Debate on the occasion of the submission of the budget bill

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! What a time we live in! It is a time when Sweden is being tested, when the brutal, serious crime now also turns children into both murderers and victims. At the same time, we live in a time with the most difficult security policy situation since the Second World War. The terror threat level in Sweden has been raised.

Add to that a testing economic time for very many people all around in our country. I see, and I know, that many households are struggling right now. They are struggling with high food prices, and many are worried about high mortgage costs. For those who are completely dependent on the car, fuel prices are eating up an ever larger part of the income. This is truly a time when Sweden is being tested.

When we met here in the budget debate barely a year ago, I said that Sweden is heading into an economic winter. And here we are now. We have high inflation, and we are judged to be in a recession until 2025.

The budget that the government and the Sweden Democrats are presenting today is adapted for exactly this situation. It ensures that we can continue to fight inflation while simultaneously leveling the burdens that inflation entails. We prioritize defense, the justice system, and welfare, all to increase the security for those who live here in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I will first just say a few short words about the forecast for next year. The Swedish economy continues to be characterized by a weak economic development against the background of high inflation and higher interest rates. So it is both here and in the rest of the world. Household consumption is expected to develop weakly, and investments and exports likewise.

The assessment is also that the labor market will weaken in the recession next year. A clear risk picture is that the slowdown could be stronger than expected, with higher unemployment as a result. It matters how things go in our neighboring countries and whether the larger economies such as USA, China and Germany develop negatively. Right now, the American economy is doing quite well, but Germany and China are doing worse. If this continues, the recession could become deeper.

Mr. Speaker! The Government continues to work according to a very clear plan to take us through this economic situation. It is about fighting inflation but also about supporting both households and welfare activities.

I know that there are those in here, and some outside the walls of the Riksdag, who think that the policy should be much more expansive. But to pursue a strongly expansive fiscal policy would fuel inflation, and that would make everything even more expensive. The Swedish people would become even poorer.

Those who want to take that risk should go out into reality and talk to people here on the street. Talk to the retiree and with the families with children! Talk to your relatives! Many do that, and you know that inflation torments people. When you meet the most vulnerable, for example at one of Matmissionen's stores around Sweden, you know what inflation does to people.

Mr. Speaker! To facilitate for households during this period, the government and the Sweden Democrats are doing several important things. We are extending the increased housing allowance for the most vulnerable. We are lowering the reduction obligation on January 1. Together with a lower tax on fuels, it makes a difference for those who are dependent on their car. The reduction in tax that we have had on agricultural diesel, we are now extending. It improves competitiveness and facilitates Swedish food production, and it also affects prices.

Mr. Speaker! Schools, elderly care homes and hospitals all over the country are facing a tough economic situation due to inflation. Even though there have been large surpluses in the sector over the recent years - and some regions and municipalities naturally also use this to manage the temporary cost increases - many are being pressured right now.

That is why the coalition parties are investing 16 billion kronor next year in welfare. 16 billion - that is 40 percent of the reform space that exists. We know that the deficit that is calculated is 28 billion of the total turnover of the welfare activities at 1,300 billion. We facilitate and take half of this deficit, and it will make a big difference for welfare.

The second part of the government's plan concerns establishing the work line. In order for more people to leave benefit dependency and be able to support themselves, better and clearer incentives are required. Therefore, during this mandate period, we are implementing a major benefit reform including, among other things, a benefit ceiling. We will now review the multi-child supplement so that it actually increases the incentives for work.

I usually say that inflation is the wage earner's worst enemy. What do I mean by that? Well, very many who have different types of compensations and benefits have now seen these increase and be indexed upwards in line with inflation. But ordinary wage earners have lost a lot during this year. They have received real wage cuts.

That is why we propose a broad tax cut from the turn of the year, primarily aimed at low- and middle-income earners. It makes it more profitable to work, and at the same time, we support those who need it most. This will make a big difference. We will finance it during the next year by pausing the upward adjustment of the threshold for state income tax. It was historically high this year, and next year we think it is reasonable and right to ensure that everyone receives a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker! We will, of course, also lower the tax on pensions for everyone who has worked. I am also very happy to be able to say as Finance Minister that we are compensating the 57:s for the major mistake that was made by the previous government but which many of us actually also voted through here in the Riksdag. I am glad that we can rectify it.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! The work line is also about providing opportunities. That is why we are now investing in, for example, SFI teaching but also in establishment jobs. Had Johan Pehrson been here, both he and I would probably have said: Now we are delivering on the establishment jobs, which the parties agreed on several years ago! Now we expect the parties to also do their part of this.

The third part of our plan is about implementing reforms to increase growth. The issue of skills supply is one of the major issues right now. Therefore, it matters that we are now expanding engineering education, universities of applied sciences, and adult education to create more paths and more jobs in shortage occupations. This year we increased the R&D deduction, and next year we are extending the expert tax from five to seven years. That makes a difference.

It will also make a difference that we introduce a simplification council next year, which will seriously ensure that we can reduce the red tape for Swedish companies. Today, it consumes a lot of time, effort, and money.

Mr. Speaker, the state's most important task is to guarantee security and safety for the citizens. Without safety - no freedom. We have war in our immediate vicinity and an elevated terror threat level in Sweden. The past year has been characterized by ruthless violence at levels and in places that we have not seen before. Preschool classes are currently practicing sheltering in case the playground were to end up in the gangs' crossfire. And as I said earlier, there are actually children in Sweden running around with automatic weapons and aiming them at other children.

This is a pitch-black development. We in our four parties have decided: This development must be reversed!

It is a situation that requires a historical upgrade. We cannot afford not to prioritize both defense, police and the justice system. What we are doing now is expensive and demanding and forces us into tough reprioritizations and prioritizations, but it is completely and fully necessary.

That is why we are increasing the defense commitment so that we already next year reach 2 percent of GDP with NATO's definition. That is why we now continue to expand the justice system, build prisons and strengthen the police to address this.

Not least important, Mr. Speaker, is that the preventive work is being strengthened. We are making a historic investment in social services with an amended Social Services Act, but also with resources to work with children who should not have to end up in the clutches of criminals.

(Applause)

And speaking of children, Mr. Speaker: Few things are as important for Sweden's future as Sweden's children and that they receive a good education and a good start in life regardless of how they have it at home. I know, and I know that many of you know, how important school was for us. Every child has a right to a good education.

The coalition parties' goal is very clear: the school shall return to the basics. Skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic shall be prioritized early. It is knowledge development that shall be in focus.

Mr. Speaker! For many children, school is also a sanctuary. A sanctuary from what, one might wonder. Yes, among other things, from honor-oppression. Few things upset me so much. I know that many of us in here, from all parties, feel that small boys and small girls should be allowed to grow up and become exactly who they want to be. They should not be hindered in their development and in their freedom. That is why we allocate more funds and resources in the budget to increase knowledge about honor-related violence and oppression. We also want to see that the measures become even more accurate. Sweden shall be fantastic for every boy and every girl who grows up here.

(Applause)

One must also receive the right care at the right time, regardless of where one lives in Sweden. We are therefore working on a national healthcare coordination that is to be established, all in order to shorten the healthcare queues. We also propose in the budget investments in increased support for cancer care and women's health, but also for work against mental illness.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is also in many respects a model in climate policy. The business sector is far ahead, households are very active, and the climate policy is ambitious. We shall continue on that path.

In the budget, we are strengthening, among other things, Industriklivet and Klimatklivet and focusing even more on electrification. If we are to transition and emissions are to go down, we must electrify. Then we must have more clean electricity. We shall have a focus on nuclear power, but here and now also on charging infrastructure and a scrapping premium so that more actually switch from a petrol or diesel car to an electric car. That journey begins now.

Mr. Speaker! An important priority for the government is that the Swedish people shall get better value for their tax money. That is why we are working hard to address fraud and crime in our welfare systems. We are also reviewing the expenditures in the state administration and propose, among other things, a general saving in the state administration. Also, the work to reduce the number of agencies begins now.

Mr. Speaker! I will soon go down for landing.

Sweden is, as I said initially, in a very tough time. But we must also not forget that Sweden has many strengths that give us good conditions to get through this together. One important strength is, naturally, the Swedish economy - strong public finances and low national debt. Another is that we are now, unlike the previous parliamentary term, returning to orderly budget processes. That we have a majority for the budget matters, especially in a restless time. It creates predictability for both companies and households.

Men, Mr. Speaker, Sweden's greatest strength is the people - all of us who live here. I am thinking of you who set the alarm to catch the bus every morning or wake up to take the night shift at the factory. I am thinking of you who are reading that course to get your first job or who will soon write your first exam. I am thinking of you who are farmers and work from morning until late evening so that we others can have food on the table. I am thinking of you who are entrepreneurs and perhaps invent tomorrow's new solutions. I am thinking of you who are retirees and have put a whole working life behind you. It is all of you who make Sweden. It is all of you who in so many ways make Sweden a fantastic country to live in.

Our budget, this budget, is intended to make things easier for you. It shall fight inflation and support you in your everyday lives, but it shall also address all the major problems that Sweden has. Our four coalition parties are, in fact, convinced that the development we see can be reversed. That journey has begun, and we continue it.

(Applause)

In this speech, Louise Meijer, Johanna Rantsi and Boriana Åberg (all M) agreed.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a restless and dramatic time. We have to go back to the 40s to find a security threat to our country and our citizens of equal magnitude. We have to go back to the 50s to find a corresponding increase in food prices and to the 90s to find an equally tough economic challenge. Construction is coming to a standstill, unemployment is increasing, and gang violence is escalating.

In this time, we are gathered in this chamber to debate the Sverigedemokraternas and the government parties' proposal for the state budget for next year. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is a budget that does not reflect the seriousness that the situation demands. It is a budget that makes Sweden poorer. It is a budget that continues to underfund the welfare system, which slows down the building of the prosperous country Sweden and which does not address the major societal problems.

I mean that it is weak. It is insufficient. When our country faces difficult challenges, strong leadership is required. Our country can do much better than this.

Mr. Speaker! The economic crisis continues to plague Sweden and Europe. Households have had to eat into their savings to meet their bills. But the interest costs continue to rise. The rent continues to go up. Food prices weigh on the wallet. Ten years of real wage increases have been eroded by inflation.

Now inflation has finally started to turn downwards. But the recession looks to be driving up unemployment, and investments are being dampened.

Let us summarize the government's economic results so far. The price increases in Sweden have been larger than in other comparable countries, almost twice as large as in Denmark. Sweden's growth looks set to be among the worst in the entire EU. Sweden is becoming poorer. Ordinary families with ordinary incomes are finding it harder to cover the bills. The SD government also has inflation-protected high-income earners, while ordinary people are going to their knees. It is tough for single parents but especially tough for the children.

For the vast majority of people in our country, this is a perfectly ordinary Wednesday. Everyday life rolls on beyond high politics, inflation shocks, and interest rate paths. But the economic crisis has effects on everyday life, not just because it becomes harder to pay the bills. Cuts and savings in schools and extracurricular activities, at the health centers, and in elderly care have effects on everyday life, straight into ordinary people's life puzzles.

The assistant nurses are worried about how they will manage when the number of colleagues on the shifts decreases and the number of patients increases. The teacher has a knot in their stomach because young boys who need a little extra support to complete their math assignments no longer have a student assistant who can provide support in the classroom.

The Kristersson-Åkesson government has governed Sweden for nearly a year. And now, a budget is being placed on the Riksdag's table that, while it contains supplements for municipalities and regions, is far from sufficient to meet the welfare commitment. The healthcare crisis that this government's passivity has created will lead to fewer care beds, and in some cases, to the fact that entire departments and hospitals may need to be closed. So, one is not building Sweden stronger. Long after Elisabeth Svantesson has resigned as Finance Minister, we risk having to live with the consequences of the cutback policy that this government is pursuing.

We Social Democrats have shown that it is possible to prioritize differently. If the Social Democrats had been allowed to decide, the municipal sector would have received double the state grants already this year. It would have created a completely different situation in schools and healthcare.

Now we say that a completely new principle is needed, a systemic shift, for how we finance our welfare. It must end with calling cuts investments. Welfare needs a floor that secures the basic funding when costs increase. It will not be enough to increase quality and to build the welfare society stronger. But it will stop the cuts that occur in the shadows while politicians beat their chests for new investments.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! I hear the government speak of structural reforms, of new tools to strengthen our competitiveness and our growth in the long term. Do we think growth will be higher or lower if fewer students pass primary school with passing grades? Do we think competitiveness increases or decreases if more people have to reduce their working hours to take care of their parents because the quality of elderly care is failing? And do we seriously believe that Sweden will become richer when fewer adults can create safety and order in the schoolyards and in the residential areas?

This government has a plan, says Elisabeth Svantesson. The same government that failed with the electricity support, which failed to support families with children financially during last year and which unfortunately has failed with the security situation in our country now wants us to believe that they have a strategy to take us out of the recession. The same government that didn't even manage to do the most necessary to bring down food prices, pay back the electricity companies' excess profits to Swedish households or support healthcare and schools during the cost crisis is now trying to make us believe that they will solve growth and productivity in the long run. Allow me to doubt, Mr. Speaker.

Now Sweden and the world stand at a crossroads. Thousands of secure jobs are emerging in growth sectors. Countries all over the world are competing to see who will be first to produce tomorrow's batteries, cars, and fossil-free steel on a large scale. The one who is first can count on higher growth, well-paid jobs, quite simply a more secure future. Sweden is already far ahead. It is us the whole world looks to when they are to transition their industries and begin producing the products of the future. But we cannot afford to fall behind.

During the last century, we in Sweden managed to support the emergence of a world-leading industry that delivered cars, iron ore, steel, and ball bearings to the entire world while simultaneously building the folkhemmet – the world's most just and modern welfare society. We can do it again.

When I was Minister for Enterprise, the Social Democratic government began the re-industrialization of Sweden. It was mocked quite a bit back then. Now we see how factories that are to manufacture batteries and fossil-free steel are emerging in northern Sweden, in Mälardalen and in Western Sweden. Now Sweden must gear up, not gear down. We must increase the pace, not slow down. But it requires a goal-oriented policy for growth and a policy that is capable of building an entire society.

To get more electricians, machine technicians, and CNC operators, there must be more training places and more preschools near their workplaces. A housing policy is needed that enables more housing where the jobs are emerging, and an energy policy that can supply the new factories with energy from all fossil-free sources. But instead of steering towards a secure future, this government is casting Sweden out into unknown waters. It is giving away Swedish jobs. It is putting the municipalities on a starvation diet, letting the housing market collapse, and making energy policy a subject of political games.

The right-wing government's growth policy is completely dominated by the Sweden Democrats' ideological blinkers. The Sweden Democrats think that thousands of new industrial jobs as mechanics, electrical fitters, and electricians are the wrong kind of jobs. They think we have too many, not too few, wind turbines, and are pushing up electricity prices for both households and industry. They want Sweden to decline billion-dollar investments that could mean a new start and prosperity for large parts of our country.

This makes Sweden poorer, Mr. Speaker. The jobs and the tax revenues will then end up somewhere else. The industries and the growth will lift other countries. That is bad for Sweden, and it is bad for the Swedish economy.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Several residential areas have experienced a summer unlike any other. The violence has escalated beyond all limits. Children murder. Children are murdered. Home care staff and family members become targets.

We must manage to push back the gangs, break their organizations and imprison more gang members. Otherwise, Sweden risks heading in a completely wrong direction. A determined fight for the entire justice chain is required. We shall tear down secrecy chains, give the police the resources and tools that are required and build more detention centers and prisons.

But it will not be enough, Mr. Speaker. That is the harsh reality. We also need to devote the full force of society to stopping the new recruitment into the gangs. We can learn from Denmark. We must pinpoint every young guy who is heading into crime. We must break the devastating segregation, which tears our society apart and creates poorer life chances for so many in our country.

More people, more parents, must go to work so that they can support themselves and ensure that they can take on the parental responsibility, which society can never replace. But it costs. It is then painful to see that the SD government is cutting back on just those measures, on social services and other measures, in the municipalities that are most heavily burdened by gang crime. They will find it even more difficult to fulfill their mission to combat new recruitment if the cuts go through.

For every krona that this government spends on stopping the new recruitment to the gangs, they spend eight on removing the plastic bag tax. It is not reasonable, Mr. Speaker. It makes Sweden both poorer and more dangerous.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! With this budget bill, we continue on the path we have taken. And we do so in an economic situation that is very strained. Combating inflation is the Tidö parties' absolute primary focus when it comes to economic policy, to budget policy.

We continue with the work that previous governments have heavily neglected but which should be the state's absolute core task, number one: the upgrading of the Armed Forces. Sweden will already reach NATO's minimum level of 2 percent next year. I have previously said that it would happen during the mandate period. But we will reach it as early as 2024. That does not mean that the work is therefore finished, far from it. The disarmament policy that previous governments have driven will, in fact, take a long time to reverse.

Moving forward, my assessment is in any case that we will need to place more focus on civil defense, on society's crisis preparedness. How prepared is healthcare, for example, for a situation with war or the threat of war? This also applies to the rescue services. What is the status of our shelters? This is not something one starts working on when the war breaks out. By then, it is too late. There are obviously amounts of experiences and lessons to be drawn here, not least from the war in Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! The paradigm shift that the Tidö parties are in the process of implementing also applies to crime policy and the justice system. This budget entails significant resource increases for all law enforcement agencies, not least the Prison and Probation Service. It is a massive task that the Prison and Probation Service has ahead of it. More thugs and bandits shall be locked up for longer. Parallel to the substantial expansion, we are also looking at the possibility of leasing prison places abroad.

The entire crime policy was heavily underprioritized during the previous two terms – and I am expressing myself very diplomatically. A lot will happen in that area during the remainder of the term.

Mr. Speaker! In Dagens Nyheter about a month ago, one could read how this budget bill would result in a billion-dollar rain for high-income earners. It turned out to be a lie, or at least complete fiction, for the umpteenth time in that very newspaper. When it comes to income tax, the focus is instead on middle-income earners.

An average wage earner will receive a tax cut. This is financed mainly by not indexing the threshold for state tax upwards, that is, exactly the opposite of what DN claimed. It is a reasonable measure because the threshold was adjusted upwards so significantly already this year. It will therefore be fewer wage earners who pay state tax in 2024 compared to how many did so in 2022.

People and households who receive all or at least parts of their income from different transfer systems, social insurance systems, and so on will be compensated for the high inflation. The guarantee pension will be increased, as will the parental leave benefit, the sickness benefit, the sickness compensation, and so on.

Where do we have the broad wage groups, that is, people with 25,000, 30,000 or 40,000 kronor in monthly salary? They have not been compensated for the higher cost level and have seen real wage reductions, that is, have had reduced purchasing power. All of them now get lower taxes. And not to forget: When we lower the tax on income from work, we obviously also do so for income from pension because pension is to be regarded as deferred wages.

The very strange arrangement that applied during a large part of the previous two parliamentary terms, where pensions were taxed higher than wages, we shall not return to. The Sweden Democrats will be the guarantor of that.

Mr. Speaker! It will become cheaper to refuel the car. At the turn of the year, the per-kilometer compensation, which had remained unchanged in the magnitude of 15 years, was significantly increased from 18.50 to 25 kronor per kilometer. At that time, the tax on diesel and gasoline was also lowered by 1 krona. At the upcoming turn of the year, we continue on that path. The diesel tax is set down to the EU's absolute minimum level, the gasoline tax continues to be lowered, and above all, the reduction obligation is also lowered to the EU's minimum level.

In 2025, the petrol tax will be lowered further. This facilitates not only for households and for those individuals who are dependent on the car but also for the industries where fuels are a large part of the costs. This applies, of course, to the haulage industry as an example, but also to agriculture and forestry.

Speaking on agriculture, the tax on agricultural diesel will continue to remain at the EU's absolute minimum level even in 2024 and onwards.

Speaking of taxes, Mr. Speaker, the completely incomprehensible, meaningless plastic bag tax will disappear entirely next year.

There is obviously more to do within tax policy. We will have to return to that. But the Sweden Democrats will continue to push for lower fuel taxes.

Mr. Speaker! The state subsidies to the country's municipalities and regions will increase by 16 billion kronor. It is a historically high figure, but it is much-needed. The municipal sector will be faced with deficits next year due to the high cost level caused by the high inflation. If we do nothing at all, the risk of large-scale layoffs among municipalities and regions is very high, but with these measures, that risk is reduced—if not to zero, then at least very, very significantly.

I also want to point out that the general state grants that are not earmarked for one thing or the other are furthermore permanent. They are not just general – they are permanent. That is to say that if inflation really falls back as the forecasts still want to suggest, these funds will not disappear for that reason.

The previous government also made some supplementary payments to the municipalities, but those funds were normally of a temporary nature, meaning that one received a bag of money for one year which then disappeared during the following years. For obvious reasons, it becomes difficult for the municipalities to plan with that kind of volatility.

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the government's budget bill, and for the sake of order, I can declare that the Sweden Democrats stand behind this budget bill. The Sweden Democrats' parliamentary group will vote for this when it is time for the vote.

We four parties have once again shown that we can negotiate, compromise, reach an agreement, and furthermore gather a majority for the economic policy. The previous government did not manage that, namely gathering support from a majority for the economic policy in this chamber. This leads to the obvious question of what the four parties on the left side are actually in agreement on. We have noted that they are in agreement that the Sverigedemokraterna are very stupid. That is as much as I have noted. That Richard Jomshof should not be allowed to be a committee chairman I have also noted, as well as that it should be super expensive to refuel the car.

It also seems that we are agreed that we should return to an uncontrolled and irresponsible line in migration policy. That is what is wanted in a situation where immigration to Sweden is actually decreasing despite having increased in the rest of the EU, that is to say in a situation where the Tidö parties' reorganization of immigration policy seems to be starting to take effect.

We do not agree on whether we should have a planned economy or a market economy. We do not. We do not agree on whether we prefer capitalism or Marxism. Nor do we agree on whether we should have freedom of choice or monopoly. That is somewhat semi-relevant, one might think, when it comes to designing the economic policy. If one wants to imagine some kind of presumptive government basis, it is quite shaky, to say the least.

When one has declared their withdrawal from the Sweden Democrats for yet another time in a row – what is the plan then? It was the party leadership debate quite exactly one week ago, and judging by that, there isn't particularly much more plan than that.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the other right-wing parties have now delivered a budget to the Riksdag. It must at least be said to be clear in some areas. In a situation where those who work in schools, healthcare, and elderly care see the needs growing beyond their control daily, SD and the government choose to deliver yet another budget of cuts - not because the money is lacking, but because one actively chooses not to provide funds.

What those in power in these benches have set out and chosen to fight is the very wealth that lies in the civilizational commitment to safeguard the quality of the common, human-need-driven. The priorities also shine through when one sees which households are protected and neglected, and which are met with shrugs of the shoulders and empty words.

For the very few very well-off who have hardly needed to make any changes to their habits when food, electricity, and mortgage interest rates have become significantly more expensive, more support and more subsidies await in this budget proposal. Not for the single mother who has had to cut everything for herself to put food on the table for the children. Nor for the homeowners who have had many nights of sleep disturbed by a gnawing worry about their interest costs, or for the tenant who has never been covered by the rot deduction and never been able to afford rot-subsidized cleaning services. They must instead contribute to making the grants, which primarily go to significantly well-off groups, more generous.

It will become cheaper to rebuild the veranda, possibly in the summer house abroad, or to move the wing from one salon to another. That is the actual prioritization that SD and the government are making. The one who is young, a student, or perhaps has their first job gets the joy of contributing a little extra to that party when the government takes the opportunity to abolish the right to free dental care for young adults, which, for the record, it was Vänsterpartiet that saw to it was negotiated forward a few years ago.

This is added on top of yet another earned income tax credit that gives more to those who have more from before. Through its construction, it deepens the injustice known as the disability tax, i.e., that the person who, due to illness or disability, does not have the possibility to work for wages must pay a higher tax rate on the same amount. Indeed, the priorities are clear - almost parodic - without for that reason being particularly funny.

When it comes to the need to adapt Sweden to the ongoing climate changes, SD's antipathy towards facts and statistics has married the old-moderate lack of interest in investments that can benefit the entire society. The losers are the Swedish people. The government is increasing emissions, even according to the government itself. But in the area of energy and electrification, where we need a gigantic transition, not much is happening. When it comes to railways and public transport, things are moving backwards.

All of this makes Sweden increasingly a country lagging behind, both in relation to the existentially decisive global climate work and when it comes to placing our economy, our industry, and our companies in a better position as the world inevitably changes. It is a policy more characterized by a kind of boys' club after-party atmosphere than by the will to reason, act, and take responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! The austerity budget being presented for welfare services is described on the government's website under the heading "Significant injections into welfare in the autumn budget" with the claim that the government wants to improve the economic conditions for municipalities and regions. But the government is only injecting 10 of the 28 billion that municipalities and regions would have needed to keep operations at approximately the same already heavily pressured level. It is such PR-dominated spin that hinders the democratic dialogue itself.

Finally, we arrive at the Finance Minister's cheerful exhortation the other day: One also has a personal responsibility to work on efficiencies. In plain terms: Nurses and teachers must swallow the fact that they are given an increasingly unsustainable working situation every year, so that the Finance Minister can offer the country's capital owners and high-income earners larger sacrifices from the common resources.

This is happening at the same time as government representatives repeatedly try to give the appearance of a crackdown on the criminal gangs and new recruitment into them. In the pauses between tough poses and the talk of ever more documented ineffective or counterproductive repression, it is also sometimes claimed from that side that preventive work is important. But how is this important work to be materialized? How will it be possible to see more students who are drifting away and give them the extra time required when almost all municipalities in Sweden will need to cut back on school activities in an already pressured situation? How will the more than half of the country's social welfare directors who already today state that they cannot cope with today's needs or even maintain legal certainty in the interventions be able to bear the new cutback requirements that accompany the government's budget and, in addition, do more of the preventive work?

I do not know if the Minister for Finance expects this to happen through divine intervention, but her budget points in any case in another biblical direction: To him who has a precious patio and can afford three holidays abroad per year, to him shall be given, but from her who does not have, also that which she has shall be taken.

Mr. Speaker! We also see these attempts to cast a smokescreen when now tricky adjustments of large-scale cuts are carried out or announced and presented as investments. There are several such examples from the fields of environmental policy and labor market policy. A flagrant example is when the frontal attack against student unions, a death blow involving 30-40 percent in cuts and a threat to the very existence of the operations, is pitted against an alleged investment in vocational training and folk high schools. It only takes a small look at the budget to see that, taken as a whole, it is a matter of cuts across the board.

But let it be stated clearly in any case: The attack against study associations and against the Swedish folk education model is an ideologically motivated attack against precisely that which makes a democracy vibrant, against that which constitutes an obstacle to the authoritarian social development that is the essential goal of the SD right. This right, which the governing parties now sort under, has always and everywhere detested that which does not completely allow itself to be controlled by either the state or capital: the trade union movement, journalism in general and public service in particular, academia, civil society, association life, and folk education.

Mr. Speaker! What is now happening in Sweden must be described with words that cover the gravity of the development. This is difficult in a budget debate where we speak of appropriations, millions, initiatives, and authorities. It is easy to lose sight of the long lines. But the cuts in welfare, the heated culture war rhetoric, and the attacks on civil society are closely intertwined matters. The effect of the policy is systematic steps away from that which has made Sweden a country where wealth has been able to be reflected in the quality of the common welfare services, where the public sector has been focused on lifting people up more than pushing them down, and where society's institutions and the visions of those in power have been able to be more focused on fostering community than on sowing division. It is this Sweden that the right-wing nationalist government is impoverishing. With the blue-brown budget proposal, Sweden becomes both poorer and more dangerous.

But in all this, there is also the answer to where hope is to be found and where the resistance must be raised. In recent months, we have seen it happen regarding an issue that is not explicitly about the budget, but about the blue-brown attempt to introduce reporting laws in Sweden. This has caused trade union organizations, teachers, doctors, social workers, municipal politicians, neighbors, retirees, and young people to speak out to stand guard for one another and stand guard for what are important core values in our country.

It is precisely that impulse that illuminates the way forward out of the twilight that this budget is helping to contribute to. There are some of us who do what we can inside this chamber and in these corridors. But the strength of that opposition is dependent on what happens out there. Let us together ensure that the coming year becomes a year where the Sverigedemokraterna and their supporting parties in the government hear what it is like in the welfare system when resources are scarce, how it feels to be chronically ill or long-term unemployed and hear political power-holders say that one should pull oneself together and not stack benefits, and what it is like to toil in a manual job, sit with a lot of months left at the end of the salary, and then hear the Finance Minister promise away basic benefits and tax cuts to precisely those who do not have to worry about their finances.

My and the Left Party's promise is that we will be involved, listen carefully and ensure that those voices and that reality resonate in the debates here. Sweden deserves better than this budget bill.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Who is actually in charge of the economic policy in Sweden? Where are we headed? That is what many are likely asking themselves after hearing this government present the Tidö budget. We have a growth crisis, but we get no growth policy. We have a welfare crisis, but the school is not prioritized, even though thousands of teachers are being laid off. We have a global climate crisis. In that situation, the government, with the courage Ebba Busch had mentioned, dramatically increases emissions. We have a cost crisis in the Swedish countryside. Then, one prioritizes cheaper gasoline in the big cities.

There is much that is good about this budget. One invests in defense, but one should do even more for Ukraine. One invests in the police, but one should do more for the judges and, as has been said here in the debate, more for the social sector. But we have a growth crisis where Sweden has the worst economic development in the EU. We are largely the only country in the Western world that combines falling GDP, high unemployment, and high inflation. Everyone has some of this, but one country has everything at the same time. There is a great concern among our ordinary wage earners and among our entrepreneurs about where Sweden is headed.

What was the answer then to all those who thought that Ulf Kristersson and Elisabeth Svantesson, even though they sit there obediently in Jimmie Åkesson's jacket pocket, might still demand classic liberal economic policy where growth comes from diligence, the work line, and structural reforms? It is a policy that makes it worthwhile to work and start companies by lowering the tax on work and reducing costs, as we successfully did under the Alliance. What is the Tidö government doing? Well, it comes with increased tax on work, higher costs for companies, and increased unemployment insurance. It is like a bad blueprint - if it even is blue - of the Social Democrats' economic policy. They continue to raise the employer contributions for young people, when we must lower the costs to bring down inflation.

Now, one must increase by 5,000 kronor a month to employ 15-17-year-olds. We want them to work in the kiosk during the summer and not hang around the village and perhaps with the gangs.

Mr. Speaker! I know that Elisabeth Svantesson has said over and over again, and also this morning, that she is lowering the tax for a police officer and a nurse from 14,000 kronor. But that, my friends, is part of the new bluff.

If Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson had done nothing and just sat on her hands, a dentist and a highly qualified police officer working with OB, which many are doing now, would have received 20,000 kronor less in tax than they now receive with this policy. She is raising the tax dramatically.

Furthermore, no one is anywhere near the 14,000 kronor. If you look at the government's own tables, it is 2,200 kronor per month per person. A nursing assistant working part-time receives 20 kronor per month in lower tax.

The tax figures are being manipulated and the concepts are being fudged. There is no order in Swedish economic policy, as Ulf Kristersson said. It is deep disorder. Now it also affects the school and welfare. In a sense, it is also unfortunately a rural crisis, because it is often the smallest schools and health centers in the countryside that are forced to close first.

Welfare in the municipalities and regions will be 28 billion in the red next year and is heading towards 30 billion and beyond. Many parents received the news this autumn that the local school will close. It is one of the hundreds of schools that will close next year.

Many parents with children in school notice how the classes continue to grow. The very resources that are supposed to go to those who need extra support or who perhaps are even falling behind are disappearing. It is thousands of teachers who are being laid off with long-term negative consequences.

It is very nice to lower the tax on snus, Oscar Sjöstedt. But is it worth it when the reduction corresponds to 800 teachers in Swedish schools? I believe that even your random 18-year-old would think that, in that case, it is better to invest in teachers.

The government is allocating 3 billion to the school. That does not even cover inflation. At the same time, one throws out the ideal of education with the bathwater when one cuts back on the study associations that have given people all around the country education. I have met people who have found a completely new meaning of life. It has opened new worlds. That is simply thrown away just because it looks good in a debate article.

All of this hits the Swedish countryside particularly hard, which does not seem to count for the government anymore. Is there anyone in the Swedish countryside, Mr. Speaker, who has seen that price reduction on diesel? It has vanished like a line in the water, in the gasoline or whatever it is.

I am not talking about the 10 kronor that are supposed to come at the turn of the year. There, I urge everyone watching: Keep an eye out! Will the price of diesel and gasoline go down by 10 kronor as SD promised it would on January 1, 2024? Refuel before, and refuel after. If it is 10 kronor cheaper, I will back down immediately.

I am speaking about the reduction that was made last year, which you smeared out over everyone. The money went towards filling the city jeep in the big city for everyone who could instead have taken the subway, tram, bus, or switched to an electric car.

The Tidö parties mock us in the Center Party when we want to send substantial petrol checks to everyone who is truly dependent on the car in the Swedish countryside and who live in sparsely populated areas. Mock away! But what have you done for them? Nothing. You have wasted the money on city dwellers.

This brings us to the climate crisis, which has become today's theme for the budget. As EU members, we are so monumentally failed in our climate policy that we are not allowed to withdraw 38 billion of the common resources, which the government so proudly negotiated in big deals. We are so poorly approved.

I am reading from the government's own budget. It is taken directly from the budget that Elisabeth Svantesson has just submitted. As a result of decisions made between July 1, 2022, and July 1, 2023, emissions are estimated to increase by 5.9-9.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents.

I am reading in table 3.2. The milestone goal A long-term emission target is not achieved. Reduction of greenhouse gases ESR is not achieved. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions ESR to 2040 is not achieved and so on. It says "not achieved", "uncertain" and "not achieved".

It is not so strange. The largest bonus for subsidies for electric cars has been removed, and the sale of electric cars has stalled. It is not so strange. The inclusion of biofuels has been removed. What has it been replaced with? Nothing.

It is often said that it is very good to invest in charging infrastructure. It used to be said that it is no point in having an electric car if there are no charging stations. Now the question becomes: Is there any point in having charging stations when there are no electric cars?

It was Sweden's pride that we had a growing economy. That is what our large green industries are now building on. At the same time, we had falling emissions. What do we get now? A falling economy and skyrocketing emissions. Sell that to China and the world! Have it as a brand for Sweden!

The worst thing is that the solution is so close. Use all these billions for people who are dependent on the car and who today do not have the means. God knows we have met them in various contexts. Give them the opportunity to switch to an environmentally friendly car and to cheap, Swedish green fuel.

(Applause)

Give back the power over the climate! A people's movement for the climate was needed instead of a fossil budget. We constantly ask the government: When will the reduced tax on labor come? What does the government say? Mañana, then.

When will we get lower costs in the countryside? Mañana. When will we get down the emissions? Really mañana. When will we get more teachers back in the school? Mañana. Mañana, mañana and mañana, says the mañanaregeringen. But cheap snuff, cheap gasoline in the big city and cheaper plastic bags we get right now!

(Applause)

The ministers in the Tidö government are writhing like worms on a hook. They twist and turn figures and messages so that it should sound like a proper bourgeois government. But however you twist and turn, you are sitting on SD's hook, and you will not get loose.

The truth, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson, is that it is not you who decides on the economic policy. It is not you who is driving. It is Jimmie Åkesson. That is why there are cheaper plastic bags instead of more teachers in schools and cheaper gasoline in the big city instead of in the countryside. That is why taxes are raised more than they are lowered.

Our strength as a nation is that we have met major crises with structural reforms. It has been about the 90s' major reforms. Most recently the reform of LAS, the transition, and the job tax credit. But now we have no momentum. We do not see a hope for all the young people who want a strong school that lifts them, whether they live in a mill town or in the countryside.

Go back to basics! Do not raise the tax on work, but lower it! Do not raise the costs for employers and the costs of running a company, but lower them! Do not raise the tax in order to be able to raise the unemployment insurance, but maintain the work line! Then we increase growth and simultaneously curb inflation.

(Applause)

In this speech, Daniel Bäckström and Ulrika Heie (both C) agreed.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As a Christian Democrat, I would like to begin by pointing out the ongoing and important investments being made in healthcare and elderly care. In the budget, a sector grant of 3 billion kronor is now introduced for health and medical care.

The work to shorten healthcare queues and increase accessibility continues with the establishment of a national healthcare brokerage, which ensures that patients waiting for care can be offered care at another location where the healthcare provider has a shorter waiting time.

The government also extends what is called the Äldreomsorgslyftet (Elderly Care Boost). For a dignified and secure elderly care, competence supply and the right competence among staff is central. With Äldreomsorgslyftet, municipal healthcare and care for our elderly is strengthened by giving new and existing staff the opportunity to undergo training to become a care assistant or assistant nurse during paid working hours.

Mr. Speaker! The government is therefore using 40 percent of the reform space to strengthen the state grants to municipalities and regions. If we compare the situation in Sweden before the pandemic with the budget that is now being presented, we are allocating approximately 18 billion kronor more to health and medical care. It is needed.

The work to produce more healthcare beds must proceed. During the years 2023-2025, the regions will receive 2 billion kronor per year for the work on this so that we do not have the lowest number of healthcare beds in the entire EU per capita. The fact is that within the OECD, it is only Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico that have fewer healthcare beds than Sweden. We are doubling the investment in the budget towards cancer and childhood cancer.

Another important initiative that this government is making is to try to lure back all the staff who have left healthcare. 17,000 nurses are today working in sectors other than healthcare. The staff who today are making heroic efforts need to be more. We need more hands and feet within healthcare.

In this budget, almost 16 billion kronor are therefore allocated to municipalities and regions. These are large supplements – almost half of the reform space. This makes it possible for us to bridge the inflation shock together, but at the same time, we must naturally be honest and say that no one will escape the consequences of inflation. Neither the family with children, the entrepreneur, the retiree, nor the municipality and the region can be fully compensated, but together we are now helping each other to manage this.

With the budget presented today, I mean that Sweden's government shows that it is possible to combine a restrained fiscal policy to push down inflation with simultaneously launching reforms that build Sweden strong. It is about strengthening the justice system and the defense but also the welfare and the households' economy.

Even though it is a restrained budget to combat inflation, it contains measures that support those who have been hit hard by inflation. I am thinking, in particular, of the fact that we are now actually extending the increased housing allowance for families with children with weak finances. It can provide a family with children a reinforcement of up to 2,100 kronor per month.

We are lowering the tax on work, primarily for low- and middle-income earners and also for all pensioners. We are lowering fuel taxes, not least so that those who live in rural areas and are dependent on the car to make that unique life puzzle work can manage this with their finances.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that there is also a compensation for all those born in 1957. They have paid too much tax during the current year, as they did not receive a share of the basic deduction. It is about somewhere in the magnitude of 24,000 to 28,000 kronor too much. That money will be returned next year to its rightful owners. It was an error by the previous government. It is being corrected now, because right is right and wrong is wrong.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden finds itself in a difficult situation in a restless world. Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has plunged Europe and Sweden into a cost crisis that affects households, companies, and welfare. There is, therefore, no shortage of challenges to tackle. It is therefore extremely serious that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, today presents a budget that is extremely short-sighted. The restraint that the government is so proud of is being cut down by a largely unanimous economic circle, which points to the need for long-term investments. In this, I can only agree.

The government and the Sweden Democrats are using inflation as an excuse for not doing much in particular. But it is possible to do things here and now without fueling inflation. In several other countries, they have met the crisis with investments. Even there, inflation is now falling. We should take note of that, because we cannot wait with the investments and the challenges that we face.

This summer, forests have burned. Cities have been flooded, and communities have been crushed in increasingly extreme storms around the world - all at the same time, in different places and with their own explanations, but fundamentally, everything has been caused by the same thing. It is about a changed climate that has catastrophic consequences for all of us living here and now, for those who come after us, and for the animals and ecosystems that we depend on.

Climate change and its consequences are the defining issue of our time, no longer only because the future risks being destroyed for our children and grandchildren, but also for all of our lives here and now.

On the Horn of Africa, children live in refugee camps under the scorching sun. Every day is a struggle for food and water. In Libya, thousands of people are fighting for life and death against the catastrophe that has struck them. And in southern Europe, the summer heat has claimed countless human lives.

Climate change is here. But this government continues to act as if we have several planets to live on. We were on track to reach the climate goals for 2030, but now we are, due to conscious political decisions, on track to completely miss the goals. Instead of taking responsibility and taking the measures that are required, the government chooses to clear the way to scrap the goal. It is completely bizarre to me.

After the ministers at the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise did not want to talk about climate effects when they presented their so-called initiatives, we received it in black and white today: the Sverigedemokraterna's and the government's budget increases emissions. By 2030, the decisions made during the past year could lead to emission increases of up to 10 million tons. That is more than 20 percent of Sweden's annual emissions.

During the election campaign, the Moderaterna promised a green right. Now we know that instead it became a pitch-black economic policy.

It becomes extra bizarre when the Finance Minister talks about an effective climate policy. An effective climate policy should be a policy that reduces emissions. But this budget and this government increase them instead. I do not understand how one has the nerve to call it effective policy.

Instead of investing in cheaper public transport and increased equality, the Tidö parties are lowering the tax on fossil fuels. Instead of ensuring that ordinary people can afford a car powered by cheap Swedish electricity, the government is making it more expensive by removing the electric car bonus.

Everyone in this chamber knows what climate change is caused by. Everyone in here knows that it is human emissions that have put us in this situation and that it is only by drastically reducing our emissions that we can meet the catastrophe. Everyone knows it, but far too many in this chamber seem to be completely incapable of acting.

Crops fail, life's work is destroyed, and fires spread terror as climate change hits our society. The legal repercussions of who should pay the bill for the flooding in Gävle are ongoing right now, and billions are being discussed. At the same rate as we reduce emissions, we must also be able to adapt to the changed climate.

Today, one no longer needs to "trust the science" to understand what is happening. It is enough to ask Gotland's farmers, the people who have had their cellars flooded, or the people who have been affected by fires in Hawaii, Rhodes, or Tenerife. They will all state one and the same thing, namely that the climate crisis is here and that the costs of not acting are enormous. The human suffering is immeasurable. And it will also get worse.

Our dependence on fossil fuels has led us straight into a climate catastrophe and placed us in the cost crisis we are experiencing. It is the same climate catastrophe that must now be the primary task of politics to manage.

But Ulf Kristersson's government seems to have misunderstood the whole thing. Either one does not understand what reality we live in, or one simply does not care about managing it. I do not know which is worse, but the consequences are the same.

For Sweden to be able to take advantage of the opportunity that the green transition offers, it must be fair and build a society that holds together – a society that is for all of us and not just for a few. That social construction will not happen by itself, and unfortunately, it will not happen either with the help of this government's policy. It is rather the opposite. In a time when our common welfare is needed more than ever, it is the welfare and equality that get sidelined when Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson get to decide.

The Sweden Democrats and the government promised that they would not abandon the welfare state. Yet, that is exactly what they are doing. The government's austerity policy will affect us all. It is about the teachers in schools, the nurses in healthcare, and the care assistants in elderly care – all those whom the Prime Minister thanked so warmly in his government statement this week. It is their work that the Sweden Democrats and the government are now making harder. To thank our common welfare heroes is cheap, but it is not applause that is needed, but higher wages, more colleagues, and better employment conditions.

The cuts do not only affect those who work in healthcare. They affect the children in school, who are left without their teachers and student assistants. They hit the sick who have to wait for the care they need when hospitals are forced to make reductions. They affect the children in preschool when the pedagogical activities are cut and it becomes harder to see each individual child.

Mr. Speaker! I, like everyone else in here, have been shocked by the brutality and the brutal violence that we have witnessed over the past weeks. That children are murdering other children is absolutely appalling. This spiral of violence must be broken.

Behind every push notification, behind every headline, and behind every police cordon, there are people whose lives have been brutally ended and even more whose lives will never be the same again. The criminal gangs that strike fear into the entire society must be removed from the streets and put into prison. On that, we are in complete agreement.

But we must never believe that we can stop there. We must also dare to invest in our children and youth and give them faith in the future. For the investments that the government makes in the police and criminal justice system to truly have an effect, we must invest at least double on the preventive work. Reducing support for adult education and civil society in the time we are in now gives us a society that slides apart instead of creating cohesion.

The green transition is our time's great societal transformation and an investment for a better future. If we do it right, we will create a Sweden that holds together, where we face the crisis together. It is then a country that not only transitions but also actually builds a better society with thousands of new jobs, a robust welfare, and a safety net that works.

But instead of upgrading and transitioning, this government chooses to tear down and drain. While the rest of the world is transitioning, Sweden is making a historic U-turn. For the first time in 20 years, we have a government that actively increases emissions.

The Green Party has laid the foundation for the green transition. We did that when we sat in the government. We began building the world's first fossil-free welfare state. We want to continue doing that. We must continue doing that.

We want to strengthen the welfare, increase equality and invest in the transition. The blue-brown government does the exact opposite. We know that it is possible to change the future and build a better Sweden. But it requires will. It requires decisiveness. And it requires courage. It is something that this government unfortunately lacks.

(Applause)

In this speech, Katarina Luhr and Jacob Risberg (both MP) concurred.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! This is my first budget debate. When I left the business world about a year ago to become a politician for a while, I had the goal of making a difference and telling what the Liberals want moving forward. But after hearing the opposition's lies in the speaker's chair today, I must also add that I will stick to the truth. I believe that our citizens actually deserve it.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! We shall build Sweden stronger together. There is one area that is the foundation for that construction. It is, of course, the school. If one manages the knowledge requirements as a child and leaves school with the feeling that one can achieve exactly what one wants, the world lies before one's feet when one stands with the graduation cap in hand. Therefore, it is my and the Liberals' goal, and therefore the Liberals will always prioritize the school. We want every child to pass school, regardless of what start in life they have had.

The budget does exactly that, prioritizes the school. The government is investing billions with 1.2 billion to the school. And when it comes to the additional 16 billion in welfare investments, a large part of that will also go to the school.

Now we also meet the need for real textbooks, fiction books and school libraries together with a plan to staff and fill the libraries. Reading, writing and counting are the foundation for creating one's own future. We strengthen the school's knowledge contribution and ensure that there are better conditions for teachers in vulnerable areas.

Mr. Speaker! This government uses both the iron fist and the velvet glove. At the same time as historical investments are being made in the justice system, we are raising the stakes regarding preventive work. We are making a new investment in the municipalities' preventive work and continuing with school social teams that can catch youths who are slipping away. This year, we are investing as much in school social teams as the previous government did in preventive work in the municipalities. At the same time, a new Social Services Act will finally be presented, and with it will come a staffing strategy and a billion-kronor investment for social services.

Learning is lifelong. Now we are also investing more money in vocational training, folk high schools, and transition support to meet the needs of companies and give the individual the opportunity to find a job or to further develop themselves. In this way, lifelong learning is strengthened while more people get the competence needed to, for example, contribute to the green transition.

It is by creating prosperity that we can create a welfare. Sweden shall have a welfare that one can rely on. If one falls, there must be a safety net without holes to land in.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's economy is today integrated with the rest of the world and faces global challenges. Our volatile currency therefore holds back the Swedish economy with lower growth and imported inflation. It is time to take the step fully in our European cooperation and join the euro. It would be good for growth, for welfare, and for every individual. On Monday, a dull record was broken when 1 euro cost 12 kronor. The Liberals have been in favor of joining all the way, and we now see that the popular support and the support from companies are increasing. It is time to start an investigation to put us at the table instead of staying on the substitutes' bench and letting other countries influence our economy.

Just as the economy is global, so too are our emissions global. Therefore, the successes achieved within the framework of our EU presidency are crucial for the world to manage the climate transition. Sweden is a pioneering country, and we shall continue to be one. We are far up in northern Europe, and we drive innovation with our skilled engineers and companies to transition transport and the manufacturing industry and to create a society without emissions. Therefore, we are now investing billions in the climate and presenting an engineering initiative to continue to strengthen, develop, and create innovation.

Our climate goals shall be reached. No government has been so close to reaching the climate goal for 2045 as we are with this budget. We can also state that the investments lead to reduced emissions for 2030. We are strengthening Klimatklivet and Industriklivet. This is for transitioning to reduce emissions. We take the next step in the transition with a focus on the electrification of trucks, buses, and work machines. At the same time, the crucial work of expanding the charging infrastructure continues together with a scrapping premium.

We are also investing heavily in the restoration of wetlands, which play a major role for the climate and the environment. Among other things, it leads to reduced emissions, increased biodiversity, reduced risk of flooding, and strengthened protection against drought and fire. It is a total of 4.1 billion in investments for 2024.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Right now, at the same time as we are here debating next year's state budget, the Ukrainian people are fighting and warring not only for their freedom but also for ours and for all of Europe's democracies.

The outcome of the war will affect the future of our entire continent. That is why Sweden and many other countries are now showing, not just in words but also in action, that Ukraine does not stand alone in that struggle. The Swedish government, Mr. Speaker, is doing everything it can to help and support Ukraine in this situation. But we are not doing it alone. We are doing it together with all parties here in the Riksdag. Together we support Ukraine politically, economically, humanitarily, and not least militarily. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and thank all the parties in the Riksdag for the cooperation we have to support Ukraine.

Here we have handled issues quickly when it has been needed. We have worked on support packages, which are arriving and which make an enormous difference.

It is fantastic that we, even though we have different opinions on many domestic policy issues, can stand united together in the fight for Ukraine's freedom - because we know that their freedom is also our freedom. I am convinced that we all in here will support Ukraine for as long as it is needed.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by underlining what the Minister for Finance says, that in this debate, the focus often falls on differences and on conflicts where we do not agree. But the support for Ukraine is broad, strong and long-term, this both from the government's side and from the parties in the Swedish Riksdag.

Now Elisabeth Svantesson has been Sweden's Minister for Finance for nearly a year. Let us look at the results. We are at the bottom of the league when it comes to growth. Swedish prices have increased more than in comparable countries. Construction has been halted. When it comes to the healthcare crisis, it has not been worse since the 90s.

Last year, the government chose to cut state subsidies to welfare in real terms. It led to a healthcare crisis. You chose to prioritize a tax cut of 13 billion to the highest-paid people in our country. Now you see the effect in healthcare in the 21 healthcare regions. Was it a mistake to make that prioritization, Elisabeth Svantesson?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, that was not it. That is the short answer. But when we now see that inflation continues and that the burdens of inflation need to be distributed more evenly, it is good to lower the tax for more.

What we did then and what we are doing now, ahead of next year, is a historic investment in the welfare system. Do not forget that we are allocating 40 percent of the reform space specifically to activities such as schools, healthcare, and elderly care. We are extending the Elderly Care Boost. We are doing important things to maintain employment.

I remember last year when Mikael Damberg painted the picture of mass layoffs in these sectors. My picture is that we can get through this together. Next year will be extra tough, but these 16 billion will make a big difference. It is a sector that has 1,300 billion in turnover. The deficit next year is estimated at 28 billion, and we strengthen with 16 billion. It will make a difference, and I also know that the operations themselves are now finding ways forward.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! That was what I suspected. The austerity policy is not, as it were, a coincidence or an accident, but it seems to be about this government's somewhat religious conviction.

With open eyes and fully aware, you made that prioritization. That is the problem: By creating these deficits and problems in healthcare already this year, you are worsening the situation for next year. You did this with open eyes.

You have admitted that you made a mistake last time. We were right that it was possible to refrain from making a billionaire bonus when healthcare was in crisis. When will you admit that you now bear responsibility for the crisis arising in all 21 healthcare regions? The state is failing healthcare. Is it time, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister for Finance to take responsibility for it?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! On Monday, it was eleven months since the government took office and I received this position. For me, it has been incredibly important to focus on the right and correct measures. We have lowered the tax. I do not regret that at all. It was not wrong last year. But what we are doing now, as I said, is good, right, and reasonable.

In recent weeks, I have heard the Social Democrats talk about how Sweden has become more dangerous and poorer. Yes, Sweden has become poorer. Inflation is the great monster that is currently pressing on welfare, which is currently pressing on households, which is currently pressing on economies all around Europe. That is why we are fighting inflation.

Sweden has also become more dangerous during the last decade. It is about a migration policy that has not worked, a completely requirement-free integration policy, and a crime policy, which Mikael Damberg has been responsible for for a long time and which has not worked.

Sweden has become more dangerous, but we have decided to reverse that development.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to thank the Finance Minister for pointing out what we agreed on, namely the support for Ukraine and the need to upgrade the defense.

What we do not agree on is the management of the Swedish welfare state. We have today a situation where doctors, nursing assistants, and teachers are fleeing their important professions because they simply can no longer cope. This is naturally linked to the working conditions that prevail when the money is not sufficient. SKR says that 28 billion would be needed in general state grants to remain at today's pressured levels. In the government's own budget, we see that they expect real consumption to change by zero in fixed prices, even though demographics alone would require an increase of approximately 1 percent.

In plain terms, one is budgeting for a welfare collapse. This budget of cuts will send shockwaves across Welfare Sweden. Can the Finance Minister look all those who toil in the welfare sector today in the eye and say, "yes, this is a responsible prioritization"?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Can Ali Esbati look at nursing assistants and nurses in the eyes and say that now Sweden has a welfare collapse? Can Ali Esbati do that?

It is tough right now for many. Households and welfare are being pressured. But it is not the case that we have a welfare collapse. We are having a very tough time, and that is why we are now supporting welfare with 16 billion. It is approximately just over half of the projected deficit that is expected next year, not what SKR has demanded. I think we should stick to the truth.

One also says that here we continue to work. And efficiency does not always mean cuts, it is about doing things in other ways. There is an ongoing discussion in this sector about how we can work better, how we can ensure that, in a good working environment, we still use the money in a wise way.

Again: This sector has 1,300 billion in revenue every year. Next year, the deficit is estimated at 28 billion, and we cover 16. It is not a welfare collapse.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not need to speculate or fantasize. I can read, listen, and see. The fact is that in professional group after professional group, it is chaos and catastrophe messages that are being sent. Of course, one fights hard to hold the positions, because that is what these professions are about.

Teachers are quitting, nurses want to quit, and doctors cannot help but become sick-listed themselves because the pressure is what it is. Then one is met with the Finance Minister's words that with a few efficiencies this should probably go well and we are all fighting together - except for those who receive a little extra rut- and rot-grant.

That is what is the breaking point in the end, and yes: We risk getting welfare collapses in large and small, in the municipalities and in the regions, in healthcare and in elderly care.

That is the point here: Sweden is worth better. The money is there, but the Finance Minister chooses to spend it on something else.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The very largest investment in our budget is in welfare. It is extra money for healthcare precisely because of inflation, and it is precisely inflation, Mr. Speaker, that is interesting here.

It is inflation that is driving up costs especially in the regions right now, but also in the municipalities. Inflation is what we are fighting together. Those who want to and have the time should read the Left Party's various budget motions. We can state that there, they are not afraid of inflation, no. There, they are happy to run large deficits, and that would fuel inflation and continue to increase costs in all those sectors that Ali Esbati is now talking himself warm for.

That we are clear about fighting inflation is so that people can manage this crisis, so that the crisis does not continue for long without us coming out of it as quickly as possible, and that the welfare sectors will also manage the crisis.

We support. We do what we can. One cannot support in all ways and compensate for everything, but 16 billion is a lot.

I know it is tough. But we will get through this together.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thought that the Minister for Finance would have the opportunity to respond to what is stated in her own budget, namely that as a result of decisions that have been made between July 1, 2022, and July 1, 2023 - it is stated that these are decisions you have made, Elisabeth Svantesson - it is estimated that emissions will increase by 5.9-9.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. That is many millions of tonnes.

I also want to take the opportunity to give the Minister for Finance the chance to explain to parents why you prioritize cheaper plastic bags over a thousand new teachers. It is not about whether it is the same money, but it is a question of priorities.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe many families with children will appreciate that plastic bags will hopefully become cheaper. But it is not the major investment in this budget, and Martin Ådahl knows that very well.

Climate policy is central for our four parties. Let me also go back to the spring. Sweden, in its capacity as chair, steered in the large climate package Fit for 55. It will mean a very large transition forward for the entire EU, and it will make a real difference. We in Sweden will, of course, adapt our entire climate policy according to that new legislation, but we are simultaneously doing a lot here and now.

The climate budget is ambitious. It is in line with last year's budget, and that one was also high and large. I know that Martin Ådahl has read it, and he can see that charging infrastructure, clean electricity and nuclear power are important parts to seriously push down emissions.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I noted the prioritization of plastic bags over teachers. That will surely impress many parents.

Let us return to the climate crisis. So it is okay to increase emissions by 9.8 million tons. Sweden is increasing emissions by 20 percent. It is simply okay.

Then the Minister for Finance begins to talk about Fit for 55. As the Minister for Finance is surely aware of the Sverigedemokraterna who voted against it, who are the core part of your government. As if by chance, when it is to be implemented in Sweden, you all miss those goals we have "committed" to, bound ourselves to, to such a mild degree - the Minister for Finance is welcome to comment on this - that we miss 38 billion in joint investments in the EU.

How are we even supposed to get respect for agreements in the world if you do not even follow the agreements you yourselves have been involved in negotiating, which, by the way, the Sverigedemokraterna are opposed to? I will take the opportunity to ask the Sverigedemokraterna about that later.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not easy to answer all of Martin Ådahl's questions. They are, so to speak, all over the place.

What we are now doing together in the EU for the climate goals will make a big difference. Next year, emissions will increase because we are lowering the prices of fuels. This will make a difference for people who are having a tough time. Right now, we are in an economic situation where people are struggling. The reduction obligation that Martin Ådahl has been involved in pushing for will also decrease, and that eases the burden somewhat for people who are completely dependent on their car.

We have heard ten minutes of negative words about everything we do. Martin Ådahl can take those. But let me conclude by saying something completely different. Next year, Sweden will have the lowest tax burden since 1975. That has not been achieved thanks to a Social Democratic or Centre Party finance minister, but rather thanks to a Moderate.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This budget has shown with all desired clarity that the right's talk about climate investments is merely empty words. The Finance Minister says that one has an effective climate policy, but the figures show something completely different. Instead of emissions being lowered, they are increasing.

A rapid transition would strengthen Sweden in both the short and long term. Here, the business sector is also an important actor, meaning that it is not just about investing state funds but that everyone dares to be part of the transition.

Why have all ambitions regarding reducing emissions been abandoned? How is it expected that the business sector will dare to invest in the green transition when the government so flagrantly ignores the climate goals and increases emissions? How is one to know that they can see a return on their investments in green technology?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am surprised. The major investments in the budget include, among other things, Industriklivet, and I believe that Janine Alm Ericson is well aware of what it is about. It is about supporting the industry's transition. Swedish industry is at the forefront, and we support it. We continue to allocate resources to Klimatklivet, which is also an important part of reaching the goals.

As I have said before, we will work together in the EU to reduce emissions across the entire EU. That is the key. Yes, next year emissions will increase due to fuel prices. But it is also a difficult time, and it is a balancing act. Because previous governments have driven up fuel prices and energy prices to unreasonable levels, there is now a legacy to change and restructure. That is exactly what we are doing.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer.

I want to say clearly that it is possible to help households without providing more fossil subsidies and increasing emissions. It is just a matter of having a little more imagination and ensuring that one does both things at the same time. We agree that households should receive help in the economic crisis. It is only the way we do it that differs slightly.

It is good to hear from the Minister for Finance that one intends to follow the Fit for 55 package, but we also have Swedish commitments. We are now risking those. When one reduces the reduction obligation and lowers the tax on petrol and diesel, we risk large amounts from the EU. It does not only concern the 38 billion, but it also concerns the infrastructure where the ambitions have decreased. In this, there is still nothing more than Industriklivet - which is good, and it shows that the goal is firm and that the business community must also be involved in investing.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me clarify a question mark regarding the sum of 38 billion. There is, of course, an ongoing discussion with the commission. It is not about 38 billion, and it was the previous government that negotiated.

Fundamentally, I feel pride in the budget that I have placed on the floor of the Riksdag. It will make a difference for people in a difficult time, and it will also make a difference for the climate.

Now Janine Alm Ericson does not have the opportunity to answer a question, so I will therefore not ask a question, but I noted the following earlier today when she received a question from the journalists regarding whether the budget was higher or lower when Miljöpartiet was responsible for the climate minister post. Since Janine Alm Ericson cannot answer, I can say that it was lower when Miljöpartiet had the climate minister post.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe all speakers today have said that we live in a historically tough time and that we face societal problems on several fronts. This truly places great demands on all politicians, especially those who have been given the trust and the responsibility to govern our country.

But I am struck by the fact that the distance between what this government and the Sweden Democrats say and the reality that characterizes Sweden is great. Despite all the lofty words, one can be certain of one thing, namely that budget tables do not lie. For every krona the SD-government invests in stopping new recruitment, they are therefore spending 8 kronor on removing the plastic bag tax.

The SD-government is now also raising the funkisskatt, that is, the tax for those who are so ill that they de facto cannot work. They shall now pay an even higher tax than those who work, and we all remember what the Sverigedemokraterna said during the election campaign.

The SD-government lets the healthcare crisis that they were involved in creating last year roll on across Sweden. All 21 healthcare regions are running at a deficit. And then we hear the Kristdemokraterna talk about shortening healthcare queues. Good luck!

In a difficult economic situation, one leaves single parents and ordinary families with children to their fate, while simultaneously having the means to make further tax cuts and subsidies for those who can afford to replace the marble slab in the kitchen.

Housing construction has stalled. This leads to poorer growth in Sweden. There are no measures in the budget to reverse this.

This is a backward economic policy that makes Sweden poorer. But there is an alternative. It is possible to prioritize differently. We Social Democrats have shown that it is possible to support households, to prioritize differently in welfare, and to have a policy that actually leads to growth. Sweden deserves that.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are to debate the government's budget bill, but in a week or two I assume that Mikael Damberg and the Social Democrats will present their own proposal for the state budget.

I know nothing, of course, about the content of it, but speaking of families with children, there are many families with children who are dependent on driving a car to get to work, daycare, school, football practice, and whatever else it may be. And when we did this exercise almost exactly one year ago, the Social Democrats chose in their budget motion to raise the tax on fuels by almost 7 billion kronor.

Many of us live in rural areas and are dependent on the car, so my question is this: How much do the Social Democrats want to raise the fuel tax this time?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost a bit brave of Oscar Sjöstedt to bring up just the petrol and diesel taxes in a debate today. We will remember how many billions you invested in it and what the result was: 14 öre. It saved no household economy.

Is it perhaps the case that the voters will remember that Oscar Sjöstedt and Jimmie Åkesson traveled around during the election campaign and promised that it would become 10 kronor cheaper at the pump? Has anyone seen those 10 kronor? The prices are higher today than they were a year ago.

What we did and showed in our previous budget motion, which unfortunately did not become a reality, was that it is possible to put money directly into the pockets of the people who live in the countryside and in rural areas and need the car, not just to go to work but to take the children to practice. It is possible to give them a fuel discount directly in their pockets instead of donating the money to the petrol companies, which did not have any effect on the price.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now, it was not the prices I was asking about. I do not expect Mikael Damberg to solve the war in Ukraine, which is driving up the world market price of oil. I am not requesting that Mikael Damberg go on some campaign in the OPEC countries and tell them to start production, because then demand increases and the prices fall.

I am asking about the Social Democrats' position in Swedish tax policy regarding fuel. We lowered the taxes by almost 7 billion kronor last year. Next year, they will be lowered by an additional 6.5 billion kronor. The Social Democrats were opposed to that tax cut then. Will you continue to be so now?

There are many parameters that affect the price. We do not determine the price, because we do not live in a planned economy. But we can control the taxes. That was the question. The price is controlled by a lot of other things as well, but we can decide on the taxes.

But we can wait if there is no answer to that question. We can wait a few weeks, and then we will get the answer. That is completely okay for me.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is still exciting to hear the Sweden Democrats after the election and before the election.

Before the election, Jimmie Åkesson did not say that the price was controlled by the war in Ukraine. You did not say that you could not influence the price at the pump. You promised that it would be 10 kronor cheaper at the pump on Monday after the election. That is what you said. Now it sounds completely different. Then you allocated a number of billions to a tax cut that you went out and said would be huge. The result was 14 öre. Today, the gasoline and diesel prices are higher than before the election.

We Social Democrats showed last time that it is possible to direct support directly to the people who live in the countryside and in rural areas and ensure that they get money in their pockets so that they can decide whether they need the car to go to work or to training. It is possible to ensure that it actually makes a difference in ordinary people's everyday lives.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Member Damberg has been Sweden's Minister for Finance. I do not know what the member thinks, but I think it is good if one can perform addition and subtraction.

The Chairman said in his speech that for every krona we invest in preventive measures, we invest 8 kronor in the plastic bag tax. The plastic bag tax costs 650 million regardless of whether one thinks it is good or bad. At least 1.7 billion is spent on preventive measures. These include, among other things, preventive measures with social services and a new Social Services Act, a staffing initiative, a better working environment for teachers in vulnerable areas, expanded parental support, school social teams, and help for children who need LVU.

I simply wonder: Which budget tables has the member read, and what has gone wrong?

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! To be very clear, I am speaking about the investments that the previous government directed to the municipalities that have vulnerable areas - 250 million kronor per year that they can decide over themselves for interventions for field assistants, for school investments, for interventions to identify young people on the slide. It was a targeted investment.

We could talk about what the government presented as a major investment of 80 million kronor. It was part of the number-trixing, because it was 250 that became 80. It is a saving of 170 million kronor for the municipalities that have the greatest challenges here. We can gladly have a discussion about how it feels for the municipalities around Sweden that have these big challenges to receive a saving and not an investment.

Then you can include a great deal in discussions about preventive measures in general, but these were targeted measures for the municipalities that have the greatest problems with gang crime all around Sweden. They are now receiving reduced support, not increased support, and you are investing eight times more on the plastic bag tax than on targeted measures to combat new recruitment.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for the explanation! I think we can still agree that a new Social Services Act with an increased staffing initiative, a better working environment for teachers in vulnerable areas, expanded parental support and school social teams, and help for children who need LVU are also preventive measures.

What do we actually gain from this type of rhetoric? It is perfectly okay, I think, that we have different ways of reaching our goals. But wouldn't it be honest and honorable to keep the debate at a level where the Swedish people understand the differences in our various budget proposals?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think Cecilia Rönn has a good point in that it can be good to be clear about what one means and does not mean.

We actually proposed even before the summer that extra funds should be provided to the municipalities this year so that this summer would not become a recruitment party for the criminal gangs and so that the municipalities would have the means to make extra efforts with employed field workers and other safe adults to be able to meet young people during the summer. This is because we saw that we had a development that was alarming, which was going in the wrong direction, and it has only been reinforced.

Now, urgent measures are required here and now so that the municipalities can afford to make those measures. A new Social Services Act, long-term work with new rules and more money in the future is good, but it is here and now that we have gang criminals who use young people, who are drawn into these environments. It is dangerous for them themselves, but it is also dangerous for the rest of society.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, the Social Democratic government pushed through completely unreasonable tax legislation by introducing a new so-called target age in the pension system. This legislative proposal had the consequence that everyone born in 1957 ended up "wrong" in the tax system and was hit by an enormous tax injustice when the target age was increased but other systems did not follow suit. We are absolutely not talking about pocket change, but about taxes in the magnitude of 2,000-3,000 SEK per month that one should not have to pay. We are also talking about an age group of just over 100,000 individuals.

The Sweden Democrats voted no to the Social Democrats' proposal right then and there, when it was up for a vote here in the chamber. Unfortunately, we lost that vote. This obviously made very many people both angry, upset, and probably also sad - with good reason, I want to add.

We have now invested time, effort, and energy into correcting this injustice, which the Social Democrats introduced. We are doing this now in connection with this budget bill - the 57-year-olds and, a bit further ahead, also the 59-year-olds shall not pay either higher or, for that matter, lower tax than any other specific age group. This will now, therefore, be corrected.

When the Social Democrats more or less leave chaos behind, it is apparently our job to clean up. It is not a particularly grateful job every time, but it is a job that needs to be done.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have listened to Oscar Sjöstedt during the debate. He has stated that we live in a tough economic time, that it is important to prioritize, and that he is very proud of the product that has been reached.

I have a question. I listened to the Sweden Democrats during the election campaign, and a group you spoke a lot about were the people with disabilities – people who are in a very tough economic situation, have suffered for a long time, and often have difficulty getting support from society in various contexts. At no point during the election campaign, Oscar Sjöstedt, did I hear that the Sweden Democrats wanted not only to keep the disability tax but also expand it, as you are now doing in the budget. Did I miss this during the election campaign? Or have you actually betrayed people with disabilities with this budget?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is obviously no special tax for people with different types of functional impairments. It is completely bizarre to think that anyone would come up with the idea to introduce such a tax. Obviously, that does not exist. On the other hand, there are people who work and people who do not work. Those who work can be non-functionally impaired or functionally impaired, and the same applies to those who do not work. The claim that there is a special taxation for people with different types of functional impairments is actually quite bizarre. There is no such tax.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! An interesting answer! I do not know, in fact, if there is any other country in the world where people with disabilities who cannot work pay higher taxes than those who work. Sweden has introduced a completely unique system with the right-wing government's tax policy. We had the same discussion about the pensioner tax. For a while, that didn't exist either. Now all parties agree that it was wrong to tax people who have worked in a different way than those who work.

My question to Oscar Sjöstedt is: Don't you think that people with disabilities feel a bit deceived by the Sweden Democrats, when you pretended to stand on their side but are now ensuring that the tax legislation is changed so that Sweden becomes one of the few countries in the world that has a higher tax for those who cannot work than for those who work? Is this a reasonable prioritization?

You could have financed this quite easily. You could have refrained from abolishing the plastic bag tax.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The point of my answer was that there are very many people with different types of functional variations who contribute something immense to the Swedish labor market. I believe that this, for many of these people who are sitting and listening to this debate, where everyone is being labeled as unemployed, can be quite provoking. There are very many people with different types of functional variations who have income from service, just like I, the Speaker, and Mikael Damberg himself. It is quite provoking to claim that just because one has a functional variation, one has no role to fill on the Swedish labor market.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! So here we stand again. New budget proposals have been negotiated. New broken promises from the Sweden Democrats are coming in broad daylight, and a seemingly satisfied and elated Oscar Sjöstedt willingly and cheerfully talks about other things.

But as late as August 2022, shortly before the election, the Sweden Democrats, through Jimmie Åkesson in his own person, reminded us that dental care would fall under the same high-cost protection as other healthcare with SD policy. The cost was 7 billion, a large but very reasonable reform.

What became of this? Yes, a budget came and went. Now the next one is coming. Do we see any trace of this reform there? No, it became the opposite instead. Instead of everyone getting better dental care, young adults are being left out of free dental care in the budget moving forward.

My question, Oscar Sjöstedt, is: Let us hear more about this dental care promise - how do you personally think it is going?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ali Esbati, for the question! This is in the works, but it has not become a reality yet. One may think what one likes about the pace and the speed at which things are pushed through in the Government Offices, but things and matters take some time. This is in the works and will be completed during the mandate period. It is not in the works to the extent that it has come to benefit every single individual, but I, who have some insight from the inside, can confirm that it is in the works. Neither we nor our coalition partners in the government have, as I perceive it, in any way let go of this issue; rather, it is included in the Tidö Agreement and shall be implemented during the mandate period. Unfortunately, I cannot be clearer than that.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! One seems to fail with the rhythm, the speed, and also the direction. It is possible that this is the essence of belonging to a reactionary party – that one approaches the goal somewhat by backing away from it. I do not know.

But I note that two budgets have now passed. It is not just that there is no hint that this is to be realized, but one is now removing free dental care for young adults. For dental care as a whole, it is therefore going backwards.

I can also see that this is in the Tidö Agreement, but it is something that is very telling here. Certain things that are in the Tidö Agreement, one is very keen to highlight and have joint press conferences about – housing and so on. But the dental care promise, which was very clear and was carried by your party leader, is a bit prescribed, I was about to say. It is in any case not particularly present in what happens in reality.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is no point in calling a press conference if one has nothing concrete to tell. The opposition engages in this quite a bit, but we actually do not.

It says in the Tidö Agreement that this reform, which we are in the process of, shall be completed during the mandate period. Otherwise, we have a problem, because the Tidö Agreement must be implemented – that is what all four parties agree on. It says that the elderly with the worst oral health are to be prioritized.

The reform that Ali Esbati is now talking about concerns 29-year-olds. Sure, one is a young adult, but I believe that one is fully grown when one is 29. The arrangement that has been in place, with subsidized dental care all the way up to adult 29-year-olds, has, as we have seen, led to other needs being pushed aside. Dental care does not have unlimited capacity; rather, the capacity is limited, just like everything else here in life.

So it is about two slightly different things. But it is in progress; we have not released it.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! In this exchange of remarks, it has become apparent that two questions must be asked. The first is: Is it SD's view on emissions and climate policy that is visible in this budget? That is the first question. Oscar Sjöstedt is welcome to answer yes or no, and whether it is too few emission reductions, if it is just right, or if it could have been a little less.

The second question concerns Fit for 55, which the government constantly uses as a way to respond to the fact that they are increasing emissions by 20 percent in their budget. Are the Sweden Democrats still against it? Does it affect your view on the budget? Have you changed your position significantly since you voted against it?

Then I cannot help but let reality haunt Oscar Sjöstedt again. Will the price of diesel fall by 10 kronor on January 1, 2024, or will it not, when you remove and scrap the entire Swedish climate policy and the reduction obligation for this important goal?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not understand all the questions, I must be honest and say, but I will do my best.

Has the view on Fit for 55 affected the budget process? No, I cannot claim that it has to any significant extent, not for my part at least.

When it comes to the price of diesel, I want to point out that the Sweden Democrats did not receive a majority on their own. That means we negotiate, compromise, and reach agreements with other parties in a way that the previous government was not capable of doing. It did not even get its budget policy, its economic policy, through.

Now we are back in the same discussion as in the previous exchange: The price of fuel is affected by a multitude of factors. The tools we have to work with - primarily the tax and the reduction obligation - we have in place. The tax on diesel will therefore, during 2024, be at the EU's absolute minimum level, as will the reduction obligation. War and other things I cannot really control.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not know how I can formulate the question so that it will be easy for Oscar Sjöstedt to try to answer it.

Do you think the emissions increase too little as a result of the budget - according to what is stated in the budget - or are they approximately right, or should they decrease more? Does it reflect your view on how the emissions should develop in Sweden?

Then the members can answer the question of whether the Sweden Democrats are still opposed to Fit for 55, which the government says is the most important climate instrument and which they refer to all the time, even though they break it.

I also note that we never get to know when those 10 kronor on the diesel will come. They are like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They will come at some point in the future. On the other hand, it is perfectly fine to mock us who want to send the money directly as petrol checks to those who are dependent on the car in the countryside. But it is never possible to see a glimpse of what was your biggest promise to the countryside during the election campaign.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! That is not how one approaches a process when negotiating a budget bill. One does not start by agreeing on how much emissions should increase and then sit down to see how to achieve it. That is not quite how we work. It seems almost baroque, I must say.

We have seen a need to lower taxes on fuels. There are very many people who want to live in small houses slightly outside the absolute urban centers. They do not have a subway. I believe there is an expectation, at least when it concerns us, that we should do something for all of them.

The Center Party has presented a proposal that is completely unrealistic, unfeasible, and unreasonable. I still do not take that proposal seriously. Either one wants to lower the tax or one wants to raise the tax. When we had this exercise a year ago, we could note that the Center Party wanted to raise the tax on fuel when we had lowered it. At that time, we lowered it by almost 7 billion kronor. Now, at the turn of the year, we are lowering it by 6.5 billion kronor, while the mileage allowance has increased and the reduction obligation has decreased. I think it is quite clear in which direction we are heading.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have never cared particularly much about climate policy. Instead of supporting the transition, they are very clearly pursuing a policy for increased emissions.

It also means that for a long time we will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels, such as the oil and gas of Putin and other dictators. This means that people who have no choice, who must refuel with such fuels, will continue to be exposed to increased prices and the whims of foreign powers. Now, Saudi Arabia and Russia have decided that the oil price should go up, which increases the costs for those who live in the countryside and are dependent on the car. Even if the government now tries to subsidize with a pittance, it will still remain expensive.

Does Oscar Sjöstedt see any problems with the costs of commuting to work by car being determined by oil cartels? And if he does, why does he then do nothing to break the oil dependency instead of making it cheaper with cheap Swedish electricity as fuel?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! But, please – if everyone were to magically switch to electric cars now, all those electric cars would be standing still, because there is not that much electricity since Miljöpartiet has phased out nuclear power. Now we must live in reality. One cannot start by phasing out the fossil-free electricity production – domestic fossil-free electricity production.

When we handled our bill, the Green Party was also opposed to the wording that we should aim for fossil-free Swedish electricity production, that is to say, nuclear power. What are the alternatives then, if we do not have nuclear power in Sweden? The fossil fuels do not come from Sweden, quite correctly. Now, we do not buy any oil or gas from Russia, thank goodness, but we buy from the Norwegians. Norway is a significantly more civilized country. But it is at least correct that we have no domestic production. What are the alternatives then? Well, it is to stand still. But then you get nowhere. If all cars became electric cars, they would all stand still, because that electricity supply does not exist.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is easy for the Sweden Democrats to try to hide behind a nuclear power discussion. Large parts of this government and the government base do the same. But the truth is that we in Sweden have produced more electricity than ever in recent years. We have expanded renewable electricity production, and it needs to continue to be expanded. Nuclear power is expensive and will take an incredibly long time. It is merely a security blanket in these debates.

What I asked Oscar Sjöstedt, and which I noted that he did not answer, was what he thinks about being dependent. We know that the import of oil and gas from Russia has in fact not ceased, which is completely inconceivable when it comes to them financing their war against Ukraine. The government and the Sverigedemokraterna have therefore continued. With one hand, they want to support Ukraine, and with the other hand, they finance Putin's war. But what I asked was how the Sverigedemokraterna in the long term view our continued dependence on oil and gas from power cartels that are eager to pull the strings.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Then we are in agreement on at least one thing, and that is something one can take hold of in this type of debate - not a single krona to Putin's Russia. It does not only concern oil and gas, but I think all those companies that are active there and that still have not withdrawn should consider whether they should not do so. There is consumer power to be utilized, which some of them have noticed.

Nuclear power is expensive, and it takes a long time to build. We are accused of trying to hide behind a discussion about this. But what I am saying is true. If the entire fleet were to somehow magically become electric vehicles, it would capsize. That output does not exist in the Swedish grid today, because the previous government—championed by not least Miljöpartiet—shut down Swedish nuclear power production. It is not hiding. It is simply telling the truth, plain and simple.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! That it is a misfortune for Sweden with this very government at the helm of the economic policy becomes particularly clear when there is a crisis, as there is now. The cost crisis admittedly has global roots. It affects many countries simultaneously. The starting point is the aftermath of the pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, not Oscar Sjöstedt and Elisabeth Svantesson.

Sjöstedt and Svantesson have, however, actively chosen a passive management of the crisis, which resulted in Sweden standing helpless when it could have been acted upon to push back inflation, which is extra spicy since the management of inflation is the government's highest priority. Then it becomes a bit extra bad.

The management has been unsuccessful, which can be seen compared to other countries, and has also placed burdens on households that already have all too small margins. Those who are interested in analyzing the actual development of inflation in Sweden can observe that it is not driven by wage increases but rather by record-high profit levels. It is in the areas where we see a strong market power for a few dominating actors that the price increases have been particularly high and driven inflation.

Vänsterpartiet has presented proposals in exactly these areas. It would have been possible to act more to get the food giants to press their prices. It would have been possible to review the electricity pricing system so that it becomes more adapted to Swedish conditions and the large surplus production that we have today, instead of the whole being priced in Germany. It would have been possible to press the banks' indecent profits by letting the state-owned SBAB get back the goals that the Reinfeldt government changed and so on.

None of this is happening, and there is no attempt at a reality-oriented, intellectually honest understanding of the cost crisis. Instead, inflation functions at times as a security blanket to cling to when nothing is to be done, and at other times as a kind of cloak to hide behind when the actual policy is about favoring the crisis profiteers. That policy unfortunately continues also in the budget bill.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! After many other major issues, I would like to raise an issue that is rarely spoken about but which is very important during the inflation crisis, namely the skills shortage.

In the midst of the crisis, in the midst of high unemployment and falling growth, there are 100,000 vacancies in Sweden. Eight out of ten employers have difficulty finding the right competence, according to a survey from Svenskt Näringsliv.

That the government did not believe it could do anything about this would have been understandable if, at the same time, tens of thousands of people had not been queuing for retraining for people in the middle of their lives, the so-called transition study support, and tens of thousands of people had not been queuing for the vocational college programs that companies demand, which provide jobs directly and which many see as a great opportunity to develop mid-life and fill the gaps that exist. It would have been understandable if one had not just precisely now raised the marginal taxes in many of the professions where there is a shortage.

We in the Center Party cannot understand why, alongside all these major issues, one does not invest fully in transition study support and lifelong learning and in the university college, while at the same time putting back resources into vocational adult education, when we have such an extreme skills shortage which also drives inflation.

It is one thing that one is obviously unable to lower the employer contributions in order to thereby lower costs, but one can still go all out when people want to fill the gaps in Swedish society and dampen inflation by reducing the shortage.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Since 2003, that is over 20 years, the proportion of Swedes who describe their lives as meaningless has quadrupled, from 6 to 24 percent. We also know that half of those who are on sick leave in Sweden are on sick leave for mental illness or such symptoms. I therefore want to highlight in this contribution the government's work with mental health.

I assert that mental ill-health among children and young people is our time's greatest public health issue. We who have had the privilege of working with children and young people encounter young people who have a pitch-black anxiety that they are trying to grapple with and a hope that has simply disappeared. All of us know that this is a major issue awaiting measures, and now the government has actually invested a record amount in increasing accessibility to child and adolescent psychiatry. That is good.

The government both strengthens and extends the investments, and just over 2 billion kronor are now allocated for interventions within mental health and suicide prevention next year. We must also, in this situation, try to think anew, and I believe the government is capable of that. A commission of inquiry into suicides is now being investigated, and work is also being done on a statutory care guarantee for children so that they receive the help they need within a maximum of 30 days.

All this must, of course, also be matched by us becoming better at the preventive work, i.e., before the mental ill-health arises. For me as a Christian Democrat, the answer is that it is then important to invest in the family and the unconditional love that draws children to their parents. Then we must ensure that all good forces in civil society are allowed to contribute.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to mental ill-health, which Hans Eklind raised, we agree that it is a terrible development. What we can question is why one then believes that a reduction in the funds for care will lead to more effectiveness.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Christian Democrats for picking up the Green Party's discarded glove regarding the money to compensate those born in 1957. That they are now receiving compensation is very welcome.

Actually, my question is about the aid and the reduction of funds to civil society and to climate adaptation that the government is making. These are two priorities that the government says it has, but where we see that the figures point in the completely wrong direction.

I would like to ask Hans Eklind how he explains that discrepancy.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I did not pick up a thrown glove, but it was a glove that I put on myself early in October. Since then, I have worked to ensure that those born in 1957 receive the compensation to which they are entitled.

I have sat in the Pensions Group for many years. Already when Annika Strandhäll was the chair of the Pensions Group and we introduced what is called the retirement age, we agreed that we then had to simultaneously adjust various things, everything from LAS to ensuring that everyone pays the correct tax in year one.

The whole thing was an oversight that flew under the radar. Here in the Riksdag, in fact, no party raised the issue. Nor did any of the pensioner organizations raise it, and neither did the Pensionsmyndigheten or Skatteverket, but when the situation became known, I took up the glove immediately. I did this partly as a consequence of my assignment in the Pensionsgruppen, because right is right and wrong is wrong. It was necessary to rectify it.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! There we agree. Who was first we can debate, but we can state that it is very good that persons born in 1957 are now being compensated. This is something that we both have worked for.

I notice that Hans Eklind really does not want to answer my question about aid and the priorities of aid. The Christian Democrats have historically stood up for strong aid and for a strong civil society, both nationally and internationally. It has also been expressed that we must do something about climate change and that it can be a good investment to take money from aid and put it towards that. But now we see how the government is cutting back on both, and this I find remarkable.

At the same time, we now see in the domestic debate how the education funds are being withdrawn and how civil society is also being affected here in Sweden. What is the Christian Democrats' explanation for having agreed to a budget that looks that way?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would very much like to speak about aid, but I did not have time for it during the minute I had at my disposal. I still think that the question concerning those born in 1957 was important to comment on a bit more extensively than just taking up this matter with the thrown glove.

When it comes to aid, the member knows that the Christian Democrats are working very hard so that we have as large and good an aid as possible. But it must also be effective. What was introduced by this government was that, for example, one may not deduct more than 8 percent for migration. That makes it easier for aid organizations, such as the Lepra Mission where I myself sit with, to be able to plan for an entire year.

I would, however, like to say that this with trade is not a bad idea. I do not know – the member may correct me – if there is any country that has been lifted out of poverty and achieved prosperity by being aid-dependent. The way out of poverty instead goes via market economy, an active trade exchange, human rights, and so on. I therefore think that this connection between aid and trade is exactly right, and it is this government that has joined these together. This we therefore stand behind completely.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now forests are burning, and now the water is drying up. Now communities are being struck by extreme weather. Now families are being torn apart because of the climate crisis, and now people are forced to watch their life's work be washed away in tandem with rising water levels.

As I have said before, this is no longer a question of the future. It is not something that only future generations have to both deal with and adapt to, but it is happening now.

In the same way, this government chooses to fuel the climate crisis that threatens our entire existence, not because one does not know what needs to be done, but because one chooses to refrain from doing so.

We all know what needs to be done. In an acute climate crisis, three measures are primarily required: to significantly reduce emissions, to protect more nature, and to adapt society to a changed climate. This government is doing nothing of this. Instead of reducing emissions, they are making it cheaper to emit. Instead of protecting nature and the environment, they have demolished the extremely important nature work that has actually functioned. Then they restore a trickle and call it an initiative. It is shameless.

Instead of actually climate-adapting society to protect both people and property, one chooses to bury one's head in the sand with a belief that the problem will be solved by someone else. It is an irresponsible betrayal of everyone who lives here and now and everyone who comes after us.

We know that another way is possible and that it is possible to build a stronger Sweden and a better world if we do it together for everyone. We can choose to make the green transition the social construction that not only reduces emissions but also provides jobs and security for more people. We can choose to be the country that shows that it can be done, we who strengthen the welfare, increase equality and invest in the transition.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! More children should get to see their parents go to work. Marginalization has spread. Since 2018, women born outside of Europe have been the largest group of long-term unemployed. Stefan Löfven promised the EU's lowest unemployment. On the contrary, today we have the EU's third highest unemployment.

The situation in the Swedish labor market is paradoxical. There are 364,000 people without work. At the same time, 126,000 jobs remain vacant. The problem stems from an educational debt that the previous government chose to ignore. With the Liberals in government, there will be a change in this.

Madam Speaker! In this year's budget, the Liberals prioritize education. We are investing in approximately 20,000 more education places in shortage occupations because we know that the work line is at its best when combined with a liberal education line. This means an investment in vocational colleges, in adult vocational education, and in a completely new fast track to meet the employers' needs. This will lead to more people who can take care of the elderly and who can cook for our school children and lead to the green transition. More children will see their parents go to work, and fewer will need to live on benefits.

More community builders mean that we can manage the green transition, combat exclusion, and manage integration. The way there is that more people get into work. With vocational training, we equip Sweden for the future. A sound jobs policy needs a strong education policy.

For future generations, we are expanding the school system and implementing an engineering initiative. If the green transition is to be carried out, companies need personnel with the right competence. By strengthening Swedish human capital, we strengthen not only the individual but also Sweden as a whole. This budget invests in building a stronger Sweden for the future.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by welcoming Cecilia Rönn to the Finance Committee, the budget work, and these debates.

The Liberals have been prepared to compromise on a lot to be part of Jimmie Åkesson's government – also much of their soul, there are those who say. But we can state that they, among other things, received the position of Minister for Climate, and today a budget has been submitted that takes us in a completely wrong direction and instead increases emissions. I know that the Liberals are very eager to talk about new nuclear power, but that lies far into the future and will not suffice as the only measure.

The Liberals continue to assert that the climate goals are important, and that is very welcome. But I would like to hear Cecilia Rönn tell which measures the Liberals want to see in order to specifically reduce emissions.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the welcome, Member Janine Alm Ericson!

Now we are presenting major investments - 4 billion - in an effective and ambitious climate policy. These are changes that make a real difference and that lead to us moving towards net-zero emissions, instead of putting all eggs in one basket as is done with, for example, the reduction obligation.

I live in Varberg, where we had four fine nuclear reactors in Ringhals. Now we have two, because two were decommissioned prematurely. The reason they were decommissioned prematurely was that the Miljöpartiet with great courage and, according to the National Audit Office's report, without proper analyses made it so that they had to close. It was fine, fossil-free energy that we needed for the climate transition. It was irresponsible climate policy that we are now moving away from. We are directing the investments towards innovation, power systems, and a conviction that entrepreneurs will transition when the opportunities exist.

I wonder what the member actually intends to say to private individuals, companies, and the public sector that are being brought to their knees by the high electricity prices resulting from the previous climate policy.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

We see that one of the prerequisites for a fixed climate policy - and this is something I also asked the Minister for Finance about - is that the rules of the game are long-term. However, these have been torn up by the government, and therefore there is no longer a guarantee that one will get their investments repaid. That responsibility lies with the Liberals and the rest of the government.

Did we decommission nuclear power prematurely? The one who says that chooses to ignore very many different factors, for example the safety aspects. They do not mention the Liberals with a single word, but I still believe that one is aware that there are high risks, that nuclear power did not pay for them and that we simply had to ensure that all types of energy pay for their own risks and costs. But I notice that one still has nuclear power as its almost only answer.

Miljöpartiet really did not put all their eggs in one basket but had a large and diversified policy for emission reductions. Now we see how emissions are increasing, and it is fatally bad.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I would recommend that the member read the National Audit Office's report on what, among other things, the decision on the electricity tax did, so that we do not need to talk more about it.

No government has ever actually been so close to reaching the climate goals for 2045 as we are with this budget; it is stated in black and white in the state budget presented today. No government has ever pushed so strongly for electrification, new nuclear power and a climate transition for companies and industry - with charging infrastructure, Industriklivet and rewetting of wetlands. We therefore have a large palette.

These are, however, long-term and structural changes that we need to make, and it takes a bit longer. But I wonder, as I said, where the opposition has been. You are quite divided, Janine Alm Ericson - will taxes be lowered? Will fuel prices be higher? Will it be nuclear power or not? I think the member must nevertheless be happy that we have actually never been so close to reaching the climate goals for 2045 as we are now.

(Applause)

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)