people to be able to continue living and working in our county. It must be possible to live, work, and run businesses in Dalarna also in the future. For that, everyday life must function.

The Dalabanan. It connects Dalarna with Mälardalen and is an important part for both travelers and companies. During 2025, the Tidöregeringen gave a clear signal for new measures to increase frequency and shorten travel times. Trafikverket is now planning investments of nearly 2 billion kronor until 2030. It is a positive announcement. The decisive factor, however, is what people actually notice in their everyday lives: shorter travel times, better punctuality, and a railway that can be relied upon.

Or take national road 70, which serves as a lifeline through Dalarna. It is positive that the continued expansion between Borlänge and Djurås is included in the government's national infrastructure plan and that the work on the third stage is now proceeding. At the same time, however, the question remains regarding the second stage, which has been paused due to cost increases. A road functions as a whole, and therefore a sustainable solution is also needed for the entire stretch, not just parts of it.

We must also not forget the minor road network. In large parts of Dalarna, the car is not a luxury but a necessity to get to work, pick up the children, and make everyday life work.

Madam Speaker! There is no contradiction between safeguarding what has made Dalarna what it is and developing what is needed for tomorrow. On the contrary: We cannot preserve living regions if people cannot live and work in them.

We usually call Dalarna the heart of Sweden. Then we must also ensure that this heart continues to beat. Dalarna is, in fact, not just a part of Sweden's history. Dalarna is a part of Sweden's future.

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

Sarkis Khatchadourian (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats often talk about Swedish culture and the Swedish cultural heritage. What can be more Swedish than the Swedish export industry, which contributes to employment opportunities, provides jobs for people, and also ensures that we can reduce emissions on our planet?

I have two questions for the Sweden Democrats. Why is the Sweden Democrats waging a culture war against the Swedish export industry? And what does the Sweden Democrats want to do to improve the conditions for the Swedish export industry that has invested billions in green transition?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! It would have been pleasing if the member's colleagues from Dalarna had been here and participated in the debate when my speech now concerned Dalarna, but I thank you anyway for the questions.

The Social Democrats are one of the parties that for decades have disparaged and ridiculed Swedish culture, so it is pleasing that the Sweden Democrats have now, during the past parliamentary term, together with the government, re-established, among other things with a cultural canon, much of what there is to be proud of when it comes to Swedish culture.

The member's remark about us having waged a culture war against the export industry does not match the facts at all. I do not know where the member gets that from.

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

Sarkis Khatchadourian (S)

Madam Speaker! What I mean is that when Swedish export companies go bankrupt, the Sweden Democrats celebrate. When Northvolt needs to shut down and the Swedish export industry cannot export its new green services and products because the Sweden Democrats have pushed for us to remain in some form of fossil dependency, the Sweden Democrats cheer. Why are you putting spokes in the wheels of the Swedish export industry?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! The green castle in the air Northvolt, into which the former Social Democratic government pumped billions and billions, was nothing at all that the Sweden Democrats celebrated. On the contrary, the Social Democrats are the ones who owe an answer. Why did they continue to pump the pension savers' money into that green castle in the air that Northvolt de facto turned out to be?

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! All around the country, many people feel that society has failed them. They see how value is created in their home towns, how industries produce and export for billions, and how their work contributes to the prosperity of all of Sweden. They pay taxes and contribute to our common welfare.

Despite this, many people experience that the society around them has progressively withdrawn as schools have been closed, shops have shut down, and football teams have found it increasingly difficult to keep their operations running. For those who want to get an education, find a job, and build their future in their hometown, the opportunities are far too few.

This is a difference that has become clear all over Sweden, not least in large parts of northern Sweden. A feeling is being created among many that one is important when prosperity is to be produced, but forgotten when the investments are to be shared with the people.

In northern Sweden, there is a large part of our natural resources and the energy that is produced. It is in northern Sweden that much of the future's jobs, export revenues, and economic values are created. These are values that all of Sweden depends on.

If you live in northern Sweden, you also experience what happens when society experiences growing pains, when the municipalities cannot afford to build new housing, when the infrastructure is insufficient for both freight and passenger traffic, when there is a lack of local educational places, and when the supply of skills does not keep pace with the needs of industry and welfare.

It is then that young people are forced to compete against the industry to secure their first home. People risk having to move in order to be able to study and pursue further education. It becomes harder for families to establish themselves, and the municipalities are expected to solve tasks that are far much larger than their financial conditions allow.

At the same time, the green industrial transition gives us the opportunity to reverse the development. We already see now how new jobs have been created and that unemployment is at record lows in those parts of the country where large-scale establishments are taking place. We have the opportunity to create new values, strengthen welfare, and build societies where people want to live, not just to work but also to live, start a family, and have proximity to the magnificent nature that mountains, forests, and rivers entail. At the same time, we contribute to phasing out fossil production methods with fossil-free ones.

However, this is nothing that will happen by itself. Today, many of the municipalities with large industrial establishments are expected to take on an enormous responsibility. The municipalities must plan for new housing, expand community services, meet the need for new preschools and schools, and manage the pressure on infrastructure. And all of this is required for the industry to be able to grow, but investments must be made before all the new jobs and tax revenues are in place.

The municipalities are therefore forced to take large economic risks – often large loans – to be able to enable the establishments to succeed. In the long run, the municipal residents will have to live with the consequences if the calculations do not hold. The State needs to step forward and take greater responsibility to enable the transition, which will affect all of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! An active industrial policy is needed that is not only about getting the factories in place but that also participates in and supports the construction of the sustainable society that will sustain the establishments. It is about building more housing, about state grants that make the municipalities better equipped, about being able to expand the school and the care system at the pace that the population growth requires, and about more educational places that allow people to educate themselves locally for the jobs that emerge locally.

If the transition is to succeed, it is not enough to just build factories. We must also build societies where people want to stay and live and where faith in the future can grow. Only when people are given the opportunity to live, reside and work in attractive societies can the transition become truly sustainable.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Pettersson, for the contribution!

I was born and raised in Norrbotten. I have a lot of relatives in Boden, Luleå, Överkalix, and Kalix. I have a great affection for my old home region. But the red-green politics that you have campaigned on is a death blow to Norrbotten. Shock-high fuel prices are directly harmful to households' purchasing power and the business sector's competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! Another important issue when living in Norrbotten is aviation. When I lived in Boden, I had an annual pass with SAS. Wherever I was going in Sweden, I could fly away in the morning and come home the same day and spend time with my wonderful children, even though I lived in Boden.

Now we have seen how a coalition partner of the Social Democrats has campaigned on reintroducing the aviation tax and destroying the opportunities for Swedish domestic aviation. I would therefore like to know how Member Pettersson views the aviation's opportunities for development.

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Beckman, for an important question!

Lars Beckman has sounded like a very good auctioneer during this debate. We have heard both 30 and 40 kronor and then "Sold!" regarding the fuel prices.

When it comes to issues that are important for Norrbotten, I must also ask where the Tidö government stood regarding electricity prices and the electricity subsidies that the Tidö government distributed in two rounds. During the first round, Norrbotten and the people of Norrbotten were not even included in the calculation. During the second round, when the people of Norrbotten faced approximately the same electricity prices as those in southern Sweden, they received half of the electricity subsidy that went to the rest of the country.

When it comes to showing one's affection for Norrbotten and putting the interests of Norrbotnians first here in Sweden's Riksdag, I am not sure that it is something the Tidö parties always do.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! We heard Thomas Bodström say in Aktuellt yesterday: "If we Social Democrats are honest, we lose voters." This was a brilliant example.

I understand that a Member of Parliament for the Social Democrats in Norrbotten is ashamed of a diesel price that can be between 30 and 40 kronor per liter. It is directly harmful.

But we also noted that no letter arrived regarding the aviation. That is because the member likely knows what appalling policy for domestic aviation a future red-green government will pursue, if the worst happens.

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Lars Beckman has been rambling a lot during the debate, especially about fuel prices. I must therefore pose a rhetorical question: If it was so important for the Moderates and the Tidö parties, why was the reduction of fuel prices temporary until after the election? If you had meant business and been worried about Swedes' fuel costs, you would not have made only a temporary reduction but perhaps even a permanent reduction.

It is very important that Lars Beckman and the Moderaterna can answer this question.

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

Daniel Lyckestam (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Pettersson! I thought it was interesting.

Another thing I thought was interesting concerned something that came from the rostrum earlier during the debate. It was claimed that the government grants had decreased. That is a truth with modifications. Targeted government grants have decreased to some extent, but general government grants have increased with a framework reinforcement of 10 billion in 2024. As someone who has just come from municipal politics, I think that is good. It strengthens municipal self-government when government grants are general instead of targeted.

At the same time, these state grants highlight a problem. It is a symptomatic treatment being carried out because too many municipalities do not support themselves and stand on their own feet. I believe that is something we would need to get rid of. I believe that this is due, among other things, to bureaucracy, rules, and legislation adapted to large cities.

What does the member think about this, Madam Speaker?

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the important question regarding the financing of the municipalities. It is extra important when a municipality faces, for example, large industrial establishments, something that we in Norrbotten encounter very much.

When it comes to the state grants, one cannot simply count them in pure money, but one must also include the costs that municipalities and regions have faced during the four years with the Tidöregeringen. If one accounts for inflation, the real grants to municipalities and regions have actually decreased during the past mandate period.

For Norrbotten's sake alone, it is a matter of, if we merge the municipalities and the region, 1.6 billion kronor less to spend on healthcare, schools, and elderly care. It is noticeable in the everyday lives of the people of Norrbotten that there are fewer in elderly care who can look after the elderly and that there are fewer teachers in schools. One notices that healthcare, care, and schools are not keeping up at the pace that is expected.

When it comes to investing in the municipalities, we Social Democrats want to increase and index the general state grants in order to secure the quality of welfare for the foreseeable future.

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

Daniel Lyckestam (M)

Madam Speaker! I sense the slight tendency towards a difference in the view on the problems and how they should be solved. Is it a grant line, or is it a growth line? One usually speaks of a grant or work line, but in this case, I spoke and asked questions about how we should strengthen the possibilities for growth, which makes municipalities less dependent on state grants, regardless of whether they are targeted or general. There, I believe that we need regulatory simplifications and legislation that is adapted for smaller municipalities.

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! If we want to strengthen the municipalities and especially ensure that people get into work, I believe the most important thing is that we tackle the high unemployment, which has increased by 100,000 under the Tidö Government's rule. It is even more noticeable in certain municipalities in Skåne, where unemployment is as high as 12–13 percent, while in large parts of Norrbotten it is down to 2–3 percent. Here, the state should step in and ensure that people who are unemployed have the opportunity to move to where the jobs actually are. It is in that way that we counteract unemployment and ensure that people get into work in the places where the jobs are emerging.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like, since this is the first real debate, to remind that we in the Riksdag do not have a chairman but a Speaker. I know it is easy to make a mistake when one is used to municipal politics, and I do not usually point this out. But it is good to remember.)

One difference is also that everyone here speaks through the Speaker and not directly to each other, which we are also used to doing in municipal politics. This is the practice of the Riksdag. If you have certainly received a lot of information on this, then this was perhaps an unnecessary reminder.

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

Elise Ryder Wikén (M)

Madam Speaker! Natural resources are the foundation of all prosperity, and in Norrland we have great assets in the form of ore, forest resources, wind power and hydropower, which make Sweden stronger. At the same time, Norrland is seen as some kind of raw material colony, where the local benefit of the values created is very small. We who live in these regions naturally want to share and contribute to Sweden AB. But we must also have the same conditions as the rest of Sweden to live, work and develop.

That is why the electricity price areas need to remain. It is our only competitive advantage in a cold climate with long distances and a very sparse population.

I also want to highlight the power capacity issue. Northern Sweden also has a power capacity shortage. New companies and new industry are having difficulty obtaining new connections. New transmission lines are now being built to transport the surplus energy to the rest of the country, but these lines will function as large highways without any possibility of either exits or entrances. These are lines that, among other things, will affect the reindeer husbandry and the immediate environment for the residents and take up large areas of land. But the local benefit is missing.

I will give an example. In Härjedalen, there is a village called Åsan. A 400-kilovolt line runs through Åsan, but those who live there do not have the possibility to utilize the electricity that passes through. Residents and companies use diesel generators today. Now, another 400-kilovolt line is being built straight through the village, but the residents still have no possibility to connect. This says a great deal about our energy policy. The lines need to be built, but along the way, the people are forgotten.

Another question that is important and where a change is needed is the distribution of infrastructure funds. In Jämtland Härjedalen, we have approximately 600 miles of state road. Today's distribution means that we have approximately 60 million to distribute every year. That is enough for two kilometers of walking and cycling paths in the entire county. We therefore need to have a distribution model that not only takes into account the number of inhabitants but also the tourism industry, the forestry industry, and heavy transport – but above all, the number of miles of road.

It is not possible to talk about regional development without mentioning the EU's cohesion policy. The specific rural allocation, which has existed ever since Sweden and Finland's entry into the EU, has generated approximately 200 billion kronor during the current programming period. It was also a condition in the accession treaty. These are funds intended to compensate the most sparsely populated regions for the permanent challenges resulting from long distances, sparse population, and small local markets. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the rural funds are included in the long-term budget.

Jämtland Härjedalen does not request any special solutions or any benefits, but we request reasonable compensation for the infringement that occurs.

And what happens if we were to end up in a crisis or a war, if half of Sweden is depopulated? We need to have societies where there are active people so that we can stand prepared in the event that we end up in a crisis.

The whole of Sweden should not only contribute. The whole of Sweden must be allowed to grow, and for that, Sweden's countryside is needed.

(Applause)

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

Filip Reinhag (S)

Madam Speaker! I live on an island, and here in the Swedish Riksdag, I represent 61,000 Gotlanders who do the same.

Living on an island is special in many respects. Our land road is open twice a day. Visby Hospital must manage to offer full-scale emergency care and childbirth despite the limited population base. Infrastructure and roads must not only accommodate the resident population but 1 million visitors, preferably during the summer months. Gotland's water network would, if straightened out, stretch all the way to Athens. Gotland has no neighboring municipalities or regions to seriously cooperate with. We must be prepared to be cut off from the outside world due to weather, crisis or, in the worst case, war.

Gotland has, in light of the significantly deteriorated global situation, taken a central place in the debate, not least when it comes to the security policy discussion. Besides the fact that it is a matter of justice that residents, wherever they live in the country, should have more or less equal conditions, it is also required that Gotland functions in peacetime, as in the current situation it is a prerequisite for Sweden to function also in crisis or war.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, it should also be time for Gotland to receive fair conditions and a leveled playing field. Nowhere else in the country do companies pay such high transaction costs to be able to sell their goods and services. Nowhere else do private individuals pay so much to transport themselves across the municipal border; one in ten Gotlanders cannot afford to do so at all. Nowhere else in the country are the children in school and the elderly in need of care forced to pay the additional costs for a structurally underfunded healthcare system, as a consequence of Region Gotland bearing both the primary municipal and the regional responsibility in the same organization.

This risks, Madam Speaker, resulting in that Gotland's attractiveness as a place to live, move to, and operate businesses in decreases when the direction should be the opposite, especially as the need for a strong total defense increases.

Gotland is not alone as an island in facing these challenges. In fact, Sweden has the most islands of all nations in the entire world. In addition to the wording in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU has also recently adopted a specific strategy to counter the structural challenges that come from being an island.

OECD has studied these issues. There, one also sees consistent themes and challenges that islands specifically face. Many countries in the EU have taken the lead and in different ways tried to bridge these. Greece and Scotland appear as perhaps the foremost examples. But also Denmark, with its road price principle for, for example, the Bornholm traffic, shows the way for how islands can be given equivalent conditions and terms.

The Gotland Inquiry celebrates 70 years this year. In 1956, it was presented in the Riksdag. When I read it a few years ago, I could quite quickly conclude that not much has changed and that the challenges remain. Therefore, the conditions for the islands need to be taken care of and addressed through a purposeful island policy that collectively tackles the islands' special conditions in order to bridge these. It is an important step to give archipelagos and islands and everyone who lives, lives, and runs businesses there fair conditions and a sense that they are not driven further away from the mainland.

(Applause)

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

Mats Sander (M)

Madam Speaker! Skåne's opportunities are Sweden's strength. Skåne is the beginning of Sweden. Skåne is Sweden's gateway to Europe, and Skåne is crucial for the food supply in all of Sweden.

In Helsingborg, companies are making billion-dollar investments in food logistics for the entire country. The state infrastructure is not quite keeping up. It works a bit hit-or-miss at times. It is not enough that one can produce and store the food. It must also be able to reach the table.

Madam Speaker! When the Fehmarn Belt connection opens, transport between Sweden and the continent will change. Denmark is preparing with new infrastructure.

We need to build away Swedish bottlenecks when Europe builds new transport routes to our border. Already in 1992, the wise Riksdag decided that the Västkustbanan should be expanded to double track. Still, 4,500 meters remain from central Helsingborg and northward. It restricts the entire Västkustbanan, its entire effect. It also affects the Oslo–Hamburg route negatively. That bottleneck we must get rid of.

The overloaded E6, between Helsingborg and Malmö, needs to be expanded to three lanes in each direction. The queues cause costs in Skåne but affect the entire country.

The airport in Ängelholm connects Stockholm's business community with northwestern Skåne's business community. It must be secured.

Madam Speaker! The Öresund Bridge is a success for both Sweden and Denmark. But it is our only fixed connection across the Öresund, and that makes us vulnerable. It is about Sweden's preparedness and our connections with Europe. We need to work for a second fixed connection.

But bridges and tunnels are not enough if border obstacles remain. Taxes, social security, and administration hinder people who live on one side of the Öresund and work on the other. The pace for removing the border obstacles must increase.

Madam Speaker! Skåne's opportunities to contribute even more to Sweden's development are great, but they are not fully utilized. Investments in Skåne are not only for Skåne and the people of Skåne. The investments in Skåne make all of Sweden stronger.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Lyckestam (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Sweden can become the world's best country to live in. We are not quite there yet, but we can aspire to such a position. But then we must first realize that Sweden in many ways is a divided country. Many of Sweden's successes are today concentrated in a few parts of the country. Stockholm, for example, alone accounts for 30 percent of Sweden's GDP.

I have a RUT investigation underway on this. But because I am a bit hialös, that is to say impatient, I intend to anticipate it somewhat.

Growth in Sweden is primarily concentrated in five areas. It is Mälardalen, with Stockholm at the forefront. It is Gothenburg and Borås. It is the Scanian west coast. It is a couple of mining municipalities in the north. It is municipalities along the E4 in Småland.

Outside these areas, a large majority of the municipalities are below the national average in terms of gross regional product. If one looks at a map of this, it becomes very clear that Sweden is a divided growth country – primarily between city and country.

Madam Speaker! There is, therefore, a significantly untapped growth potential in rural Sweden. If we can unlock that potential, all of Sweden will become wealthier. Otherwise, our task here in this chamber will increasingly be about redistributing resources between groups rather than being able to invest and commit.

We have legislation that in many ways is enacted here in Stockholm for Stockholm. We need to change that. The shore protection is one example. Here in this city, I can go out and see high-rise buildings one after another next to the water. But in my home municipality, Östra Göinge, a few local enthusiasts in one of the villages are not allowed to build a couple of ground-floor apartments 90 meters from a stream. The shore protection is, after all, 100 meters.

I believe that we, across party lines, need to develop a national rural strategy. By rural, I do not mean grazing land, red cottages and white caps. I mean entire areas, including smaller towns. I am thinking of Kristianstad, Tingsryd, Arvika and many other places outside the traditional growth areas. In such a strategy, one should identify problem areas for the countryside and propose reforms and changed legislation. It could involve a changed planning and building legislation where municipalities are given greater opportunity to handle eyesores, declining properties and unserious property owners. It is therefore about letting the municipalities be able to build attractive communities where people want to live and invest.

One of the most important measures for the countryside concerns the school. Smaller municipalities and smaller towns underperform in terms of school results compared to larger cities. This creates a skills shortage, unemployment, and reduced attractiveness. But even the school debate has a metropolitan focus. We discuss the existence or non-existence of free schools, but significantly less why children in the countryside, regardless of school provider, are given worse conditions than children in the big city.

Shoreline protection, planning and building legislation, and schools are just a few examples of problem areas that one should delve into deeply with such a strategy. It is about growth. Growth provides jobs, tax revenues, schools, services, trade, and living communities. I believe, Madam Speaker, this becomes even more important when the population decreases in many places due to out-migration and low birth rates. I believe that in the long run, this is a matter of survival for hundreds of Swedish municipalities.

I believe that Sweden can become the world's best country to live in. In order for us to get there, we must ensure that it is possible to live and live well in all of Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Arwin Sohrabi (S)

Madam Speaker! How wonderful that we have arrived at this important and pressing issue!

Housing is a human right. It may sound like a simple principle. But it is one of the basic prerequisites for an equal society and a very important part of our social construction.

Nearly 70 years ago, housing policy was placed at the center of the construction of the folkhemmet. The ambition then was very clear. All people should have the opportunity to live in a good living environment with security, dignity, and faith in the future. The home was not seen as just any commodity.

Since then, a great deal has happened, and we can state that the development has gone in another direction. The queues are growing, and the demand for own capital is increasing. The worry about the next rent increase is constantly present.

Young people are forced to stay at home much longer than they wish or are forced to move between temporary accommodations without the security that a home of their own entails. We can state that the path to a home of one's own has become far too long for far too many.

Unfortunately, this is a reality that unites the everyday lives of many, not only in our elongated country but also in large parts of Europe. From Germany to Spain, in country after country, we are witnesses to people growing tired of their homes being reduced to simple commodities.

It is a situation that we must not accept. For every generation deserves the opportunity to turn the key to their own door. It is a door behind which freedom, independence, and the opportunity to build a unique life of their own await.

Sweden has previously shown that policy can make a difference in exactly this area. Nearly a hundred years ago, the so-called own-home loan fund was created to give ordinary workers the opportunity to have their own home. In my hometown Malmö, it became the starting point for ordinary people's ownership of their housing.

Now it is time for a new and modern homeownership movement, where ordinary wage earners who go to work every morning get an opportunity to realize the dream of their own home and what comes with that dream. Perhaps it is the classic Volvo, villa, and dog, or perhaps it is car-sharing, BRF, and a farm cat.

It is time for a housing policy that once again puts the human being before the market. It is a policy where state and municipality hand in hand open the door for the majority, where more can take the step to their first home and where more construction cranes rise over our cities and communities.

Madam Speaker! One's own home should not be the summit of a mountain reached after decades of struggle and hard work. One's own home should be the path that makes the journey possible. It is not the final goal at life's end. One's own home is a beginning.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Markus Kallifatides and Samuel Pettersson (all S) concurred.

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

Tony Rahm (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates went to the election in 2022 on the promise of getting Sweden in order. Many of us can now state that we got Sweden in order. We gave the police more tools and the criminals harsher punishments, we adopted a new social services act, and now we see record-low numbers of shootings in Sweden. We also addressed the energy issue with new investments in nuclear power, and we established a long-term sustainable migration policy. We simply got Sweden in order.

The previous government did not, however, succeed in solving all societal problems. One of the most profound and structural problems is the Swedish housing market. The Moderate-led government took absolutely important steps to address some of the problems through, for example, regulatory simplifications, shorter lead times, and more buildable land. But the Swedish housing market has been completely dysfunctional for far too long.

I am a part-time politician in Malmö and can see there all the problems that exist with residential segregation, lock-in effects, and areas that are never renovated. But today's housing policy is not optimal for any part of our country, neither for the regions that are growing nor for the localities where the population is decreasing.

Numerous investigations have been carried out and amounts of reports have been written about the problems in the Swedish housing market. I, as a Moderate, am very certain that those problems have arisen because the market's mechanisms have been essentially completely taken out of play. This applies to everything from rent regulation and the municipalities' planning monopoly to rigid planning processes, tax systems, and detailed building regulations.

I do not mean that each of these things creates today's problems, but that they together create a sluggish mess of factors that neither allow people to live as they wish nor create conditions for growth in our entire country.

What I, therefore, above all would wish for from a coming government is that it investigates and develops the Swedish housing policy without preconditions. For it is Sweden's future prosperity that we are talking about. It is when large groups do not enter the housing market that job opportunities and relocation plans are crushed. The supply of skills is threatened, and the growth of companies comes to a standstill.

But just as serious is the lack of freedom that spreads when people do not have the opportunity to live in the way that best suits their life choices. We know that around 70 percent of Swedes dream of living in small houses, but far from all of these will achieve this dream. But there are solutions.

There is much to learn from other countries that have in different ways tried to make the housing market function better. Finland has experience with freer rent setting, Germany has worked on simplifying and harmonizing building regulations, and the Netherlands has developed models for more coordinated land and community planning.

No country has found the perfect solution. But the examples show that there are more paths for Sweden to take than we have tried so far. The Moderates are a party that sees the societal problems and is prepared to do our job to find the best solutions. We must dare to look beyond previous political deadlocks and implement the overarching changes required to make the housing market function.

Mr. Speaker! We must also know that "no action" or "no reorganization" of the current housing policy costs the state and society many billions in reduced tax revenues and inefficiently used resources. When people cannot move to where the jobs are, growth is harmed. When people cannot live as they wish, freedom is restricted. When rules and regulations become too extensive, everyone loses.

Even in the area of housing policy it applies: If we do as we always have done, we will get the result that we always have gotten.

(Applause)

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

Arwin Sohrabi (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking you, Tony, for your customary clarity that freer rent setting was needed! You are a warm advocate for market rents, and that was also the case this time.

My question to you concerns something else. The listener who was attentive might have noted that Tony and I referred to the same municipality. That is because we both sit in the same municipal council, I and member Tony Rahm.

We have both been able to follow the effect of the national housing policy on local construction over the last four years. Therefore, I am curious to hear what the member, who has followed this very closely not least in their role in the city planning committee, thinks.

What is your judgment on the housing policy pursued over the last four years and how it has affected, not least, our common home municipality Malmö?

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind you that this is not the municipal council, but it is the Riksdag.

I also want to remind you of the protocol: not to use "you" and "you" but to speak indirectly via the Speaker in all posts, even in replies. It may seem strange, but it has been a practice for a long time and is part of keeping the level of conflict down in the chamber.

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

Tony Rahm (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by correcting Member Arwin Sohrabi: I have not spoken about market rents. I have spoken about a freer rent setting, and there are different models in different countries – some of those countries I mentioned in my speech – that are worth looking at and taking inspiration from. But moving from today's rent regulation to a completely free rent setting is not something that I or the Moderaterna advocate for. We can therefore rule that out from the political agenda.

The point that I want to make regarding the past housing policy is somewhat the theme of my speech, namely that I and the Moderaterna are self-critical of a housing policy that perhaps has not been the absolute optimal. When we took office in 2022, there were so many problems to address that other problems had to be set aside a bit. Therefore, my wish in my speech was precisely that the coming government ensures that the Swedish housing policy is restructured.

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

Arwin Sohrabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the advice and tips for a new member – it is appreciated!

My short answer to MP Tony Rahm is: Thank you once again for your clarity regarding the fact that housing policy was deprioritized during the previous four years! But since not much policy actually took place, one might have wished that it hadn't also been necessary to phase out policy. I am primarily thinking of the investment supports that were phased out very quickly, with the consequence that construction almost collapsed completely.

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

Tony Rahm (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not agree that we deprioritized certain areas, for example, housing policy. What I said in the speech and what I repeated earlier was that other acute problems, for example, crime, the energy issue, and migration, took a very large amount of effort and resources to reallocate.

This opens up for an incoming government, perhaps under Arwin Sohrabis party leadership, to have great potential to change the conditions for the housing policy. I therefore look forward to what the government will deliver.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Tony Rahm for his speech and welcome him to the Swedish Parliament!

I think the speech was quite interesting in broad strokes. One cannot blame Tony Rahm for everything that the Tidö government has implemented, but we can state that the housing market was completely deprioritized by the Tidö majority. Now we can also state that Tony Rahm has an insight that this needs to be reformed.

Tony Rahm mentions a number of issues that the previous government has prioritized, and that is entirely correct. Another part that the Tidö government did not prioritize was unemployment and construction. In a previous debate, I pointed out that if one had wanted, one could have pursued a more offensive housing policy and perhaps at the same time worked a bit more for timber construction to focus on the forest industry and the jobs.

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

Tony Rahm (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to point out once again that we have not deprioritized the work on housing policy, but there were other areas that were so much more important.

The problems that I described in my speech are not new problems for Sweden and the housing market. They have existed for decades, and in fact, during the years before the Tidö Government, the Social Democrats sat in government and had every opportunity to influence the problems that existed on the housing market. It is a matter of not getting locked into previous solutions but instead looking at the whole and going through which problems we actually have and what the research and the actors in the housing market say, as well as how we can achieve broad political agreements in this area.

Now that we have solved the most acute problems in Sweden, we can tackle these problems seriously. My appeal to the incoming government, regardless of party, is to really tackle this.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Tony Rahm does have a certain amount of self-awareness. In his final contribution, perhaps Tony Rahm can return to unemployment, housing construction, and the housing shortage, perhaps in Malmfälten in Norrbotten, where we need to build very many homes that could provide very many unemployed people with jobs. Does Tony Rahm have any idea how that could be implemented?

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

Tony Rahm (M)

Madam Speaker! There are absolutely ideas, and that is what I mean by that a prerequisite-free review of the housing market area should be conducted.

I can only observe that in the member's undertone there are surely arguments that construction subsidies and the like would be the solution to the problems mentioned. But we have actually tested that in Sweden during very many different periods, and it has not solved the problems. We must go deeper and look broader.

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tony Rahm, for raising the important issue of housing policy!

The Tidö parties have been responsible for housing policy during the past four years, and the result is quite clear: Today we have 200,000 young people living at home involuntarily, without the possibility of moving out. We see increased unemployment, not least among construction workers, and we see many bankruptcies among the construction companies.

When we were in a recession in 2022 with a global situation that looked the way it did and housing construction was still not at record highs, why was such an important reform as the investment support removed? This has meant that young people have not been able to move out of their parents' homes during the four years that the Tidö parties have been responsible for housing policy.

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

Tony Rahm (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with the problems that the member mentions. But as I said earlier, these are not new problems. These are problems that have existed for many years, several decades, in this country.

During the eight years that the Social Democrats last sat in government, they did nothing about these problems, and as I was mentioning earlier, there is an underlying idea of subsidies and various supports to the sector to get housing construction started. But the research is very clear: This does not provide the effect one wants.

Therefore, it is required, once again, for a broader and deeper analysis of the housing market and the solutions that actually exist in other countries. We shall not copy any other country, but we shall take what will probably work in Sweden. Subsidies targeted at housing developers are, however, not the solution.

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

Samuel Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Tony Rahm and the Tidö parties are not solely responsible for the development of housing policy, but what the Tidö parties have done is to remove the investment support in the middle of a recession, with the result that young people have not been able to move out from home.

We had a positive development during the red-green years 2014–2022 when housing construction gradually increased until the pandemic.

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

Tony Rahm (M)

Madam Speaker! It is absolutely true that the Tidö parties or the government removed the targeted subsidies. But then the question is: Should we not trust the research which states that these subsidies do not provide the effects one wants?

We must also be honest that the subsidies were removed during 2023. It takes a very long time to build housing, so even if the subsidies had not been removed and housing had been built because of this, they would not be finished today. The problem that young people are not getting housing today arose when you had the power of government.

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

Ilyas Hassan (V)

Madam Speaker! We who are interested in housing policy can say that we find ourselves in a very exciting time. This is a time when people all over the world are mobilizing for the right to have access to something as basic as a home and to be able to live under dignified conditions.

What should be a self-evident matter is, unfortunately, many times not. In Spain, we see right now how people are organizing themselves and that housing policy issues are at the top of the agenda. It is so serious that Spain will go to extra elections just because of this.

In Mexico, we see a different development. The left-wing government there, under the leadership of President Claudia, is developing ambitious programs for housing construction. Within six years, one million homes are to be built through state investments. Parallel to this, they are building spa facilities, swimming pools, and skateparks so that even people who are not in a good financial position can take part. That is how you create more jobs, instill hope, and build communities that hold together.

What does the housing policy situation look like here at home in Sweden? It is so bad that I hardly dare to say it. According to the National Board of Health and Welfare, more than 27,000 people live in some form of homelessness, and approximately 9,400 children have a parent who lives in homelessness.

The housing policy situation is a reality for many people in Sweden today. It affects young people who want to be able to shape their future. It affects people living with violence in close relationships who, due to today's housing situation, find it even tougher to get out of the relationship.

My friends! I believe there are many who are listening to this chamber's debate and asking themselves why nothing is being done. To them, I want to say: I share your frustration.

Not so long ago, I met a tenant in Järva. He described to me how his landlord, the slum-landlord Victoriahem, can neglect their responsibilities year after year and fail to address the reported faults that come in, yet still manage to continue piling up the profits. This happens at the same time as the tenants struggle and toil, doing everything in their power to make the finances stretch.

Another tenant described to me how she ensures that her family does not flush the toilet too often. The reason for this is that even the water is now charged in some residences.

We thus have a terrible housing situation at the same time as the number of unemployed has increased significantly during the Tidö government. To all of you who voted for us in Vänsterpartiet and who long for us to soon be able to tackle the challenges that exist in the housing market, I want to say: A big thank you for your votes! It is for you that we fight, and we will do everything in our power to reverse this development.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Let us imagine two young people who are 22 years old, who have completed the same education and received their first jobs. They have the same dreams, the same ambitions, and the same will to stand on their own feet. One has parents who can help with the down payment on a home. The other has parents who can barely manage their own rent. These two young people have the same will to work and the same dreams for the future, but completely different opportunities to realize them.

Is that how freedom is supposed to work in Sweden? For me, the answer is simple: No. When the opportunity for one's own home is decided by the parents' wallet, freedom and unfreedom also risk being inherited. It is a development that we Social Democrats can never accept.

Madam Speaker! The housing shortage is not just about how many homes there are, but also about which homes people can actually afford to live in. In Boverket's latest housing market survey, 114 municipalities report that there is a shortage of housing for young people. In around seven out of ten of these municipalities, the explanation is that the available homes are simply too expensive.

Think about what this means. A home can stand vacant while it is out of reach for those who need it. When a young nursing assistant cannot afford to move to a job, a student is forced to turn down a place of study, or two people put on hold the dream of starting a family, it is not just their own problem but also a societal problem. A society that is unable to offer people homes they can afford also limits people's opportunities to work, educate themselves, and shape their lives.

Madam Speaker! The market has an important role. Companies should build and invest, and people should be able to buy and own their homes. But the market builds where the calculation adds up and not necessarily where people's needs are greatest. It is precisely for that reason we need an active housing policy.

The Social Democrats want to introduce state construction credits that facilitate the financing of new housing. We want a modern investment support that makes it possible to build rental apartments with reasonable rents, not least student housing and housing in places where jobs are emerging. We want the state and the municipalities to take a clearer joint responsibility for the housing supply. We want to strengthen the tenants' security and give more young people the opportunity to move out from home.

We also want to make it easier for people to buy their first home, not just for those who have well-off parents backing them. Social Democratic housing policy is not about everyone living identically. It is about everyone having real opportunities to choose how they want to live.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides (S) agreed.

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

Katarina Bosetti-Kristoffersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Let us imagine a person who has worked in the same industry for 20 years. The person knows their job, knows their colleagues, and knows what is required to make production work. Then comes the news that the industry is to be restructured. New technology is to be introduced, and the person may need to retrain.

Then the questions come. What happens to my job? How am I supposed to manage the finances during the time I am studying? These are questions that politics must be able to answer.

I come from the trade union movement. For me, it is obvious that the climate transition should be just and that wage earners should be a part of it. We need to invest in Swedish industry, expand renewable energy, and ensure that there is enough electricity and functioning transport. With long-term conditions, we can create new jobs, strengthen our competitiveness, and reduce emissions.

But the climate transition must also be distributed fairly. People with small economic margins should not have to bear an unreasonably large share of the cost. Because the transition is not just about reducing emissions. It is also about people's security, about future jobs, and about what kind of society we want to build. Those who need to educate themselves in the middle of their working lives must be able to pay the rent in the meantime. Therefore, we need to strengthen the opportunities for transition education and ensure that people have economic security at all times.

Security is also about more than economics. It is also about feeling trust that one receives support when working life changes and that one is not left alone to bear the responsibility for their transition. That responsibility we must take together. Politics must create the conditions for a secure and just transition. The employers must take responsibility for skills development while at the same time the employees shall have influence when workplaces change.

Madam Speaker! We have a responsibility for the world we leave behind, for our children and grandchildren and for all generations that come after us. But we also have a responsibility to ensure that those who live in the midst of the transition can do so in secure assurance that we carry it together, that one is not left alone. It is we who must make the decisions and make the investments today.

I believe in the future, in people's ability to transition and in the possibilities of Swedish industry. We can reduce emissions, create secure jobs and build a society where people feel hope for the future. The climate transition is an opportunity to build a society. We must seize that opportunity, for us who live today and for the generations that come after us.

(Applause)

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

Niclas Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! In Halland, one encounters two stories that both concern what happens when environmental legislation is allowed to lack an upper limit.

Let me start in the north with the now notorious Onsalavägen. It is a road project that has been discussed for 77 years and which is still not finished. The road carries up to 12,800 vehicle passages per day and is accident-prone. Families with children, commuters and emergency services use it every day.

The need for the new road has long been known, but the project has been delayed due to various investigations, appeals, and legal processes. The government gave the green light in 2018, but that was followed by new assessments regarding species protection. It was not until 2025 that the final species protection exemption was approved, including for small woodpeckers and green woodpeckers, and the start of construction became possible. Now, in 2026, the project faces new appeals. This time, they are linked to biotope-protected stone walls.

Madam Speaker! I do not even dare to guess what this has cost Swedish taxpayers so far for planning, investigations, and legal processes. But I dare to assert that the problem is not that people have the right to appeal an agency decision. That right is an important part of our rule of law. The problem is that the same issue can be examined over and over again, in instance after instance and for decades, without there ever being a final limit. That is not legal certainty. It is legal insecurity for all those who are waiting for their way.

Therefore, I ask: Is it reasonable that the same issue can be appealed in several instances, over and over again, without there being a temporal upper limit for the review?

Madam Speaker! My second example is located a bit further south, at the beach in Skummeslöv and southern Mellbystrand. There, cars have been used on the beach for over a hundred years, and the beach has long functioned as both a destination and a road.

The municipality has stated that they have not seen any clear environmental impact from the traffic. The issue was tested several times during the 2010s, but it was not until 2019 that the Land and Environment Court ruled that the activity was environmentally hazardous according to the Environmental Code.

According to information, the number of guest nights in Laholm has decreased by more than 30 percent compared to 2025. The decision affects both local businesses and the municipality as a whole. And according to SVT, Laholm municipality's fight for the beach cost at least 200,000 kronor for only vandalized barriers plus additional million amounts for legal processes.

Is it reasonable that environmental legislation has such significant local consequences without alternative solutions or impact assessments carrying more weight in the decision-making process?

Madam Speaker! Finally: Both Onsalavägen and the beach at Skummeslöv and southern Mellbystrand show the same pattern; there are good intentions in the legislation, which in practice lacks a far boundary, a timeframe, or a requirement to weigh the local reality against the interests of nature conservation. The problem is not the environmental protection itself but the lack of balance and predictability in how it is applied.

I hope that these examples are taken seriously in the ongoing work to reform the permit processes and that residents in both the north and south can trust that decisions concerning their everyday lives are made within a reasonable timeframe and with reasonable consideration for those who actually live and work there.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Tomas Brandberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Environmental measures must be in proportion to the problems they are intended to solve, and one must be vigilant regarding the consequences.

During the previous mandate period, the red-green politics led to us having diesel prices in the absolute top tier of Europe. Periodically, we are said to have had Europe's highest diesel prices of all. In "subway land" one can imagine that it doesn't matter. But outside the large cities, this has consequences.

High diesel prices are a problem for those who do not live in city centers. Commuters and many companies, for example farmers, face direct cost increases. This, therefore, has an impact on our competitiveness. In large part, the entire trade, including grocery stores, is also affected by higher costs, which are indirectly passed on to consumers.

Madam Speaker! Better yet, almost exactly four years ago, we got a Tidö government in place, and we got a fuel policy that took into account ordinary families who cannot travel by public transport in their daily lives and who, for various reasons, cannot buy an electric car. It was a policy that also took into account the business sector, which truly needs heavy transport.

Tax plays a certain role here. Instead of raising and raising the tax on gasoline and diesel, which was the red-green's policy, we got a government that kept taxes down.

The reduction obligation on diesel, i.e., the requirement for the blending of bio-components, did however play a major role here. On New Year's Eve 2023/24, the price of diesel fell by 4.60. If one isolates the effect of the then-reduced reduction obligation, it would have become up to 5 kronor per liter.

Madam Speaker! This is remarkable. For several years, a policy was pursued here that drove up the prices of diesel by several kronor per liter. What did we get for the money? Parallel to this, a process was underway in the EU that restricted the use of agricultural products for fuel purposes. The result was a rather extensive import of animal fats. And it continues, but on a smaller scale.

This becomes a bit strange. We are then stimulating large-scale animal husbandry across the entire world. This leads to indirect emissions of greenhouse gases and other environmental effects. It should be a consumer education for vegans that the bus or the car runs on animal energy. If one does not want shoes from animal components, one perhaps also does not want to ride a bus powered by incinerated animals.

Madam Speaker! I have turned this over and over for many years. The environmental effects of transitioning from fossil fuels to biofuels usually land somewhere in the middle between marginally positive and directly negative on the scale. In some cases, so-called environmental measures have led to very negative consequences, such as the logging of rainforests and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

It will be interesting to see what policy an incoming government will pursue here. Miljöpartiet has promised higher fuel prices. Other red-green parties have kept a somewhat low profile during recent years.

I understand that there will be a negotiation, regardless of how the next government is composed, but we may have member meetings sometimes, those of us who want to explain how they and their parties view this issue.

(Applause)

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I welcome Tomas Brandberg to the Swedish Parliament and thank him for his speech.

We had a debate here earlier that dealt with business policy, industrial policy, and regional development. In my speech, I highlighted all the cuts that the Tidö majority implemented. They stopped projects and slowed down investments, much of it linked to biofuels and chemical products from the forest industry.

From the rostrum, Tomas Brandberg pointed out that we could have had a diesel price of so and so. In 2021, we had a diesel price of approximately 14 kronor, under an S government. After Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the diesel price rose to approximately 22 kronor, and we now see what happens to the diesel price when Trump bombs Iran and the militias close the shipping routes. It must be quite clear to everyone what it is that affects the diesel prices.

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

Tomas Brandberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the reply, Mr. Member Isak From!

I am an expert when it comes to calculating diesel prices, so feel free to talk to me about it! There are four factors: oil prices, exchange rates, the reduction obligation, and the tax. Obviously, we do not directly influence geopolitics here in this chamber, but on the other hand, we do influence tax and the reduction obligation. Just as I said in my speech, lowered tax and lowered reduction obligation lead to lower fuel prices.

I feel very secure in this discussion, Madam Speaker. We in the Sverigedemokraterna promised that diesel would become 10 kronor cheaper per liter. One can calculate it in different ways. Feel free to say it became 7.50 – that is okay. We got cheaper diesel.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! In 2021, we had a higher share of biofuels, at a lower price, and we had a different policy for transition. We could have proceeded with electrification and carried out more investments in HVO or Methanol to be able to run on more renewable fuels, because we need to do both, Madam Speaker.

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

Tomas Brandberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the closing remark, Mr. Member!

You had decades to achieve production of biofuels in Sweden, but it became a failure after these decades of investments and various incentives. You delivered very little during that entire time.

What you received was exactly what I described in my speech, namely a large-scale import of animal fats from all corners of the world – much from Europe but also from Australia, China, South America and so on. It was not successful policy.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency published this week the in-depth evaluation of the Swedish environmental goals, which is conducted every four years. It is a gloomy read.

The evaluation shows that only 1 of the 16 goals will be reached by 2030. The biggest problems concern climate, biodiversity and pollution. None of the three goals Limited climate impact, Rich plant and animal life and Toxic-free environment will be able to be reached, and for the climate and biodiversity the trend is furthermore negative. The same three areas are also highlighted on a global level by the UN, which points out that we are in a planetary triple crisis: climate crisis, nature crisis and pollution crisis.

This is the reality that is unfolding around us, but that reality made no impression on the Tidregering's work. During their time in power, they pursued a policy that drastically increased Sweden's emissions. They also made brutal cuts in nature conservation. Resources for the protection and maintenance of valuable nature were slashed, and money for environmental monitoring was withdrawn.

Madam Speaker! It is now clear that the world's goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees will not be reached. It is a great failure that will result in more extreme weather and serious damage to human health, food supply, and access to water. It is now required that emissions are drastically reduced in the coming years while nature's ability to capture and store carbon is strengthened.

The climate crisis is one of the issues that worries the Swedish people the most. When politicians abdicate from leadership, they simultaneously place the entire weight of the climate crisis on the shoulders of individual citizens. People want to be able to live without climate impact, but for that to become a reality, we need a government that is capable of steering us there and that dares to make the investments and introduce the regulations that are required.

Madam Speaker! Researchers have established that the loss of species and ecosystems is a threat as great as the climate crisis. Of the Earth's approximately eight million plant and animal species, nearly one million are at risk of extinction. We are now in the sixth mass extinction.

That none of the national environmental goals with a direct connection to biodiversity are being met is a failing grade for a wealthy welfare country like Sweden. It is also unfortunately a testament to the fact that environmental considerations continue to be subordinated to short-term profit interests. To break the trend, new instruments and an improved regulatory framework are required so that agriculture and forestry, fishing, and other activities can be conducted sustainably within nature's limits. It is also required that we protect areas with high nature values.

Protecting and restoring nature is not just about saving cute animals and magnificent wilderness landscapes. It is, to the highest degree, about protecting people's lives and health. The British intelligence service has sounded the alarm that several important ecosystems risk collapsing as early as during the 2030s, that is, in just a few years. Since we are dependent on these ecosystems for our access to food and water, it is an acute security threat.

The more biodiversity in nature decreases, the more the vulnerability within agriculture and forestry increases to drought, floods, and storms. The more species that go extinct, the more the possibility to find remedies for diseases and technical solutions to future challenges in nature decreases.

The countries that will fare best are, according to the British alarm report, those that invest in the protection and restoration of ecosystems. Everything, therefore, speaks for making powerful efforts here and now to avoid catastrophic consequences.

Arctic melting together with global warming and the pollution humanity emits interact in a planetary triple crisis. No one will be left untouched by its consequences. To get us out of this situation, political leadership is required. We shall continue to cultivate land, forests and oceans, but we must do so in a sustainable way. Ultimately, it is nature's carrying capacity that must set the limits for what we can do.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to speak about something that is crucial for all life – something that we often take for granted but that no human, no animal and no plant can survive without, namely water.

Water is our most important food. All living organisms are dependent on the availability of clean water, but the conditions are changing rapidly. Climate change leads to higher temperatures, the rain has changed, and in many places there are longer periods of drought. Several large European rivers have record-low water levels, which affects flora and fauna and limits shipping and energy production.

During the summer, Europe was also hit by extensive and devastating forest fires. The lack of precipitation and the extreme heat caused the fire to take hold and spread over large areas. People were forced to leave their homes, and natural values were lost.

Even in Sweden, the water shortage is noticeable. During the spring, groundwater levels in several places were unusually low early in the season. The consequences are clearly visible in the fields, especially in southern Sweden, on Gotland, and here in Skåne. Ditches and watercourses have dried up. Streams have been transformed into small stagnant puddles, where fish and other aquatic life find it increasingly difficult to survive. And it is still dry, even though the autumn low-pressure system has now begun to move in.

The forest is also affected. Seedlings that were planted during the autumn have in many places had difficulty establishing themselves. Drought weakens the trees and makes them more vulnerable to insect attacks. When the availability of vegetation decreases, the wildlife is also affected. A lack of food can contribute to the moose population decreasing and calves not surviving.

For agriculture, the situation is particularly serious. Large amounts of water are required to produce food and to keep livestock. We can no longer assume that the rain will come at the right time and in the right amount. Irrigation ponds, water reservoirs and better management of water therefore become increasingly important. The news this morning was about Kivik's distillery in Österlen considering desalinating seawater to secure its production.

The water shortage also affects households. The municipalities have to work hard to ensure that there is water in the taps. Residents in several places in the country have been urged to save and reduce consumption. It has made a difference, for example, at home in Skåne, where people really took their responsibility and succeeded in limiting the consumption of water.

To address the problems, we must also review the infrastructure. A significant proportion of the water pumped into the pipe networks leaks out before it reaches the tap. Estimates indicate that around 19 percent, i.e., one-fifth, can be lost through leakage. It is both a waste of a valuable resource and a sign that many municipalities need to invest more in their water and sewage networks.

Madam Speaker! What can we do then? The Centre Party has many proposals and good policies in this area.

Firstly, we must reduce emissions. Climate change is the fundamental cause of why droughts, heavy rainfall, heatwaves, and other extreme weather events are becoming more common and increasingly severe. Sweden must continue to transition away from fossil fuels and simultaneously push for higher ambitions within the EU and globally.

Secondly, we must climate-adapt society. We need to keep more water in the landscape through wetlands and rewetting of peatlands. We also need more irrigation ponds and better opportunities to store water during periods of heavy precipitation so that it can be used when the drought comes.

Thirdly, we must strengthen agriculture's ability to handle a changed climate. The Centre Party wants to improve the possibilities to invest in irrigation, drainage, and technologies that use water more efficiently. We also need to promote crops and cultivation methods that are better adapted to a warmer and drier climate. It is about Sweden's food security and preparedness.

We also need to modernize the Swedish water infrastructure. The municipalities must be given better long-term economic conditions to maintain and expand the pipe networks. We need to reduce water consumption in households and stop the leakage.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: We cannot treat water policy in a vacuum. We must have a holistic view.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ulrika Heie (C) agreed.

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

Carl Wiktor Svensson (KD)

Madam Speaker! When I was asked during the 2018 election campaign which was my most important election issue, I answered property rights. In 2022, I gave exactly the same answer. Now that I was asked the question again in the 2026 election campaign, I answered property rights.

Why this persistence, and why do I mention this in a debate on environment and climate? The Speaker might wonder. Yes, I am convinced that the difference between my, your, and our has served this country very well – not only economically in terms of prosperity and welfare but also in terms of private diversity, in contrast to supranational simplicity.

Although many socialists often claim to be the authors of public funds themselves, it is, in my opinion, instead profitability and competitiveness that have made Sweden a welfare state.

But back to diversity, Madam Speaker! One simply cannot ignore the well-established fact that the state is no guarantor of high nature values. On the contrary! The Environmental Goals Preparation notes that thousands of nature reserves have lacked current management plans for decades. Biotope protection after biotope protection lacks management, and neighbors to these are forced to endure bark beetle attacks after bark beetle attacks due to the state's mismanagement. State outdoor areas and parks have more dead wood than living wood and, due to a lack of management, are not accessible, even though the purpose is precisely accessibility and recreation.

One cannot ignore the short-sightedness that the supra-nationality through the oversight of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the County Administrative Boards, and the Swedish Forest Agency entails by not acting beyond a single mandate period, four years, in contrast to the cross-generational perspective that Sweden's 320,000 forest owners represent and work for every day.

Instead of trusting those who have created the natural values, the Left Party and the Green Party demand even more coercion and control.

They want to nationalize 30 percent of the productive forest land area – an area equivalent to all of Denmark.

One wants to introduce logging tax and logging financing of notifications and heavier authority controls.

One wants to return to continuous cover forestry, selective logging, and extended rotation periods.

People want stronger species protection, even though a single pine tree today can stop logging. The logging has sustained Sweden's welfare.

Miljöpartiet wants, in short, lower logging, less profitability, poorer growth and instead more crop failure. Instead of being proud of the forestry that has laid the foundation for Sweden's prosperity, which means so much for our welfare and which additionally has carried Sweden into carbon neutrality, active forestry is smeared as something negative.

I could have asked the Centerpartiet about their future compromises with Miljöpartiet, but I do not do that. Instead, I turn to their new partner in cooperation. Where does Miljöpartiet's red line actually stand towards Centerpartiet regarding whether ownership rights should be strengthened and whether private forestry is sustainable, and what restrictions can small landowners expect from you in government?

Madam Speaker! I usually say that shared responsibility is no one's responsibility. In the same way, party-political environmental responsibility is no one's responsibility.

The Christian Democrats, on the other hand, stand up for the difference between mine, yours, and ours. We trust Sweden's nature users.

I could have gone as far as to shout out: Ho ho! Where is Miljöpartiet in this chamber today? But I do not do that, because there is a risk that it will become a wet blanket even over this chamber.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I live in Koppom in western Värmland, a small place that not many people know about but which I wish more people could experience. There we live surrounded by deep forests and sparkling lakes. It is the place where I grew up and which I later chose to move back to in order to start a family myself.

Perhaps it is precisely all the childhood memories that make my hometown mean so much to me. When I think back to the summers as a child, it is above all the fishing trips that I remember. I remember those warm summer evenings when you sat and waited for the float to go under the water surface, the joy when it finally bit and the excitement of seeing what was on the hook, not to mention how good it was with freshly fried perch for Saturday breakfast. These are memories for life that surely many others recognize themselves in.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is not self-evident that future generations will get to experience this, because beneath the surface of our waters there is a threat that most of us never see: acidification. It is one of the most serious environmental damages that have hit Sweden in modern times, and Värmland is one of the counties that has been hit the hardest.

For decades, large amounts of acid rain fell over our forests and lakes. Fish stocks were wiped out, crayfish disappeared, and waters that had previously been full of life became almost dead. But through extensive liming work, we have succeeded in reversing the development. Since the 1980s, the state, the municipalities, and the county administrative boards have worked together to restore our waters. The results have been fantastic. Trout, grayling, and river crayfish have been able to return. The endangered river pearl mussel has received better conditions to survive. It is a crystal-clear example of long-term environmental policy that actually works.

Madam Speaker! Last week, my parliamentary colleague Peter Söderström and I accompanied the Värmland County Liming Association on a liming assignment in Filipstad. What we heard there was alarming, to say the least.

This year, approximately 23,000 tonnes of lime would need to be spread in Värmland to meet the needs, but the money was sufficient for around 13,000 tonnes. The reason is that the state subsidy for liming has not been increased since 2019, and at the same time, the costs for lime have increased by around 50 percent.

We see the consequences already now: Water samples show falling pH values. Our lakes and watercourses are simply starting to become more acidic again. If this development continues, we risk losing much of what we have managed to achieve with the liming.

Madam Speaker! This is, of course, about biodiversity and our responsibility for nature, but it is also about sport fishing, the tourism industry, and the jobs that nature creates in the Swedish countryside.

Acidification is a national environmental debt that the state must take responsibility for. We cannot allow the costs of liming to be shifted onto municipalities that already have a very heavily pressured economic situation. Therefore, we must ensure long-term financing of the liming activities.

Madam Speaker! I want my daughter and her friends, just as I, to grow up with living lakes and watercourses, but that will not happen by itself. It requires that we continue to lime and do not let what has been built up over so many years be lost. That is what we owe both to nature and to future generations.

(Applause)

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

Jennie Bergius Eriksson (M)

Madam Speaker! The market economy is a wonderful thing. It has lifted millions of people out of poverty, hunger, and disease, but it is time to update it.

Humans have existed for nearly 300,000 years, and 10,000 years ago we became sedentary. We were gatherers who became farmers, and about 250 years ago industrialization arrived. At that time we were around 800 million people, and today we are 8 billion.

In Sweden, we produce and consume every year as if we had four planets, and in April every year, our budget for resource extraction is exhausted.

This week, the World Wide Fund for Nature released its annual Living Planet report. It states that the world's populations of vertebrates have decreased by 70 percent since the 70s. Even though we in Sweden may not have the very greatest challenges with dwindling biodiversity, and despite the fact that our carbon footprint only accounts for 0.1 percent of the global total, the earth is, as is known, round.

Imagine if we had a market economy that was just right and that continued to create prosperity without jeopardizing the planetary boundaries or the entrepreneurs' annual results and financial security. Imagine if it were simply possible to update the market's rules of the game so that they steered better toward the goal of conserving natural resources rather than conserving the number of hours worked in a value chain. Imagine if the market economy were reweighted so that the tax on labor was reduced and the tax on the earth's resource extraction was increased.

Stefan Krook, founder and CEO of Kivra, Glocalnet and God el, has developed these thoughts into a model and a book called The laghum economy. He proposes – like a change of a computer's operating system – an update for the global market economy.

In Sweden, today 40 percent of GDP consists of tax revenue, and more than 50 percent of these funds are tied to taxes on labor. Today, therefore, a person's price is largely determined by precisely the number of hours worked.

Imagine instead that every item had an information carrier – an EAN code – that could state, for example, the furniture's material, its production method, how far the furniture had been transported, as well as any environmental toxins in it, and that this instead constituted the basis for the price. Thanks to such an EAN code, one could successively shift the tax base from labor to resource extraction.

In this way, it would also become easy to do right for both customer and company – and what growth power would be unleashed! More jobs would become possible, and more innovative material flows would arise.

The question is big, but humanity has reached the moon, and last week a Nobel Prize was awarded for something that has made it possible for us to read the brain's signals with the help of light.

Industry by industry and bit by bit, this is fully possible. However, it is no quick fix, and it does not happen overnight. It also does not happen without further problematization and follow-up questions, but it is fully possible to go from thought to reality and from a national level further to the Nordics and Europe and finally – because it creates a competitive advantage – to a completely new market economy on a global level.

Madam Speaker! As a small person and as a small first step, I propose here today a big first step for humanity: a state public inquiry with the aim of clarifying the concepts and continuing the work with Stefan Krook's economic model the laghum economy. We are, in fact, indebted to the next generation to that, we are indebted to each other to that, and we are indebted to the companies to that. They need decent conditions to make wise choices from the outside.

A balanced economy – or a "lagom" economy – is truly important.

(Applause)

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has the world's best animal welfare, we usually say. But is that really true, when we see what happens to the animals that no one else wants to take responsibility for?

All over the country, there are voluntary animal welfare associations and shelters that step in when society fails. The County Administrative Board can decide that animals should be taken into care, but once the decisions are made, the responsibility often falls on voluntary associations. If no association has space or funds, the result is often that the animal is euthanized.

At the same time, there are thousands of homeless cats that never come into contact with any authority. They freeze, starve, get sick and are injured – and who takes responsibility? Yes, people who work voluntarily on evenings and weekends, open their homes as foster homes and pay for veterinary care, neutering and rehabilitation with money collected through donations and flea markets.

The public has in practice made itself dependent on their kindness, but their kindness has a price. Veterinary costs are high, and associations spend hundreds of thousands of kronor – sometimes millions – on saving animals. Still, they are expected to continue without any self-evident funding.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, the General Inheritance Fund manages very large assets of over 17 billion and distributes more than one billion kronor annually to projects within civil society. We must dare to ask: Which activities do we choose to support and which do we leave out?

Today's legislation means that animal welfare is not an independent eligible purpose for the Inheritance Fund. The consequence is that organizations that rescue animals and prevent suffering are excluded from the possibility of applying for support solely for their animal welfare work. This is a regulatory framework that needs to be changed.

Madam Speaker! I do not mean that the state should take over voluntary animal welfare, but if society relies on these organizations, we must also provide them with reasonable conditions to carry out their work. Therefore, I want us to amend the Act on the General Inheritance Fund.

My concrete proposal is that animal welfare is included as an explicitly eligible purpose in the first chapter of the law so that non-profit animal welfare organizations can apply for project funding to develop their activities, rescue vulnerable animals and prevent suffering. It is not about financing all associations' running costs, but about opening the possibility of funding for concrete development projects within animal welfare.

We must stop assuming that voluntary forces will solve society's problems entirely on their own. If we are serious about animal welfare, we must also give those who rescue the animals better conditions to succeed. Ultimately, it is about what kind of society we want to be – a society where we turn a blind eye and hope that someone else takes care of the problems, or a society where we stand behind those who do the work every day? I know what kind of society I want.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! I share the view that it is positive that Sweden has a strong animal welfare and that it is something we should safeguard.

The member mentioned that it is a problem that many cats live without owners in the wild and are not chipped and registered in the Swedish Board of Agriculture's cat register. I am very proud that we, in a previous government position, ensured that this registration became a requirement. Previously, it only existed for dogs, but now it also applies to cats. My question is, if the member considers this to be a problem, what the Tidö Government has done so that more cats are registered.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! As a Sweden Democrat, I am extra proud to say that the proposal that cats should be chipped and registered is based on a motion that my party colleague Markus Wiechel submitted over ten years ago. Even individual motions can therefore make a difference in the end.

Homeless cats are a problem, and it is often precisely the funding that needs to be strengthened so that the work with them can continue. One proposal is to use a portion of the funds that exist in the General Inheritance Fund.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! A major reason why there are many homeless cats in Sweden is that cats' status is not as high as, for example, dogs'. We simply do not value them as highly. The requirement that cats must be microchipped and registered was a very important step.

My question remains: What has the Tidö government and the member's own party, Sverigedemokraterna, done so that more cat owners will actually follow the legislation?

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! We within the party have had contact with several cat organizations and tried to help them reach out with information to cat owners. The voluntary cat associations, by taking care of homeless cats, come into contact with many of the farmers who have uncastrated cats.

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

Julia Algotsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I stand here on the Center Party's mandate from Västerbotten. I want to take the opportunity to tell what I see at home in my county. In Västerbotten and in northern Sweden, enormous economic values are created from the forests, the mines, and the hydropower. Here there are people who have an enormous drive and who create value for Sweden every day. But I also see something else.

I see how community services, infrastructure, and welfare are falling behind in comparison to the rest of the country. It is taking longer to reach healthcare, not least emergency maternity care. The access to vital community services, schools, and elderly care is completely different compared to other parts of the country. It is a development that must be reversed. More of the money created locally must remain, so that people can continue to work and live in the whole country.

Madam Speaker! I want to speak more about something that is particularly grating and that is being discussed at kitchen tables. It is that while public services are not what they should be, an important basic industry for the countryside and northern Sweden is being threatened. The question of forestry's role in the future polarizes and creates uncertainty.

We have used the forest for hundreds of years in Sweden. Forestry has built our welfare, and our unique structure with over 300,000 private forest owners makes us different from others. Here, forest raw materials are produced in a very exemplary manner.

In addition to the fact that forestry generates tax revenue, accounts for 10 percent of Swedish exports and provides tens of thousands of jobs, the economic value of standing forest is important. It makes the forest mortgageable, and thus creates opportunities for all kinds of investments in the countryside that otherwise would never have happened. This is crucial, not least for Norrland agriculture, because forestry and food production go hand in hand. Here, there are no opportunities to mortgage agricultural land or large margins to invest without logging.

The possibility of utilizing the forest is crucial for strengthening Swedish food security throughout the country. When species protection, the birds directive, or other ill-adapted policies restrict property rights, the consequences are significant. It lays a wet blanket over future investments when it could instead have created growth and confidence in the future.

Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight the forest's important role in the climate transition we have ahead of us. It is worth repeating that the forest can and must be able to be used and should not just stand untouched.

To replace the black carbon, alternatives are required. Forest resources offer this – without us increasing our extraction for that reason. Through the forest, we can strengthen our preparedness and our climate work, and the potential must not be diminished.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's green industries must be protected and nurtured. They are keys to a living Sweden and a sustainable future where we meet the climate goals and achieve growth throughout the country. It is also crucial that we find ways for the values from these industries remain locally to a greater extent.

(Applause)

In this speech, Stina Larsson (C) agreed.

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

Hanna Netterberg (M)

Madam Speaker! A country's prosperity is directly linked to the availability of energy, and Sweden is in a politically decisive position. In an uneasy world, independence and robustness are to a large extent a security issue. It is also about fossil-free production to meet our climate goals. It is about what households and companies can expect from an energy system and what it will cost. It is about the jobs and the security.

Halland and my home municipality Varberg face the next chapter with opportunities for completely new reactors on Väröhalvön.

Sweden needs investments, innovations and new jobs. We do not need more companies that refrain from expanding or simply move their operations because of a lack of capacity in the electricity grid or high electricity prices.

Industry, the transport sector and society need to be electrified. The fossil-free energy sources that can be expanded on a large scale are nuclear power, solar energy and wind power. Sweden had an energy system that was practically fossil-free and stable, thanks to hydropower in the north and nuclear power in the south.

Production, transmission capacity and consumption must be in balance. We need more of everything. We need an energy mix. But most importantly, a stable and predictable power system.

When the Moderate-led government took office, new nuclear power was practically an impossibility, but thanks to the consensus among the four coalition parties on the description of the problem and the solutions, the political obstacles disappeared. The blue-yellow team has opened up for nuclear power in more locations and made permit processes simpler, and there is also a financing and risk-sharing model.

Madam Speaker! Now the development is being jeopardized, because with a potential new left-wing government, I actually do not know what kind of energy policy we will get. Nuclear power is an investment that spans many decades. And who will build it if the rules of the game are constantly changing?

For Halland, it is about jobs now and for generations to come, and for Sweden, it is about electricity at competitive prices for households and for companies.

A secure and stable energy supply is part of the social contract, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the contract holds.

(Applause)

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

Terje Skaarnes (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is an image that politicians in Sweden and in the rest of Europe have built their rules around for many years, namely that the only thing that matters is which fuel the car is powered by. It is about bonuses for electric cars, a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, and environmental zones where only the propellant counts. Furthermore, it is about electricity being good and fuel such as petrol and diesel being bad. But the reality is not so simple.

Here in Stockholm, there has been a desire to shut out all petrol and diesel cars from parts of the city. A heavy electric SUV weighing two and a half tons would have been allowed to drive in, but a small petrol car, half as heavy as the electric SUV, would not have been allowed. The County Administrative Board has thankfully stopped the proposal, but the idea remains.

The emissions do not come solely from the exhaust pipe. The tires wear down. The roads wear down. The brakes wear down. And the heavier the car is, the more particles. It then makes no difference what the car is powered by.

Much of the road dust in Stockholm comes from studded tires during the winter. Therefore, many cities have banned studded tires on several streets, and more are on the way. But where the studded tires are gone, the weight remains. And it is there all year round.

At my home in Munkedal, and in large parts of the country, it looks different than on Kungsgatan. There, the car is not a choice. That is how you get to work and to the store, and that is how you get away to pick up the children. There are long distances, and many drive a used car that they can afford. They are told year in and year out that they are part of the problem. It is not fair, and it is not true either.

A new electric car costs several hundred thousand kronor. Even with a premium, which is paid for by other taxpayers, there are not many who have those amounts lying around. The person who drives a ten-year-old diesel car rarely does so because they want to destroy the environment, but they do it because it is the car that fits or the car they can afford. A car that is maintained and driven for a long time can be a better choice than a heavy electric car that is bought just because it has the right label. It is the total picture that counts: weight, wear and tear, reuse, how the car is manufactured, how long it is used, and what happens afterwards.

Even the EU has begun to understand this. With the Euro 7 regulation, particles from brakes and tires will be regulated for the first time for all cars – including electric cars. And it doesn't end there. The EU Commission has proposed that they should back away from the rule that only electric cars should be sold from 2035. The major car manufacturers have made the same journey. Even Volvo has released the goal of only selling electric cars. It is not because they have stopped caring about the environment, but because reality is more complicated.

This is not about being against electric cars. Those who want an electric car shall be allowed to get one, but those who live in the city or in the countryside and drive a diesel car should not have to feel ashamed for it.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I grew up on a small forest farm in Södra Unnaryd, on the border between Småland and Halland. In addition to helping out on the farm, I spent my summers fishing and swimming in Lake Bolmen, which was located a few kilometers away. Even then, commercial fishing in Bolmen was conducted by the Ekwall family at Tiraholms fisk. That activity has since been complemented by fish processing, a farm shop, a fish truck, a restaurant, conference activities, and a hotel. The site is also the center for a research station operated by Sydvatten.

Why do I then speak about Tiraholms fisk? Well, because it is an excellent example of a modern and acclaimed rural enterprise that contributes to the Swedish food supply and at the same time complements its core business with additional legs to stand on. They have created a destination for the whole of southern Sweden.

In exactly the same way, many agricultural companies around Halland have chosen to complement their operations with processing, farm shops, or café activities. In total, there are actually 2,500 agricultural companies that cultivate 100,000 hectares of land and keep 85,000 head of cattle in Halland. This is good both for Halland and for Sweden, but it is not enough.

Sweden's self-sufficiency rate for food is today only 50 percent calculated by value. If one looks at consumption, we import 20 percent of the pork, 25 percent of the chicken, 50 percent of the beef and 75 percent of the mutton. On the fish side, only 25 percent comes from Swedish fishing. This is naturally not reasonable – especially not in these times of unrest in the outside world. Therefore, we need sharp measures to strengthen Swedish primary production.

Firstly, clear and quantified production targets are needed, which the outgoing government chose not to include in the new food strategy. The Center Party wants to see both an overall target of 80 percent and quantified targets within each respective segment. Among other things, we have highlighted the need for half a million more grazing animals. Halland is already one of our most livestock-dense counties, but despite that, we have room for more cows and sheep that can contribute to keeping the landscape open.

Secondly, clear conditions regarding profitability within Swedish agriculture are also needed. Therefore, the Center Party wants to halve the bureaucracy and introduce an agricultural deduction that lowers taxes and reduces complications. Unlike the outgoing government, we want to ensure that Swedish agriculture remains unharmed when the EU adopts its new long-term budget.

For the third, we need to invest in strengthened resilience through emergency stocks of feed, seed, fuel, and fertilizer. But we also need to ensure that we expand the Swedish production of biofuels to reduce our dependence on the rest of the world. It is also about functioning basic conditions. When the outgoing government allowed the District Veterinarians in southern Halland to be closed a year ago, it hit the conditions for animal husbandry directly.

What both Halland's farmers and professional fishers need to feel is that Sweden's newly elected Riksdag sees the value in their activities. The activities contribute to our food supply, to keeping the landscape open, and to developing new tourist destinations. Therefore, a policy was also needed that strengthens both economy and production, so that in the end we can also strengthen our self-sufficiency rate.

(Applause)

In this speech, Julia Algotsson and Stina Larsson (both C) agreed.

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

Annelie Hastig Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, there are approximately 300,000 individual forest owners. In many cases, they have cared for and managed the forest for generations. Forestry is a long-term responsibility. The investments and measures made today will be seen by coming generations. Reliable, stable and long-term conditions are necessary for the forestry industry.

Today, the opportunities with the raw material that forestry provides us with are greater than ever. It is also a strategic asset for Sweden. It is no longer just an economically important industry. It is also an important renewable resource that provides us with a raw material that makes us less fossil-dependent and less dependent on imports. In uneasy times, one cannot overstate the importance of access to a raw material that is produced within the country's borders. Therefore, forestry policy is also a matter of preparedness.

The growing forest absorbs and binds carbon dioxide. Therefore, forest growth and efficient forestry are an important climate measure. Bioeconomy requires knowledge to achieve a forest management as productive as possible. But today, it is equally important that research provides guidance on the climate challenges that forestry faces. How do we meet the increasingly warmer climate so that we, in among other things, take into account increased risks for among other things storms, drought, wetness, and harmful insects in species selection and management?

The climate is not the only threat to the Swedish forestry industry. There are political forces that want to see significant restrictions and regulations of Swedish forestry. This would overturn the forestry industry's conditions and also its opportunities. But even though there are serious political threats, I know that there are many here in this chamber who share my concern for forestry. Therefore, I extend a hand: Let us ensure that we protect the important Swedish forestry.

Madam Speaker! Time and again, Swedish landowners are portrayed as a threat to the environment and climate. But the truth is that they are the ones who every day tend, cultivate, and take care of our forests and lands – and their work makes a difference. Through active and responsible forestry, the forests today are larger and healthier. Swedish forestry is an example and shows that it is possible to combine efficiency and consideration for nature.

If forest owners are to be motivated to maintain continued responsibility through work and investments, they must be secure in the conditions. Above all, they must be able to trust that what is theirs today is also theirs tomorrow. Property rights are a fundamental pillar in a constitutional state and in the social contract, and a strong property right is an investment in entrepreneurship and growth throughout the entire country.

Madam Speaker! A responsible forest policy is more strategically important today than ever before. It does not only have an impact on Sweden's economy, individual forest owners, workers and companies. It is also about preparedness, self-sufficiency and climate. Therefore, ill-considered political whims must not gain ground in Swedish forest policy. The decisions we make today are not only important here and now but will also affect the future.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Peter Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has around 300,000 hunters. They contribute to wildlife management, road safety, nature conservation, and food supply. They take responsibility for our wildlife populations and for the countryside. But far too many experience today that politics and authorities hinder their work instead of facilitating it. Therefore, a new modern, legally secure, and knowledge-based hunting policy was needed.

Madam Speaker! I want to highlight six areas.

Firstly, we must have a functioning predator management. The Riksdag's decision on predator policy must take effect in practice. Decisions on license hunting shall be appealable, but the processes must be expeditious so that legal decisions can also be enforced. Furthermore, Section 28 needs to be clarified. Those who need to protect their hunting dog or their domestic animals during a predator attack shall know which rules apply.

Secondly, the moose management must be restructured. In many places, the moose population is decreasing while forest damage, feed availability, and predator pressure affect the development. The management must be based on local conditions and local responsibility. Landowners and hunters shall together have a strong influence over the decisions, and the state shall take responsibility for the financing. The hunters' culling fees shall not go to agency administration but to wildlife care and shooting ranges.

For the third, we must let biology govern the hunting seasons. Hunting seasons shall be based on science and proven experience. When a species has a strong and viable population, the starting point shall be that hunting can be conducted during generous and purposeful times. Facts shall weigh heavier than ideology and emotions.

For the fourth, access to hunting on state land shall be secured. State land is the entire people's land. Hunting on state land, not least mountain hunting, shall be available on fair and long-term sustainable terms. Naturally, consideration shall be taken for the reindeer husbandry, but the public's access to hunting must not be successively restricted.

For the fifth, fishermen around our coasts and lakes see the consequences of growing populations of seals and cormorants every day, so the protection hunt must become easier. This is necessary for both commercial fishing and recreational fishing. Management must become more efficient, and we must be able to sell seal products.

For the sixth, the laws must hit the criminals. Law-abiding hunters and sport shooters shall be met with clear rules and legally sound decisions. The police's resources shall be directed towards criminals and towards illegal weapons handling, not towards people who follow the law and use their weapons in a responsible manner.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's hunters are an asset to our country. They manage the wildlife, contribute to nature conservation and strengthen the countryside. They deserve a policy based on knowledge, trust and respect.

We want to see a functioning predator management, a locally anchored moose management, biologically motivated hunting seasons, fair access to hunting on state land, an effective management of seals and cormorants, and legislation targeted at criminals instead of law-abiding citizens.

It is time for a new Swedish hunting policy.

(Applause)

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

Emma Brihall (C)

Madam Speaker! When I, in my profession as a crop cultivation consultant, speak with farmers, a problem recurs time and again: wild boar. When I speak with farmers, the question is never whether any damage has occurred, but how extensive the damage is. The wild boar issue is not just about individual destroyed fields. It is about the profitability of agriculture, traffic safety, and Sweden's food security. When the wild pressure becomes so great that farmers refrain from cultivating certain crops, the entire food chain is affected.

In my own home region of Jönköping, we see how farmers choose to forgo certain crops, for example peas and field beans – crops that contribute to the Swedish plant-based protein and reduce the import of feed. When such cultivation is made difficult or becomes impossible, our vulnerability increases.

Sweden needs to strengthen its food production. We in Centerpartiet want that at least 80 percent of the food that we consume and that we have good conditions to grow here in Sweden should also be grown here. Then farmers must be able to cultivate their land without recurring damages making the production unprofitable.

Madam Speaker! Today's situation requires more than just us stating that the problem exists. In 1987, the Riksdag decided that wild boar should be part of the Swedish fauna. At that time, the population was a few hundred individuals. Today, we are approaching 600,000 individuals. According to the forecast, by 2030 we will reach over 1 million. We see how the wild boar are moving further north, to habitats where they are completely foreign, which negatively affects the existing flora and fauna.

The management of wild boar must be based on the damage and accidents these animals cause. Decisions need to be made closer to the people who are affected, and the tools must work in practice. The Center Party wants to see a modern and more proactive wildlife management, where hunters, landowners, and local communities are given greater influence.

Therefore, we in the Center Party first want to reduce the wild boar population to sustainable levels and set clear goals to reduce damage to agricultural land and wildlife accidents. I will personally drive the issue of a goal for the population size. Secondly, we want to modernize the hunting law and make reduced wildlife damage and fewer wildlife accidents a clear goal. Thirdly, we want to introduce a national system with hunting fees that can be used for a limited time and within limited areas, for example where the damage is particularly large or where acute situations arise.

If farmers cannot grow the food and feed that Sweden needs, both the countryside and our preparedness are weakened. Sweden needs a food production that stands strong.

Madam Speaker! We cannot let the wild boars eat up our preparedness.

(Applause)

In this speech, Julia Algotsson and Stina Larsson (both C) agreed.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! There is something that unites everything we want to achieve in our country. More people in work, companies that grow, a functioning welfare state, the climate transition, a stronger total defense – all of this presupposes that we have one thing in place, namely a functioning infrastructure.

The roads that take us to work, the railway that transports the industry's goods, the bus that takes the children to school, the transports that ensure the food reaches the stores and that the ambulance arrives on time – we perhaps do not think about the infrastructure so much when it works, but we notice immediately when it does not. When the infrastructure fails, people's freedom is limited, companies' opportunities are restricted, and ultimately the entire society's ability to function is impaired.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has an all too high unemployment rate. In such a situation, it should be obvious to invest in what strengthens our competitiveness and creates more jobs. At the same time, the climate transition requires a modern and efficient transport system where both people and goods can move in a sustainable way.

Today, I want to highlight, above all, two perspectives that must be given significantly more space in Swedish infrastructure policy.

The first point concerns resilience. We live in a serious security policy situation. Sweden is strengthening its military capability. This is necessary and welcome. But what does it help that we strengthen our military capability if the railway cannot handle the transports, if the bridges do not hold, and if important roads are knocked out and alternative routes do not exist? It is, of course, about being able to move military materiel, but also about being able to transport food, medicines, and people, and about healthcare functioning and industry continuing to produce even when society is subjected to great pressures. The point is that we cannot build a strong total defense on a crumbling infrastructure.

The second perspective concerns democratic control. For a long time, we in Sweden have had an over-reliance on the idea that the market should solve everything, even things that are fundamentally the collective responsibility of society. But when the trains do not run, the roads do not hold, and maintenance fails, it actually does not matter to people how many companies and consultants have been paid to do the job. What matters is that it works. We have built a system where responsibility has been divided among more and more actors, while the control over the whole has been weakened. It is not sustainable – not for people's everyday lives, not for Swedish competitiveness, and definitely not for a country that must strengthen its total defense.

That is why we Social Democrats want to regain control over railway maintenance to ensure that we maintain what we have with greater efficiency and more respect for every tax krona, and that the state has the knowledge and the ability required to take responsibility. Society's most important functions must be governed by people's needs, not by market logic.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to state that infrastructure is people's opportunity to live their lives. It is Sweden's opportunity to grow. It is our ability to meet the climate transition and to stand strong when the world around us shakes. Ultimately, it is about what kind of society we want to be.

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The previous parliamentary term was historic in terms of getting reforms and initiatives in place that build a stronger future for Gotland. It is about new power cables to the mainland that secure our electricity supply beyond 2030, a new reserve port in northern Gotland that strengthens our preparedness, and billion-kronor investments at the Tofta shooting range that contribute to the security of the entire Baltic Sea. All told, the previous parliamentary term meant that around 20 billion kronor were invested in Gotland in defense, preparedness, electricity supply, and infrastructure. But now, all of this risks being overturned.

Madam Speaker! This summer, the Moderaterna, together with coalition partners, secured temporary support that makes it cheaper for Gotlanders to cross the municipal border by boat and plane. It is the first time since 1994 that it becomes noticeably cheaper to cross the municipal border. But the longer the left-wing parties interfere with the formation of the government, the greater the risk that that support will not remain after January 1. Despite the fact that the left-wing parties have promised lower boat prices, not only for Gotlanders but for everyone, the Gotland support now seems to be vanishing as they instead focus on quarreling with one another.

Madam Speaker! At the beginning of 2027, a new traffic agreement will begin to apply for the boat traffic to Gotland. In this agreement, the crossing speed is lowered on many departures, as a result of the decisions that the Social Democrats participated in during the spring of 2022. This admittedly reduces emissions, but one must be honest that it also moves Gotland further away from the mainland.

Madam Speaker! After difficult years, Gotland has finally had flight traffic returned on two lines: Arlanda and Bromma. It is welcome, because when there is competition, the prices on the tickets are pressed down, and more people can make their daily lives work out. Therefore, it is in a sense sad that all four parties to the left, including Centerpartiet, at their respective party meetings have made decisions to quickly close Bromma airport. Much indicates that this would become one of the first decisions made if these four parties form a government.

Madam Speaker! Despite promises of road prices for everyone, different types of Gotland packages, and talk about the state taking a greater responsibility for Gotland's accessibility, it now looks bleak for all Gotlanders who sometimes need to cross the municipal border by boat or plane. More expensive boat tickets, slower ferry crossings, and fewer opportunities to take the plane will, of course, affect people's everyday lives and the conditions for companies.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps an extra election is not so bad after all, for it was few or no Gotlanders who had this on their retinas when they went to the polling stations in September.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! The working class all over the country is completely dependent on being able to travel by public transport. When I stepped onto tram number 11 in Kortedala every morning at 04.32, all the seats were occupied. There are assistant nurses, nursing assistants, local cleaners, warehouse workers, and the occasional cook. The working class meets on a tram in Gothenburg at 04.32 every day of the week. These are people whose everyday lives are completely dependent on being able to travel by public transport.

Madam Speaker! It is somewhat nice when a right-wing government chooses to pursue left-wing policy with a halving of the prices in public transport, if only for a moment. But let me be clear and emphasize that this is precisely left-wing policy.

Vänsterpartiet has long championed the issue of lower ticket prices through the so-called Sverigebiljetten. In the Gothenburg municipality, we have long advocated and worked for a subsidy of the monthly pass, something that also became a reality during 2026. This is a subsidy that will remain, as investments in public transport need to be long-term.

Madam Speaker! In Stockholm, 117,600 monthly passes were sold in a single day. This clearly shows the need for reasonable prices in public transport. This is something that is positive both for household finances and, not least, for the climate if we can reduce travel by car.

It is clear that accessible public transport with reasonable prices is needed. However, temporary initiatives are not enough, and here the Sverigebiljetten is a concrete proposal where regional travel in all of Sweden would cost 450 kronor.

Madam Speaker! We need to make permanent investments in public transport, not least because it is completely unreasonable to finance measures with borrowed money.

(Applause)

In this speech, Andrea Andersson Tay (V) agreed.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am here to speak about Sweden's longest bottleneck – the 27 miles long railway section between Gävle and Härnösand, the Ostkustbanan.

It is an important artery in the Swedish railway network along the Norrland coast that connects northern and southern Sweden. It connects labor market regions from Stockholm and up along the coastal towns of Norrland. It is incredibly important for the business sector and industry in northern Sweden.

It is part of the Baltic Corridor and is included in the European backbone network. The Ostkustbanan is thus identified as a strategically important part in connecting the European infrastructure.

With and following Russia's full-scale invasion and Sweden's entry into Nato, an additional important dimension has emerged: Our railway infrastructure is an important part of Sweden's robustness and preparedness in the event of a crisis and, ultimately, war.

Madam Speaker! What is the similarity between a tractor and SJ's high-speed train that operates on this route? Between Härnösand and Sundsvall, it is 53 kilometers. With SJ's high-speed train – a train that can go at 200 kilometers per hour – it now takes up to one and a half hours to travel this distance. That gives an average speed of 35 kilometers per hour. It would therefore be just as fast for me to travel in a tractor between Härnösand and Sundsvall as it is to travel in the high-speed train.

This is not SJ's fault, but it is about a worn, 100-year-old single track in catastrophic condition with reduced speed, maintenance work, meeting trains, and an overload that causes all trains to wait for each other – and this on a railway section that is, therefore, pointed out as part of Europe's backbone network and which is a strategically important artery for connecting northern and southern Sweden. It is completely unacceptable.

Madam Speaker! Just over a year ago, extreme heavy rainfall in Ångermanland caused two trains to derail, and both the Norra stambanan and Ostkustbanan were closed. Three years ago, a high-speed train fully loaded with passengers derailed due to a heavy rainfall at Hudiksvall.

It is quite obvious that we need to invest in the New East Coast Line and a double track between Gävle and Härnösand. These are railway investments that must be seen as part of a larger whole and not be assessed in isolation.

Now the Norrbotniabanan is being built, which is long-awaited and important and something we in Miljöpartiet have fought for for decades. But without Nya Ostkustbanan, large parts of the potential are lost. The increased capacity for freight transport and passenger traffic through Norrbotniabanan, which is necessary for northern Sweden, will get stuck in this bottleneck, which becomes even more burdened – Ostkustbanan.

Norrbotniabanan and Nya Ostkustbanan – these two are connected. By building Nya Ostkustbanan, we can quadruple the freight capacity. We link together labor market regions. We reduce the travel time from Stockholm to Sundsvall to two hours and from Stockholm to Umeå to four hours. We secure the infrastructure and make it more robust. We contribute to moving heavy transport from road to rail.

My message to all of you today is clear: The New East Coast Line must be built in full, and we in Miljöpartiet are ready to break ground.

(Applause)

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

Erik Nygårds (L)

Madam Speaker! In politics, we often speak of the importance of civic engagement, but it is all too rarely put to the test. Therefore, today I want to raise an example from my home county, Jönköping County.

For many years, a new railway line between Byarum and Tenhult, two localities just south of Jönköping, was planned. The project was driven by good ambitions – travel times were to be shortened and the infrastructure developed. But something happened. A number of engaged people began to scrutinize the underlying documents. They familiarized themselves with technical reports, traffic forecasts, and socio-economic assessments. They organized themselves, put forward their arguments, and showed that there could be other ways forward.

It is easy to speak warmly about civil society when people think like oneself. The real test comes when people challenge established plans and authorities' assessments, and in this case, that is exactly what happened. I think we should feel some pride that the politics actually listened. To reconsider a large infrastructure project is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength. It shows that decisions can be based on new facts and new perspectives.

Madam Speaker! The reassessment has also opened up new possibilities. Instead of allocating all resources to a new railway line, there are now conditions to develop the infrastructure that already exists. For us in Jönköpings län, this includes, among other things, the existing railway through Tabergsdalen. It is easy to see it as a local line, but I believe that is to underestimate its importance.

The corridor between Värnamo and Jönköping connects some of the county's most dynamic labor markets. Here, there is industry, trade, service companies, and a rapidly growing logistics sector. Not all of these jobs require an academic degree, but they require that people can get to work. They require that employers can recruit from a larger area than their own municipality, and they require that young people can see a future in the entire region. For that very reason, skills supply and transport policy are fundamentally the same issue.

The existing railway through Tabergsdalen has the potential to become an important part of the solution. According to the analyses that have been presented, an upgrade can provide shorter travel times while stations near where people actually live can be retained. But there is also a risk here: We must not be content with stopping a project, we must also have the courage to implement the better alternative.

If the state now sees the opportunity to both develop the railway connection between Värnamo and Jönköping and create a safer and more accessible road between Ulricehamn and Jönköping, the ambitions must be sufficiently high. No one benefits from half-hearted solutions – not the companies, not the commuters, and not the taxpayers.

Madam Speaker! The lesson from Byarum and Tenhult is greater than the railway issue itself. It shows what can happen when knowledgeable and engaged citizens take responsibility for their region. It shows that politics must sometimes dare to reconsider, and it shows that we must be prepared to follow through once we have reconsidered. Let this therefore not stop at a halted project! Let it become the beginning of a long-term investment that strengthens both the supply of competence and the growth in Jönköpings län.

Madam Speaker! This is my first speech in this chamber. I am about to finish, but I want to conclude with an appeal to the opposition parties. Infrastructure investments must survive both elections and changes of government. Therefore, I hope that someone from the opposition chooses to request a reply to my speech and gives the residents of Jönköpings län the message that the opposition also does not intend to betray the investments in roads and railways that can now strengthen the county's development and skills supply. It is what Jönköpings län deserves.

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

Dennis Alvdén (M)

Madam Speaker! Every morning, millions of people set their alarms to get to work and studies. At the same time, goods are transported across the country on their way to customers in Sweden and the rest of the world. For all of this to function, something is required that we often take for granted, namely a functioning infrastructure.

For an elongated country like Sweden, infrastructure is crucial. When commuting opportunities are improved, it becomes easier to get to work and studies, and then the labor market grows while companies get better opportunities to find the right competence. Therefore, infrastructure is also an important part of the work line. It strengthens the conditions for growth, entrepreneurship, and competitiveness.

Infrastructure is not only about economy and the labor market but is also an important part of our preparedness, Madam Speaker. Since Sweden's entry into Nato, it has become even clearer that the transport routes used by commuters and companies in everyday life are the same routes that society depends on when it is subjected to pressures. In a serious situation, people, materiel, and supplies must be able to be transported through the country.

The importance of functioning infrastructure becomes particularly clear in Western Sweden. A large part of Swedish industry, several of the country's most important transport routes, Landvetter Airport, and the Port of Gothenburg are located here. When transport functions, the conditions for companies and employment are strengthened throughout the country, and when they do not function, operations outside the region are also affected.

During the previous parliamentary term, several important decisions were made to strengthen Swedish infrastructure. The economic framework for the national plan was expanded from 799 to 1,171 billion kronor. At the same time, the focus was on taking care of the infrastructure we already have, reducing the maintenance debt, and addressing the largest bottlenecks.

Madam Speaker! For me, as someone from Alingsås, this is very clear. The city is, in fact, divided by the Western Main Line and the E20, two transport routes that are of great importance for both Western Sweden and the rest of the country.

On April 30, 1855, the first spade was struck for the Western Main Line. More than 170 years later, the platforms at Alingsås station are filled every morning by people on their way to work and studies. At the same time, the stretch is one of the country's most heavily loaded railways, where commuter trains, regional trains, long-distance trains, and freight trains share the same space. The capacity is insufficient, and it is noticed every day by those who depend on the railway.

That is why the announcement during the previous parliamentary term was so important. When Trafikverket presented the national plan, the planning included new double tracks between Olskroken and Partille. But the Moderate-led government chose to go further and extended the planning all the way to Alingsås.

Just a few hundred meters from Alingsås station, however, lies the next major bottleneck: E20. Anyone who has ever driven through Alingsås needs no advanced traffic analysis to understand the challenge. Here, a European route runs straight through the town. Heavy traffic and long-distance transport share the space with local traffic, roundabouts, traffic lights, and even an unguarded pedestrian crossing. It is difficult to defend on a road of such great importance for both Western Sweden and the rest of the country.

Madam Speaker! Now it is time to take the next step. The planning of the Western Main Line must be followed by action, and at the same time, a long-term solution for the E20 needs to be put in place. The problems are clearly visible in Alingsås, but what is at stake is much larger than that. It is about how well Western Sweden can continue to be an engine for jobs, entrepreneurship, and growth in Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg and Johanna Rantsi (both M) agreed.

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

Ewa Pihl Krabbe (S)

Madam Speaker! The Royal Library is all of Sweden's national library. One could also say that the Royal Library is all of Sweden's memory. The collections stretch back more than a thousand years in time, and they grow every day.

Here there is everything from manuscripts to books, advertisements, newspapers, music, games, video games and a huge amount of other things. Here there is everything from the Devil's Bible, which was taken as war booty after the Thirty Years' War, to every single one of Jan Mårtenson's crime novels, songs by ABBA and even one or two forgotten vinyl records that were only sold in a few copies. Here there is every local advertisement flyer from Ica and Coop, all programs that have been shown on SVT and all popular video games.

It is, therefore, a very wide range of what is collected every day, all year round at KB. Beneath the library in Humlegårdsparken, 40 meters underground, there are large rock vaults that accommodate two five-story buildings. It is here that most of the printed material is preserved.

The Royal Library also has three World Memories designated by Unesco. The first two are Astrid Lindgren's archive and Dag Hammarskjöld's collection, which contains letters, press clippings, photographs, and manuscripts concerning both private life and work and is considered to have a value for humanity. The Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 is the third World Memory.

One of the most central tasks for the Royal Library is to preserve the collections for future researchers, but naturally also for studies already today. Managing collections for the future requires meticulous work. The climate where the collections are preserved has different requirements for, among other things, climate adaptations.

Another way to preserve the collections is to digitize. KB today has one of the world's largest collections of digitized collections of daily newspapers. KB is also responsible for promoting cooperation in the country's library system, is responsible for statistics concerning libraries, and follows up on library plans.

I also have a bit of trivia. In 1878, the Royal Library in Humlegårdsparken opened. At that time, one of the amanuenses was August Strindberg.

A prerequisite for the collective memory of society to function is that we have a duty of preservation legislation that ensures all Swedish published material remains available for future research and for documenting the country's cultural heritage.

But, Madam Speaker, there is a "but" in the picture. The current mandatory legislation is from 1993 and 2012 respectively and in many respects is outdated and not adapted to the digital development that we have seen. In 2019, the then government made a decision on directives to produce a new and more purposeful legislation. The investigation on mandatory legislation for a secured source material arrived in 2021 and contained proposals on how the mandatory collection of material can be designed so that it becomes media, technology, and format independent and thus long-term independent. In 2026, there is still no new mandatory legislation in place.

Three liberal Ministers for Education and Research have answered my interpellations on this over the last three years, but nothing has happened. This means that the Royal Library has large unnecessary costs for, for example, the ongoing digitization of daily newspapers which technically could be collected in digital form directly from the supplier. The most serious thing, however, is that future research will suffer because we have not been able to collect relevant media forms. It is very serious. I hope that a new government will act on the issue.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

New Speaker of the House! I wrote a poem once, a love poem. It was not long but in return very short:

Love is red as a trumpet. It is something one just knows.

I thought of these lines when I learned about this year's Nobel Prize winner in Literature, Anne Carson, through the TV program Babel. Carson's breakthrough came in 1998 with the book Röd självbiografi. A color, red, functions as a common thread as Greek myths are woven together in contemporary and fantasy worlds. Anne Carson is Canadian and has lived on Iceland, the island of tales, volcanoes, and hot springs, since 2022.

In connection with the announcement of the Nobel Prize, the Icelandic TV channel Rúv asked Anne Carson how socializing with Icelandic poets has influenced her creative work. ”They are all fantastic people,” Carson replied. ”Almost everyone we meet are poets or say that they are. It is a very vibrant scene.”

Madam Speaker! Why didn't Anne Carson move to Sweden? I don't know. Do we have too few volcanoes and hot springs? Do we have too few poets? One thing I know, and that is that a society that dismantles cultural life and produces cultural cannons instead of organizing courses at study associations or offering rehearsal rooms for young people is a poorer society. That is not only because social cohesion and education decrease, but also because it is a society that becomes worse at asking our time's most important question: What does it mean to be human? Yes, I actually believe that it is our time's most important question.

Artificial intelligence is washing over us with an exponential development. Translated into everyday Swedish, that means it is going incredibly fast. What we thought we knew about AI today is something new tomorrow.

Madam Speaker! What does it mean to be human when we are no longer the most intelligent on earth or when the artificial challenges our cognitive abilities and solves mathematics problems in hours that humans have tried to solve for half a century? Part of the answer can surely be found in our way of expressing ourselves, our way of perceiving the world, our way of existing in words, music, and movement in ways that the artificial finds more difficult.

In education, people often talk about the need for STEM – science, technology, engineering and mathematics. More and more voices are now being raised to include an A, arts, and thereby move from STEM to STEAM. I consider this to be a real development. We need to add a broader and freer perspective to the classical logical perspectives. Being human in a new era will mean something different. The task of politics will become magnificent, but we do not know how.

An early conclusion is that culture and cohesion are not areas for cuts. If there is any part of our social body that needs to be strengthened, it is the cultural nutrients. Restore the study associations, restore the folk high schools, take back the rehearsal spaces and strengthen the opportunities to be a sole trader! Broaden the view on the content of our higher education!

Madam Speaker!

The future is green as a symphony. It is something one cannot ignore.

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Society is so much larger than the state. A society is built by people who see one another. It is built by the volunteer who visits the person who is lonely and by the coach who stays behind after practice to talk to a youth who seems to be having a hard time. It is built by the congregation that distributes food bags, organizes language cafés and opens its doors for people who need community.

In civil society, people meet who might otherwise never have met. They get to help each other, solve problems, listen to one another and take responsibility for something that is greater than themselves. In that way, civil society has long been a carrier of Swedish democracy.

Madam Speaker! For the free churches, this goes back to Vallersvik 1848. There, people stepped down into the cold water to be baptized and then form Sweden's first Baptist congregation. There, people received the right to vote, regardless of birth and regardless of whether they were men or women. There, modern Swedish democracy was born, more than 70 years before the right to vote made its breakthrough in the Swedish parliamentary election.

That heritage lives on. All around in Sweden's congregations, people are nurtured in democratic thinking and in responsibility for society. In those communities, hatred or polarization are not born. Instead, community, faith in the future, hope and love are born there, and that is what we need more of in society.

We need to realize that the public sector alone cannot manage all the challenges that we as a society face. It is not outside the Tax Agency that people gather when they are in crisis or need somewhere to turn with the most difficult things in life. Therefore, it is central for the Christian Democrats to provide religious communities and civil society with good conditions to carry out their important work. One should be able to carry out active work with worship, pastoral care, education, and care. A society where such activities exist is a better and richer society.

The public sector needs to take advantage of, not compete with, the power of the church. Take the crime prevention work as an example. Children and young people need safe adults, meaningful contexts, and communities where they are seen. When society's good communities leave a vacuum, there are criminal networks ready to fill it, but at a terrible price. Therefore, every youth leader who builds trust is part of the crime prevention work. Every parish that provides young people with a safe meeting place is part of the crime prevention work. The importance of the churches is great then, but it does not cease when a person has fallen into criminality.

Spiritual care within the correctional services where priests, pastors, and deacons can operate is important. That activity needs to be given greater space as the correctional services are now being expanded. The same opportunities for existential support need to exist for children and young people within the Sis homes.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, an unfortunate uncertainty often arises when the public sector is to cooperate with churches. This is evident, not least in the world of schools.

In Vårgårda, to take an example, there was a cooperation between the school and a local church for 40 years. The church's youth leaders functioned as peer supporters and break supervisors in the corridor. But the cooperation was terminated.

The same uncertainty often arises around school graduations in the church. Principals become uncertain about what may be said and done. Priests are expected to tone down the church's own identity in the room where generations of people have gathered.

Public activities must be able to cooperate with civil society, with respect for civil society's identity. The Church is valuable precisely because it is a church. It has a faith, a tradition, and a view of humanity that motivates people to serve others. We need more of that.

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

Mursal Isa (MP)

Madam Speaker! Honored members! This is my first speech in the Riksdag. I am fortunate to be able to raise issues that I consider very important for our Sweden.

This speech is about popular education. I am pleased that previous members have also highlighted the importance of popular education and that culture is a supporting force when it comes to democracy and cohesion.

Popular education is a fundamental pillar in a just and democratic Sweden. Through the folk high schools and study associations, people are given the opportunity to learn, grow, and participate in social life, regardless of background and previous education.

Education is about more than grades and degrees. It is about developing critical thinking, understanding one's surroundings, and feeling a sense of belonging in society. In a time of polarization and exclusion, popular education is more important than ever to strengthen cohesion.

Madam Speaker! The folk high schools give people a second chance. Many who have not found their place in the traditional education system are given the opportunity there to continue their studies, come closer to the labor market, and build faith for the future.

Lifelong learning is crucial in a society where the labor market is constantly changing. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants to strengthen the conditions for folk high schools by ensuring more educational places and better long-term funding.

Madam Speaker! Studieförbund are an important part of Sweden's democratic and cultural infrastructure. They offer meeting places, cultural activities, and support for association life throughout the country. In many smaller towns, the premises of the studieförbund are crucial for people to be able to meet, organize themselves, and create culture together.

Unfortunately, the government's cuts have led to activities being shut down, rehearsal spaces disappearing, and opportunities for culture and popular education decreasing, especially in rural areas. Where meeting places disappear, the sense of community is also weakened, and the opportunities for democracy to grow are impaired.

Madam Speaker! Popular education is not a cost. It is an investment in people, in democracy, and in a more equal Sweden. Therefore, the Green Party wants to safeguard the freedom of popular education, strengthen its resources, and give more people the opportunity to learn, develop, and participate in social life.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the Tidö government has removed more than 500 million from culture and public education. Still, one speaks of the importance of public education and culture in a democratic, cohesive and inclusive Sweden.

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

Marcus Willershausen (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to talk about one of the biggest cultural movements in Sweden, one that does not take place in the finest rooms, is not enjoyed over the finest wines and always met with standing ovations, but which sometimes is outright scolded, yet is alive and strong. I am, of course, talking about the Swedish supporter culture.

Every week, the creativity and power of fan groups and engaged supporter collectives enrich the experience for hundreds of thousands of Swedes who follow football on-site or via TV broadcasts – the banners, the flags, the standing areas, the confetti, the pyrotechnics.

The framework that exists connected to Swedish football is not a law of nature but a result of a genuine and burning commitment. Without great recognition and financial compensation, and at the expense of everything else that needs to be managed in life, people toil week in and week out to keep Swedish football alive.

The supporter culture is in many respects a liberal's dream. Without being dependent on a single crown of the taxpayers' money, it engages broadly and is inclusive for all who wish to participate in it. The least that can be requested is that it is not opposed by politics or the police.

When I myself stand in the national arena in Solna to follow my team and flares are lit in the stands to raise the atmosphere in the arena, it is always followed by a message on the jumbotron: Use of pyrotechnics is illegal according to the Public Order Act. So it is, of course. Therefore, it is good that I can now stand in our legislative assembly and say something that is very obvious to me: The Public Order Act must be changed and pyrotechnics on our stands must be permitted.

For me, it is about an important principle: Adults should be free to do almost anything as long as it does not harm anyone else. Engaged supporters who contribute to raising the atmosphere in the Swedish stands and create a lively atmosphere are not a problem. They are an asset.

Is it worth continuing to spend taxpayers' resources on opposing and prosecuting individuals who, if they conduct this correctly, do not harm anyone else? For me, the answer to that question is obvious. It is also obvious that we must protect the Swedish supporter culture.

The living and member-controlled Swedish football movement that the 51-percent rule enables stands in sharp contrast to the development we have seen around the world, where football has increasingly come to be about who owns it and how it is exploited in a game that is larger than what happens on the grass fields. The same dictatorships that have organized the major championships in recent years have also bought European big clubs. It is reasonably obvious to everyone that the ownership of football clubs nowadays is a geopolitical tool of power.

There is, for natural reasons, an increased awareness of the threats that non-democracies pose to our free and open societies. Over time, we are also obtaining sharper tools to meet this, for example, legislation to protect our critical infrastructure such as ports, airports and railway tracks. Our culturally critical infrastructure, however, remains more unprotected.

It is in that perspective that the 51-percent rule is so important. The alternative to it is, in fact, that we follow the same development as the rest of the world. That is not what I want.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all those who make the Swedish sports stands come alive and who perhaps have not always received the most appreciation from a political perspective. Thank you to the supporters who paint, organize, and realize the tifos we all get to experience! Thank you to the supporters who join the stands in droves to support their team and pass the commitment on to the next generation! Thank you to the supporters who make their voices heard and demand more from politics! Your time and your hard work make Swedish football anything but quiet and soulless.

(Applause)

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

Cilla Dahl Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Anxious, shaky, nervous – what will they think? Who am I to be here? Can I manage it? Is it myself I am talking about? Or is it a participant who is at an orientation on the first day at one of our 150 folk high schools around the country?

Before the general political debate, I received the advice: Speak from what your heart is full of!

My heart is full for Julia, who throughout her entire schooling never received the help she needed and who today is studying a general track at a folk high school, is beginning to find herself, has met friends and is doing well.

My heart is full of Gabriella. She was a seeking soul and spent three years at a folk high school. Now she attends Sweden's largest art college.

My heart is full of Hassan – he who did not have the perfect conditions but who discovered that he can study. He is great at what he does. By the summer, he will be a qualified social pedagogue.

These are three people, three different life journeys, and three examples of what can happen when a person is given the right conditions.

Madam Speaker! It is precisely this that is wonderful about the folk high school. It is not just about completing an education, but it is also about finding one's place, discovering one's ability, and seeing new opportunities. When people grow, society grows. Then, popular education creates values that extend far beyond the school's walls.

In a report from Sveriges folkhögskolor, two important beneficial effects are highlighted.

The first is social utility, which, among other things, is about strengthening the participants' social capital. It is something that is needed to get and keep a job. It gives a sense of inclusion and empowerment.

The second is socio-economic benefit. In addition to everything it costs society if a person lives in exclusion, the proportion of those who gain further desire to continue their studies and those who make concrete moves towards work increases. Many who study in vocational training go directly into work. People of all ages with different backgrounds and with or without functional variations get another chance in a different way to get somewhere else.

Madam Speaker! We face great challenges. We need more people in work, more who want to and can continue their studies, and a society where more feel inclusion and faith in the future. The folk high school cannot solve everything, but it can be an important part of the solution.

We Social Democrats want to strengthen the funding of popular education and give the folk high schools the conditions to become a significant part of the solution – for Julia, for Gabriella, for Hassan and for all those who have not yet had their chance.

(Applause)

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Culture builds Sweden strong. Culture unites. Culture is the interaction between people – and that in constant change. Culture contributes to solidarity and community.

The culture that we create together and that an individual culture creator expresses shows what we Christian Democrats mean when we speak about the families, associations, the choir, the dance, the sport, the karate course and the theater group that we are members of or a faith community that we belong to.

Culture has an ability to give meaning to the present but also to point out our historical roots through art, history and cultural heritage, which give birth to visions for the future. As Christian Democrats, we want to manage what we have inherited from previous generations for the benefit of those to come. This heritage is nurtured by individuals, civil society and state institutions.

Madam Speaker! I can say with all certainty that everyone sitting here in the chamber and everyone listening to the debate are carriers of culture in their everyday lives in some way. Despite this, I am met with the perception that cultural policy only concerns state-funded museums, theaters, opera, and architecture. These cultural and historical traces shall be allowed to exist. That creation expresses and shapes a common image of our identity and provides a sense of belonging with other people.

We also rejoice in the commercial and professional successes of our cultural creators. Here, we will further strengthen copyright so that those who create receive reasonable compensation for their works and also protect them in the AI-explosive development that is now occurring.

We also want to review the SGI system so that it better reflects the cultural workers' often irregular incomes in order to provide them with a more secure social insurance.

Most of the cultural activities, however, take place on a voluntary basis. Therefore, we are all culture bearers. We are community builders who build Sweden strong.

Culture is everything that unites people through values, traditions, languages, and ways of life. Something happens when we are exposed to culture, Madam Speaker. It creates belonging and community. It provides education and conveys values. Therefore, culture is a carrier of nation-building.

A dynamic cultural life contributes to creating good and attractive living environments and job opportunities. It increases the quality of life and promotes tourism and the business sector.

Culture is also crucial in the design of a society in urban planning and in the possibility of a meaningful leisure time. Buildings, statues, works of art and monuments tell of times, trends and events that have led up to our present day.

Culture provides health and mental well-being. It counteracts loneliness. The successful leisure card has given over 500,000 children and young people an additional chance to participate in a leisure activity.

Well-being and mental health come from the sense of belonging we feel when we are part of an association, which allows us to participate in the democratic debate. I am respected for the opinions I have and when I respect the opinions of others. With that, I can rethink, think anew, expand perspectives, and develop as a human being.

Madam Speaker! I look forward to clarifying during the upcoming parliamentary term how the Christian Democrats view the place of cultural policy in the development of society. Culture is a force for the future as well as a carrier of the building of society.

(Applause)

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a crime paradox. Over the last decade, much of the crime in our country has remained stagnant or even decreased, while mafia-like crime has grown to become one of the most serious societal threats of our time.

Now, the shootings have also decreased – that is good. But at the same time, the explosions have reached new, frightening levels. During the last parliamentary term, the number of children under 15 who were involved in murder cases increased by over 700 percent. And behind the violence is an organized crime that is eating its way into the business sector, welfare, and our social institutions.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has now received a new political majority in the Riksdag. But regardless of how the upcoming government is formed, a tough criminal policy line must remain firm, while we ramp up the work against the crime that causes the greatest harm. That is what we Social Democrats mean by increased repression with precision.

The position of crime victims must also be strengthened. The crime victim's right to protection, support, and redress shall carry more weight. That is why we want to introduce a crime victim law – a promise that the Tidö Government unfortunately betrayed.

Four areas are particularly prioritized.

Firstly: the fight against mafia-like organized crime. We need a Swedish mafia law that makes it possible to attack criminal organizations such as these and their patterns of criminal cooperation – not just the runners at the bottom, but also the gang leaders who organize, finance, and profit from the crime. They do not only exercise violence but also engage in serious economic crime.

Secondly, we must stop the new recruitment – the Tidö government's great blind spot and failure. Enormous political effort has been devoted to how young lawbreakers should be punished, and there we were indeed in agreement many times, but far too little effort toward how we should prevent children from being recruited from the very beginning. It is not enough to just toughen the sentences for today's fourteen-year-olds if we simultaneously allow the gangs to recruit tomorrow's. This requires three p's – money, pinpointing, and programs for at-risk families.

For the third, we must take a harder line against men's violence against women. Violence in the home must never become a private matter. This is a grave form of crime that requires the same determination as the fight against the gangs. Dangerous men must be stopped. Women and children subjected to violence must be protected. That is why we want to tighten the penalties for aggravated violation of a woman's peace, stop the closure of protected housing, and introduce area arrests for violent men when the threat is great even after a prison sentence has been served.

Fourthly, Madam Speaker, we must unite against sexual abuse against children. Children's vulnerability must carry more weight than the interests of the perpetrators.

When the Tidö government tightened 50 penalties, which we Social Democrats voted for, they excluded child pornography, and we want to change that. We also want sexual abuse to lead to loss of custody and that the police should issue an alert when suspected perpetrators work with children.

Madam Speaker! Serious crime has been allowed to grow strong for a long time, but the development is not predestined. Sweden has had difficult social problems before and turned them around, and we shall do so again. That must be the task in this area during the coming mandate period: to step by step continue to restore the security that has been lost in our country.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! In 2022, when you were still in power, there were 391 shootings. This year there have been 83, and in Stockholm in the last month, zero.

Madam Speaker! Teresa Carvalho raises the issue of explosions. The number of detonations in the entire country during the last month was one. That is one too many, but this is a success that few even thought was possible four years ago. The Moderate-led government has solved serious problems with crime that arose during the Social Democrats' watch.

Then Teresa Carvalho speaks about redress, and then I wonder about one thing. The Social Democrats voted against abolishing the volume discounts. Has one reconsidered their view, or do you still only want to abolish the volume discounts for certain crimes?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Had the Tidö government submitted a sharp proposal to abolish the volume discount to the Riksdag, we would, of course, have voted yes to it. But it was not the volume discount we voted on, Fredrik Kärrholm. We voted on the government's bill on an entirely new criminal penalty system, where the volume discount was only a part embedded in a whole that was so extensive that tens of thousands of prison places were missing, which, according to the Prison and Probation Service, would take until at least 2040 to get in place. What we voted no to was a sham law that has not even entered into force despite the Riksdag standing behind it and which has not given a single serial rapist a longer sentence or redress to a single crime victim.

What we want to do is to abolish the volume discounts for serious crimes for real, not just on paper. When a government comes into place that puts such a proposal on the Riksdag's table, I want to know: Will Fredrik Kärrholm vote yes or no to it?

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! That is correct. We submitted a proposal to abolish the presumption against prison sentences, to use the full sentencing scales, and to abolish bulk discounts entirely. It is true that many more prisons will be required. Our answer to the voters is that we will solve it. The Social Democrats' answer to the voters is: No, we give up – we will do as our social democratic friends in Great Britain and release criminals instead.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! This is the world turned upside down. Fredrik Kärrholm has got this completely backwards. It was in the British direction that the Tidö government steered. That is what happens when the reforms and the capacity of the Prison and Probation Service do not align. That is why the British are now releasing serious offenders on an assembly line. This is exactly what we want to avoid. That is why we say: Let us lock up the rapists and the pedophiles for a really long time. But perhaps we cannot do the same with the cellar burglary thieves just now.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! As I just mentioned in the exchange, there were 391 shootings in 2022. This year there have been 83 and in Stockholm in the last month zero. It is a figure that deserves to be repeated: zero. This is, therefore, a success that few at all thought was possible four years ago.

The significance of this is enormous. Let us remember twelve-year-old Adriana who was killed in a gang confrontation, the newly appointed primary school teacher Soha who was blown to death in her own home, and the father Mikael who was cold-bloodedly murdered in front of his twelve-year-old son. The list can sadly be made much longer. In addition to the innocent people who have died, people have been injured, blinded by glass shards, and had their hearing destroyed in explosions. Far too many have been extorted, robbed, and defrauded. Entire areas have lived in fear of life-threatening gang criminals.

That we wait for the development to save lives and give people back their security. Compared to 2022, 3,000 more criminals are in prison today. That makes a difference. The shootings have decreased by 80 percent, and new recruitment to the gangs decreases as role models become deterrent examples.

But organized crime is not defeated. Capable and dangerous networks remain: suburban gangs, criminal clans, and international crime syndicates. The police's mapping shows that it involves tens of thousands of individuals. The criminal economy turns over hundreds of billions.

On top of all this, we have another serious crime. 1 of 30 young men was robbed last year. 1 of 20 young women was subjected to a sexual assault last year. That intense gang wars no longer create daily headlines does not mean that the state has fulfilled its obligation to protect the citizens.

We can and must not be satisfied with the fact that Sweden has become less dangerous. We need to do more to combat crime. The police need the same powers to prevent violence against women as to stop the gangs. The police need legal support to convict pedophiles online. And we need more police officers patrolling our streets. Prison sentences should be handed out more often. The entire range of penalties should be used, and we need to abolish the volume discount.

Unfortunately, this is something that the left side in this chamber opposes. Unfortunately, it means that very many crime victims are left without redress. Likewise, the left side lacks an understanding of the necessity that immigration needs to remain heavily restricted. Parental responsibility is also something that seems to be completely absent from the Social Democrats' vocabulary. And when it comes to the school, it is rarely spoken of that the mission needs to include that one conveys both knowledge and values.

A safe Sweden requires that children, during their upbringing, develop an inherent will to do right. This, in turn, requires an organized society characterized by community. The ambition must be greater than that people should refrain from crime. The ambition must be a society where people take responsibility, follow common rules and norms, and act with kindness – not out of fear of punishment or consequences, but out of respect for their fellow human beings. The goal must be a Sweden that is both safe and civilized.

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

Emil Eneblad (SD)

Madam Speaker! When the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties inherited power in 2022, the situation was very serious for Sweden. That year, 391 shootings occurred in our country, as my colleague Kärrholm just said. 62 people lost their lives in the gangs' shootings.

Behind every shooting hide immense sorrows and immense traumas. The insecurity settles like a wet blanket over the existence of people living in the surrounding area. For relatives of those affected, every murder, attempted murder, legal process, hospital stay, and funeral means an immense sorrow.

Every time someone has been murdered in gang violence, the murdered person's mother, father, relatives and friends have had to wake up to the terrible news: Their son, just their brother, just their comrade lies deceased in a basement at a mortuary.

In 2022, it was 124 parents and countless siblings, friends and other relatives who experienced exactly this.

Madam Speaker! I and my party have devoted all our strength during the last parliamentary term to addressing precisely this. The fatal shootings are down to record-low levels compared to the time when Morgan Johansson was Minister of Justice. Even the explosions are in clear retreat – in just the last month. For the first time in a long time, the development is heading in the right direction.

It has been more than a year since we had a fatal shooting in Gothenburg. For the first time in a year, not a single mother or father has had to wake up to the news that their son has been shot to death in Gothenburg.

For several whole months this year, there have been no fatal shootings at all, and an entire month has just passed without a single shot being fired or an explosion occurring in Stockholm.

At the same time as the deadly gang violence is decreasing sharply, the gang leaders themselves describe how they are tired and that it is no longer worth doing business in Sweden. The gangs have become tired precisely because the police have received the tools they need and precisely because the gang leaders and the gang criminals are being kept locked up for longer periods. The price for committing gang-related crime is therefore much, much higher. From August this year, all gang criminals who commit crimes linked to their gang criminality will automatically receive double the sentence.

This, Madam Speaker, is a development that must be halted. That is why it worries me that it looks as though Sweden may now get back the old crime policy, the one that in 2022 led to exactly 124 parents waking up to the news that their son had been murdered.

The development towards a more just criminal policy must continue. The increased penalties and the new tools that the police have received must remain in place. But we must also look forward. Quantity discounts must be abolished during this mandate period. Other sentencing discounts must be removed. The worst crimes should, as a rule, lead to the highest penalty, unlike today when one lands somewhere in the middle or just above that.

Madam Speaker! I am concerned that the next government will deliver a crime policy that involves a more lenient approach towards the gangs and continued sentence reductions for elderly fraudsters, and that Sweden will fall back into the crisis we were in just a few years ago. But I am keeping my fingers crossed that it won't be so. I am keeping my fingers crossed for the sake of all of Sweden's crime victims.

In this speech, Mattias Karlsson Bergman and Kevin Sahlin (both SD) agreed.

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

Tobias Smedberg (V)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, crime policy over the last four years has had an entirely too one-sided focus on measures that have a marginal, no, or even a destructive significance when it comes to society's opportunities to detect, prevent, and combat crime. I am thinking of the Tidö government's almost obsessed interest in putting more children in prison, at ever younger ages and for ever longer periods – despite the fact that we know it is not a policy that works and despite the fact that research, countless referral bodies, and proven experience from other parts of the world show that it is not effective to put more children in prison, at younger ages and for longer periods.

We must change direction for the crime policy in Sweden. We need a policy that actually works. The foundation of that policy must be the crime prevention work. There, we in society know what needs to be done. We must invest in the school. Every student, every child, and every youth must manage their schooling so that they reach the goal of self-sufficiency or further studies. We must fight unemployment. We must have a policy for full employment.

The current government's greatest failure is the unemployment that has become entrenched. Children and young people must be allowed to grow up in homes where parents have a job to go to, so that they can manage their own livelihood and so that they are not driven into the clutches of gang criminals for reasons of poverty. We need a crime policy that actually works.

We must also protect our welfare. Organized crime and gangs attack our welfare and use the revenues that should have gone to welfare to instead finance other criminal activities. The Tidö government has turned a blind eye to the fact that we live in a country where gang criminals have been allowed to run HVB homes and health centers.

We must change direction. We must also have a policy that stands on the side of the crime victims. I was contacted by a woman who told me about her daughter. She had lived in an incredibly destructive relationship, which she managed to leave. She had been subjected to horrific crimes in that relationship. She is unable to enter the labor market because of what she was subjected to and is forced to live on economic support. The perpetrator, her ex-husband, was convicted, and she was awarded compensation. It was finally some form of redress from society.

What happens then? Well, then the municipality says: We count your compensation as an income. Therefore, we reduce your financial social assistance at the same rate as you receive the compensation.

This is shameful. The crime victim is thus subjected to a double blow – first for the perpetrator's horrific actions and subsequently for society's betrayal. You attack people in poverty and say: You shall not have access to the compensation that everyone else would have access to if they were in the same situation as you.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, I want this assembly to make a decision that municipalities shall not be allowed to reduce the financial social assistance when people who are in society's most vulnerable situations and live in poverty finally receive the right to compensation.

We need a policy that works. Then we must invest in crime prevention work. It is about school, full employment, and residential areas that are safe to grow up in. We shall have housing that families can afford to live in and residential areas where 13-year-olds can grow up in safety instead of having to grow up in the prisons that the Tidöregeringen wanted to build.

We will target the gang criminal environment, we will protect our welfare, and we will have a policy that stands on the side of the crime victims.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! From the rostrum, we hear Tobias Smedberg from Vänsterpartiet say that we need to change direction.

In 2022, there were 391 shootings and this year 83. In Stockholm, it has been zero in the last month. In which direction does the member want to go?

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

Tobias Smedberg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Kärrholm, for a good question!

I want to change direction from a policy that aims to create effective headlines in newspapers to a policy that creates effective crime fighting. I may be new as a member in this assembly, but I am experienced enough to see that there is a difference between these.

Putting more children in prison provides effective headlines. But it is not an effective way to combat crime. Instead, one must target serious crimes and the gang criminals who profit, for example, at society's expense by attacking our welfare.

I have seen how the police and the Prosecution Authority under the Tidö government's rule have lacked resources to combat the welfare crime that finances the gangs' criminal activities.

It is good that much is going in the right direction. But there is very much more that needs to go in the right direction.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe that anyone listening to the debate will become any wiser at all.

The Leader of the Opposition says that we should not have a policy that only aims to create headlines. But behind the headlines lies a reality where we are not only reducing the number of shootings and pushing back organized crime, but other types of crime are also decreasing. The number of thefts and burglaries is decreasing.

It is an enormous success. I can state that Vänsterpartiet has voted against all the proposals we have put forward that have led to that development.

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

Tobias Smedberg (V)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Kärrholm has shown an almost obsessed interest in putting 13-year-olds in prison despite the fact that we know it does not work. Kärrholm could have shown here in the assembly which referral bodies consider, and what research and what proven experience shows, that it is effective crime fighting.

He did not do that, because there is no such proven experience. There is no such research, and there are almost no referral bodies that support that policy.

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

Magnus Haara (C)

Madam Speaker! We shall have a safe Sweden – a Sweden with freedom, responsibility, and humanity. I want to live in a Sweden where people feel safe in their everyday lives. It is a Sweden where you can go home in the evening without being afraid, where entrepreneurs can run their businesses without threats, and where people know that society is there when they need help.

It should not matter whether you live in the middle of Helsingborg, in Höör, or in a small village up in Tornedalen. For me, one of the finest things about Sweden is the commitment that exists both in our cities and in our countryside.

It is the feeling when you come to a place where people greet each other, where the sports club gathers children and youth, and where local entrepreneurs fight for the region to develop. It is community. It is cohesion. It is when Sweden is at its best.

But that community must be given the conditions to live on. One of the most important conditions is precisely safety. For freedom without safety is no real freedom. You should not have to wonder if the police can come when you need help. You should not have to feel that your place of residence determines how much protection you receive from society.

Still, the development is going in the wrong direction on exactly that point. Since 2022, the number of places where the public can visit the police has decreased significantly. Since 2021, 58 municipalities have lost their last visit office. Today, 110 municipalities lack police offices. It is a development that we must reverse.

I and the Center Party want the police to be near people in all of Sweden's 290 municipalities. We want to reopen police stations, strengthen the local police presence, and expand mobile police units and local police hubs. We want to set a clear national ambition level for the police's accessibility, so that no municipality is left behind.

We want to try new solutions, such as drones during emergency calls, to shorten response times where distances are long. We also want the police to prioritize the crimes that affect people's everyday lives: burglaries, thefts and vandalism.

Even though a burglary may only become a line in the statistics, for the person affected, it can mean a lost sense of security in their home. Security is not just about fighting crime. It is also about people being able to live their lives without fear.

But safety also requires something more. It requires a strong rule of law. We shall fight crime with force. Those who commit serious crimes shall face the full strength of society. But at the same time, the state shall follow the law and respect people's rights. That is what distinguishes a society of law from a society where power precedes the law.

I believe in a Sweden where we do not pit people against each other but where we build a society where more people get the opportunity to succeed. It is a Sweden where the police are nearby, where the rule of law stands strong and where people feel that they have both responsibilities and rights. It is a Sweden where you can choose to live in a large city or in the countryside without choosing away safety.

For me, it is the task of politics to create the conditions for people to live free, safe, and meaningful lives regardless of where in the country they live. That is the Sweden I want to be part of building. That is why I say: Police shall be present throughout Sweden. Safety shall apply to everyone. Faith in the future shall exist in every municipality from Kärrbäck to Svalöv and from north to south. Sweden can do better, and together we can make it better.

(Applause)

In this speech, Emma Brihall (C) agreed.

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

Emil Eneblad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Haara speaks warmly about safety in the countryside and what is needed to achieve it. One rather obvious fact is that with the current penal system, far too many reports are being dismissed.

My family is from the countryside in Sörmland and has been hit by waves of burglaries time and again. When one reports those burglaries to the police, there are often ten other burglary reports lying in a pile. The consequence of that when volume discounts exist is that there will be no punishment for the later burglaries that have been committed. A fundamental prerequisite for addressing that problem is that one abolishes the volume discounts. The Center Party, as is known, voted no to this in August this year.

I therefore pose the question to Magnus Haara: How is it that you voted no to the volume discounts? Will the Center Party abolish the volume discounts? Will the Center Party work to abolish it during this parliamentary term for, for example, burglary thefts?

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

Magnus Haara (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe we agree on quite a lot, Emil. It also pleases me that you safeguard the countryside.

We must get more police. When people in the countryside call the police, the police must come there. That is not quite the case today. It also concerns a present police officer. Today, 110 municipalities lack a present police officer. We must change that, and I hope we agree on that.

We shall abolish the volume discounts. What was added was more of a political game from the Tidösidan. One must be serious when it comes to legislation, and that is the Centerpartiet. The volume discounts shall be abolished, but it shall be done properly and with proper legislation.

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

Emil Eneblad (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would say that it is very serious that when a major reform is presented, the government and judicial authorities are given the opportunity to plan and lay the foundation for the reform to be able to enter into force, which is obviously some time into the future.

Madam Speaker! If we do not abolish the quantity discounts, which the Centerpartiet voted against us doing, these crimes will be piled up. We have given notice that it shall take place during this parliamentary term. I lack a notice from the Centerpartiet.

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

Magnus Haara (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party will work to ensure that we abolish the volume discounts, and we will work to ensure that we drive serious legislation.

What you forgot to mention regarding experts and the Council on Legislation is that an incredible amount of the legislation that has been presented during the past parliamentary term, they have warned against and said has gone too fast and is not sufficiently elaborated.

Volume discounts shall be abolished, but they must be abolished in the right way and through the right legislation.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind you not to direct your speeches directly to the opposing member but to speak through the Speaker.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! During the past parliamentary term, we Social Democrats have voted yes to most of the government's proposals in the area of crime policy, partly because many of the proposals were already initiated by the Social Democratic government, and partly because the Tidö government has also put forward good proposals.

There are, however, areas where the government has not done enough, and one such area is economic crime.

We have long spoken about the gangs' shootings, bombings, and drug trafficking. That crime must, of course, be fought with full force. But we must also go even harder after the money. Behind the violence, there is an economy. Behind the drug trafficking, there are companies, money laundering, and advanced economic schemes. Behind the young guys who carry out the acts of violence, there are older and significantly wealthier individuals. It is they who earn the big money, and it is them we must get to.

Madam Speaker! It is not enough to pursue those who commit the crimes. We must also strike hard against those who organize and finance the crime. Therefore, we Social Democrats want, among other things, to introduce a stricter penalty for particularly serious economic crime, reintroduce the audit requirement for more limited companies and increase the share capital, strengthen and develop the Economic Crime Authority into an agency against organized crime, and introduce a Swedish mafia law to reach those who run the criminal networks. Organized crime is eating its way into the body of society, into our companies, into welfare, into the public economy, and unfortunately also into our sports.

Madam Speaker! During the past year, I have met many football clubs, supporters, associations, and the police. One thing has become very clear: We must direct more force toward economic crime within football – against unscrupulous agents, against match-fixing, against money laundering, and against criminals who try to gain power over our associations. We Social Democrats have therefore proposed regulation of agent activities and tougher measures against match-fixing.

I must finally praise the government, Madam Speaker. One of the last decisions during the mandate period was indeed to appoint a national coordinator against crime linked to sports, a proposal that we Social Democrats have pushed for. It was a good decision, and it was a modest move by the government.

The 2026 football season looks to continue the positive trend with large crowds and reduced public order disturbances. Instead of constantly letting the discussion be about the stands and pyrotechnics, I now hope that we can shift the debate and resources toward what truly threatens Swedish football – toward criminal money, toward match-fixing, and toward those who are trying to take power over our associations.

(Applause)

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

Sophia Granswed Baat (M)

Madam Speaker! There are many important issues that this House has to deal with. But few issues are as fundamental as our responsibility to protect children.

Children are the most vulnerable in our society. They depend on the adult world to see them, hear them, protect them, and act when they cannot. Therefore, the fight against sexual crimes against children must be one of the rule of law's highest priorities.

Crime is changing. Pedophiles adapt quickly to new environments and new technological possibilities. Today, a large part of sexual abuse against children occurs behind screens. Adult men seek contact with children on social media, on gaming platforms, and in closed chat forums. There, children are groomed. There, children are extorted, and there, abuse material is spread. The perpetrators hide behind anonymous profiles, encrypted services, and closed networks.

That is why the government's referral to the Council on Legislation regarding special provocative measures is an important step forward. It means that the police shall be able to pose as children online to expose individuals seeking contact with children to commit abuse. The proposal also means that the police are given the opportunity to enter closed chat forums where sexual abuse against children is planned and abuse material is disseminated.

Madam Speaker! For me, this is fundamentally a simple question. If an adult seeks out children to commit abuse, it is not the adult who should be defended. It is the child who must be protected from being subjected to it. When the perpetrators hide behind screens, the tools of the rule of law must function. We cannot fight tomorrow's crime with yesterday's methods.

Now the Moderates are fulfilling their election promise and strengthening the protection for children. Now we are giving the police better tools against pedophiles. Many Swedes have over the years taken part in stories that have been made public by, for example, Dumpen. Regardless of what one thinks of their methods, they have contributed to making visible a reality that many would prefer not to see. Behind every revealed conversation, there is also an adult person who has had contact with a child with a single purpose: to commit a sexual assault on the child.

This should make us all stop. For every person who is exposed, there is a child who is actually being subjected to it. At the same time, we know that the number of unreported cases is large. Many children never dare to tell. Children are manipulated, children are threatened. Children carry traumas with them well into adulthood. It is those children we must think about when we discuss these issues.

Madam Speaker! We must never accept that the internet becomes a haven for pedophiles and rapists. Society has a responsibility, and that is to stand on the children's side. When we protect the children, we also protect their future, their trust, and the society that we want to pass on to the next generation. The children's safety must always come first.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! In this speech, I want to discuss Swedish sexual offense legislation, the consent law, and what I and many others believe to be deficiencies in legal practice.

To avoid any potential misunderstandings, I want to say that sexual crimes are despicable and that rapists should be sentenced severely. There is no doubt about that. The problem today is, however, that not least young boys, often with little or no sexual experience, are sentenced to long prison terms and large damages for rape on very weak evidence or, for that matter, for incidents that in the general sense of justice – at least I am convinced of – do not belong in a courtroom at all.

The concept of rape has been broadened in stages over the years, and with the so-called consent law introduced in 2018, the concept of rape has been broadened further to encompass more and more acts within the law. The number of rape convictions, apart from aggravated rape which remains stable, has doubled as a result of this. In addition to this, judgments have also been added in the new crime category, so-called negligent rape.

I am fully aware of the difficulties in judging sexual offenses, especially as there are rarely witnesses or, in that regard, technical evidence. But because of the good intention to protect women from sexual offenses, the evidentiary requirements have been lowered to levels that are not applied in any other types of legal cases. The principle of the presumption of innocence, which is sometimes expressed as it being better that ten guilty people go free than that one innocent person suffers, has in practice been lifted from rape cases.

This has led to that we unequivocally sentence, not least young innocent boys, to at least three years of imprisonment, hundreds of thousands of kronor in damages and a lifelong stigma. In the individual case, it is of course difficult to speak with certainty about guilt, but on the large whole, it is obvious that innocent people are sentenced. They are not few.

There is, among other things, a case where a convicted guy managed to prove his innocence after an expert succeeded in extracting data from a broken phone. The journalist Jenny Strindlöv has written about this case, among others.

I have engaged in the issue by organizing a seminar in the Riksdag. I have also read a large amount of judgments and investigation protocols. I have interviewed both lawyers and journalists as well as convicted persons and their relatives. Overall, I am convinced that both Swedish legislation and judicial practice need to be reformed. This is a pressure cooker that will sooner or later burst.

I mean that we need a review of whether the general legal awareness and the scope of the law regarding the concept of rape are truly in line. Perhaps more crime categories are needed regarding sexual offenses, so that there are reasonable penalties for less serious incidents that are not perceived as rape in the general legal awareness.

This is a difficult and complex issue, and I hope that we tackle it.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! That was a remarkable speech by the Sweden Democrats.

You wield concepts such as that innocent people are in prison, that the requirements for evidence should be lowered or raised. You must have read a multitude of preliminary investigations and judgments. Thus, right after right shall be reviewed, and in the chamber, judgment can be stifled instance after instance. It is very remarkable.

The truth is that today there are completely different conditions for obtaining good evidence of what has happened in a sexual offense, among other things with the help of these kits which we in the consent investigation pointed out. At the hospitals, there are ready-made kits where it is possible to document DNA, hair, and other things directly on site. A victim's counsel is available for those affected. There lies the reason why many are convicted.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind you of the rules of conduct in the chamber. We do not speak directly to one another but through the Speaker.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to urge Petter Löberg to take note of the reporting, including a long series of reports in Expressen by Jenny Strindlöv. There is also a good text by Louise Lennartsson in a magazine, the name of which I cannot recall at this moment. They clearly demonstrate the problems.

I do not know what such a kit as Petter Löberg refers to would have for significance regarding whether evidence of consent existed or not. Things can go wrong in different ways in an interaction. People can regret it afterwards. Maybe it didn't turn out so well, and so on. But it does not have to mean that a crime has been committed.

There are, as said, an incredible number of cases to take note of where convicted perpetrators have subsequently been acquitted based on forensic evidence that could not be used in the first instance. That innocent people are convicted is beyond doubt.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It would be extremely remarkable if there were people who were wrongly convicted sitting in Swedish prisons. There are systems for that, namely an appeal to the Supreme Court. That is when one should receive redress if one is wrongly convicted. Period!

There are a number of such cases in Swedish legal practice. But in this case, we are talking about something else. You simply want perpetrators and rapists to go free.

I did not manage in my previous enumeration to reach the fact that causes many to be convicted, namely social media and documentation from mobiles. There you have the key.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think it should be unambiguous that it is difficult to judge, and sometimes it is wrong. Sometimes innocent people are convicted.

The burden of proof for the court is so low in these cases that I mean that more innocent people are being convicted. One practically never gets a retrial in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court takes up one, two, or three cases per year. You can forget about that.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask the members to respect the speaking time. I understand that it is short in comparison to what it usually is, but one must still adapt to the given speaking time.)

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! The most dangerous place for a woman is the home. There, women and children are controlled, tortured, raped, and murdered year-round.

Often, the man is most dangerous just when the woman has gathered the strength and support to leave the relationship. To stop men's violence against women and children, including post-separation violence, is a matter of safety, freedom, respect, and justice.

During the last three parliamentary terms, important steps have been taken. Child peace crimes have been introduced, and honor crimes have received their own criminal classification. The consent law has been introduced. Penalties have been tightened, and psychological violence has been criminalized. But the work must continue. No woman is free until all are free.

One of society's most important tasks is also to protect children from violence. Being subjected to or witnessing violence in the home is deeply harmful and has lifelong consequences. The work must continue.

Madam Speaker! Honor-related violence and oppression have no place in our society. Nevertheless, primarily women and girls are restricted, controlled, abused, and abducted in the name of honor.

To you who are watching the debate, who are yourself vulnerable or who feel concern for someone else, I want to say the following.

Your body is only yours. Your sexuality is only yours. The decision of whether you want to marry or not want to marry is only yours. You have the right to live your life in safety and in freedom and to follow your dreams. The one who tries to control you into something else commits a crime.

Madam Speaker! Socialstyrelsen's investigations show time and again that several murders and acts of gross violence could have been avoided. Most often, the violence was known before the most serious crimes were committed. In this debate, I particularly want to highlight the women's shelters (kvinnojourerna). They have over 50 years of experience in offering support, protection, and hope to women and children exposed to violence. They also carry out invaluable public education and advocacy work. The activities of the women's shelters must be protected, given long-term and secure conditions, and not be opposed.

In my home county of Gävleborg, all women-run protected shelters have now been closed or put into hibernation. This is due to the government's failure with the implementation of the new permit requirement, and it is serious.

Madam Speaker! I nevertheless want to conclude with two positive examples from home in Gävleborg, examples of how it is possible to work differently. In Trygghetens hus in Bollnäs, police, social services, and a women's shelter are gathered under the same roof to work together with schools, health and medical care, and community life to prevent, detect, stop, and prosecute violence and provide vulnerable people with the right support and protection. That is cooperation when it is at its best.

I also want to highlight Shanazi Heroes and Heroines in Gävle. Through education, folk high school work, and conversations with young people in contexts where honor is prominent, the activity challenges honor norms and patriarchal structures.

Research shows that it is possible to change attitudes and strengthen equality.

Madam Speaker! The fight against men's violence against women, violence against children, and honor-related violence and oppression must not only continue. It must be stepped up – preventive, norm-changing, collaborative, and repressive.

(Applause)

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! How nice to be part of closing the chamber for tonight.

Madam Speaker! We often talk about how many more police officers Sweden needs, and that is of course important. The Social Democrats themselves have been involved in carrying out a historic expansion of the Police Authority. But it is not enough to count how many police officers we have. Where are they, and what are they working on? The National Audit Office's review of the police reform gives us reason to ask just those questions.

When the major police reform was implemented in 2015, one of the intentions was that the police should come closer to the local community. But more than ten years later, the Swedish National Audit Office notes that this intention has still not been achieved. The police authority has grown significantly, but an all too small part of the growth has reached the local community. At the same time, experienced personnel have left the local areas for other tasks within the organization.

Madam Speaker! The police officer who knows the youth in their area and has contact with the schools, social services, the voluntary sector, and the business community has completely different opportunities to detect problems before they grow large, not least when it comes to preventing children and young people from being drawn into crime. In that case, we need police officers who know their local communities, who are present and build trust and relationships over time.

It is also about accessibility for the woman who is going to report a rape or violence in the home, for the elderly person who is going to report a fraud, and for the entrepreneurs who have repeatedly been affected by thefts and vandalism. Here, open police stations and present police officers in the local community are needed.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have therefore presented three concrete proposals to strengthen the local police presence. Firstly, we want to see more locally present police officers in outer service. When the Police Authority grows significantly, this must also be noticeable locally. Secondly, we want an emergency stop for further closures of police stations. Thirdly, we want to investigate regulated response times for the police similar to those that exist for the rescue services.

If one needs help from the police, one should be able to feel secure that the help will arrive within a reasonable time regardless of where in the country one lives, i.e., regardless of whether one lives in Stockholm, Sölvesborg, Leksand or Vetlanda.

Madam Speaker! I have in this chamber several times raised the closures of police stations and how it affects our communities and the social contract with the citizens. Something happens in us when the sign on the police station is unscrewed. At home in Blekinge, two of the five municipalities, Sölvesborg and Olofström, have been deprived of their police stations. These two municipalities thus saw even more state presence disappear during the last parliamentary term.

Madam Speaker! We want a strong and present police force throughout Sweden, a police force that can combat serious organized crime, investigate crimes, and arrive quickly when something serious happens. But we also want a police force that is present between the deployments and that knows the people, builds relationships, and can prevent crimes before they are committed. In that case, we also need more open police stations.

(Applause)

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

Emil Eneblad (SD)

Madam Speaker! I naturally share the vision of more police officers. The Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties made record-breaking investments during the last parliamentary term to increase the number of police officers and expand the justice system. Over 100 billion per year were budgeted for this.

But for the people Heléne Björklund mentioned, it matters less whether there are available police to handle the burglaries if the burglaries are just piled up and a bulk discount is given so that the punishment becomes practically zero. It matters just as little for the old lady who has been subjected to a senior fraud when the fraudster has committed 15 frauds before and the case is therefore piled up and then dropped.

The Social Democrats, as is well known, voted against abolishing the volume discounts for this type of crime, and I have not heard that they want anything else. What is the member's thinking here?

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member who gives me the opportunity to respond to this, but I am quite certain that the member has indeed heard how the Social Democrats stand on this. But in the event that is not the case, I shall give a very clear statement: the Social Democrats absolutely want to abolish the volume discounts. That is what we have said all along, even in the debate here in the Riksdag.

However, we would like to see an effective date. The member knows how the bill was drafted, so let me ask a question in return: What date was it in the bill again? When was this supposed to start applying?

Our message was that we will prioritize this in the new government. We will prioritize the serious crimes and the sexual crimes when we remove the sentence reduction.

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

Emil Eneblad (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' announcement was that it would occur during this parliamentary term, while the Moderates' announcement was January 1, 2029 – and they have access to better figures than we do, given that they own several ministries.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have during the election campaign, in follow-up motions and in other contexts, been clear that they want to abolish the volume discounts for sexual offenses and violent crimes – despite not having any proposal of their own.

This consequently means that elderly fraud and burglaries shall continue to be covered by the bulk discount. What is the member's position on this?

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! The member did not answer my question regarding which date is stated in the bill but instead brought up what has been said orally by the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates. But what the House is debating are the bills being treated, and we requested an effective date and said that it was not serious to enact a law without an effective date. That is what we said in the debate and have also said throughout the entire election campaign.

We are very surprised that you want to continue discussing this, but this evening the members have received clear answers.

(Applause)

(cont. prot. 8)

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