Extra supplementary budget for 2026 - Reduced tax on fuels and electricity and gas price support

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker and everyone listening! Today we are going to talk about the proposal that the Moderaterna, together with its coalition partners, are presenting.

We face a restless world with war in the Middle East and Ukraine and with an administration that is unpredictable and which creates a lot of problems all around the world.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden stands strong in all of this. Swedish households are being tested hard, and Swedish companies as well. But Sweden has political stability. We have a budget majority and a government with a majority in the chamber, which provides the opportunity to push through political proposals. We also have an economic strength that many countries in the world envy Sweden for. Sweden is one of nine countries in the world with the highest credit ratings. The Swedish national debt is today lower than when the Social Democrats got their last budget through in the chamber. We have one of the lowest national debts in the world.

The Moderates have, together with the coalition partners, taken Sweden from the bottom of the European growth league to belonging in the top again. Sweden has, as has been said, the economic strength to face difficult times but also to invest in the future.

But let me be clear: I and we know that many out there are still having a very difficult time. These have been tough times. The high inflation we inherited from the previous government has tested Swedish households hard, and the anxiety that has been created as a result of the war likewise.

The Moderates will today, together with the other coalition parties, decide on an electricity and gas price support covering all of Sweden. We will decide on a lower tax on gasoline and diesel, which will come into effect as early as May 1. It will be a 1 krona lower tax on gasoline and an additional 40 öre on diesel. This, together with everything else we do, will facilitate things for Swedish households.

Mr. Speaker! We have already earlier this year lowered the tax on wages, pensions, and savings. We have lowered the tax on electricity, food, and fuel. This summer we are also lowering the preschool fee, which will make things much easier for many families with children.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates have, together with the coalition partners, several times during the parliamentary term lowered the tax on gasoline and diesel. We have changed the reduction obligation so that it has become much cheaper. When we took over, Sweden practically had the world's highest fuel prices – with a few exceptions. With the measures we have already taken and are taking today, we take Sweden from that position to having among Western Europe's lowest fuel prices. This facilitates things for Swedish households and companies.

Two of the four parties in the opposition will today vote against the crisis measures we are now implementing for Swedish households, because they do not want cheaper fuel prices. Had we had a government led by the Social Democrats, it would never have been able to present this type of proposal on the floor of the Riksdag, for it simply would not have been possible.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Centre Party, and the Left Party shut down fully functioning nuclear power in Sweden during the last parliamentary term. They applauded in the chamber during the final attempt to save these reactors, and the Green Party toasted with champagne. But Swedish households and companies faced dramatically increased electricity prices, and companies faced electricity shortages. This has harmed Sweden and Swedish growth and cost Swedish jobs. Instead, Swedish jobs have ended up in other countries when the industry could not be developed and expanded in Sweden. Companies simply have not been able to develop in our country.

The Moderates, together with the coalition partners within the framework of the Tidö agreement, have on several occasions produced electricity price subsidies to try to ease the burden for Swedish households, and today the Chamber decides on another one. But we will not be able to fully compensate for the damage that the Social Democrats with supporting parties have caused our country.

Mr. Speaker! It is provocative to now hear Social Democrats demand protective walls against the outside world so that high energy prices will not harm companies and households in Sweden. Sweden did not just have protective walls; Sweden had an entire wall with watchtowers in the form of nuclear reactors against high electricity prices from the rest of the world. They were called Barsebäck, Oskarshamn, and Ringhals. They were watchtowers that kept the high electricity prices outside Sweden's borders. This wall was torn down by the same Social Democrats who today speak of protection.

Mr. Speaker! Before the decommissioning of nuclear power, Sweden had reliable electricity production that supplied Swedish households and companies with cheap electricity every day of the year and every hour of the day. Regardless of whether it blew or the sun shone, electricity came from the outlets.

The Moderates and the other Tidö parties will seek new support from the Swedish people for upcoming parliamentary terms. We want to take responsibility and rebuild the protective barriers that Sweden, Swedish households, and Swedish companies need. We are working in three steps. First, we will do everything we can to keep electricity prices down in the existing electricity system. Second, if necessary, we will supplement with electricity price subsidies, just as we do today. Third, we will use existing technology to build new Swedish nuclear power, for that is the only way we can return to where we were in the long term.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and thereby in favor of the government's proposition on electricity and gas price support for all of Sweden and reduced tax on gasoline and diesel.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The government, through Edward Riedl, makes the situation we find ourselves in sound like a completely ordinary tax issue. We hear talk about tax cuts and everything that has been done during the mandate period, and furthermore, the usual lies about nuclear power. True to form, it sounds a bit like a music box that has gotten stuck.

But lowering taxes on gasoline and diesel is not at all a common tax issue. We are, in fact, in a historical energy crisis that we have not seen the likes of before. There is talk of rationing, and experts claim that we are heading towards a chronic shortage of fossil energy. In Europe, there is talk that people must work from home if they can and that we must save on the common resources.

It is not the signal we are receiving from the Tidöregeringen, but rather the government seems to be completely unaware of this crisis. But I thought I would give Edward Riedl a chance to leave a statement. Will anything other than just a populist reduction of the tax on gasoline and diesel come from the government? What we actually need in this crisis is targeted support for those who truly need it and who are dependent on their car to get to work and drive the children to school. Or will there be no such proposals? In that case, the entire society is left in an incredibly vulnerable situation as we face larger and larger shortages of gasoline and diesel.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Janine Alm Ericson for the questions and comments.

The Moderates and the coalition partners see the crisis that exists to the highest degree. We inherited a 10 percent inflation and fought it at the beginning of the mandate period. We have compensated, especially those who had it the toughest. We inflation-proofed grants and compensations, because we know that people buy food with crowns and öre. Therefore, we directed our efforts from the beginning of the mandate period to all those who had it the toughest.

When the government can now summarize the four years that have passed, we see that the tenth of the Swedish people who have the lowest incomes have benefited most from our economic policy, and now we are shifting it so that everyone who works and who has worked also gets a share of this.

During this parliamentary term, we have lowered the tax on wages, pensions, savings, electricity, and fuel and, most recently, on April 1, also on food. This summer, on July 1, we will ensure that families with children find it somewhat easier when we also lower the preschool fee for everyone who works and has children in preschool.

We do all this because we know that the Swedish people have had it tough and, for the most part, still have it tough. The inflation crisis and the war that is currently ongoing in the Middle East and in Europe, in Ukraine, affect Swedish households and cause them to continue to have it tough. This we see, and that is why we do all these things.

When it comes to the lies about nuclear power that the member is trying to assert, I can only state that the member should probably specify in their next contribution what is a lie. Was nuclear power not phased out during the previous parliamentary term, and did electricity prices do not become significantly higher in connection with this? What is it that actually applies?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Edward Riedl, for the answer!

To begin with, there were other safety requirements for nuclear power, among other things. It was said that it was not possible to renovate and operate the old plants to meet the requirements, but the Moderaterna perhaps wanted to continue operating an unsafe nuclear power. As we all know, this happened here in the wake of Fukushima, and there were renovation needs.

The vote that the member referred to in the rostrum is, as we both know, a populist move because the phase-out had gone far too far to be stopped at the vote. Then we can discuss a lot regarding nuclear power, but this debate is not primarily about that, but about the reduction of the tax on gasoline and diesel.

I would like to take the opportunity to say something about this issue of those who are worst off in society having benefited from the government's economic policy. It may possibly be true based on charts involving percentages, but both Member Riedl and I know that it is not true in terms of kronor and öre. There, it is those who already have the most who have benefited the most from the government's economic policy.

The proposal is somewhat symptomatic. The tax is lowered broadly for everyone, regardless of whether one earns a lot or a little and regardless of whether one needs to use a car that runs on fossil fuels or not.

It would have been better to use the economic space we have to direct the support to those who really need it and contribute to other things to help the whole society manage this crisis. I hear nothing about the crisis. I hear nothing from Edward Riedl about what the government intends to do so that Sweden will end up in a better position, but I only hear about a tax cut. That is not enough.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was a pity that the member did not listen to the first half of my speech, where I spoke of nothing other than the very crisis that is currently unfolding and everything the government is doing to facilitate things for people.

Let me first say that I do not share the member's view that everyone who is dependent on the car every day to get to and from work and to transport their children to extracurricular activities would in no way be in need of support. I do not agree with that, but I believe that there are quite a few people outside this house who are having a really tough time and who are dependent on the car.

When fuel prices soar in this way due to the war in the Middle East, I and our coalition parties think it is good to direct support to facilitate things. We see that Norwegians are traveling to Sweden to refuel because it is, for example, 10 kronor cheaper per liter of gasoline. All of this, I think, is fundamentally good, because it makes things easier for people.

We also do other things, Mr. Speaker. We lower the tax on food. We lower the tax on electricity. We have lowered the tax on wages and pensions. We have done all this to make things easier for people who are struggling. Then we hear again that it is those who earn a lot who benefit the most from this, but let us state something. A person who earns 125,000 kronor a month – a salary that is completely unattainable for most of us – has five times as high a salary as the one who earns 25,000 kronor a month but pays eleven times as much in tax. That is a significant difference, Mr. Speaker. It is in such a way that the one who earns a lot in absolute terms pays more than the one who earns less, and it is under this government that it looks that way.

I do not share the image. I see that very many people are having a hard time, and therefore we need to direct the measures in that way.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I want to say that we support the proposal. We even proposed it before the government had the chance to do so.

The discussion on what is prioritized and important for the Swedish economy has broadened somewhat. I heard representatives for the Tidöregeringen say that Sweden stands strong. I really must ask if that is the correct expression, considering that today we received an unemployment figure of 9.7 percent. One in ten Swedes is unemployed today. Seasonally adjusted, it is 8.7 percent. These are appalling figures. Furthermore, there is 30 percent youth unemployment.

An incredibly large number of people in Sweden are in crisis right now. Then I wonder if the government does not regret that in its budget it only allocated 65 kronor more per unemployed person to solve the unemployment crisis. That corresponds to two cups of coffee – in this situation with an extremely high unemployment. I do not understand that this is not taken up in every speech and in every statement from the government. One does not feel that this has the highest priority and that it is a serious crisis that one is prepared to do something about.

On the poster that the Moderaterna had in the last election campaign, it said: "Europe's fourth highest unemployment should make the government unemployed." Now we have EU's third highest unemployment or maybe second – what do I know, with the latest figures. Is it not time for the government to become unemployed, if it does nothing?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me start with the positive. It is fundamentally good that the Center Party again supports the government's proposal. Then it is unfortunate that today one is in the company of three other parties that only want to raise taxes for the Swedish people. I find it a bit difficult to see how that can contribute to a growing economy or to more jobs in the country.

Let us state that more people working is better for Sweden. Our four parties will do everything to continue ensuring that the Swedish economy grows and that jobs are created. It is connected to this.

Let us pause for two seconds regarding which measures are being used. What Member Ådahl said, that 30 percent of young people are unemployed, is based on Statistics Sweden calling people and in practice asking: "Would you like a side job or a job?" Then perhaps the person in question says: "Yes, I would gladly like a side job." That measure is always very high in Sweden. It usually lies at those figures or just above or below.

Most Swedish youths who are asked that question, Mr. Speaker, are in school, studying at upper secondary school or attending college or university, and some would like to have a part-time job but have not found anything. It is an important issue, Mr. Speaker, but it is not mass unemployment among young people. I do not believe that everyone listening to this debate recognizes the picture that Member Ådahl presents, because it is simply not true.

The government has just lowered the employer contribution for young people to make it easier for young people to enter the labor market. In the budget that we will decide on shortly before the summer, we are investing in youth jobs, i.e., summer jobs. I believe that, fundamentally, this is good policy, Mr. Speaker. I will have to return to this a bit more in the next contribution.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe those listening heard that I only quoted the official figure from Statistics Sweden.

I believe that very many who are listening to this know someone who is unemployed, as the situation is today. There are many academics who are unemployed today. There are very many young people who are unemployed today.

This answer is exactly what we heard at the time when the Moderaterna joined the Alliance and had a different view on the economy. It is exactly that type of number-juggling and excuses – it is not a real figure, and actually they are not unemployed and actually it is not a problem – that we thought so poorly of from the Socialdemokraterna when they at that time tried to hide the unemployment. Now we have ended up exactly there, and worse, with this government.

I can only say that every time we have been part of a cooperation, whether it was the Alliance or the January Agreement, and whether it was the financial crisis or the pandemic, we have ensured that we have achieved higher growth in Sweden than in the EU. Today, it is lower than in the EU. We have ensured that we have achieved lower unemployment than the EU average and that it has gone down – not gone up by 100,000, as it has done under this government. And the companies have experienced that they have received a better climate for hiring and not, as they say today, a worse one.

I perceive that the government once again does not say that this is serious and that one sees it, that one sees the people who are unemployed. Instead, one goes about and explains away figures. If it were to be 8 percent, is that not also a catastrophe? Just the latest figure is that the increase has been 40,000 more among the young. Whatever that figure looked like at the beginning, it has now increased by 40,000. And you allocated the equivalent of two coins of coffee per unemployed person to this problem in your spring budget. Is that correctly prioritized?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me be crystal clear for all of you listening to the debate: As long as there is a single person in Sweden who wants and can work but cannot find a job, it is not good.

It is a task for politics to ensure that there is a growing economy where companies can develop and thrive in our country and that we have sufficient tax revenues so that we can also develop all our welfare activities so that jobs can grow there as well. That is the basic stance, Mr. Speaker, and let no one believe otherwise.

With that said, it is important to know that some use different measures to try to create an alarmist feeling in people, and the figure that Martin Ådahl uses is in no way representative of how it actually looks.

Does it mean that we are not taking the issue seriously now that we have had an inflation crisis that we inherited from the previous government and a global recession? Are we then not taking the issue of jobs seriously? Yes, of course we are. We are making reforms this year. We have done so during the mandate period.

We are lowering the employer contribution for young people this year so that young people can more easily get a job, because we see that there are some young people who actually do not enter the labor market. We are then making it easier for companies and for municipalities and regions to employ young people.

There is another problem that I think is real, because I think that the youth who study at upper secondary school or at a university or college and want a part-time job or a summer job should also have the opportunity for this. It will be about legislation but also about facilitating. Therefore, it is included in the spring budget amendment that we will make a decision on before the summer.

I think all of that is good, because we want everyone who can work and wants to work to also have the opportunity to get a job. We will continue with that.

But the basis, Mr. Speaker, is a growing economy. In that case, the left's tax increases are harmful to job growth, and in that case, decommissioned nuclear power is harmful to job growth.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are currently living in a time of anxiety and uncertainty. The war in the Middle East affects the entire world economy. When important transport routes such as the Strait of Hormuz are threatened, it has direct consequences for the supply of oil and gas. We already see this in the form of rising fuel prices, upward pressure on inflation, and increased costs for households and companies.

This is a crisis far away, but it is also something that is felt in people's everyday lives – at the pump, in the grocery store, and in the wallet. And it exposes a weakness in Sweden: We are still far too dependent on oil, and this government has made us more dependent on oil.

As long as that dependency remains, we will also be more vulnerable to war, conflicts, and sharp fluctuations on the world market. It is a vulnerability we must take seriously. At the same time, the situation here and now requires political leadership and the ability to act quickly, clearly, and responsibly.

Mr. Speaker! Every time has its challenges, and how we choose to meet them determines not only how we manage here and now but also what kind of society we build for the future. But what we see from this government is something else. The messages are fragmented and unclear. One day it is said that the economy is strong, the next day that the money is gone. At the same time, there are warnings of rationing of fuels, something that would naturally have major consequences for people, and when measures are finally presented, they are often late or insufficient. It creates uncertainty in a situation where Sweden needs stability and security.

For several years, the economic policy has not delivered what is required. Growth has been low. Unemployment is at a record high, many companies are struggling against the wind, and bankruptcies are at a record high. At the same time, important investments in the energy system and electrification have not been implemented at the pace that was needed for all of us. This makes us more vulnerable when the crisis hits.

We Social Democrats have demanded that the government act. We have demanded a protection plan for the Swedish economy and Swedish jobs. We have demanded measures in the EU to break the link between electricity and gas prices. We have demanded more support for ordinary families, not least in a situation where costs are increasing rapidly. And we have demanded clearer work to strengthen Sweden's energy security. But very much of this remains.

Mr. Speaker! This applies in particular to the electricity subsidies. The electricity bills this winter have been a heavy burden for many households. Already in the autumn, we warned of the risk that the government's model might not even be able to be activated. We demanded that the funds that were set aside in the budget should be used so that a functioning system could be developed.

Now the government has finally chosen to pay out support, which is fundamentally good, but the problem remains. The design does not hold up.

We have seen it before. The electricity subsidies in 2022 and 2023 were characterized by major deficiencies. Some households received unreasonably high support, others had to wait a long time, and the subsidies did not always reach those with the greatest need. Despite this, the government has not developed a better model.

Now there is a risk that we see the same mistake again. The report points out that up to 800,000 households, people who live in condominiums or rental apartments with collective electricity contracts, may be left completely without support. These are households that are also affected by high electricity bills but who now risk falling through the cracks.

I can only state that this government, in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, forgets and fails these people – especially all women who live in rental apartments and choose to, or must, use public transport. And public transport is important.

This is not reasonable, as an electricity subsidy must be accurate. It must be fair, and it must reach those who actually need it. Therefore, we argue that the government must return to the Riksdag with a system that lives up to exactly this, an electricity subsidy that takes into account the households' actual situation and differences in income, consumption, and housing type.

We also mean that the government must act in the EU to enable more flexible use of the so-called bottleneck revenues. These are, in principle, funds that come from Swedish electricity customers, and they could be used to support Swedish households in times of high electricity prices. Here, the government has been passive.

At the same time, we know that the problems do not disappear. The winter we have just gone through shows that high electricity prices are not an exception. Cold, high consumption, and a pressured energy system can hit hard across the entire country. This requires better preparations, better analysis, and better politics.

We Social Democrats wanted to see a broad energy agreement to quickly establish more energy here and now. In a situation with high electricity prices and great uncertainty, Sweden needed to unite. Companies and households need information, stability, and long-term rules of the game. For that, cooperation is required, not deadlocks.

An energy agreement could have created exactly this: clarity for investments, faster expansion of electricity production, and better conditions to meet the crisis. We would have needed an initiative on several fronts. The government chose a different path, however, and that weakens Sweden in a situation where we would have needed to become stronger together.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as we must rectify what is not working, we must also act here and now. However, this crisis is not just about electricity prices or fuels here and now, it is about our long-term vulnerability. Every time the oil price rises and every time a conflict breaks out, Swedish households are directly affected. It is the consequence of a dependency that we have not yet broken.

We must therefore do two things at the same time. We must act here and now to protect people from price shocks, and we must prepare Sweden for the future by reducing our dependence on oil.

Here and now, it is about concrete measures. We have also proposed that the tax on gasoline and diesel should be lowered. It is necessary to dampen costs and counteract inflation. For many people, the car is a prerequisite for everyday life to function, and politics must take that into account.

In the longer term, however, it is about something bigger. Sweden needs systems that make us stronger and more independent. It is about expanding electricity production with more types of power, electrifying transport and industry, developing more Swedish fuels, and step by step reducing our dependence on imported oil. This is not just climate policy. This is security policy and economic policy, and it is a matter of giving people control over their own everyday lives.

A Sweden that is less dependent on oil is a Sweden that stands stronger in a crisis, and that is where we must go. Every time has its challenge, and our challenge is clear: to manage the crisis here and now with support that actually works, to rectify what has gone wrong and demand accountability when politics fails, and to build a stronger Sweden where we are no longer as vulnerable to the world's unrest.

This is a responsibility that we Social Democrats are ready to take – with decisiveness, with justice, and with a clear direction forward.

I want to conclude by doing what I must, which is to move for approval of reservation 2. We naturally stand behind both of our reservations, but for the sake of time, we move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Dennis Dioukarev (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The conflict in the Middle East has both geopolitical and economic consequences. The long-term consequences depend on with what military intensity the war will be waged, how long it will last, and how it will end. These are three questions that none of us know the answer to.

What we do know for sure, however, is that we have received at least temporarily higher energy prices, because when 20 percent of the oil consumed in the world is blocked in the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, we once again get supply disruptions that result in increased costs for transport and higher prices at the pump for everyone who uses the car.

This is, for several reasons, naturally not the development that any of us would have wanted, but that is how it is now, and in that case, we as decision-makers have two alternatives. One is to sit on our hands and do nothing and let the households take this hit. The other is to take responsibility and support Swedish households and thereby continue the recovery in the Swedish economy, and that is precisely what the Tidö parties have done with this extra supplementary budget.

On May 1, we are lowering the tax on gasoline and diesel to the EU's minimum level, which means that the tax will be as low as is only possible according to EU law. This will lead to diesel becoming 40 öre cheaper per liter and gasoline 1 krona cheaper, and if the EU Commission approves the application that we have submitted, the Sverigedemokraterna and the government will lower the tax even further. That would in that case mean an additional 3 kronor lower price at the pump from May to September this year, i.e., a total of 3.40 for diesel and 4 kronor for gasoline.

Mr. Speaker! With the same determination, we address other unpredictable events that affect Swedish households and the Swedish economy, namely weather-dependent electricity production. The months of January and February were relatively cold and calm, and therefore expensive. This, in combination with an uncertain global situation, entails uncertainties for the development of the price of electricity and gas in the near future. Therefore, we are now moving forward with a temporary electricity subsidy that shall apply retroactively for these months. This can mean between 1,000 and 2,000 kronor for a family in a villa, and it applies throughout Sweden.

In parallel, the Sweden Democrats and the government are also addressing the more structural issue regarding a stable and predictable energy system. We went to the election on a platform of building nuclear power, and just a few weeks ago, the first application in over 50 years was submitted to the government to build exactly new nuclear power. This is good news for Swedish households, for companies, and for Swedish growth.

Mr. Speaker! The electricity supply and the reduction in fuel tax come at a time when the Swedish economy has just begun to recover after the years of inflation and the peak in 2022, and it should be seen in that light. These are two additional tools to secure the recovery that began during 2024 and continued during 2025.

The employment rate is rising now, and since the 2022 election, we have gone from being the sixth worst to becoming the sixth best in the EU's growth league. Wages are increasing, and the real wage increases are actually the highest since the financial crisis in 2008. Inflation has come down and is now around the Riksbank's 2 percent target.

One must remember that we had a 10 percent inflation in Sweden when the Tidö parties took over, but through a responsible fiscal policy that did not unnecessarily stimulate demand – that is, measures that the opposition advocated for and which would have led to higher inflation and higher interest rates – and through responsible parties in the labor market, inflation has now come down to just below the Riksbank's target.

What I want to say with this, Mr. Speaker, is that we have good conditions in the Swedish economy. We have world-class public finances, and Sweden is one of the nine countries in the world that has the highest credit rating, AAA. The low debt we have allows us to conduct a traditional cyclical policy.

It is this that enables the electricity support and the reduction in fuel tax, and which enables reduced reduction obligation and lower fuel prices than at the peaks in 2022, when it cost nearly 30 kronor per liter. It is also this that enables halved food VAT and cheaper food, reduced preschool fees, reduced electricity tax, and reduced income tax. It is this that ensures that an ordinary family with children gets more money in their wallet with the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's economic policy.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It feels like one is a kind of truth witness in this debate every time it is said that Sweden stands so strong and that things are going so well.

I want to start by correcting something that was said from the rostrum – even if it is tedious – because according to SCB's latest survey, which came out now and concerns March, the employment rate is falling. One only has to read up on it.

Even the general picture that it looks so fantastic in the Swedish economy despite that we have 9.7 percent unemployment – which is under all circumstances a much higher unemployment now than when the Tidö Government took office – and such a large dependency on benefits, with enormous costs for welfare and above all for very many families, is surprising.

This debate is not actually about whether one is satisfied with the situation in the Swedish economy, but it is about something else. It is about the promise that the government gave before the last election to lower fuel prices by 10 kronor.

As it was then, just as the member from SD has pointed out, the outside world governed much of the development. But for ordinary households, it is a fact – and this cannot be explained away by saying that the price would have been even higher in some kind of hypothetical scenario where we or someone else had done certain things – that the diesel price is back at exactly the level it was on election day 2022. One has the same costs today as on election day 2022.

Therefore, I ask: What does the member from SD say to all those who might have wanted to switch to an electric car or a plug-in hybrid during this time? Because SD thinks so incredibly poorly of fossil-free electric cars and plug-in hybrids, all support for them was removed, and fewer people than in our neighboring countries have chosen that option – because they have not been able to afford it.

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

Dennis Dioukarev (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the survey from Statistics Sweden that arrived this morning, SCB themselves stated that it is likely a measurement error. Prior to that, unemployment had fallen for eight consecutive months.

We can have a broader discussion about Swedish unemployment. We all know what it is due to, namely that Sweden has had Europe's most extreme immigration and integration policy. That is why it looks the way it does. That policy, the Centerpartiet together with other red-green parties have in the highest degree been involved in shaping and contributing to, and it is because of that it looks the way it does.

Regarding Swedish fuel prices, the Center Party has consistently voted no to all tax cuts on fuels and reduced reduction obligations, so today's stance constitutes an exception. We also know that all four left-wing parties have locked themselves into the national transport goal, which means they want to reduce emissions from the Swedish transport sector by 70 percent by 2030, which would mean an increase in Swedish fuel prices by 10 kronor per liter. That is the policy awaiting Sweden's motorists in the countryside – those who are dependent on the car to get to work, school, and hockey practice. Those are the consequences of the Center Party's policy.

When it comes to electric cars, 100 million kronor are being added to the electric car premium in this spring budget. We have also significantly expanded Swedish charging infrastructure. In fact, the number of newly registered electric cars in Sweden hit a record during the first quarter of this year. Electric cars now have 41 percent of the market, which is a record. If the Center Party thinks that electric cars are important, one should therefore vote for the Tidö parties' budget.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is truly number-juggling at the highest level from the Sverigedemokraterna side. One has truly sunk deep into the hole that other parties were in previously and where one simply pretends that the figures do not exist.

I can start with the last figure we heard, that is to say that it is a record that 41 percent of the cars newly registered in Sweden are electric cars. In Norway, the figure is 98 percent. In Denmark, which does not have any oil money, the figure is 80 percent, and in Finland it is 60 percent. This is therefore just a matter of having climbed out of an incredibly deep hole that the Tidöregeringen had placed itself in. It is not much of a record – by any measure.

I return to what is the answer to those people who today have high fuel costs and who perhaps would have wanted to switch to an electric car or a plug-in hybrid but were deprived of the opportunity to do so that was previously given to people with ordinary incomes. There are many – really many – who are dependent on the car, and they need a break now. We need to make these reductions because it is the only way to help them in this situation, but in the long term, they actually want to be able to change cars. That possibility has been removed, and now the difference is enormous compared to our neighboring countries.

When it comes to unemployment, it is extremely unpleasant to hear people explain it away. There are two excuses, one of which is that there is something wrong with the figures. That wasn't the case before, but now that you are governing yourself, there is something wrong with the figures. The other excuse is that it is only about immigrants. Tell that to all the unemployed academics in Sweden, Dennis Dioukarev! Tell that to all the natives who are unemployed today! We have very high – historically high – unemployment even among those groups today.

What else is the solution to the problem? With your proposals, you are doing nothing to reduce unemployment, neither among those born in Sweden nor among those born abroad. In your spring budget, you are allocating the equivalent of two cups of coffee per unemployed person to meet the major unemployment crisis with 9.7 percent unemployment.

(Applause)

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

Dennis Dioukarev (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not I who have interpreted the figures, but it is SCB itself that states that it could be a measurement error. This is a fact, and if Martin Ådahl has problems with that, he can take that debate with the press department at Sweden's Statistical Central Bureau.

Martin Ådahl also asks what the answer is to all of Sweden's motorists. I can simply bounce the question back. What is the answer to all the Swedish motorists who are dependent on the car and who, with the Center Party's policy, will get a higher price at the pump?

In fact, they have locked themselves into the national transport goal that emissions from the Swedish transport sector shall be reduced by 70 percent through significantly increased fuel prices. 10 kronor per liter is the bill to Sweden's car drivers – to all those who are dependent on the car to get to work and drive the children to hockey practice. It is Center Party energy policy in practice, Mr. Speaker.

(MARTIN ÅDAHL (C): Absolutely not.)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I and the Left Party share the government's view that households are under pressure. During the inflation crisis, households have had to bear the entire burden, while the profit margins of companies have largely remained intact and sometimes even increased.

Strengthening the economy for people with small economic margins has not been a prioritized task for the government during the mandate period. The government has invested approximately five times as much on the half of the population that has the highest incomes compared to the half of the population that has the lowest incomes. The Swedish people have been left in the lurch through the cost crisis.

The Left Party has presented a long series of proposals that strengthen household finances, not least for those households that have small economic margins. The proposals would have made households better equipped to handle the increased costs that Trump's policies have brought about.

We have, among other things, proposed an increase of the child allowance by 400 kronor per month, and before last summer we proposed a holiday allowance. We also prioritize measures that lower everyday costs, such as reinforced high-cost protection and housing support. We have proposed reduced tax for those on sick leave, on parental leave, and for the unemployed, as well as a reformed housing allowance that reaches more people.

Vänsterpartiet has also presented several proposals that would benefit households and at the same time contribute to the transition and to give Sweden the conditions to reach the climate goals. Among other things, we have proposed that a Sweden ticket be introduced and that public transport be expanded. We have proposed that a broader electric car premium, which reaches more households, be introduced as well as that a new, travel-means-neutral and distance-based travel deduction be introduced.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal to lower the tax on gasoline and diesel risks counteracting the climate transition, and the arguments for why the proposal is bad from a climate perspective are many. Already today, Sweden has fallen behind in electric car sales. It is simply cheaper to fuel up with gasoline or diesel than to switch to an electric car. Transport companies that have heavy electric transports can no longer compete on price with those who still run on diesel. The transition has stalled.

Like many of the referral bodies, Vänsterpartiet argues that the reduced tax risks counteracting the climate transition, worsening the competitive conditions for fossil-free fuels, and creating uncertainty regarding long-term investment conditions. Even several of the referral bodies that support the proposal request measures to promote Sweden's transition to fossil-free. But some truly effective measures are not presented by the government. To refer to the fact that state agencies receive compensation if they transition is almost a laughable measure.

Some referral bodies point out that the proposal also has negative consequences for Sweden's emergency stocks of fuel, because such a tax reduction leads to an increase in demand. The tax reduction can therefore affect our preparedness.

Lowering the petrol and diesel tax lacks precision, as those with high incomes are compensated equally as those with low incomes, and those who can use public transport but choose the car are compensated equally as those who have no alternative to the car.

Already today, Norwegians and Danes are crossing the border into Sweden to refuel. In Skåne, even Danish trucking companies refuel. Sweden's government thus wants to tax-subsidize Norwegians and Danes while simultaneously making the transition more difficult in Denmark and Norway.

Furthermore, the gasoline and diesel fueled in Sweden are included in Sweden's climate bill, regardless of where the emissions occur. We also risk fines for high emissions. The bill for reduced gasoline and diesel tax can be high, both for the climate and for the Swedish taxpayers.

The Government itself notes that approximately 40 percent in the lowest group of the income distribution are affected by the proposal. In the income group in the upper half of the income distribution, approximately 80 percent are affected. Furthermore, people in high income groups spend more money on fuel on average in terms of kronor. By lowering the petrol and diesel tax, the Government thus favors people who have the means to pay for their consumption and who are also those who primarily should reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.

In our motion in connection with the economic spring bill, we will present our answer to the cost crisis. The proposal will contain a support that strengthens household finances and at the same time contributes to enabling the climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! In the budget bill for 2026, the government presented a high-cost protection for electricity. Vänsterpartiet criticized the protection for having a limit that was too high and warned that it would become a shot in the air. When winter arrived, electricity prices rose unexpectedly quickly to high levels. Calls to the electricity grid companies from people who could not afford to pay their electricity bills increased by almost a third. But despite that, the spot price never reached the government's price cap.

Vänsterpartiet instead proposed an electricity price cap in our budget motion for 2026. With our electricity price cap, households in all electricity areas would have had more money for other things during January and February, and some households also in March. Since households have not yet been able to benefit from the high-cost protection, Vänsterpartiet nevertheless welcomes that the government has now proposed an electricity subsidy. For many families, the subsidy is long-awaited and a much-needed supplement to cope with the pressured everyday life.

The support could, however, have been designed in a better way to reach more people, especially low-income earners. As the support is designed, it also benefits villa owners over those living in apartments. It risks reinforcing the gaps in the housing market. Only households with individual electricity grid agreements are eligible to receive the support. Those who live in rental apartments where electricity is included in the rent receive nothing at all. Vänsterpartiet believes it is regrettable that the government has not presented a fairer proposal that is the same regardless of the form of housing.

High electricity prices are a recurring problem for households. A long-term solution is needed to keep electricity costs at reasonable levels during the coming winter. Despite the fact that Sweden produces cheap and fossil-free electricity that almost always covers our own needs, Swedish households need to pay for a misguided market. We need to decouple Swedish electricity prices from the expensive foreign electricity and introduce Swedish prices on electricity.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö agreement has made us vulnerable to fossil price shocks. Instead of establishing steering mechanisms to make Sweden more independent of fossil fuels, the opposite has been done. The electric car bonus has been removed and it has been made cheaper to refuel with fossil fuels, but nothing has been invested in more and cheaper public transport. On the contrary, eroded state grants to the regions have contributed to higher ticket prices. During the right-wing government's time, the price increase in public transport has been twice as large as the price increase for gasoline and diesel.

During the mandate period, emissions have increased significantly. With the Tidö government's climate policy, Sweden will not reach the 2030 goals. Vänsterpartiet wants to make it cheaper and easier for people to travel sustainably, for example with electric cars or public transport. By favoring both the climate transition and people's finances, we build Sweden stronger and safer.

Sweden needs a new government that takes climate policy seriously and that lowers greenhouse gas emissions. Sweden needs a government that invests in welfare and that protects the most vulnerable households, not the richest.

Vänsterpartiet stands behind all the reservations in the committee report, but I choose to move for approval only of reservation 1, regarding the rejection of the bill in the part concerning reduced tax on petrol and diesel.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of clarity, I want to say that we stand behind the proposals on electricity price support and temporarily lowered tax on fuels. We do so for a simple reason – we also have no follow-up motion: that millions of Swedes today are stuck in this fossil dependency. Sweden has had a completely different development than many other countries in Europe. People have been forced to hold on to their diesel and gasoline cars because they have not been able to afford to switch, as everyone from Norwegians to Chinese and Danes are doing right now. Therefore, we must support, in a situation where we are directly dependent on what ayatollahs, dictators, and Trump and his uncle are doing day by day.

I would also like to correct myself. It goes up and down every single day here. It is true that we are a few kronor below the price on election day, but it is essentially the same prices. Above all, the person who fuels up now can note that the cost to fill a standard Volvo diesel car is 1,600–1,700. That is approximately what it cost on election day 2022.

This is probably the problem. After four years with Tidö, we are back at square one. The Swedish people have not received cheaper fuels, despite all efforts, but we are stuck in a kind of fossil trap while others can move forward into the new. Perhaps people with more money can also do so. But households that are dependent on the car, not least in the countryside, cannot afford to move forward into the new. That is the case in other countries, even in our closest neighboring countries.

Earlier in the debate it was mentioned that in Sweden, the proportion of electric cars among new cars has gone from 30 to 40 percent. Then we should keep in mind that there are also many used ones out there, which are cheaper but that people do not have access to. In Norway it is 97 percent, in Denmark 80 percent and in Finland more than 60 percent of the new cars are electric cars – thus a majority.

The Swedes are forced to spend billions on these memoranda. In that case, it is a meager consolation that there are countries that are even more oil-dependent than Sweden is. That is because it is.

However, we must not be the worst in Europe. We must be the best. We have large car companies and large truck companies that have bid hard on electrification. We must lead. It must be accessible for everyone. There must be a huge number of used electric Volvo cars out there that people can afford to buy, and we will support that. But this government does not want that. The Sweden Democrats are waging a low-intensity culture war against everything new, including electric cars, and believe that it is the old, not the new, that people want.

I believe it is very important that we, moving forward, do at least what the Center Party proposes: ensure that people for 1,500 a month can lease, actually with support, a new or used electric car or plug-in hybrid. Given that it only costs a few hundred kronor to charge and fuel such a vehicle to drive back and forth to work or to school, or at least a larger part of the distance that most have, it becomes, in large terms, much cheaper from day one than what is paid today.

Furthermore, we ensure that many such cars arrive every year. Sweden has millions of fossil fuel cars but not nearly as many electric cars – they can be counted in the hundreds of thousands. We want there to be 100,000 new ones every year. One might think that is a bit too few. But with the government's 20,000 cars, you won't get anywhere. That is 100,000 cars for the entire next mandate period. Apparently, that is all that is going to happen moving forward.

We must ensure that Sweden gets out of this fossil trap and provide the opportunity for ordinary people, who today are dependent on the car, to switch. It is not wrong to help people who are in such a situation right now. That is who we are. What is wrong is that we do not help people to avoid ending up in the next and next and next oil crisis – quite apart from the fact that it is not good for the climate.

As several have noted, this electricity support does not reach everyone. We have wanted to have a much more powerful solution where one removes the bottleneck fees and ensures that they reach ordinary people. That is what we have done previously in Sweden, and that is what is being done now also in our neighboring countries.

This electricity support also falls very flat for most households, because most households at the turn of the year have received electricity grid fee increases that will be larger for the current year than the electricity support is. These are fixed increases that are independent of how much electricity one consumes. We have electricity grid monopolies in Sweden – private monopolies that are allowed to run amok on ordinary bills.

You may perhaps hear from someone else in the debate that these are costs that the electricity grid companies have for expanding the new power grid. But it is their responsibility! They have a monopoly. They have a kind of taxing right over you and me – over everyone who is connected to electricity at all, which is practically all Swedes. This is so weakly regulated that they have not set aside money for the investments they are to make in their grids, despite having made large deals where they have earned billions by selling these grids to each other and extracting money from it.

Someone might think that this sounds a bit leftist, but it is a question of monopoly. The Centre Party does not like monopolies that raise fees. The electricity grid companies must set aside money for their investments. That is, so to speak, their business model. That is what they are paid for. To say that new investments need to be made, which was suddenly discovered at the turn of the year, and that the fees therefore need to be raised by a huge amount is completely unreasonable.

The Swedish electricity grid fees are far too unregulated. The power fees were stopped after much criticism from Centerpartiet. But the situation is completely unreasonable. What is being taken away from households in increased electricity fees, which customers must pay whether they want to or not, is more than the electricity support and more than the job tax deduction.

The government must take the situation seriously. We have been pushing this for a long time. Had there been an opportunity after the recent years, the review from Konkurrensverket and the strengthening of Elmarknadsinspektionen could have been carried out. This becomes a bit technical, but it is a way to stop the fee hysteria that affects everyone who has electricity while we are to electrify and transition. In that, the government owes the answer.

On the one hand, we naturally support this break for households that have faced skyrocketing electricity prices and fuel prices. On the other hand, it is frightening how little the government takes the long-term problems seriously and how little, in this crisis situation, one offers ordinary households an opportunity to switch to what is cheaper and better. It is about those who today cannot afford it – not about those who have a Member of Parliament's salary and thus can afford to switch to an electric car themselves, but about those who are stuck in this solution and who perhaps at least want to buy a used plug-in hybrid to get out of the high fuel costs in everyday life.

It is time for the government to wake up to the fact that the strategy that the Sverigedemokraterna have led the parties into leads to higher costs for ordinary households, to less freedom, and in the long run to a completely unsustainable situation.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have a short reply to Member Ådahl. Now, he has indeed corrected himself a little, but I recoiled when Ådahl claimed that we had the same price on oil and approximately the same price on diesel. The Member is not some amateur, and I assume he has facts as a basis for his claims. Therefore, I would like to ask the questions: What was the price of oil on election day 2022, and what is the price of oil today? What was the price of a liter of diesel on election day 2022, and what is the price of a liter of diesel today?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would very much like to answer these questions, as they very clearly highlight the problem that this government has deepened for ordinary households.

Yes, the oil price was actually somewhat lower after that crisis than it is today. Now it has reached new very high levels. It had gone down a bit from the highest peak which was directly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Today it has gone up and is around 90 dollars per barrel. When I last checked it was at 92, and it has been over 100.

The diesel price was 22–23 kronor on election day. At least that is how I remember it from all the discussions. Today it is 20–22 kronor at various gas stations depending on whether they are manned or not. So we are very close to the price where we started.

The point is not that the daily price of oil depends on Hans Eklind or the Tidöregeringen. The problem is that we have put ourselves in a situation where we are directly dependent on the ayatollahs, the dictatorships, Trump, and everything that happens in the world. We are dependent on dictators' oil, and we are not working to get out of it. Even when everything is done to bring down fuel prices for ordinary people, which I am convinced the government did, it can bite one's own tail here. Trump attacks Iran, and suddenly the oil price goes up, just as Hans Eklind said, so much that ordinary households are left with almost the same fuel bill as then – sometimes even higher, if you look back a few weeks.

There is no future for that strategy. Everyone understands that. Therefore, it is not reasonable to put all eggs in that basket and, in practice, almost nothing into helping people out of this.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I requested a reply because I was struck by the member's claims that we had approximately the same price on oil and the same price on diesel. This can't be right, I thought. As quick as a wink, I sat down at the computer and looked. The facts are as follows, Martin Ådahl: On election day 2022, a barrel of oil cost 92 US dollars. Today it costs 99 US dollars. On election day 2022, the average price for diesel was just over 24 kronor per liter. Today, one can fuel diesel for 20 kronor and 20 öre. The average price is slightly over 21 kronor.

What the member knows, I suspect – I have high confidence in the member's ability to remember – is that the diesel price developed in an incredibly serious way in 2022 in the end of September and in October. I looked at that too. What was the diesel price on September 30, 2022, long before this government took office? Well, then it was up at 27.50.

The member has therefore presented facts that are incorrect, and I simply wanted to correct this. The member is welcome to request a reply to me when I give my speech later. But I also want to remind those listening that one must be able to trust the statements that are presented. This was an incorrect statement that has been corrected.

But if one now thinks that the diesel price and the gasoline price are too high, one must also take a moment to reflect. With whom will the members cooperate after the election? In what way could we at all imagine low and good fuel prices if the red-green mess is allowed to win the election in September?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! In a way, you have won the debate on the fact that one must help households in need. We were even ahead of you and proposed what you are putting on the table. But you only seem to double down on the idea that it will somehow resolve itself if one just continues in the same direction. That is what surprises me so much.

It might have been 50 kronor cheaper. But the decisive factor when I am going to fill up my old diesel car that stands on the yard in Leksand is that it costs approximately the same now as before. We are stuck in the same place.

A few weeks ago it was a bit more. A few weeks later it is a bit less. It is at approximately the same level after all efforts. It is not acceptable. We have had to have this motion because we must rectify the emergency situation that people have ended up in.

It surprises me once again that one is not prepared to do as in our neighboring countries. Ordinary people in Norway, Denmark and Finland are now starting to switch to the new and actually cheaper. People who perhaps cannot afford it right now are being helped to do so. It is known that it will become cheaper over a number of years.

It is a completely reasonable position. We can probably agree that it didn't become that much cheaper with this. It is not noticeably much cheaper. We are stuck in the oil dependency from Iran, Trump and dictatorship states all over the world. It is no solution if we are to have an independent Sweden.

I just want to emphasize that in such a security situation, we must be able to produce fuels from our own Swedish forests, which have plenty of surplus raw material. There is talk that prices can be pushed down to 15 kronor per liter of biodiesel. Those are not at all the extreme prices we have had historically. We must not give that up either. It is a dead end for Sweden.

I appreciate that one is careful with the figures and checks them again. But many of them go back and forth. That is probably a trivial task for anyone in this chamber. What we know is that it is expensive.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will not be so bold as to ask how the Center Party will get more jobs together with the three other left-wing parties or what tax cuts one intends to make together with the Green Party and the Left Party. The member may be welcome to answer if he has any such answers.

I intended to speak about fuel prices. It is important to be careful with the facts. The member from Kristdemokraterna who was just up in the debate, Hans Eklind, was clear with the figures. Let me be even clearer.

The day before the Tidöregeringen took office, it cost 28 kronor and 50 öre to fuel a liter of diesel. Yesterday, when I fueled the car, it cost just over 20 kronor. That is a difference of just over 8 kronor per liter of diesel.

One can stand here in the speaker's chair and say that it does not affect people out there in the country who are dependent on the car to commute, but it does. More than 8 kronor is a big difference. At the same time, we still have an ongoing war in the Middle East.

Today we will lower the tax further on petrol and diesel. We have also signaled that we want to make an exception to lower the price further by 3 kronor per liter.

All four opposition parties have, up until today, voted against all the tax cuts we have made on gasoline and diesel during this parliamentary term. They have been against us lowering the reduction obligation.

I believe that everyone listening to the debate understands that what Member Martin Ådahl is simply trying to do is to trick you into thinking that it doesn't matter that it becomes cheaper with fuel. We have gone from practically being the most expensive in the world to the cheapest in all of Western Europe.

What I intend to ask the member is the following. We claim that the transport goal would make it an additional 10 kronor more expensive per liter to fuel the car. All the members from the left-wing parties say that we are wrong.

Mr. Speaker! Then my question is: If you intend to achieve the transport goal, but do not intend to do so through a higher reduction obligation so that it becomes 10 kronor more expensive per liter, in what way do you intend to achieve the transport goal?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can agree that one should be careful with figures. But I do not believe that one should underestimate those who follow the debate or those who are thinking about this.

I believe that quite a few have noted that at any moment it could suddenly happen that the oil prices just surge again. I believe that very many are thinking: It cannot continue like this in the future. There is talk of fuel shortages, and suddenly the Strait of Hormuz is closed, then open, and then closed again.

We cannot have a situation in Sweden where ordinary people are in the screws day in and day out while our neighboring countries begin to pull themselves out of this.

You have already won the debate on that we should not pressure people with very high fuel prices. We stand behind that. But can you not think a bit further? Can you not think about where people are?

They have just received the world's shock on their everyday thoughts. They feel that it is a completely unreasonable situation in their daily lives. They are probably thinking quite hard about: What opportunities do I have to change cars? Can I afford it?

The old support that existed is the new one. Do I really have a right to it? Why are there so few people who can get it when I should also be affected? I believe that one must place oneself where ordinary people are.

There is talk of number-trixing and that one is being deceived. I believe everyone is quite clear on how the situation looks. You cannot lower the prices very much, and they were lower than in Bulgaria. Suddenly came the world's shock, and then it became very expensive.

People think: This might not be so good in the long run. Something else was also needed if we are to be able to move into the future.

It is a matter of us managing to achieve lower unemployment and higher growth. We did that in the Alliance, better than you did and compared to the EU. We did that in the January Agreement. We lowered taxes by 20 billion in the January Agreement. We lowered taxes by approximately the same amount with the Alliance if one looks back at jobs and entrepreneurship, and even more in the governments that we were responsible for. We managed that, and we will continue to manage it.

We stand for something when it comes to the jobs, the growth and the companies, while you seem to have abdicated to the Sweden Democrats' simple excuses.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear. I believe that electrification has its place in the future. That is why we need to have production of electricity in this country.

It was a bit unfortunate that fully functioning nuclear power, which ensured that we had cheap and reliable electricity at all times of the day and every day of the year, was shut down. It would have facilitated the electrification in Sweden if it had existed. It would have meant that all those who charge their electric cars could also have done so more cheaply than they are forced to do today.

Mr. Speaker! I meet quite a few people who have bought an electric car and think that the electricity prices have made the calculation they made at the beginning no longer add up. It is because of the situation that we ended up in.

Mr. Speaker! I intend to be even clearer for all of you who are listening. You listened to Martin Ådahl. He will not answer in the next contribution either, believe me.

We four parties in the Tidösamarbetet claim that it will become at least 10 kronor more expensive per liter if the red-greens take over. We base that on the fact that all those parties say that the transport goal must be achieved. One can see that the Green Party members and others are adding a little extra, as they think it is very important.

No party on the left can answer how the transport goal is to be achieved without causing fuel to be at least 10 kronor more expensive per liter. All of you listening to the debate: Listen to what Member of Parliament Martin Ådahl is going to say!

He will not answer the question of how they intend to achieve the transport goal in any other way than through a higher reduction obligation in such a way that it becomes at least 10 kronor more expensive per liter. Member Ådahl will not answer that. He will have a long speech, but he will not answer the question.

Mr. Speaker! Until one of the left-wing parties answers the question of how this is to be achieved, we know one thing. At least 10 kronor more expensive fuel awaits at the pump per liter, in addition to all the tax increases that will come from the left-wing parties. It will become significantly more expensive to refuel.

I remind you one last time so that those of you listening can listen to what Member Ådahl says. How do you intend to achieve the transport goal if not with a high reduction obligation?

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now the government was taken by the toes. One does not have much more to say.

I can state that if C had been a slightly larger party, perhaps the Moderate member would have followed the press conference I had last autumn with our party leader, where we presented a very precise plan for how we could reach the transport goals without returning to increased fuel prices with the reduction obligation.

Furthermore, we have a problem that the price in all of Europe will rise because the price for emissions is simply rising. We are really trying to get around that so that people get lower fuel bills.

It is exactly as we have been discussing: Many more households must have the opportunity to switch to a new or used electric or plug-in hybrid car or to a gas car – biogas is still something that is produced in the Swedish countryside. One can actually still convert to ethanol as well, but this is primarily about the first two options.

It plays a huge role, as we can see in our neighboring countries. These are not fantasies or dreams, but this development we see, as said, in other countries that have invested in this.

What the second Centerpartiet says is that we must be able to use the Swedish forest, because we need to have a strategic reserve of biofuels. Then we should not make it as expensive as possible, as it became with the reduction obligation. We have indeed said that it was not good! We shall make it as cheap as possible by pressing the price and procuring in order to be able to have the strategic reserve with our own fuel in Sweden.

It is about these two and other measures, including for our heavy transports, where there is a very strong investment in electric trucks. This applies to both Volvo and Scania. These changes give them an opportunity for a large Swedish domestic market, and we can achieve our goals.

But then one must also want it and not scrap the goals and the future for ordinary people by sacrificing the goals in favor of short-term solutions, which people are now noticing do not work.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This government wants to lower the tax on petrol and diesel to help the Swedes through the crisis. That sounds good, especially for those who are now seeing the price for their car journeys soar while the price increases from the inflation crisis remain.

I understand their concern, and I understand that they need support from politics. We in Miljöpartiet also want to support those who now risk being hit by a major cost shock. But we do not want to do it by lowering the tax on petrol and diesel directly, for everyone.

The tax cut that the government is now proposing is bad in several ways. For the first, it gives far too little to those who really need it. For the second, this policy locks Swedes into a dependency on fossil fuels. It is the same dependency that over the last few years has made us extremely vulnerable; we see that today.

I would like to take the opportunity to say one thing about the inflation crisis. Throughout the entire mandate period, we in Miljöpartiet have been told that it was Miljöpartiet's fault that we had a major inflation crisis in Sweden. That is not true. The crisis was caused by Putin, who turned off the gas taps and then invaded Ukraine. The whole world was affected.

The Tidö parties previously wanted to make it sound as if this was due to the Miljöpartiets policy. But now, when one sees that there is also an inflation risk in this war crisis, it sounds different.

The whole world was, therefore, hit by the energy crisis both then and now. The situation now is somewhat the same as then but also completely different. Israel and USA are attacking Iran, and an oil crisis that is perhaps worse than any of those we have previously seen in history is now a fact. Even if the Strait of Hormuz were to open today, the effects would still be noticeable for a long time to come.

Unfortunately, we do not see any imminent end to the crisis, and there are experts who claim that we are heading towards a chronic deficit of fossil energy. The situation is therefore very, very serious.

What, then, is the government's answer to history's greatest energy crisis? Yes, it is to lower the tax on gasoline and diesel – a very expensive and blunt tool to help those who are affected. It provides far too little support to those who need it most.

The worst thing is that the government clearly seems to lack crisis awareness. As late as last week, the Finance Minister said that the Swedish economy is Trump-proof. At best, it is a communicative move – meaning that one likes to say it because it sounds good. But at worst, the government is completely oblivious to what is about to happen, and then it is extremely serious. Unfortunately, I must say that Member Edward Riedl's response to my reply here earlier suggests the latter.

In Sweden, we are therefore going to continue exactly as usual after a wasted parliamentary term for reduced use of fossil fuels. We have known for a long time that this government lacks crisis awareness in climate policy. We have seen it when the reduction obligation has been dismantled, when investments in the climate transition have been slowed down, when the electric car boom has completely stalled, and when emissions have been allowed to increase instead of decrease.

If the development that Miljöpartiet carried out when we were in government had continued, Sweden would have been in a better position, with reduced emissions and less dependence on fossil fuels. Just the simple fact that more people would have had an electric car would have made life a little easier for many, and we could have directed the support to those who really need it.

This debate is not primarily about climate policy, but about the government's lack of crisis awareness. Now, it is not just a question of the climate, but also of the economy and of societal development.

What is the government doing? Well, it chooses to borrow money to lower the tax on gasoline and diesel. Does it help? No, very little. It costs billions, and it is done in a situation where we should be thinking longer-term and using every single krona significantly smarter.

Mr. Speaker! Lowering the petrol tax by approximately one krona per liter for a few months is not only an expensive reform for the state treasury; it does not signal any crisis insight but rather an ignorance and a petrol populism that risks putting Sweden in an even worse position.

When resources are scarce, as they truly seem to be becoming quickly, one must see the whole picture and use a range of tools – not just throw out one's usual politics.

What is the serious matter then? While others speak of chronic shortage and that rationing is not unlikely, the government pretends that it is possible to use fossil fuels just as usual. When we do not signal the crisis we face, we are now using this scarce resource in an unimaginably wasteful way.

When the EU begins to signal that more people must work from home to reduce the need for transport, the Tidö government says: No, in Sweden we can continue exactly as usual! But there is nothing ordinary about this situation, and pretending that it is does puts us in an even worse position. It weakens Sweden in an uncertain geopolitical situation instead of strengthening us.

Investing in the transition and providing proper support for it is what Sweden and Europe need to do. We must not continue to be dependent on foreign suppliers and capricious leaders for our energy supply. It should be obvious, but it clearly is not for this government. It protects fossil fuels as if they were the path to a brighter future. At the same time, we others know that it is completely wrong. It is about both the climate, the geopolitics, and the dependence on rogue states for our energy supply.

We thus have a historical crisis situation where the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the security crisis are interconnected, and a government that lacks crisis insight in all three areas. It is remarkable, to say the least.

With that said: What then is the sensible answer to the crisis? We need a policy that first and foremost takes the crisis seriously. We need a policy that supports households but does so fairly and effectively. We must ensure that those who live in rural areas without sufficient access to public transport and who cannot afford to switch to a car receive financial support. Miljöpartiet has proposed a green rebate for those who live in rural areas and have a low income.

At the same time, we have a proposal that everyone should be able to afford to drive an electric car. We have a proposal for a leasing fee of 1,500 kronor per month, which corresponds to 5 kronor per kilometer in fuel costs.

We want to see a Sweden card and lowered prices in public transport that get more people to travel together. It is also good in times of energy crisis. Now, more than ever, we must use resources more efficiently, but we need to do that otherwise as well.

Miljöpartiet also wants to support Swedish production of biofuels. The reduction of the reduction obligation – the one that the government is so very proud of – also meant that the rug was pulled out financially from those who produce biofuels. We see the effects of this across all of Sweden, where it is becoming increasingly difficult to get hold of biofuels. Think how good it would have been to have that production in full swing now when we are in the middle of the crisis!

Mr. Speaker! We cannot just sit and wait for the crisis to come, as this government is doing. We must find a new direction that can handle both the energy crisis and the climate crisis, as well as the crises that we do not even know yet are at the door.

Sweden faces a crossroads. Either we continue to subsidize that which is currently driving at least three of the crises, or we build our way out of them. Miljöpartiet chooses the latter. We choose investments in the transition away from the fossil, rather than temporary discounts that give a little to many instead of supporting those who truly need it. We choose reduced emissions and independence from rogue states.

Sweden deserves better than this government, which stands without answers and rather sticks its head in the sand. It is becoming increasingly clear that Sweden benefits from green politics.

I stand behind all our reservations but choose to move for approval of reservation number 4.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Few things have changed Sweden and the world as much as the car. It gives us freedom. It gives us increased quality of life. If one has studied a bit of economics, one also recognizes the economic advantages that come to the business sector and regional development.

All of us who have owned or own a car know, however, that car ownership in itself is not cheap, on the contrary. As recently as last week, I had a conversation about this with my youngest son, when he and his girlfriend were going to buy their first car. First, there is the cost of purchasing the car itself. That is one thing. But then there is the large cost, namely the depreciation that follows. Then, as a car owner, one must continuously handle this with service, repairs, tires, tax, fees, insurance and, last but not least, the purchase of fuel.

I am, Mr. Speaker, very pleased that we have a government that is now placing a proposal for reduced fuel taxes on the floor of the Riksdag. It is particularly important given the rapid increase in the price of oil that is occurring, partly as a consequence of the conflict in the Middle East. That we need to reduce fuel taxes was a line that we Christian Democrats had both before and during the negotiations – because without the car, Sweden stops.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a beautiful country. It is easy to become home-blind, but here there is a fantastic nature with mountains, lakes, meadows, cliffs, and seas. But Sweden is also a large, elongated country with a relatively small population. This means that work needs to be carried out in a wise way so that everyone who lives and builds in Sweden shall have somewhat equal conditions.

In Sweden, there are around 60,000 miles of road. Approximately 10,000 of these miles are state roads, 4,100 of them are municipal roads, and a total of 43,000 miles are private roads. Then there is some additional road for forestry and industry.

Mr. Speaker! There is a at least strong and well-documented research support that car ownership and car dependency become more important in large, geographically dispersed countries like Sweden. If one adds that public transport may not be as good in all parts and can be sparse and of low quality, this importance increases even further.

OECD made a compilation on travel habits in 2024–25. It was noted that 25–35 percent of all car travel that takes place are work trips. Then, procurement trips account for 20–30 percent. The other trips that were clearly measurable were visits, leisure, and child-related trips.

A report that now has a few years on its back but which is Swedish – it was done by Chalmers and was released in 2019 – also says that the car is primarily used for commuting and child-related trips.

This may be a small point, but I want the listener to understand what the car is and how it is used. It is therefore not about some leisure driving, but it is about making the puzzle of life fit together.

We Christian Democrats usually say that we are Sweden's most car-friendly party, as we recognize that the car is the absolutely most important individual mode of transport to enable continued economic development but also to facilitate every family's unique everyday puzzle to function.

That was among the reasons why we already during the previous mandate period said that we must review the reduction obligation. If the red-greens had been allowed to continue, we would have seen fuel prices of over 30, perhaps up to 40, kronor per liter of diesel. That would have had catastrophic effects for everyone who is dependent on the car or bus transport. This also applies to freight transport, so the economy of the society would therefore also suffer damage from this.

With this extra supplementary budget, we are now temporarily lowering the tax on petrol and diesel to the EU's minimum level. Even though we are equipped in different ways, fuel prices have increased, and the government is acting. Furthermore, the government has requested the EU Commission to grant a temporary exemption from these minimum levels in order to be able to lower the tax further, by 3 kronor for both petrol and diesel. Here we are waiting for a response from the Commission.

Mr. Speaker! The extra supplementary budget also contains an important proposal on how we shall compensate for the high electricity prices during January and February this year. The Government proposes that a new temporary electricity and gas support be paid out to mitigate the effect of it being cold and not windy at that time. It is good that the Government has chosen a simple construction. All households will receive a share of the support, and it will begin to be paid out during the second half of June. The support is based on the household's monthly consumption during January and February, and not a single household needs to apply for the support to receive it.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Hans Eklind for the speech.

I said in my speech that the government seems to completely lack crisis awareness and does not seem to understand what it is we are facing. Now I see that the member's party leader, Energy Minister Ebba Busch, while this debate has been ongoing, has said that we are now in the worst energy crisis ever. That was good, one thinks. Then perhaps we can see that some proposals will come. As I said in my speech, there are those who say that we will end up in a chronic deficit. There is talk of rationing, and in the EU, people who can work from home are being urged to do so.

Judge then my surprise when I, in that article where the Minister for Energy has spoken, do not see a trace of anyone wanting to do anything. Instead, the Government wants us all to read the situation. What kind of irresponsible lackadaisical attitude is that when we are in the biggest energy crisis ever?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The claim from the member rests on the premise that this government has not done and is not doing things. That is far from the reality.

The member's party has sat in this chamber and applauded a premature decommissioning of nuclear power. We have lost approximately 6,000 megawatts because of your policy. This government has, during the mandate period, ensured the addition of 7,000 megawatts of newly installed production capacity. It has simultaneously improved the power balance by 2,000 megawatts.

We are not sitting and waiting for nuclear power, as it might sometimes sound, on the contrary. This government has also approved more offshore wind farms than the previous government did during eight years.

We have an energy crisis – answer yes. If the members of the committee did not share that analysis, it would be interesting to hear it. But this government has acted and is acting.

Today we want to lower the fuel taxes. If I understand the Environment Party's reasoning correctly, you say no. We have sent a letter to the commission about lowering the fuel taxes further. If I understand the Environment Party correctly, you say no.

On top of this, Miljöpartiet is an eager supporter of the transport goal. The goal was raised in the previous exchange of replies – and we honestly received no answers. But then I ask Miljöpartiet.

Miljöpartiet wants to keep the transport goal for 2030. How are we to reach the goal when we talk about fuel prices? You say no to lowering the tax, but on top of that, you want to keep a transport goal. How do we reach the transport goal without raising the price of gasoline and diesel? It would be interesting if the member chose to comment on this, in contrast to previous debaters.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Hans Eklind for the questions. There were a few many questions, and we are discussing a broad area today. Let me go into the decommissioning of nuclear power.

We can observe that the wind power that was approved was finished during our time in government. The rest is a tragedy. A wet blanket has been placed over the establishment of wind power during this time, and support for solar power investments has been removed. We can still agree on that.

When it comes to whether we want to lower taxes on petrol and diesel or not, the member can be confident that he has interpreted Miljöpartiet completely correctly. We do not want to see a reduction, partly because we must maintain the transition, and partly because when others talk about rationing, this government talks about how people should be able to drive just as usual. It becomes incredibly strange. It is a government that absolutely does not see the danger everyone faces and which can affect the entire Swedish economy.

We want to support those who are in need of a car. There is nothing in the Green Party's policy or rhetoric that implies that people living in rural areas without access to public transport should cycle or use substandard public transport. We know that people need the car. If Hans Eklind had listened to my speech, he would also have heard what proposals we have to achieve this.

So, right now, what is wanted is to continue to fuel the climate crisis and the use of the incredibly scarce resources from fossil fuels. Furthermore, the dependency continues, which means that Putin wins, that Iran wins, and that the world economy will soon be in free fall.

Where is the crisis awareness?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Without the car, Sweden stops.

It is paramountly important that we all agree on one thing, namely that not all Swedes live in Stockholm's city center with access to buses, the subway, commuter trains, and so on. I am from Örebro and know what the car costs for those who do not live inside Örebro city. There, it works.

My little sister lives in Fjugesta. She has several miles to the town, is a single parent, and has to drive her children. It costs enormous sums of money.

This government has pushed down the price of gasoline and diesel. If you from the red-green mess had been allowed to continue, fuel prices would have been 30–40 kronor. Then large parts of Sweden would come to a standstill. That is something we simply cannot afford.

Regarding climate policy, I want to say the following to the representative of the Miljöpartiet. More common sense and less symbolic politics are needed. That is why I asked the question about the transport goal. Is it the case that we will also continue to have a transport goal for 2030? How are we to achieve it? The follow-up question is: In what way does the goal change the climate development in the world? Sweden accounts for 1 per mille of all emissions.

I brought out some figures because I thought someone might request a reply. Sweden thus has the lowest emissions per person within the EU and has an almost fossil-free electricity production. Emissions have decreased by 67 percent since the 1970s. We have eliminated over 90 percent of the emissions from residential heating, and we have the world's most climate-smart agriculture. We have the world's highest taxes on carbon dioxide. Our private car fleet – a current issue today – has increased by 40 percent since 1990 while emissions have decreased by 25 percent. Our Swedish forest constitutes a carbon sink that makes it net zero.

If we are to do something about the climate, it is international measures that are needed, not Swedish symbolic politics.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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