Debate on the occasion of the submission of the budget bill

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! A new station building is currently being built in Gothenburg. I know that because I had the honor of being there this week to lay the first brick. The first station building in Gothenburg was built in 1858. At that time, Sweden was poor, truly poor. It was a time when, just a few years later, we received international aid due to poverty.

Despite difficult times, the station building was constructed. It was built not only for those who lived and worked then but also for subsequent and future generations. One could see the station building as a starting point and a symbol, for shortly thereafter began what we usually call a hundred years of growth in Sweden. We then became one of the world's richest countries.

Mr. Speaker! Now it is time again. This budget is a billion-dollar program for jobs, for growth, and for building a safer Sweden. We have fought the high inflation, and now it is time to invest in the future and build Sweden wealthier, for those who graduated in June and for their children and perhaps grandchildren. It is precisely for that reason that we and our four parties - Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Liberalerna and Kristdemokraterna - have negotiated this budget, to ensure here and now that Sweden functions better, also for future generations.

Mr. Speaker! Inflation has erased ten years of real wage increases. Pensioners have seen the value of their savings decrease, mortgage holders have struggled with high interest costs, and many business owners have struggled with declining demand. An important part of making Sweden richer is to strengthen the purchasing power of the Swedes, and that is exactly what we do with this budget. We continue to lower taxes broadly for everyone who works as well as the tax on pension.

With this budget, Mr. Speaker, it becomes more profitable to move from benefits to work. It is both right and fair. A family with a police officer and a nurse – I heard a journalist call it a "snutsyrra," a new term – who toil and work shifts will get approximately 9,000 more in their pocket next year.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden also has a share savings culture that we can be really proud of. I am often asked by my colleagues in the EU why so many Swedes save in shares and funds, because in that regard, we are unique. Then I usually tell them about the ISK. It is a fantastic invention where girls and boys and men and women can save a small or large buffer for retirement far in the future or for a trip quite soon. You get a return on your money, usually more than what you get on a savings account, and furthermore, the money facilitates the market through capital for innovation and companies. Now we are further encouraging this form of savings by making the first 150,000 kronor on the ISK tax-free next year, and the year after it will be 300,000.

Mr. Speaker! I know that there are many who have not saved anything at all because they have not been able to. I know what it is like to stretch every little krona to make the money last until the child allowance arrives so that one can put food on the table for one's children. In this budget, we are lowering, as I said, the tax on both low and medium incomes. We are also extending the housing allowance for those families with children who have it the toughest.

Mr. Speaker! In this budget, we are also increasing the amount for those who receive sickness benefit in special cases - the rehabilitation benefit in special cases. This is a group that has not had their compensations increased since 2012. This is what the moderate-led government is doing.

(Applause)

The consequences of high inflation have caused Swedish growth to slow down. We have an interest-rate-sensitive economy with households that have high debts and which therefore react quickly to higher interest rates. Just like Germany, France and other countries, we find ourselves in a recession, and we will be in one during the next year as well. To lower taxes and pursue a more expansive fiscal policy in this situation – in a recession – is completely the right way to go. The Riksbank has signaled interest rate cuts, and with our policy, we will contribute to an economic upturn.

What concerns me even more, Mr. Speaker, is the long-term growth. It is about what makes the economy grow in five, ten, or fifteen years and about daring to take responsibility today for decisions that make the economy grow in the long run. It is only a growing economy that can sustain future welfare. It is only a growing economy that can pay for a future defense or justice system. That is why this budget is so focused on growth. It does not happen by itself.

Let me give some examples from the budget. Investments are required for growth, and this budget is investment-heavy.

The upcoming infrastructure bill will be the largest ever presented. It is, of course, about paying off as much as we can on maintenance but also about new investments.

The research and innovation bill will also be the largest one submitted. We focus on groundbreaking technology, on life science and other areas that will allow Sweden to become wealthier even in the long term.

When it comes to travel, you have surely heard that we are removing the aviation tax. Why are we doing it? Well, because the aviation industry is facing enormous difficulties and because Sweden is dependent on an aviation industry that functions. Not everyone lives in Stockholm or even in Örebro.

Mr. Speaker! For a growing economy, a secure, stable and clean energy system is also needed. That is also something we invest in, and the work to get new nuclear power started and in place is entering an intensive phase. At the same time, in the budget, we strengthen the incentives for municipalities to ensure that there is wind power nearby by allowing them to share in the property tax. We are also continuing to build out the charging infrastructure, so that one can have an electric car in all of Sweden.

Sweden is and will continue to be a leader in the climate transition. We are an example. 98 percent of all electricity produced in Sweden is fossil-free, but more needs to be done. If we invest in the climate today and tomorrow, it will be one of the very best things we do for future generations. With this budget, Mr. Speaker, emissions will decrease.

That our high-tech and knowledge-intensive companies are important for Sweden, I believe we can all agree on, regardless of which party we belong to, but if they are to continue to be that and continue to grow, they must be able to obtain competent labor in Sweden but also in other countries. Therefore, we are improving the experts' tax, but that is not enough.

Both the OECD and the Productivity Commission have addressed and been very clear that we have too high marginal tax rates in Sweden. It is harmful to have too high marginal tax rates. It hinders growth and thus also future welfare. Those who do not agree with this may still feel that the principle of half remaining, that is, that one at least gets to keep half of what one earns, should apply in a country like Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! When inflation skyrocketed, welfare was very much affected - especially in the regions, where pension costs were so dependent on the level of inflation. That is why we have done everything we can to combat inflation. It has been harmful for households, and it has been harmful for welfare. It also took up money that was better needed for the care of patients.

Next year, Mr. Speaker, the pension costs in the regions will be 25 billion lower because the high inflation has been fought. Also in the municipalities, they will be 25 billion lower. That is, 50 billion lower pension costs next year, according to SKR, because we have now won the battle against inflation.

We continue to support the welfare state nonetheless. It does not happen in the same way as this year because this year has been completely exceptional, but we are making major investments in child psychiatry and in reducing queues, as well as a special targeted investment in the form of sector grants to the healthcare and the regions in order to still provide support. According to the analysis we are making, the regions will be approximately in balance next year.

Mr. Speaker! I received some questions regarding textbooks and whether this is going to become digital in the future, but I am a person who likes books – and books are above all important in school. This government is investing in textbooks. The era of textbooks is not over, and I believe that Lotta Edholm also feels that.

This is important, and we continue to make that investment in the same way as we invest in ensuring that teachers receive further education. The children are our future; it is not a cliché but pure fact. If the children do not get good chances and the same opportunities to actually embark on a life journey - to learn what they need to manage life and be out on the labor market - we have failed.

Mr. Speaker! Crime is more visible than ever on our streets and squares and in residential areas. But there is a violence that is not visible. It can occur inside a window on the third floor, behind a curtain, while one walks past on the sidewalk outside their home. This violence is perpetrated by men against women. Women are murdered and abused in their own homes.

I am glad that our four coalition parties are taking this issue very seriously. It concerns everything from a more effective contact ban to resources to facilitate and help the woman. It is not the woman who should flee the home; it is the man who should not set foot there. We do all of this together, while we also fight crime.

When we do that, it is not just about prisons and police but also about preventive measures. It is about, for example, the social services and a new social services legislation, and it is about more money for municipalities so that they can work with children who, so to speak, have greater problems than children perhaps had 10, 15, or 20 years ago. Now one meets children who murder children – or who flee the gangs because they do not want to murder children.

It matters who is in power, Mr. Speaker, and the judiciary is expected to increase from 69 to 100 billion kronor just between the years 2023 and 2027.

Many here have, just like me, surely been deeply affected by how criminals through "telephone sales" deceive the elderly out of money. It is done in different ways but always just as shamelessly. The Police Authority estimates that the criminal economy turns over somewhere between 100 and 150 billion per year, and it is money that, naturally, causes the violence and the shootings not to stop.

That is why we are now making massive investments in tightening and strangling the criminal economy. It exists everywhere and in different ways. Let us work together – whether it is the state or organizations – to actually clear this out, so that the money cannot rule and be leading! We have decided to take the gangs' money and return it to the Swedish people, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

There will be quite a few things that we do not agree on here today, but something I am very happy that we agree on is defense. That all eight parties are so united on the need to strengthen Sweden's defense capability and agree on which resources are needed is important. What we do together for Ukraine is, moreover, perhaps even more important; it shows both Russia, Ukraine, and all other countries that we stand on the side of the Ukrainians. We shall continue to do that.

The defense budget is now increasing every year, and it is an entirely existential issue. If the state and we cannot ensure that our citizens are safe both in the country and along the country's borders, we have failed in the most important task.

I shall go down for landing, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that we took over government power in a Sweden that had become poorer and more dangerous. The growth rate was among the lowest in the EU, and the rate of violence development was among the highest. It was a Sweden with potholes in the roads and bullet holes in the walls. We received the voters' mandate to reverse that development, and step by step, reform by reform and budget by budget, we are doing just precisely that.

We go back to the station house in Gothenburg. What enabled a hundred years of growth in Sweden was, of course, not just station houses and railways, even though they were important, but it was also about liberalizations, entrepreneurship, and freedom of enterprise. It was about educational reforms and industrious people. But it was also enabled by strong institutions, by organizational commitment, and by a capacity among people in the country to do things together—to build the future together. Thus, we went from being one of the world's poorest countries to becoming one of the richest in the world.

Today, the challenges look completely different, but the goal is the same. We want to hand over a wealthier and safer Sweden to the next generation - and to future generations. We do it with reform power, and we do it with investments. We do it for people, and we do it with people - together.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Ahlstedt, Jörgen Berglund, Crister Carlsson, Mikael Damsgaard, Ida Drougge, Gustaf Göthberg, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, Arin Karapet, Mattias Karlsson in Luleå, Josefin Malmqvist, Noria Manouchi, Louise Meijer, Ulrik Nilsson, Carl Nordblom, Erik Ottoson, Maria Stockhaus, Oskar Svärd and Boriana Åberg (all M) agreed.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are halfway through the parliamentary term, and things are not going well for Sweden. We have a reality where gang violence is creeping down in age, where the government has created a national healthcare crisis, where unemployment is the highest in ten years, where Sweden's growth is among the worst in Europe, and where the grocery basket is still very expensive.

Reality is, however, obviously not in focus for SD and the government. They present a very large budget – which benefits very few Swedes. They cut back on healthcare, allow the new recruitment to the gangs to continue, and ignore the future for the construction industry, the industry, and everyone who struggles to make the finances work.

After several tough years, many Swedes long for a breather. People look forward to treating themselves to something, such as a restaurant visit with the family or a concert with their favorite band. But it is not ordinary people who are the focus of this budget. Elisabeth Svantesson chooses instead to indebt the Swedish people in order to lower the tax most for the very richest. It is nothing less than a mockery of ordinary people.

When the government today placed its third budget on the Riksdag's table, it became clear that they are trying to avoid the final accounts from their first years in power. The government has repeatedly leaned back and blamed the poor economy in Sweden on global crises, but the truth is that we have been the worst in the class. We are in the middle of a recession. We are predicted to have one of Europe's lowest growths in 2024, and it was no better last year: Last year we had negative growth during three out of four quarters.

We now have the highest unemployment in Sweden in ten years. It is not that we have not spoken about the fact that unemployment will increase during this period, but the government has done nothing about it.

Housing construction has crashed. A wave of bankruptcies is washing over Sweden. Large companies, such as Telia and JM, are laying off thousands of employees.

Short and sweet: The Swedish economy has performed poorly. When we now examine the budget for 2025, we see that the government is prioritizing incorrectly once again. I appreciate that Elisabeth Svantesson speaks about infrastructure and research. She is happy to talk about the future, but the investments next year are quite small. At the same time, one continues to neglect labor market policy and cut back on adult education in the middle of a burning recession.

Sweden can do better than this. We have a world-class business sector. We are one of the world's most innovative countries and have large, strong export companies that contribute to growth and prosperity. We have a well-educated and well-organized workforce that takes responsibility for both their own and society's economy. We have a great opportunity ahead of us. We are at the forefront regarding new technology and the new industrialization of Sweden, which can provide more well-paid jobs and strong growth.

We have the competence and resources to continue growing, but that requires a government that takes advantage of the chances and opportunities we have. This government has not done that. Instead, it has driven forward an acute healthcare crisis, failed with measures to get growth started, and slowed down the expansion of cheap electricity. It has done nothing to increase competition between banks and food giants, which has reduced households' purchasing power and slowed down consumption and growth.

The emergence of future jobs is at risk when the Sweden Democrats and the government throw away Sweden's climate policy credibility. The promise of fast and cheaper electricity from nuclear power has become a castle in the air. Housing construction has ground to a halt, and the government has refrained from acting. This will become very costly for Sweden.

Sweden needs a budget to jump-start the economy. Such a budget must help ordinary households and families, and it must facilitate for companies all over the country. It must place the state's money where it does the most good and has the greatest effect.

If the government had prioritized growth, it would have invested in things that we know generate growth, such as housing construction, faster energy expansion, and education. But that is not where the government is putting its resources and focus. For Elisabeth Svantesson, it is more important to give tax cuts to other wealthy Moderates than to get the economy moving.

Gang violence continues to creep down in age, and the shootings succeed one another. I would like to be clear that no government—neither the current nor the previous—has succeeded in reversing the development of the escalating gang violence. One must, however, note that this government and SD went to the election on a platform of stopping gang violence, and when we now see that gang violence is creeping down in age and worsening, we must consider what we are to do. We seem to be in agreement that we shall strengthen the police, tighten the penalties, and choke off the gangs' money, but if one is blind to the task of choking off new recruitment, the violence will continue.

For those reading the budget, it is clear that this is not a high priority for the government. The message to Sweden's municipalities is that they will be cutting funds to the schools that face the toughest challenges in the coming years. It is these schools that are on the front line to reach out to boys on the slide and break the new recruitment. Extra money is found - some billion - for the Government Offices, but there is no money to target the young boys who are entering gang crime and who drive the violence. This insight does not exist within the government.

I think it is good that the government is doing things to increase cooperation and go after the money, but why can't we take the step further and investigate and introduce mafia legislation in Sweden to truly break down criminal gangs? Such legislation has worked in Italy and the USA. There is more to be done. I am surprised that the fight against new recruitment and the fight to choke off the money to gang criminals does not stand higher on the agenda.

(Applause)

Sweden's record-high inflation has made all Swedes poorer. It has hit hardest those families with small margins - everyone who goes to work every day, pays tax and tries to set aside a little money for the children at the end of the month. They have lost ten years of real wage increases. The Finance Minister likes to talk about it turning around now, but the fact is that real wages still will not have recovered by the time her mandate period has ended. Her mandate period is four lost years for Swedish workers.

Lost real wage increases may sound abstract, but for many families all over Sweden, the economic situation is very concrete. When a mother's or father's money runs out, it is the children who are affected. Then it is a son or daughter who cannot continue to play football with friends or who cannot join the school's outdoor day because mom and dad cannot afford a new winter jacket.

Now Sweden has the greatest child poverty in the Nordic countries. The Red Cross has quadrupled its food distributions to help the most vulnerable families who cannot afford food. The government has betrayed these families. When Sweden's neighboring countries chose to support families who are struggling, for example through lowered preschool fees, cheaper after-school activities and increased child allowance, Sweden's government chose to lower taxes mostly for high-income earners.

Now Elisabeth Svantesson goes one step further and cuts the housing supplement available for the families with children who have it toughest. At the same time as Jimmie Åkesson receives a tax relief of 3,000 kronor a month, a vulnerable family with children will receive 775 kronor less a month in their wallet. It cannot feel good in the stomach for the Finance Minister to be responsible for this.

(Applause)

I have previously said that the government has created a national healthcare crisis. First, they drove this crisis through underfunding and large cuts. Then, the Prime Minister broke his promise that no one would be laid off from the healthcare sector.

Now we face a season of cuts. The layoffs within health and care are the largest since Sweden last had a right-wing government and are hitting records in several regions. Thousands now risk losing their jobs. Operations have been canceled, and employees have not been able to take leave. Doctors have even warned that some of these savings could lead to deaths.

I, and perhaps most people, believed that the budget in such a situation would reflect the seriousness of Swedish healthcare. There was a press conference where small investments were presented—smaller than last year's investments—and it was suggested that more money might come in the general state grants. But now the budget has arrived, and now it is in black and white: It is a zero. There is no increase in the general state grants to Sjukvårdssverige. What the Finance Minister delivers to the welfare in this budget is a major healthcare scam.

Mr. Speaker! Now the Minister for Finance has presented his third budget. I mean that it is a mockery of ordinary people. SD and the government have promised a lot, but the fact is the following: When the budget has been fully debated, we will still have a reality where children shoot children. We will still have a healthcare crisis. We will still have record-high unemployment. It did not have to be like this.

In two weeks, we Social Democrats will come forward with an alternative. We will focus on what the Swedish people consider most important. We will prioritize families with children. We will prioritize stopping new recruitment, getting growth started, and guaranteeing that the welfare system works.

Sweden can do better.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Finally, the inflation that we in the Tidö parties inherited from the previous government has been pushed back. At that time, it was over 10 percent; now it is under 2 percent.

This means a number of things. It means that prices - and in the long run household expenses - will not continue to increase in the same way. It also means that the Riksbank can lower the interest rate, which they have already started to do. According to both the Riksbank's own and others' forecasts, they will continue to lower the interest rate both during the rest of this year and during next year.

This in turn means that we can begin to conduct a more normal - and perhaps even expansive - fiscal policy, in contrast to the inflation-dampening and restrained economic policy we have conducted until now.

One might wonder if any of this would have happened if at least parts of the opposition's budget policy, where it was proposed that the state should print more money and that we should borrow our way out of the inflation crisis, had become a reality. Then it probably would not have been the case.

The problems we see ahead of us are not spelled inflation but recession, or at least a weak economy, and with it rising unemployment. Therefore, I am, on behalf of the Sweden Democrats, pleased that we have contributed to a budget bill that aims to create growth and combat unemployment. The absolute best thing one can do to combat unemployment is to make it more profitable to work. There is plenty of work available. Many companies have difficulty finding staff. But it must, of course, pay to work, at least relative to living on benefits.

It is only halfway through the parliamentary term, but with this budget bill, we have lowered the income tax for ordinary wage earners twice. The honorable Speaker will remember that we also won the last budget vote before the last election and lowered the income tax then as well. This creates employment, and it leads to more jobs and more hours worked.

It is a very strong argument that this leads to more jobs, but for me, the main argument is that it increases freedom. If everyone gets to keep a larger share of their own salary, it carries an intrinsic value in itself. When I say salary, Mr. Speaker, I obviously also mean pension. Pension is deferred salary and should therefore be taxed in the same way as if it were salary. Pensioners will also receive a tax reduction with this budget bill.

There is more that can be done to push back unemployment. One can, for example, expand the growth support so that it also covers the second and not just the first employee. One can also raise the limit for the compensation from 25,000 to 35,000 kronor per month. It will make a difference for the very smallest companies. That there will be 11,000 new places in vocational adult education will also make a difference. In the short term, it can mean that the companies looking for staff will actually also find it.

Mr. Speaker! I believe there is sufficient empirical evidence that the policy we pursue, the measures we take, and the decisions we make to drive this policy forward are working. It is no coincidence that fuel prices are significantly lower now compared to the sky-high prices that were there when we took over. At that time, a liter of diesel cost over 28 kronor and a liter of gasoline cost 22 kronor. Today, the diesel is 11-12 kronor cheaper and the gasoline is 5-6 kronor cheaper. It is no coincidence but the result of purposeful decisions and tax reliefs, step by step, which have achieved this clear improvement.

It is no coincidence that more people are emigrating than immigrating to Sweden for the first time in 50 years. We have made a number of decisions aimed at reducing immigration to Sweden, and now we have not only reduced immigration but also net emigration. This development will be reinforced with this budget bill. Now, for the first time ever, we are beginning to actively work with the repatriation policy.

Our work is not finished, however, on the contrary. There is much work left to do, and we shall get that in place during the rest of the mandate period. In which direction we are heading should, however, be crystal clear.

Politics works, and therefore political decisions have consequences. If you want the world's highest prices on fuels, you get them, and during the last mandate period, Sweden had the highest fuel prices in the entire world because the parties that were in power at that time wanted it. But now we avoid that because we want something different. If you want high electricity prices, you shut down fully functioning electricity production, which the previous government did. The four of us on our side opposed it, but we, as is known, did not have a majority. The high electricity prices are felt a bit extra if one happens to live in electricity price area 4, that is, the southern parts of the country. If you want an irresponsible and uncontrolled migration policy, you get it; you just have to make decisions in that direction. If you, on the other hand, want a more restrictive migration policy combined with an active return migration policy, you make decisions in that direction. It is quite clear which line our four parties have chosen, and it is quite clear which line their four parties choose.

Mr. Speaker! There is much else that is good in the budget. The fuel taxes will continue to be lowered. Petrol will become 75 öre cheaper by New Year, and the tax on agricultural diesel will remain at the EU's absolute minimum level.

The aviation tax will be completely phased out in the middle of next year. It has acted as a growth inhibitor and been detrimental to Sweden's competitiveness, perhaps not primarily for the Stockholm region but for other parts of the country.

The straight-through meaningless and ill-considered plastic bag tax will disappear in just over a month, on November 1.

The punitive taxation on motorhomes will disappear. It will then become more economically reasonable to go on a camping holiday, preferably within Sweden's borders so that Sweden's camping industry benefits from this reform. But of course, one can decide that for oneself.

The microbreweries will receive a tax cut, because we want this industry not only to survive but also to develop. There is a fantastic culture associated with this.

It will be more advantageous to save in an investment savings account or in a capital insurance policy. That is good, because the more private savings one has, the less dependent one is on others and, ipso facto, has more freedom.

The Armed Forces are being strengthened. We will reach 2.4 percent of GDP as early as next year, which is clearly above NATO's minimum level of 2 percent.

We will also have a very extensive dental care reform in place during the mandate period. It will make it significantly cheaper for elderly people from 67 years and upwards to seek dental care. This reform can actually be the difference between seeking dental care and not, and make that decision based on health considerations rather than private economic ones.

One can, and should also, ask oneself if any of this would have become a reality if the opposition were in power. Lower fuel prices? Hardly. Restrictive migration policy? Not a chance. Lower income taxes and lower taxes in general as well as historically large investments in defense and the justice system? No.

Mr. Speaker! Half of the parliamentary term has passed, and I hope our alternative is starting to become quite clear to the voters. They do not even know what the opposition's alternative looks like themselves. How then can the voters possibly know it?

(Applause)

In this speech, Jonas Andersson, Mats Arkhem, Staffan Eklöf, Ann-Christine Frohm, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Christian Lindefjärd, Robert Stenkvist and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) concurred.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Money is not everything, the Minister for Finance says during a press conference about the budget we are discussing today. Judge my surprise, Mr. Speaker. Is it Sweden's budget chief speaking in the box, or have I accidentally switched to a vague cultural program interviewing wealthy philosophers with alternative perceptions of reality? But the Swedish people were not so lucky, for it was indeed the country's Minister for Finance who sang the praises of poverty. So now the citizens know what the government's attitude is. When food prices and housing prices remain at sky-high levels, do not get depressed but seek comfort in the Minister for Finance's words. If you have no food, eat pastries! The Minister for Finance has spoken: Money, it is not everything.

That money is not decisive is a notion that only those who are well-off can afford to hold. Otherwise, one dies from not eating, as my grandmother used to say.

Mr. Speaker! The government seems to have lost contact with the ground a long time ago. Now it is floating freely in outer space.

Thanks to the Sweden Democrats' mandates, the government is now presenting a budget that, with surgical precision, benefits its own moderate core voters - from moderates to moderates. Thousands of layoffs in healthcare could have been stopped, but they chose to lower the tax by 45,000 per year for gentlemen like Jimmie and Ulf.

Care beds are disappearing, people are dying in the emergency room, and staff are fleeing healthcare. The tax cuts do not give much in ordinary people's wallets but cost welfare an enormous amount of money. When the fees are raised, not much is left for Medelsvensson, but a considerable fortune is transferred from healthcare to those who already have everything. The consequences are staring us in the face now. That those responsible do not feel ashamed! A shattered healthcare system cannot help us when we need it most. It is not worth it! Do they not want to see it?

Mr. Speaker! The Earth is calling the Tidö government: Come back to reality!

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, the right, SD and one or another member of the Centre Party cling to the old dogmas that the rest of the world has abandoned. The IMF and other institutions that sang the praises of neoliberalism have turned around. Inequality does not create growth. The question is when that penny will drop for the Swedish political right, for the budget bill that is now presented has a distribution profile that even Croesus would be proud of.

When I look at the Swedish right, I am instinctively reminded of calves coming out onto green pasture—but the politicians may not be as cute. They have waited so long to be in power, but they are not used to it and therefore seem almost surprised to have received the people's support. They might think that every budget could be the last.

"Hallelujah," exclaims the Minister for Finance and worships Mammon. To her service, Mr. Speaker, she has the clamoring SD boys who still seem to be located somewhere in the high school corridors. They make a lot of noise, but if you say "hello" they jump, almost terrified of their own shadow. Jimmie Åkesson's backbone is so weak that it is a miracle he can stand up. "Money isn't everything," they think, and vote through lowered capital taxes for millionaires. With a light hand, they introduce in the same button-press punitive taxes for those on sick leave.

Mr. Speaker! What has SD received in order for the government to be able to implement its moderate contribution? They have received something much cheaper: hate speech and signal politics, which do not cost a penny in the budget table. SD is just as happy with that, but the happiest is probably the Finance Minister, who gets to put a lid on the money the Sweden Democrats have promised pensioners and those on sick leave.

Mr. Speaker! The saying "it's not all about money" does not apply to everyone. But for a group in society, it is quite simply a matter of life and death. Just as clearly as everyone needs oxygen to breathe, the wealthy need subsidies to settle their accounts. Here, no whips shall crack. Instead, we shall flatter and pamper. It is no longer about high-income earners but about the purely wealthy. Much wants more. "Money is not everything," said Bill. "Money is everything," said Bull.

Mr. Speaker! People are not stupid. They don't buy it. All analysts state that the winners in this year's budget are the well-off. For the wage-earner collective, the money might suffice for a cinema ticket, while the one with an income of 200,000 a month gets so much more that they can treat themselves to another luxury trip.

Mr. Speaker! No one really wants to defend the moderate contribution. The ministers did not want to look people in the eye. They went and hid on Friday evening after the press conference. But fortunately for the government, the own basis was arranged with a shift in focus. The chairman of the parliamentary justice committee had been served with a suspicion of crime. After taking the world's shortest micro-pause, he was back with the victim's coat buttoned all the way up.

When I thought that the debate finally had to be moved from the government basis's very own metoo-campaign, which was held in honor of Jomshof, the Social Democrats' lottery scandal emerged. Then it became a real kick under the table. The productivity at the Government Offices has never increased to such an extent. Ministers who weren't even known to exist appeared and were horrified.

Is it the knowledge that the tapering of the job tax credit is to be removed that has raised morale? The lottery issue seemed to fall within every minister's portfolio. "Now we're working for king and country," thought all the ministers, and they tensed their Twitter fingers to spam the feed like telemarketers with prepared scripts. Most upset of all was Minister Romina Pourmokhtari. She said she felt disgusted by her time as a telemarketer. How she will feel about her time as Minister for Climate and Environment we may find out in hindsight. "But what is the problem?" someone thinks. "The Finance Minister's own press secretary can surely write seventy-one posts on X about the lotteries and about zero about the minister's own budget?"

Today I discussed on the radio the Left Party's proposal to introduce a ban on telephone sales similar to those applied in other European countries. But then the ministers seemed to be exhausted with their Twitter thumbs in bandages, as no one dared to have that debate.

It is of course not the government's fault that Kombilotteriet has not taken its responsibility. But it is the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas duty to stand before the voters for the consequences of the politics they pursue. When one governs, one has the power to change people's lives.

Sweden is at the bottom in Europe's growth figures. When it comes to unemployment, we are at the top instead. The government boasts about having fought inflation, but in reality, the work has consisted of letting the citizens take the hit. In other countries, action was taken against the banks' sky-high interest rates and pressure was put on the food giants and the electricity companies. In Sweden, the silk gloves were put on. Freedom of association and religion are no longer private matters, but that is where the state's long arm should intervene. But the citizens' welfare is up to each individual to solve.

The rhetoric is of course not free except in the budget table. It affects us all.

Bureaucratic colossi do not address the fact that the right has given the gangs revolving doors into the health centers to launder money. Gamblers should not run HVB homes. The "juice-and-bun" policy against organized crime must go. If you want to do something about the underlying problems, you must follow the money.

The Left Party's measures would leave citizens with more money in their pockets - many times over compared to the government's initiatives - while we can take back control over welfare and ensure that healthcare can be rebuilt and recover.

I look forward to discussing the Left Party's proposal when our budget motion is on the table. Money is not everything, Mr. Speaker, but in order to be able to hire healthcare staff, money is crucial.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Doesn't Sweden deserve better than this? Words have flown here during the debate, but reality lies where it lies.

Sweden has Europe's third highest unemployment, after Spain and Greece. In the EU, unemployment is falling. In Sweden, under the Tidö government, it is rising. Now it is 8 percent - perhaps up to 8 ½ percent. It is the highest level in ten years, apart from the worst times of the pandemic. According to the National Institute of Economic Research, it is 7.5 percent equilibrium unemployment, i.e., independent of the economic cycle. Behind the figure 454,000 people, many people in distress are hidden, both the unemployed and people in their vicinity. It is not possible to turn a blind eye to this social problem. It is not possible to look away.

We know what this type of unemployment does to integration. We know what this type of unemployment does to crime. We know what it does to the regional disparities. But we also know how we have historically reversed the trend of unemployment. We know that four out of five jobs are created in small and growing companies. We know what makes them able to hire: lower costs and lower taxes on hiring. On this, Mr. Speaker and listeners, the government spends just over 1 per mille of its 60 billion.

We know that education also leads to jobs. On that, the government spends less than it does on slightly cheaper petrol and diesel - again.

We know that well-functioning infrastructure is needed to create jobs. On that, the government is putting nothing new at all in its budget, despite all the rhetoric about all hundreds of billions.

We could have had a massive national initiative to push down unemployment and boost growth, which otherwise is one of Europe's worst. Yet, it is as if this issue hardly exists in the debate. It is mentioned briefly in passing by the Finance Minister and among others the Social Democrats, but it sounds mostly as if it were a natural phenomenon or the new normal to have one of Europe's highest unemployment rates.

Where is the will? Where is the will to stand on the side of small businesses, as we once did, so that they can hire? I note that in this budget you are reversing one of the tax increases you made for small business owners, because you are reintroducing the so-called growth support. But you have increased the tax on hiring a hundred times more since you took office. It costs 100,000 kronor for a café with three young employees. Very many small companies that are fighting for their idea and their region are in the same situation.

At the same time, there is money for other things, such as a return grant of 350,000 kronor per person, even though the government's own hand-picked investigator – obviously an honest economist – has explained that it is ineffective and meaningless. Those are his words. Is SD's fixation on rushing people out of Sweden ten to twenty times more important for the government than getting people into work?

All talk of productivity, structural reforms, and growth is like an empty shell where the once so proud Ministry of Finance has shrunk to a small subordinate development department for growth dreams, quartered next to the Productivity Commission at Jimmie Åkesson's office for emigration and culture wars.

(Applause)

What if we had instead allocated resources to an intensive, goal-oriented integration with high requirements and high expectations, where the expectation of people was that they can and should contribute, not that they can and should withdraw!

Before I receive too much applause, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I also turn to the Social Democrats. The rhetoric is not sufficient to combat unemployment. There are too many taxes and levies and too much of the old, failed labor market policy. Here, it is a matter of combining decency and humanism with a proper climate policy and job creation in growing small companies. That is what in all countries in all times has sustained the jobs, the growth, and the wealth creation.

In a situation where we have problems with youth unemployment, it should also be obvious that the school stands strong. Today, almost every fifth student is dropped out before upper secondary school. Every year, it is almost 18,000 young people who do not move forward. These are students who could have moved forward if there had been enough teachers and if the vocational programs had been strengthened.

Instead, the school is losing thousands of employees today. Many small municipalities are forced to close smaller schools due to a lack of resources. The three most common categories of dismissed public employees today are childcare workers, student assistants, and teachers. If the school is to be able to stand strong, we must stop this. How can the government then put more on cheaper gasoline and diesel than on the school?

This also makes the fight against crime much more difficult. It becomes half-hearted and limping. Talk to the police officers who are out there and face the dark reality of crime! Talk to the social service assistants who must seek out families in crisis and save youths and children who are heading into the darkness! It is children who are forced into this bottomless darkness. Everyone—you know this—will answer that without a very strong school, we cannot manage this. Without parents who go to work in the morning and learn Swedish, we cannot turn this around.

Then the government is also turning a blind eye to the climate, perhaps our time's greatest issue of destiny. The government had a very long press conference yesterday. It was a fireworks of acronyms and a festival of abbreviations such as LULUCF, ESR, ETS 1 and 2. But when all this was over, they had not in any way explained how they would get emissions down. When all this was over, they had not said a single word about the floods that today affect millions of people in Europe and which are not just an economic problem but also a major human problem.

After this little fireworks display, the answer key also appeared in the own budget. On page 15 in expenditure area 20, it states under table 3.2 Milestone the following assessments:

A long-term emission target for the target year 2045 is not achieved.

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the ESR sector by 2030 is not achieved.

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the ESR sector by 2040 is not achieved.

The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport excluding aviation to 2030 is not achieved, and so on.

This is the truth and the answer.

You say that in this budget you are reducing emissions by 0.20 million tons, but you have increased them by many, many millions of tons before. For 99 percent of what you are supposed to reach, you have no solution.

Yes, you have a solution: electrification. But right now, it is in crisis for that in Sweden. This applies in particular to transport. Many of the Swedes who do not have such a large wallet are forced to opt out of electric cars. Electric car sales are falling, especially in the Swedish countryside and for those who have the least, while petrol and diesel cars are increasing.

As a result of a declining market - where we unfortunately lead the decline for electric cars - the largest planned battery factory in Europe is in crisis. Volvo has given up the goal of rechargeable cars. Our truck manufacturers do not understand where you are headed. They receive neither wind power to run their factories nor a government that favors their products.

Given that we know that Sweden in the next step must produce and run rechargeable vehicles, you are nevertheless heading straight into the ditch with the handbrake on and the gas pedal to the floor, with monumental proportions for Sweden's future. The entire green future that companies have carefully and honestly planned is simply withering away. Think of all the people who have thought and fought to get solutions in place! All these people have seen how the government, after cutting its inauguration ribbons, having put on its protective helmets and yellow vests, basked in the glory of the green transition, only to abandon them as soon as the TV cameras and camera flashes have turned off.

People cannot change cars because there is no market. The electricity is not coming. There is a pettiness, sometimes in the small things: punitive taxation on biogas and most recently on solar power. People who produce their own solar power will have to pay an extra solar tax. The government has 60 billion in the budget, but these people shall pay 680 million more because they produce solar power from panels.

There is also a pettiness in the greatness. One dumps Kriegers flak, an offshore wind farm south of Skåne. It would have provided electricity to 500,000 households, that is to say, all of Malmö and Helsingborg. The entire project that one could have started building as early as next year is dumped with a shrug of the shoulders because one has promised, dearly and solemnly, not to fund the cables to these parks. This is what one has promised SD. One does not listen to the Skåne companies or the Sydsvenska Industri- och Handelskammaren, who warn that this will directly result in more expensive electricity and tens of thousands of lost jobs.

Now enough of all the empty words. Cure your wind power allergy! Build the cables now! Build Kriegers flak and the hundreds of terawatt-hours of electricity at sea now! Give the residents and the municipalities more back on the electricity! It is time to blow for more electricity, the government, for the electricity customers in the south, for the industry in the west and for justice in northern Sweden, where they cannot bear the entire burden so that we can get new green electricity. Sweden deserves better, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to speak about the economy's lifeblood: infrastructure. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are now making the largest investment in infrastructure in modern times: over 200 billion kronor up to and including 2037. The new framework will amount to 1,171 billion. It gives us the conditions - listen now - to build away 100 percent of the maintenance debt on roads.

This is good. It is really good. Regardless of the government's color, the maintenance debt has grown larger and larger. We all know that. One in four roads in the country is now considered to be in poor condition. Poorly functioning transport routes also lead to longer response times for, for example, ambulances and emergency services.

The commuting time between home and work is affected by constant delays. Many of us sitting in this chamber who commute here to Stockholm know this. When one very often experiences that the trains do not run on time, it means that in some cases one might choose to opt out of the train. Mälardalsrådet has calculated that the cost of congestion and delays in traffic and public transport just here in the own region is 6 billion kronor annually. Surveys also show that we must invest in the infrastructure for growth to become a reality. Good infrastructure benefits everyone: the family, the companies, and growth.

Mr. Speaker! I now move on to the second part of my speech. This is the third budget that this government is placing on the table of the Riksdag. It differs from the previous ones. For two years, we were forced to present restrained budgets. The idea was that fiscal policy should join forces with monetary policy. The parties in the labor market took responsibility so that we could win the battle against inflation and bring it down as quickly as possible. Now we are to build Sweden strong again by accelerating economic growth, which has been the Kristdemokraterna's entry point in these budget negotiations.

We have heard the political rhetoric here in the chamber - one tries to make it seem as if the choice stands between tax cuts and a functioning welfare state. I would like to say that it is a very bold claim. The previous government did, in fact, raise a number of taxes, but I believe that very few considered that the welfare state became better.

However – and it is my opinion as a Christian Democrat – welfare is threatened if we do not get growth moving. A functioning welfare is not built with words or class struggle rhetoric, but by getting growth to accelerate and increasing self-sufficiency. It is not tax rates that finance welfare, but it is and remains tax revenues that do so. When people work more, tax revenues increase. When more people dare to pursue their dream of starting their own company – and perhaps also hire people because it turns out that the idea works – tax revenues are created. It is in that way we can meet the welfare commitments in the future.

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that Sweden has some of the world's highest marginal taxes. The Productivity Commission has noted this and concluded that it hampers the incentives to educate oneself and work extra. It can also, for example, be the case that one chooses to exchange salary for pension instead of taking out a higher salary. And then, of course, it is about education. Is it really worth studying those extra years if one sees that what one receives in the form of salary is eaten up by a high marginal tax? The higher the marginal tax, the less the individual earns from working more hours, advancing in their professional life, or obtaining an education that provides a higher salary.

Mr. Speaker! In this budget, the government continues to prioritize healthcare, crime fighting, resources for school and elderly care, and measures against mental ill-health. Significant reinforcements of the defense are also being made. There are good conditions for Sweden to manage the sharp competition from other countries. Sweden is consistently ranked as one of the world's most innovative countries, and we attract investments. In many areas – technology, life science, the industry's green transition – I would like to assert that we are world leaders. But our position is threatened if we do not get the wheels to start turning faster.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a country characterized by growth, innovation, high-level expertise, and a functioning welfare state. This budget is in line with this ambition.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The budget that the government has presented today is unfortunately not a budget that solves the societal problems we face. Emissions are increasing, and welfare is on its knees. Those problems are not solved with large tax cuts for high-income earners or by investing more in measures that worsen the climate crisis than in those that reduce emissions.

I have many times in this speaker's chair said that the climate crisis is our time's defining issue. The clock is now ticking faster and faster, and we are playing Russian roulette with our planet, as the UN chief said. It is, therefore, for real.

I know that the government's representatives read and watch the news every day. They know that Sweden's coastal communities are threatened by rising water levels, that the elderly are forced to stay indoors during the summer heatwaves, that war and conflicts in the world are increasing in the wake of climate change, and how extreme weather is becoming commonplace. The government and the Sweden Democrats know all of this. But not even in this budget do we see that they would take the climate threat seriously – on the contrary. They continue to lower the tax on gasoline and diesel. They abolish the aviation tax and let the railway decay. They engage in number-crunching and accounting maneuvers instead of pursuing a policy that actually reduces emissions.

I wonder: Do you not understand the gravity of the situation? Do you think the problem is only political and does not exist in reality? Is that why you so lightly dismissed the Green Party's policy, which would actually reduce emissions? If so, it is time for the government to look up and wake up.

I really don't understand it. I don't understand how one can subsidize aviation and leave the train passengers on the platform. I don't understand how one can have electrification as the main theme in their climate policy and at the same time pursue a policy that reduces the expansion of wind power and the sale of electric cars.

I and Miljöpartiet are far from alone in criticizing this government's so-called climate policy. Both the Fiscal Policy Council and the Climate Policy Council have, in sharp terms, criticized the government's lack of effective reforms.

An effective climate policy must stand on two legs. Steering measures are needed to phase out fossil fuels, but large investments are also needed in the green, fossil-free, and sustainable alternatives, such as securing the electricity supply with more wind power, preferably offshore, to improve energy efficiency, to invest in trains and public transport, and to give more people the opportunity to switch to electric cars. Sweden is one of the richest countries in the world. But we and everyone else will become poorer if we do not succeed in lowering emissions and investing. Therefore, we must borrow for investments now to build a stronger Sweden.

This autumn, we are to conclude the review of the surplus target and the fiscal framework. We see that the fiscal framework must be climate-proofed. This has been raised by both the Fiscal Policy Council and the Climate Policy Council. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of us landing on a framework that provides room for investments in a just climate transition. It benefits us now, and it benefits future generations.

During the election campaign, the Tidö parties promised that new nuclear power would be built without state support, provide lower electricity prices, and solve all climate challenges. The Finance Minister even claimed that the construction of new reactors would begin within 100 days after the election. But now reality has caught up. The government's investigators propose hundreds of billions in state loans and subsidies and a special nuclear power tax to be paid by all households and companies in Sweden to keep the expensive nuclear power afloat.

The government claims that new nuclear power is needed to meet the climate transition, but that is simply not quite true. On the contrary, the long construction times and the high electricity costs cause the electrification to be delayed. The business sector needs new green, cheap electricity now to transition. It is only renewables that can deliver that. The government's one-eyed focus on nuclear power simply slows down the climate transition and also risks becoming a sinkhole for taxpayers' money.

Not only does the government completely lack ambition when it comes to reduced emissions – even other environmental goals are treated, to say the least, neglectfully. One has had the chance in this budget to move forward with offensive investments to protect both the forests and the seas and make nature more accessible for more people both today and in the future. But one chooses to refrain.

If the government really wanted to, the Baltic Sea could be saved now. There are proposals for a new marine environment act that could do just that. But instead, we have a government that passively watches as the herring is fished out by large industrial trawlers to become fish meal and the entire ecosystem collapses.

Many of us Swedes are proud of our fantastic nature and want to preserve it for those who come after us. But after several years of underfunding from the right-wing parties, the maintenance of our hiking trails in nature reserves and national parks is very neglected. The funding that the government is now putting back is simply too little to preserve the natural values that could be lost forever if nothing is done. Instead of more nature for more people, this government will result in more clear-cuts, less biodiversity, and fewer people who can move in nature.

After two years of passivity in the economic policy from the Tidö parties, Sweden now finds itself in a recession that has become more protracted than it needed to be. One has acted too little and too late. Now, when one gets the chance to invest, one chooses to lower taxes for the rich while the healthcare system, which is on its knees, receives less money.

We all know that the best way to tackle a recession is to support households with small margins, safeguard welfare, and make green future investments. The government and the Sverigedemokraterna are doing exactly the opposite. They are lowering taxes, more specifically for high-income earners, but let families with children in financial distress see their housing allowance decrease by up to 2,100 kronor a month. There are only crumbs left for people with lower incomes after the high-earners have received their share.

For Sweden to stand strong, we must have a welfare system that works in all of Sweden. Healthcare, elderly care, school, and social services are all parts that make us a society. It is high time that we invest in it.

The young people who shoot and are shot have, in the vast majority of cases, lived their entire lives in Sweden. They have attended preschool and school here, but somewhere along the way, participation in society has been replaced by the gangs.

We have known for a long time that the primary weapon against crime and exclusion is a successful schooling. I know it, the researchers know it, and the government knows it. Yet, the major investments are conspicuously absent.

There are no shortcuts here. More adults in schools are needed, more time for each child, fast and early interventions and a school health care system that works, and for that, more money is needed. It is neither simpler nor more difficult than that.

But it is a question of priorities and of daring to ask the question of what is most important. Is it tax cuts for those of us who already have it very good, or is it more adults in the school who can see every child?

It is not only in schools that the government is cutting back with serious consequences. Healthcare is in crisis after years of underfunding. Then the government presents a budget that means healthcare will receive less money next year. How is that going to solve the healthcare crisis?

What we know is that the number of nurses in healthcare must increase and they must receive better wages and a better working environment. It costs money. Even a Moderate Finance Minister should see that.

In addition to abandoning families, welfare, and the climate, the government is now also significantly cutting aid. This is being done at a time when humanitarian needs are increasing at a rapid pace due to war, famine, and climate change. To then reduce our share of the effort to create more democracy, more equality, and more resilience against climate change is nothing other than short-sighted and very cynical.

Mr. Speaker! That it is rich men who are the winners in this budget is telling for the government and its priorities. It is unfair and dishonest. Cuts are rewritten as investments. It fails ordinary people and fuels the injustices in society. We in Sweden deserve better than that.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ulrika Westerlund (MP) agreed.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! In these budget times, I ask myself what the state is for. What social contract is it that we in Sweden want?

What I work for, and what I am standing here now and saying, is that you should be able to feel that all children should go to a knowledge school where the basics work, that there is help if one becomes ill, that one's mother receives good care if she needs it, that the trains arrive on time and that the person who educates themselves and works actually gets to keep half of their salary. Everyone should be able to live their life in freedom as they themselves wish and without honor oppression.

Sweden needs more faith in the future. With this budget, we in the Liberals are enabling a brighter tomorrow. It is only through strong economic growth that we can secure a good welfare. One does not exist without the other.

This is a budget to get economic growth started again through major investments in infrastructure, research, vocational training, school, climate, the conditions for companies, and tax cuts.

We give a vitamin injection to the very smallest companies by making it cheaper to hire with expanded and increased growth support. Additionally, we make Sweden more attractive and make it easier for companies to attract the world's top talent with an improved experts' tax.

Now we are also making the largest investment in research ever. It will strengthen Sweden's competitiveness. Swedish research needs to continue to hold its own internationally. It is clear that a liberal Minister for Education is needed so that knowledge, research and innovation shall be prioritized.

Mr. Speaker! Now we are strengthening the work line by lowering taxes for those who work. The Liberals demanded during the previous parliamentary term that the government should remove the value added tax. Now we move forward.

In this budget, the tapering of the job tax credit finally disappears. It will provide strength to growth and provide incentives for more people to, for example, take on extra responsibility at work or pursue further education. Let me be clear. Penalty taxes on education and work belong in the trash.

Our climate goals shall be met. Now we present a budget that takes us towards net-zero emissions in 2045. With this budget, Sweden's total emissions will decrease. With these emission reductions, we are estimated to meet our ESR commitments by 2030. Emissions will be lower in 2026 than when we took office in 2022.

Transport must continue to be electrified, which we do through an electric car premium, investment in charging infrastructure, and an investigation into reduced tax at public charging stations.

The planning to ensure new nuclear power is entering a more intensive phase. I hope that it will soon be a reality to put the spade in the ground for new reactors in Ringhals in my home municipality.

New fossil-free electricity production is needed for the climate transition now and in the future. In order to increase the municipalities' incentives to say yes to wind power, a support for the municipalities based on property tax for wind power installations is established.

Emissions in agriculture need to be reduced. We are therefore introducing Kväveklivet. It is a new temporary investment support to reduce emissions of ammonia and greenhouse gases within agriculture.

The work of preserving valuable nature and ecosystems needs to continue. To enable this, we are investing, among other things, in preserving nature values in protected areas and restoring grazing lands.

Mr. Speaker! This year marks 30 years since the Liberals pushed through one of our time's greatest freedom reforms, LSS. Under the Social Democratic government, the standard compensation was eroded through constantly low increases. For the Liberals, LSS is just as important now as it was then. We have pushed for a higher increase. This year it has been doubled, and we have also halved the parental deduction.

Mr. Speaker! We Liberals have fought for equality and women's rights ever since we fought for women's suffrage over a hundred years ago. We strengthen the Gender Equality Authority and proceed with investigations on protecting some of the most vulnerable and forgotten groups, women in prostitution. At the same time, we are firmly determined to combat all forms of honor-related violence and oppression.

Last but not least: ISK is a popular form of savings. Now we are making it even more favorable to save so that more Swedes can build up their own freedom capital. It is a freedom and a security to know that you can get yourself out of unwanted situations.

Reform for reform, the Liberals are involved and shaping a brighter tomorrow where people are given greater power to create their own future in a better Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to all colleagues for the various contributions! We have much in common, but sometimes there are also differences.

I want to raise an issue during these two minutes of speaking time that I know many of us consider more important than many others. It is about the support for Ukraine and the war of aggression that Russia is waging there. Several of us have been in Ukraine and visited our colleagues. We have made decisions here in the Riksdag regarding support.

Someone might wonder why we do this. Sometimes we meet people in Sweden and elsewhere who think it is unnecessary. But that a parliament like the Swedish can be so in agreement from left to right about supporting Ukraine's struggle is completely invaluable. We stand united in the very hardest questions - the questions that mean so much in reality for others. It is about war or peace. It is about freedom or oppression. For me as a representative of the government, it feels very good that we stand together in that question, especially during visits to other countries. It is good that we are united.

But this obviously also has an impact on the government's budget. We have decided to set aside a framework of 25 billion per year in 2024, 2025, and 2026. It affects the deficit, but we have also been clear in the budget that is on the table that it is a reasonable deviation. We do not want this to crowd out other important parts here with us.

The war can become long-lasting, and in that case, it is very good to know that we stand together and that we all feel that Ukraine's struggle is not just a struggle for the country itself. It is a struggle for Europe, but it is also a struggle for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am also pleased that there is such a broad political consensus in Sweden's Riksdag regarding the support for Ukraine.

When I listen to the Minister for Finance and representatives for the government base, I hear that some good things are being said about growth. Now, we have had a period where Sweden has performed very poorly in terms of growth for two years. We have had one of the worst growth rates in all of Europe. During this time, Sweden has also moved in a different direction than the other countries and had increasing unemployment. These are not unknown issues, but we have talked about them in this chamber for a long time.

My reflection is: Why does the budget not contain that which generates growth - housing construction, public investments, energy expansion, education initiatives, and adult education? It is such things that we know lead to growth and more jobs in this situation. The Finance Minister cannot seriously believe that a targeted tax cut for the wealthiest in Sweden generates increased growth in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that Mikael Damberg is also talking about growth now. He has not done so very many times before. Growth is an issue that I have been passionate about for a long time, because I know that if the next generation is to have it better than we do, the economy must grow.

Right now we have an absolute recession, which Germany and France also have. Sweden has it because we have an interest-sensitive economy, but we are moving through this. As I said in my previous post, it is about working on a broad front. We have a research proposition and an infrastructure proposition that are larger than ever. Taxes shall be taxes that encourage both entrepreneurship, studies, and work. The Government is doing all this plus a subsidy reform and enormous investments in education - the list can be long.

I do not know where Mikael Damberg has been in recent years, but all of this will yield increased growth if one focuses in the right way. And that is what the government intends to do. When the economy grows, more will come to the fore, and it will be able to sustain the welfare in the future instead of increased taxes or deficit targets.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! The result so far from the Minister for Finance regarding growth is that Sweden is at the bottom of the European league. Sweden performs as one of the worst countries in Europe.

We have during these two years asserted that the government is not doing enough to maintain growth and combat unemployment. It is part of our main criticism of the government.

Now the government is proposing tax cuts that primarily target those with high incomes. I assert that investments in ordinary people, the wallets of pensioners or families with children, lead to more effect on consumption and growth than the government's investments in the highest earners in Sweden.

To lower the tax for Jimmie Åkesson by 30,000 kronor a year just with this special tax cut while simultaneously lowering the compensation to the poorest families with children is bad economic policy, but it is also a rather immoral policy.

How does it feel, Finance Minister, to worsen the situation for the poorest families with children while simultaneously pouring money over those who have the most money in Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Mikael Damberg may have missed the last two years, when we have had large supports for households. Last year it was 40 billion. We lowered the tax for everyone last year. We paused the threshold. We are lowering the tax for everyone now. That is not a mockery of people. The mockery lies in never thinking that it is okay to lower the tax for ordinary people.

That we are now lowering the marginal tax rate is, as the OECD, the Productivity Commission and many others say, wise policy because the marginal tax rate hinders growth and thus also provides less money for welfare and defense.

I have heard the word "mockery" ring out in many places today. I must nevertheless say, Mr. Speaker, that it feels a bit absurd. What I consider a mockery today is that the Social Democrats still cannot provide information regarding all these elderly people who have been fundamentally defrauded by people who have called them. They are criminals. This is true, and one must take responsibility.

To let the economy grow and to let the growth come to everyone is not a mockery of anyone, I mean. To cheat the elderly - that is a mockery.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Here, at least, one does not need to worry about being left out. It did not take long before this was also included in this debate.

But I wanted to return to the government, you who govern Sweden and have the power to change things for ordinary people with the budget bill that the Finance Minister presents. I am thinking about those who toil in healthcare, about elderly people who cannot manage the rent, and about patients and relatives. They cannot make ends meet, and the health centers cannot receive patients. At the same time, the government is lowering the tax by 48,000 kronor for those who earn millions. Can the Finance Minister still not understand that this is a slap in the face to these people?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! What I am trying to describe, Ida Gabrielsson, is a development where we see that Swedish growth will increase.

I can truly emphasize to Ida Gabrielsson that I see the people and individuals she mentions every day. With the policy the government is now pursuing, we are lowering taxes for everyone for two years in a row. Last year we spoke with the food giants, and food prices began to fall. Now we are implementing a dental care reform that is the largest in 20 years. It is something that Vänsterpartiet has not succeeded in negotiating with any government. We are now raising the rehabilitation allowance for the first time since 2012.

We do all of this collectively. We can do it, because we can prioritize. We can reach an agreement, and we help people. But as I have said before, I will also always take responsibility for growth and for the economy to grow. It has grown too much since the financial crisis, and now it is time to turn it around.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! The question is not whether we want increased growth. Growth has been negative for several quarters with this government. We are the worst in Europe. My question was whether it is decent to give a person who is already very well off, who earns millions, 48,000 kronor more in household support per year.

To be lectured by a finance minister who makes a profit every time on his own little lottery for the ministerial corps is roughly like being lectured by the king when he was explaining to the people that no roasted sparrows were flying in. He was simply not the right man for the job.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, what can one say? I can only state that the view on tax differs from a Moderate to a Left Party member. That was no news. It is perhaps the world's most obvious truth.

What it is about is that people who work and toil hard, who drive the bus every morning, work their night shift at the hospital or something else, should actually be able to keep a bit more of their salary. That is why we have, for many years, lowered the tax for low- and middle-income earners and intend to continue doing so. It is fundamentally good. One can then make the economy grow, and so more money will come to the welfare system.

Speaking of the fact that not everything is about money - I perceived that Ida Gabrielsson perhaps misunderstood it a little bit - the new government here in Region Stockholm, together with Vänsterpartiet, has now raised the tax in the region. During the first year since the new government took office, the queues grew by 43 percent. Obviously, not everything is money.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now I am going to do what one is not actually supposed to do, namely ask two questions at once and expect answers to both.

The Minister for Finance raised a question that is very important for me and our party, namely the support for Ukraine. We agree on the 25 billion per year. But we still ask ourselves: Should one not increase this? Should we not be among those who lead, together with the Baltics, in Europe and the Western world? Why do we not have 1 percent of GDP every year as other countries have - 75 billion and not 25 billion? Can we not promise that now?

My second question concerns something we actually cannot turn a blind eye to: Europe's third highest unemployment, which is also rising while it falls in other countries. I have heard that the Finance Minister is very pleased today, but I don't actually believe that the Finance Minister is so pleased with this.

Then I wonder: When one can choose between doing something as bourgeois and liberal as lowering the tax on hiring and doing what is more populist symbolic politics, why does one choose – after having raised the tax on small business hiring by 12 billion – to spend just over 300 million kronor on this in 2026 and at the same time spend 1.4 billion on a return migration grant, which is many times more?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for two very wise questions!

We definitely do not rule out, and I do not think anyone in here does, that we will need to give even more to Ukraine. We have made decisions regarding this framework to have an organized process regarding the support. Then we do not know what happens. More may be needed. The war can also end. We will have to return to that. I believe, however, that everyone in here feels that we will need to do what is necessary.

The second question, regarding unemployment, is incredibly central. It consists of two parts, if I may be a bit technical. One is cyclical – now that the economy has turned, there is lower demand in the economy and more people become unemployed for longer. The other is structural and is about the fact that one fundamentally does not have the right education, cannot speak the language or whatever it may be, and therefore cannot enter the labor market.

Much more needs to be done here. These people have been forgotten in the statistics year in and year out. They have often had no contact with the public employment service or the municipality and have not received the support they need. Here, we are working bit by bit with establishment jobs, language for, for example, immigrant women, vocational training, and much more. It is work that will continue and must continue for a long time and intensively.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that this is followed up by more money for Ukraine so that we can be leading.

The non-cyclical unemployment is, according to the National Institute of Economic Research, 7 ½ percent. That is frighteningly high. Are not lower costs to hire an immensely important part of this, when we know that four out of five jobs are created in growing small businesses? How can one then spend 300 million on that, after having raised taxes for small businesses by almost 100 times more, and spend 600 million on what the Finance Minister just spoke about, namely investments in integration? Seriously speaking, one is putting down in this budget just as many as one starts up, which is evident to those who read carefully. At the same time, one invests twice as much as these two items on a repatriation grant of 350,000 kronor per person. How can this be a bourgeois, liberal policy?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, we are four parties negotiating the budget. Then I still just want to add that return migration or return – one can use whichever word one wants, but they are slightly different things – it is nothing new under the sun. Such contributions have existed for a longer time. Here we are making a larger investment in it.

To get the unemployed back into work here in Sweden, it is about education and employment agency measures, as I said. It chafes a bit, if I'm honest, when I think about what Martin Ådahl might be remembered for when it comes to labor market policy. I believe that Martin Ådahl is often associated with an employment agency reform that didn't go so great, where people did not feel that they received that very strong support.

I hope that things turn around. My view is that what the Centerpartiet pushed through during previous terms is not working. I might be wrong, but we shall see.

My and our view is that everyone should have support. One must, of course, adapt oneself but also have support to enter the labor market. The work line is also about doors being opened.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Halfway through the parliamentary term, it is clear that the government lacks a plan for the climate. The first months in power were spent systematically dismantling climate policy instruments: the reduction obligation, the electric car bonus, the expansion of the offshore power grid, climate requirements in public procurement, the electric bus premium, support for public transport, and so on. Initiatives for forest and nature are conspicuously absent, and the government has slaughtered the environmental budget. One watches passively while the herring, the sprat, and in the long run the entire Baltic Sea ecosystem collapses.

The Climate Policy Council showed in its report for 2024 that the government in its previous budget allocated more money to measures that counteract the climate transition than to measures that promote it. This is repeated in the budget being presented today.

But this answer, I can understand that one would prefer to fudge the numbers to produce anything with nice talking points disguised as emission reductions. But this is serious, and it is urgent. When can we from this government expect policies and reforms that actually lower emissions?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This budget actually lowers emissions - just so we have said it. That is how it is.

Furthermore, it is such, which is not unknown, that we are restructuring parts of the climate policy - not everything, for much of what has been done previously is good. We continue with Industriklivet and Klimatklivet and of course want them to be as effective as possible. But we are now also ensuring that municipalities, for example, shall be able to receive better incentives to say yes to wind power. Wind was needed, solar was needed and water was needed.

But nuclear power is also needed. We have had that debate many times before. Nuclear power is completely central if we are to manage the task ahead, both for the transition, for the energy supply, and for increased growth. That is the direction we have.

It can be good to remind those who are listening that the reasons why we changed the climate policy, for example the changed reduction obligation, were that it was a completely unreasonable policy for ordinary people. No legitimacy is created in that way for a climate policy if one feels: This is not feasible. We cannot afford this.

That is why we, among other things, adjusted the reduction obligation. It was wise.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We will surely have to return to that and debate it more times.

The problem with this government's climate policy is also that one constantly refers back to nuclear power. But with the time aspects that we know exist regarding this, we also know that we cannot wait for it. We must provide more green energy now to Swedish companies. We need it for what they do today, but we need it even more to achieve the green transition.

Now there is an investigation proposal. I have heard nothing else from the government than that they think it is a good proposal. There are also very different ranges here for how much it will cost. I want to ask the Minister for Finance: How much are you prepared to borrow for the Swedish people in the future to get expensive and slow nuclear power in place?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One must still love the issue - expensive and slow nuclear power.

To begin with, it may be good to know that what we are talking about, credits and loans, are things that are to be paid back – just so we have that clear for ourselves. But we are determined that Sweden must have more clean electricity and that it must be stable in the grids. That requires nuclear power. It is a basic prerequisite.

Then the state must be present in the background and take a risk. That is definitive. But the cost of remaining without new nuclear power will be catastrophic. Then we cannot transition. Then we cannot grow as we want to.

Sweden is a pioneer when it comes to the climate. We shall continue to be. 98 percent of the electricity is, as mentioned, fossil-free. Swedish companies are leading the way in terms of production, what they produce, and how they produce it. Households are on board. And the politics is with us.

Mr. Speaker! Through this budget, we are reducing emissions. We continue that journey. We do not do exactly as the Miljöpartiet wants. Some may perhaps think that is bad. But very many probably also think that it is quite good.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We live in economically difficult times. But it is not the first time Sweden has gone through an economic crisis. Just a few years ago we went through the pandemic, with great human suffering but also great economic consequences.

If we evaluate the economic dimensions of the pandemic, we see that Sweden emerged faster and stronger than almost all other countries in Europe. We did that because we were active and had ideas on how to move forward.

Now there is a new crisis, and Sweden comes out among the worst when it comes to handling the cost crisis that Europe and Sweden have gone through. As a former Minister for Finance, I can reflect a bit on what choices the Minister for Finance makes to drive up growth. We have discussed this for two years.

One of the main reasons for the poor growth in Sweden is the decreasing housing construction, which we have debated several times before. Housing construction has decreased and slowed down much of Swedish growth. Why did the government do nothing? They even slowed down housing construction. They have not taken any substantial new initiatives to drive this.

We have had a discussion about consumption. The poorest families in Sweden have a very difficult time making ends meet. That is what we are talking about again now. If one wants to create a consumption boost in society, it is the ordinary families who should get more money in their pockets. Then one should not, as the government has done in several rounds, direct the money to those with the absolutely highest incomes. That yields less effect.

We have had discussions about the industry's competitiveness and about the energy supply and energy production. The government has made the expansion of the energy system more expensive and more difficult, which is what determines competitiveness and can press down the prices for ordinary households.

Furthermore, we have a non-existent labor market policy and an education policy that is in retreat. They have not succeeded in meeting the increasing unemployment.

Now we are summarizing half of the parliamentary term. I cannot give the government's crisis management a passing grade. Sweden is coming out worst. We have the highest unemployment in ten years. Something has been done wrong.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I requested a reply because I reacted to the member's speech about an hour ago. I think the member brushed aside the problem with marginal taxes, despite what the OECD and the Productivity Commission say. It felt as if the member does not think that this issue of it being worthwhile to work and to educate oneself is particularly important.

I would therefore like to know how the member views taxes. I ask the question from the standpoint that I am completely convinced that Mikael Damberg and I agree that we have taxes on tobacco and alcohol because we want people to consume less or abstain entirely.

How can it then be that the link between tax and work does not exist? That is the impression the member gives when he does not take note of what neither the OECD nor the Productivity Commission says. They have pointed out that marginal taxes are a problem. If one wants to accelerate growth, one must also do something about the marginal taxes.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! There are many answers to that question. The first is that if, in this economic situation, one has a bag with limited money and wants to stimulate the economy, it is much better to stimulate ordinary people's finances than to spend the money on high-income earners, who will not consume that money in the same way as those who actually have difficulty making ends meet.

The second argument is more about how one views the current economic situation. Is it reasonable to lower the tax by perhaps 30,000 kronor for Jimmie Åkesson on a whim at the same time as one worsens the compensation for the poorest families with children in Sweden? That is not how you hold a Sweden together during a tough time when people have difficulty making their household finances work.

Somewhere we must decide that we will get through tough times together. That is at least my view of how Sweden usually handles tough economic times.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that I did not quite receive an answer as to why the connection is not so damn clear. The answer was about priorities. I can accept that. But it was the connection I asked for.

The Leader of the Opposition also criticizes the poor growth in Sweden. I agree that it is poor. That is why we are presenting this budget, to make growth better.

My question is short and concise. In July 2022, the EU Commission made a forecast regarding growth among the EU member states. They identified Sweden as the country that would have the lowest growth in the EU. Did the member know who was the Finance Minister in July 2022?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that is a rhetorical question. I know exactly who was the Minister for Finance then.

Sweden had emerged from the pandemic much stronger than the rest of Europe. The effect was that the recovery came slower in other countries than in Sweden. Sweden was back on the growth curve much faster than almost all other countries in Europe. One cannot look at just a single year.

Now we have this period of crisis, and during these two years we have had a worse development than the rest of Europe. Then one should perhaps reflect on whether we could have done something differently. Do we have anything to learn from other countries and how they have handled this difficult time? And to move forward, one should above all ask what conclusion we can draw from how we handle the low growth we have today.

In my latest post, I gave a number of examples of policies that I believe would increase growth in Sweden but where the government has refrained from acting.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have held the posts of Prime Minister, Finance Minister, and School Minister during 20 of the last 30 years. During that time, the school has been subjected to a knowledge crisis. One in four secondary school students cannot read properly. Screens have been allowed to flood into the classrooms as a result of an ill-considered digitalization. And the teacher's role and authority have been eroded and questioned.

In the 90s, the Social Democrats municipalized the school. It became catastrophic for equality and quality. But the only thing the Social Democrats talk about today is a profit ban. I completely agree that we need to renovate the free school system. But it is to deceive the Swedish people to say that it is the only problem in Swedish school.

I wonder if Member Damberg can stand behind sensible liberal policy by nationalizing the school system and bringing the school budget, the actual school budget that the municipalities currently struggle with, here to the chamber.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! The development of schools over time is an enormously large, broad and important issue. I think these are very exciting questions.

I could have asked: Who has been responsible for all the curricula over the last decade? Which party was it that pushed digitalization in Swedish schools the hardest? We can argue about that. And what experiences do we draw from the fact that we now have a situation where the Liberals are starting to kick backwards and retreat when it comes to the market school that, not least international organizations have warned, would lead to poorer school results in Sweden? Now it is acknowledged that we have been right in that the grading system is corrupted in Sweden today and that we have a situation where the resource distribution is poor, the municipalities cannot plan, and the students do not get what they are entitled to. Part of the problem is large profit extractions from the school, which straight up could be enough to provide for 3,000 more teacher positions in Swedish schools. It is clear that it would matter for Swedish schools if one were to take a new turn.

I would very much like to have a cooperation with the Liberals regarding increasing resources for Swedish schools, because I believe that the students and teachers deserve it.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are restructuring the school system. We have commissioned a grade investigation, and we are renovating the independent school system. We have commissioned an investigation into the curriculum and reduced administrative burden for teachers.

The chairman did not say a single word about what he wants to do with Swedish schools, so I thought that he could get the chance again. In fact, when you pushed through the municipalization, a lot of money was saved on schools. This made it difficult to manage, and it eroded the teacher's role.

The knowledge crisis in Swedish school must be addressed. We are now trying to reverse the development and re-establish the foundations in Swedish school. Now we have the chance; now we govern the Ministry of Education.

It is good that the member knows what he wants to do now, but he actually could have done it when he held government power. We are clear on this. I would have liked to hear what the member means that needs to be done to truly achieve an equal school. We believe that the state needs to take ownership. What does the member say?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that the member completely skips over the 90s crisis and the fantastic deficits that the right-wing government left over to the Social Democrats at that time. The budget deficit had quintupled, if I remember correctly, over a few short years. This required both tax increases and large cuts in public activities all over Sweden. It was painful for Swedish schools.

We must not come back to this again, and in that case, there must be order in the state finances. One must take responsibility for long-term financing of the school and have the strength to prioritize so that the resources go to the schools that have the greatest need.

But if you ask me what I believe really makes a difference, the answer is skilled teachers who have a good working environment and can challenge the students and create order in the classroom. All school research shows that what happens in the classroom is crucial for development, and in that case, the teachers need support.

I appreciate that the Liberals have commissioned a lot of inquiries, but I believe this parliamentary term will have passed before anything happens with Swedish schools.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I may think there is some reason to also talk about things that are not included in this budget bill. Earlier this year, in April I believe, a report was submitted from the Commission on the Health Insurance in Change, SOU 2024:26. This investigation has appeared in such debates earlier, in exchanges of remarks and so on, even before it was completed. It was for natural reasons a bit difficult, at least for me, to provide straight and clear statements about what we intended to do with the then future investigation.

But now I can say this. So, for preventive purposes, precisely because it has been on the table in previous budget debates: We naturally thank the investigator and others for the work they have put in, but we leave this investigation as it is. We will, therefore, not proceed with any proposals that in various ways worsen the sickness insurance. All parties will, of course, have to answer for themselves, but this announcement is something we agree on within the Tidö circle.

What people have been tried to be frightened with – that there will be major cuts in the unemployment insurance and the sickness insurance – has therefore not occurred. It was, as is usual, I must add, scaremongering without any real substance whatsoever. The allowance has, on the contrary, been strengthened, twice as well.

This aligns very well with what both I myself and, above all, Jimmie Åkesson said, I don't know how many times, during the election campaign: We will not join as a coalition party a government that makes large cuts to the unemployment insurance or the sickness insurance. And we have not done that either, because it has not happened.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mats Arkhem, Ann-Christine Frohm and Nima Gholam Ali Pour (all SD) concurred.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear when one hears this debate that reality is not very much in focus for the government. It sometimes seems to live a bit in a fantasy world, where decisions do not have consequences.

Several of the crises that we have to deal with in Sweden now have been created by the government and the Sweden Democrats themselves. They have, for example, driven a healthcare crisis by prioritizing tax cuts instead of healthcare funding.

But there is also a crisis right now in a matter related to what Oscar Sjöstedt is talking about: Försäkringskassan. The government has made such large cuts to Försäkringskassan that people who are ill have great problems and can have to wait up to a year before they receive a decision. These are people with very small margins. Försäkringskassan has been very clear: These problems are created by the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's own budget decisions.

How does it feel to have created a crisis for Sweden's most vulnerable people, who do not know whether they will receive compensation or not?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not share the picture that is being described at all. During the period we have had, it has obviously not only been households that have suffered from the high inflation, but it also concerns companies and the public sector - municipalities and, above all, regions, which are ultimately responsible for healthcare. We have injected money, both in the municipal equalization system and in the form of dedicated funds directly to the regions as a healthcare support - the sector grant, as it is usually called. In this budget, an additional 4.5 billion is added to healthcare.

As we heard in the Finance Minister's opening remarks, it is the high inflation that has driven up the expenses. Now the expenses, especially the regions' pension expenses, will decrease significantly next year. The regions will therefore have a situation that is, if not better, at least less bad during 2025 compared to the two preceding years.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that Oscar Sjöstedt does not want a back-and-forth on Försäkringskassan with me but wants to save it for his last reply, when I cannot say anything more.

The fact is that you have driven Försäkringskassan into a hole. Försäkringskassan says that they cannot handle payments and assessments, so people have to wait months for decisions on whether they should receive compensation or not. This is not about fraudsters; these are people who are entitled to compensation but do not receive it because you have made savings. And it is you who have stood for them.

Do you also want me to applaud that you will not make any further deteriorations of the sickness insurance during this parliamentary term? You will not receive any such applause from me, because you have already implemented deteriorations of the cash fund. It is not true that it is not a deterioration of the cash fund. It is a reduction that will primarily affect the LO women in Sweden.

You promised during the election campaign that you would not worsen the cash payment. You worsened the cash payment, and I cannot draw any other conclusion than that the sickness benefit will come next mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not expect any applause from Mikael Damberg, so that is perfectly fine. But the fact remains that we have raised the ceiling in the budget twice. If one wants to call a raised ceiling in the budget a deterioration, one may do so. I think a raised ceiling is a reinforcement.

It is not my view that we have used Försäkringskassan as some kind of budget regulator to finance other reforms. That is absolutely not the view I have. I can agree with Mikael Damberg on the problem description he is touching upon; obviously, it is in that way. People who are entitled to different types of transfers in the social security system should obviously not have to wait for them. I have no other opinion than Mikael Damberg's.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! One almost feels a little sorry for the Sweden Democrats. Their boast is that they have saved the Left Party's reforms in the health insurance from the previous parliamentary term. Perhaps they would prefer to have some of our backbone, but unfortunately, it is not for sale.

They have nothing on their own to-do list. Instead, they have saved 3.6 billion on the unemployment insurance fund. That is what the tapering entails.

So, Sjöstedt himself has fixed the oil prices. It is not the global situation and Saudi Arabia that are behind it, but the oil prices are something that Oscar Sjöstedt puts on his own profit list.

But what answer does Oscar Sjöstedt have for the sick and the unemployed, who, with your policy, receive a new penalty tax? They will receive a higher tax than you yourself and other high-income earners, who will receive up to 50,000 more per year with your policy.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know exactly what Ida Gabrielsson means when she refers to the latest reform of the a-kassa. We strengthened it quite immediately after the election in connection with the budget bill 2023. At that time, we raised the ceiling. The latest reform is therefore cost-neutral. It is not a saving, but it is cost-neutral in terms of net cost.

Then there were some other things there that I didn't quite follow 100 percent. We can take that in the next exchange of remarks. But Vänsterpartiet really has no monopoly on driving health insurance issues. Sometimes we land in the same positions - which is, in itself, quite rare - but it is very good if that is the case.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Oscar Sjöstedt does not answer the question of why the sick and the unemployed should pay more in tax than Oscar Sjöstedt and I.

We have had the Riksdag's investigation service calculate the proposal. The Finance Minister may have guaranteed Member Sjöstedt something, but with the phase-out, where it is the long-term unemployed that are saved, 3.6 billion will be saved. Therefore, the Left Party has also filed a KU-report against the Finance Minister.

You promise those on sick leave, the unemployed, and pensioners that they will get better, but in reality, you are satisfied as long as the Left Party's reforms are not destroyed. It would not have been the Left Party's melody. Had we had influence, we would have used that mandate to improve the sickness insurance, to provide redress for those who have been unfairly dismissed, and to remove the punitive taxes, not to introduce new ones.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! According to the documents I have seen, the reform of the a-kassa is net cost-neutral. I have not received the investigation from the Riksdag's investigation service that Ida Gabrielsson is working on. I would very much like to look at it, but I have no idea how the question is framed there. I also have no reason to believe that they would have fiddled with the figures in the documents we have received from the responsible department. I trust that the information we have received from the department is correct, quite simply.

Why is there a tax difference between those who work and those who do not, namely the employment tax credit? Yes, the whole point of the employment tax credit is that it should become more profitable to work, of course. What we have pushed for is that at least pension should be regarded as deferred salary. The tax discrepancy that has existed for quite a long time between salary and pension is therefore completely gone, and I am very happy about that.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to do something that we do not usually do in our exchanges of remarks, namely to pose a completely open question.

Unemployment has now, as I have mentioned in the debate here a number of times, unfortunately reached a level that is the third highest in Europe. It has risen during the years of the Tidö government, while it has fallen in other countries.

My open question is: Why is that, as Oscar Sjöstedt and the Sverigedemokraterna mean?

And for the second point: What does Oscar Sjöstedt see as the primary measure to reduce unemployment?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I actually raised this in my speech in the first round of this debate. Then I said the primary way to combat unemployment is to make it more profitable to work. I believe I said almost exactly that. That is to say: Lower the income taxes, so that it becomes more profitable to work! That is how you create employment. That is how you create more jobs and more hours worked.

One can also do other things. I was also involved in expanding the growth support in my speech. With more places in vocational adult education, more people will become employable - 11,000 new places. There are thus other things one can do, but the primary way to combat unemployment is to make it more profitable to work.

Then we must remember that unemployment is largely an imported problem. Unemployment among those born in Sweden is very low, around 5 percent. Unemployment among those born abroad is significantly higher. It is more than three times as high. Unemployment is an imported problem.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It started a bit better than it ended. Now we are back to everything being the fault of immigration.

I noted that in Oscar Sjöstedt's presentation it was included that one would lower the tax on income. But before the election, Oscar Sjöstedt was very clear that one wanted to lower the costs for small companies to hire. It was something that one wanted, that one prioritized, and that was important to get more people into jobs in growing companies.

Now I gave Oscar Sjöstedt the opportunity to speak about this again, but during his two minutes it was not mentioned with a single word. Could it possibly have to do with the fact that unemployment, despite your measures, is rising very sharply and that you at the same time have significantly raised the tax on hiring? Then you blame it again on immigration. It is therefore why other countries in Europe and the world succeed in getting people into jobs.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Martin Ådahl must be the only person in all of Sweden who denies that there is a difference between domestic and foreign-born people when it comes to unemployment. This is not about blaming anyone. It easily becomes so childish. But we must still be able to look at facts and statistics and be able to reason around the problems. Everyone knows that is how it is. It is also true.

The Växa support is specifically for the really small companies. That is partly an answer to the question. But with that said, I absolutely believe that one can look at this regarding the employer contribution. I am not at all fond of special solutions when it comes to employer contributions based on age groups and such, which I know Martin Ådahl likes. But to target this in different ways towards the smaller companies is a measure that we absolutely should not rule out in this situation.

We have a recession or at least a weak economy. If the recession becomes less weak and thus more tangible, so that unemployment shoots up even more, I think we should keep this measure in our arsenal. We should have that possibility at least. It is not something I rule out.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats went to the election to secure the welfare in all of Sweden. Time and again, it was repeated during the election campaign that healthcare should be prioritized and upgraded: More hands are needed in care so that more people can feel the security required to live a good life in the autumn of life.

It has now been two years since then. During these two years, Jimmie Åkesson has held a veto over every single one of the government's budgets. But the result is that Sweden's municipalities and regions face cuts that affect patients, staff, and relatives alike.

Now we know that the healthcare system, which is currently in the midst of a crisis created by the Tidö parties, will receive even less money next year. It is nothing less than a monumental betrayal.

My question to Oscar Sjöstedt is: When will we see the investments required for healthcare and elderly care to function in all of Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We therefore inherited an inflation of 10.9 percent. 10.9 percent was the CPI in October 2022, when we took over. Just as I have pointed out in previous exchanges of remarks, inflation does not only affect households and ordinary people. It also affects companies and the public sector. Everything becomes more expensive.

That is what has caused it. That is what has been the problem. That is why we have placed so much focus on getting to grips with inflation. It was 10.9 percent then. Now it is under 2 percent.

This means that the regions, which are ultimately responsible for healthcare, will have significantly lower expenditures in 2025 compared to 2024 - because we have succeeded in pushing back inflation.

With that said, I have answered the question. We are allocating 4.5 billion in this budget bill. We allocated a huge amount of money in the previous budget bill - to the municipal equalization system, the state budget's expenditure area 25, and to the sector grant, which is directly aimed at healthcare. That we have created a healthcare crisis is not true.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, unfortunately, it is true that the Sweden Democrats have been involved in creating the healthcare crisis. No one says anything other than that there was an incredibly high inflation - it needed to come down. Already a year ago, the forecast said that inflation might even be slightly higher than it is now. There was a chance already last year to make offensive investments. Healthcare and elderly care were bleeding money.

Oscar Sjöstedt is now trying to make it sound like one is providing more money to healthcare, but that is not what is happening. One has 7 billion less in targeted measures for healthcare now, ahead of next year, than what one had previously. In addition, one is not injecting any extra money into general grants.

Oscar Sjöstedt said that it is less bad in healthcare nowadays than before. Should we see this as the Sweden Democrats' new healthcare prioritization, that one promises the voters that it will become less bad?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is, in and of itself, good if bad things become less bad. Yes, one can play with words as much as one wants.

Yes, it will be a supplement to the regions. Their expenses will actually decrease by 25 billion kronor next year due to lower pension costs and so on.

I assume that Miljöpartiet will present its shadow budget in a little while. But we have done this procedure a few times during the mandate period. If one looks at Miljöpartiet's previous budget policy, one can see that Miljöpartiet has presented budgets that are completely unfunded, budgets where one borrows very much money. They say that the state should print money and borrow its way out of the inflation crisis. That, therefore, would not have worked. It is not a serious way to conduct economic policy when we have a period of high inflation. Still, Janine Alm Ericson stands here and says: Yes, but of course we agree that we are to fight inflation. But the proposals they have put forward would have worsened inflation.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! The state and capital, the Prime Minister said, and he almost started laughing because he dared to quote progg music during the government statement. Big in words but small on the ground – that is an appropriate expression. For the state and capital does not seem to be about creating conditions for a growing business sector and a social benefit.

Bankruptcies are standing like stakes in the ground. The train chaos is a fact. The construction industry has totally crashed. And the government's measures resemble some kind of luxury trap. It is industry support for airlines, oil companies, cleaning companies, and the fossil industry. To plow tax money into industries that often, sometimes, have quite low productivity is not to invest in growth.

In order for growth to get started, a new investment goal is needed that ensures Sweden's infrastructure functions. In that regard, Vänsterpartiet agrees with Swedish business.

There is high unemployment, and inflation is peaking above the European average. From the rostrum, they say: Now we are getting started, and now we are making a budget that gets the wheels turning. But who is it that is supposed to turn the wheels, and what is it that starts them?

If you want cheap housing, you invest in housing construction, not in 48,000 in reduced tax for the ministerial corps. If you want to kickstart consumption in the economy, you invest so that families with children might be able to afford that winter jacket. If you want employees in healthcare, and guarantee this during the coming years, you simply hire staff in healthcare.

Vänsterpartiet has the proposals for investments and for jobs. Invest in construction! Invest in welfare and ensure that those who cannot afford it are given the opportunity to buy.

In this speech, Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V) concurred.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes one can feel a bit "typecast," as it is called nowadays, in these debates. Now I have to stand here again as a representative of the Center Party and be the one who speaks about the countryside.

The Minister for Finance spoke in her address about how they inherited bullet holes and potholes, but then it was in some way as if she had done something about it. I can only inform the Minister for Finance that there is a million potholes. It is quite easy, if one is in the countryside, to note that.

I can also give another piece of news to the Minister for Finance. In the budget that has just been presented, 1.5 billion kronor has been allocated to road maintenance, but that is exactly as much as is required to ensure that the roads do not deteriorate. There is, therefore, no pothole guarantee here.

And so I can inform about something else. Not a single krona is spent on the individual roads, which – for the sake of information – very many people in Sweden are dependent on.

On this line, it is actually when it comes to the countryside. It was very important before the election, and now it is no longer so important. A lot of money is being taken from the agricultural support because the krona is weak, but it does not go to the farmers. It goes to the general deficits in the state finances.

One does not invest in the small regions, because now it is over. 25 billion has been received now that the crisis is over, says the Minister for Finance. Tell that to Gotland, which is about to submit because you have no money and because you have enormous deficits! Tell that to the small regions!

Now we have invested in the school, say the Liberals. Tell that to all those who are closing small schools, who are losing teachers, and who see how they are being hit!

No, Sweden can do better than that. Now it is time to make a real investment in the countryside, not just in words.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have a short question for the member. He stated in his speech that no money at all would be allocated to infrastructure next year. My question is therefore: How much does the Center Party think should be spent on infrastructure next year?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Hans Eklind is a wise person. He has read the Center Party's budget and seen that we have presented a pothole guarantee and that we have allocated money for immediate railway maintenance, which is urgent. He is also a wise person because he perhaps, like the undersigned, has read the answer key to everything the Infrastructure Minister said, all those 200 billion that were directly waiting, and noted that there is nothing concrete that actually meets the large deficits until on the other side of the next election, when another government is to take over. It is about all the failures with trains. There is a lack of coverage on trains. There is a lack of trains that run. There are roads that do not work.

Talk is cheap, but first we want to see the government earmark these billions so that they go directly to infrastructure and not, as it usually happens, to a lot of other things because the money ran out.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am asking the question for a simple reason. The fact is that this government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is maximizing what the Transport Administration can handle next year - 1.5 billion. That was why I was a bit surprised when the member thought that it was not sufficient.

One cannot simply allocate money; the authority must also have staff, resources, and so on to be able to do anything with them. The Minister has stated that this is what the Transport Administration can manage so that we get as much bang for the buck as possible. One can always allocate money, but in that case, the member is arguing for a castle in the air.

I think it is undeniably interesting that Martin Ådahl, without having checked how much Trafikverket can handle, stands in the speaker's chair and thinks that the investments are too poor in the coming years when we are carrying out the largest investment in the infrastructure in modern times. I do not know what that says about the member, but I think it feels a bit backwards.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is still a new, exciting variant to blame Trafikverket for not being able to fix the potholes! Trafikverket must manage it, so we do not!

I have a small piece of news that Hans Eklind is well aware of, Mr. Speaker, namely that you have been in power for two years now. You are responsible now. Your party has the responsibility for the portfolio of potholes, roads and railways and for making sure that everything works. Yes, sometimes one does not see much of the minister when some train stands still, some road is blocked or when the coverage does not work. Sometimes one does, sometimes not.

You have the responsibility, and if you do not succeed in getting Trafikverket to rectify our serious problems regarding railways, roads, potholes, and private roads, it is actually your problem.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Our Minister for Health and Social Affairs, Acko Ankarberg Johansson, presented last year the directives to the committee that is now investigating the advantages and disadvantages of full or partial state ownership of health and medical care. That work is expected to be completed and presented next spring and is a first step towards increased state responsibility, where, for example, Norway and Denmark have led the way. Increased state responsibility was also included in the Prime Minister's government statement, and everyone knows that this is something we Christian Democrats have long been pushing for.

Mr. Speaker! The last time the Christian Democrats held the position of Minister for Health, the queues decreased. But what the experience was then – I have spoken with Göran Hägglund about this – made us convinced that queues and much else are due to the fact that healthcare is also poorly organized. Sweden has more doctors than the EU average, but the doctors here in Sweden see fewer patients than their European colleagues. We spend more money on healthcare than the EU average, but at the same time, we have the lowest number of healthcare beds per capita. This is therefore not in the long run just a money problem but an organizational problem, something that the Corona Commission also noted.

Mr. Speaker! In anticipation of increased state ownership, we Christians Democrats have therefore ensured that the government is now allocating resources to the establishment of a national healthcare brokerage. Long waiting times have long been a problem within Swedish health and medical care, and the differences in waiting times between different regions and, for that matter, also between different parts of health and medical care are furthermore large.

Through an increased investment of 250 million to accelerate the development of a national healthcare referral system, we are now taking a step forward towards more equal care across the entire country. Waiting patients shall be able to be offered care at a healthcare provider with shorter waiting times than in their home region, regardless of where in the country the patient is located.

The previous government protected and seems to continue to protect the regions; we protect the healthcare's ability to deliver.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! During the election campaign, the Tidö parties promised that new nuclear power would be built without state support. It was supposed to result in lower electricity prices, and it was also supposed to solve all climate challenges.

But now, halfway through the parliamentary term, no nuclear power company is even close to an investment decision. A recent investigation shows in black and white instead that new nuclear power will become a sinkhole for taxpayers' money, and by that I do not mean primarily the guarantees that the government is prepared to provide without the extra penalty tax that we will all be affected by.

At the same time, we now see how the expansion of wind power has stalled. So far this year, all applications for land-based wind power have been rejected, and the government has over 20 applications for offshore wind power on its desk. Vattenfall also says that without wind power, there will be no new nuclear power.

I would therefore like to ask: Are the Christian Democrats prepared to take responsibility for the energy supply in Sweden and reconsider the connection fee for offshore wind power?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! That question is therefore asked by a representative of a party that has been obsessed with shutting down nuclear power and even prohibited research on new nuclear power, which I think is a bizarre idea in itself. It has naturally created uncertainty in this area.

We have been very clear, not least through our party leader who is the responsible minister, that all types of energy were needed for us to manage it. We cannot manage it with just one or the other. Furthermore, we have submitted an energy policy direction proposition here in the Riksdag. For me, it was also in some way a confirmation that we should probably stop hitting different types of energy against each other, because in that proposition it is very clearly stated that all types of energy are needed.

Since then, it has been no secret that we believe we should have predictable energy, that is to say we should be able to deliver power even when it is cold and dark and the wind is not blowing. That is one part. The other is that nuclear power is underway now. We intend to deliver and sincerely hope that it has begun before this parliamentary term is over.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! At Hans Eklind's, it currently sounds as if one does not hear how it sounds in the general debate. Then I did say that Vattenfall has very clearly stated that without new wind power, there will be no nuclear power. At the same time, I asked if they were prepared to provide the connections for the offshore wind power, and we really received no answer to that. I hope the answer to that question is yes.

When we stand here now and talk about that we need broad agreements and that we should stop hitting different types of energy in each other's heads - very gladly! - I can remind that we had an energy agreement that was adopted in broad agreement. I can remind the voters that it was the Christian Democrats who tore it up and threw us into the uncertainty that we see now.

We will debate this many more times, but I also want to take the opportunity to ask Hans Eklind, who is nevertheless a man who stands up for aid, how the Christian Democrats could agree to such massive cuts at a time when we see how the needs are increasing.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Janine Alm Ericson, for these two questions now at the end!

I will start with the first one: We shall have a technology-neutral design - why should we pay for certain connection fees but not for others? Regarding Kriegers flak, it is for example almost the 20th anniversary, I just want to remind, this because it is said that wind power can be produced so quickly.

When it comes to aid, it is a reduced aid framework of 3 billion kronor, from 56 to 53 billion. We will therefore be one of five countries in the world that reach over what is called the 0.7 target, which the UN has set. I think that this aid framework still delivers. We have delivered in government position. I can guarantee that.

Then I cannot speak about aid without also mentioning that the most important thing is not the figures exercise, but that we ensure we actually derive benefit from the money that Swedish taxpayers give to the rest of the world. This government has made it more transparent and invests more in civil society organizations, which is something we Christian Democrats believe ensures that we get more aid for the money that we de facto give.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Let me repeat myself now. The budget that the government has placed on the floor of the Riksdag is not a budget that tackles Sweden's problems. Once again, we see large tax cuts for high-income earners, increasing emissions, and a still underfunded welfare system. The government speaks nicely about all the investments they make, but which social problems are actually being solved?

One does not solve the climate crisis. Instead of a policy that lowers emissions, one subsidizes both aviation and diesel. One does not solve the nature crisis. The Baltic Sea is dying, invasive species continue to spread, and people cannot go out into the forest and the land.

The healthcare crisis is not being solved. The queues for care are increasing, and people risk dying. The nurses who are struggling are forced to work harder and run faster until they finally can no longer cope and leave the profession. Then we get even fewer care beds.

The government's policy does not solve the gang wars, children's lack of faith in the future, and closed doors for a bright future. This government continues to give the school companies billion-dollar profits, but people would rather talk about moving from screen to binder than about the fact that both school and preschool are underfunded. They exacerbate more problems than they solve.

It is easy to state that Sweden needs a new government. It must be a government that meets the crisis in the welfare state with more money for healthcare and schools, that meets the insecurity and violence with long-term investments in preventive work and the entire justice chain, that meets the climate crisis with policies that reduce emissions and that accelerate the transition and protect more nature. It must be a government that takes responsibility for the world with a strong aid system that leaves no one behind. It must be a government that simply solves real societal problems instead of creating more.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have a knowledge crisis in Swedish schools. Today, every fourth student in upper secondary school cannot read properly. The number of reports of threats and violence has doubled, and it is clear that the basics are not functioning in Swedish schools today.

The Liberals have begun a task of rebuilding the foundations of the school again. It is about all students' right to proper school books, staffed school libraries and access to good student health. Also, the introduction of a national school funding norm and a fully renovated friskola system are much-needed reforms.

In the budget for 2025, we are making a major investment in schools. We ensure that half a million real textbooks replace the students' distracting screens. We give the municipalities the opportunity to create smaller teaching groups, and we double the support for emergency schools. We stop the screen addiction and tackle the rowdiness.

Mr. Speaker! We are now also finally taking the step that the previous Social Democratic government could not manage, namely to introduce a ten-year primary school. Thus, we strengthen the focus on early reading and writing training. Through early interventions, we can create better conditions for the children who need them most. Therefore, we are also investing 900 million in preschool during 2025 to increase the quality.

We have a paradoxical situation on the labor market with high unemployment at the same time as there is a great skills shortage. Therefore, we continue to expand vocational training and strengthen them with 11,000 places. In total, we can now offer over 70,000 places in Sweden. Additionally, we strengthen the supervisor support in apprenticeship education, and we increase the apprenticeship allowance.

Mr. Speaker! I am proud that my party is part of a government that is presenting a budget for growth, the climate, and knowledge. It is a budget with clear liberal successes that will make a big difference in people's everyday lives.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I actually wanted to direct this remark to Elisabeth Svantesson, but she received so many questions from me. In her speech, she spoke about preventing men's violence against women in every conceivable way, which is a very large problem in Sweden and which we still have not succeeded in curing.

An important component presented by your minister Paulina Brandberg is to have an exit program. There is a less polite word for this – which I will not mention here because it contains a swear word – but it is therefore a question of having capital that provides the economic possibilities to leave a party that hits you and oppresses you. Unfortunately, when we have read through your budget, we have seen that there is no money for this. Why – if we are now to make this major investment against men's violence against women?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

Equality issues are very important, and therefore we are strengthening the Swedish Agency for Equality's possibilities to work towards creating the long-term, important reforms.

We have major good initiatives in the area of equality, as I told about in my speech, including with the exit program. We will continue to drive equality issues on all levels. This can concern honor oppression, women subjected to violence, injustices in the labor market, pay differences - all the places where women today have worse conditions than men simply for the reason that they are women.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! We share the ambition on all levels, and we have talked about this on several occasions. Our parties, and we members, truly share the ambition. That is why we are a bit disappointed that in the gigantic budget of 60 billion, one does not invest properly with money. If we are to, in every way, encourage women to leave these dreadful relationships they have become stuck in, and give them financial help to do so, exit programs that have the financial muscles are required. To our disappointment, the money does not seem to be in the budget.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again.

I truly agree that we are largely in agreement on these issues. It is important that we can talk about these issues between parties and develop long-term good reforms for the most vulnerable in society. It is a question of an important group. It concerns several things, including the work of women's shelters, access to housing, safety for children in school - the whole package.

I look forward to us continuing to invest in those types of measures to help the women who are victims of violence.

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)