General political debate (cont. from prot. 7)

Emil Högberg (S)

Madam Speaker! A society that takes care of each and every one of us and gives us all the same chance presupposes – as we Social Democrats see it – a high degree of equality and solidarity. That which best levels the life chances and increases equality in our society is the universal and solidarily financed welfare – that we pay according to ability and receive back according to need. When preschool, school, healthcare, and care maintain the highest possible quality everywhere and for everyone, freedom and equality increase, and our society becomes stronger.

During the election campaign, some parties spoke about the state should run parts of the welfare instead of municipalities and regions, but it never became clear how an increased distance between the citizens and the decision-makers would improve the quality.

There is, however, a task that the state would need to take more seriously than today, and it is about securing the basic funding of the welfare system. A quarter of the welfare's funding is based on state grants – state grants that are not automatically increased when costs rise. This means that the state can keep the state grants at a seemingly decent level and still, in practice, reduce its contribution to the welfare system.

According to Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, during the years 2022–2024, increases in state grants totaling around 18 billion kronor had been required to meet the development in costs and needs. The actual increases only amounted to 10 billion, and for 2026, an additional 3 billion had been needed. When prices rise but state grants do not follow suit, it results in worse schools and less welfare. Therefore, the Socialdemokraterna went to the election on a platform to index the general state grants to municipalities and regions.

Madam Speaker! A municipality cannot plan its school activities one year at a time. A region cannot build up its healthcare based on temporary economic decisions. It is about recruiting staff, developing operations, and making investments that are intended to last for a long time. In that case, the financing must also be long-term. With value-secured state grants, municipalities and regions would know that the state's general grants at least follow inflation. This provides better conditions for planning and taking responsibility.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democratic former Minister for Social Affairs Gustav Möller is associated with a slogan that should still guide us: "Only the best is good enough for the people." This says something important about the basic idea of the welfare state. It tells us that the common school, healthcare, and elderly care should not be a second-class alternative and that quality and security should not be reserved for those who can afford to pay for it themselves.

High ambitions for the welfare state must, however, also be accompanied by a responsibility for financing. A stable and reliable basic funding is an important step to provide the welfare state with the long-term perspective and stability that is required. If only the best is good enough for the people, we must also provide the welfare state with the conditions to become just that good.

(Applause)

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Imagine that you are old, so old that you need the municipality's home care. Imagine that you fall at home in your kitchen and are left lying on the floor. You cannot get up yourself. You have a safety alarm on your arm. You press the button, but no one comes. You remain lying there and have to stay that way until the next day. Doesn't that sound terrible? But this is actually what has happened in our country.

Of course, this is about extreme cases, and they are few. It is about a few horrific cases, and when the municipalities become aware of them, an investigation is conducted and a report is made to Ivo, the Health and Social Services Inspectorate. That is how we do it in Sweden when something goes wrong.

Is it enough? No, I mean, because something essential is missing. What is missing is the perspective of the person affected. What has actually happened when a human being lies on the floor for hours without receiving help? Yes, her human dignity has been violated, and when that happens, it is not enough for the bureaucracy to work. There must also be some form of restitution from the municipality towards the person affected.

Madam Speaker! I will therefore now, during the general motion period, submit a proposal that the municipalities must create a system for financial compensation for all those who are affected by serious neglect within the municipal elderly care.

Already today, an individual who considers themselves seriously mistreated can sue the municipality and receive compensation. But to do so, you are required to hire a representative yourself and initiate a legal process. If you are old and frail, you probably cannot manage that. It is therefore reasonable that the municipality itself, without a court forcing it, pays out financial compensation when it has committed serious errors.

Within healthcare, there is already a corresponding system with the patient insurance. If a patient is mistreated, she receives compensation from the regions' joint insurance company. It can certainly be discussed how well this insurance functions, as the amounts paid out can be remarkably low, but it exists there in any case. A corresponding insurance does not exist within municipal elderly care.

Madam Speaker! I will also propose that the municipalities shall be obliged to establish the equivalent of a patient board for elderly care.

The Health and Medical Services Act prescribes that all regions must have a patient committee where patients can turn when they consider themselves to have been mistreated by the care. Incidents within municipal healthcare can also be reported there. But that only concerns healthcare, in accordance with what is prescribed in the Health and Medical Services Act. Elderly care is performed in accordance with the Social Services Act, and there are no corresponding requirements there that there must be a committee that reviews all cases of neglect.

Which interventions are defined as care and which are defined as healthcare can sometimes merge. Care can be extensive and just as significant for the individual's health as healthcare.

Serious cases of neglect can, in the worst case, lead to death. A person who is left lying on their kitchen floor after having fallen may have broken their hip. It is the municipality's home care service that then has the responsibility to check if this has happened.

Madam Speaker! I do not believe these proposals have any right-wing or left-wing character. Therefore, I would like to urge the members of the Chamber to join the motion when it is eventually addressed.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech and the obvious commitment to issues regarding elderly care. That is what we in the Left Party have been waiting to hear from the Tidö parties – in particular from the Moderates, who also held the Minister for Elderly Care post during the previous mandate period.

The members of the committee speak passionately for those among our elderly who have become victims of neglect in elderly care. We have read about those cases time and again. We have had elderly people who have lain in scalding hot water and where body parts have had to be amputated because they did not receive help in time. We have had elderly people who have lain for days in their own urine because the home care staff did not arrive in time. We have even had elderly people who have died because they suffered a stroke but did not receive help in time.

My question is: Where were the Moderates during the last four years when the cases that were discovered were not addressed?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for wanting to respond to my speech. It testifies to the fact that I may perhaps be able to get support from the Left Party for this motion when it is eventually processed. It would be interesting to know if the member can imagine arguing for my motion once I have presented it.

Who has the ultimate responsibility for the tragic cases that the member describes? Yes, it is the municipalities. What one must always check first is in which municipality the hideous cases she describes occurred, what the municipality did, and why it turned out that way. I am not familiar with the cases that the member speaks of.

It is not, in fact, Sweden's Minister for Health and Welfare who is responsible for ensuring that the care is actually performed in a correct manner.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! The Left Party will not support a motion in a red-green government. We will submit clear propositions with proposals for improvements within elderly care. That is the first thing.

Then the member asks in which municipalities these cases have been discovered. It has primarily been in municipalities led by the center-right where LOV has been the practice. My question to the member is: Does the member think it is important that we abolish LOV to secure the quality of elderly care?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates will, of course, not work to abolish LOV. We want, on the contrary, to expand the law.

I can give an example from my own home municipality, where Vänsterpartiet is responsible for exactly the elderly care issues. The member may be aware of the terrible story about the rape-murders we had in Uppsala. It just so happened that Vänsterpartiet was responsible for that committee, and it did not get much better because of that matter.

But as I said: I urge the member to support the motion when it comes to the Riksdag.

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

Kevin Sahlin (SD)

Madam Speaker! Swedish LSS care is based on a simple but fundamental principle: People's freedom, independence, and opportunity to participate fully in society shall not be affected by a disability.

LSS shall give the individual the opportunity to live with security, dignity and self-determination. An essential part of this is personal assistance, the support that makes it possible for people to manage their everyday lives, develop and participate in our society on equal terms.

Madam Speaker! Personal assistance is often discussed in connection with welfare fraud and unscrupulous actors who cheat the public of tax money and at the same time betray the people who are dependent on society's support. We must be clear: welfare fraud shall be combated with full force, and every tax krona shall go to the right purpose.

However, we must not let the fight against the unserious actors overshadow the conditions for all the serious operations that perform an invaluable task every day. For them, it is about obtaining the economic conditions to provide a safe, high-quality, and long-term sustainable care.

Madam Speaker! The indexation of personal assistance may appear to many as a technical and remote policy issue. But for those who are dependent on personal assistance, for relatives, and for the employees who every day fight for the care recipients, it is far from abstract.

When the compensation does not follow the cost development, the pressure on the operations, on the staff, and ultimately on the individual increases. It risks resulting in a poorer work environment, more difficult recruitment of skills, and less room to provide the care and support that the individual is entitled to. It is not worthy.

A right must be more than a formulation in a legal text. It must also be able to function in people's everyday lives.

If we mean business with self-determination, participation, and individuals' right to participate in the public sphere on equal terms, the compensation must also be given real conditions to uphold this. Therefore, a long-term and responsible indexing is needed that follows the cost development and counteracts the economic erosion that has now been a reality year after year.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats want to see an LSS care that is characterized by safety, quality, and dignity, not by constantly increasing economic pressure. We shall fight welfare fraud. We shall safeguard the taxpayers' money. And at the same time, we shall also stand up for the individual who is dependent on society's support and for the serious actors who every day ensure that LSS works in practice with safety, quality, and continuity. That is to take LSS seriously. It is our responsibility, and it is time to create better conditions for real.

(Applause)

In this speech, Liselotte Forsberg, Denice Westerberg and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) concurred.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! I truly welcome that the Sweden Democrats are focusing on the important area of personal assistance for those people who need society's support in the form of a personal assistant.

This question has been repeatedly discussed here in the Riksdag. Two years ago, we in the Social Affairs Committee jointly drafted a proposal regarding exactly what the member is raising: long-term stable conditions for the financing of personal assistance. We agreed on an indexing. The Riksdag voted for such through an announcement.

It could happen when the four opposition parties received support from the Sweden Democrats in the vote in 2024. The year after, the Sweden Democrats did not vote for it. My question is: Why?

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

Kevin Sahlin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I welcome the exchange of remarks, and I also welcome the member's interest in LSS issues.

We need to maintain focus and discuss the future conditions for Swedish LSS care. How should it be structured? How should it be financed? How should it work in practice?

The Sweden Democrats stand up for a clear line which is that one shall provide the support that the individual is entitled to according to law. This shall be met. We have therefore proposed a nationalization of parts of LSS. We see, namely, that this right does not exist in the whole country.

I welcome that we are discussing this, and I would like to pose a counter-question to the member. Will the Social Democrats stand behind a nationalization of parts of LSS to ensure that people receive the care and support they are entitled to by law, regardless of where in the country they live?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have been clear that the contribution to personal assistance needs to be indexed, as long-term stable economic conditions are required. This was agreed upon by the opposition parties a couple of years ago. The Sweden Democrats supported it.

I welcome that the Sweden Democrats today once again say that they want to stand up for the need for an indexation that provides stable conditions for personal assistance.

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

Kevin Sahlin (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is important that the Riksdag pays further attention to the issue, and I welcome the opportunity to review the indexing. The Sweden Democrats have taken a position that there should be a responsible indexing of personal assistance. At the same time, it shall be fully provided and throughout the country to give the support that one is entitled to. It is a very important issue for my party and also for myself.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for his speech. He pointed out that freedom, independence, and the opportunity for participation in society are the important parts of personal assistance. He also notes that it has been eroded and that an important reason for this is the low compensation to the assistance companies. In the long run, it is about how the assistance can be performed.

During the previous parliamentary term, initiatives were taken to increase the compensation and, above all, to index it. In June 2024, we reached an agreement in the chamber to do this. Nevertheless, the government, which the Sverigedemokraterna supported during the parliamentary term, has done nothing.

In what way can the fight against the unserious be resolved when, from SD's side, no responsibility is taken for the issue?

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

Kevin Sahlin (SD)

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

It is good that we are having a larger discussion in Sweden's Riksdag about this so that the focus is directed towards the area once again.

I want to point out once again that indexation is an important issue for the Sweden Democrats. My party's position has long been that an indexation should be carried out.

The purpose of the law is that one should be able to participate fully in society on the same terms as others. In that case, it is necessary that we achieve an indexing.

Taking action against unserious actors is not directly about an index regulation of personal assistance, but that is where other law enforcement tools come in, something that we have now, for four years, been addressing.

We do, however, need to ensure that LSS care is available throughout the country, and there we see deficiencies. We can see this, among other things, in Center Party-led Sundsvall. There, there have been repeated and significant deficiencies within the LSS area.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! It does not become quite serious when the Sweden Democrats say that one should remove the unserious actors within the industry when they simultaneously, throughout the entire previous mandate period, provided such low grants. In the end, it is only the unserious ones who remain, because the serious ones cannot manage to conduct any operations with the grants that one receives.

The Sweden Democrat side has had four years to increase the appropriations. Why has nothing happened?

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

Kevin Sahlin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not share the member's view as he initially takes up in his reply. I think that the Sweden Democrats have raised the issue, and we will continue to do so.

The Sweden Democrats have taken a position for an indexation of personal assistance. We will continue to work for it. That is the Sweden Democrats' intention. When one has a government agreement, one may not get everything; one does not get 100 percent Sweden Democrat policy when we do not have our own majority. I will continue to fight for these issues.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

I think it is a bit funny with the Tidö parties. When they are in opposition, suddenly welfare issues, everything from elderly care to LSS, are important to them. I strongly welcome that. I hope that the commitment continues regardless of whether they are in opposition or in power.

I also want to bring up what my colleagues mentioned regarding the announcement on assistance compensation. That was what led to us in Vänsterpartiet filing a KU-report against three of the Tidö government's ministers on the grounds that they betrayed their promise to index the assistance compensation, and it happened time and again. On one hand, they did not follow up on the announcement, and on the other hand, they promised time and again to carry it out.

Did the member of parliament think it was right of the Tidö government not to proceed with the announcement regarding the indexing of the assistance allowance?

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

Kevin Sahlin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not share the member's view; I do not think it is funny that the Tidö parties are in opposition. It would probably have been funnier if we had been in the majority.

LSS care remains an important issue for the Sweden Democrats. It has been for the past four years and also before that. The Sweden Democrats have always had very good policies in the LSS area and stood up in the fight so that all people can participate in our society on equal terms, in accordance with the Act on Support and Service for Certain Persons with Disabilities.

The Sweden Democrats went to the election on the basis that we would continue with the indexing of the compensation for personal assistance, and we did that together with the Liberals through the Sweden Promise. It shows once again that we value this type of issue, and it is important for both me and my party that we can continue this work.

If one votes for the Sweden Democrats, one should get Sweden Democrat politics. But if the Sweden Democrats do not have a majority of their own, one does not get 100 percent of the Sweden Democrats' politics either.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the account of the Sweden Democrats' policy! But I did not receive an answer to my question, which was: What does the member think about the Tidö Government, with the Sweden Democrats as the largest party in the government base, choosing not to proceed with the announcement that the Riksdag directed to the government regarding an indexing of the assistance payment? Does the member think it was reasonable of the Tidö Government and the Sweden Democrats to do so in that case?

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

Kevin Sahlin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I understood that I answered the member's question. We may have to discuss this again at a later time, if she feels that she has not received an answer to the question.

I believe I have explained that it is important for both me and my party that we continue to keep the focus on the LSS issue and that we keep the focus on the indexation of the compensation for personal assistance – it is that which enables many people in our country to actually be able to participate in society on equal terms. But there is still a discrepancy; it does not look like that across the whole country, and that is a problem.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and his government have punished those who have become ill, those who have lost their jobs, and families with children who are struggling to make ends meet. They have also punished workers who toil and elderly people who have built up our country. What has been their sentence? Yes, to live a life in poverty.

Leif has an unusual blood cancer and tumors that are spreading. His doctor considers him too ill to work, but despite that, he has been left without sickness benefit. Försäkringskassan assesses that he can likely manage jobs that do not require him to stand for long periods or where he can vary his working position.

Then it's just a matter of packing up and moving out into the woods or something, said Cathrine when her sickness benefit-earning income, SGI, was zeroed out. For Cathrine, it means that she will have to manage on her husband and on her half sickness compensation from an old work injury from the assembly period at Volvo. It is about 7,500 kronor a month.

Do the members remember Ellen, the 47-year-old woman in the SVT program Frågan är fri? She asked Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson how much he earned, whereupon she told that she herself receives just over 12,000 kronor before tax in sickness and activity compensation and therefore needs to borrow money from her mother to make ends meet. At the beginning of the year, she received an increase in the compensation, but only by 85 kronor.

Doris, 80 years old, is one of Sweden's poor pensioners with a total pension of 16,557 kronor before tax – despite the fact that she started working as early as 15 and has worked a whole life in many grueling low-wage jobs, such as personal assistant and loader in the mine. Doris says that she has tightened her belt after the lunch box. She looks for extra prices in the grocery stores and sometimes thinks twice about whether she really can afford to pick up her medicines.

Dennis and Kamilla with Storm, 16 months old, live in Malmö. Both are teachers. In Denmark, she receives full pay when she is sick. He receives no pay at all on the first day of sickness and then 80 percent. When he feels slightly ill, he usually goes to work anyway. It is easier to fight through a workday than to lose the money, says Dennis.

With the unemployment insurance fund's new rules, Thomas will live on 5,000 kronor a month. It will be a luxury to have a cup of coffee at the café, he says.

One in eight children in Sweden lives in poverty. There are 276,000 children living in economic vulnerability in Sweden today. Despite this, the child allowance has not been increased in eight years, and fewer and fewer families with children receive housing allowance.

Madam Speaker! The punishment for each of these people has been issued with bold courage by the Tidö Government. At the same time, money has been taken from the social insurance budget items to lower the tax for primarily themselves and the very richest by up to 120 billion kronor over four years. They have slaughtered the social insurances, which are to be our safety net.

Vänsterpartiet went to the election on a platform of making it cheaper to live and dream. We will realize that election promise in a red-green government with a red-green majority in the Riksdag. We want to increase the child allowance and freeze the rents in order to lower them in the long run with the help of an increased housing allowance that more people can share in. We want to abolish the karens deduction, increase pensions, and make it so that the health insurance becomes dignified again.

No person in our society, Madam Speaker, shall be left behind because they become ill, unemployed, or grow old. In the Left Party's Sweden, we take care of every single inhabitant, not just the very richest.

(Applause)

In this speech, Daniel Bernmar (V) agreed.

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

Emmy Ahlstedt (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to talk about the escalating mental ill-health among children and young people. More and more children and young people suffer from mental ill-health. In Kalmar county, where I live, 20 percent of all girls between 13 and 17 years old attend BUP. Ten years ago, the proportion was 13 percent. In my county, the number of children receiving treatment at BUP has doubled in the last five years.

Many of us have long pointed out that BUP needs more resources. Solid work has been done in many places in the country. In Region Kalmar län, the average waiting time for treatment at BUP has decreased by over two months in the last year. But despite that, the development regarding the number of children who need BUP is still explosive. We have created a society where children must receive interventions from health and medical care and be medicated to manage to live.

The Center Party's vision is that today's young people shall belong to the healthiest generation ever. To succeed, powerful reforms are required. Children's and young people's everyday lives must be changed fundamentally, and I want to highlight three areas where changes need to be made.

Firstly, social media must be restricted and taxed. There is now a good basis for legislating an age limit for when children may use social media, and this work must continue.

Centerpartiet wants to go further. We are prepared to introduce a taxation of social media companies and want to appoint an investigation as soon as possible on how it should be designed. The principle is to lower the tax on that which creates value, such as work and entrepreneurship, and tax that which causes harm. We would prefer a tax or fee based on how harmful and addictive the algorithms are. This should provide the companies with economic incentives to change their platforms. If they find solutions that make the apps less harmful, it also reduces the need for taxation. The cost should lie with the companies, not on the users.

Swedish companies have a long tradition of contributing to societal development. These companies, instead, make large profits on business models whose negative consequences are largely borne by children, young people, families, and society. We must get this in order.

Secondly, we must strengthen what makes children and young people feel good. Physical activity, culture, and social contexts shall become more accessible through strengthened support for associations, sports life, and study associations. Schools shall have daily heart-rate-raising activities and cooperation with local sports and outdoor associations to incorporate more movement during and in connection with the school day.

Third: Those seeking care for mental ill-health shall be given a contact person, a fixed care contact, as support between school, social services, and the home. This particularly helps children and young people with complex and long-term medical conditions, where the need for a designated contact person who coordinates the care interventions is especially great.

I have seen at close range families where children's mental ill-health has led to parents burning out and becoming signed off sick in the struggle it entails to coordinate all contacts regarding the child. No child should have to struggle alone, and no young person should be left without support.

(Applause)

In this speech, Emma Brihall (C) agreed.

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

Veronica Kerr (KD)

Madam Speaker! Elderly care needs more employees at the same time as the competition for labor is intensifying. I consider this to be one of the absolute greatest challenges for the welfare system.

I come from Västerbotten. It is a large county with great opportunities but also great distances and growing challenges when it comes to skills supply. In municipalities such as Åsele, Sorsele and Dorotea, the skills shortage is not a future forecast. It is a reality right now.

When a nursing assistant or a nurse cannot be recruited in elderly care, it is noticed directly in the elderly person's everyday life. It becomes a question of safety.

Madam Speaker! We know that the number of elderly people will increase significantly in the coming years while the proportion of people of working age decreases. Therefore, we cannot design the labor market policy as if the whole of Sweden had the same conditions.

In a large city, there are often several employers and educational paths. In a smaller inland municipality, the absence of a few employees can have major consequences for an entire operation.

That is why we need more education close to people, better opportunities for further education, and more paths to professions within elderly care without people having to move. If we do not create such opportunities, the skills shortage risks deepening, especially in those parts of the country where the needs are already greatest.

Madam Speaker! All too often we speak about how more people should be recruited to elderly care. At least as important is why so many leave it. When the workload is high, staffing is too low, and schedules with split shifts and frequent weekend shifts wear out the staff, it is not strange that people seek further opportunities. Every time an experienced employee leaves, elderly care loses knowledge, continuity, and security. No elderly care can be built on the fact that the staff cannot manage to stay.

That is why I am pleased and welcome that the government, during the summer, has tasked Socialstyrelsen with developing a national plan for the competence supply in elderly care. It is an important recognition of the challenges that municipalities and operations grapple with every day.

A long-term national strategy can contribute to more people seeking employment in elderly care, to more people choosing to stay, and to the competence being strengthened throughout the entire sector. But a plan in itself does not staff any operations. Political priorities are also required that make it possible for the municipalities to retain and develop their staff. Furthermore, the plan must take into account the reality across the entire country, not least in smaller municipalities.

Madam Speaker! The future of elderly care is not decided by how many plans we write. It is decided by whether there are people who want to train for, work in, and stay in elderly care. Without competent staff, there is no good elderly care. Without sustainable working conditions, there is no long-term supply of competence.

It must be possible to age with dignity, security, and quality throughout Sweden. In order for that to be possible, we must also ensure that elderly care has the competence it needs. That responsibility rests with us in this chamber.

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

Malin Malm (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Veronica, for your contribution on Västerbotten's conditions for skills supply. I appreciate the belated awakening of the Christian Democrats regarding the need for a labor market policy that works for the whole country. It is high time that we ensure we have a labor market policy that also works for Västerbotten and the conditions we have in our county.

What I am wondering about concerns the financing issue. SKR has calculated that the purchasing power of municipalities and regions during the past parliamentary term has decreased by 30 billion kronor. As you yourself point out, it is difficult to recruit, difficult to retain, and difficult to ensure that everything adds up. Why have the Kristdemokraterna not ensured that municipalities and regions, not least in Västerbotten, have received the funds that are necessary for good working conditions and so that they can be competitive on the labor market?

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

Veronica Kerr (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member – who is not a party colleague but is still from Västerbotten! We know exactly what the conditions are like in smaller municipalities.

My previous experience is as a municipal politician. Elderly care is a municipal responsibility. But when it comes to the financing, I, as a new member of this assembly, will have to come back to you, Malin, when we see the positions that are taken and what a future government looks like.

It is absolutely important that we re-evaluate the professions in elderly care. That is where we must begin. We will have to return to the financing and how much will be required.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind both members of the rules of the chamber. We speak through the Speaker and do not address each other.

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

Malin Malm (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to point out that the Social Democrats in the election campaign have pushed hard that we need to index the state grants and ensure that municipalities and regions have the funds required to be a competitive employer and be able to secure the welfare offered to the residents in Sweden. It is central that we carry this out.

The Christian Democrats belonged to the bloc that fought against this with teeth and claws. I hope that Veronica can be a voice so that the Christian Democrats will prioritize these state grants to a much greater extent.

(Applause)

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

Veronica Kerr (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for asking the questions to me!

In my speech, I spoke a lot about continuing education, i.e., opportunities for skills development in the profession. We who sit in this chamber have a national responsibility. We cannot view the labor market policy in the same way across the entire country when the conditions look so different.

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

Pär Gustafsson (L)

Madam Speaker! The Act on Support and Service for Certain Persons with Disabilities, LSS, is one of Sweden's most important freedom reforms. It is based on a simple but crucial principle: That people with extensive disabilities shall have the same right as others to live an independent life.

But today we see how this freedom is being restricted step by step. All around Sweden, applications are rejected, assistance hours are withdrawn, and people are forced time and again to prove needs that have never changed. This does not only concern assistance but all interventions according to LSS.

The other day, we could read in the newspaper Norran about Linus, who moved with his mother from Haparanda to Skellefteå. In Haparanda, he had 51 hours of personal assistance per week. After the move, he did not receive a single hour. We are talking about the same person, the same disability, and the same needs, but two municipalities make completely different assessments.

On TV4 we recently heard about Henrik, who lives with the disease MS. When his needs increased, he applied for more assistance hours. After eight months of waiting, the decision arrived. There were no more hours. Tibro municipality withdrew all of his assistance. To Nyheterna he said: I have no quality of life. It feels like sitting in prison.

Before the summer, I met Martin at home in Gothenburg. At the age of 41, he suffered a massive stroke. At the same time as he fought for his life in the intensive care unit, his daughter was born. Six years later, Martin lives with extensive disabilities. He needs personal assistance to be able to be a father, husband, friend, and a part of society.

But the great struggle after the stroke has not been about recovering. It has been about getting his right to assistance recognized by the City of Gothenburg. The municipality granted him 33 hours a week in the latest decision. The Administrative Court judged that he needed just over 69 hours. The City of Gothenburg took the matter further to the Court of Appeal, which reduced the number to 49 hours.

Madam Speaker! 20 hours a week may not sound like much for someone who can get out of bed themselves, eat their own dinner, and leave their home whenever they want. But for someone who is completely dependent on other people, 20 hours is the difference between freedom and unfreedom.

Linus, Henrik and Martin are three people with different life destinies. But they have one thing in common: They are forced to fight against the society that once promised them support. It is precisely this that is unreasonable. A lifelong disability does not cease because one moves across a municipal border. The need for help does not disappear because a new caseworker makes a new assessment.

Personal assistance was introduced so that people would gain power over their lives, not so that their lives would be governed by municipal budgets and protracted legal processes.

For us Liberals, the line is clear. We want to put an end to the recurring appeals regarding permanent needs and see a unified state ownership for personal assistance. The right to support should not be determined by which municipality one happens to live in. It is high time to put a stop to what is currently happening all over Sweden.

Madam Speaker! LSS is not just a question of care. It is a question of freedom, self-determination and human dignity.

Linus, Henrik and Martin shall be allowed to live their lives – not devote their lives to fighting for the right to live them.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Pär Gustafsson, for the speech and for the commitment that the Member shows for these very important issues regarding the LSS legislation and people's opportunity to live a full life with the help of personal assistance! I am also thinking of the life stories that the Member brings up: Linus, Henrik and Martin.

We have now left a parliamentary term behind us. There was no lack of proposals during that term to address the problems that the member highlights. In March 2023, we had a government inquiry finished on the nationalization of assistance in order to be able to create equality across the entire country. Since then, the government has not acted. Despite the fact that the Liberals have been a part of this government, nothing has happened.

What is it that makes the Liberals have intended to prioritize personal assistance during this mandate period?

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

Pär Gustafsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I must thank the member for allowing me, as a newcomer to the chamber, to have this exchange of remarks.

I can state that the government has, on several occasions during the mandate period that has passed, increased the flat-rate compensation within the assistance. It has also enabled an arrangement where Försäkringskassan shall, going forward, prepare budget bases regarding the cost development within the assistance – also to ensure that the assistance compensation follows the cost development going forward.

I think that is fundamentally a very good arrangement. As has been said in previous exchanges, I believe it is the right way to go that we have good foundations from which we can make decisions in the budget process that awaits during the autumn.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! The truth is that the outgoing government has piled up investigation upon investigation, both regarding personal assistance and other areas. Investigations have been held on the nationalization of assistance, escort services, transport services, and interpretation services. There has been an opportunity to implement changes during the mandate period that has passed, but that has not been done; instead, it has only been pushed forward. Just before the election, additional investigations were commissioned.

Are the Liberals prepared this time to actually act and not just talk?

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

Pär Gustafsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Just as the member described that the appointed government commissioned an investigation in May where the goal was to safeguard the assistance as a freedom reform and to work against state ownership. For the Liberals, I can state that our goal really is that the assistance should be nationalized. It has been that way since the very beginning, when we pushed through this reform here in the Swedish Riksdag.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the commitment regarding the important LSS issues!

We have been able to read about and follow many horrifying examples of how it goes in Sweden. That is why the Social Democratic government previously appointed the investigation that has been mentioned in the debate about nationalizing the primary responsibility for personal assistance. It was, in fact, an important reform to achieve equality across the country.

There was a broad political consensus on the need for an investigation, and there was a broad political consensus on the results and the proposals in that investigation. Since then, it has been on the government's desk.

I have sat on the Committee on Social Affairs during the previous parliamentary term. I have had many debates on this issue, among others with Liberals, about why nothing is happening. It has lain still and silent in a cabinet at the Government Offices for four years.

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

Pär Gustafsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Just as I stated in the previous exchange, I must say that it is very enjoyable as a newcomer to the chamber to debate these issues. I hope that several other Liberals will also do so in upcoming debates.

In the budget process that is about to begin here in the House, I have every reason to return to these questions and to how we, from the Liberals' side, view the work ahead.

As I said earlier, we from the Liberals are very clear that we want to see a nationalization, and we would have wanted to see a nationalization from the very beginning. What is happening out in the country really looks bleak. In red-green Gothenburg, I have spent the entire spring debating these issues. The decisions for persons with lifelong disabilities are being reassessed time and again, and it must come to an end.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with the member that this must come to an end. We have seen many examples from many parts of the country of needs that fall between the cracks. That is why new legislation is needed. That is why we Social Democrats have pushed for us to obtain a state principal for personal assistance.

The Liberals have raised the issue in the Riksdag, but what they have done in the government is a mystery to me. I welcome you to continue to be clear, but political decisions are also required.

(Applause)

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

Pär Gustafsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I can state that the government has reintroduced an order where Försäkringskassan shall now calculate what the assistance allowance shall cost. It is something that previous governments had removed.

From the Liberals' side, we have been clear in the election campaign that has taken place. We first want to see an increase of 7 percent. That was what we told the voters. After that, we want to see an indexing that follows the cost development.

It is the Liberals' announcement, Madam Speaker.

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Madam Speaker! "I had dreams and future plans, but since 2020 my life has stood still. My old friends have just graduated from high school. I haven't even finished primary school. I am living, but it is not a life. I live only for the sake of my family."

The vast majority of us remember the corona pandemic well and how, in order to prevent the spread of infection, we had to celebrate Christmas without relatives, could not go to restaurants or visit elderly relatives. We who could work from home had to turn the kitchen into an office and have meetings in front of a screen, while others went to work with face masks and visors.

Unfortunately, we were also forced to say goodbye to people who did not survive the disease. Today, the pandemic feels very far away for many of us. We remember it, but we are glad it is over. We can socialize again, travel, work, and live our lives roughly as before.

At the beginning of the year, I met Ima and Julina, who were infected when they were 13 years old. My initial words are Julina's. Now both are 19 years old and live with chronic pain in the body, racing pulse, extreme fatigue, headache, the disease POTS and epilepsy. Sometimes it is an overwhelming effort just to get out of bed. For them, the disease did not end. Covid is still raging in their bodies.

I have also met Karolin. She is 34 years old and worked as a nurse. She was one of all those welfare heroes whom we applauded. She stood at the very front of the front line. She became ill in the spring of 2020 and has since had to move home to her parents to manage everyday life. She says: ”After six years, life is completely put on pause. I have been deprived of the opportunity to work, live independently, and start a family.”

Approximately 300,000 people in Sweden live with long covid or postcovid. Of them, 150,000 have symptoms so severe that they cannot work, study, or even manage the most basic things in everyday life.

It is far from a small patient group. Postcovid meets the criteria to be a common illness. But as if it were not enough to be seriously ill, those who are sick also need to prove that they are.

In the Swedish Covid Association's survey, 68 percent stated that they had felt distrusted by healthcare staff and 43 percent that they are not taken seriously when they describe their illness. 63 percent have felt shame because they are ill. 19-year-old Ima does not even have a doctor contact.

This also costs, naturally. The price tag is 25–30 billion kronor a year when lost quality of life, work capacity, and healthcare costs are included.

I have promised Ima, Julina, and Karolin to make them and all others who have been affected visible. I will do that during this parliamentary term. I will never accept that these people disappear from the public debate just because their illness no longer dominates the news broadcasts.

Research shows that post-covid can cause long-lasting changes in the body. Knowledge about the disease has increased, and recommendations for care and rehabilitation have been developed. Still, major deficiencies remain in Swedish healthcare.

The Swedish Covid Association has presented seven demands to us politicians. Those demands are both reasonable and urgent, and we need to continue working on them. Those who have been affected must receive recognition. We must ensure that everyone, regardless of where in the country they live, gets access to the competence, care, and treatment they need.

(Applause)

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

Liselotte Forsberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is often said that all of Sweden shall live. But when it comes to maternity care, the development has gone in the opposite direction. Since 1973, the number of maternity units has decreased from approximately 95 to around 44. More than half have disappeared while Sweden's population has grown by several million people.

This is no coincidence. It is the result of political decisions. It is decisions to centralize and decisions to prioritize efficiencies and budget calculations over proximity and safety. The consequence is that many women and families have had to travel ever further to the nearest maternity clinic.

No other patient group would accept the message that one must travel 15 or 20 miles to receive acute care. But when it comes to pregnant women, it suddenly seems reasonable. Women are forced to take to the roads in the middle of labor. Families drive through winter darkness and snowstorms with the hope of arriving in time.

Madam Speaker! It is not worthy of a modern welfare state, and it is not equal care. Access to safe maternity care should not be determined by which zip code one happens to have. At the same time, Sweden faces a demographic challenge. In 2024, the lowest number of children were born in over 20 years, and the fertility rate is the lowest ever recorded in our country.

Of course, there are many reasons why fewer children are being born. But then we must also ask ourselves: Is this really the right time to make starting a family more difficult? What message are we sending to young people when society cannot even guarantee that there is a maternity ward within a reasonable distance?

We hear the same argument every time a BB is closed: It is more efficient, it is cheaper, and it improves the quality. But efficiency is always measured in kronor and öre, never in people's security. Quality is measured in statistics and spreadsheets, but rarely in the anxiety that expectant parents feel when the distance to care becomes ever longer.

Madam Speaker! When a BB is closed, it is not just a department that disappears. The expertise disappears, midwives move away, the emergency preparedness is weakened, and the entire town's faith in the future is affected.

Furthermore, every closure sends a clear message to people in the countryside that their security is worth less. It is a message that we must stop sending.

If we are serious about the fact that all of Sweden should live, people must be able to give birth to their children in safety, regardless of where they live. Maternity care is not a cost item among others. It is an investment in the next generation.

A society that cannot offer security when a child is to be born must ask itself what the word welfare actually means. Therefore, the development must be reversed. Sweden needs more families who dare to believe in the future, not more BB departments that are closed.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to the Swedish Parliament, Member Forsberg!

It was an interesting speech that we can say a lot about. We can talk about the BB-armchair, which is in Skåne, where it is hardly 15–20 miles to the nearest maternity clinic or similar.

I have two questions that I would like the member to reflect on based on the speech she has given.

One question concerns how a nationalized healthcare system with a director-general in Stockholm would bring care closer to people in rural areas. Does the member really believe that the director-general will sit and think, "We shall open more maternity wards in rural areas"?

The second question is: How does the member feel her speech aligns with the fact that the Sweden Democrats were involved in cutting 600 million from women's healthcare during the last budget year?

(Applause)

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

Liselotte Forsberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for very good questions! As you said, I am very new to this context. I have to read up a bit more, but this is something I am passionate about.

I come from Mora in Dalarna. Many years ago, we had one of Sweden's best BB. I unfortunately cannot answer right now, but it is something that I will read more about. I will write down your name, because I am a bit name-blind, so we can discuss it further; I absolutely think so.

(Applause)

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind you of the rules of procedure. In the chamber, we speak through the Speaker and do not address each other directly. One tip is to say "the member" or the first and last name of the fellow member.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Forsberg, for the answer! I have great understanding that it is not easy as a new member. But as ABF chairman in the newly formed department ABF Öresund, I am glad that the member is nevertheless prepared to acknowledge the obvious lack of knowledge she shows when she represents her party here in the rostrum. The member should really take responsibility for how the Sverigedemokraterna treated Swedish welfare during the previous mandate period.

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

Liselotte Forsberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the understanding in this new context!

I will continue to work on this. I am passionate about welfare and the countryside, so we will surely be in touch on further occasions.

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

Carina Örgård (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had significantly higher drug-related mortality than our neighboring countries. Why does it look like that?

Yes, when we have called it abuse and placed the blame on the individual, these countries have called it an addiction disease. When we have demanded drug-freedom before support and housing are provided, other countries have implemented effective measures to mitigate harm and save lives.

Madam Speaker! It is high time that Sweden moves from being at the top when it comes to drug-related mortality to being at the forefront when it comes to coordinated treatment, support, and housing.

Samsjuklighet concerns people who have been affected by severe addiction combined with serious mental symptoms. It also concerns relatives, children and parents who live closely with the affected person and who are affected by the consequences.

Madam Speaker! Let me raise two perspectives. Women with co-morbidity have a manifold risk of being subjected to psychological, physical, economic, and sexual violence. We know that women can also be forced to sell their bodies to finance both their own and others' access to drugs.

When the woman seeks help, this is ignored, and she often does not receive help in the same place as the perpetrator. Sitting in the same waiting room when seeking care or staying in the same emergency housing does not directly facilitate for the one who wants to leave a destructive relationship. Therefore, we need to have the gender perspective when we shape this care.

Let me also take the children's perspective. Children's rights organizations testify that children still fall between the chairs when the parents have a mental illness of their own. The focus is still on the adult. In recent years, we have been reached by reports of children who have lived in serious neglect with inhuman suffering and where this in some cases has even led to the child's death.

These children are something that every decision-maker must carry with them. In every decision, we must ask ourselves: Can this lead to the child's rights being strengthened? That is what I have done after a professional life with these children. I will advocate for them here in the speaker's chair.

The co-morbidity reform that is being launched is, to a large extent, about a shared responsibility. It is about building a society where people do not need to navigate between different systems and different healthcare providers and repeatedly encounter walls between them when they are broken and fragile and most need a coherent care.

Now we have the chance to provide the conditions for municipalities and regions to provide coordinated care, and then the possibility to reduce suffering and detect vulnerability to violence also increases. We have moved towards more effective interventions. We have allowed needle exchanges and LARO, but we have still not tested consumption rooms. We must take more steps.

Madam Speaker! Ultimately, this reform is about our view of the human being and about the welfare being there and being adapted to them, not the other way around. Let us therefore, during this mandate period, make the co-morbidity reform a reality.

(Applause)

In this speech, Daniel Bernmar (V) agreed.

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

MY ROSELL (S)

Madam Speaker! A strong welfare state gives people freedom. It makes life journeys possible, creates security and builds a successful society. Welfare is not a market. It is our social contract – a promise that those who need support, care or nursing shall also receive it.

For a long time, market solutions and private profit interests have been given increasing space. Tax money that should have gone to education, healthcare, and care instead becomes private profits. When profitability is allowed to rule, people's needs risk coming in second place, quality risks deteriorating, and trust in the welfare system risks being eroded.

We Social Democrats want to secure welfare resources, stop the pursuit of profit in schools, and take back democratic control. Teachers should not be forced to choose which student receives support and which student does not. Resources should be distributed according to the students' needs, not according to the possibility of attracting profitable students, pressing costs, or awarding "joy grades."

Those with the greatest need shall also receive care first and in a timely manner. Care shall not become consumption-driven, lead to unnecessary treatment, or provide fast lanes for those who have the means to buy their way to the front of the queue.

No child should be placed in the hands of criminals who run HVB homes, and no elderly person should have to face minute management or insufficient staffing.

Madam Speaker! When private enterprises close as soon as profitability falters, municipalities and regions are still left with the responsibility. The welfare sector's employees uphold our society, and they deserve more than applause. They deserve a good working environment, reasonable conditions, abolished carens deductions, and reasonable pensions that it is possible to live on.

We need to have more people in the welfare sector. If we do not reverse the development, both the quality and our common security are threatened.

It is often women who work in the welfare sector, and it is often the women who are forced to compensate when it does not function. Therefore, investments in the welfare sector are also about working conditions, economic freedom, and equality.

We choose welfare over tax cuts for those who already have the most. A strong welfare state is not charity, but it is the foundation for freedom, equality, and Sweden's future. Welfare should not be governed by who is most profitable, but by who needs it most. By putting people before the market and needs before profit, we uphold the social contract and create freedom for all.

(Applause)

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

Gunilla Gomér (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is a loneliness in our society that we rarely speak about, namely the loneliness after broken family ties. It is about parents who have lost contact with their adult children and about grandparents who no longer get to meet their grandchildren. This is a phenomenon that is internationally called "go no contact". It is a growing phenomenon that affects the individual and which can also have devastating consequences for society as a whole.

I want to be very clear, Madam Speaker: Of course, there are situations where it is necessary to break contact, for example in cases of violence or abuse. It is not these situations I am talking about today.

In our time, we talk very much about setting boundaries instead of resolving conflicts. There are families where relationships are broken after conflicts and misunderstandings that perhaps could have been resolved. Think of the mother waiting for a phone call that never comes, of grandparents who no longer know what their grandchildren look like, or of the older parent who moves towards the end of life without getting to see their children again!

How common is this in Sweden? The strange answer is: We do not know. It is precisely this that is the problem. There is a lack of sufficient Swedish knowledge on how many adult children and parents have completely broken contact with each other and how many grandparents have thereby also lost contact with their grandchildren. International research shows, however, that family breakups between adult children and parents are not a marginal phenomenon.

The Public Health Agency states that loneliness is a public health and societal problem. In 2025, the government invested 48 million so that the municipalities would work to counteract loneliness among the elderly. However, music entertainment and municipal coffee breaks are not enough.

We know that involuntary loneliness and social isolation are associated with an increased risk of mental ill-health and suicide. It is not only the elderly who are affected when the contact between grandparents and grandchildren is broken. The grandchildren are also affected, who perhaps do not even understand why the contact has ceased. When family ties are broken, it is not only two adults who lose each other, but this affects the family dynamics over several generations.

Madam Speaker! We often speak about the loneliness of the elderly, but how do we gain more knowledge about the consequences of broken family relationships and better opportunities for conversational support and reconciliation where it is possible?

Many affected people do not even dare to speak out for fear of the questions from those around them. Therefore, I urge the government to pay attention to broken family relationships in the work against involuntary loneliness, mental ill-health, and suicide. Not all relationships can be saved, and not all relationships should be saved, but where it is possible, we need to invest the right resources and make the right interventions to combat involuntary loneliness.

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

Jonas Lindberg (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we do not live up to the Swedish Health and Medical Services Act. Let me speak about the care queue, which is often not talked about much but which almost all Swedes have encountered!

It is about not getting an appointment at one's health center. When you finally do get there, you meet different doctors every single time. Despite the fact that we all know very well that it leads to people with chronic illnesses suffering more hospital admissions, very little has happened regarding increasing the number of general practitioners in Sweden. There is talk about healthcare being made more efficient, but we know that continuity is clearly the most efficient thing in healthcare.

We can compare it to a school class. A teacher who is responsible for 50 students in a classroom instead of 20 cannot provide high-quality instruction for everyone. It leads to fire-fighting and ethical stress. Students who fall between the cracks are missed. This is the reality today for Swedish general practitioners, and therefore there need to be more of them.

A wise district doctor said that one can compare the politicians' failure to strengthen Swedish primary care to turning the heat on the pot with the pasta water to two and hoping that it will start to boil. It is barely simmering.

Madam Speaker! We need to turn up the heat, and therefore a powerful national mobilization and action like the one we can see in defense matters was needed. Broad agreements and a unifying preparation were needed where there is consensus on scaling up over time. Why do we not have this model in place to scale up Swedish healthcare and double the number of general practitioners? Instead of taking the political responsibility, there has been an almost religious faith that the gods of the market will come in and fix this, but – surprise – they have not done so here either.

The Act on Freedom of Choice with Free Establishment was introduced in Sweden in 2008. The law ensures that profitability is prioritized over healthcare needs. Now we have the results in many ways. The proportion of general practitioners at the population level has not increased; instead, we have conversely received a more unequal healthcare system. Smaller health centers have been bought up by large corporations, and we have seen fraud, irregularities, and crime to a rarely seen extent in our healthcare. Private healthcare providers can openly violate the Health and Medical Services Act by prioritizing those with insurance over others. It is high time to introduce establishment control and scrap the Act on Freedom of Choice.

When Sweden emerged from the pandemic, all politicians stood in a row and promised that healthcare staff would receive better conditions. They applauded and showered the staff with congratulations for their heroic efforts. However, sick leaves have continued to increase because the resources have not been sufficient. Working in Swedish healthcare has become a high-risk factor for ill health.

We should do as our neighboring countries, Madam Speaker, and scrap the care deduction, shorten the working hours and set a cap on how many patients a nurse can be responsible for. Then we will get more care beds. The temperature in healthcare will go down if we take decisive action to double the number of general practitioners, index, increase the state's funding responsibility for healthcare and create a primary care with participation and continuity for the patients instead of freedom of choice for profit-driven corporations to buy up health centers with free establishment.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lindblad (S)

Madam Speaker! A municipal budget can balance while everyday life in the welfare sector slowly breaks down. The municipality can prioritize and restructure so that costs match revenues, but if the balance is achieved by having fewer colleagues in elderly care and by reducing support in schools, the savings come at a high price. It is paid for by the staff who have to manage more and by the people who encounter a welfare system that has been scaled back.

I have led Sala municipality during the cost crisis. I know what responsibility entails to make the finances balance when costs soar and state grants do not keep pace. When the budget decision is made, the needs remain.

We prioritized and added more money. But when food, heating, interest rates, and wages become more expensive, the reinforcements are eaten up by increased costs. Then there is less left for the major needs, which continue to exist. It is about more time for the students, a better working environment in elderly care, and greater security for those who need the welfare.

Madam Speaker! Schools and elderly care must function throughout Sweden – in Möklinta, in Västerfärnebo, in Ransta, and in Sala. Children who need help learning to read and count shall receive that help. Home care staff shall have time to provide good care. Those who need help shall be able to trust that it is there.

The municipalities shall be responsible for their budgets. But the responsibility for ensuring that the state's grants keep pace with costs lies with the government. During the previous parliamentary term, the Tidö parties chose not to take a sufficiently large share of the responsibility for the rising costs. The warnings came from across the country. Nevertheless, the municipalities were forced to handle hidden savings from the government when the state grants were not increased sufficiently. In reality, it means that positions are not filled, substitutes are not called in, and support for students has to wait.

Madam Speaker! Lower inflation now does not automatically give the staff and colleagues back. The consequences of several years of savings remain. That is where we in Sweden find ourselves now.

A first important step is, of course, to index the general state grants. They must follow the cost development, so that the state's funding is not eroded when costs rise. This does not restore previous savings. But it at least gives the municipalities and regions a stable foundation to stand on. It means that one can plan their staffing, provide support in time, and achieve a more reasonable everyday life.

All of Sweden shall function. From north to south, people shall be able to rely on a secure welfare. That promise shall also hold in the classroom in Möklinta and in elderly care in Sala.

A municipal budget can balance while everyday life in the welfare sector slowly breaks down. The decisions we make here affect everyday life all around Sweden. The municipalities must take their share of the responsibility, but then the government must also take its share. It is time to secure the value of the general government grants.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bernmar (V)

Madam Speaker! For three-quarters of my life, the economic conditions for welfare have deteriorated. Government after government has prioritized lowering taxes at the expense of our common welfare. After over thirty years of cuts, it is no longer possible to mask all the serious deficiencies we see. Swedish schools and healthcare have reached new records in inequality. We can all see that the LSS reform is slowly but surely being eroded and ground down by cuts and juridification.

At the same time, working conditions have deteriorated and wages have stagnated across the entire welfare sector. Many of those who work in the welfare sector literally carry the welfare on their shoulders with their own health as the stake. A responsibility that we should bear collectively is, in practice, instead borne by staff, users, and patients.

Madam Speaker! In order to meet a maintained commitment in the municipal sector, the state grants would have needed to be 18 billion kronor higher in the government's budgets during the last parliamentary term. It has actually been similar every parliamentary term, although not nearly as extreme. Many municipalities, including my own home municipality of Göteborg, watched with horror how the previous government chose tax cuts for the wealthy instead of an increase in the state grants.

The previous mandate period's government has, just like previous governments actually, continued to pile on new tasks, especially on the municipalities. This can in itself be good sometimes, such as the reform to get a new social services act, but not when adequate funding is lacking. It is a pattern that has been repeated ever since the LSS reform in the 90s.

Already in 2009, researchers at the School of Public Administration at the University of Gothenburg, in a report commissioned by the Committee on Finance for the Committee on Finance, stated that virtually all reforms were underfunded because the financing principle is set as an exception.

It is also not possible to discuss the financing of welfare without pointing out the tax injustice that is built into the system. Today, there can be a difference of as much as 4 kronor per hundred kronor in municipal tax across our long country. It is a difference that cannot be attributed to differences in quality or ambition. It is simply differences in costs and revenues, which is completely in conflict with Sweden's ambition for an equal welfare throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet argues that these problems are created by politics and must be corrected by the same politics. It is clear that the equalization system does not function as intended. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to halve the tax injustice that exists between the municipalities through changes in the equalization system.

Welfare also needs more resources. Better conditions for the staff and fewer chaotic privatizations are also needed.

Vänsterpartiet wants, in a first step, to increase the general state grants by 8 billion and allocate 30 billion over ten years to a specific women's wage lift. But that is, of course, not enough. We must also index the state grants and finally stop the chaos privatizations, shut down the profit-seeking in welfare, and ensure that the approximately 5 billion that go to profits annually instead go back to the taxpayers.

Madam Speaker! Strengthening the fragile encounter between the one in need of support and the one who provides support is central for Vänsterpartiet. We are firmly determined to build Sweden's welfare stronger during the coming four years.

(Applause)

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

Marcus Fridlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I come from Västervik, a municipality in northern Kalmar län, which has both town and countryside, small communities and long distances.

For many years I have been a municipal politician and sat in meeting rooms and turned and twisted budgets to try to make the money stretch for schools, elderly care, and all the activities that people depend on. Something I have learned is that here in Stockholm it is easy to talk about efficiencies and priorities, but it is considerably harder to sit at home in the municipality and decide which activity should receive less money in tough times.

Madam Speaker! Sweden looks different. The conditions for running the welfare system differ greatly between our municipalities. A school class with 22 students needs a teacher, but a school class with 12 students also needs a teacher. And the teacher must be paid, the classroom must be heated, and the children must receive instruction and the support they need. But the costs do not automatically decrease at the same rate as the number of students does, and in a rural municipality, it is not always easy to merge schools. It can be a matter of great distances and children who must be able to get to school within a reasonable time.

That is also why we have a municipal equalization system in the country, so that municipalities with different circumstances can be able to offer an equivalent welfare. But it is not enough.

Madam Speaker! There is another problem with the funding of the welfare system: The general state grants to municipalities and regions are not adjusted upwards when prices and wages rise. This means that the money loses value if we in the Riksdag do not make new decisions regarding supplementary funding.

A municipality can therefore receive more kronor from the state than the previous year but still have less money left to conduct its operations. When the state does not compensate for the cost increases, it is the municipal politicians who have to handle the consequences. It is they who, in tough times, have to discuss fewer teachers, larger childcare groups, or reduced staffing in elderly care. I know how those discussions go, because I have sat in them myself. Those who have to live with the consequences are the children, the elderly, and the sick.

Madam Speaker! We therefore need to introduce a calculation of the general state grants to municipalities and regions, just as we Social Democrats proposed before the election. It is about securing the value of the money, creating long-term perspective and giving municipalities and regions better conditions and opportunities to plan their operations.

The equalization system shall handle the differences between the municipalities, and the indexing shall ensure that the funding works year after year and is not eroded. They are two completely different things, but both are equally important for the welfare to function throughout the country.

The welfare sector's employees are not budget items that can be easily adjusted away. It is the teacher who meets the children every morning. It is the nursing assistant who helps our elderly. It is the nurse who is there when we need care.

Madam Speaker! I have taken the step from municipal politics to the Swedish Parliament, but I have not left the municipal budget discussions behind me. I have brought those experiences with me here, because I want the decisions we make in this chamber to work in reality. It is time to provide municipalities and regions with long-term economic conditions. It is time to secure the welfare.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! ”The good home” – society – ”knows of no privileged or marginalized, no pampered children and no stepchildren.”

It has now been 36,055 days since Per Albin Hansson gave his famous speech on the Swedish folkhemmet in the general referral debate in the Riksdag's second chamber. He continued:

"The differences are sometimes glaring; while some live in palaces, many consider it a blessing if the few can remain in their cottages even during the cold winter; while some live in abundance, many go from door to door to get a piece of bread and the poor worry for tomorrow, where disease, unemployment and other misfortunes lurk."

Madam Speaker! What does the situation look like in Sweden today? This morning, Sweden's city missions presented their annual poverty report. It shows that 730,000 people in 2026 are living in poverty. That is twice as many as just five years ago. Save the Children writes in its child poverty report that 276,000 children live in poor homes.

At the same time, we see that Sweden is one of the countries in the world with the most dollar billionaires per capita: 46 of them. In that case, it is easy, Madam Speaker, to return to Per Albin Hansson's statement in the referral debate: The good society knows no privileged or disadvantaged.

There are several explanations for the accelerating development. In the wake of the pandemic and war in our global environment, the cost of living has increased to the extent that the single mother working full-time does not have money for nutritious food for her children.

Decisions have been made in this chamber that have fueled this development. The consistent opposition to increased child allowances, which would have made a big difference for the single mother, is just one example, but there are more examples of how the choices we make in this chamber affect society's protection against poverty.

Madam Speaker! We need a social contract based on mutual trust between the state and the individual, where the state guarantees welfare, protection, and justice while the individual contributes with work, taxes, and social engagement. The development we are now seeing, with sharply increased inequalities and skyrocketing poverty, risks the trust on which our social contract rests. Therefore, it is not solely out of concern for individual people who have fallen into distress that poverty needs to be combated. It is of at least equal importance that it happens to safeguard our social contract. It is through the security and trust between people that we obtain a strong society where every individual can feel hope for the future.

On Thursday, when I was on my way home, I met Stockholm City Mission at Central Station. It felt good to be able to contribute a coin for two meals for those in need, but it would, Madam Speaker, feel even better if we here in the Swedish Riksdag could make concrete decisions that lead to a decrease in the number of poor people and that our social contract is thereby strengthened – simply make decisions on a new direction for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Marcus Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that it can sometimes feel like one has been slightly misplaced. I understood that they were debating the margins yesterday, so perhaps I should specify that I wrote the social security system.

Members of the Chamber! Our time does not lack challenges. For us politicians, there are heaps of things to address. It is about international events in the form of war, famine, and climate crisis.

In Sweden, we also see an increased proportion of people living in social and material poverty. During recent years, this proportion has increased by as much as 3.5 percent. Inflation and cost increases are part of the explanation, but it is also about how the Tidö parties have clearly chosen not to prioritize ordinary people. Focus has been placed on tax cuts for the wealthy, and labor market reforms have been paused.

Madam Speaker! This obviously affected both companies and employees. Bankruptcies increased. The layoffs were frequent. Many people lost their jobs and were forced to rely on welfare.

The city missions also flag that debt is increasing. It is not about consumption or overconsumption, but it is about survival consumption. It is therefore about loans for electricity, food, and rent that one then cannot afford to pay back.

The margins are small, and for many people, those hundred kronor mean a lot. Can you afford to let your child go to a sports activity? Will there be money left over for a birthday present? There are many examples of how people's life situations are affected. One such example is precisely the child deduction.

Madam Speaker! For a number of years, inequality has increased in the labor market. Today we see how many with administrative tasks can work from home if they feel a little cold, in contrast to those people who work with their bodies, for example police officers, nursing assistants, construction workers, shop employees and teachers. Many of the occupational groups that are repeatedly affected also work in contact jobs, i.e., occupations where one meets or even works close to people who are ill.

Madam Speaker! There are several perspectives in this issue. It can, among other things, mean that one becomes infected at work and is then, in practice, punished for doing the right thing. There is another dimension, and that is that one can actually be forced to choose between taking a quarantine deduction and losing a part of one's income, which one might not be able to afford to forgo, and getting to work. It is completely unreasonable that one should have to choose between taking a financial blow or going to work and infecting others. The quarantine deduction is a class issue, and it should be consigned to history.

Madam Speaker! I also want to point out that the other Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland – do not have any quarantine deduction. They are simultaneously prosperous countries where companies are doing well.

There are several examples in Sweden of companies that have themselves removed the quarantine deduction and subsequently been able to state that they have profited from it. Despite the cost of removing the quarantine, their total sick pay costs have fallen. That is because people return to work faster after a sick leave and they do not go to work and infect their colleagues when they are ill.

Those who must be present to perform their work should not be punished financially for doing the right thing by staying home when they are sick. It is high time that we abolish this injustice.

(Applause)

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

Talla Alkurdi (S)

Madam Speaker! There is no greater lack of freedom than when one does not have health. We live in an increasingly unequal society, both socially and economically, and it affects people's health.

Often it is the healthcare system that meets and handles the consequences of the inequality. The healthcare staff see this every day. They work in the maternity wards, at the health centers, and in the emergency room. They meet us through all stages of life.

I have met staff who tell of patients who cannot afford their medicine after changes in the high-cost protection which have made the individual's own contribution larger. Sick elderly people are particularly hard hit. Think about what it means as healthcare staff to know what treatment a person needs but at the same time face the reality that the patient may not be able to afford to follow the prescription.

Therefore, we must listen to the healthcare staff's testimonies. They see how political decisions and societal changes affect people in practice, and the testimonies are clear.

A primary care physician who has a reasonable number of patients to be responsible for creates the most effective and equal care. The general practitioner must also have reasonable conditions to do their job. It is about the work environment. With a reasonable number of patients, there are better opportunities to create continuity, build trust, and give each patient the attention that is needed. But both the patient and the general practitioner must also feel confidence and trust that the rest of the healthcare and welfare have their conditions in place, and that requires its resources.

Madam Speaker! Our common resources shall go to people, healthcare, and care, not to unserious actors who exploit the welfare systems. We must combat welfare crime, because there is no greater lack of freedom than when one does not have their health. That patients in a position of dependency on healthcare risk their quality of life with an unserious actor is therefore among the worst betrayals one can imagine. In my previous assignment, I have met just these patients and seen how they have suffered. I have seen that we, as a welfare state, have work left to do. It requires a leadership that puts patient safety first in all situations and in all meetings.

Madam Speaker! We cannot talk about quality without talking about working conditions. We cannot talk about continuity without giving the staff the conditions to stay. We cannot demand more preventive work if the operations are constantly forced to focus on making the daily work fit. Therefore, we need to index the state grants for welfare. When needs rise in an aging population, the funding must follow. Otherwise, welfare resources are eroded year by year while the needs grow. Indexed state grants would provide better conditions for long-term planning, stable staffing, and operations that can work preventively instead of solely managing acute problems; an equal welfare is not built by good intentions alone. It is built by people who are given the right conditions to do their job.

There is no greater lack of freedom than when one does not have health. Therefore, the financing must follow reality.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Rodén (S)

Madam Speaker! In 1981, the Swedish Parliament recognized Swedish Sign Language as the first language of the deaf. Sweden thus became the first country in the world to give a sign language such a recognition. It was a historic decision.

In 2009, we received a language act which states that the public has a special responsibility to protect and promote Swedish sign language. The law also says that those who are deaf or hearing impaired shall be given the opportunity to learn, develop, and use the language. It is clear, and it is a responsibility that has been decided in Sweden's Riksdag. But it is one thing what we write in our laws and another how it works in reality.

Swedish Sign Language is a language with its own grammar, its own history and its own culture. It is the native language of the deaf. It is the language used to converse, discuss, express opinions and be a part of society. Still, the deaf's opportunity to use their language is far from self-evident.

Madam Speaker! In order for the deaf to be able to participate in society on equal terms, access to sign language interpretation is absolutely crucial. Those who use Swedish Sign Language should not have to repeatedly explain why an interpreter is needed, should not have to defend their right to communicate in their own language, and the right to communication should not be a lottery. Imagine what it means to be dependent on whether there is an interpreter available when you are going to a meeting, when you are going to apply for a job, when you are going to express your views, when you are going to a parents' meeting, or when you are going to engage in an association – things that we hearing people never have to think about.

Madam Speaker! Sign language is not an aid. It is a language. And sign language interpretation is not about some extra service. It is about people who use different languages being able to meet and communicate on equal terms. We often talk about the importance of people engaging in association life, in politics, and in the public debate. But then we must also create equal conditions for this, because democracy is not just about the right to make one's voice heard. It is also about actually having the opportunity to participate, to influence, and to be listened to. Therefore, access to sign language interpretation is so much more than a practical issue. It is a question of language, of equality, and of democracy.

Madam Speaker! This year marks 45 years since the Swedish Parliament recognized sign language as the first language of the deaf. We have a language act that points out society's responsibility. But a language is not protected solely by us recognizing it in legislation. There must also be real opportunities to use the language. We cannot be satisfied with saying that everyone should have the opportunity to participate in democracy if we simultaneously accept that people are prevented from participating due to a lack of access to interpretation. It is not about special privileges. It is about the same right to participate in society as others. We have recognized Swedish Sign Language. Now we must also live up to the responsibility that recognition leads to.

(Applause)

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

Malin Malm (S)

Madam Speaker! It is said that the first sign of civilization was a healed femur. Being able to receive help from others in the event of a broken bone, which made the individual extremely vulnerable to the outside world, initiated the departure from a life that was brutal, lonely, painful, and animalistic. Instead, the insight grew that we all benefit if we take care of one another.

Evidence for the human instinct to protect one another for our common good existed even before organized agriculture, the great cities, and the kings and queens. But in what part of the world did that realization reach further than in our own country, the welfare state Sweden?

The Swedish welfare state is a source of pride for us Swedes. It is often what is spoken of abroad, and it is often the first thing people react to with amazement when they visit our country. It is a promise that everyone in this assembly has benefited from, namely that you have the right to be treated with respect and care regardless of where you live and who your parents are.

Madam Speaker! The promise of welfare is, however, at risk of being broken. Most people notice it most when things go wrong: when you have a child who does not receive the support they need to get a fair start in life, or when you contact healthcare and meet staff who, stressed, need to rush to the next patient. You notice it through reduced opening hours and the phasing out of services, as well as through the example of 84-year-old Rut, who lost her Sunday roast at the elderly care home.

For those who work in the welfare sector, this is constantly present. It is about the difficulties of offering conditions and status that attract enough qualified colleagues and the constant need to run faster and try to work more efficiently – even though the shower takes the time that the shower takes. At the same time, the government announces record investments that are soon consumed by price increases. The grand promises do not reflect the lived reality.

We therefore need to secure the value of the welfare state so that the support for the welfare state follows the price developments, so that the debate about our welfare is not hidden behind veils of mist about record investments and so that people can live with the insight that they will be met with the respect they deserve.

For it to work, we must of course also combat all the market failures that have spread throughout the Swedish welfare state. They lead to resources being prioritized incorrectly, which means that rural residents receive worse welfare for their money than urban residents. They lead to foreign venture capital companies building luxury villas with taxpayers' money, and they lead to organized crime infiltrating elderly care and running HVB homes that thrust youths deeper into criminality.

The current government has over four years accepted that we are losing control over Swedish welfare. It is time for a shift. We must settle the market failures, we must ensure that taxpayers' money goes to the taxpayers' well-being, and we must settle the underfunding of Swedish welfare.

(Applause)

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! In December 2025, Statistics Sweden SCB measured that 20.8 percent, which means 2.2 million people in our country, are foreign-born. This means that every fifth person has emigrated from a country of origin, immigrated and integrated into Swedish society and either has undergone or is undergoing the linguistic, cultural, social and economic journey that it entails to ultimately become Swedish.

It can be compared to when my father arrived in Sweden as a political refugee in 1982. At that time, the proportion of those born outside of Europe in the population was only 2 percent. There is therefore truth in that the linguistic and cultural diversity was only a small part of the Swedish population just a few decades ago.

There is also truth in that social democracy and the trade union movement have constantly dismissed the right's liberal migration policy. For us, however, it has never been about immigration criticism in itself, but about the insight that high unemployment in combination with liberal migration policy can lead to increased unemployment. This pits workers against workers in relation to the employer, who wants to lower wages and worsen working conditions.

We know in a few moments that if unemployment remains at high levels, low-productivity jobs and low-wage sectors will be added, which undermine the conditions for Sweden to continue to be a growth-productive and prosperous country.

Madam Speaker! The latest parliamentary term showed the Tidö parties that they lacked answers to the integration policy challenges Sweden faces. The investments in SFI and labor market training that lead to jobs were missing. Arbetsförmedlingen paid back a total of 4.3 billion to the treasury instead of getting people into work. They spent 1.5 billion on a return migration grant that has caused more and more people to feel unwanted in their own society.

The consequences of the EBO Act still lead to 40–60 percent of all asylum seekers ending up in our areas of exclusion. This weakens the conditions for integration. Instead of carrying out more deportations of convicted criminals, it is well-behaved and well-integrated teenagers who have been forced to leave our country.

Madam Speaker! I do not deny that Sweden is a changed country today. Well-known environments and common frames of reference have changed. Linguistic diversity prevails in a society that until very recently had monolingualism as the norm. The task is therefore to work long-term to unite different linguistic and cultural backgrounds with a clear Swedish social culture.

We Social Democrats want to see increased Swedish social cohesion. We want the Swedish integration to be built on two pillars: adaptation and equality. The adaptation to Swedish society shall involve requirements for language, social orientation, shared values, and participation in working life. Equality refers to that which unites us all regardless of what background one has, that is, the right to jobs with wages in accordance with collective agreements, the right to qualitative education and language, the right to housing and living in safe residential areas regardless of where in the country one lives, as well as the right to equal treatment, respect, and non-discrimination.

Madam Speaker! The purely existential question that integration policy poses is whether Sweden can be all Swedes' common home – both for those born domestically and abroad. The Social Democratic answer to that question is, of course, yes.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I look forward to continuing to work on these issues during this mandate period. During the previous mandate period, we Moderates really took on the migration issue with our friends in Tidö and not infrequently together with the Social Democrats, who almost always voted with us on migration issues.

We changed the course for this country precisely because we saw a need to enable integration. The parties that, on the other hand, were almost never with us on these issues were Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, whom the Socialdemokrater now intend to form a government with.

I must ask this question to Lawen Redar now that I have the chance: Is it even possible to maintain a strict migration policy when Vänstern and Miljöpartiet might soon be in Sweden's government?

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Resare, for the question!

It is quite true that the Swedish migration policy has been redirected. The reason is that among the vast majority of parties, there is a great interest in working with what we must do in the future, that is to say, integration policy.

Unfortunately, the Moderate Party is leaving a large bill for the incoming government in the form of very high unemployment. Last time I checked, it stood at 7.8 percent. We have mass unemployment in Swedish society. Now, however, we hope to be able to conduct a policy where we increase growth in combination with reducing unemployment significantly.

In response to the question, I mean that there is an issue that unites Centerpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet, and that is an active integration work to counter segregation and areas of exclusion as well as to combat unemployment.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! That was not an answer to my question. My question was not about future integration policy, where I believe we need to work together. The question I asked was: Will there be any possibility at all of getting Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet to support a strict migration policy? When I hear them in the debate – I believe we will hear them in a short while – it is always about them wanting to increase immigration to the country. I believe that will make difficult all opportunities for the integration measures that we could otherwise take to solve the problems during the mandate period, which requires a strict migration. Can they solve it?

(Applause)

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question. It is very strange to begin a discussion from a speaker's podium about what government negotiations should look like. But a question where we have clear agreements concerns the view on what went all the way too far with the Tidö parties, that is to say, the deportation of well-integrated people who have behaved themselves in Swedish society. We do not stand for a powerful deportation policy but rather for a strict migration policy. It is no secret that we Social Democrats go the furthest on that issue, as we want to stay at the EU's minimum level. Where the other parties stand, we must begin a negotiation regarding.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to the migration debate, Lawen Redar! We have not met in this matter.

I can state that Lawen Redar has had an interesting point of view. She has previously conducted an investigation of the migration policy pursued by previous S governments and has then directed something that can perhaps be seen as criticism that the problems were not taken seriously enough and that the reception has not been in parity with the social, educational and economic needs, which has created extensive segregation.

I would very much like to hear a reflection on that. Is Lawen Redar satisfied with the migration policy that previous S-governments have pursued, before the Tidö government? I understand that there may be criticism of the policy we have pursued. But it would be interesting to hear Member Redar reflect on what could have been done further to prevent the problems that we all have to deal with now.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ingemar Kihlström for a very good question. What I have been most critical of is actually the 2011 settlement that the Christian Democrats were a part of and which liberalized labor migration. Sweden thus received one of Europe's most liberal labor migration legislations. After that came the asylum migration policy that an agreement was reached on and which contributed to Sweden having significantly more generous rules than other EU countries. That also meant that the people who came to Sweden over a fairly long period were more than we had the capacity to integrate. It was we Social Democrats and the Green Party who changed that policy in 2015.

The criticism I have expressed to my own party is that we should have been significantly more critical of the migration policy that was then being pursued. It has led us to a situation with several low-productivity sectors and low-wage industries where people work with tasks for which they hardly receive a wage. This is a serious issue for Swedish growth, and in order to break and combat segregation, one must address that issue.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the reflection. I can state that the eight years of government did not lead to the change that we believe we have achieved. One can have different opinions about that. But I would like to hear a new reflection from the member. What assessment does the member make of the possibility of pursuing a continued strict migration policy in the collaborative team that is now being painted? For four years here in the chamber, S has voted with us on the majority of our proposals, but the other three parties have voted against. What does the member say about that?

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that there is a majority in the Swedish Riksdag for strict migration at the EU minimum level and for managing and developing work for strengthened integration. I would like to see the Christian Democrats involved in work to counter the emergence of areas of exclusion. But unfortunately, such efforts were marked by their absence during the last parliamentary term, largely because cooperation with the Sweden Democrats counteracted such work. Now I hope that there will be opportunities for a national program to counter areas of exclusion. I would like to see the Christian Democrats join that work.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! If one is to summarize the Tidö cooperation of the last four years, it cannot be done with any word other than successful. In terms of migration, we have truly turned the country around for the better. Now we have the lowest immigration since 1985. That is longer than I have lived. It was necessary and essential, because we had a migration that in no way enabled integration. Therefore, we took action on this. In just four years, we went from being one of the countries in Europe where the most sought to come to being one of the countries where absolutely the fewest sought to come. That is good, because now we can finally tackle integration.

We have ensured that those who want to bring in highly qualified labor can do so in approximately one month. One no longer needs to wait half a year or even more to bring in the essential worker that one needs. This means that more highly qualified workers can come here and be a part of our economy.

We have also ensured that we begin to deport those who have committed crimes in this country. Someone who has committed a rape should no longer remain in Sweden, unless they are a Swedish citizen. For me, this is very natural. But for previous governments, it has not been so, as they have not sought to solve that problem. I think it is very good that we are finally doing this now.

We have also begun to cooperate in Europe on migration issues. We see that other countries that wish Europe ill use migrant flows as a weapon to tear apart our otherwise so strong union. Therefore, it is important that we continue to work with other countries in the union to maintain the external border and help each other in this important issue. I believe that we need to continue to have bourgeois ministers who travel and negotiate in Brussels with the other countries so that the Swedish line, which we now have broad parliamentary support for, shall continue to apply. If we send a V-member or an MP-member down to Brussels to negotiate the migration pact or external border conditions, I am quite sure that they will do everything they can to destroy what we have now built up with the support of approximately 80 or 85 percent of the members in this chamber.

I want us to continue with bourgeois migration policy. We can gladly do so hand in hand with the Social Democrats, but unfortunately, I do not believe that is possible, given the Left Party and the Green Party.

If we are granted renewed confidence, which I hope, it is a promise from me that we will ensure that we continue to make Sweden a better country for all people who have come here for the right reasons – all people who go to work or school every day, want to be a part of society and do not commit crimes. This applies to the majority of all who have come here. But the few who ruin it for everyone else, Swedes or immigrants, shall not remain here.

That is why we have moved forward with reforms, such as the one regarding lack of conduct. We have made it harder to become a Swedish citizen for those who have not become a part of society. We have also made it easier to deport persons who have committed very serious crimes but are not Swedish citizens.

It has been a good mandate period. I hope and believe that we can get four more years, but that remains to be seen. We had a vote on the Prime Minister today which went well. Let us hope that the vote soon on a Moderate Prime Minister also goes well!

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! This year, Sweden will receive only 350 quota refugees, despite the Moderaternas promise that hbtqi persons, women, and children would be prioritized. We already established during the previous parliamentary term that this did not happen, because the number of quota refugees was lowered to 900. But this year, they only manage to receive 350 – at best.

Is it Member Resare's perception that the Moderates have prioritized hbtqi persons, women and children when they have completely betrayed the promise to receive 900 quota refugees?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Our position is consistently that we shall receive 900 quota refugees per year. That is how it has been. That no more than 350 seek to come here is perhaps difficult to blame the politics for – or easy to blame the politics for. That people choose not to seek to come here is not a consequence of our decision because that decision makes it possible for 900 people to come here. I do not quite understand how it can be something to blame political opponents for the fact that no more than 350 come. It is perfectly okay that up to 900 come here.

We have said that it should not be a higher level than that because we need to take care of the people who are already here, and we have said that we will prioritize the group that the member mentions – and that is what we do all the time.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I am almost in shock! The Member does not know, then, that it is UNHCR that brings refugees here. They are not quota refugees seeking out Sweden. They do not raise their hands and say they want to go to Sweden. They are selected by us and brought here. It is therefore the Moderates' fault that 900 quota refugees have not been selected to come to Sweden because no directives have been written stating that it should occur in the first two rounds.

Member of the Board Resare doesn't even know what a quota refugee is, and that is why I understand that the issue is not being prioritized.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! That was a Möllers interpretation of what I said. It is clear that it is so.

It is not that we have said no to UNHCR regarding sending 900 people here. Instead, it is the case that no more than 350 people have chosen to seek refuge here via UNHCR.

If UNHCR has shortcomings in its ability to bring quota refugees here, Möller should ask them, not us. Through our regulations, we have made it possible to bring in 900 people per year. We then choose to prioritize LGBTQ+ persons, unlike the Social Democrats, who preferred to let them remain in the refugee camps. I think that was a mistake by the Social Democrats.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Time and again we hear the Moderates divide immigrants into those who came here for the right reasons – those who work and behave correctly – and those who commit crimes and cause destruction. The first group shall be allowed to stay, and the second group shall be deported.

But when we look at reality, we see the deportation of teenagers, Brexit deportations, deportations of healthcare workers, entrepreneurs who are deported, even though they do not only work but also provide jobs for others. Eight-month-old babies are deported when the parents are allowed to stay. Soon we will see even more unreasonable deportations; mothers who are faced with the choice of abortion or deportation as a result of Tidö's policy. It is time to stop talking about those who behave correctly getting to stay with the Moderates' migration and deportation policy.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It is absolutely true that we believe that those people who come here for the right reasons – those who have refugee status, those who choose to become a part of society and those who do not commit crimes – should have the right to stay in Sweden.

It has been clear during the mandate period that we have shifted the policy, and we have stopped the deportations of teenagers through legislation. We are even prepared to look at whether anything needs to be added to the legislation.

We have also said that those people who commit crimes in the country shall be deported. That was not the case when MP Hirvonen and her friends ruled the country. Then, the one who had committed a rape was allowed to stay in the country. Then, the one who had committed a robbery with humiliation was allowed to stay in the country. That was no development that I or many others in the country thought was particularly positive. On the contrary, we wanted to reverse that evil spiral.

We have made it easier and faster for highly qualified labor to come here and work. We have ensured that the deportations of teenagers are stopped. The law entered into force a week ago, and we will ensure that we make Sweden better during the next mandate period as well.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Let the Moderates' time be over now. Let us change direction.

It is said that the deportations of teenagers have been stopped, but in fact, some deportations of teenagers have only been postponed until the age of 21. Many will be deported even though they have not even turned 21 due to the government's new family-splitting livelihood rules.

Madam Speaker! There is a lot of talk about those who do the right thing should be allowed to stay, but the reality is quite different for the Moderates.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! The truth is that the deportations of teenagers have been a consequence of a regulatory framework that the Green Party and their friends were behind and which they let persist during their eight years in government.

I did not think it was anything positive at all, and that is why our government took on the issue and ensured that the deportations of teenagers were put an end to through sharp legislation that entered into force about a week ago. We have said that we are prepared to make the legislation even more watertight if necessary. This is a matter of people who do right and should be allowed to stay. This is the Moderaternas policy on the issue.

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

Jennifer Merelaid Hankins (V)

Madam Speaker! Those who flee have no choice. The vast majority of people who are fleeing come from a few countries suffering under war, famine, and oppression. These are countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan, and Ukraine. UNHCR estimates that 40 percent of those who are fleeing are children.

The person who takes their children on one of the world's insecure and dangerous escape routes has no choice. I stand here today myself because my grandparents' refugee boats were once welcomed to Sweden. That kind of welcome of people is largely marked by its absence today.

For Vänsterpartiet, the goal is clearly a world where people do not need to flee. But we all know that it requires very long-term work to create peace, global climate justice, economic equality, gender equality, and the freedom to be who one is. The path there is perhaps longer than ever given today's uncertain global situation. For us, the goal of raising the level of ambition remains firm, so that people will not have to flee their homes.

During this time, Sweden needs to be a clear and distinct voice for the right to asylum – which is a human right – by providing protection to those who need it. It must also be possible for relatives to be reunited in Sweden without unreasonably high requirements. Family reunification is also a human right.

Sweden also needs to protect the people who we have already welcomed here, all those who have begun building their lives here. We must cease the unreasonable deportations of people who already call Sweden their home.

The current government's deportation policy has been, and is, deeply harmful to our country. Families have been split and are still being split today. Teenagers have been deported to countries they have no relation to, young children and elderly women are threatened with deportation, and all around the country, our colleagues in both welfare and other industries have been faced with threats of deportation.

During the initial weeks of this Riksdag, we have been able to take a first step toward truly stopping the insane teenage deportations. It is a good sign that we both want to and can do better than the unpredictable migration policy of recent years. Here, I would especially like to thank you all around the country who have raised your voices, told about the unreasonable deportations, and engaged yourselves day and night in various movements to create change.

Madam Speaker! There is much within the refugee and migration policy where we have different opinions. But some fundamental ideas and values I think we should be able to agree on moving forward, namely that Sweden shall have a legally secure and predictable asylum and migration process, that we shall treat people with respect regardless of origin, and that we shall ensure children's rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, we shall stop using migration policy to spread mistrust or racism; we have truly had enough of that in this country.

It is time for Sweden to stop treating parts of the population as unwanted passengers. I believe that instead, it is time to work for a humane migration policy in Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Daniel Bernmar (V) concurred.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I share the genuine view that Sweden must always have legally secure administrative action in all areas. It is central to our democratic state.

I have a question for the member. Vänsterpartiet often and gladly speaks about not sharing the Social Democrats' view that a strict migration policy is a good goal. Can Vänsterpartiet give any indication of what the approach will be towards the Social Democrats if one enters a government? Will you accept words about a strict migration policy in such a constellation?

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

Jennifer Merelaid Hankins (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the interest in the upcoming government negotiations, but as the member understands, we will not be discussing this in the chamber today.

Vänsterpartiet stands for a humane migration policy, and how we cooperate moving forward is a matter of negotiations and compromises. I may be new to the Riksdag, but I am no novice when it comes to political negotiations and cooperation with different parties on many difficult issues. I am convinced that we will be able to have good conversations and land on a common policy.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! That was a very interesting announcement. The humane migration policy is, therefore, nothing other than a card in a negotiation. It is an announcement to the Swedish voters who voted for the member's party that one is actually prepared to negotiate on this issue.

It is very good if you want to be involved in driving a strict migration policy, but I do not think that all of your voters were prepared for you to drop this to get ministerial posts. But now we learned something new about Vänsterpartiet – something we have done many times over the past few weeks. But you are good at standing your ground.

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

Jennifer Merelaid Hankins (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet stands for a humane migration policy. All parties go to the election on their own policies. Then one cooperates, which the member surely knows well through their own experience.

We will, of course, discuss all issues and jointly settle on the policy that the negotiations lead to, which I will not go into here today.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! What we are debating today is about so much more than just paragraphs and legal texts. It is about what kind of Sweden we want, a Sweden with order and tidiness, with safety and with an integration that works.

For the Christian Democrats, the answer is clear: Sweden needs a strict, fair, and long-term migration policy. We shall set requirements, we shall safeguard security, and we shall ensure that migration works in practice. But we must also be able to see the human being behind every case, because humanity and clear requirements are not opposites. They are the foundation for a responsible migration policy.

Madam Speaker! In 2022, the Tidö parties received the Swedish people's mandate to reform the migration policy, and together we have implemented a necessary paradigm shift. Sweden has moved from a policy with far too weak requirements to a policy where responsibility, integration, and respect for our laws stand at the center.

Migration is not just about how many people come to Sweden. It is also about what happens when people are already here. Do they learn Swedish? Do they get jobs? Can they support themselves? Can children grow up in safety? These are questions we must dare to ask. We cannot accept that people get stuck in segregation and exclusion. We cannot pretend that integration solves itself.

A policy that does not work in reality is not responsible. Therefore, a reorganization was needed.

But, Madam Speaker, a strict migration policy must never become a rigid migration policy. Order and discipline means that we must also be able to rectify rules that lead to unreasonable consequences.

This is exactly what the work with the so-called "teenage valve" shows. That young people who came to Sweden as children risked being deported when they turned 18, despite their parents and family being here, was a situation we needed to handle. Therefore, we in Kristdemokraterna worked together with the other Tidö parties to develop a change, a valve that gives young adults between 18 and 21 years old the opportunity to be granted a residence permit due to ties to their parents when the legal requirements are met. This shows that we can maintain a regulated immigration and at the same time take into account young people who risk being caught in the middle.

We have also been proactive in strengthening the legal certainty for converts by establishing a special coordinator. Those who risk persecution because of their faith must receive a thorough and legally secure assessment.

It is in this way, among other things, that we unite order and tidiness with respect for human dignity.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes it is presented as if we must choose between setting requirements and showing compassion. It is a false choice. We can demand that people follow our laws and at the same time ensure legal certainty. We can protect the family and at the same time have order regarding family migration. We can stand up for a strict migration policy and at the same time be ready to act when rules have unreasonable consequences. It is not weakness. It is not inconsistency. It is taking responsibility.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats will continue to work for a migration policy that works both for Sweden and for the individual human being. Those who come here and behave correctly shall be able to build a future. Our laws shall apply, decisions made shall be respected, and integration shall be strengthened. It is not through lack of requirements that we build community or through rigidity that we show humanity, but we do so by uniting responsibility with respect for every person's value. That is how we strengthen integration, create security, and build a Sweden that holds together.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! ”It is also about what happens when people are actually here,” said Ingemar Kihlström.

Yes, it is about whether the mother who has fled war will be forced to raise her children on a video link because KD has voted through a family separation law, or whether her children will get to travel to the safety of their mother and feel the warmth of a real hug. It is about whether young women like Darya and Donya will be deported to the oppression of women in Iran while the rest of the family remains in Mölndal in fear of what will happen during the next bomb attack in Iran. It is about whether mothers will be faced with the choice of deportation or abortion because subsistence requirements for family reunification are also applied to families that already exist in Sweden.

Now we are going to change direction.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that Member Hirvonen brings up a number of examples of what we have done – what in many respects should have been done – but chooses to omit what we have done that follows the direction Annika Hirvonen speaks of.

During the seven years Miljöpartiet sat in government, not a single proposal was put forward regarding how to resolve the deportation of teenagers aged 18–21, and not a single proposal was either put forward to improve the legal certainty for converts.

It is easy to stand here in the chamber and criticize, but when it comes to real action, it turns out that the Environment Party's flowery words in the chamber are not translated into policy when one is given the responsibility to govern the country.

We have ensured that the rules that needed to be tightened were tightened to get migration in order. We are also prepared to adjust them, just as we have now done in the discussion being held in the committee. We ensure that it becomes action.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! If the Christian Democrats had listened to me and others who warned about the consequences of removing the wording on particularly compelling circumstances in the Aliens Act 2023, we would not have seen all the teenage deportations we have now witnessed. If the Christian Democrats had listened to our warnings in August, we would not have seen as many deportations of youths under 21 as we now risk seeing in the near future. We would also never have placed women who have already received asylum in Sweden before a choice between deportation and abortion. It is KD's policy, and there must be an end to it.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that it is like pouring water on a duck to debate with Annika Hirvonen. One never takes responsibility for what one has not done, but what should have been done differently is always highlighted.

We can observe that this government has both handled the deportations of teenagers and ensured that they have decreased. The deportations of teenagers have, in fact, existed since 2016 and have actually decreased in recent years, and it has been done by this government. We can observe that we ensure that what we say becomes reality.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The Council on Legislation warned this summer that Sweden will violate the right to asylum. It was stated that people who have a right to protection will not receive it because the Christian Democrats, among others, abolished the right to a public counsel in the asylum process. Now it turns out that three out of four asylum lawyers no longer accept asylum cases. This means that the fears that existed are now beginning to materialize, that is, Sweden has begun to violate fundamental human rights.

My question to Ingemar Kihlström is: What do you have to say to the asylum seekers who come here and have the right to asylum but who are denied it because of the Christian Democrats' decision?

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is always interesting to meet Ola Möller. He seems to have the task of the exchange of remarks in today's debate even though he has not been involved in debating the subject, and that is always inspiring.

Regarding legal aid in asylum cases, we can state that Sweden has settled on a level that corresponds to that in the rest of Europe. Following Ola Möller's reasoning, no other countries in Europe follow the rules either. Then perhaps the counter-question goes back to Ola Möller: Is this one of the promises that Ola Möller is willing to give to open up for a significantly more open migration policy – that one should reintroduce the very generous rules for legal aid in asylum cases that applied? Is it one of the promises to get MP and V on board with this? Or is it about other rules in what we have changed when one now stands here in the rostrum and says that one shall conduct a strict and fair migration policy?

We are conducting a migration policy at a level that corresponds to that in Europe. Ola Möller does not seem to want to do so.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is distressing that Ingemar Kihlström does not remember that we had a joint reservation in this matter when we processed the product this summer. Had he done so, he would not have needed to pose his questions. Of course, we shall have legally secure asylum reviews.

It is a hypocrisy of great proportions that the chamber is witnessing here. First, one stands and says that one has increased legal certainty for converts and that it is important. But people who come to this country with a simple wish for asylum, and who have a right to it, are denied in Ingemar Kihlström's Sweden. It is a hypocrisy of great proportions.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I choose not to stoop to the low level that Ola Möller maintains in the debate. I can only state that during the government of Ola Möller's party – eight years – not a jot was done to sharpen and improve the legal certainty for converts. We see the problems and are doing something about them.

I understand that Ola Möller wants to be generous. We are in a scenario where it will be anything but a strict migration policy if we – God forbid – get a Social Democratic government.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we stand in the new Parliament's first real chamber debate on migration, and it sounds a bit the same as before the election.

Something fundamental has however changed: The majority has shifted – not by many votes, but by enough. The Swedish people have rejected the Tidö parties' insane, society-splitting deportation policy. They have said no to deporting teenagers, no to deporting our employees in healthcare and elderly care, and no to tearing small children away from their parents. Warmer winds are blowing now.

Madam Speaker! The first thing I did together with every new colleague in the Miljöpartiet parliamentary group was to submit a motion to truly stop the deportation of teenagers. At our first meeting in the Committee on Social Insurance, we joined forces – Social Democrats, Center Party members, Left Party members, and Miljöparti members – on a joint committee initiative to as quickly as possible establish a stop law, a moratorium, for the deportation of teenagers. And yesterday, all parties stood behind the initiative.

This, Madam Speaker, is politics in earnest. Even before the government negotiations are finished, the work to reverse this inhumane and unreasonable deportation policy has begun.

Many are expecting that we now turn migration policy also in other areas. My inbox is filled with messages from the people who were affected by the Sweden Democrats' receipt fraud and now cannot become Swedish citizens. I receive messages from people who have lived in Sweden for a long time but have been affected by Brexit deportations.

There is also a concern about what will happen to all the switchers. It concerns people who have worked in Sweden – who have had the right to stay here and work – but who, because of the Tidö parties' deportation policy, received the message: Thanks, but no thanks! You have contributed. You have worked, paid taxes, and done everything right, but now you and your family are to be sent away from here.

These people are still waiting for the government to fulfill its promise to stop these deportations. It concerns 4,700 people who have done everything that Simona, Ulf and several others have said one should do to be allowed to stay.

Madam Speaker! Much work remains before we have addressed all these problems. But we on the red-green side have a common determination to change direction and stop the unreasonable deportations.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I think it is quite disrespectful of Hirvonen to stand in the rostrum and paint a picture that the voters voted against teenage deportations and other horrors as she mentions, almost as if our side of politics had been for teenage deportations. Member Hirvonen is fully aware that we stopped this through a law that entered into force just a few days ago.

During the previous parliamentary term, we worked to ensure that it is fair regarding who should be allowed to stay and who should be sent home. The one who commits a crime shall be sent home, but the teenager who goes to school and behaves should be given a chance to stay.

I think one can be more honest in the debate than to paint it as if practically 49.5 percent of Sweden's population would be in favor of what Annika describes and that 49.7 percent would be against it. That is simply not true.

I would like to ask a question to Member Hirvonen. You say that the new legislation must come into force as soon as possible. When is as soon as possible?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe at all that the Swedish people want teenage deportations. All opinion polls show that a majority of voters in all parties say no to that madness. Nevertheless, the Tidö parties did not stop the teenage deportations.

In my minute, I will not have time to describe all the holes in the so-called valve. It has large holes through which air whistles and into which people fall. The expulsions have dreadful consequences.

Take, for example, that the age limit for when one is allowed to stay is raised from 18 to 21 years. But then add the new subsistence requirement, which means that parents with several children must have a very high salary for a 19-year-old to be allowed to stay.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen did not use a single second of her minute to answer my question.

I tried to answer your question respectfully when you took the floor on me, and I expected the same respect in return.

Our committee secretariat has said that it will take between nine months and a year before the committee initiative submitted the other day becomes finished legislation. But I have not heard Annika Hirvonen say that even once to all the teenagers who now expect her to solve this in two weeks.

I think one should be honest and say that this takes a year. There is no quick fix, but one does not dare to say that.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It may be that the Moderates are okay with it taking a year, but I am not. A year is not soon. It should not take that long.

There are further holes in the legislation that the Moderaterna put forward. This concerns, among other things, the possibility of applying for a study residence permit. In that case, one must have approximately a quarter of a million in the account and also be able to pay perhaps 100,000 kronor per year in tuition fees – otherwise, one also receives a rejection on that basis.

We must stop this now.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I must, despite several hours having passed, remind the members – even those who have been here for a while – that we do not use the forms of address "you" and "you" in exchanges of remarks. All members speak via the Speaker, according to the Riksdag's practice. I remind of this because the rules of procedure naturally must apply to everyone.

(MAGNUS RESARE (M): I apologize.)

We note that.

I remind you because everyone should feel that we are trying to treat all members equally.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to the general political debate!

We are in the middle of a technological shift that affects us all. It may never have been so difficult to comprehend how fast it is going and in what way it affects us.

20 years ago, I borrowed a digital system camera from a good friend. At that time, a debate was ongoing about whether analog film or digital was to be preferred.

A few years later, I began a photography education. I thought that I would become a photographer. During that education, smartphones broke through. Suddenly, the profession of photographer was nothing one should invest in. Everyone could, after all, take better photos with smart phones.

In 2022, ChatGPT was launched, and the public model became available to a broader public. Since then, the models have developed at a frantic pace. In fact, one no longer needs a camera or even a phone to create an image. You can prompt and get an image back. Of course, AI images will not be able to replace the pictures of the children or the wonderful Kodak moments one experiences in life, but this shows the speed at which technological development is moving.

I want to briefly touch upon the technical, ethical and political aspects of the AI issue.

Within healthcare, research projects are underway across the country, including in Stockholm and Lund, to increase accuracy in breast cancer screening with the support of AI. The results are already very promising.

AI can shorten processing times, streamline public services and, not least, affect crime fighting. Norwegian police use AI tools to identify suspected perpetrators and vulnerable children in investigations of sexual abuse online.

Technology can already today facilitate things for us and function as a sounding board both privately and at work. One can create apps, build websites and 3D-model without having more knowledge than writing a prompt.

If the technology is used incorrectly, it can of course go wrong. AI systems are already suspected of being used in war, with many civilian casualties. There are deepfakes and influence campaigns. The democratic conversation is affected. During the summer, attention was drawn to how AI agents broke out of secure environments and carried out IT attacks.

AI development comes with an enormous cost. It drives the large-scale expansion of data centers, and there is a risk that energy costs will be passed on to households. I do not think ordinary households should solve this expansion. The development of data chips and new computing power attracts enormous investments. If it goes wrong, the global financial system is affected.

That these agents become more accessible and more powerful places great demands on several industries and on more people being able to transition quickly, multiple times, throughout their entire professional lives.

We must ask ourselves who the technology is for and what the profits will be used for. We see how the USA and China have geared up while the EU lags behind. Who owns the data? Who controls the system?

Sweden needs to increase the pace. We have just received an election result, and the old government had to throw in the towel. That government cut back on popular education – despite the AI commission recommending major efforts for popular education and transition – and worsened the unemployment insurance for those who become unemployed.

We need to increase society's and politics' knowledge of AI. In recent times, AI development and the debate have gained enormous momentum. This is an attempt from me to highlight these issues. I hope that we can return to the AI issue during the mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Vepsä for a quick and comprehensive description of the situation today!

Last night, I had the opportunity to speak with a fairly large number of members of my party, Miljöpartiet, about AI. It was both fun and challenging with many different opinions, reflections, and questions. Many stayed on the security issues, and that is understandable. Reports of incidents, breaches, and other things have surfaced frequently lately.

Many express concern about what is happening and what might be expected to happen in the near future. A number of initiatives have been presented to slow down the development, including a declaration from Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finland's President Alexander Stubb. It concerns companies, states, and the international community taking increased responsibility for human management, supervision, and control of the most advanced AI models.

Sweden's government chose not to sign the declaration, which I think is very unfortunate. A transitional government should admittedly not take clear political initiatives, but there is room for international cooperation that is not politically controversial. This declaration has been signed by the heads of state of about thirty countries from right to left, so it should not be a problem on Sweden's part.

Madam Speaker! Another cloud of concern is the labor market. We still do not quite see where it is heading when it comes to industries and occupations, but it is moving very fast, and there are every reason to study the development closely.

I mean, Madam Speaker, that it is necessary to mobilize agencies such as Arbetsförmedlingen and Yrkeshögskolan so that they are prepared to carry out interventions on relatively short notice. This needs to be reviewed and included in the agencies' instructions for the coming years. Being worried about one's own employment is not a good motivation, and we shall, of course, do what we can to reduce this worry.

Madam Speaker! It is obviously important what we say and do in this chamber and what the government does and proposes. But we are also – for better or worse – dependent on what happens within the EU and what discussions are held in the European Parliament.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently gave her speech in parliament on the situation in the European Union and expressed a clear role for the EU when it comes to contributing to security around AI but also to development within specific areas. Digital sovereignty for Europe was emphasized, but von der Leyen also opened up for new collaborations in the area, for example with Canada and the United Kingdom.

Miljöpartiet is part of the Green Group in the European Parliament, and of course, AI issues are also discussed there. For Sweden's part, we participate, among other things, through our parliamentarians and build our AI policy on what is said and happens within the EU. I think that it is together we can design something that is good for Sweden.

Sometimes we talk about multi-level governance, usually with a reference to our three levels in Sweden: local, regional and national. I think one should think in five levels – in addition to these three also the EU and to some extent the UN. It might not be optimal, but it is the best we have.

There is more to be done in this field, not least when it comes to the large tech companies' demands for land, energy, and infrastructure in Sweden as cheaply as possible. We will certainly have reasons to return to this during the mandate period.

Finally, Madam Speaker: Climate issues and AI are closely linked, partly through the enormous extractions of minerals, energy, and water, and partly through the opportunities AI offers for progress in climate adaptation. If I had had time, I would have said something about penguins in that context, but that will have to be another time.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is often said that the world is facing a technological shift of a kind we have never seen before, at least not since the steam engine broke through in the mid-19th century.

The development of artificial intelligence, commonly called AI, is truly moving at rocket speed. Not so long ago, a person on the street could, at best, ask questions in some chat app and get an answer that was more wrong than right – a pretty crappy answer, quite simply. Today we read headlines about how AI tools are hacking the Australian healthcare system and that the Australian elected government finds out only several months later.

Of course there are opportunities with the developments surrounding AI, and of course there are risks. One should neither become a technology optimist and believe that AI will solve all our problems, nor become a technology pessimist and believe that AI will mean that Terminator 2 will soon be reality and not fiction. One must be honest and blunt and not paint reality in either rose-colored or dark gray tones.

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces a number of challenges and problems. It is very few of these challenges and problems that are due to democracy having been too widespread and that there have been too many politicians who have been inclined to tackle issues, to get involved and to use the power that actually exists in politics and democracy. The forces that do not believe in the power of democracy would like to portray it as if that were the case. But that is not true. In fact, it is precisely the politicians' reluctance to get involved in society's problems and challenges that has created many of our time's problems.

Madam Speaker! We see exactly the same pattern as we have seen for 30–40 years when it comes to AI development. It is market forces that are allowed to run wild. It is large companies and billionaires who say: Politicians and people should preferably not interfere, but we will handle this!

We have seen it before. The same mindset has led to uncontrolled profits in schools, runaway profit-seeking in healthcare, and increased gaps between people in our country. Some have everything; others have nothing.

Madam Speaker! I am fundamentally a technology optimist, and my party is also technology optimistic. It is undoubtedly more dangerous with old technology than with new technology. But let us not be paralyzed by the new technology! There are most likely large productivity gains that can be made with AI, not least within the working life. Monotonous work tasks can disappear. Work can be made more enjoyable and efficient – I am completely sure of that – but only if politicians take responsibility and act.

All profits from this development, however, cannot be allowed to end up in the pockets of the corporate executives who drive the development within AI. The profits must be shared with the wage earners. The AI development must not lead to further increased inequality or to the power over the means of production, in these cases the AI tools, being further concentrated in a few companies and, in practice, a few individuals. It is not unimportant or irrelevant to act against this development. It is, on the contrary, very, very important and highly relevant.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time when wealth and power are concentrated and have been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. We also live in a time when fewer and fewer companies are granted ever greater power over people's lives. AI is already used today for increasingly detailed surveillance and control over employees' time at work. It is a development that cannot be allowed to continue without the people's elected representatives taking action.

Even though there are also those among companies and corporate leaders who take responsibility for how AI is developed and used, these are in an absolute minority. A strong counterforce was needed, and this counterforce needs to be us, the elected representatives. It is we who must work so that people get better lives, so that productivity gains are distributed equally, and so that people are not in the hands of a few companies and people who almost only care about just this: power and wealth.

In a democracy, power belongs to the people and not to a small, self-selected elite.

(Applause)

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

Zinaida Kajevic (S)

Madam Speaker! Preschool is one of the most important activities we have in the welfare society. It is there that the foundation is laid for lifelong learning. Preschool shall give all children, regardless of background, a secure, educational, and equal start in life. At the same time, preschool makes it possible for parents to work, study, and contribute in their own way.

In order for the preschool to be able to live up to its mission, good quality is required. Small children's groups, high staffing density, and more educated and competent educators are needed. Language development needs to be good, and good support needs to be given to all children to create a secure transition between preschool and school. All of this requires resources.

We Social Democrats believe that welfare resources should be used specifically for welfare. We therefore want surpluses in independent preschools and pedagogical care to be reinvested in the operations. Tax funds allocated for children's education and care should go to the children and not be given as dividends to a few owners. When economic interests are allowed to compete with the children's best interests, quality risks being compromised.

For many years, market thinking has gained increasing influence in schools and preschools. As large corporations have emerged, democratic control has decreased. We see how tax money leaves the operations while municipalities struggle with the economy, with decreasing numbers of children, with maintaining small preschool units in rural areas, and with retaining competent staff.

Parents and children are not ordinary consumers. It is difficult to assess the quality of a preschool in the same way as for other services. Therefore, the market mechanisms do not work there.

Earlier this year, the newspaper Sydsvenskan conducted an extensive review of a number of independent preschools in Malmö. One of the cases that was highlighted was a preschool where two owners together had taken out 27 million kronor in profit over the last six years. This is money that could have been used for precisely smaller child groups and qualified educators.

Some independent preschools have a significantly lower proportion of preschool teachers and competent staff per child. The municipalities find it very difficult to take this into account in their reviews. They do not have the right to do so.

That is why we want to take back control to stop the profit-seeking and ensure that the money is used where it does the most good: in the operations and for the children. We Social Democrats also want to give the municipalities greater influence over new establishments and expansions of independent preschool activities.

At its core, this is about what kind of preschool one wants. We want a preschool where the children's needs come first, where quality takes precedence over the profitability of private companies, and where every tax krona is used to give the children the best possible start in life.

In conclusion, I want to say that the children's future shall weigh heavier than the owners' profit.

(Applause)

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

Olle Olson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is the first day of school for the academic year. The summer heat has not had time to settle, and outside the school corridors, it is just as calm and safe as at home on the street in the city. In a classroom in Kalmar, 20 students sit hunched over their books – real books. It is quiet but expectant.

Mom and dad have told me about the time when they went to school. Their classroom and school were characterized by rowdiness, fights, and gang recruitment. It feels so foreign and far away. How could that have happened here, in Sweden?

The teacher has time to teach, no phone buzzes in the pocket, and no student is left behind. The girl in the back, whose parents never finished school, raises her hand. She knows the answer, as she almost always does. In twelve years, she stands in an operating room, ready to save the life of the one who once said she would never amount to anything.

The boy next to me is going to become an electrician. He is proud of it, because in this Sweden, a vocational education has the same status as an academic degree. In Rinkeby and in Ronneby, more young people than ever are leaving high school with full grades. The gangs are a memory only. This is what Sweden can and shall be.

Madam Speaker! We do not choose our parents. Nor do we choose the time we are born into, but we do choose what we do with our time in school. Sweden's education system shall be built on equality and equity but also on high expectations for every student. In the classroom, it does not matter where your parents come from, what their surnames are, or what they earn. The grade shall reflect what you can do. This is the most equitable promise a society can give, for knowledge has no surname.

But we also know what happens when the promise is broken. A failed education is the common denominator behind far too many lives in exclusion and crime. As a teacher, I have seen it up close, and I know therefore that a high school diploma is the best vaccine against precisely exclusion. It is never too late. The one who failed at 16 can succeed at 30. If you want to change course or choose another path, the journey begins with education. The important thing is not where you come from, but where you are headed.

Madam Speaker! Over the last four years, we have turned the direction of the school. We have moved from screens to books, from disruption to a study environment, and from a lack of requirements to knowledge. From this autumn onwards, the school day will be mobile-free in all primary schools. Teachers and principals have been given tools to create order and a study environment. Skolverket is working on new curricula where the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic—always come first.

We have begun a comprehensive renovation of the school system, where unserious actors shall be removed and tax money shall go to teaching. Much is still undone, but for the Moderates, the direction is clear: We shall have a knowledge school where order and discipline, knowledge and facts stand at the center, where teachers are allowed to be teachers, with less administration and more time for teaching, and where grades can be trusted. We shall have an adult education and a vocational education that gives a second chance to everyone who needs it.

Madam Speaker! Education is the greatest enabler in this country. It does not make everyone equal, but it gives everyone an equal chance. The future shall not be inherited. It shall be earned, shaped, and realized based on each individual's toil, diligence, and will to create their own future. The girl at the back of the classroom, who makes her way from exclusion to the operating room, is not a visionary goal. She is what Swedish school shall make possible.

(Applause)

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

Karolina Widerberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Before my first speech, I had a bit of difficulty deciding what I should speak about, but on Friday I visited my school to meet students and colleagues. Then I took the opportunity to vent my indecisiveness, whereupon a teacher said to me: "Raise the duty classes. We have talked about that a lot." That is what I intend to raise today, albeit briefly.

Madam Speaker! Inclusion has been used extensively and has carried great weight in Swedish schools for a long time. The principle is that all students shall have a place in one and the same classroom, regardless of what individual needs they have.

What kind of inclusion do we actually have in Swedish schools today? Is it inclusion when 20 students sit in a lesson and really want to learn something, but a few students cause trouble and disturb and sometimes even threaten other students and teachers? Is it inclusion when a teacher no longer has the strength or wants to go to work because of the work environment that forces them to act as a security guard or police officer instead of teaching?

Madam Speaker! Is it really inclusion when these students are allowed to remain in the classroom and fail time and again? The answer is simple: No, it is not inclusion. Today's failed classroom environment is not inclusive. This is a great betrayal of teachers and students.

When I lift duty classes or emergency schools, it is about restoring the students' most basic rights in school: the right to knowledge, safety, and study. A duty class is neither punishment nor exclusion, but an opportunity. It is a way to provide students with a problem a safe and resource-rich environment with skilled teachers who can meet them where they are every day. At the same time, we give the rest of the class the work environment and opportunity for development that they have a right to.

Madam Speaker! I often think of those colleagues who have left the teaching profession prematurely due to precisely the work environment and the workload. None of them requested more talks on values or more fancy policy documents. They requested support and the opportunity to actually be able to teach.

Day classes or emergency schools are an important part of that support. Therefore, it is time to reintroduce a school where safety, order, and study are truly important.

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

Umihana Rasovic (V)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, those who wish to educate themselves should be able to do so, regardless of whether one has parents who can help financially or not. It should be possible to study full-time without being forced to choose between managing one's studies and being able to afford rent and food.

But the reality for many students does not look like that today. The student grant is below the EU's limit for low economic standard. At the same time, costs in society are increasing, and rents are rising. For three out of four students, the student grant does not cover their living costs. Approximately one in four students reports that they cannot afford healthcare and medicines.

That is why we in Vänsterpartiet believe that the grant portion of the student aid is far too low. Increasing student aid is not a luxury. It is an investment in people's opportunity to educate themselves.

A holiday supplement should also be introduced in the student grant. In this way, students will be able to manage their finances even during the summer.

Madam Speaker! Today, those studying at a university or other post-secondary education can normally receive student aid for a maximum of 240 weeks. But the expected period of education has become longer without the time for student aid being extended. One such example is the medical program. This means that students have exhausted the maximum number of weeks of student aid before they have managed to graduate. There is therefore a risk, Madam Speaker, that students drop out of their studies before they have graduated.

The Swedish National Audit Office's review of student grants shows the problem that the duration of student grants is currently too short and that the student grant therefore does not suffice for the entire duration of the education. The review shows that almost every fourth medical student has exhausted their student grant weeks before the education is completed – a proportion that will increase as the medical education has been extended to six years.

Furthermore, life does not always follow a straight line. After several years in the workforce, the desire to change career paths may emerge, or supplementary education may be needed to be able to establish oneself on the labor market. Therefore, the rules for obtaining additional student financial aid need to be reviewed.

Madam Speaker! Education is one of our most important common investments. It is about the supply of skills. It is about the opportunity to change paths in life. But above all, it is about people's freedom to shape their own future. Therefore, no one should have to ask: Can I afford to study? The question should be: What do I want to study?

Education should be for everyone – not just for those who can afford it.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Schmidt (C)

Madam Speaker! If I say the letters KAA, I hope that everyone here in the chamber knows what they mean: the municipalities' activity responsibility.

When I, during my years as opposition councillor in Hudiksvall, raised these issues in the municipal council, it was actually not obvious to the responsible school politicians what the letters meant.

Madam Speaker! That should worry us. Behind these three letters are young people – young people who have not finished school, young people who do not attend upper secondary school, young people who do not have a job.

Almost 70,000 young people were covered during one year by the municipalities' responsibility for activities. It is not just a figure. It is young people who risk starting adult life outside of the community. For me, Madam Speaker, it is a political failure.

Centerpartiet strongly believes in human ability – but then society must also give people a reasonable chance.

Behind many stories lies the same wish: I want to go back – to school, to friends, to a job, to life. Sweden also needs everyone who can work.

For me, it is about our social contract – to be able to finish school, to get your first job and your first salary, to be able to move out from home, make friends and feel needed.

Madam Speaker! It is possible to make a difference. In my home municipality Hudiksvall, during the past year, the municipal Job Center, together with Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, healthcare, and Samordningsförbundet, has built roads back for these young people. One needs education. Another needs a job. A third needs a sense of belonging first. Then we must start where the human being is.

There are only winners here. The youth get a future, the companies get a workforce, and society gets more people in work.

Madam Speaker! We cannot solve this in silos. We need to have a common ground between the municipality, the region, the state, the school, the healthcare, and the labor market.

Centerpartiet also wants to prevent children and young people from ending up here at all. Therefore, support for reading, writing, and arithmetic must be implemented early.

Madam Speaker! I am new here in the chamber and new in the Committee on Employment. But one thing I already know: We must not give up on these young people. The Centre Party will not do that. I hope that we together in the Riksdag can tell them: We see you, we need you and we intend to help you back.

It is our social contract!

(Applause)

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

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Madam Speaker! The school has opened and opens doors for so many children. Regardless of who one is or what circumstances one has, the school is a place where one can develop and where everyone has the opportunity to shape their own future.

There are therefore good reasons to believe in the Swedish school, to believe in Sweden's children and to believe in Sweden's youth. This presupposes, however, that we, the adult world, do not fail, do not bury our heads in the sand and do not give up.

The question should, however, be asked whether it is Swedish school that is in crisis, as some claim, or whether it is Swedish school that needs to take care of the results of our time's shortcomings.

When 28 percent of students leave primary school without complete grades, when approximately every fifth student leaves upper secondary school without complete grades, when 71 percent of girls between 16 and 24 years old suffer from mental ill-health, when around every tenth student repeatedly has a feeling of fear in school and when around every tenth student is regularly subjected to bullying, then we have a responsibility – the responsibility to see the child and the youth not behind but in front of the figure, the responsibility to understand the root of why it is as it is, the responsibility to act and the responsibility to do everything we can to give the children, the parents, the principals and the teachers the support, the tools and the freedom they need to create a school of learning, safety and faith in the future.

Mr. Speaker, let us also talk about all the students who go to school every day, who crack the code of literacy, who are a support for a classmate so that life feels a little easier to live, who fight for that grade in order to reach their dream. Let us talk about all the newly graduated electricians who go to a job the day after graduation and about all the fantastic students who run out before every summer to meet adult life.

Every child is unique and has unique prerequisites and opportunities. Let the school then be a place that provides space for just this! An equal school is not a uniform school. An equal school is built on freedom of choice, that we have a diversity of schools and that every student is seen.

A student who is seen dares more. A student who feels safe learns more. We know that a student who has slept well, who has had time to move around and who has more community than screen time feels better. The Christian Democrats have, during four years in government, worked hard to strengthen this, but more needs to be done.

Let us never blink in the face of challenges and problems, but let us also not forget that the school opens doors for so many children all around in our country. Let that also be our school story. Believe in Sweden's children! Believe in Swedish school!

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

Mohamed Abdukani (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is an honor to stand in the chamber of the Riksdag as a Member of Parliament for Miljöpartiet from Eskilstuna in Sörmland. I bring with me experiences from municipal politics. There, I have been a group leader and met teachers, union representatives, and others who every day work to ensure that our children and young people receive a good education and a good start in life.

Now I am taking their experiences and voices into the Riksdag. For me, it is very important that political decisions also take into account the reality in our schools.

Madam Speaker! I want to raise a concern that I have received from Sveriges Lärare in Eskilstuna. The government's reform so that teachers and preschool teachers shall get more time for planning and follow-up is important. Teachers need time for their pedagogical mission. But the question is how the reform shall function in municipalities that have already been forced to cut back operations to the breaking point.

In Eskilstuna, the preschool and the school have undergone severe cuts over several years. The union describes how the staff are already on their knees today, how the staffing has decreased, and how, particularly in the preschool, there is a lack of space for the basic pedagogical mission.

Both the union and the staff view the reform regarding five hours of administrative time in preschool positively and hope that it will make a difference. But in Eskilstuna, the pedagogical development time today is only one and a half hours. There is therefore a concern that the state funds will not be sufficient and that the municipality itself must provide funds to reach five hours.

Madam Speaker! The Government has allocated just under 2.6 billion kronor per year for the reform, which enters into force next year, 2027. At the same time, among others, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, and Almega Utbildning have pointed out that the actual costs could be significantly higher.

Madam Speaker! Eskilstuna cannot be left alone in this situation. Therefore, I want to ask: How does the government intend to ensure that municipalities such as Eskilstuna receive sufficient resources to implement the reform without it leading to further savings in preschool and school?

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

Olle Olson (M)

Madam Speaker! It sounds very heartfelt when the member speaks passionately about how Sweden's teachers should get more time for planning, for grading tests, and for being the fantastic educators they are in schools all over Sweden. My question concerns how one is to reconcile this when, at the same time, one went to the election on a promise to shorten working hours. Teachers shall, therefore, work fewer hours each week. At the same time, the member and his party want teachers to have more time for planning and grading.

How are you going to make this work when you simultaneously want the teachers to go home after lunch?

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

Mohamed Abdukani (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

A good school and preschool is the foundation for freedom, equality, and a society that holds together. Teachers should be teachers, and they need time to plan and carry out their pedagogical work.

Teachers should be teachers. Miljöpartiet has, in its budget proposal, invested more money than the Tidöre government on education and research. Therefore, we have the opportunity to carry out the measures that we describe in our budget.

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

Olle Olson (M)

Madam Speaker! For the sake of clarification, it is this government that has ensured that Sweden's teachers get the time they need for planning, grading, teaching, and everything that falls within the pedagogical responsibility that one has.

The question remains. How is one to ensure that Sweden's teachers get more time for teaching, grading, and planning, as Miljöpartiet obviously wants, when at the same time it is said that Sweden's teachers should go home after lunch?

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

Mohamed Abdukani (MP)

Madam Speaker! You cannot build a good school with a joy calculation. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner points out that the money will not be enough for the government's reform. The union points out that the intervention will be expensive. Almega says that this will land hard. How is the reform going to be financed?

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

Hanna Schölander (L)

Madam Speaker! School is one of our most important areas. Children and young people are our future. School is the place where all children get the chance to become who they can become, regardless of where they grow up or what their parents have in their wallets. In school, all children shall receive the same opportunities, knowledge, and faith in the future.

School shall give every child a good start in life. In school, one should feel curiosity, motivation, and that it is fun to learn, meet classmates, and try something new. All children shall feel safe, be seen, and make friends. School shall be a place one longs for.

But that is not how it looks today. Schools in Sweden are among the most rowdy in the Nordic countries. Every third student often or always experiences that it is rowdy, and threats and violence against teachers have increased by 150 percent over the last ten years.

We have had a school where the mobile phone has become the central thing in the classroom instead of curiosity and books. The Swedish homework is given on stencils that are shoved into the backpack along with the wet towel from gym. Noise and overcrowded classrooms have become everyday life.

Madam Speaker! We cannot have it that way. It is not the start in life we want to give our children.

The Liberals have, in recent years, implemented the largest reform within the school system in 30 years, with investments amounting to billions. We have moved from screens to binders, ensured that our children and young people have books to read in school, and removed distracting elements such as mobile phones during the school day. We have strengthened the teachers' role and created order and structure. But we need to do more. More safety was needed in the classroom.

Every student needs their own textbook in every subject. Primary school should be screen-free, and preschool must have requirements for at least 100 hours of read-alouds. We need to give our children and young people a future. School needs more order and structure.

That is why we in the Liberals want a maximum of 20 pupils per class. We want to introduce support classes for disruptive pupils and give a stronger mandate for the teacher to lead the instruction in the classroom. Then the disruptive boy can get help in a small group, and the ambitious girl can avoid being a pillow girl. The teacher must be allowed to be a teacher and have time with every pupil. With smaller classes, we get more study time and security.

But the most important thing of all is that we must nationalize the school for our children's future. The municipalization and deregulation have turned Swedish school into a postcode lottery, where there is a difference of 70,000 kronor between the municipality that invests the most and the one that invests the least. This is something we cannot continue with.

Madam Speaker! I return to what is important: our children's future. We need a school where everyone is given the same opportunities, knowledge and faith in the future, with books, safety and order. That requires liberal school policy.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! Violence in young relationships is increasing. LGBTQI people are encountering hate, threats, and harassment to an ever-increasing extent because of who they are. Intolerance among young people is growing. Destructive norms of masculinity are being cheered on. Sexually transmitted diseases are spreading anew. And sextortion, sexual extortion, is a new reality online.

These are just a few examples, but facts, figures and information regarding this can be found in various Brå reports, in investigations from Forum för levande historia, in articles from RFSU, RFSL and Ecpat but also in stories from teachers and students themselves.

Madam Speaker! This is information that we cannot simply shrug our shoulders at. It is a warning signal that something is going wrong in our society – a negative development that must be stopped.

What did the Tidö government and the Sweden Democrats choose to do in this situation? Well, at the same time as the need for knowledge about consent, relationships, equality, and respect is greater than ever, the previous government chose to weaken the position of sex education in schools. It is to go in the wrong direction.

Madam Speaker! There is still a perception that sex education is only about sex – about condoms, sexually transmitted diseases, and how children are made. But sex education is much more than that. It is, for example, about a young girl understanding that jealousy and control are not love, that young boys should learn to break negative norms of masculinity, and that young people should be able to recognize destructive relationships and honor culture, understand their own boundaries, and respect others'. It is about every young person, regardless of who they are and who they love, feeling that they have the right to exist and to be safe.

Sweden was a pioneer when sex education became compulsory in 1955. Since then, generation after generation has received an education that has developed in step with society, with new knowledge and a greater understanding of equality, consent, and relationships – until now. For the first time, the next generation risks having poorer conditions.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has already stated that sex education is deficient. It is all too often superficial, it is unequal across the country, and many teachers feel insecure regarding these difficult issues.

Then the political answer should be obvious. We need to strengthen education. We need to give teachers better support, better conditions and more knowledge – not weaken the collective responsibility. We cannot on the one hand be horrified by violence against women, the vulnerability of young people and the growing hatred against hbtqi-persons if on the other hand we weaken one of the tools that is to prevent just this.

It is about respect, consent, and everyone's equal value. If we are serious about wanting to stop this, break the intolerance, and create a safer society, it must begin in school with our children and young people.

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ekeblad (M)

Madam Speaker! Today I intended to speak about a subject that I have not been able to stop thinking about over the past few weeks. Ekot has conducted a mapping which shows that 850 children did not return to school after the summer holidays. The municipalities do not know where these 850 children are, but they are not in the classroom.

In some cases, there may be a simple explanation. Someone has moved and changed municipalities, and the information has not reached us. But other children have been taken out of Sweden against their will, by their own families. We know that it concerns girls who are married off, children who are subjected to female genital mutilation, and boys who are sent to reform schools because they do not live as the family wants.

The government has in recent years taken important steps to combat the honor-related violence and oppression that exists in Sweden. We have strengthened the protection for vulnerable children and introduced a possibility to prevent them from being taken out of the country against their will. We have taken the initiative for a national absence register and have had a new Social Services Act put in place. It is good, and the preventive work must continue.

But today I want to talk above all about the cases where the worst has already happened: the children who have already been taken away. How do we get those children home again?

Madam Speaker! More than 20 years ago, Fadime Sahindal stood here in the Riksdag and pleaded with us not to turn a blind eye to honor oppression. Much has happened since then, but as long as there are children whom we have not succeeded in protecting, we have failed. The children need to know that Sweden has not forgotten them, that we have not given up, and that we will do everything we can to help them back home to Sweden again.

Today, organizations such as Glöm aldrig Pela och Fadime, GAPF, do an invaluable job so that those who are subjected to honor oppression receive the support they deserve. We should be grateful every day that they exist. But it can never be the responsibility of non-profit organizations to rescue Swedish children who have been taken away. It is the state's responsibility.

All too often, the answer to these children is that they need to get themselves to a Swedish embassy to get help. But how is a girl who has been married off and is kept locked up with a completely new family supposed to get to an embassy? How is a boy who is at a reform camp in a country he has never been in before supposed to get to an embassy? We cannot and shall not place the responsibility on the children.

There are major deficiencies in our system today. We must review what tools we provide to the social services and to the authorities needed to find, help, and bring these children home. We must strengthen the protection of children's citizenship, and we must ensure that all relevant authorities do everything in their power so that the children come home again. Our responsibility does not end at Sweden's border.

The children who dare to speak out, those who dare to ask for help and those who dare to stand up against their own families show enormous courage. The least we can do is to show them the same courage. We must demonstrate through action that we have not given up on them, that we are there and that Sweden actually helps and protects. The goal must, of course, be that every classroom is filled with expectant children after the summer break and that no chair stands empty. But if a chair should nevertheless stand empty, we must never stop fighting so that that child comes home again.

(Applause)

In this speech, Olle Olson (M) concurred.

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

Mikael Strömberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! How much is a child's life worth? Many would answer that it is priceless. The reality in many of the country's municipalities, however, shows something completely different.

In my home municipality of Eskilstuna, the Sverigedemokraterna have for several years motioned that all preschool staff should receive annual training in first aid, accident management, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and management of airway obstructions. The response from the Socialdemokraterna, who have governed the municipality for over 100 years, has however always been the same: rejection. The justification has been that it is too expensive. According to the municipality's own calculations, it amounts to approximately 600,000 kronor.

The Social Democrats therefore consider 600,000 kronor to be too much for a model that can constitute the difference between life and death for all children in the municipality's preschools. At the same time, the same politician can spend hundreds of thousands of kronor – sometimes millions of kronor – on, for example, public art. It could be a chrome-plated apple core, a floating placenta, or, as in my home municipality, a pile of red-painted planks. It is a shameful prioritization.

Do not misunderstand me: I have nothing against public art. There is a lot of art that I myself appreciate. But politics is about priorities. When the choice stands between strengthening children's safety and spending money on yet another art project – then I know what I choose.

I choose the children's safety. I choose their security. I choose measures that can save the children's lives. That is what I would choose every day of the week, all year round.

Madam Speaker! This is not just about a single municipality and a local political conflict. It is about a serious issue that affects preschools all over the country. When municipal politicians time and again choose to opt out of vital education, we need clearer national requirements.

Children's safety should not depend on which municipality they happen to grow up in or what political priorities are made in the town hall. I therefore want to see clear requirements that all preschool staff shall be regularly trained in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation as well as accident management and airway obstruction. It would strengthen the safety for the children, create greater security for the parents and give the staff better conditions to handle an acute emergency situation.

In the end, this is about something much larger than just a budget item. It is about responsibility. It is about priorities. It is about our children's lives.

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

Elias Aguirre (S)

Madam Speaker! We heard from the member a great commitment regarding life-saving operations in municipalities in Sweden. Against that background, one can ask how the Sverigedemokraterna and the member themselves have worked to ensure that resources for that type of operation are available in all the country's municipalities.

There is a discussion about how much state involvement we should have in Swedish schools. One can have different opinions on that. But if one has increased ambitions for the school's activities, it should also be accompanied by resources.

As a municipal politician during the past terms, I have been able to see – especially during the last four years – that Swedish schools have faced a period of starvation.

I want to ask the member how the Sweden Democrats have worked to secure resources so that one can work with life-saving interventions or similar in preschool.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Strömberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the Social Democrats are asking that question, so that I have an opportunity to once again clarify that the Sweden Democrats have, for several years and over many parliamentary terms, submitted motions regarding precisely life-saving training for all preschool staff. We are willing to prioritize, because as the Social Democrats also know, everything is about priorities, including the budget.

We are prepared to provide the money required, and I am prepared to push this all the way in the Riksdag so that clear directives come from here, so that no Social Democratic politician in any municipality anywhere in the country can be able to say no to prioritizing children's lives.

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

Elias Aguirre (S)

Madam Speaker! We hear here that the Sweden Democrats have submitted a motion on the subject. But we all know that it is in other ways that decisions are made when it concerns the realm and how the realm shall be governed.

We can see what the Sweden Democrats have prioritized during the past parliamentary term. They have prioritized migration subsidies – money that has not been used and which has sent completely wrong signals – rather than welfare and the opportunity for school staff to do a good job.

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

Mikael Strömberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the member, possibly the entire Social Democrats, has misunderstood the prioritization in these issues. The prioritization that I am proposing here has been a local political, i.e., municipal political, issue previously. Now I am raising it to the national level. I will, together with my party, ensure that it becomes an issue that we can drive nationally because Social Democratic politicians are not taking their responsibility in the municipalities.

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

Elias Aguirre (S)

Madam Speaker! During the past parliamentary term, the Tidö Government announced that Swedish schools would undergo a so-called complete renovation. Knowledge results were to be strengthened. Investments were to be made in teachers. With the results in hand, we can state that the renovation has not materialized, and Swedish students recently performed historically poor results in the latest PISA measurement.

One of the problems, I would like to argue, with Swedish school is the lack of long-term perspective and sufficient funding. I want to take an example from an area where we have actually had consensus across party lines and which has also been raised earlier today. It concerns teachers' teaching time.

When the question was discussed in the chamber earlier this year, it met with broad support from both the majority and the opposition, and there are very good reasons for that. For many years, an ever-increasing proportion of teachers' working time has gone toward teaching. At the same time, an important part of the teaching mandate is everything that happens outside the classroom. It concerns planning, grading, and cooperation with colleagues. Ultimately, it is an equation that does not add up. Therefore, we Social Democrats supported a regulation of the teaching time. We warned the government, however, about what many referral bodies also raised, namely that the funding is absolutely crucial for such a reform to be successful and that the risk with insufficient funding is that schools will be forced to make the classes larger in order to afford it. When the teaching time is to be reduced, it means that someone else must cover in the classroom. An increased staffing density is a reasonable and much-needed answer to that question, but it requires that the schools be given a financial supplement.

Madam Speaker! The Government has allocated 2.6 billion kronor to the funding of this reform. Before the regulation comes into force in 2027, Skolsverige has begun to prepare, and the picture is becoming clear: the allocated state grant is far from sufficient.

Several school experts have recently warned about the weak funding. In my home county of Östergötland, Norrköping Municipality recently stated that the regulation entails an increased cost of 92 million kronor while the state grant only covers approximately 35 million. It covers 38 percent of the actual cost.

One might think it is reasonable that the municipalities, which have the primary responsibility for the school, should bear this cost. But the truth is that not all municipalities have that possibility. Significant cost increases and state grants that have not been inflation-adjusted have meant that they are under economic pressure. They can well raise the tax to afford their investments, perhaps someone thinks. But, no, not even that do the Tidö parties want to make possible. They want to make it impossible by punishing municipalities that are forced to raise the tax.

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that we Social Democrats stand behind this regulation of teachers' teaching time. It is both welcome and important, but it is not possible to turn a blind eye to reality. Without sufficient funding, this change risks not creating a better working environment for teachers, but a worse one in the form of larger classes and a school with less order and tidiness in the classroom – the opposite of what has been the ambition.

It brings me to my final point: If the school is to succeed in reversing the development with Pisaras and a pressured work environment, the alarms from the school's staff must be taken seriously and a long-term school policy must be pursued, which also provides the economic conditions to invest in the school beyond press releases and social media clicks. A first step would be a government that is willing to pay what is required to improve teachers' working conditions. That is what we Social Democrats will fight for.

(Applause)

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

Alice Landerholm (M)

Madam Speaker! My grandfather Sivert was 21 years old when, in 1956, he submitted the papers for his life's work, Dieselkraft AB.

He grew up poor in the small village of Östervåla. School was just so-so. But one summer he got to learn how to tinker with boats. He discovered that he could do something, that he was good at more than just playing football during recess. It changed everything. During the following 40 years, he built engines at his shipyard. Through almost unimaginable work efforts, he built both a life's work and a life.

My grandfather did not succeed thanks to his circumstances. He succeeded despite them. Some do, but far from all.

I am Moderate because I believe in people's ability to shape their own lives. I believe that effort should pay off but also that you should not have to be an exception to have a good life. I believe that where you are headed is more important than where you come from.

Madam Speaker! My youth generation is neither lazy nor shiftless. Sweden's young people have dreams and ambitions. They strive to find their purpose, their calling. They dream of discovering the world, moving out from home, getting a good job with a good salary and perhaps eventually getting married, buying a house and having children.

We live in a time and reality where almost all jobs require basic education and good Swedish skills. In Sörmland, where I come from, almost every fifth student leaves upper secondary school without eligibility for upper secondary education. It is not just a figure in the statistics. It is young people whose future risks becoming worse before it has even begun. Therefore, the work to re-establish the knowledge school has been initiated during the last parliamentary term. The Moderate-led government has reformed Swedish schools so that curricula focus on knowledge transmission. Teachers shall be just teachers, and the grading system shall be fair without "joy grades."

But a good future does not look the same for everyone. Therefore, we need more paths forward: vocational training that leads to jobs, internships that provide experience, and a school where it is just as natural to become a boat mechanic as it is to continue studying at a university.

Every young person who chooses the workshop over the street, education over exclusion, and their first job over crime creates a stronger Sweden.

Too many people stand here and talk about young people without having spoken to young people. Young people see and live in Sweden's problems. We also see that the problems can be solved.

Over the last four years, young people have seen how the Moderates' policy solves societal problems. We are far from finished. But gang shootings have decreased by 75 percent. The fuel price makes it possible to take the car or the e-bike to school or work. Unemployment is going down. New nuclear power is on the way, and the healthcare queues have been shortened by 40 percent.

Confidence that change is possible can be restored. The Moderates have solved societal problems before, and we will soon do it again. The Moderates are Sweden's largest party among young people, and the Moderate Youth League is, with tens of thousands of new members, the largest youth organization in the Nordic region. That is because, with our policy moving forward, the dreams of the first earned kronor or the first own apartment are within reach.

I stand here in the Swedish Riksdag because I want all young people to discover what they are capable of, to receive the tools to realize their dreams, and to see that effort always pays off.

We shall build a Sweden where no young person needs to succeed despite their circumstances but succeeds because of them and because of their own effort.

(Applause)

In this speech, Olle Olson and Magnus Resare (both M) concurred.

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

Michael Melby (S)

Madam Speaker! An equitable primary school throughout the country is one of the most important cornerstones for a strong Sweden. Every student should have the same opportunity to develop, achieve the knowledge goals, and create a good future regardless of whether they grow up in a large city, in a smaller municipality, or in the countryside. But reality does not always look like that. The difference between schools and municipalities has increased. The conditions to recruit and retain qualified teachers vary greatly while the students' needs look different.

It risks creating an education system where the place of residence is given too much importance for the student's opportunities. The most important factor for the students' learning is a skilled teacher in the classroom. Therefore, we need to ensure that all schools can offer competent and qualified teachers.

At the same time, we need to provide teachers with better conditions. Too much time is spent today on administration, and too little time is spent on teaching. Teachers should be allowed to be teachers. By freeing up time for planning, teaching, and follow-up, we strengthen the quality of the entire school system.

Madam Speaker! Another thing that could facilitate matters is to introduce a co-teacher system. A concrete example is a middle school class with 28 students. There may be some students who have recently learned Swedish, some who need special support, and some who are far ahead of their peers in their knowledge development.

For a single teacher, it can be a great challenge to meet all these needs at the same time. With a two-teacher system, one teacher can provide extra support to the students who need it most while the other drives the instruction forward for the rest of the class. In this way, more students receive the right support at the right time while the working peace in the classroom is improved.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's future is built in our classrooms. Therefore, we must continue the work for a school where knowledge stands at the center, where teachers are given the right conditions, and where every student, regardless of background or place of residence, is given the opportunity to succeed.

A student in Mellerud should have the same chance to reach their full potential as a student in Stockholm or Malmö. It is only when we can say that with conviction that we have a truly equal school. A strong and equal primary school is not just an investment in our children. It is an investment in the future of all of Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Jonas Cronert (S)

Madam Speaker! When I was responsible for primary school in my home municipality Västerås, the question was rarely whether there was any need for more special education teachers or stronger student health services. The question was rather what the money would cover. I bring that experience with me here.

Behind the school's funding, there is a student who needs help, a teacher who needs time, and a principal who needs to know if the money will suffice next school year as well.

I want to highlight two things: the school's funding, which needs to be sustainable over time, and that the money must stay in the school.

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag has established that education shall be equal regardless of where in the country it is organized. But the municipalities' financial conditions vary. During the previous parliamentary term, the government presented several school reforms that Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner warned were insufficiently funded.

Several of the reforms have important and genuine ambitions. But ambitions do not pay teachers' salaries. When the government raises requirements without full funding, it is the municipalities that have to cover the difference. The possibility of fulfilling the school's mission then becomes dependent on the municipality's finances. That is not acceptable if education is to be equal.

Those who decide on reforms must also take responsibility for the bill. When wages and rents rise and inflation is high, the state grants must follow suit. Otherwise, the same amount in the budget means less money for education.

We Social Democrats want a long-term sector grant that is adjusted for wage and cost developments and where new tasks for the school are fully funded. We also want to reduce the number of targeted state grants. One school needs more special education teachers. Another school needs to strengthen student health. The principals must be able to direct resources to where the needs are, and principals shall be able to choose interventions based on the individual school's needs.

Madam Speaker! The second thing I want to highlight concerns what the money is used for. Tax funds intended for students' education can today leave the school in the form of profit to owners. There, one needs to answer a concrete question: Why should money for students' education be able to be distributed to owners?

We Social Democrats want to abolish the market school and ban profit extraction. The school's greatest asset is the staff. But the staff is also the greatest cost. In a system where owners can take out profit, there is a financial interest in keeping that cost down.

That is why the profit issue is about the students' everyday lives, about how many students the teacher will have time to help, and about access to special education teachers and student health services. Surpluses shall be reinvested in education.

How do you explain to a parent that the money is not enough for the child's support, while the school fees are distributed as profit to owners? That is what we Social Democrats want to change. The school's financing must be sustainable over time, and the money must stay in the school.

(Applause)

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Madam Speaker! When a new parliamentary term begins, it can be worth reminding ourselves why we chose to engage politically. For me, it is about something as fundamental as the freedom to shape one's own future.

The foundation is laid in school – a school where all children have a fair chance regardless of upbringing, regardless of which parents one has, regardless of the thickness of the wallet. Every child in every classroom carries different dreams for the future but also different circumstances.

I am thinking of Karin Boye's poem Prolog at a school party, where she writes:

A river of young spring force and new opportunities, seething with anxiety and fermenting questions, moves forward between banks that it did not shape itself, with the seeds of the future in its roaring waves.

No child has shaped the framework for their own upbringing. But that must not determine the freedom to shape one's own future. Therefore, an equal knowledge school of high quality is required for all children.

Madam Speaker! That is not how it looks in Swedish schools today. The gaps are widening, knowledge results are falling, and a record number of students are dropping out of the Swedish school system. Behind all those figures are the children who do not receive the support they need and the teachers who see the needs but who have neither the time nor the resources. There are also the future opportunities that are lost, not only for the individual but also for Sweden's future as a leading knowledge nation.

At the same time, the pursuit of profit in Swedish schools can continue. Tax money that should go to students, teachers, and education disappears into profits for the large school corporations. Sweden is virtually alone in the world in allowing unlimited profit withdrawals in tax-funded schools.

Even though I want to devote my speech to looking forward, we are forced to acknowledge that the Tidö government's policy has been anything but sufficient to rectify these systemic errors. On the contrary, the pursuit of profit has continued while the school has been pressured by cuts.

Madam Speaker! It is time to take back control over Swedish schools in order to reverse that development.

We need to stop the profit-seeking once and for all so that tax money that is supposed to go to the school also stays in the school and goes to more teachers and better teaching – not to profit distributions, not to waffle stands and not to sports cars.

We need to stop the constant cuts and ensure that the resources for the school are increased in line with inflation. Students and teachers deserve much better than constant stealth savings.

We need a primary school reform that involves small classes for small children so that teachers have more time for the students who raise their hands but also for those who never do.

Madam Speaker! The seeds of the future, which Karin Boye wrote about, are in every classroom and in every child. Our task is to give them the conditions to grow, and we do that through an equitable knowledge school without profit-seeking.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! She is ostracized and bullied. But then, when she enters the classroom on her birthday, a package lies in her place. She opens it, and in the package lies a jump rope. There is also a card, where it says: Now you have something to hang out with.

How I wish this story were not true!

Every year, Swedish children die due to bullying in school. Karolina and Måns are two of the Swedish schoolchildren who have taken their own lives. Their photographs are in my office – a gift and a trust from their parents.

Madam Speaker! Today, bullying is not a major political issue. Just look at the election campaign. How much did we discuss bullying in the election campaign we have just left behind? I can promise that during my upcoming four years, I will do everything to ensure that bullying is counted as one of the biggest and most important issues in Swedish politics, and I want as many of the members here as possible to be involved in that work.

Madam Speaker! Starting with oneself is often a good start to a change. How we politicians speak and act matters in schoolyards and workplaces. I would therefore like to ask for a favor: Tell me when I cross the line, when I contribute to a harsh and hurtful climate! Tell me when I abandon the issue to instead attack the person!

Do not only react when political opponents behave badly, but also react when your party comrades cross the line. Do not act only when you are in a leading position, but also take a stand against those who have more power than you do.

To take on the fight against bullying is to be uncomfortable in a group, to go against the current and to ask difficult questions. Dare to be a politician who turns over stones that, for the sake of convenience, have often remained untouched!

What kind of misogynistic culture is hidden behind the fine facade of sports? How common is humiliation and violence when a junior is being initiated into a team? How many principals are actually directly awful at handling bullying? How common is it with principals who see a parent of a bullied student as a threat instead of an ally, who let the fear of legal consequences override decisiveness and empathy, and who instead make the bullied person, rather than the bullies, the problem?

Not to mention schools like Sigtuna and Lundsberg with old systems where students are oppressed with violence and sexual abuse, Madam Speaker. When are we going to stop paying these violent institutions? How much longer shall they be allowed to issue Swedish grades?

We need to sharpen our political teeth! If no one puts a stop to it, it could go like at the elite university in Cornell in the USA: a drugged woman and a Snapchat group where a message was sent saying there was "free pussy on the upper floor" at the student residence. There were 57 men in the group. No one said stop. Instead, more men joined the group rape.

It is time to form a people's movement against bullying. I hope that you want to be part of it.

(Applause)

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

Ylva Stadell (S)

Madam Speaker! Had you met any of my teachers in upper secondary school, you would probably have received a weary sigh when they heard my name. I was, in fact, one of all those students who had totally lost motivation and interest in schoolwork. I actually wanted to do just everything other than going to school. When I finished grade 9, I had failing grades in every subject, and high school felt very, very far away.

In some way, it was my love for dance and music that made me return to the school bench. Through the aesthetic program at Bolandsskolan, I found a path where I could learn theoretical subjects combined with what I loved most of all. For me, it was never a financial study grant that made me want to go to school, but rather the opportunity during school hours to devote myself to what I actually like and which is fun.

As you surely know, not all students graduate with top grades, and we need to find ways to engage and inspire precisely those who have not succeeded from the start. For my part, I somehow managed to get through high school in a magical way. But not everyone does, and there must be an opportunity to learn throughout life. It is actually never too late to educate oneself.

For many of those who do not complete upper secondary school, the folk high school is a good alternative. The folk high schools are an important part of adult education, and folk high schools give people the opportunity to grow. It can be anything from studying on a general track and obtaining eligibility for university to simply dedicating oneself to theater or taking a writing course.

It is fantastic that we in Sweden have a tradition of education and that one can study at a folk high school and deepen one's knowledge. The folk high school has a different type of pedagogy. Education is more than just training. It is about freedom under responsibility, and you have a great opportunity to design the course content according to the participants' needs.

Some people need a second chance in life, and it may be precisely at the folk high school that you find the pedagogy that suits your specific learning style and find the community that you may have needed for so long. This can be decisive for you to move forward in life.

Unfortunately, both folk high schools and study associations are under economic pressure. When it comes to the study associations, we are talking about reduced appropriations of 500 million over the recent years.

Madam Speaker! Without popular education, Sweden falls silent! Therefore, let ABF's campaign, aimed at highlighting the dismantling of popular education that has occurred in recent years, be heard.

I and many others actually do not want a silent Sweden. We want a Sweden where people meet and develop together. You should be able to sign up for a study circle to learn new things, perhaps a new language – or why not find community in music or dance as I did? This is, after all, something that is fantastic about Sweden.

Popular education is a central pillar of Swedish democracy. Sweden needs strong study associations and folk high schools, but instead, we now have study associations that have laid off staff and closed their premises. The folk high schools have discontinued courses and had to reduce the support they can provide to the participants.

It has been so incredibly sad to see how, in recent years, there has been a systematic attempt to dismantle folk education. We in Sweden should be proud of our long tradition of education, and I hope that in the coming years we safeguard the independence and autonomy of folk education. In the coming years, we must provide the study associations and the folk high schools with the right conditions to develop.

Long live folk education!

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to speak about foreign policy, more specifically about the Western Balkans. It is an area that is very close to my heart. My parents come from the Drenica region in Kosovo. It is the poorest and most war-affected part of the country. It was also there that the struggle for freedom was born. I had the great fortune that my parents later ended up in Sweden and that I was born here.

The future of the Western Balkans concerns all of Sweden. The region belongs to the European immediate neighborhood, yet the region still far too rarely receives our attention.

In Bosnia, Milorad Dodik and his political circle continue to pursue a separatist policy that threatens cohesion. When the country's common institutions are weakened and ethnic tensions are used to consolidate power, both people's safety and the country's European future are threatened. This is not what Bosnia needs.

In Serbia, we see a worrying authoritarian development that requires our attention. Human Rights Watch describes excessive violence against demonstrators, arbitrary arrests, and attacks on journalists. At the same time, Kosovo is again being used in the nationalist rhetoric. In July, Minister Paunović said that if she had been in Milošević's position in the 90s – that is, during the time when my parents fled, from which new mass graves are still being found today – she would have ethnically cleansed Kosovo of Albanians.

When Serbian ministers participated in the funeral of the genocide-convicted Ratko Mladić, it sent worrying signals. Now in October, Interior Minister Dačić said that the Serbian flag will sooner or later fly over Prizren. Recently, Milan Radoičić was filmed at a campaign meeting for the former president Vučić – next to his son, it should be added. He has admitted that he led the group behind the attack in Banjska, where the policeman Afrim Bunjaku was murdered. Still, no charges have been filed in Serbia.

Overall, all of this must be taken seriously. In a region where the experiences of war are still present in people's lives, territorial claims can deepen fear and mistrust.

Here, Sweden's voice must be clear: Kosovo's independence shall be respected, and Bosnia and Herzegovina's territorial integrity shall be defended. Both Serbia and Kosovo must fulfill their commitments in the EU-led dialogue.

Madam Speaker! There are developments that deserve greater attention. Both Albania and Montenegro have moved forward in their membership negotiations with the EU this week. That is good. It shows that reform work can actually yield results. Independent courts, functioning authorities, and the fight against corruption create conditions for investments, jobs, and trust in society. However, the progress must be followed by progress in people's everyday lives and leave a clear mark in practice.

In Albania, protests are ongoing with demands for, among other things, educational reforms and accountability for suspected corruption. Large demonstrations have taken place in Tirana. Violence must be clearly condemned, but the right to demonstrate peacefully must simultaneously be protected. Albania finds itself at a crossroads here.

For us Social Democrats, peace, democracy and social cohesion go together. Sweden must continue to push for Western Balkans' EU rapprochement through support for reforms, free media and a strong civil society. That way we can facilitate the rapprochement instead of pushing away an entire region.

(Applause)

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

Rikard Salander (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is my first speech in the Swedish Riksdag.

It was a question that kept returning to me in the debates I participated in during the past election campaign. Actually, this question has been stuck in my thoughts for a much longer period than that.

I have worked for over eleven years at komvux and sfi in Nässjö municipality. It is an incredibly educational job where one gains a deep insight into how language learning, the local labor market, and integration function. One gains insight into how different people's circumstances differ depending on educational background and what they have experienced previously.

When I began my employment at Sfi, we had one of the largest refugee receptions in modern times in Sweden. At the same time, enormous efforts were made to ensure that everyone who came to Nässjö, Jönköpings län, and Sweden would receive a good reception. It was not just about reception but also about major investments in jobs, internships, education, and integration. Efforts were also made by civil society. Study associations and churches organized language cafés.

Madam Speaker! Something that struck me was that, even though the reception of refugees was severely restricted during the mid-2010s, I met many people at SFI who valued Sweden very highly. Many of those I met loved learning Swedish, despite it being difficult with the grammar and pronunciation of different Swedish words. They truly felt welcome in Sweden and wanted to be a part of Swedish society and create a future for themselves here.

Ten eleven years later, in 2026, I no longer encounter this in the same way. Today, instead, I encounter far too many at komvux and sfi who say roughly this: I no longer feel welcome in Sweden.

That, Madam Speaker, I find to be absolutely appalling. What are the consequences if one does not feel welcome in the country that one has come to and wants to build their future in? What is it that has actually happened during these years? What is it that has caused the people I meet – and this certainly also applies to other komvux teachers – to feel that the politics in Sweden has become harder and colder during the recent years?

Could it be that much of the policy that has been pursued during the past mandate period, which among other things has been about trying to get more people to return and which has caused young people who have built their lives in Sweden to have to leave the country, has actually done something to our society and to the belief in the future? Could it have caused some of the people I meet at SFI and komvux to no longer feel welcome or that their future here no longer feels as self-evident?

This is not the society that Sweden should be. We need a more humane policy, now and moving forward. We need a policy for good integration, which ensures that people who come to Sweden feel welcome here and can plan their lives for a long time ahead. Therefore, it is important that we now begin work to draft a stop law to prevent young people who came here as children from being deported. It is an important first step to restore the belief in the future regarding Sweden among my former SFI students.

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

Lotta Björklund (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be one of the world's best countries to live in – a country where children get a good start in life, where those who become ill receive care in time, where the elderly feel security and where people with disabilities get the opportunity to live their lives on their own terms. Sweden shall be a country where women do not need to live in fear in their own homes and a country where people have the freedom to shape their lives and realize their dreams as well as dare to invest in new ideas. It is the Sweden I want to be part of building.

A strong welfare also requires a strong economy, Madam Speaker, and here our entrepreneurs play a decisive role. Without companies that create jobs, people who work and companies that grow, it becomes harder to finance our common welfare.

In my home county, Värmland, there are over 15,000 companies. It is the dairy farmer in Väse outside Karlstad, the pizza baker in Åmotfors, the hairdresser in Kristinehamn, the forest owner in Sunne and the ice dealer in Torsby. But it is also large companies such as Volvo Construction Equipment in Arvika, Uddeholm in Hagfors and Stora Enso in Skoghall.

Behind all these companies are people who every day contribute to making Sweden function. Entrepreneurship is rarely about working between eight and five. It is about early mornings, late evenings, and a responsibility that follows you home. But it is also about the pride in building something of your own, in creating jobs, and in seeing other people grow.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes in the political debate it sounds as if corporate profits were something ugly. I do not agree with that at all – on the contrary! When companies grow and people get jobs, tax revenues are strengthened and finance teachers in the classrooms, nurses in our hospitals, and the care of our elderly. Entrepreneurship is, in fact, about our welfare.

Madam Speaker! I view with concern parts of the economic policy being put forward from the left. I have respect for the fact that we may have different views on how the welfare system should be financed. But higher taxes are never the solution.

When a billionaire tax, higher costs for companies, and an abolished quarantine deduction are proposed, we must ask ourselves who is going to pay. For the small business owner, increased costs can be the difference between daring to hire or refraining from doing so.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates want to lower the corporate tax and the employer contributions and continue to reduce red tape and shorten the permit processes. We want to create better conditions for innovation, investments and new jobs. Politics should not stand in the way of people's ideas. It should give them the opportunity to grow.

It should be easy to start a business, safe to run a business, and profitable to run a business. This applies regardless of whether it concerns the dairy farmer in Väse, the pizza baker in Åmotfors, or one of our Värmland industrial companies competing on the global market.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be the world's best country to live in, with the freedom to shape our own lives and a strong welfare state that is there when we need it. But to develop the welfare state, we must also strengthen the conditions for those who create jobs, growth, and tax revenues. We shall not see entrepreneurship and welfare as opposites. On the contrary, they belong together.

Therefore, we shall continue to make it easier, not harder, to start, run and develop companies. Because when companies grow, the opportunities to build the world's best country to live in also grow.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) and Gunilla Gomér (SD) concurred.

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

Andreas Ahlqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! We live in uncertain times with war in our immediate vicinity. We live with an aggressive neighbor in the east who has taken it upon themselves to invade another country. We live with the realization that that eternal peace we all hoped for perhaps did not quite become just that. This realization led us to the conclusion that we once again need to arm ourselves strongly, not just militarily.

Infrastructure is an important part of our preparedness and, of course, also for the development of our country. It is about this that I intend to speak briefly.

In my home municipality, Halmstad, there are ambitious expansion plans for the municipality in connection with the train station with a completely new district, the so-called Stationsstaden. At the same time, we have been able to see an uncertainty regarding when the necessary expansion and reconstruction of the rail yard and the central station will become a reality. Even though the plan now says that construction is to start in 2028/2029, we know that it often takes longer. We are now eagerly waiting for the railway plan to be finalized.

Madam Speaker! It is important for our municipalities across the country that these expansions and reconstructions keep to their schedules in order to synchronize with the municipalities' own planning and investments. It is important for the contractors who are to dare to invest in areas where they are dependent on the current expansion and that it actually reaches completion. The expansion is, in this case, a part of securing the capacity on the Västkustbanan, where traffic is estimated to increase by up to 50 percent by 2040.

Madam Speaker! Another example from my home municipality is the planned investments in our port. These investments are desirable from a preparedness perspective. It concerns investments totaling 1.4 billion, of which approximately 500 million are during the period 2026–2030.

The question, however, is whether our municipalities are expected to bear the risk of investments alone, which in some cases are part of our collective preparedness. The absence of answers to the question of if and when state funds would arrive led, at the end of 2025, to a unified policy in Halmstad to brake the investments, as the basis for the urgent handling actually had more to do with the perceived need from the total defense rather than the business community's demand.

It is of course easy to understand that in these times, when there is very much to handle, it can be difficult to deliver messages on financing issues. But I still mean that these are things that need to work better so that we do not lose momentum in the issues concerning the expansion of infrastructure that is important for our preparedness.

It cannot be reasonable that our municipalities should act as a bank for the state regarding socially important investments.

In this speech, Gunilla Gomér (SD) agreed.

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

Alexander Svensson (M)

Madam Speaker! In my opening remarks in this chamber, I feel it is only right that I should speak about the finest thing there is: of course, Skåne.

Skåne must be fantastic with its fertile lands, its world-leading research, and its location that makes it the gateway to Europe. At the same time, Skåne also has its fair share of challenges. In Skåne, we have, among other things, an all too high unemployment rate, in fact the highest of all counties. For all too long, investments in the expansion of roads and railways have not met the needs that exist. It becomes an obstacle to growth and to companies and job opportunities being able to increase. My colleague Mats Sander profitably raised these aspects in the debate yesterday, but it is probably just as important to remind of them.

I want to raise another issue that is an obstacle and a challenge, and which applies not only to Skåne but to all of southern Sweden. It is about electricity.

Skåne has been the region in the entire EU that has had the worst self-sufficiency rate in terms of electricity production. Both the price and the availability have affected households and businesses. In the media, it has been possible to read that Pågen could not expand in Malmö because there was not enough electricity and that a café owner in Gantofta, outside my hometown Helsingborg, had to close because the electricity bill became too high. These are just two examples.

Then we have not spoken about all the households that have experienced the electricity prices in electricity area 4. It is not just a question of the energy system as such. It is also a question of justice. Is it fair that the person in Skåne who sets the clock in the morning to go to work has to pay more for the electricity for the alarm clock that wakes said person in Skåne compared to the one who does it in Stockholm or Luleå?

Madam Speaker! It is positive that we have had a government that has kept the energy issue so high on the agenda. The first steps for new nuclear power have been taken, even though the expansion will take time. But it is important to ensure that we have a predictable and plannable supply of energy in all of Sweden. At the same time, we must not look at only a single type of energy but ensure that we get more production of fossil-free electricity that is reliable in all of Sweden.

Thus, the expansion of both the electricity grid and the transmission capacity contributes to us obtaining a more robust energy system.

Madam Speaker! Right now we do not know what the coming government will look like. But it would be devastating if the important steps taken during the past mandate period were to be defenestrated. Sweden needs to continue the work of ensuring that we have a reliable energy system, not only for the residents and households in Skåne but in the entire country.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

The general political debate was hereby concluded.

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