Debate on the occasion of the submission of the budget bill

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know how many of us here in the chamber remember exactly what we did on this day three years ago, November 8, 2019. I myself do not remember exactly what I did that day. But I still believe that many of us can feel: Oh, how much has happened in these three years.

Debate on the occasion of the submission of the budget bill

Then we were blissfully unaware of the pandemic that would strike just a few months later, a pandemic that at that time changed very much. For three years ago, Russia had admittedly annexed Crimea and was waging a low-intensity war in Donbass. But the large-scale invasion of Ukraine was several years away. And hand on heart - how many of us in here thought three years ago that Sweden would probably be on its way into Nato within a few years?

Mr. Speaker! Three years ago, electricity cost approximately 50 öre in Skåne. Diesel had not yet managed to become the world's most expensive. It cost approximately 15 kronor. But many already felt then that it was expensive to refuel.

Now, three years later, we are heading towards winter, literally but also in the economy. Sweden is judged to be in a recession next year at the same time as we have high inflation, an inflation that is higher than it has been in several decades. And the uncertainty is great.

Mr. Speaker! Many in our country are having a very tough time right now. It is single mothers who worry about how they will be able to buy Christmas presents for the children. It is the nursing assistant who commutes to the night shift at work but wonders if she has to resign because it is so expensive to commute. Small business owners turn over every krona to afford to pay wages to their employees.

Very many people feel anxiety. It is anxiety about the climate, anxiety that children will be drawn into criminal environments, or anxiety about how the war will develop and how it will affect us here in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a difficult situation. But I have great confidence that we will get through this together as a country.

Mr. Speaker! The four coalition parties, who are now in agreement on this budget, see Sweden's problems. We also see that many are struggling. And we are firmly determined to do what we can to reverse the negative development, which we have seen in Sweden for many years now. That was the mandate we received from the voters. That journey begins now.

We are determined to take the fight, and to win that fight, against serious crime. People should be able to feel safe in all of Sweden. Together, we will get out of the energy crisis. We will reduce our emissions. And we four want that the welfare system should have the prerequisites to carry out its missions. But it is going to be tough.

The coalition parties know that if there are to be resources for future reforms, two things are required. Continued ability to prioritize. We do that in this budget, and we will continue to do so. But we also know that more women and men who today are not self-sufficient must have a job to go to in order to participate and contribute.

Mr. Speaker! The budget that has now been submitted here on the Riksdag's table aims to solve what is not working in Sweden. We are taking the first step towards putting Sweden on a new course. There are five areas, five priorities, that I want to highlight.

The first thing is that the budget mitigates the difficult economic situation that many households and companies are now struggling with. The state can neither or should not compensate for everything that is now increasing in price. We cannot compensate completely and fully for inflation. But the state and we together can, with this budget, mitigate the consequence.

Many in Sweden are dependent on the car and are currently struggling very much with their margins. Therefore, we take the first step towards pushing down fuel prices by lowering the tax by 1 krona while simultaneously increasing the mileage allowance, from 18.50 to 25 kronor, for those who commute to work. This has not been done since 2008.

These two parts together make up the largest part of the budget. We support households and companies, just as we said. But I understand that very many are looking forward to January 1, 2024. That is when the big reduction will come. Then the reduction obligation will be lowered to the EU's minimum level.

Mr. Speaker! The electricity bill has also become a heavy burden for many. Therefore, a high-cost protection for electricity bills will be introduced. It will be paid out for electricity prices that have been very high this year. The support goes to households and to companies but also to municipalities, regions and organizations, simply to everyone who has an electricity bill.

Mr. Speaker! Recession and inflation hit hardest those who were already struggling. That is why we are now proposing that the temporary increase of the housing allowance for families with children be extended. And to further strengthen the protection for people who are unemployed, the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) will be permanently maintained at the level that has applied during the pandemic. Other economically vulnerable groups, such as guaranteed pensioners and students, will receive compensation by having their benefits adjusted upwards with inflation.

Mr. Speaker! The second area I want to highlight is welfare. One must be able to trust that there is a place in a special care home if one needs it when one gets older. One must be able to trust that one will not have to wait all too long to receive the care that one both has a right to and needs. Children must be able to trust that they get the knowledge they need in school.

Therefore, we are increasing the general state grant by 6 billion and additionally making targeted investments and providing other support of an equal amount. This is to go towards more healthcare beds across the country, towards more resources for maternity care and the health of women and the elderly, and towards restoring the knowledge school with more special education teachers, reinforced holiday school, and increased access to new teaching materials. It shall also go towards combating ill health among children and young people by us now providing proper support to Bris. Additionally, funds are added to counteract loneliness among the elderly. A very large investment is also made to counteract homelessness. It has increased in Sweden, but it shall decrease.

Mr. Speaker! The third area is safety. It has become our time's great issue of freedom. Hardworking entrepreneurs have their shops looted and vandalized time and again. Mothers see their children, often sons, drawn into gang crime while other parents have to bury their children because they have been shot.

I am thinking particularly of twelve-year-old Adriana's mother and father. Adriana was out with her dog outside McDonald's but never came home again. For her and for the sake of other crime victims, the largest offensive in Swedish history against organized crime is now being launched.

The budget contains reinforcements of the entire justice system with a particular focus on the police, the security police, and the correctional services. Justice shall be restored with harsher penalties and more police officers. But justice is also about prevention. All children shall be given a chance to succeed. It is about strengthening parental responsibility and ensuring that young people have the opportunity for a meaningful leisure time instead of being drawn into the gangs in the square. Therefore, we strengthen the social services' crime prevention work while simultaneously strengthening parenting programs and investing in sports in vulnerable areas.

Mr. Speaker! Security is not only protected here at home. Right now, brave men and women are fighting and dying at the Ukrainian front - for their country but also for freedom in all of Europe. We shall support them in every way we can. The Government will return to the question of more weapons to Ukraine. Furthermore, we can here collectively take responsibility for our own defense, ensure that it is equipped, and ensure that Sweden now enters Nato. We continue the work of strengthening the Armed Forces and civil defense.

Mr. Speaker! The fourth area is climate and environment. Sweden shall have an offensive and ambitious climate and environmental policy. There is much good to build on from previous governments, for example Industriklivet and Klimatklivet, and this is now being expanded further. But there are also things that have been completely counterproductive. The decommissioning of nuclear reactors has not only made electricity expensive but also led to Sweden burning tons of oil to supply the country with electricity. Bureaucratic environmental assessments have put spokes in the wheels of necessary investments that could reduce emissions.

We are convinced that more fossil-free electricity is the key for Sweden to be able to reach the climate goals. Now we are taking the first steps towards new nuclear power. For the first time in several decades, there is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag for more nuclear power. We are also investing in carbon capture and expanded charging infrastructure. It will be important for the continued work of lowering emissions. The environment is also protected through measures to restore wetlands, remediate contaminated areas, and reduce eutrophication and emissions in the Baltic Sea.

The fifth area is jobs, entrepreneurship, and growth. Sweden shall continue to be a country where innovative companies create jobs and growth. We are determined to improve the Swedish business climate during this mandate period. We are lowering the employer contributions for people who work with research and innovation. We are making it easier to run companies by now establishing a proper implementation council that will review red tape. When we do that, more people can also get their first job. More can support themselves when resources are released in companies.

We also want more people to have the opportunity to become employable. That is why we are now ensuring that more resources go to vocational adult education, internship placements, and other things that we know have an effect. For many years, labor market policy, like much other policy, has been ineffective and cost very much money.

The work line is the answer to several of the problems that Sweden has today. More people must work. More people must support themselves. That is why we are now doing more so that more people will work. We are lowering the tax for those who are over 65 and continue to work, and during this mandate period, we will carry out a major benefit reform that ensures it always pays off better for a parent to go to work than to stack benefits on top of each other. This is a matter of respect and justice, both for those who work and for those who pay tax, as well as for all those people who today stand outside the labor market.

We will also work to reduce benefit fraud and incorrect payments. It is a priority issue. That is why, during this mandate period, we want to conduct a census.

Mr. Speaker! The budget is presented in an economically difficult time. We are heading into a winter in the economy. Sweden simultaneously has major problems. I feel very secure that this budget, which is supported by a majority in the Riksdag, will make a difference. We are holding back. It is not an expansive budget; when we have inflation, we must take responsibility. But we still succeed in investing in all those areas that we see are important for Sweden to change direction.

In conclusion, I want to turn specifically to you who are young. It concerns some in here, but I am primarily thinking of others who are following the debate. You are struggling with anxiety about the future. You feel that you lost important years during the pandemic. You worry about the climate. You may be worried about your parents' finances. You feel that the war is coming very close, and you have dark thoughts about the future.

My message is that we will get through this crisis and this situation together. Sweden and all of us who live here have survived tough times before. There is a strength in our country. Together we can do everything to ensure that Sweden is better in three years than it is now. We have survived tough times before. Together, Mr. Speaker, we can make November 8, 2025, an even better day than the current one.

(Applause)

In this speech, John E Weinerhall, David Josefsson and Helena Storckenfeldt (all M) as well as Rashid Farivar (SD) concurred.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces a testing time. During the year, we have been able to observe how the economic outlook has become increasingly worse both in Sweden and in the rest of the world, with skyrocketing inflation and an approaching recession. Households and companies are being pressed hard by the previously sky-high prices on electricity and fuels, and in grocery stores. Furthermore, interest rates have been raised significantly. The economic reality is intruding into people's everyday lives in a way that we have not experienced in many years. Many are worried about their own and the country's economy.

At the same time, everyday life is about so much more than the outlook for the world economy. Our country faces great challenges, and social problems do not become less severe because the economy becomes weaker. The gang criminals do not stop shooting. The need for a school that focuses on knowledge and every child's right to learn based on their own circumstances does not disappear. Climate change is not paused because we are fully occupied with managing a business cycle, and Russia's dreadful war in Ukraine continues to cause enormous human suffering.

Mr. Speaker! This difficult economic situation highlights the need for a secure society, where welfare delivers, where we face difficult times together and where we stand up for one another. The economic situation also requires a responsible and well-balanced economic policy. Finally, the economic situation requires a government that can be relied upon.

Just a few months ago, I presented the Ministry of Finance's forecast at Harpsund. There, I spoke about an impending recession. That picture has only been reinforced in recent months. I was also clear that the worsening economic situation will require a responsible and well-considered economic policy so that Swedish households and companies are not put under further strain. The over-budgeting policy has reached its end. Sweden's strong public finances must be used to weather the recession, protect welfare and households, and continue the necessary investments in internal and external security. Even then, it was clear that the situation would require tough priorities. Political wish lists would need to take a backseat, and it would require honesty towards the voters.

Now that we have seen the Sweden Democrats' and the government's budget in its entirety, I can state that economic and political reality has finally caught up with the right-conservative parties. The Sweden Democrats and the government are now backing away from election promise after election promise. In a historically difficult time, the parties dedicated the election campaign to presenting a series of promises that are now being broken. These are promises that the voters surely took seriously and that ordinary households used to plan their finances. The Sweden Democrats and the Moderates are now trying to wash their hands of the ambitious election promises they put forward. The excuse is: "Sometimes reality is a ghost." Welcome to reality!

(Applause)

Here, hard-working Swedes struggle every day to make the calculations add up. Here, mothers and fathers agonize over whether the winter jacket will last another season and if the rubber boots are too small, and over how much they can afford to set aside for retirement. Here, a grandfather or a grandmother worries about whether they will be able to afford to buy Christmas presents for the grandchildren when inflation pushes up food prices.

As an elected representative, one must show respect for those one represents. This is done by being honest and always putting Sweden's best interests first. To promise and then break those promises unfortunately undermines the trust in all elected representatives. But above all, it shows that the right-conservative politics does not measure up when people need politics the most.

Today, the Sweden Democrats and the government have presented their budget. Besides the fact that it is a budget that does not deliver what the parties promised in the election, it is also a budget that fails welfare. The severely worsened economic situation and, above all, the high inflation mean that municipalities and regions face a cost crisis that will hit welfare directly.

We must secure the funding for healthcare, school, and elderly care. Otherwise, it will be the children in school, the patients in healthcare, and the users in elderly care who will pay the price. Welfare workers may be forced to run even faster to cover for colleagues who are laid off when municipalities and regions begin to cut back.

The state needs to take a greater economic responsibility for the welfare system. During the previous terms, we broke the trend of reduced state grants to municipalities and regions. We added a total of 32.5 billion kronor in general permanent state grants. That does not include the billions in targeted and temporary investments that the government carried out in recent years.

In this budget, the government is making permanent 6 billion of the temporary investments that were made last year. But I can state that the right-conservative government has returned to its old habits where welfare is deprioritized.

It has become clear today that the Sweden Democrats and the government are betraying the voters, promise after promise. At the same time, we are still waiting for decisions on a number of issues.

When I read the budget bill, it is not quite clear to me. What will happen with the investment support for rental housing? In June, you all promised that all applications received before January 1, 2022, would be processed. Today, there is talk of cutting the queue. Which projects are the ones that will not be completed? What other measures will be put in place to solve the housing shortage and ensure that housing is built that ordinary people can afford to live in? I do not know.

How do you actually manage to make the defense investment work? You talk about defense spending reaching 2 percent of GDP by 2026. That would mean an additional amount of approximately 8 billion kronor per year on average. But the addition for this year is significantly less than that. Can the defense and the Swedish people really rely on your statements?

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces a testing time. Many feel anxiety about their finances and about how the winter will be. In this uneasy situation, an economic policy is required that focuses on getting us through the recession together. A policy for all of Sweden is required, where access to a secure everyday life and a functioning welfare state is not dependent on where you live.

At the same time, we must not lose momentum in the work against social problems. Children with a parent who becomes unemployed should be able to feel security that they still receive that extra help in school that they need. Our youth must be able to feel hope and confidence that politics takes the climate issue with the utmost seriousness. The mother in the suburbs should not have to be afraid that her child is drawn into gang crime because society is not there.

These are not easy tasks. Politics must be honest about that. It requires tough priorities. It is our job to take that responsibility even when it is difficult to present credible alternatives for how we can make Sweden better. We must, however, be very careful not to promise too much only to be forced to back out on promise after promise. Our message is clear. We will continue to take responsibility and fight for Sweden's best.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This budget bill, which has been developed in cooperation between the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals, will not solve all of Sweden's problems. Unfortunately, we have too large and too serious problems to be able to solve them in such a short term. But it is a very good start. More will need to be done to turn the ship around in Sweden, and we will also be prepared to do that.

I am, of course, very pleased that both the unemployment insurance and the sickness insurance remain at the same levels after the turn of the year, when the new budget comes into force, as before the turn of the year. I do not know how many times during the election campaign that has been, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard: If those parties take power - the palace parties - then they will slaughter both the unemployment insurance and the sickness insurance. We were clear, and I was clear, during the entire election campaign: The unemployment insurance shall be kept intact, and today's levels shall apply even tomorrow. We said one thing before the election, and we did exactly the same thing after the election.

The fuel taxes will be lowered. It will not be as much as I had hoped, but nevertheless. The mileage allowance, which has remained unchanged for 13 years, is being significantly increased, and the reduction obligation is being phased down to the absolute lowest possible level.

The work begins now, but unfortunately, the effects will not come quite as immediately. We have to wait a bit. The rather extreme direction that the previous government had regarding precisely the reduction obligation simply cannot be phased out in a heartbeat.

The effect regarding the price at the pump, we will have to wait a while longer for. But when it does come, we are talking about in the magnitude of an additional 4, 5, or perhaps even 6 kronor at best. I regret that it takes so long. I truly do. But the situation is what it is.

It also concerns the diesel tax for agriculture, for forestry, and also for aquaculture. It will be at the EU's absolute minimum level during the mandate period, and it will take effect as early as the mid-year turn. It will simply be a little, a little easier, a little less burdensome, to be an entrepreneur within all industries that are dependent on some form of physical transport. It is quite a few industries, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine's affair is our affair, in the same way as once Finland's. They may have changed faces in Moscow from over 80 years ago to today. But it is fundamentally the same corrupt, kleptocratic, and paranoid oppressive regime that holds the strings.

This is not a normal army we see in Ukraine. It is a gang of robbers and bandits who loot and rape. Sweden must not waver in its support for Ukraine's freedom. The economic, the political, and above all the military support shall continue and, preferably, accelerate.

It is obviously primarily a question of solidarity but almost as much about self-interest. Every Russian T72 that is consequently deployed in Ukraine is one fewer tank that can terrorize our Swedish motherland. The Armed Forces shall reach up to 2 percent of GDP during the mandate period. This is a task that we will manage, and which the old government, and the old government base, would never ever have managed.

A strong Swedish defense, and a Sweden in Nato, will secure peace in our country and in our time. It shall not be any policy of appeasement, not again. It does not work. Trying to appease the tyrant only leads to the tyrant getting a taste for more.

Mr. Speaker! Let me mention a few words regarding this budget proposal's distribution profile. I can quote directly from the so-called impact assessments: "The reforms have different distribution profiles, but overall, the proposals that affect economic standard have a clearly equalizing distribution profile. The economic standard increases most in percentage terms in the lower part of the distribution, and most of all for the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard." The palace parties have thus agreed on an economic policy that has a clearly equalizing distribution profile and which strengthens the economic standard most of all among the tenth with the lowest income. In that income decile, one normally does not find either bank directors or venture capitalists.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also say something about what is signaled in the budget bill's financial plan, even if not in the tables. A dental care reform will be investigated and implemented. I will not promise exactly when, because I do not know exactly when. But it will be during the mandate period. The logic is simple, or at least should be simple: Teeth are part of the body, and the high-cost protection that applies within healthcare otherwise should, to the greatest extent possible, also apply to people's teeth. We also write that the elderly shall be prioritized in this reform.

Mr. Speaker! In the debate on the elderly, the government will invite all - nota bene, all - parties to talks and deliberations regarding the pensions. The somewhat bizarre idea that five parties should discuss pension issues, despite the fact that there are, as is known, eight parties represented in this chamber, has now finally been rejected.

I want to emphasize that I am very much looking forward to the upcoming deliberations and discussions. What they result in in terms of concrete policy and concrete reforms is too early to say at this stage. But for the Sverigedemokraterna, we will bring with us the same proposals that we have pushed for previously as well.

We want a so-called gas in the pension system. You cannot just have a brake, because then you won't get anywhere. You need to have a gas as well.

We want to increase the freedom of choice in the premium pension system. A larger portion of the pension contributions shall go there, so that the individual gets increased opportunities to take personal responsibility for their future and for the economy in old age.

We need to find ways to increase the total contributions into the pension system in order to raise pensions in that way. I do not dare to stand here and promise anything in this uncertain situation, but I believe and hope that several other parties see roughly the same need.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Speaker for the floor and also, of course, thank the parties in the Palace for very good cooperation. See you in the next round!

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar, David Perez, Charlotte Quensel and Eric Westroth (all SD) concurred.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! The right-conservative budget bill that has now been laid before the Riksdag constitutes the political equivalent of standing before a serious problem and many people's growing concern for it – and then looking away, scratching a bit with your feet, perhaps whistling a nervous tune, and thereafter attempting some attention-grabbing stage acts, intended to turn attention away from the incompetence, the abdication of responsibility, and the unfeeling shrug of the shoulders.

We did not hear the Finance Minister whistle as she accounted for the budget's contents. But we certainly noticed the retreat behind worn-out phrases and misleading descriptions of problems. Thus, a premiere is being performed for the production that was announced as a cheerful four-year long-runner but which, from the start, already looks like it will become an involuntary farce.

Mr. Speaker! There are both great strengths and significant problems in Swedish society and the Swedish economy. On top of that comes what is now happening in the world: Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, which, in addition to immense human suffering, contributes to economic uncertainty. This, together with, among other things, the remaining effects of the covid pandemic, has resulted in a rapidly changing economic environment.

For Swedish households, it is noticeable primarily in sharp price increases in areas that directly affect everyday life: food, electricity, and fuel. In addition, there is the concern of higher interest rates. In a situation where we would have needed a government that acted quickly and resolutely to protect the most vulnerable households and secure welfare, we see something else emerge in this budget.

The Åkesson-Kristersson government's Finance Minister has today presented a budget of cuts for the welfare system. It is something extraordinary. Those who uphold the welfare system are already under heavy pressure after many years of over-reliance on a neoliberal-inspired efficiency ideology. The high inflation rate now places an additional, very heavy burden on the economies of the municipalities and regions and thus on the welfare professionals. The increase in pension costs, food prices, electricity bills, and local rents now risks leading to school staff having to be laid off, nurses losing colleagues instead of getting new ones, and already unreasonable minute-schedules within elderly care having to be managed with fewer people doing the work.

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely this that is pending with this budget. SKR (Sveriges kommuner och regioner) recently pointed out that an additional supplement of at least 20 billion is needed for the municipal sector so that it can maintain the same quality and the same staffing density in relation to the needs. Konjunkturinstitutet has been in the vicinity of similar figures.

The Finance Minister is now trying to gloss over this. She says there will be more money for the municipalities. But that trick is neither particularly sophisticated nor particularly dignified. Resources in the tens of billions are missing, and that means fewer colleagues out there. These 10 billion mean that nurses disappear from the hospitals and that nursing assistants are laid off in elderly care. This corresponds to 15,000 fewer employees.

The message from the Åkesson-Kristersson government is: Good luck! Perhaps it is intended that one should find some management philosophy that shows PowerPoint images about choosing joy when one is forced to run faster. Perhaps Ester, who is not getting help to go to the toilet, or Bengt, who has to wait another month for his operation, should instead rejoice at continued tax subsidies for pool cleaning. Perhaps we are all expected to adopt the same reclined attitude as Elisabeth Svantesson's overcoat, SD's Oscar Sjöstedt, namely that "sometimes reality is haunting."

Mr. Speaker! A state budget implies priorities. And yes, it is certainly a number of priorities that have been made here. It is such priorities that with painful clarity show which people in Sweden this government sees and cares about and which people see their concerns neglected or worsened.

I can offer some self-reflection questions here: Am I a person with a fortune of a few tens of millions of kronor and preferably upwards of 1 billion - net, meaning where housing with associated loans is excluded? Am I possibly a commercial welfare profiteer, who thus makes large profits directly from public funds intended for education or care? Here, lobbyists for such activities can also make a small mark. And finally: Am I perhaps in such a galactic position that I and my potential children are not affected by the effects of climate collapse in the form of coastal flooding, degraded groundwater, risks of spreading new pests and pandemics?

If you belong to these categories, you can feel a certain security that the government is working for you and looking out for your immediate interests. But otherwise, if you are not there, it is shockingly passive.

For a fairly average wage earner in Sweden, there is not much more than communication about lowered expectations to lean on. Those who have small margins have to take the hardest hit. Those who are long-term sick or unemployed and those who are forced to live on social assistance have had it really difficult the last few months. There is not much to look forward to with this budget.

I note that the Sweden Democrats present the lack of a deterioration of the unemployment insurance as a victory. But let it be clear that the unemployment insurance today does not provide adequate income-related protection for a large group of the population. It also remains a substantial reduction for those who have been unemployed for more than 100 days - a risk that is now increasing with the crisis and with the government's substandard policy. The levels in the unemployment insurance are also not being adjusted upwards, so it will be harder to manage on the "unchanged" unemployment insurance.

Mr. Speaker! There is a large wallet proposal in the government's toolbox, and it has to do with compensation for the high electricity prices. Such a system is good. But it is as if the government somehow cannot manage to present proposals that can function compensatorily and that can contribute to the burdens being distributed more fairly.

So, there will be nothing at all for northern Sweden, despite the fact that there have also been increases there, based on the price that one otherwise could have planned for. And there will be, as we could see the other day, many millions also to companies that have not had very high costs for electricity.

A serious problem with the proposed compensation is that it is not presented as a complement, but is instead presented in place of doing something about the underlying problem. Sweden has had and has cheap electricity production that goes to export. But the Swedish electricity prices, especially in southern Sweden, are imported from the continent, where one has relied on cheap Russian fossil gas. While the power companies have made enormous profits, Swedish consumers and industries have thus seen these enormous price increases.

Vänsterpartiet has presented proposals for a different pricing model, Sverigepriser, where the price is set in two steps: first on domestic consumption and then on export, which therefore shall not cease. It would have been to do something about this in a forward-looking way. But in the government's budget, there is nothing.

Mr. Speaker! This is a budget that, in the short term, misses the injustices in our society. In the long term, it is a budget that makes Sweden a country with poorer opportunities to create prosperity and welfare, a country that is being torn apart, which becomes more insecure and which, instead of a common commitment to invest in transition, offers a faster push toward climate collapse.

We would need to and be able to invest heavily in moving passenger and freight traffic to the rails. Instead, the government is scrapping the plans for high-speed trains, discarding a proposal for a mode-neutral and rural-friendly travel deduction, and moving money away from railway maintenance.

We would need to and be able to invest broadly in strengthening our energy system with investments in transmission capacity and proper initiatives to strengthen the contribution from wind power and other renewable sources. Instead, the government has only talked about offering one single thing: nuclear power, which perhaps will come at some point in the future. On this, they are allocating 80 million kronor. It is almost as if one could have scraped together those funds at the Government Offices.

We would need to and be able to ensure that many more homes were made energy-efficient. Instead, the government is removing important investment supports and throwing us back many years in time.

All this also constitutes missed opportunities for jobs and development in Sweden. It is so tragic, so irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker! There has been talk of a paradigm shift. A massive such paradigm shift in Swedish politics we see today, when election promises that were made just recently, up until the day before the election, are simply set aside. This applies to fuel prices, taxes, welfare, and the labor market. I am not standing here mourning that some right-wing policies are not being realized. But what is serious is this unscrupulous attitude towards the voters and towards the truth. It is not any external circumstances that have suddenly shifted. It is only some of those present here's titles, offices, and salary levels that have changed.

It is frightening. It is the kind of thing that undermines trust both in and for a mature democracy like Sweden. And we already know how this gang can sound, what boundaries they have shown themselves to be prepared to cross. How much more scapegoating will we have to witness when the failures that have piled up in record time are to be handled?

Everyone who lives and works in this country deserves better - deserves to be seen, to be represented and to be able to participate in a collective nation-building instead of being abandoned to the whims of the market. The government's budget will be yet another reminder of the need for a different path, of resistance against the right-conservative attempts to dismantle so much of what has made Sweden a country we can be proud of. We need a path for solidarity and consideration. I know that these are words that are deeply foreign to those who have put together this budget proposal, but I also know that they find resonance all around our country.

(Applause)

In this speech, Birger Lahti (V) concurred.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by congratulating the newly appointed Minister for Finance on her important assignment.

I also want to say at the beginning that there are good things in this budget. It is good that the government is increasing resources to the police and the justice system, even though more could have been done to prevent crime. It is good that the defense appropriation is being increased, even though more could have been done for civil defense. It is good that investment is being made in charging infrastructure, even though it is insufficient.

But, Mr. Speaker, today we in the liberal opposition also have a duty to speak about the empty, gaping holes in the budget in completely central areas - such as jobs, the situation in the countryside, and the climate. In that regard, this budget reminds one of the tale of the tailor who was to make a beautiful garment. The customer came again and again, and in the end, what was supposed to be so magnificent, was only an inch.

We have a duty in this situation to stand up for the young person who is worried about their job now that the economy is weakening, for the entrepreneur who cannot manage to hire because this government is raising the tax on hiring, and for the many households in the countryside who are completely dependent on the car and who thought that the price of diesel at the pump would go down by 5-10 kronor but who now get 40 öre.

We must stand up for the families who, yesterday, on November 7, planned to eventually get the chance to buy an electric car, a hybrid car, or a gas car and thereby be able to do something about both their economic situation and the climate. Today, with the new government's budget, they are deprived of that chance because the climate bonus is being removed quickly and cheekily.

Mr. Speaker! We are heading into a serious macroeconomic storm with increased energy prices, with globally rising inflation, with interest rates that threaten our households that have heavily mortgaged houses and with real wages that are decreasing. It is a conjuncture that turns next year with a great risk of recession and rising unemployment. Now, if ever, the government, we have needed this liberal, bourgeois policy that allows companies to create more jobs and turn the recession with jobs and growth.

The young person who is now trying to seek a job could previously see other young people getting jobs, as youth unemployment fell. Thanks to the fact that, among others, Centerpartiet made it much cheaper to employ young people, youth unemployment fell sharply, by a third. But on March 31, when the reduction expires, just when the young people face the toughest labor market in living memory with again sharply rising unemployment, likely also youth unemployment, this government shock-raises the tax on employing young people by 12 percentage points. Just then, when companies are under severe pressure and we really need the engine of the Swedish economy the most, the tax on jobs and work is raised instead of being lowered.

Six times more in this budget is allocated to increasing the unemployment insurance than to making it easier to hire and work in this country. Where is the Alliance's labor policy, which took us through the financial crisis and the euro crisis?

To you who believe in liberal values, in entrepreneurship and in the work line, I say: Do not lose hope! There is a liberal alternative in the Riksdag.

But I still want, Mr. Speaker, to specifically speak about those in the countryside who are having a very tough time right now, those who are dependent on the car to get to work, to drive their children to hockey, or to get to the health center. They are being pressured by rising prices, not least on food. They remember Ebba Busch's "bonnasnack" in Eskilstuna and all the talk from the other parties about how important the countryside was.

One was not always so concrete, but one thing everyone heard and remembers: Jimmie Åkesson promised that it would be ten kronor cheaper to fuel the car at the pump. Ebba promised 9 kronor on Instagram. And Elisabeth Svantesson stood in the Riksdag's rostrum not so many months ago and promised - promised! - a 5 kronor lower price, as long as one chose this government. What happened, when diesel prices are now soaring to 27-28 kronor? It became 40 öre - only one-third of what the Centerpartiet had concrete, which also would have been better for the climate because we lowered the tax on the environmentally friendly part of the fuel.

And what happened to the new travel deduction, which was supposed to move billions from those who commute by car in large cities that have trams, subways and buses to those in the countryside who are completely dependent on the car? Did it become billions? No, it became the old travel deduction, where half of all the billions go back to the large cities.

How did it turn out for the farmers, who have skyrocketing prices on fertilizer and feed and who are crucial for the self-sufficiency of food in our country and for avoiding skyrocketing food prices? Yes, you extended - but only for six months, Oscar Sjöstedt - the reduction to zero of the tax on diesel for agriculture and forestry. On the other hand, there was no new support and nothing more in the rural development program.

And all this with the railway, the broadband and the mobile coverage, what became of that? Nothing. Less. What became of the possibility to, on my farm, my microbrewery or my vineyard, sell beer or wine and get tourists from all over the world? Nothing.

But I want to say something to all of you who feel that this feels like betrayal after betrayal after betrayal. It is a long, long line of broken promises. It has been "bonnasnack" and Instagram promises. It didn't become anything in everyday life, in the wallet, in the concrete.

Remember that there is a rural party in the Riksdag that will stand up for you, your internet connection, your mobile coverage, your health center, your village school, your roads and railways and your rural snacks! It is also about lighting, plowing and self-sufficiency when it comes to Swedish food. Do not despair! There is a rural liberal alternative.

Many who have stood at the pump and seen the hundreds and thousands fly away have dreamed of switching to a climate-friendly car, an electric hybrid, a gas car. Today, the rug has been pulled out from under them. There will be no 70,000 kronor in climate bonus and no 20,000 for hybrids. And all that with the electrification, which was supposed to facilitate the transition, is not happening. It will be a hard blow to the stomach. Apparently, it is enough that half of all cars are electric cars. Now it can just sink again.

Some thought: I might not be able to afford an electric car, but I can at least get biofuel made in Sweden in my mind. The reduction obligation will become nothing. It is to be lowered to the minimum level for biofuel in Sweden. That is what we are going to Egypt to tell all the other countries that are struggling with the climate issue. That is what is Sweden's model and example for the world.

It won't be 5 kronor when it comes to diesel. There will be no possibility of changing cars if I cannot afford it – and neither biofuel. But what am I supposed to do then? How am I supposed to be able to contribute? Furthermore, there won't be any wind power for the new green industry, because we are going to skimp on the connections. We have to wait even longer until nuclear power eventually arrives.

There is no order in the climate policy. It is disorder. It is a mess. Emissions will rise, say the experts, not fall.

But I say something to all of you who have been proud, you in this chamber and you who are listening, because Sweden has been an example that has shone over the world and that has gone further than others. Do not despair! There is a green liberal alternative in the Riksdag that still wants fossil-free steel, batteries, green chemistry and so on.

I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that nothing in this crisis - it is an economic crisis, a crisis for many in the countryside and a climate crisis - is predestined. A better future will come. There is an alternative that is optimistic, future-oriented and solution-oriented, and it will remain in the Riksdag.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This summer, I met a friend here in Stockholm who works in the financial industry. He commented on the situation in the Swedish economy with the words: Hasse! Do you really want to win the election in September?

The answer from my side was a clear yes. Sweden needed a new government, a government that tackles the common problems that exist. But of course, I understood his comment. The government that took office three weeks ago cannot rule during a flourishing boom with low or non-existent interest rates, but we are now entering a recession with high inflation, rising interest rates, and high unemployment which particularly affects those born abroad. This places demands on a well-balanced fiscal policy, and therefore the government presented a budget today that takes this into account.

The submitted budget is restrained, but it still contains important measures that support Swedish households and companies, and it contains some first important reforms to turn around the Swedish development in several areas. One such is healthcare.

The care queues shall be shortened, and accessibility shall increase. The Government is therefore putting forward 4.5 billion over the next three years to produce more care places and a strengthened care. The total number of care places shall increase across the entire country, so that more people can receive care in time.

4.7 billion will be spent over the next three years on an increased and extended investment in maternity care and women's health. Every woman should be able to feel safe during her pregnancy as well as before, during and after childbirth.

A national state healthcare coordination is being initiated to increase access to care and to shorten healthcare queues. By, among other things, being able to make visible where available and accessible capacity exists in the country, waiting patients shall be able to receive care more quickly where the capacity actually exists.

We also have a developed use of what is called physical activity on prescription, FaR.

These are Christian Democratic reforms that are now the government's policy for better healthcare throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker! As a priest and parish pastor, I have seen firsthand the involuntary loneliness that affects many of our elderly. This was also, for me personally, one of the most important issues during the past election campaign. One has met people and seen their reaction when one has said that involuntary loneliness is actually as dangerous as smoking.

Loneliness can lead to both mental and physical illnesses and cost human suffering but also large healthcare resources. Involuntary loneliness also increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia, and mental ill-health. Involuntary loneliness brings with it great negative consequences for society, especially among the elderly, and it has been intensified during the covid-19 pandemic that we have gone through.

To strengthen public health and to reduce the consequences of involuntary loneliness, the government proposes a three-year community initiative involving approximately 300 million kronor per year.

Funds are now directed to municipalities and regions for specific interventions for the elderly through elderly calls and health calls. The calls shall primarily be directed at elderly persons who do not have home care or live in a special housing facility. The sports movement's work shall be strengthened when it comes to sports for the elderly. Funds shall be allocated to civil society's work to break involuntary loneliness.

Mr. Speaker! The conditions for those who live and work in the countryside must be improved. For that, a purposeful and long-term political effort is required, a policy so that all of Sweden can function. It is, among other things, about working long-term for competitive conditions for Swedish agriculture and forestry, but also for people who live in the countryside to be able to afford to travel to work and have good opportunities to charge their cars, and that everyone shall have access to fast broadband.

The government has therefore, in this budget, put forward among other things the following: reduced tax on agricultural diesel, charging infrastructure across the country, increased maintenance of the roads, expansion of broadband, and an enhanced travel deduction.

The objective is simple: All of Sweden shall function.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have received the blue-brown government's budget bill on the floor of the Riksdag. It is a sorrowful reading, for it is a declaration of war against an effective and functioning climate and environmental policy and against everything that builds an equal and just society.

It is a pitch-black budget being presented in a time of war in our immediate vicinity and skyrocketing climate change. It is presented at the same time as people are forced to turn over every krona to make the money last the whole month. It is presented in a time when we need to increase security for people. It is about the security of knowing that one receives the care they need and the security that children are doing well in preschool and receive the knowledge they need in school. It is presented in a time when more people than ever are forced to flee.

This government's response seems to be to send the bill to those who are the worst off - both in Sweden and in the world.

Right now, the world's leaders are gathering in Egypt to move the work against climate change forward. But far too many countries, like Sweden, are coming with reduced ambitions and plans that are far too weak.

I believe that others will have understanding that we currently need to implement measures that temporarily increase emissions in Sweden, the Minister for Climate and Environment said last week. I hope that the Minister's statement never reaches the people in Pakistan who are now struggling against floods or farmers in Kenya who see their livestock die of thirst and their crops dry up.

This is actually nothing less than a mockery. Sweden's position has previously been the only reasonable one: that the wealthier part of the world has an obligation to go first. It is incredibly tragic that the current government's position seems to be the complete opposite.

Climate and Environment Minister Pourmokhtari has also tried to assure us that this government has no lowered ambitions in the environmental or climate fields, but now we all see that this is nothing more than empty words. In the name of truth, it was probably none of the parties in the government that were particularly passionate about climate or environmental policy previously, but we were few who believed that the slaughter we now see would be the result of the negotiations with Sverigedemokraterna. We still believed that the parties included in the government took the seriousness of climate change and environmental destruction seriously. Now we can state that was not the case.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's plan still consists, primarily, of the climate policy framework and its two very simple goals. For the first, the transport sector shall have reduced its emissions by 70 percent by 2030. For the second, Sweden shall reach net-zero emissions by 2045. Both of these goals have been adopted with broad agreement in this chamber, at least by the parties that sign on to universal laws, rules, and conventions.

Until December 2021, when Miljöpartiet chose not to join the government, Sweden was well on its way to reaching these goals. Now it is the opposite. Now we are putting the brake on. Just the proposal to abolish the reduction obligation increases Sweden's emissions by 5 million tons per year - an increase in emissions that is 50 times larger than the operation of Karlshamnsverket. It is more than 10 percent of Sweden's annual emissions. If we additionally add the lowered fuel tax and that the fairer reform that the travel deduction represented, which was also adopted in the Riksdag with broad consensus, is being torn up, yes, then it becomes increasingly obvious what is happening.

The government does not only lack climate ambitions. They are quickly backing down on the progress that has been made. They continue to repeat the same talking points, but what they are doing in practice is trying to put lipstick on a pig with a hardly impressive result.

The government seems to have decided to call its own climate and environmental policy "effective". I will give them some credit for that: It is incredibly effective at increasing emissions and slaughtering reforms that actually work.

Now fossil fuels are becoming cheaper. Fossil fuel car commuters in large cities are to receive subsidies, while those who choose the electric car or the train are left out. What was just said to be that not everyone can afford an electric car is today called that the cost of owning and driving a climate bonus car is starting to become comparable with the cost of owning and driving a gasoline or diesel car. These are sudden shifts!

The government refers to electrification, carbon capture, and investments in wetlands to compensate. But everyone who knows anything about this policy knows that it is not enough.

Electrification will not remove the emissions from the millions of fossil fuel cars that roll in Sweden every day. When it comes to carbon capture, it is something that Miljöpartiet also introduced initiatives on. Unfortunately, the assessment from the responsible authorities is that we will not capture a single gram of carbon dioxide during this mandate period, perhaps with the exception of in a few test facilities.

In addition to the fact that too little is being done too slowly in the climate area, money is also being taken from the protection of valuable nature, even though we are not only facing climate changes that will have serious effects on people's opportunities to live on this planet but also a nature crisis with reduced biodiversity. It is also a threat to our way of life. It is a veritable slaughter of the ambitions and the resources that are allocated.

In a few weeks, we in Miljöpartiet will present our shadow budget. If the government is at least interested in a climate and environmental policy that is effective and actually works, I suggest that they read it.

Mr. Speaker! Not so long ago, when migration policy was being discussed, tones were heard from the blue-brown party that it is better to help on-site. It now seems to have been replaced by that it is better to help as little as possible.

The new government has made it clear that Sweden is abandoning the commitment to allocate 1 percent of the country's total income to aid. It is a decision that will hit people hard all over the world. With aid, we are participating in building democracies. We give girls and women more empowerment, we give children the opportunity for schooling, and we contribute with disaster relief where it is needed. If the aid becomes less, fewer children will get a chance to go to school. If the aid becomes less, there will be food on fewer plates. If the aid becomes less, civil society fighting for freedom will receive fewer resources.

I know that the government also knows all of this. But it seems as if it is most convenient not to pretend.

Leaving the one percent goal is a slippery slope. The fact that the aid level is linked precisely to GNI is about us in the world's wealthy countries contributing according to our ability and in relation to our prosperity. We now risk, instead, losing long-term perspective and predictability. The system is disrupted, which creates great insecurity for everyone fighting for democracy, equality, and human rights.

The aid was underfunded even when the pandemic hit. With the energy crisis, economic crisis, and Russia's war against Ukraine, the needs in the world have increased. The number of people going hungry is increasing, and over 100 million people are in flight. To then let the Swedish aid go in the opposite direction is a betrayal of the world's poor and vulnerable.

Sweden has long been a pioneer in aid. This has meant that we have not only had a good reputation but also that we have been able to push important issues forward internationally, such as the feminist foreign and development policy.

Now we are scaling back, and when Sweden - one of the world's wealthiest countries - scales back its ambitions, there is a risk that other countries will follow suit. In a time when the crises sweeping the world show a clear need for more international cooperation, the government chooses less.

There is much to say about this government, the policy, and the budget. But let me also say something about the opposition. There are many of us who know that another path for Sweden is possible, who actually believe in building a society on hope instead of on hate, who are ready to do what is required to save this planet, and who want to do it together.

(Applause)

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is a pleasure to stand here again!

Many very gloomy things have been said here. But I would still like to put what is now happening in our country and in the rest of the world into perspective. Economic fluctuations are actually quite normal. The pandemic, however, was much deeper and more difficult than anything we have experienced in decades, and therefore it became possible during the pandemic to release public resources and invest very large sums.

It was, so to speak, a one-time opportunity. In economic policy, however, one must have a readiness to live with cyclical variations, and this is one of them.

What is exceptional this time is the record-breaking speed of the price increases and the inflation that disrupts the entire balance of the economy and when it comes to how one conducts economic policy. This has occurred through sharp interest rate hikes, primarily in the governing countries USA and the United Kingdom and among the major central banks in Europe.

However, we do not know how this will work. Will it break inflation quite quickly, or will it become a protracted process, and how protracted will it be in that case? It is partly due to this uncertainty about how the countermeasures will work that it is wise to be cautious and reserved with measures.

Sweden is therefore caught between, on one hand, the large countries' interest rate hikes to curb domestic inflation and, on the other hand, our desire to increase public spending and the incomes of people and companies to counter the recession here at home. It is a balancing act - balancing on a knife's edge.

The big question for us is actually whether the large countries' interest rate policies will quickly lead to a shift in the economic situation and break their inflation, which would benefit us, or if the inflation will bite its teeth in. According to the budget's forecast, which one naturally has to take with a certain caution, the change will occur during next year.

Mr. Speaker! Now I come to the truly big problem. I am very surprised by this debate. The big problem in Sweden is not the price of gasoline or inflation - it is unemployment. It has stuck at a level of 6-7 percent and could very well rise to 8 or 9 percent.

How has this happened, Mr. Speaker? We have had a workers' government for many years. There, one has not been able to see the risk that unemployment sticks at a high level that becomes very difficult to bring down. It is much harder to bring down unemployment than inflation. It requires a long series of measures.

In this government, the Liberals have been given responsibility for integration, labor market policy, and other types of structural measures that can reduce unemployment. This is the great challenge. It is not the price of gasoline or inflation.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the election, the voters gave the Moderaterna, Sverigedemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna a mandate to turn around the development in Sweden - a mandate for a new direction for Sweden.

We have heard talk of hope here today. Our four parties believe that the development that has gone so wrong for so many years regarding fatal shootings, a destroyed energy system and exclusion and much more can be reversed.

We have hope that parents will dare to send their children alone to football practice again. We have hope that children will not end up in the middle of shootings. We have hope that we will get more clean electricity at a good price. We have hope that all those who have been left and forgotten in exclusion by previous governments - they have been passivized, and no one has asked for them - will enter the Swedish labor market.

This is the mandate we have received. We have hope. We understand that this will not be easy. We will work hard every day, and I am glad that my colleagues from the government who are here think exactly the same way.

We have not taken on this assignment for any other reason than that we want to turn the development around. We love Sweden.

(Applause)

Finally, Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the other four parties, I am nevertheless glad that they did not form a government, because they do not agree on anything in principle.

I am pleased with the confidence that the voters have given us. We will manage that confidence well.

(Applause)

In this speech, John E Weinerhall (M) concurred.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first congratulate Elisabeth Svantesson on the new assignment. It is a privilege to be Finance Minister, not least in these times when we are heading towards tough economic starting points.

Sweden is heading towards a recession. I could have asked a question about this with the broken promises and so on. But I am thinking more about something specific that concerns exactly the economy and work, namely the question of construction.

Last summer, when I was Finance Minister, there was a process in the Committee on Finance regarding how we should handle the investment support for the construction of rental apartments. At that time, a majority with Elisabeth Svantesson's Moderates chose to write that the starting point was that all applications that had been submitted by January 1, 2022, would be processed. Now, it is said in the budget that it only concerns those who have been granted [support] up to January 1, 2023. You are cutting the entire queue!

Could you not have said this before the election to all those young people who wonder how they can move out from home, to all those municipalities that are working to increase housing construction, and to all those construction companies that are waiting to put the spade in the ground? You intend to brake the construction just as Sweden enters a recession.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for the question! We are facing a very tough and difficult time.

For us in our four parties, it is very central to prioritize what is important and to do this with a financing that does not involve borrowing. What do we do then? Well, we ensure that we reprioritize.

There are four parts we are reprioritizing. It concerns the investment support, which our parties have been negative towards for a long time. It concerns the climate bonus, which this year costs up to 7 billion if it is to continue. It concerns the aid, which is now placed in one and the same framework over three years. These are three of the important parts.

Prioritizing in a difficult time is something this government will do and something that I, as Finance Minister, will do. It is about taking responsibility to ensure that resources are available for welfare, defense, the judiciary, and the police. It is about taking responsibility in a difficult time.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that this government does not seem to prioritize combating unemployment when we head towards a recession because it is cutting back on labor market policy. It does not seem to prioritize providing support to those who need to educate themselves when we head towards a recession, because there are 20,000 fewer training places than this year. Furthermore, it is cutting back on construction in a time when we head towards a recession.

We know that there are several municipalities in Sweden whose biggest growth obstacle is precisely the issue of staff competence. There, one needs to build. It risks braking the green industrial revolution in northern Sweden if we do not build enough housing.

What is the logic in slowing down construction when we are heading straight into a recession?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is up to 16 billion kronor over the coming years that Mikael Damberg thinks it is a good idea to spend on inefficient construction subsidies. But it is not this that starts or continues the construction in Sweden; it is about entirely other things.

One example is red tape. It was never simple for the previous government: Why should one make it easier to build when one can instead continue to portion out billions of the taxpayers' money?

I would still like to thank Mikael Damberg for bringing up the labor market. It is an issue that we have debated many times. I am deeply concerned about all those who have been left behind and abandoned to their fate during the past eight years.

More people need to enter a workplace or a placement. More people need vocational adult education. More people need to become employable. More people need to be pulled out of benefit dependency. We begin that work now. We take responsibility, prioritize among the taxpayers' money, and focus on ensuring that those who stand far outside will get in.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! Before the election, Elisabeth Svantesson agreed to work together with Vänsterpartiet and KD to push through extra billions to municipalities and regions to meet increased needs within the welfare sector.

Now those needs are acute due to the effects of inflation. Layoffs of staff in the welfare sector are threatening. It would be very bad for those who become unemployed, for those who are left with an unsustainable working situation, for those who are in need of welfare services, and for the Swedish economy, which is really not served by even higher unemployment.

Now Elisabeth Svantesson is the Finance Minister. She sees the figures, manages the Ministry of Finance, and can present the proposals. What happens then? She presents a budget of cuts. She chooses to keep the generating low capital taxes and huge subsidies for those who are well off. One can get support for both cleaning and heating the pool. But she does not want to protect nurses, teachers, or social workers, those who make our society stronger. Why, Elisabeth Svantesson?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ali Esbati, for the question!

First, I would like to take the opportunity to thank Vänsterpartiet. We cooperated during the last parliamentary term on several important issues. For example, we stopped the gap year together and ensured that the money went to welfare. We have, as Ali Esbati also mentions, made major investments in elderly care.

I continue to take responsibility, both in opposition and now that I sit in the government. That is what I will do. That is why we are now strengthening the welfare with both general and targeted state grants. It will be needed.

It is also the case that it will be tough for everyone. It will be tough for Sweden's municipalities and regions. It will be tough for many companies and for many households.

What we can do, we shall do. It is to prioritize so that we ensure that employment in these important sectors does not decrease.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is not correct that the government is strengthening the welfare. This is a budget of cuts; it is quite obvious to most.

This could lead to up to 15,000 people having to be laid off, and then the question is who should be allowed to go. Is it the teachers in the schools who are too many? Is it the nursing assistants who toil within elderly care? Is it nurses, of whom it would be good to have more in the hospitals? The money is there. It is obvious. It is the priorities that the government makes that point in this direction.

It is not true that everyone is getting it tough. Some are not getting it any tougher at all. Those who have had it very good are not getting it tougher with this government's budget, so I ask again. Why make priorities that result in the billionaires being left alone while it is nursing assistants, teachers, and nurses who have to pay for the crisis? Why?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Ali Esbati might need to change his point of order. This budget is a budget that strengthens those who have the smallest margins the most. Ali Esbati is welcome to read the financial plan and look at those tables, but also read the budget.

We are strengthening the municipal and regional sector. Then there are temporary funds that disappear due to the pandemic, but we are strengthening the basic operations. It is an important announcement that I, as Finance Minister, also consider to be very central at this time.

We do not know how the economy will develop. That is also why we have set a budget that is not expansive, even though we are entering a recession. We do not want to drive up inflation. But there is a possibility, a room for maneuver, if it is the case that the economy should falter and become worse than the forecast that currently exists. In that case, there is a room for maneuver to do what is necessary and what is required then, and we will have to return to that. But we make the assessment that these resources will facilitate the welfare activities.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I heard Carl B Hamilton from the Liberals speak here in the rostrum recently about how unemployment is the biggest problem in the Swedish economy despite it having gone down. Now it is on the way up again.

Then I wonder why you are not making any major investments to reduce unemployment in this budget, why you are raising the tax on hiring for small businesses and not lowering it, why you let the employer contribution for young people increase by 12 percent in March, just when the economy is heading towards its deepest stage, and why you instead allocate six times greater resources to an unemployment insurance fund that is unchanged from what the Social Democrats did during the pandemic – instead of, as there is now an opportunity to, reform it according to the Danish model.

You want Danish laws in Sweden, but you apparently do not want Danish unemployment insurance in Sweden. Instead, you are going to spend more money and raise taxes for small businesses and their ability to hire. Why is this a policy for unemployment and not for jobs, Elisabeth Svantesson?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is no secret that we have had different views on the unemployment insurance fund. But now we have decided together that it shall continue to be permanently high, as it has been during the pandemic.

One can still observe that the unemployment insurance fund is not indexed due to inflation, so there is a sense of fairness in it increasing in a situation where all other benefits are being adjusted - the guaranteed pension, student support and many others.

But the question is very relevant. What is this government doing for the country's small business owners? Well, very much.

The small business owners I meet want Sweden to be safe. They do not want to be exposed to crime. They want cheaper fuels, not Martin Ådahl's doubled reduction obligation. They want less red tape.

Therefore, we are now establishing an implementation council that will facilitate things for them and reduce red tape. We are doing a number of different things to facilitate things for Sweden's companies. These were some of them, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is classic to answer difficult questions with something completely different.

The question was why you do not reform the unemployment insurance so that it is strong at the beginning and is phased down like a real transition insurance, as in Denmark. Instead, you just put a lot of money into it.

The second question was why you are raising the tax on hiring. Then it is no longer possible to talk about fuel prices, even though it was before the election and now it is after the election. I have heard the trucking companies complaining about the Svantesson prices on diesel now that there will be no reductions at the pump, so it is not possible to blame that now.

Now you must take responsibility for small businesses' ability to hire in this extremely difficult economic situation, and the Finance Minister must answer why the tax on hiring young people is being shock-increased just when youth unemployment risks rising so sharply.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If there is anything I do and intend to do, it is to take responsibility – responsibility for Sweden in a difficult time, responsibility for the economic development, and responsibility for ensuring that the fight against inflation is not undermined and that we get out of this recession, which we hope will not become too deep, in the best possible way. That is the responsibility I intend to take.

I mentioned to a member earlier that there is also a scope for action. We leave a scope for action if it happens that the economic situation deepens dramatically. In that case, different types of economic policy, which must constantly be measured against inflation, will naturally be needed.

We are doing a number of important things for Sweden's entrepreneurs, as I mentioned. The list can be made longer.

I still cannot help but note that Martin Ådahl seems to long for more reductions on fuels. We will deliver those already on January 1 next year and on January 1, 2024. But Martin Ådahl himself wants to double the reduction obligation in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! At the press conference that the Minister for Finance held this morning, it was clarified that this is not an environment-party budget. God knows, for this is a budget that lets those who have it the worst and future generations pay the bill. The climate work is not only stalling in the absence of ambitions, but it is the rug being pulled out from under the feet.

We have now heard what is to be removed regarding both the climate transition and the nature conservation investments. It concerns things such as lowered fuel tax, scrapped new main lines, reduced railway maintenance, reduced reduction obligation, abolished climate bonus for electric cars - yes, the list can be long.

But we still know nothing about how the environmental and climate goals are to be achieved, so I would now like to ask the Minister for Finance: How are the government and the Sweden Democrats to achieve the Swedish environmental and climate goals?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Wise questions! I can also emphasize that it is not Green Party-style climate and environmental policy that our four parties will engage in. That, in fact, does not lead primarily to reduced emissions but to completely different things. For example, shutting down Ringhals 1 and 2 increases emissions by approximately 8 million tons, according to experts. That is Green Party-style climate policy, and that is what we are now turning away from.

Sweden must be electrified. I am very pleased, for example, that electric car sales have truly increased dramatically in recent years. That also means that the environmental bonus – which I return to – which is estimated to cost 7 billion kronor this year, is no longer needed. It is coming; the development is going in the completely right direction.

What do we do then? Laddinfrastruktur is important. Now my speaking time is ending; I will have to continue during my next minute.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is very good to have expanded charging infrastructure. That is something we have also invested in for a long time. But it does not help if one has no electric cars to drive to the charging stations.

It is also noteworthy that the government in its own budget actually writes that with the policy pursued by the previous government, in which the Miljöpartiet was included, the transport goals would be reached. One would get significantly further. But with the lowered ambitions, one will not do that now. What the Finance Minister says – that our climate policy was ineffective – is therefore noteworthy, when one himself in his budget writes that it was not.

We cannot continue to have a climate and environmental debate that is about nuclear power. Nuclear power will not get us out of this situation. What we need now to quickly get more electricity for lowered prices and for electrification is offshore wind power. On the government's table lies now an opportunity to actually ensure that such is introduced. I hope that it is taken advantage of.

I also want to know: How much emissions will this budget entail in total?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Janine Alm Ericson, for the question! Let me say two things.

One thing is: Yes, we will discuss nuclear power a lot in the years ahead, because nuclear power is needed. It is stable and safe electricity, and it is clean. It will be needed in the energy mix.

The second thing is: We will see an even stronger development towards electric cars. We are moving towards it, and we are aware of the EU's decision on fossil fuels. Those cars will disappear. That development is therefore underway, perhaps more than any of us suspected, and that is very good.

But one must be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. Right now, many people who cannot afford to buy an electric car are struggling, not even with the Miljöpartiet bonus. They are struggling to make their finances work. Food is expensive, and the cost of housing is high; everything is expensive. They must have their car to commute to work. We see those people, and we will make it easier for all those who are struggling because of, for example, high fuel prices.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! As we head towards tougher times, it is important that the Swedish economy is in order - that we have a strong public economy and a low national debt that gives us a trump card to be able to meet even worse times, if it should be needed.

We also have a strength in the Swedish labor market. In fact, there have never been as many people going to work as there are right now. Our employment rate is high, and our labor force participation is high. But we also have problems with long-term unemployment that must be combated.

But the interesting thing about the debate I have listened to today is that from the government parties and the Sweden Democrats, who have now presented their first joint budget, it sounds completely different now than it did during the election campaign. It is like being on two completely different planets. The proposals being presented now are completely different from those you went to the election on. This creates quite a lot of confusion, not least among the people who followed the election campaign and believed that something radically different would now happen in a number of areas.

This has actually continued even after the election, when the budget was presented. Just take the gas price - I know that the Sverigedemokraterna promised that it would decrease by 6.50 at the pump. Then the government came out and said: No, there will be a reduction of 1 krona on the tax at the turn of the year. When one then started reading the details, it turned out that they also, naturally, worked with indexing, and then parts of that increased so that the reduction was removed. So it only became 14 öre on the gas.

If one says 1 krona and it is actually 14 öre, trust is undermined. If one, as the Christian Democrats say, says that we are to invest 1.7 billion on maternity care and it turns out that 1.5 billion of these are our investments that we decided on last year and there are now only 200 million kronor in the tables, trust is undermined. I believe it is important to be clear and honest towards the voters, especially in difficult times that require tough prioritizations.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I began my first speech by saying that this is a good start, and I certainly stand by that. But it is truly only a beginning; that is how it should be seen. The mandate period is barely two months old, and the government has been in power for three weeks.

I have, genuinely and seriously, full respect and understanding for the voters who want a lot to happen, very quickly. It doesn't always work with so much and so quickly. It is a large and at times quite complex legislative matter that we need to get in place for many of the reforms that we want to make. With just this budget bill, we have also, Mr. Speaker, worked under a considerable amount of time pressure. I have, as I said, full respect for the impatience – I feel it myself as well. But things take a little time. It will not go very quickly, but it will always move forward.

I can promise our voters that we will do everything in our power to drive development within the framework of the agreement and the consensus that is the basis for this entire government support. But there is so much that has been disregarded in Sweden for so many years now, so try to have understanding that it will take some time. Migration policy, crime policy, energy policy, tax policy, rural policy etcetera - there is so much that has been mismanaged for such a long time, so it will take a while to sort this out.

But I promise that I will do everything I can to get this in order, and I am one hundred percent sure that the same applies to my 72 colleagues in the Sverigedemokraternas parliamentary group.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mattias Eriksson Falk and Rashid Farivar (both SD) concurred.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think it is surprising even for the Sweden Democrats how a budget is negotiated and what time perspectives apply to this. That was known before the election.

You have presented your first autumn budget, and the Sweden Democrats need to take responsibility for the first time for everything that is in the budget - and everything that is not in the budget. For now, you are responsible for the policy that the government presents.

You have broken promise after promise at a furious pace. The interesting thing now concerns the distribution policy; I would like to ask a question about it. In the budget, at the turn of the year, you are lowering the tax by 10,000 kronor for high-income earners. Those such as Oscar Sjöstedt and I, who perhaps do not struggle with the bills and the problems with them, would get a tax reduction, while for ordinary people it becomes a reduction of 14 öre at the pump for gasoline. How did the Sverigedemokraterna reason when you made that prioritization?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am a bit confused regarding the question of tax cuts for high-income earners. Could it be that Mikael Damberg is referring to the indexation and the threshold? Could it be in that way? No decision is being made, but it happens automatically, that is to say, it is adjusted in parity with the income base amounts. But there are no decisions to lower the tax for either high- or low-income earners, which is a bit unfortunate. We will have to return to this a bit later when the situation is a bit different; when inflation is single-digit instead of double-digit.

This is a bit strange. Here we have the former Minister for Finance from the previous government, who during two terms has consistently and regularly pursued a policy regarding fuel that has led to the situation we are in now. It is about regular – every year – tax increases and increases of the reduction obligation. Now we are starting to roll it back. Then we receive criticism for doing too little. How does that add up?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I merely note that you promised 6.50 at the pump for gasoline. It became 14 öre. I believe many are surprised by that. It is connected to how one works with indexations. The government has chosen to change certain indexations, but not the indexation on the threshold. That means that Oscar Sjöstedt and I will receive a tax reduction of 10,000 kronor next year, while those who are struggling with their finances get a tax reduction at the pump of 14 öre. It is a prioritization that the Sverigedemokraterna have chosen to push through.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have no memory at all of the previous government having proposals to remove the indexing of the threshold levels. There are no changes, so to speak. This has existed during the last parliamentary term and during the term before that, that is, also during the time that Mikael Damberg was Finance Minister. I have no memory of the government having any proposal to remove the indexing of the threshold levels during the last parliamentary term.

We are not finished - for God's sake. Far from it! We will come forward with reductions regarding the price at the pump, regarding the gasoline and the diesel. We are not finished. It will take some time with the mileage setting and the reduction obligation, but then it will have an effect.

We are also not finished with the tax cuts. More is coming. I promise!

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was during the election campaign that the Sweden Democrats spoke about 10 kronor regarding fuel prices. Pensions were to be increased by 2,000 kronor a month, and there was to be fair electricity support for households. Now we can state that after the election, it is a different tune. Not a single one of the promises is being kept.

What was it that happened? Was it that the Sweden Democrats backed down as soon as Kristersson let you into the inner circles? Or have you never stood up for what you said from the beginning? Probably it is the latter that applies, namely that it was deliberate disinformation from a group that prioritizes their own power positions above everything else.

How is it possible that in a budget covering over 1,200 billion, where one shovels around at least 50 billion, not a single extra krona is allocated to the country's pensioners, Oscar Sjöstedt?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ali Esbati for the question. I raised the issue in my first speech.

I think it is understood that no major reforms have been completed when it comes to the pension system. The government has been in power for three weeks today. One does not have time to complete any major reforms of a large and partially complex system in three weeks. That is the simple answer.

What the government will do now is invite all parties. The old Pensions Group with five parties instead of eight, we can leave there. I explained in my first speech what points of entry I will have. It is, of course, about increased contributions into the pension system in order to raise the pensions in that way. If one thinks that a government can manage this in three weeks, one is too optimistic. It is not wrong in itself to have high ambitions and be an optimist, but it does not work.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have never been optimistic on Oscar Sjöstedt's behalf, but I am talking about what was promised during the election campaign and what the Swedish people were led to believe there were proposals for. There are a number of proposals that could have been implemented if there had been support among those he has campaigned with.

I also understand that one cannot get everything through, but here, one has not gotten anything through.

Yes, Oscar Sjöstedt mentioned the pension working group. One interpretation of this is that what has been pushed through is a kind of coffee break with the other seven parties regarding pensions. That can be pleasant, depending on the company, but it was not what was said to the Swedish people during the election campaign. We are talking about how one relates to the truth and to one's own election promises. In the long run, this has implications for the pensioners' finances and for Swedish democracy.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is the same thing here. The government has been in power for three weeks. I have not, and I do not believe any of my colleagues have, promised that we will do things in three weeks. I do not believe any party has included anything such as that in its election manifesto. Excuse me, but it takes some time! The government has been in power for three weeks.

It is a question of major reforms. Inserting a gear into the pension system is not done in three weeks either. Increased contributions to the pension system are not done in three weeks either. At best, it may be something to talk about before the budget bill for 2024 or even 2025. It can take that long. Unfortunately!

I will not let go of these questions, and we must assume that the government will provide coffee during the deliberations. I will have a high tone, and I hope that Ali Esbati will also have it. Who knows – we might find a consensus on the issues regarding the pension system. It is not entirely impossible.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have here an advertisement from SD 2022: Slash the diesel price tomorrow! Fuel 10 kronor cheaper with our policy.

This was from the day before the election. Tomorrow is therefore the election day in the advertisement.

Now Oscar Sjöstedt says that it doesn't quite work like that. We said that before the election, and we might have wished that you had also said it.

Oscar Sjöstedt has repeated that it will come later, now it is different, now it is after the election and it will take time. Can Oscar Sjöstedt simply answer the question of when, as a result of your policy, the diesel price will be 10 kronor lower, as you promised the voters in the countryside. When?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree, whoever it was who posted the advertisement, that promising something on election day itself was perhaps a bit premature.

This will take place in stages. One stage will occur at the upcoming turn of the year, on 1 January 2023. At that time, a tax cut and a significant increase in the mileage allowance will occur. The next stage will come at the next turn of the year, on 1 January 2024. At that point, the reduction obligation will be phased out further. Then we will have, at best, an additional 4, 5, or 6 kronor. Depending on how the global situation looks and where we stand, more obviously needs to be done on the tax side as well, perhaps also more for the mileage allowance. Who knows?

This will happen in stages and somewhat depending on how the development looks. We do not control the world market price. But the mileage setting, the tax side, and the reduction obligation are within our control, and those are the parameters we have to work with. It will happen in stages.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I note that it went fast here. When we started talking, it was a question of 10 kronor. Now it is 4, 5 or 6 kronor. We have to see depending on the world market situation. Now it is once again Putin who is in the driver's seat and the war in Ukraine that we are to hope for - not your politics.

Is this the new announcement from Oscar Sjöstedt and SD to Sweden's car-dependent rural residents? They are wondering when the reductions will come. Is it 5 or 6 kronor at some point in the future?

Speaking of the mileage allowance: Why are you taking these billions that should go towards a very significantly increased car allowance in the countryside and giving them to short-distance commuters in large cities who have access to public transport?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I did not think I was so unclear. I did not say at some point in the future; I said that there will be one step now until the turn of the year, on 1 January 2023, and another step until the next turn of the year, on 1 January 2024. Yes, it is in the future but not unspecified.

Of course, we are affected by the world market price. If the world market price increases even more, the need to tinker with the parameters we have, such as the tax, also increases. If the world market price falls sharply, this need decreases. World factors obviously play a role in how much or how little important it is.

As the Minister for Finance accounted for, we had a diesel price of 13-14 kronor just a few years ago. If we have such a price, I do not see the same need for tax cuts as at 28-29 kronor.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! That it might take some time, we have heard quite many times from Oscar Sjöstedt in this debate - and that is how it can go when reality comes and interferes.

In the speaker's chair, Oscar Sjöstedt spoke about the important dental care reform, which many of us want to see. But it certainly cannot be done directly either. An investigation must be conducted. But there is already an investigation that is ready to be carried out. Is it not a bit of a waste of time and resources to investigate this again? There are many who suffer from poor dental health due to poor finances who would have wanted to see this reform implemented as soon as possible.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am getting questions about why we haven't done everything in three weeks, so I am trying to explain that it takes some time. I understand that I am repetitive, but it is because I am getting these types of questions.

I am pleased that we share the view that the dental care reform is urgent. The Sweden Democrats have indeed pushed to have it included in the Tidö Agreement, and I have no self-interest in delaying it. What the coalition parties have agreed upon is that it shall be implemented during the mandate period, but we have not agreed on exactly when. Therefore, I do not want to promise anything that I might later have to back out of. I cannot, therefore, state an exact date, but we have agreed that this shall be implemented during the mandate period. I cannot be any clearer than that, so we will have to return to it.

But, as I said, how pleasant that the view of the need for such a reform is shared by several.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, there are several of us who want to see such a thing. That is also why an investigation has been conducted, which could be implemented directly.

I can have some understanding that one cannot get that far in three weeks. But throughout the entire election campaign, the Prime Minister has said that his alternatives are in agreement on policy. Now, however, it looks like there wasn't that much agreement.

Oscar Sjöstedt says that one does not want to delay. In that case, one should take the investigation to heart and put proposals on the table so that this reform can reach the people as quickly as possible. I believe that was what they had expected from such an election promise.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree. I share this view. It shall not rest on him, but we will move forward with this reform as soon as possible and we can get the other three parties on board.

I cannot take responsibility for what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign, but he has repeatedly said that the four parties that make up today's government base are significantly more in agreement than the other four parties. I believe that most people agree with this.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! In the election, the blue-brown parties promised a great deal to people who were already struggling with higher prices for food, electricity, and transport. Now these parties have entered into their coalition agreement and received the keys to the Government Offices. At the same time, the crisis affects millions of Swedes, who have the right to expect a crisis package that takes their anxiety seriously.

Vänsterpartiet sees how people are struggling and how the money is not enough despite turning over the coins. We have already presented a number of proposals that could be included in such a package.

One could introduce a temporary single-parent supplement of 500 kronor per month and children in the child allowance, which in a simple way would give 350,000 parents, often in a tight economic situation, a better opportunity to manage 2023.

One could strengthen the unemployment insurance fund by raising the floor and the ceiling and removing the reduction after 100 days, which would strengthen the finances of many severely disadvantaged people by a few thousand kronor.

One could strengthen the sickness insurance by raising the ceiling for the sickness benefit for job seekers and raising the compensation level in the sickness and activity allowance.

One could increase the maintenance support to reduce the risk of severe poverty, temporarily provide the opportunity for cheaper preschool and free school, and halve the ticket prices in public transport.

All of this could have been accommodated with other priorities – if one had cared about more than just one's very closest allies and principals.

Now, instead, people are left in the lurch while the Sweden Democrats and their supporting parties in the government bask in the newly acquired positions of power.

The differences in Swedish politics could hardly be clearer than this.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It seems that the government is unusually reluctant to take the opposition's point.

I could have used my last minutes in the budget debate to talk about the enormous challenge for the municipalities, the funding of healthcare and schools during this difficult recession, the need to create jobs in growing companies so that we can manage this, and how this is once again missed by this government, which fails many of the ideals that should be liberal and conservative.

But after listening to a budget debate marked by hopelessness and a scapegoating mentality, where immigration is described as the root of almost all our problems and the solution is spelled zero immigration and tougher measures, it is important that someone in this chamber speaks out. Without immigration, Sweden would be poorer by many tens of thousands of companies, many hundreds of thousands of jobs that these have created, and many billions in tax revenues, which the Finance Minister is now using.

We must begin to speak about those who contribute to Sweden as entrepreneurs, doctors and nurses who uphold our healthcare and welfare, and about police officers who protect our residents and combat crime.

When we talk about integration, we must look at it with optimism and solutions - brilliant schools, brilliant areas, jobs and entrepreneurship - for all the young people who are going to enter the labor market, not with this ingrained hopelessness and pessimism. This is what we in Centerpartiet will stand up for in these dark times.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to devote my two minutes to speaking about Swedish aid. The Christian Democrats have protected and continue to protect an effective and generous aid.

The Christian Democrats have succeeded in negotiations in averting a fairly significant dismantling of the aid. The result that we have and that is in the budget we have now submitted to the Riksdag is an aid at such a level that only Luxembourg gives more.

Then there is a change in the aid that I appreciate very much, namely that we are increasing the accuracy and the support to Sweden's most needy with the new orientation. OECD and DAC have criticized Sweden for having too many and scattered goals, which has made it difficult to oversee the aid. And during recent years, a growing proportion of Swedish aid has been channeled through large multinational organizations, with a shrinking proportion having gone through civil society. This is now changing.

I have some voluntary board positions alongside my mandate as a member of Parliament, and one of the finest is sitting on the board of Lepramissionen here in Sweden. It is an organization where 87 percent of the collected funds go to the people in need. A central part of the aid policy that Sweden is to pursue will now be that more effective aid is carried out by having the aid conveyed to a greater extent through Lepramissionen and other civil society organizations.

Solidarity and care for our fellow human beings is one of the fundamental principles in Christian Democratic philosophy and politics. The driving force behind the party's commitment to creating effective and generous aid is a manifestation of this. Here I see a step in the right direction regarding both efficiency and control, while at the same time we merge aid policy with trade policy. It is a step in the right direction, so I think we Christian Democrats should be satisfied with what we have achieved in the budget negotiations that have been carried out.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! In the election campaign we have now left behind, the Christian Democrats, in addition to the strong commitment to casting suspicion on ethnic minorities and otherwise normalizing racism and right-wing populism, also had a very strong focus on sausage. His Eklind's party leader traveled and was photographed with what was reported to be a very Swedish falukorv. As far as I understood, this was intended to emphasize that many in Sweden are living in difficult, expensive times.

Now, the Christian Democrats did not make any noticeable own mark in the agreement that constitutes the government's platform, but one could have imagined that a bit more would be visible in the budget. Now it has arrived, and it is difficult to discern anything of the sort. Especially little happens when it comes to the promises to meet the effects of price increases on food and other basic goods. All the families with children who struggle hard to make the finances work do not get much help from KD in this "post-sausage-photo" situation. How does it feel on a day like this, Hans Eklind?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Ali Esbati!

It feels really good that we have ensured that the housing allowance is now extended to families with children. Then, I am, in itself, questioning the description that we have not managed to make an impact on the budget. Now, I only had five minutes of speaking time, but I still spent a significant part of the time exemplifying the parts where I see a direct connection to what the Christian Democrats have highlighted very clearly during this year's election campaign.

We see that a national healthcare mediation is now to be created, and in that, increased state control is something we are calling for. A question to Ali Esbati could be: Is Vänsterpartiet on board with going in that direction?

We have also made significant reinforcements of the healthcare's possibilities to create more care beds across the country, within maternity care and so on, so there are indeed Christian Democratic parts in this year's budget that are extremely clear.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! I must be honest and say that I was thinking more about the families with children than about the Christian Democrats regarding what I am concerned about. It is interesting that the only thing Hans Eklind takes up that would help these families with children is a proposal that the government has not implemented. What is being done is extending something that existed before. I also think it is good that it is being extended, but my question was how one meets the increased problems as the crisis deepens. I must state that I did not receive any real answer. It was more important to wave around with claims that it would get better and to show the "falukorv" [the sausage], but not much was followed up after that.

When it comes to healthcare, I can say that we in Vänsterpartiet do not believe that a national healthcare mediation will outweigh the fact that many nurses and perhaps doctors will need to be laid off. So we make our priorities.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that all families with children who are following this debate are very happy that the government has expedited the possibility of obtaining a high-cost protection for electricity. This means an enormous amount for every family who, for example, has the privilege of living in a villa and who would very much like to stay. Both I and Ali Esbati have surely read the same news about people who have actually been forced to sell their homes because they cannot manage the electricity bill.

We are now starting with the reduction of fuel costs by 1 krona, and then, through the reduction obligation on January 1, 2024, we will ensure that both diesel and gasoline prices are lowered significantly. This will be seen as very good by families with children who drive their children to extracurricular activities.

In the budget, we also have the introduction of a leisure card, so that children do not have to forgo leisure activities because the family's wallet does not allow it. On top of this, we have the travel deduction, which I believe is incredibly important for children whose parents have a way to travel to work. This also frees up funds for the family at home.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! After Hans Eklind's contribution, it is tempting to ask how one is to manage Ukraine, the acute food situation in the world, the new climate disasters and so on with less money for aid, and how it can be so much more with so much less. My question, however, concerns Hans Eklind's previous contribution regarding Sweden's farmers.

The Christian Democrats have formed a farmers' association and now consider themselves to have a farmers' policy, and then I wonder something. We have, together – the Christian Democrats, the Moderates, and actually the Sweden Democrats – had a majority for an announcement to increase the emergency aid to Sweden's farmers by half a billion, which the EU has made possible. Why is this not included in the budget? Is the crisis over now for Sweden's farmers when it comes to fertilizer, feed, and diesel? And why is nothing added to the rural development program?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have not grown up in the countryside myself, of course, but I have some close friends who are farmers. They have been very clear about what is a top priority in order to be able to manage to continue running a farm at all. It is about getting down the price of fuel and the price of electricity. Then, of course, it is about the fact that things have become seriously messed up with artificial fertilizer, but I know that Martin Ådahl is aware of that. On this point, one must nevertheless say that the government is delivering.

I listened to Martin Ådahl's first contribution, and I wondered a bit. Is C going to submit a budget motion in a couple of weeks with a proposal of 20 billion to bring down fuel prices? It seems as if C is suddenly champions for getting fuel prices down significantly. It is not quite the C-policy that we others have encountered here in the chamber or during the election campaign.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I note that Hans Eklind does not answer why one does not present what matters for Sweden's farmers. Speaking of sausages and painted pigs, there are pig farmers who are having a very tough time right now. Why is it then not presented, yet another rural billion for the rural program, even though we agreed on it before the election? Why this betrayal?

Since Hans Eklind is now steering the entire issue toward fuel prices, I have another question regarding the Center Party's maximum reduction of the tax on fuel prices for Sweden's farmers, which we reduced to 0 kronor. Now it is being extended for six months - thanks for that - but why is it not being made permanent? I shall reveal to Hans that I have also spoken with a good number of farmers, and they want this permanently. It is already fully investigated. And why are they not allowed to have farm sales of alcohol from their microbreweries? Is it KD that is against this as well?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Farm sales may not exactly be an issue for today's budget debate. But I will nevertheless answer the questions a little bit.

I sometimes think that we in Sweden perhaps do not have the financial sector that one has in London and England, and we do not have the oil like the Norwegians. But we have a production in industry, in the forest, in agriculture and in the mines.

What I feel we have now secured in Sweden is a government that presents a budget with heart for all of Sweden. We have had a situation in Sweden where Trafikverket has reduced the speed on road sections. Why? Well, because the road maintenance has not been handled in a correct manner.

In this budget that you have received today, Martin Ådahl, you see that there is room for so many things. The reduction of the tax on diesel for agriculture and forestry is for half a year. But we shall see what happens. There is still a room for action until it expires.

Then I think we have strengthened the infrastructure with precisely the broadband. I just want to point out that it is also included in this budget.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Hans Eklind for highlighting the perspective of international solidarity and the importance of Swedish aid. But it is still somewhat regrettable that when one chooses to abandon the one percent goal in aid, one does so in some kind of whataboutism regarding what others are doing. But it is about Swedish policy, and it is that which we are responsible for. Just because others do not do enough is no excuse for us not to do what we can.

Then it may sound somewhat good that one should reduce the support to the UN organizations. But a very large amount of what they do constitutes the backbone of the system - the infrastructure - so that the others can also reach out with their aid efforts.

The Christian Democrats were very clear before the election about standing up for the one percent goal in aid. This is therefore a flagrant breach of promise. How could they agree to move away from the one percent goal?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Perhaps one of the contributing reasons was that we managed to achieve something that actually answered the question of what and not just how. That is: How much money is one question. But what we can do with this money is another question.

We Christian Democrats think that we reached a good compromise. Given the starting point that existed in the negotiations, I think it is a great success. But we have also now ensured that we have an 8 percent limit for how much of the aid can be offset.

I can send a question back to Janine Alm Ericson. Are you satisfied with the situation that has been? We know that the government cut by 18 percent for the current year in connection with the Ukraine crisis. Civil society organizations received a reduction of 38 percent without any warning whatsoever. Is that good aid policy? Things have happened, not just regarding the amount but also regarding the way the aid policy is managed that I, as a Christian Democrat, am satisfied with.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is very good that the Christian Democrats have passed the 8 percent threshold. But they have still failed the one percent goal.

Hans Eklind refers to what happened in and with the war in Ukraine. At that time, we were not in the government. We had no responsibility for that policy. We were very clear that the large scale-backs that were made then really should not be made, because we as a wealthy country near Ukraine have the opportunity to help them without withdrawing such large resources from the very poorest and most vulnerable.

It is still good that we get a very clear answer from the Christian Democrats here that it is okay with a breach of promise when it concerns a very important election promise if it then suits their own policy and reality better. I hope that the voters, who saw the Christian Democrats as the guarantor that the one percent goal would remain, will remember that.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Until the day when the Christian Democrats gather 50 percent plus 1 and we have our own majority in this Riksdag, I believe absolutely that one should think of the voters as if the voters thought in the way that Janine Alm Ericson now expressed. Those voters who have voted for the Christian Democrats have voted for a strong voice for Swedish aid, and that is precisely what they have received in the negotiations.

We have ensured that the aid now does good for the most important things. We have ensured that the aid is at a much higher level than it would have been if the Christian Democrats had not been present.

Now, there is also an opportunity for us, within this government's framework, to ensure that the aid to the UN's aid organization for Palestine is frozen. They are not doing a bit of good down there. Islamic Relief is full of Islamism. It is a Jewish rhetoric that is purely frightening that the leading representatives there have made themselves guilty of. It is also an organization that we shall review so that we can also freeze aid to those organizations that do not do any good or that are not suitable. Then we shall use the organizations that can make a real difference.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! The green transition must not only take place; it must also be fair. Miljöpartiet has consistently over the past years advocated that the state should primarily provide support to those who have been hit hardest by increased costs without, for that reason, giving up on the climate goals. When prices for fuel and electricity increase, support is needed in particular for those who live close to their economic margins and for those who are hit hard because they lack alternative means of transport to the car.

For the money that the government is now lowering the fuel tax with, one could instead have given everyone living in the countryside almost 5,000 kronor more in their wallets. Many would probably have appreciated that more than a price reduction on gasoline of 14 öre. Not least, the climate would have appreciated it. Now, instead, the largest part of this money goes to people in and around our large cities who take the car even though the alternatives are many.

The government says it protects education and that everyone should have good opportunities in life. But now, they want to turn culture into a class issue by introducing entrance fees to museums, removing the support for the culture school, and reducing the grants to folk education. Also, reading, which we all know is very important for many of life's skills, takes a hit as the support for staffed school libraries is withdrawn. All of this the government is doing to a cultural sector that is still in the aftermath of the pandemic.

That the welfare in many parts is on its knees has hardly escaped the government's notice. Daily, alarms come in about substandard maternity care and exhausted nurses. For every budget that does not truly attempt to address this problem, the quality in healthcare and elderly care sinks. Unfortunately, we can now add another such budget to the pile, for this is not a budget for a Sweden that holds together.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! I previously raised a question that I am very concerned about and have thought a lot about, namely how the Social Democratic Workers' Party has been able to sit in power for so many years with so many capable people, and yet unemployment has risen to 7-8 percent. I can say that it is a failing grade. But actually, I am not so interested in grading in that way but rather want a discussion on why it has become so in this country, which is otherwise so well-organized and thoroughly organized. How did it become like this, and what can we do about it? I mean that we must return to that question and not just discuss how much money should go to welfare and this and that on the financial side.

We in the Liberals have a great interest in the school, and we have submitted a number of proposals: more special education teachers, special pedagogical interventions, further education for teachers, safety and study environments in the school by removing noise, more and new textbooks, as well as follow-up on the school's quality - which has been a major issue recently - and what the School Inspectorate can do in that regard. We also have proposals regarding profits in the free school.

I mean that it must now be an end to this where unemployment in some way, at least for me as I follow the debate, seems to have been relegated to some kind of secondary position. So it cannot be. It has been in first place for many decades, and we shall go back there.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Carl B Hamilton, for re-entering the budget debates and for speaking about very important issues, namely unemployment, the labor market and people who are left out!

The Social Democrats and the Liberals have had good cooperation at various historical occasions. Even during the last government period, we had an economic cooperation with the Liberals, and I know that the Liberals are committed to the issue of both combating exclusion and ensuring that people get into work.

I raised the issue of unemployment in my speech, because I see that we are now heading into a recession. We certainly managed the pandemic quite well regarding the labor market; we emerged stronger than before. We also saw that long-term unemployment began to be eroded. Now, however, we are heading towards worse times, and then there is the risk that unemployment will become entrenched. The question then is: Who is it that is unemployed? Well, it is those with too poor an education or too low qualifications for the labor market. Therefore, I argue that it is the wrong time to withdraw 1.5 billion in labor market policy and 20,000 training places in Kunskapslyftet.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! Just as Mikael Damberg exemplified, I believe it is the structural issues that must be focused on. It does not help to increase demand generally in the economy, as one perhaps could have done at that time when the education level was simpler and less differentiated between different people.

If we can together generate an increased interest in structural reforms that lead to increased employment - yes, employment is already good, so I will instead say reduced unemployment - I believe that would be very valuable. I and my party focus primarily on reforms in the area of school and education in this context.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I gladly take up the thrown glove and say that it is an exciting discussion that we would like to have together with the Liberals and other parties, that is, how we keep the focus on people getting into work and how we implement structural reforms related to knowledge so that people get closer to the labor market.

I am worried that the budget unfortunately cuts back on the areas that are really needed now as we enter a recession. I am also a bit worried that the large transition agreement on the labor market that the parties have concluded might not be implemented. I believe it is a key to a functioning working life. I believe it is the largest structural reform we have made, and we will be world leaders in transition on the labor market. But then the government should not go in and tinker with the transition study support that the parties and the previous government backed up; I believe it would be very unfortunate for the development of trust between the labor market parties and the government.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! I decline to say more.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request a reply but was somewhat surprised by the content of Carl B Hamilton's speech. I began at times to wonder whether Carl B Hamilton had not noted that the Liberals during the previous parliamentary term were involved in submitting budgets that would solve these problems. It was strange.

It became even a bit stranger, I must say, when the initiatives that Carl B Hamilton mentions would be good are those that one cuts back on in this budget. There will be fewer investments in labor market policy and fewer investments in vocational training. One also cuts back on adult education, which makes a major contribution when it comes to adults being able to get closer to the labor market. I wonder how that aligns with Carl B Hamilton's statement.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! One perhaps should not have Ali Esbati as a yardstick for what is strange and what is not strange.

To be honest: The labor market policy has lost its power. It has lost in efficiency. It is not as easy as it perhaps was in Gunnar Sträng's time, that is to say that you get more people into work and reduced unemployment if you allocate more money to the labor market policy. As we have said here earlier, it is much more complicated mechanisms that explain why people are not in work. It is a harder task, quite simply. That is well the answer to that question.

When it comes to us cutting back on a lot of things, I think that what is perhaps most controversial and at the same time perhaps most important is this matter of strengthening the monitoring of the quality and profits of schools in independent schools. We must continue that entire discussion.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! Carl B Hamilton and I are at least in agreement that it is not as it was in Gunnar Sträng's time. There we can be in agreement.

If it is indeed the case that Carl B Hamilton and his party have begun to gain some insights into the problems with the uniquely marketized Swedish school, it is of course pleasing, but we see nothing of that – or any other reforms in the school area – in the budget we are debating. I would gladly begin to discern the effects of such a reorientation, if it is indeed real, in upcoming proposals from this government – or in the opposition to upcoming proposals from this government.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! We realized the problems and opportunities of the school a long time ago, and probably on a deeper and more comprehensive level than the Left Party ever has. I therefore do not feel quite struck.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I could not resist the opportunity to request a reply from my former teacher and professor. I appreciate the wise tone he has here in the chamber.

I have two questions. One concerns the very drastic cut in funds for matching for the unemployed, which several others have touched upon. There is an ongoing process to reform Arbetsförmedlingen. The last time such a drastic cut was made, it caused a very large commotion, and I fear that it will do so again.

The second question concerns something that Carl B Hamilton's representative, Mats Persson, brought up during the entire election campaign when the pensions were discussed. He said that we lower [the taxes] for the guaranteed pensioners and for those who are worst off, while the Liberals lower [them] for everyone. Without the Liberals, everyone gets nothing. Then we in the Center Party replied that we support that tax reduction on pensions. We support that announcement from the Riksdag. We are prepared to make that tax reduction on all pensions in this tough situation. But to our great surprise, it is not included in this budget at all.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! I am not versed in the issue of the taxation of pensions, so I cannot answer that question.

Regarding reforms of Arbetsförmedlingen, it is an old sorrowful - or not funny, but it is a sorrowful - story. The failure regarding Arbetsförmedlingen's function or the result of Arbetsförmedlingen's activities that one can see if one looks back at a 10-15-year period is an important and serious reason. It has not succeeded. We travel from Sweden to Australia to see how they do it, but previously one rather traveled to Sweden and Europe from Australia to see how one should do it. It is a fundamental error that has developed. With the deficient knowledge I have, I cannot untangle that situation.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I must say that I appreciate Carl B Hamilton's humility regarding these issues because I know that he has a very deep knowledge of many economic issues. I still want to say as a final point that it will become very big problems if one makes these drastic cuts without any proper plan. Even the best plans from Australia and from other places, with carefully controlled actors who deliver results-based and who actually – unlike the old policy – have given good results in recent years for the unemployed, can then be shocked and then unfortunately perhaps cannot be implemented.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! I yield the floor.

The debate on the occasion of the submission of the budget bill was hereby concluded.

The budget bill was tabled.

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