Party debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Ukrainian counter-offensive has begun. When Sweden took over as the EU's chair presidency in January, we declared that nothing is more important than supporting Ukraine.

Ukraine is fighting a war for its own right to remain an independent state. But they are also fighting for our freedom. This is a struggle between civilization and barbarism.

Under our presidency, we have united the EU's 27 countries behind the tenth sanctions package against Russia, and we are negotiating the eleventh. We have agreed to deliver 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine. Sweden has taken the initiative that frozen Russian assets should finance Ukraine's reconstruction, and we have negotiated a tribunal to investigate and prosecute Russia's war crimes.

Ukraine has our and the collective Europe's strong support - morally, economically, politically and militarily.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden succeeded in what many thought was impossible. The historical settlement on migration was completed on Thursday. For a long time, the issue was completely blocked due to deep divisions between Europe's different countries. But with a common external border, a strict, common migration policy is needed, otherwise the internal freedom of movement falls, and otherwise unscrupulous human smugglers continue to expose migrants to life-threatening danger in the Mediterranean.

Sweden's second major task was to make Europe greener with the goal of landing one of the world's most ambitious climate packages, the EU's Fit for 55. During the spring, Sweden completed the negotiations on charging infrastructure throughout the EU, the ban on the sale of new fossil-fueled cars from 2035, and more sustainable fuels within shipping and aviation. Now only a single act remains for the original Fit for 55. I hope, but cannot promise, that we reach that goal during the Swedish presidency.

By the year 2050, the EU is to become the world's first climate-neutral continent. But not everyone has realized how important and dramatic the EU's new climate policy actually is. The EU is now setting a cap on almost all carbon emissions within the union. All member states receive binding climate targets that must be followed. This redraws the playing field. When the EU decides how much can be emitted, the market will adapt itself. And Sweden knows that the business sector has a unique capacity for adaptation if the rules of the game are long-term.

We have also made Europe a little freer. We take freedom for granted ourselves, but developments in the world show that we must stand guard over the principles of the rule of law. Therefore, we have kept up the pressure in what are called the Article 7 processes, and Sweden's presidency will soon conclude with a European rule of law symposium to better protect democracy and the rule of law.

A freer Europe is also about the internal market, and for the first time in a decade, Sweden has put the EU's competitiveness on the agenda. In a high-tech world where the economic center of gravity is rapidly moving eastward, it is a matter of destiny.

Let me extend a very warm thank you to all the skilled Swedish civil servants who have worked day and night for six months, not least Sweden's EU Ambassador Lars Danielsson. Thanks to all the ministers, with EU Minister Jessika Roswall at the forefront, who have united the EU countries around the negotiating table. Thanks to all of you here in the Riksdag who have supported this third successful Swedish presidency. Thanks to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, for close and good cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! There are two heroes in the story of the green transition who should be highlighted even more. One is precisely the EU. The other is the business sector.

The Swedish business community has become the new environmental movement. Electrification is in full swing, as is the production of sustainable fuels for that which cannot yet be electrified. The journey towards fossil-free steel and much, much more has begun.

On Friday, the government invites to the national climate meeting to gather the best experiences ahead of the autumn climate action plan. The task of politics is to facilitate the green transition, and if one listens to what the industries need most, one gets two answers: faster permit processes and very, very large amounts of fossil-free electricity. That is exactly what my government intends to achieve.

Recently, the government gave clear signals for two offshore wind farms off Varberg and Falkenberg. We are also making all the decisions required to now build new nuclear power in Sweden. On Monday, we also presented the path to simpler and faster permit processes. It cannot take twice as long to build the electricity grid in Sweden as it does in Finland.

Yesterday, we asked all parties that want to double Swedish electricity production by 2045 to contribute. The goal is clear, but we are happy to listen to more concrete proposals that lead to more of all fossil-free electricity. Climate policy needs more workshop and less talk. This should not even be party politics. This should be a national Swedish interest for the economy, for the climate, and now also for security.

The question now is whether we can agree on it. Next week, the Riksdag will vote on the new goal for Swedish energy policy: We want to replace 100 percent renewable with 100 percent fossil-free. How the vote goes will be important.

The green transition is urgent. Let not old lock-ins stand in the way of all new opportunities. Let us unite and get something done!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Several of us recently spent the national day celebrating everything that is wonderful about our country. It is the Swedish values, the trust, the democracy, our social structure and not least our view on children. Children are individuals with rights, manifested in that the Löfven government made the Convention on the Rights of the Child Swedish law. It is one of many things I love about Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! A strong social construction always begins with the children, that we do not only care about our own children but about everyone's - every single "tjatting", as Olof Palme expressed it. This is of course morally right and correct, but it is also something that we all benefit from in the long run. If we do not succeed with the children, we do not only fail here and now, but then we also fail with the future.

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that our country has serious problems on that front. This weekend's acts of violence are horrific. Seven people have been shot, and one has been run over. Several of the victims are young - children. These are lives that should have been lived. For families and friends, life will never be the same.

But it is not only the victims who are young in today's Sweden, but also the perpetrators. In some cases, they are in their 20s, and in other cases, even younger than that. It is children who pick up weapons, who murder and are murdered. Mr. Speaker! It is a fundamental failure for our society and for Sweden as a country.

Mr. Speaker! Three things need to be done immediately. For the first, we must get more weapons off our streets and squares. Therefore, we Social Democrats propose a temporary weapons amnesty complemented by a tip reward for illegal weapons. The purpose is to remove as many weapons as possible. In addition, the penalties must be toughened and more police officers must be hired. In government position, we Social Democrats toughened over 80 penal provisions. We started two new police academies and expanded the entire justice system.

More gang criminals are now also behind bars, and it is good that the new government is taking our proposals on preventive wiretapping and stricter penalties for weapons crimes further. Here, we Social Democrats and the government are in complete agreement. But it is obvious that more must be done.

Mr. Speaker! Secondly, a clearer focus is required on breaking the new recruitment. One only has to listen to what the police themselves say. It is not enough to imprison those who commit the crimes if new, ever younger guys are ready to take their place. If we are to stop the gang crime, the shootings, and the violence, we must break the new recruitment. Then the children must be placed correctly from the start, that is, not in the criminals' claws.

Mr. Speaker! This summer risks becoming the most brutal ever. Therefore, we Social Democrats also propose an urgent resource reinforcement for more field assistants and other safe adults who can pinpoint young people in the risk zone - already this summer.

In this situation, Sweden's municipalities should focus on who else can be hired specifically to break the new recruitment. Now there is a risk that it will become exactly the opposite. All around the country, principals and other decision-makers are sitting and planning for cuts and layoffs in schools and in social services. Parents are questioning which teachers will return to their children's schools after the summer break.

This is not sufficient, and therefore we demand that the government, before Midsummer, provide notice to the municipalities regarding which economic resources, and how large increases, they will receive in the autumn budget so that staff are not dismissed unnecessarily. The government must prioritize breaking the new recruitment. It is only in this way that we can stop the gangs.

Mr. Speaker! For the third, it is about the households' economy. The acute situation will not improve because of a summer holiday where the economic crisis hits child-rearing families who have the smallest margins the hardest. On the contrary, the situation risks escalating further. One thing is clear. Lower taxes for high-income earners will not prevent a single young guy from picking up a weapon.

We Social Democrats have other proposals, namely increased child allowance, increased maintenance support, and summer holiday activities with lunch. The economic policy, Mr. Speaker, must be redirected; it must support the children through the crisis. They cannot pay the price.

Mr. Speaker! We need a national unity where all good forces pull in the same direction so that we can get the weapons off our streets and squares and so that we can break the new recruitment. The school, social services, politicians in the Riksdag, politicians in the municipalities, the whole civil society, our religious congregations, everyone must reach a point where every child feels that they are needed, that there is another future, that they can contribute and have a task in our society, know that the adult world is there, sets boundaries, sets clear frameworks for right and wrong, and provides support when it is needed.

There are forces that want something else, namely criminals and extremists who want to exploit our young people. But they are few. All of us others are many more. A crushing majority of us who live in Sweden just want to live in safety. We want all children to be able to develop and live a good life - simply that Sweden should become a little more like Sweden. Sweden should be the country where all children get through school, learn what they need, get a job and live a good life. Sweden begins and ends with the children.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Eight years of Social Democratic rule leaves a great deal to be desired - to put it mildly. Given the conditions that prevailed when the current government base took over, we have achieved a great deal already as the first Riksdag session of the mandate period approaches its end. Even more remains to be done, of course.

The paradigm shift in crime policy has begun and will continue. The Tidö Agreement gives a clear indication of where we are headed and where we are going. Ordinary honest people shall be able to enjoy peace and freedom in streets and squares while thugs and bandits shall sit locked up.

We will double the sentencing for gang criminals and lifestyle criminals. Quantity discounts shall be abolished, meaning if one is convicted of three different crimes, one shall not escape punishment for the two "relatively" less serious crimes. If one is 18 years old, one is of legal age in the eyes of the law; one may, for example, vote in the parliamentary election, and I think one should do so. If one is of legal age, one must also face the consequences if one chooses to commit a crime, meaning sitting in prison. Within not too long, Mr. Speaker, these proposals and much more shall be placed on the Riksdag's table.

Mr. Speaker! All judicial authorities have been strengthened financially. This applies in particular to the Prison and Probation Service, which will house significantly more "tenants" than today and, moreover, for a significantly longer period than before. 16 completely new, large institutions are needed to meet the crime-fighting policy of the Tidö Agreement. In the budget bills that the Tidö parties have placed on the Riksdag's table, and will place on the Riksdag's table, nota bene, this is made possible. These are not built in a day, Mr. Speaker, but neither was Rome. Give us a mandate period, and evaluate us based on that!

The paradigm shift in migration policy has also begun and will continue. It must be acknowledged that this is complex legislative material in parts, and it takes some time.

But of all the initiatives we are working on to truly push through the EU's most restrictive immigration policy, there are, for example, qualification into the welfare state, which means that one should not move to Sweden and from day one expect full access to the Swedish welfare state, to benefits and to transfer systems. One performs one's duty before demanding one's right. Here in Sweden, we work; we pay tax, and we support ourselves.

Mr. Speaker! In this context, it also needs to be pointed out that the misconception that has prevailed in Swedish politics for decades, that is, that it would work perfectly well to combine a completely irresponsible immigration policy with extensive welfare for all, that misconception you must reckon with—sooner rather than later. We in the Sverigedemokraterna understood this over 30 years ago. Now reality has caught up with a few more parties, which pleases me. Now we are just waiting for reality to catch up with the Socialdemokraterna as well.

Mr. Speaker! Another reform where the parties in the government base are now in agreement concerns the so-called reduction obligation, this rather extreme experiment where Sweden went its own way. We mixed a lot of things into our diesel and our gasoline, which led to Sweden having the highest fuel prices in the entire world.

If the rest of Europe had copied Sweden, the system would have collapsed, because there simply would not have been enough biofuels if everyone had done as we have done. That means that the system is not scalable. It would have collapsed.

And a small detail: This does not affect the carbon dioxide emissions at all. Not at all. If you sit down and drive your car, provided that the car has an internal combustion engine in it, from point A to point B it makes no difference whatsoever whether the reduction obligation is 0 percent or if it is 100 percent. You emit just as much carbon dioxide anyway. Hear and behold!

Mr. Speaker! We in the Tidö parties have lowered the fuel tax. We have increased the mileage allowance. We agree to significantly lower the reduction obligation. And from my side and the Sweden Democrats' side, we will, before the autumn budget negotiations, prioritize further tax cuts regarding just fuels.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be far ahead in technical development and be the country that everyone else looks to for inspiration from a just and effective climate transition.

Sweden shall have the world's best and most equal school, which ensures that all children, regardless of which parents they have, can become what they want - a tile layer, a midwife or a successful business leader.

Our country shall have a secure healthcare and care when one becomes old.

Sweden shall be a country with small economic gaps, an economic policy for full employment, jobs that are livable, and wages that can support a family.

For the vast majority of Swedes, this may sound like self-evident truths. At the same time, we now have a government that is heading in the exact opposite direction, which means we can never reach there.

Sweden today looks like this: Educated teachers are being laid off from schools and replaced with untrained youths. Classes are merged and become giant classes. Students with special needs for help will not be able to get it.

I often meet parents who are not only sad and desperate about how their children will manage in school but also furious. How will this generation of students manage in the future, when we are in need of more people than ever who can lay new power lines, build the fossil-free cars, lay new rails, and make healthcare, school, and elderly care function?

How can one, in that situation, prioritize tax cuts of 1,000 kronor a month for members of parliament instead of ensuring that our teachers are given good conditions to teach?

At the same time, the Swedish school system continues to set new records. Thorengruppen's schools have not provided the students with the education they are entitled to in almost any subject. The partially Chinese-owned Academedia is making multi-million payouts in the midst of the cuts.

Despite the fact that the food giants' costs for producing food have long since retreated and fallen, they now refuse to lower their prices. It is very remarkable. The Finance Minister must summon the food giants to reach an agreement to lower the prices. We cannot continue to pretend that costs are high for the food industry and let prices remain at these levels. This could also force even larger interest rate hikes.

Mr. Speaker! On my side of politics, we are now in agreement on lowering the mortgage interest rates. Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Miljöpartiet are now demanding the use of the state mortgage institution SBAB to lower the price of mortgage loans.

It is about thousands of kronor for Swedish households. Nevertheless, not only did the government, but also the Sverigedemokraterna chose to side with the bank directors instead of the citizens when the issue was raised in the committee yesterday.

Why should Swedish banks make so much larger profits than other European ones? Why should Swedish banks make such much deeper holes in the people's wallets? It is remarkable.

That we Swedes pay such high prices for our cheaply produced electricity is due to the fact that the Swedish electricity price is set on a dysfunctional European market. Even though many families can see outside their kitchen window how much cheap energy we produce in Sweden, they are forced to pay 20 times the price for this. It is unreasonable.

What makes it even stranger is that Energy Minister Ebba Busch is now leading the work to develop new rules for the European electricity market but is doing nothing to lower Swedish citizens' electricity prices. Why is she doing nothing to change the system and bring down the prices? Why is she not demanding that Sweden should be allowed to set its own electricity prices and not have to import the expensive ones from the continent?

We have received a paralyzed government that is unable to do anything about the major deficiencies in healthcare, the situation in schools, the high food prices, or the high interest rates. Svenskt näringsliv wonders what the government's actual job policy is. The industry rejects the government's energy policy. What is the point of having a government that does nothing?

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! There are 349 members here from all corners of the country, men and women, older and younger, newly elected and experienced. This chamber holds 349 different life journeys - life journeys that began in completely different places and which have looked completely different, but which have led us all here to bear the finest trust assignment one can have.

What is it that has brought us here? What circumstances, opportunities, and choices in life have made it so that we are here today? How can we do more so that others can also succeed in their life journey? These are questions that should be with us in the chamber every day – not because all people want to become members of parliament, far from it, but because all people strive to make their own best life journey and give loved ones the opportunity to do the same.

It is our duty to give people that chance. Then we need to do more of the right things and sometimes also look beyond our own party line and instead look at what makes our country stronger and opens doors for more.

Then it is required that we have a country that holds together - that you can live, reside and run businesses everywhere in Sweden, that the ambulance comes when you call, that the train runs when it is supposed to, that the broadband works and that you can afford to fuel the car or the tractor that makes your everyday life function.

Then it requires political strength that takes the conditions of the countryside seriously - even between election campaigns. The Centre Party will always be that strength.

Then it is required that we shape a school that gives our children the best possible start in life regardless of where one lives, where one learns what one is supposed to, where one is happy and safe both when going to school and when going home. Then it is required that the school receives more money, that competent teachers are allowed to stay, and that we introduce zero tolerance towards short-sightedness, greed, and lack of knowledge. Then it is required that political power is needed that takes both the school's problems and the school's future most seriously. The Centre Party will always be that power.

We must ensure that what hinders and complicates life journeys is stopped. Gangs shoot and explode completely ruthlessly in open streets and lure children and young people into their net. It is also about violence by men and boys against girls and women, honor, threats, hate and violations, everyday crimes and fraud. The insecurity is a poison in our society and must be broken. That requires political strength that can do both, that can commit to tougher measures and more police and allocate equally large resources to preventive work within social services, field assistants and more ways out of crime. The Center Party will always be that force.

Insecurity and anxiety also come from other sources. Climate change is currently affecting life and death. It causes fields and lakes to dry up and forests to burn. It causes far too many to doubt the future. The climate is a matter of destiny for us as human beings and for our shared planet. At the same time, it is an issue where we still have the opportunity to change it for the better. The climate issue requires courage. It requires openness toward the rest of the world, and it requires power here and now. Centerpartiet will always be that power.

For us, it is obvious that Sweden should be the world's best country for life journeys. We shall be a country that holds together, a country where our children get the best possible start in a good and safe school, a country that becomes safer here and now but also for future generations, and a country that takes the climate issue most seriously.

Sweden shall be a country where openness, tolerance and decency are self-evident guiding principles and a country where every human being gets a chance to reach the final destination of their dreams. The Center Party's green, liberal, optimistic power will fight for exactly this - every day, every week, every year. I know that change is possible, and that thought the Center Party will never stop believing in.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! "Let the children come to me." Those were the words that Jesus used and which were recorded in the Gospel of Mark about 2,000 years ago. I think those are words to be inspired by, regardless of whether one is a believing Christian, Muslim, atheist, or something else entirely, because it is a leadership that truly puts the important things first. The children are the most, most important thing we have.

I would like to assert that our country has for a long time regarded the family and the importance of the family - even for all that we try to remedy and solve through politics - as an afterthought, not as the cornerstone it should be seen as for a good society. It is a society that holds together and a society that, in both good times and difficult times, manages to prioritize what is truly important for the next generation. It is the responsibility we have towards our children.

Now we are in a situation - in area after area: healthcare, school, and crime fighting - where a lack of starting with the foundation by investing in our children, in the families, is a major reason why we are not succeeding with what we are supposed to.

We want to start with crime fighting. Yesterday I mentioned that over the weekend, 21 shots were fired in a single sweep. Four people were hit. Two were killed, one of whom was a child. Children are murdered and children murder. We need to turn this around. Then we need to turn around the way in which we conduct politics and prioritize. We need to prioritize the family first, even in crime fighting.

Camp chief Jacques Mwepu has said that many children grow up in split families in the absence of guidance and in environments where parents have difficulties influencing their children in the right direction. He believes that society must support the families even more and at an earlier stage.

How many of us have not met police officer after police officer, field worker after field worker, who say that they cannot do their jobs without present mothers and fathers who ask where their kids are and who ensure that they come home in the evening? It is parents who ensure that the children are not in the wrong area, with the wrong friends with the wrong influence and who take their parental responsibility. But we all know that it is difficult to be a parent.

This government is now making a historic reorganization of crime-fighting policy and a historic prioritization of justice policy. We are giving the police and the customs what they have requested for many years. We are making a historic investment in crime prevention, and that concerns social services, but it also concerns families. It is about ensuring that parental support programs are established throughout the country, because that is where it begins in area after area.

They are trying to solve many of the difficulties in school with a new debate on operational models, while we have children in school who suffer from severe suicidal thoughts. It goes without saying that it is difficult to pass math if one no longer wants to live.

There is not a single region in this country, except for Gotland, that meets the healthcare guarantee for child and adolescent psychiatry in time. The adult world has failed the most important thing we have: our children. Now the government is changing that policy. For the first time in generations, we are getting a clear national management of healthcare and a clear historical prioritization of specifically child and adolescent psychiatry.

There will also be a historical reorganization of the management of maternity care. There we can truly talk about where it begins! It should not be the zip code that determines which maternal and child healthcare one receives, but we must be able to manage even from the national level.

It is by the fruit that one knows the tree. We were involved in criminalizing the possession of documented abuses against children – what is sloppily called child pornography. Maria Larsson initiated the investigation that led to the Convention on the Rights of the Child being incorporated into Swedish legislation. It was we who, from the Social Affairs Committee, also pushed through Lex Lilla hjärtat. It is about putting the children and the family at the center and not treating them as an afterthought.

(Applause)

In this speech, Camilla Brodin, Hans Eklind, Torsten Elofsson, Cecilia Engström, Magnus Jacobsson, Ingemar Kihlström and Camilla Rinaldo Miller (all KD) agreed.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It has been a dark weekend in our Sweden. Four people have died in shootings. Unfortunately, we see no signs that the development is about to be reversed. On the contrary, much indicates that the situation is more serious than ever.

We have a very great responsibility towards the victims and their relatives to respond to the violence with the collective strength of society. It is about police methods and harsher sentences - where we seem to have a great consensus - but also about preventive methods. What we know from other countries and from good examples in Sweden is that there are methods that work. They prevent new young boys from being recruited into the gangs when others disappear. If we do not succeed with that, we have not come anywhere.

Mr. Speaker! It is high time to see that we are in several parallel crises. If one has not seen it until now, it is high time to open one's eyes, because it also looks like dark years lie ahead of us. We are in the middle of an ongoing and extremely serious climate crisis.

Warnings come almost daily that the oceans are record-warm. The ice melt has never been greater. Every month is now among the warmest that have ever been measured.

Already now, early in June, reports are coming from all over Sweden about extreme drought - even worse than 2018, which was then described as an extreme year. Farmers are already planning for emergency slaughter of their animals, and forest fires are raging in Southern Europe, in Canada, and here in Sweden.

In a crisis, one must do two things. One must remove what causes the crisis, and one must reduce the effects of the crisis. But what we see now is a government doing the opposite. They do not even succeed in reaching the climate goals that the Swedish Riksdag has committed to or the EU's climate requirements, despite the Prime Minister's words regarding the EU's climate work. One wonders what would be required for the government and the Sverigedemokraterna to actually start taking the climate issue as seriously as it deserves.

We now have the first government in two decades that is actively and significantly increasing emissions, in the midst of an acute crisis. We have a campaign behind us where seven out of eight parties pushed for increased emissions, not reduced ones.

The climate crisis is unfortunately not the only task that our government is handling under all the criticism. For Miljöpartiet, it is obvious that climate, environment and justice are very closely linked. We must work with several parallel crises simultaneously, and that is also the content, the very core, of Agenda 2030, which is the global framework with the global sustainability goals that Sweden and the world's countries stand behind. They were adopted in 2015 in broad consensus.

When they were adopted, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that our generation could be the first to end poverty and the last to have the opportunity to actually do something about climate change before it is too late.

Agenda 2030 is the map and the compass direction that Sweden and other countries have promised to navigate by. Now that we have come halfway to 2030, one can ask how it is going. The UN's current Secretary-General stated that it is a spectacular failure on a global level. But even in Sweden, one can see that there is much that needs to be done.

After eight months in power, Ulf Kristersson's government has not done much to strengthen the work regarding reaching the goals. On point after point, they have chosen to go in the opposite direction.

Let me take some examples: Goal 1 reads No poverty and goal 2 No hunger. In a time of rapidly rising food prices, warnings are now coming from, among others, Stadsmissionen and the Red Cross that entirely new groups need support just to get food for the day. The government chooses in that situation to increase the gaps and not increase the support to the most vulnerable. Miljöpartiet does the opposite. We propose abolished food VAT, free school breakfast, increased child allowance with several measures to help families through the crisis.

Regarding goal 4, on good education, the government's policy leads to us getting cuts in schools, and market thinking rules rather than the children's best interests. Miljöpartiet instead allocates the money that SKR says is needed to maintain the level of welfare, including in schools.

We have goal 12 on sustainable consumption. There, the government makes it more expensive to repair and make our gadgets last. We have goal 13 on climate and goal 15 on biodiversity, where the government's policy now leads to both increased emissions and that the logging of valuable nature in our country increases.

Regarding goal 17, Global Partnership, the government is cutting the aid.

My question to the government representatives here today is: Does the government actually stand behind the global sustainability goals, which Sweden promised only eight years ago that we would achieve? Now there are seven years left.

Will the government be prepared to do what is required to reach the goals, or is it as Elisabeth Svantesson said about the climate goals: When we don't reach them, we don't reach them?

(Applause)

In this speech, Janine Alm Ericson, Camilla Hansén, Annika Hirvonen, Rasmus Ling, Jan Riise and Jacob Risberg (all MP) concurred.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Putin's barbarism in Ukraine knows no bounds. Now the despot is drowning entire Ukrainian cities and homes, and the terror bombings continue. But in Ukraine, they continue to fight with their lives as the price. Ukraine's brave people continue the fight for their children's freedom.

Sweden has shown that we stand behind Ukraine. The support from the Riksdag and the government has been broad in prioritizing blue-yellow solidarity. Together with the EU and Nato, great efforts are being made to support the struggle for freedom. When Sweden becomes a member of Nato, we shall, together with our allies, contribute to making the Nordic countries, the Baltics, and Europe even safer and freer. Freedom must be defended, and Ukraine must be defended and welcomed as a new member of the European Union.

Mr. Speaker! We are taking responsibility for the future in a difficult time. War in our vicinity and high prices with inflation and rising interest rates are cutting deep into even private individuals' wallets and finances.

We have an exclusion that shackles people in powerlessness, the gross violence that continues to extinguish lives and spread fear, and a global climate crisis that needs to be managed here and now and managed in the long term. Yes, you hear, we have many societal problems. That is why the Liberals take responsibility in government.

It is always easier to stand on the sidelines or to sit in the stands to yap and grumble there. It does nothing to help Sweden.

We chose to seek support to join a government after the voters had spoken and thus take responsibility and focus on implementing policies that can contribute to a safer, stronger and greener Sweden. It is a prerequisite for freedom. It is a prerequisite for children's freedom.

For the first time in many years, we have a government that holds a majority in the Riksdag. We can pass our budget and necessary reform proposals in a difficult time, and that gives us an opportunity to deliver the changes that the future needs.

When we have pushed down inflation, we can implement strategic tax cuts for Sweden's hard-working community builders - for the nursing assistant who gives grandmother good care, for the teacher who teaches our children grammar and mathematics, and for the bus driver who tirelessly takes people to work or to vocational training. In that way, more people will also enter the workforce and can contribute to us achieving a stronger welfare.

With our climate policy, we secure electrification and the transition towards net-zero emissions. The government has already made decisions on more offshore wind farms - more than the previous government decided on in eight years - and we are now moving forward step by step to enable the expansion of new nuclear power.

We are taking action against exclusion and insecurity. Criminal gangs shall face tougher sentences and more effective tools. But it will also require social interventions to prevent children from falling into the criminal gangs' death grip as early as possible.

Everything begins with a restored knowledge school. We therefore settle the matter of the "flumskola" (vague school) and ensure that books make their great return to the classroom. The school shall be a bulwark against the risks of screen slavery. We shall give teachers more time for teaching. There shall be more special education teachers and smaller teaching groups so that students can be given the support they need at an early stage. Administrative burdens shall be lifted, and the framework of conditions for friskolor (independent schools) shall be fundamentally reformed.

We take responsibility for the future, for the nation-builders, for the children, for the knowledge school, for the climate, for Ukraine and for Europe. We take responsibility for freedom and security in all of Sweden. It is no easy task. There are many who stand on the sidelines and have expert comments and know what should be done directly and immediately. But step by step, we are now implementing a policy for a freer, safer and greener Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

I have to lower the speaker's chair. Johan has longer legs, but I run faster.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! On Saturday, four people were shot in the middle of the day in Farsta, outside Stockholm. A 15-year-old boy and a 43-year-old man died from their injuries. We do not yet know if they were even targets. My message is this: We must not be numbed. We must do even more, persistently and decisively. Therefore, the new government is changing the crime policy. It will take time. It will be difficult, but it will be done. Sweden has solved difficult problems before.

It also concerns economic problems. Right now the situation is tough, but there are three important lessons.

The first is that there must be order and discipline in the economy, no experiments. When the economic policy must be tight, a government that can endure being tight is needed. Now we are to fight inflation, slowly but surely.

The second lesson is about prioritizing. In difficult times, one must be able to do the most important things and wait with others. For me, nothing is more important than restoring security in Sweden, safeguarding the core of the welfare state - healthcare, school, and elderly care - and supporting people through difficult times.

The third lesson concerns structural reforms. It is a bureaucratic name for long-term but necessary improvements, so that companies get better conditions so that they can create more jobs and so that young people and the unemployed can get educated, move, and take the 200,000 jobs that are available. It must always pay to work. The government is making a major benefit reform with benefit ceilings, successive qualification into the welfare system, and requirements for full-time effort for those who still need benefits. It is our time's work line.

Now I look forward to a spirited debate, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine continues. Last year, in my role as Prime Minister, I submitted Sweden's NATO application. And after the agreement that Sweden, Turkey, and Finland concluded last year at the summit in Madrid, Sweden reached the status of invited to NATO. 28 countries had ratified our application when I handed over the role of Prime Minister to you.

During this process, I have always strived for close cooperation across party lines.

Now the Turkish election has been carried out, and Sweden has delivered on the agreement that was concluded. Now the summit in Vilnius is also approaching. The commitment from other NATO countries has been great, and everything points to the fact that the process can now be completed. Now that no practical obstacles remain, my question to you, Ulf Kristersson, is: How do you view the decisive role that the USA and other NATO countries are playing in this process right now?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate the question. The two of us have discussed this issue many times privately and together with others. I think the description is entirely correct.

Other countries now expect Turkey to also make its ratification decision. We have done what we said we would do. At this moment, literally while we are speaking here, Oscar Stenström is sitting together with other senior officials in Ankara in another meeting of what is called the Permanent Joint Mechanism, which is the cooperation format that exists to follow up on the agreement that was concluded in Madrid. It is incredibly important, not least now after a Turkish election when it is partially a new crew, staffing, on the Turkish side. Better still is that it is the same staffing on the Swedish side, from the previous government to the current government.

All this provides good conditions, but everyone knows - we both know it - that ultimately it is Turkey that makes Turkish decisions. All the other NATO countries know this too, but they emphasize the importance of rapid decision-making.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I appreciate the cooperation we have had in this matter. This applies both up until I submitted the application and thereafter. I will, of course, continue to put Sweden and the Swedish people's best interests first.

I have also continued to work for the Swedish NATO application, among other things through continuous contacts with all those whom I have built relationships with during my eight years as Finance Minister and Prime Minister.

International cooperation with the USA and other countries is central here. Their commitment is now absolutely crucial, as I see it, for us to become NATO members in the near future. I would like to hear a bit more about how great an importance you consider that support, which the USA and other countries are now providing, has for us to reach the goal in this process. How grateful should we be for it?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first acknowledge. I also genuinely appreciate our cooperation in this matter, from May 16 last year, if I remember correctly, when we had a joint press conference. We promised each other and the Swedish people that the cooperation in this issue, which is so important for the nation, would continue regardless of how the election turns out. Not least in a time when it happens that we are perceived to have different opinions in other issues, it is good that there are issues where we can also cooperate. I genuinely appreciate it. Six of the eight parties now stand behind the Swedish Nato application.

So, as for the USA. We had Blinken in Luleå last week. It was very good conversations and extremely clear messages. Also, all other contacts with Americans, not least in the White House, have been of the same kind. They are very clear both publicly and towards us. They are clear in their contacts also with Turkey.

Since it is clear that they know, just as we know, that Turkey makes Turkish decisions. But we could not have stronger support than we have right now from the USA and other heavy NATO countries, I think.

(Applause)

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

TALMANNEN

I remind you politely that in the chamber we speak through the Speaker, that is to say we speak about other debaters in the third person.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Politics is about us seeking the trust of the people. When it comes to Ulf Kristersson's government, there are many officials who come directly from various school companies and lobby organizations in the same industry.

The Minister for Education in Ulf Kristersson's government, Lotta Edholm, has herself sat on the board of one of Sweden's most scandal-ridden school groups. She has, both as a lobbyist and as a politician, actively worked to create the chaos that now prevails in the school system. The Prime Minister himself owns a summer cottage together with Göran Thorstenson, who is a lobbyist and sits on the board of another school group, which is owned by a Moderate, Anders Hultin, one of the architects behind the school system as it now looks.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister think this is a problem in relation to the voters' confidence in school policy?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I know that the Left Party and Nooshi Dadgostar are a bit obsessed with the idea of closing down all the country's independent schools. It is a legitimate political position. Then one can say it as it is: We want public monopolies. Parents shall not decide for themselves. We shall not have independent schools. We shall use children as integration tools and send them where we want them.

So one can think that. There is no majority for that position, but there rarely is for the Left Party's views.

(Applause)

Then there is the general collective blame. I do not think that people who have been teachers in a municipal school or who have been principals in a friskola should be disqualified from jobs in school policy. We have formal important rules for conflict of interest and conflicts of interest. They must always be respected and upheld.

Do not blame all those people who for many years have done everything they can to improve Swedish school!

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that this appears to be a very sensitive issue for Ulf Kristersson, who responds with a very strong retort without answering the question. Is it the Prime Minister's view that this could damage confidence in the government's own school policy?

The question is: How can the Swedish people trust that the government has loyalty to students and teachers and not with school companies when Ulf Kristersson's school minister comes directly from such a highly scandalized company, which chose not to provide food to small children in order to take out profit? This must Ulf Kristersson still have taken note of? He must himself think that it can damage the trust for this school policy?

How is the Swedish people to be sure that it is precisely the students and teachers who are the priority, that the students receive the best possible education, and not the fact that both Ulf Kristersson himself and the Minister for Education have very close ties to this industry?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are very good municipal schools, and there are very good independent schools. We must nurture and protect those. There are bad municipal schools, and there are bad independent schools. They should not be allowed to exist at all.

This government, with Lotta Edholm at the forefront on this issue, is doing exactly what the comrades of the Left Party failed to do, namely a proper reform of the reform that allows families to choose for themselves. There are deficiencies. Take the joy-grades in both municipal schools and independent schools. We cannot have that. It is deeply offensive and unfair. We are not talking, we are doing something about things.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! This government's climate policy leads to historically large increases in emissions. Experts state it, the government's own climate policy council states it, and even the government itself states it in its own budget. One of the main reasons for this is the slaughter of the reduction obligation that has now been decided upon.

The reduction obligation is a reform that has led to billion-euro investments in the green industries, exactly the green industries that the Prime Minister highlighted in his speech and said he thinks it is good that they come first. Now, the rug is being pulled out from under these investments and emissions are increasing by an additional 4 million liters of diesel every day.

It is possible to protect the climate and the countryside at the same time. Why, then, does the Prime Minister play the game of pitting climate policy against the countryside?

My question is: Will there be actual solutions to reduce emissions for Sweden during this mandate period?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me remind you of two things. One is what I hope we will achieve during this half-year with the Swedish presidency, namely the EU's major climate package. This implies historical and new conditions for all EU countries. Nothing could be more important. It also affects Swedish climate policy. And we will return to this in the climate action plan. It is incredibly important.

The second thing is that even the previous government received criticism from the Climate Policy Council in 2019, 2020, and 2021 for not reaching the road transport goal for 2030. Only when a draconian reduction obligation was introduced - which means 34 kronor per liter of diesel and that it becomes 900 kronor more expensive to fuel a standard Volvo V70 when it is implemented - could this exact goal be reached. It is an unsustainable policy.

It would have been more honest if C said that one wants to keep the reduction obligation and that it should cost 34 kronor per liter to refuel, and this in a context where we are vacuuming the world market of biofuels that should be used where electrification is not possible. So that is our way forward.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I usually place great importance on starting from facts, and the fact is that the Riksdag's investigation service has calculated that the government's policy will currently increase emissions by 6.3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. This is as much as the Swedish steel and iron industry emits during an entire year. It is the increase in emissions that the government's policy entails.

It is possible to combine a wise policy for Swedish biofuels with lowering prices at the same time. It is not a contradiction. The Centre Party calls it Tanka svenskt!, and we have presented a proposal that the government is more than welcome to copy. It is on our website, and you can just go ahead and fuel it.

But the question remains, and the dividing line is clear. I wonder: What do the Moderates and the government actually want here, to save the climate or to sink the climate?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This government is changing the reduction obligation because it was a dead end and a distraction. Biofuels shall be used in those modes of transport where electrification is not possible. And there will be many such areas for a while to come before we, for example, fly across the Atlantic with electric aircraft. Biofuels are needed in the right places.

We are putting effort into the European climate policy so that we achieve a common impact in the world's largest climate hub. It is truly important.

We are putting all our energy and our strength into all of this. If the Center Party wants to be part of this journey, you are welcome. If you want to reintroduce the reduction obligation to old levels, then say so!

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In my first speech, I highlighted the global sustainability goals - Agenda 2030 - which Sweden was proactive in getting passed and for which there was also very strong support in the Swedish Riksdag.

It is obvious when it comes to the environment and climate that we are heading in the wrong direction with the government's policy.

But I want to highlight another goal, a goal that is also part of the Swedish work to achieve these goals, that is to say Goal 2 on reduced hunger. Unfortunately, we now also have an economic situation with rapidly rising food prices which means that this has also become a larger problem in Sweden. Here, we have presented a number of proposals from Miljöpartiet on how costs for families with children can be lowered.

The liberal debater Lena Andersson recently wrote a high-profile text on the editorial page of Svenska Dagbladet regarding exactly this, where she questions the alarms that organizations in our country are witnessing. She argues that if children are hungry, it is the parents' fault.

Here I would like to get a clear answer from the Prime Minister: Does Ulf Kristersson share this analysis, and does the Prime Minister consider the alarms that are coming about hungry children to be incorrect and, if so, is it the parents who are to blame if children in Sweden go hungry?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me be precise in a matter that is quite serious. Parents bear the responsibility for their children until proven otherwise. It is no small matter. I have myself worked with precisely this. When should the state intervene and take over the responsibility? When should we trust that parents, despite some shortcomings – financial or otherwise – are ultimately fully capable but that we help? It is one of many reasons why we are now introducing systematic parental support programs to acknowledge that there are parents who are fundamentally capable but who need help, advice, and support.

It is the kind of thing we did in Sweden during the first half of the 20th century – trust the parents but help them so that they can fulfill their important task. These are no small things. Then one intervenes quite concretely and helps parents with very practical matters. It can be money, it can be very good advice, and it can be demands. One eats breakfast before school, and one prioritizes the right things. One can also receive money for precisely this.

I trust parents. But ultimately, all children are everyone's children.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the last point, that we as a society have a responsibility for the children and the children's best interests. That is why we are so concerned that so much points in the wrong direction when it comes to the children's situation in Sweden. I mentioned several examples in my speech. It is about education, where the gaps are increasing. The division is becoming larger and larger between schools and between students. It is also about the families' finances.

This highlights the question of the entire global framework and the goals in Agenda 2030, which have been a compass and a map for countries like Sweden when it comes to working together for social and environmental sustainability to ensure that we reach the breadth of these goals. Here, it is worrying that the government's policy now points in the wrong direction in so many of these goals.

I must therefore unfortunately pose a question to Ulf Kristersson as the government's founder: Does the government still have the ambition to reach the global sustainability goals? Should Sweden have the leading position that we have had previously? And will you, in that case, stop with a policy that leads Sweden in the opposite direction?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Of course we have that, but we work primarily through the powerful tool that the EU has to achieve these goals. That is where Sweden does the most good.

I basically share Per Bolund's description and concern. But I want to emphasize a very important reason for this, namely integration problems. Overcrowding is to a very high degree an integration problem. Literacy is to a very high degree an integration problem. Poverty is to a very high degree an integration problem. In area after area, Sweden has not prepared itself for the consequences of large-scale immigration and poor integration. It is very high time that we do so now.

It also concerns the language. Nothing lays the foundation for children's opportunities in school and work life as much as language does – and nothing ruins children's schooling as much as not being able to master the language. We cannot have functional illiterates in Swedish schools. This is an integration problem, and we take it very seriously.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Children are hit hard by inflation - but also by the SD government's economic priorities, where high-income earners are prioritized over families with children.

Ulf Kristersson's message to families with children is to just grit their teeth. Johan Pehrson tweets that it is too fat to be unemployed. Ebba Busch has stopped waving the falukorv. Other right-wing debaters say that the children of those with the toughest economic circumstances should live on porridge and rice.

That is not how it sounded before the election. Then the right-wing parties promised everything to everyone: high-cost protection for electricity on November 1, a reduction of gasoline and diesel prices by 10 kronor, paused amortization requirements, a stop to increased taxes, and a head start against gang crime. Now, promise after promise is being broken.

Mr. Speaker! The economic crisis is also hitting the school hard. The Sweden Democrats' right-wing government is currently subjecting our schools to a starvation diet. In the budget, the choice was made to reduce the appropriations to the school by 2 billion in fixed prices. They are not even close to compensating for the cost shock. We Social Democrats made a different prioritization in our budget alternative. We show that it is possible to prioritize something else.

Now we demand that the government returns with a decision to the municipalities and regions before Midsummer. They must know which resources they will receive in 2024 so that no teachers are dismissed unnecessarily now. We also demand that it is clearly reported how our tax money is used in the friskolor, so that it stays where it is supposed to be, namely with the students. The children's best interests must come before high-income earners' tax cuts and the venture capitalists' pursuit of profit.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think I am alone in Sweden in being a bit confused regarding the Social Democrats' view on nuclear power as a source of energy production in Sweden. We hear certain things in words and see other things in action.

In some words we sometimes hear that nuclear power should be phased out, and sometimes we hear that one can imagine keeping it. I think it is a bit unclear. When it comes to actions, we know that it was the Social Democrats who introduced the so-called power tax, which targeted exactly nuclear power for the purpose of making it unprofitable. We also know that the Social Democrats' parliamentary group voted for an early shutdown of fully functioning reactors - Ringhals 1 and 2 - as recently as the last parliamentary term. We know that electricity price areas 3 and 4, that is, central and southern Sweden, would have had almost half as large electricity bills if the Social Democrats had not done as they did.

My question is therefore quite simple, Mr. Speaker: Do the Social Democrats think that nuclear power has a future in Sweden, or do they not think so?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is of course yes. Nuclear power will be an important part of the Swedish energy mix for a long time to come. It is good if we can utilize the nuclear power plants we already have to their full extent, i.e., increase their output, and it is naturally good if there is an opportunity to extend their lifespan.

Furthermore, we do, however, need to ensure that we expand all types of power if we are to have low electricity prices. Here, I am very concerned that Oscar Sjöstedt wants to dismantle fully functioning electricity production in Sweden by dismantling the wind turbines that provide us with cheap electricity here and now. One is also very negative towards that which can solve the energy crisis here and now, namely to quickly and powerfully expand wind power.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That wind power is both environmentally harmful, unpredictable and weather-dependent, I certainly stand by.

Words and actions do not really align here. Next week we will handle the report on the spring budget, and there the Social Democrats have a lot of reservations where they question the concept of fossil-free. I wonder why. They want to remove the concept of fossil-free and instead use the concept of renewable. They are therefore targeting nuclear power directly. We are also touching on what happened during the last parliamentary term, namely that they voted for a premature decommissioning of the reactors in Ringhals - Ringhals 1 and Ringhals 2. That drove up electricity prices enormously, primarily in southern Sweden but also in central Sweden, that is, electricity price areas 3 and 4.

Words and actions do not align here, then. That is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker. It can also affect the willingness to invest and the investment climate for nuclear power.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let us record in the minutes that it was we Social Democrats who built nuclear power in Sweden. Since the energy agreement of 2016, we have also been clear that it is fully permitted to build new nuclear power in Sweden.

On the other hand, we have voted no to completely unrealistic proposals that have been submitted in the Swedish Riksdag. I also want to have it recorded in the minutes that the latest decision to shut down nuclear reactors was made on entirely commercial grounds. That is what those who made the decision themselves have said. If Oscar Sjöstedt wants to be decent and honest towards them, perhaps it is foolish of him to stand in the Riksdag chamber and claim something else.

The truth is that we must expand wind power if we are to manage to have low electricity prices in the coming years, as electricity demand increases in line with electrification. Oscar Sjöstedt wants to dismantle wind power instead.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! After many years of disagreement, we were able to agree on Nato. Let us try one more issue!

This week, the government made a decision regarding permits for new offshore wind power. In January, we started the process to make it possible to build more nuclear power plants in more locations in Sweden. Next week, the Riksdag – this chamber – will take a position on our proposal for an entirely new goal for electricity production by 2040, namely that it shall then be 100 percent fossil-free.

If we are to manage that transition, more is required of all fossil-free energy, and now there are many who are waiting for the Social Democrats' decision on whether they seriously understand nuclear power's role in reaching the path to zero - in action and not just in words. My question is therefore, Magdalena Andersson: Will you vote for the new energy policy goal next week, or will you vote against it?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats see a need to expand electricity production significantly faster than that. Therefore, we have a proposal for a completely different goal to ensure that we quickly build the electricity production we need.

Right now, Sweden is Europe's largest electricity exporter, and last year we had the lowest electricity prices in the entire EU. What we see ahead, however, is that the Swedish electricity demand will increase in line with electrification and that it will happen quickly. In order to get all the investments that are now planned in Sweden, we must therefore expand Swedish electricity production significantly faster than that. That means being able to quickly build wind power both on land and at sea. Therefore, we have a different goal.

It does not prevent the fact that we Social Democrats not only built nuclear power in Sweden but also, since 2016, have said yes to new nuclear power plants.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, the Social Democrats expanded nuclear power. Then, the Social Democrats abolished nuclear power.

In eight years, you in the previous government made a decision on offshore wind power. In eight months, we have made two decisions. It is simply higher speed.

Today, the goal for Swedish energy production is 100 percent renewable. This explicitly means "without nuclear power." This chamber will take a position on a goal of 100 percent fossil-free which explicitly includes nuclear power. Quite a few want to know: Do we have a clear - but small - majority for this, or do we have a massive majority for this, just as in other long-term issues such as the Nato question?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! If Ulf Kristersson wants long-term and clear rules of the game, just as in the NATO issue, I recommend that he works in a corresponding manner as I did and invite to talks so that we can reach an agreement. But Ulf Kristersson refuses to do this, even though this is what a united business community demands because they want long-term rules of the game.

On the contrary, the Moderaterna have unilaterally jumped out of it after we concluded the energy agreement. Instead of coming back and saying that they believe some changes need to be made, they held a press conference where they jumped out. It was about political games rather than securing Sweden's long-term energy supply, and it seems to be the same way now. It is bad for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Labor immigration is a fundamental pillar in making Sweden function. It is about people who have moved to our country to contribute to the welfare and to the business sector in the tourism industry, healthcare, and the green industries. They seek out many industries but often to shortage occupations where very specific skills are needed.

The Social Democrats have long pushed to reduce labor immigration, among other things by laying the foundation for the proposal that the government is now presenting regarding a wage floor corresponding to the median wage. I think this is a somewhat strange logic. It is as if efforts are only valued if people have a certain wage, but even nursing assistants and animal keepers keep Sweden running.

My question is: How do the Social Democrats see us solving the labor shortage within elderly care and the green industries?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think either that the wage floor is a perfect system. The Social Democrats' position is that we should welcome people to come here and take jobs in areas where there is a shortage of labor, so that we can have the healthcare and the industrial growth that we need in our country.

However, in the Social Democrats, we do not see the point in people coming here from other continents to work when there are already people in Sweden who are unemployed and who could take these jobs. We do not see the point, because it risks making unemployment in Sweden permanent.

That is why we prefer a model with a labor market test, but we still think the wage floor is better than nothing. It is also quite fast to implement.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Wage floors are not the solution - if we can agree on this, we have come a good way. An investigation has been conducted in which it is pointed out precisely that wage floors are not a solution. But neither is the system of labor market screening, which means that an authority and not the employer should decide who has the right to come here, the right way to go.

It is possible to make changes without tearing up the entire system for labor immigration and losing important employees within healthcare and the green industries. Furthermore, labor immigration contributes 45 billion to Sweden's GDP.

I return to the question: How are we to manage the labor shortage within elderly care and within the green industries?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I fully share Muharrem Demirok's view that it is obviously important that we can ensure that all the jobs that need to be performed and for which we do not have the right competence in Sweden can still be performed with the help of labor immigration. This is an ambition that I fully share with Muharrem Demirok.

That is why I see labor market testing as the right tool moving forward. Then, people can be brought here who can work in home care services - if they can speak Swedish, of course, as that is a prerequisite - or work in the new green industry or in other parts of the business sector and the public sector where this labor is needed.

A labor market assessment would be a way to solve the problem while simultaneously avoiding the risks we see today of people being exploited with the very loose system that we have.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am tired of the bickering. I am tired of the talks. We have talked, talked, talked and bickered about Swedish nuclear power for 43 years - actually since the referendum in 1980.

What Swedish business demands - and what the Swedish people deserve - is a political leadership from right to left that moves from words to action. All good forces are needed in this situation.

The policy that the Social Democrats have pursued regarding nuclear power has signaled "We tolerate you."

What we are doing now is saying that we will build Swedish prosperity, Swedish jobs and a Swedish green transition on a substantial expansion of nuclear power. That is a difference.

My question to you, Magdalena Andersson, is: Will you vote for the goal of 100 percent fossil-free and actively pave the way for new nuclear power in Sweden?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! As Ebba Busch knows, we Social Democrats have presented a different target structure with different proposals for targets. In order for Sweden to manage the electrification that is now taking place and all the new investments being made in the country, electricity production in Sweden needs to be expanded very rapidly. That is why we have presented a different target structure with different years.

This is about quickly creating good conditions so that we can get more offshore and onshore wind power. I truly regret that the government changed the directives for the investigation that looked at how we could get more municipalities to say yes to wind power. They changed the directives in such a way that the investigator herself says that her proposal is meaningless.

This is bad, because land-based wind power is what can quickly give us in Sweden more cheap electricity.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Come on now, the Social Democrats! You built nuclear power – I give you that! But it was also you who phased out nuclear power due to political incentives – perhaps not with active decisions, but with active incentives.

We do not, once again, receive an answer to the question. Will you vote for this next week or not?

It is not true that we have not invited to talks. Now, until this autumn, we have invited both the industry and politics to come forward with good proposals on how we should reach 100 percent fossil-free.

When Magdalena Andersson speaks about new goals for 2030, it is roughly like saying that one is for world peace without saying how it is to be achieved. I am happy to talk about tougher goals, but it is the way there – the way from words to action – that is what is important.

That is why we have delivered more offshore wind power in eight months than you did in eight years. Now we want to do the same thing for nuclear power. It is important so that Swedish mothers and fathers have a job to go to. It is important for the climate transition. It is important to push down the prices. Will you say yes or no?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We will say yes to the proposals we have put forward which could quickly create more electricity in Sweden. How will it happen? We have two concrete proposals. Stop the regressions for offshore wind power which were one of the first things you decided, and appoint an inquiry that can come up with effective proposals to get more municipalities to say yes to onshore wind power. Come on, Ebba Busch, a suggestion box at the Ministry of Enterprise is not what the business community is asking for to get long-term conditions for nuclear power expansion in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is experiencing a security crisis that causes people to feel fear and anxiety, and freedom is being pushed back. Magdalena Andersson knows that here, the school and first-line social services are central. It is also central that the municipalities take a large responsibility. I noted that Magdalena Andersson night-walked in Farsta yesterday. I have been there many times and will go there this afternoon to meet the social services.

What more can we do? There is constant talk about increasing resources. The former S minister Morgan Johansson said this: I can state that the municipalities received 52 billion in surplus, and then I can think that a part of those funds should have been invested in school, social services and leisure activities. Morgan Johansson a year ago. Use those 52 billion in surplus!

I am sorry, but you have not provided the text of the speech or the statement in question. Please provide the Swedish text you would like me to translate.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if Johan Pehrson is suggesting that municipal councilors across the country should break the law. There are, after all, laws regarding how municipalities may use surpluses and deficits between years. The truth is that municipal politicians across the country are considering how they are to manage the finances. Should they cut in schools or in social services? That is the reality that not only Social Democratic but also Liberal municipal councilors across the country are facing.

The Social Democrats have come forward with a concrete proposal in this area: Inform the municipalities already now that there will be money in the autumn revision budget so that they can hire field assistants and other safe adults who can pinpoint every boy in the risk zone this summer.

Will you say yes to our proposal? It would be a relief for all municipalities in our country.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that there is an ever-growing consensus that earlier and clearer measures are needed to ensure that, not least young boys, come out of the risk environments where they are and that, de facto, someone holds their hand so that they go to school.

Within Swedish welfare, 1.2 million people work, and they usually do a fantastic job. But there need to be more of them. We are working on producing a budget for next year, and we hear that municipalities and regions are having a hard time, as are organizations, companies, and people in this time of crisis. But we cannot compensate for everything; it is impossible. We invested more money during the current year so that municipalities and regions would fare better, and we will do that next year as well. But they must also prioritize.

Let me underline that the municipalities previously had a surplus of 52 billion that the social democratic government thought should be used, but now the tone is different.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, now the situation is different. The municipalities are running a deficit this year because you have not prioritized school and social services in your budget.

It is completely correct that in such an economic situation, one cannot compensate everyone for everything. One must prioritize. But you gave twice as much in tax cuts to high-income earners as you helped the municipalities with so that they could manage the cost crisis. That was your prioritization in this year's budget. Next year it will be even worse. Then you, Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson will get a tax cut of 50,000 kronor when the government makes a specific, targeted tax cut for people with million-income.

Yes, it is about prioritizing, and it is clear that you are prioritizing high-income earners over children who need support from the social services in school.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We shall not sugarcoat the situation in any way. The economic situation in Sweden is serious, not least considering the inflation. We shall not understate it, but we shall not either exaggerate it.

In this context, however, I want us to lift our gaze a little and direct it in a southeasterly direction. Between the chamber and Ukraine, it is not much more than 100 miles. Last week, we received news of yet another Russian war crime with the blowing up of the dam in Nova Kachovka. It is perhaps the worst war crime since World War II, with extreme humanitarian, ecological, and not least economic consequences. In addition to this, it is obviously a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention. Russia is a terrorist state.

But we also received information on how Ukrainian soldiers and commanders have been in training in Sweden to learn to operate the world's best combat vehicle, CV 90. Now they are operational with a Swedish-trained Ukrainian crew on the battlefield in Ukraine, ready to deliver large amounts of "bonk". This is something I think we should be proud of.

Mr. Speaker! For Sweden's part, it is a matter of securing Sweden's membership in Nato but above all to continue to arm our armed forces, because regardless of whether we are allied or not, the defense of Sweden begins in Sweden. We need to arm ourselves in order to be able to protect our land and safeguard the territorial integrity of the Swedish realm.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! During the election campaign, the Sweden Democrats and Jimmie Åkesson promised to improve schools, healthcare, and elderly care. They looked the voters deep in the eye and promised that this would happen upon a change of power. But it turned out to be a pure lie. Now, a wave of cuts is sweeping across all of Sweden, and municipality after municipality must scale back. In Åstorp, 15 million is being saved on schools, and in Varberg even more on childcare and schools. Karlskrona is cutting back by 72 million kronor, which largely affects people with disabilities.

Why was it more important for Oscar Sjöstedt to lower his own tax by 1,000 kronor a month than to ensure that people with disabilities in Karlskrona can manage everyday life?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A lot has happened with inflation, which Nooshi Dadgostar has hopefully also noticed. It obviously entails increased costs for households and companies but also for public activities, for the municipal sector, of course.

We have injected 12 billion kronor into the municipal sector. That is no small amount. Right now, much indicates that we will need to inject more money in the autumn budget, Mr. Speaker. We are not there yet, but in the forecasts that are currently available, much indicates that we will need to inject more money into the municipal sector.

Then one must not forget that there is that which is called RUR in municipal language - the result development reserve. There are a lot of funds there that many municipalities and regions can dispose of due to the economic situation.

We have done a lot for the welfare, and we are prepared to do more. Then, municipalities and regions must also prioritize tough on the expenditure side, so that is that.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was therefore more important for Oscar Sjöstedt to guarantee that the high-income earners in Sweden were not affected by inflation, that they were able to secure the value of their assets and that there were large tax cuts for everyone who earns over 50,000 – for that you are spending 13 billion kronor, while you spend 6 billion on the municipalities. But it was not as important to ensure that the people with disabilities in Karlskrona or the children in Åstorp received the resources they needed.

Is this a priority that the Sweden Democrats are proud of? Have you informed the families with children, the pensioners, and the children about this priority? Was this in accordance with the election promise that the Sweden Democrats gave to the voters in the autumn?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my previous reply, we allocated 12 billion kronor to the municipal sector, and we are prepared to do more in the autumn if the forecasts remain as they are.

Then there are several things that are indexed up automatically in the state budget. Nooshi Dadgostar is targeting precisely the threshold levels for when one pays state tax. That is only one thing that is indexed up automatically. The guaranteed pension for the poorest elderly is also indexed up automatically. Is Vänsterpartiet critical towards that indexation? Sickness benefit, sickness compensation, and parental benefit are indexed up automatically. Is Vänsterpartiet critical towards all these indexations as well?

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Almost every day we have now woken up to news of new shootings, explosions, and acts of madness. Organized crime and gangs have eaten their way into our everyday lives bit by bit.

To ward off gangs, the government has presented several repressive measures, and many of them have also been implemented previously. Many of these are good. But what is missing in the government's initiatives, which the Sweden Democrats support and have backed, are the preventive measures - those that are clear and provide an effect and that create a way out of the gangs and a door to another life: school, social services and field assistants.

My direct question to the Sweden Democrats and Oscar Sjöstedt is: Where are the investments in the budget for the preventive measures? Where is the prioritization of the preventive measures in the Tidö Agreement?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions and for the statement that the Centre Party shares certain or perhaps large parts of the government basis' crime-fighting policy.

I also do not think that one should nonchalantly disregard the preventive measures, but I do not share the picture that they do not exist. They absolutely do exist. There are major investments in preventive measures in, for example, the budget bill, as Muharrem Demirok mentions. I therefore absolutely do not share that picture.

Then one can discuss what Muharrem Demirok calls repressive measures. I do not know if I want to sign off on that. It is possible that it is repressive to put people in prison when they commit crimes, but which of these measures should weigh heaviest? I believe that we need to get some order and clarity first and foremost. I believe that the line that the Tidö parties have established is clear and provides a clear direction, and I believe that it is right and correct.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! What is needed now contains two words: both and – both repressive measures and harsher punishments and very clear investments in that which is the foundation of the preventive work. This concerns above all the school. Now we see that a wave of school closures is sweeping across Sweden. Teachers are being laid off. Teachers do not know if they have a job to return to after the summer. Teachers are demonstrating in streets and squares right now. The municipalities are announcing cuts. The municipalities are announcing that they need additional supplements, not for next year, but already this year.

My question remains: Where are the investments in what is the core of the welfare, the basic preventive measures, in the government's budget? Where are the Sweden Democrats' priorities for the school?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The negotiations we had regarding the budget bill last year led to investments of 12 billion kronor in what Muharrem Demirok describes as the core of the welfare system, which is a good description. 12 billion kronor - that is absolutely no small amount.

Here is the situation: Households need to prioritize more strictly on the expenditure side and turn every single krona over. Companies are prioritizing more strictly on the expenditure side. The public sector also needs to prioritize more strictly on the expenditure side. However, it looks very different in different municipalities, so it is difficult to speak of the municipal sector as if it were a single entity. But it should not be forgotten in context that we have injected a lot of money into the municipal sector, and as things stand now, I believe we need to inject more. But we must not forget that there are plenty of examples in the municipalities' activities of priorities that I would not have signed off on if I sat in the municipal council in that municipality. Prioritize properly on the expenditure side! It applies to everyone.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have something so unusual in these debates as a mathematical question for Oscar Sjöstedt: Are five ants more than four elephants?

It is a piece of knowledge that my children could grasp already at the age of about three. I believe that the vast majority of Swedish children have acquired that understanding very early in life. But the Sweden Democrats seem to be fact-resistant on that issue. Because with the same logic as that five ants are more than four elephants, it is very easy to arrive at the conclusion that all countries that have approximately the same emissions as Sweden combined account for a greater climate impact than what China, India, USA and Brazil do.

Despite this, the Sweden Democrats continue, as recently as in the post just now or in the party leader debate yesterday, to say that Sweden's emissions do not matter. It does not matter how much we emit or if we have any climate policy, the Sweden Democrats say. It is precisely the opposite of what climate science says.

My question is therefore: Are five ants more than four elephants?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, in number but probably not in weight or volume.

It might sound a bit nihilistic, but no – it doesn't matter what Sweden does, if other countries continue to do as they do. It is completely true.

Sweden can, however, do something else instead of a lot of meaningless things. I touched upon the reduction obligation in my speech, Mr. Speaker. It is, as said, completely meaningless, that is to say it does not affect carbon dioxide emissions at all. You can have 0 percent or 100 percent reduction obligation - it does not affect emissions at all. Instead of dealing with such things, perhaps we should focus on what we are good at. We have very many skilled engineers, we are innovative, and we can export technology and find solutions where we are at the forefront so that other countries can follow. There we can play a role. In practice, I therefore sign off on the assertion.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There, Oscar Sjöstedt once again gave vent to the fact-resistance that characterizes the Sweden Democrats. He says exactly the opposite of what all experts and expert agencies say collectively, that is, that the reduction obligation was an incredibly important tool to achieve Sweden's climate goals.

But what Oscar Sjöstedt also says then is that the Sweden Democrats demand that Denmark, Finland, Norway, Rwanda, Colombia and all other countries that have emissions roughly corresponding to Sweden's should do the work, but that Sweden should not do it. This is a staggering arrogance, even for the Sweden Democrats to exhibit.

If Oscar Sjöstedt and the Sverigedemokraterna do not want to listen to me or to experts and climate researchers, they can at least listen to Sweden's largest companies, which now on DI Debatt and in many other places say that the climate transition is a gigantic opportunity for Swedish companies. But that requires that the politics joins in and matches the companies' ambitions and need for prompt measures. Otherwise, Sweden will fall behind in the transition, and the investments risk ending up abroad.

Can you at least listen to Sweden's companies, Oscar Sjöstedt, when they say that they want a more active climate policy?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Per Bolund is reading in a bit of wild "hello" into what I say and putting words in my mouth in a way that is a bit slightly irritating.

I have not said that we should not do anything. I have said that we should stop with counterproductive, inefficient and expensive measures that only make Swedish taxpayers poorer. Do smart things instead!

Here we come back to what we have heard in previous speeches and exchanges: If we do not solve access to stable and cheap energy, we will not fix it regardless. And then we are back at nuclear power. We must expand it, because the solution is obviously to electrify what can be electrified. Then we must have access to both stable and cheap energy, not weather-dependent, inefficient and unpredictable energy production.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is welcome that more and more politicians say they see the problems with the market school. Welcome to reality!

At the same time as all other parties in this chamber have in different ways supported a development where we give away tax money to profits in welfare companies, my party – we in the Left Party – have for 15 years pointed out what fatal consequences it has when operations that we are jointly responsible for are driven by profit interest instead of looking at the need.

We see the results now in our children's reading comprehension, in the trains that do not run, in derailed trains on broken tracks, in high electricity prices, and in the absence of medicine we need at the pharmacy. Many have been far too naive. You have been cowardly and irresponsible.

The era of market experiments is over. Many countries are now moving away from it. All around the world, we can see how governments are abandoning policies that prove to be inefficient, totally market-oriented, and bad for growth and for the economy. It is only Sweden's ideologically blinded government that is convulsively clinging to a system that needs to be fundamentally transformed.

The profits must be removed so that our children and grandchildren can receive the education they need and are entitled to, so that parents can receive the care they deserve, and so that the workers who uphold this country can receive a work environment that is sustainable. We must, Mr. Speaker, take back control over our welfare.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! One does not want Nooshi Dadgostar to be allowed to stand entirely unchallenged.

We have an enormous sense of exclusion in Sweden characterized by insecurity, lack of freedom, and poor school results. The Liberals' answer is clear: It is about a strong integration policy. We believe in the power of the school.

When one takes responsibility in a country, one must face certain realities. One cannot simply say that inflation and price economics do not exist and that we have another economy on another planet where we can just blow things up.

Does Nooshi Dadgostar believe that her powerful tax increases can in some way lead to fewer people entering the workforce and that there will therefore be fewer taxpayers? And does Nooshi Dadgostar believe that it is actually Swedish entrepreneurship that ensures we can pay for all the heroes of the welfare system?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It has shown that Johan Pehrson's policy is harmful to Swedish entrepreneurship. He is scaling back investments in railways that the industry demands. He is not investing in new wind power that the industry demands. And he is, above all, not investing in employment services and education that the industry demands. Johan Pehrson's party is very harmful to Swedish growth and Swedish industries.

Vänsterpartiet does not think that in a situation where we must prioritize, it is a good prioritization to give tax cuts of 13 billion kronor to everyone who has an income level like the one that Johan Pehrson and I have. It was more prioritized than ensuring that the activities of children, the disabled, and the elderly were intact.

It is not a priority to lower the tax for Members of Parliament by 50,000 kronor next year. Put it towards welfare!

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The way out of a difficult economic situation with a war economy due to war in our vicinity and an inflation economy where interest rates are rising and making people poorer is through restraint and difficult priorities and ensuring that it pays to work and study.

I am very pleased that we are receiving reports that fewer people are registering as unemployed at Arbetsförmedlingen. It means that thousands of people are going to a job instead of receiving unemployment benefits. That is how we get resources for the welfare system so that we can make the investments in, for example, infrastructure that we need in the long run.

But the only answer from the left-wing parties and Nooshi Dadgostar's so-called side in politics is significantly increased taxes. This will drive prosperity and welfare out of our country.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is exactly the opposite. It is Johan Pehrson who is driving job opportunities out of the country because we are not getting new wind power in place quickly enough. He is not ensuring that there is an investment support so that municipalities like Gällivare, Mariestad, and Skellefteå can get housing in place so that people can move to the new fossil-free factories.

New railways are needed. The Malmbanan must be expanded so that industry can ship its goods, but Johan Pehrson has not intended to do that. He is harmful to Swedish industry and to Swedish growth. This is the problem.

It was a difficult prioritization, says Johan Pehrson, to give himself an extra thousand kronor and let the people with disabilities in Karlskrona pay. We note that prioritization. It is the prioritization that the government makes, but we will never stand for this.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Where does the journey towards a good life begin? I believe the answer to that question for very many of us would be: in school. A good and safe school, where one learns what one is supposed to and gets to be part of a community, find friends and be challenged, is the foundation for a good life.

Unfortunately, Swedish school today has become something else. We see how small schools in the countryside are being wiped out by an unfair school voucher system. We see how qualified teachers are being laid off and schools are being closed down. We see how unserious actors are eating their way into the school world, where quick cash is more important than knowledge and continuity. We see how universities and colleges are alarming about the serious effects of grade inflation. So we cannot have it this way. Swedish school deserves better.

For the Center Party, it is completely obvious that schools need more money now. The municipalities must receive more money now, in order to save both schools and qualified teachers. The economic crisis must never be allowed to become a school crisis. And we must dare to say it as it is: We have too many unserious forces in the world of schools.

A few years ago, we were two liberal parties that had stood up for all of this. But now the reality is different. Jan Björklund's former commitment to the school, to order and discipline, is like blown away. Now we see instead a liberal party that sits at the back of the classroom and looks down at the floor to avoid being asked when one hasn't done their homework.

This is not enough. There must be a decision here and now. When will the municipalities receive more money? When will concrete proposals be put forward to change the school funding so that small, responsible schools in the countryside can survive? The school's future is also Sweden's future. When will the decision on more money for the school come?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One thing that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government parties, have pushed through is a reduction, or in practice an abolition, of the tax on so-called agricultural diesel. Something we have also pushed through and are in the process of pushing through is a reduced fuel tax and a significantly lowered level for the reduction obligation.

Both of these reforms have been strongly opposed by the Center Party. They wanted to raise the tax on fuels by 1 krona per liter. And they want to continue raising, not lowering, the level for the reduction obligation. This increase in the level for the reduction obligation would have resulted in a diesel price 9 kronor higher per liter with the Center Party's policy. This would have risked wiping out the farming industry and large parts of Swedish agriculture.

My question is quite simply: Why is Centerpartiet pursuing this policy? Now, there aren't that many Center voters left in the countryside, but still.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday I presented a proposal, Tanka svenskt!, which we have presented. It is on our website – it is just for Oscar Sjöstedt, Sverigedemokraterna and everyone else who is interested to download it. It is about how to increase the production of Swedish biofuels and lower the price at the pump by 4 kronor – not 14 öre, as the government's policy has led to. The promise that in the election campaign cost 12 kronor was thus worth 14 öre. You lower the climate, but you do not lower the prices. You do not save all the investments that have been made within the green industry.

And when we are talking about agriculture - right now agriculture is going through an incredibly tough period. There is drought, and the conditions are very difficult. Farmers are wondering if they will be able to put together feed for their animals.

What is the answer to the farmers, all those whom you promised to stand behind during the election campaign and whom the Sweden Democrats then forgot as soon as the campaign was over?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If I had controlled the weather, I would have ordered rain, but unfortunately, I do not. It has not rained for a while; that is quite correct. Regardless of what decisions we make here in the Riksdag, I do not believe we can influence it.

The reduction obligation has no impact at all on emissions. When you sit down and drive your car, it doesn't matter at all whether the reduction obligation is 0 or 100 percent.

When the Center Party submitted its budget motion in the autumn, it said no to the government basis's tax cut on fuel. We had a tax cut on gasoline and diesel corresponding to 6.7 billion kronor - the Center Party wanted to tear that up. Why?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! It doesn't matter what you run the car on, so it is said here in the speaker's chair. Then I wonder why we should electrify or do anything else at all. Then we can just continue to run on fossil fuels.

The truth is that the government's policy regarding the reduction obligation increases the combustion of fossil diesel by 4 million liters every day. The emissions increase by as much over a year as for the entire Swedish iron and steel industry. This is a fact; it is nothing that can be questioned. It is not possible to say: No, that is not correct. Facts are and will always be facts.

But the truth is that it is possible to both save the climate and lower the price, while simultaneously increasing the production of Swedish biofuels. The question is why the Sweden Democrats and the government are actually against this. Why is there such opposition to supporting the production of Swedish biofuels?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Do you hear how quiet it is? It is quiet when the pandemic's applause for the healthcare staff has fallen silent. When they have stopped, there are not many parties that lift up healthcare in this chamber, but KD does. Healthcare can rely on KD, and now we are implementing the reforms that are needed so that Sweden can trust healthcare again.

Over a long period with Social Democratic healthcare ministers, a substantial healthcare debt was built up, which made Sweden very vulnerable when the pandemic hit. When we had responsibility for healthcare issues last time, the healthcare queues were halved. When the Social Democrats took over responsibility, they proceeded with almost surgical precision and removed billions in queues and other things. The healthcare queues spiraled out of control. In the autumn when we took over, 163,000 patients had waited illegally long to receive the care they need.

Swedish healthcare is good. But the management and the basic organization are far too poor. It dates back to the 1860s - a time when we were doing bloodletting and cupping. Very much has happened with healthcare since then, but not with the basic organization.

Now we take the first steps towards what could become the healthcare reform of the century, to increase national governance so that wherever in the country you live, your zip code shall not determine what care you receive. But we are not waiting for the investigation; already now we are allocating 2 billion extra for more healthcare places in hospitals across the country. We improve the working environment for healthcare staff and give them more secure employment. And we make a historic investment in women's health, what the so-called feminist government never managed – tightened supervision of maternity care and a national birth plan.

We move from words to action for healthcare.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ebba Busch spoke about the children in her speech. Many families with children are struggling now under the economic crisis. The situation has worsened since the election and risks worsening further now as we head towards the summer holidays.

The Sweden Democrats' government recently presented a proposal on benefit ceilings. Everyone who can work shall work, Ebba Busch. The entire Social Democrats' political project is built on this; it is fundamental in our society. I am happy to discuss how different benefit systems are designed. We know, however, at the same time that with very small financial means, such as a pair of new football boots, young children are lured into crime.

The question is how Ebba Busch intends to ensure that the contribution ceiling does not further increase child poverty and thereby facilitate recruitment into criminal gangs.

Please answer yes to the question, Ebba Busch: Can you promise that your contribution ceiling does not increase child poverty?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I myself have been one of the children who grew up in a family where the welfare systems did not always suffice. Both children and adults had to help each other to make the finances work. The safety nets worked sometimes, but sometimes they were nullified. This applied both with a blue government and a red government.

Many children have had it significantly worse than I have, and I am glad that Magdalena Andersson is raising this issue.

The most important thing we can do to break child poverty is to ensure that mothers and fathers have a job to go to. That is why it is so important that we implement the reform on benefit ceilings, which will ensure that it always pays to work rather than receiving benefits.

We combine it with a significantly reinforced and extended housing allowance for the most vulnerable, which reaches, not least and above all, families with children, and with a leisure card so that there will always be coverage for those football boots, even if mom and dad do not have a job.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Do I understand you correctly, Ebba Busch, that you are going to introduce a benefit ceiling and then compensate for it with a new benefit so as not to increase child poverty in that way?

According to the ministers who presented this, the point itself was that one should not be able to stack grants on top of each other. Furthermore, one cannot do that when one has maintenance support, so it was a strange argument.

I give Ebba Busch, who is now a minister and sits in the government and who is responsible for this, another chance to answer the question of whether we will get more poor children in Sweden or not. We Social Democrats have proposed increased child allowances, increased maintenance support and summer holiday activities with lunch, to name just a few things. Perhaps we can get a slightly clearer answer from Ebba Busch: Can you promise that your contribution ceiling does not increase child poverty, even if it takes time for parents to enter the workforce? Otherwise, there is a risk that we will get thousands more poor children in Sweden.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is yes. If we are to break child poverty in our country, it must pay off for mothers and fathers to go to a job. More of the children who today grow up in homes that have just replanted their roots in Sweden and which lack anchoring in the Swedish majority society shall get a chance. That is achieved by seeing one's mother have a job to go to and that it helps the family to get by.

If for some reason one is outside the labor market for a period, the support must however be sufficient. In the short term, we will combine our proposal with up to 2,100 kronor for single mothers who cannot make ends meet and need housing allowance.

I am surprised that the Social Democrats are saying no to leisure cards, something that is crucial for children to be able to continue with their leisure activities even when the parents have lost their jobs.

Now we are also reintroducing the gift tax deduction so that the non-profit associations can do their work.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been the chair of the EU during this half-year. For us Left Party members, it is important that a Swedish government stands up for Sweden's interests, even in an EU context, and does not let itself be overridden by other interests. We too must fight to ensure that things turn out well for our citizens.

Ebba Busch has now been in negotiations about changing the dysfunctional EU electricity market. We have a lot of very cheap electricity production in Sweden and export a lot, but we still pay a very high price for this, because the price is not set in Sweden but on the continent.

In the Tidö Agreement, Ebba Busch herself has included that exporting power cables between Sweden and Germany should be paused since the price difference between the price areas must be significantly reduced. Based on this, does Ebba Busch assess that it is a problem that expensive prices are being imported from Germany?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! One needs to ask oneself a question. The largest part of the electricity we export goes to Finland. Should we stop doing that?

Right now, we have too much power grid and too little power production since nuclear power was decommissioned. Without the cables we have in our country, the transmission capacity from northern to southern Sweden would decrease even further. We import reserves and we export electricity to keep our power system stable.

The Left needs to learn how to run an electricity system. It is completely obvious, Mr. Speaker, that they still do not understand this. Who dares to invest in new electricity production in Sweden if Nooshi's proposal for cut cables to the continent is implemented?

We can discuss pricing. This is being done now within the framework of EU discussions. They are not finalized yet, however. We need more electricity production. That is the basis.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now I am very surprised. It is Ebba Busch who has paused the expansion of the cables. It is not I who have proposed it. It is something that Ebba Busch is doing very actively. She is not expanding power cables because she believes that expensive prices are being imported from the continent. If it is the latter, we agree.

What we in Vänsterpartiet wonder is why Sweden does not price here. Why do we not change these algorithms? Sweden can export and import just as usual; there is no discussion about that. But the price must be set in our country, in like manner to what is done in Spain, Portugal and other countries. We in Sweden have given up so much land to build electricity production here. Then we cannot just export it and pay a very high price.

Why does the government not stand up for Sweden's electricity customers in the EU and fight for us to be able to set the price in Sweden and not be infected by what Ebba Busch herself writes about in the Tidö Agreement?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I feel that we may be talking past each other.

It is true that we have paused the expansion of Hansa Powerbridge to Germany because we need to significantly increase our own electricity production and to not be as affected by others. But having a different model for pricing in the EU or just for Sweden does not help if we do not have sufficient capacity.

The reason we export so much is that we produce a very large amount of electricity when it is windy and when the sun shines. But there is no way to store or save that electricity so that it is available when and where it is needed.

I am open to discussing how the pricing works. We do it within the framework of the EU cooperation, even if it is not finalized yet. What the Left Party says about Portugal and Spain does not hold up. This has been clearly established by Svenska kraftnät.

We in Sweden need to increase our own production so that it has an effect on the effect and not just on the electricity production when it is windy. Then we can bring down the price.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Right now, Sweden's streets are being filled with white caps on happy students. A few days ago, I passed a student float where it said "Fullt ös arbetslös" (Full throttle unemployed). One could almost believe that they have read the government's budget bill, because this year the government has made it more expensive to employ precisely these young people. It becomes a double blow against the students who are now to take the next step on their life journey: a strained economic situation in combination with the government's increase of the employer contribution for young people.

The first job is what gives a young person experience, a first line on the CV, and not least self-confidence and faith in the future. Therefore, the government's lack of a jobs agenda is very worrying.

What does Ebba Busch want to say to those students who, due to the government's policy, now find it more difficult to get a first job?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! These are truly difficult times, and it is something many students are aware of. There are also many parents who wonder: Will my newly graduated student, my child who is now taking the step into the adult world, have a place on the Swedish labor market?

It is tough times now, but we need to ensure that we properly educate Sweden for the green jobs on the other side of the economic winter. It looks very bright for Sweden in the slightly longer term. We need to ensure that those who graduate now obtain a vocational education, a university degree, or another higher education, so that they have the competence needed for the enormously many job opportunities that come with the green transition. We do this now through caps on grants, by pointing out where we have shortage occupations, through transition support in mid-life, and through expansion where the job opportunities are.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that the Center Party is the only party in this chamber that prioritizes jobs, companies, and the life chances of young people. It is completely obvious after the answer I have just received. It is not enough to just say that it will come a bit further along. What we are seeing right now is that companies are pausing their new hires because the costs of hiring specifically young people will be extremely high. What we see right now is that young people are running out of school and singing "the brightening future is ours," but that future will be delayed significantly by the government's lack of job policy.

I therefore ask Ebba Busch again: Why is it precisely the life chances of young people that you want to cut back on here and now?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We do not do that. We tear down barriers, simplify, and facilitate for Sweden's job creators, whether it is sole proprietorships, small companies, medium-sized companies, or the large heavy industrial companies, which may be newly started or have existed in Sweden for a hundred years. It is about things such as regulatory simplifications for permits for heavy investments. This we presented as recently as this week. The conflict of objectives between MP and S caused all such things to stall during the past two parliamentary terms. This applies, among other things, to the mining industry in Sweden and the construction industry's opportunities to build more housing. But it is also about things that we know mean a lot for Sweden's smaller companies, such as Verksamt.se as well as the introduction of a simplification council and an implementation council that shall prevent gold-plating of EU rules. We do all this to pave the way for the job creators. It is so that students can get jobs.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that few missed Ebba Busch's talk during the election campaign about how expensive it is to be Swedish. It was symbolized by a very eager waving of a falukorv. But I believe that quite few of those listening to this debate experience that it has become cheaper to be Swedish since Ebba Busch, together with the Liberals, the Moderates, and the Sweden Democrats, took power. This applies especially to those families with children in Sweden who already had it toughest. Instead, the government has chosen to spend billions on electricity support for millionaires and billionaires and on tax cuts for those who are best off in Sweden.

I have spoken about Agenda 2030 here today. There are only seven years left until those goals are to be fulfilled. Goal number 10 is about reduced inequality. Kristdemokraterna stood behind it when it was voted on in the Riksdag. What is Ebba Busch going to do so that we can approach the goal of increasing equality in Sweden?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The basis is business policy. We are paving the way for more companies in Sweden. That is why we are making a special investment in women's entrepreneurship. Only about one-third of all companies are started and run by women. We believe it could be much more.

I spoke earlier about the regulatory simplifications, which are intended to enable more people to hire and allow companies to grow. It is so that more people can get a job. We are changing the benefit rules, which is intended to ensure that it always pays to work compared to receiving benefits. But if one is outside the labor market for a period of time because one is ill, burnt out, or something else, one should be able to live on it; it should be a support to be able to come back. Again: I think it is telling that the largest investment we made in our amendment budget went towards increased and reinforced housing benefits for the most vulnerable families with children.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! That investment, which we of course support, was one of the few glimmers of light in the government's budget. We also made a reinforcement of the housing allowance when we were in government. But we do not think it is enough. I am concerned. We are met with other measures that, on the contrary, make it harder for the families with children who have it the toughest, for example the subsidy cap that Magdalena Andersson raised in a previous exchange of remarks. That is where we become concerned from the Green Party's side.

When it is toughest for many people, the most active politics is also needed. We have proposed abolished VAT on basic goods so that it becomes cheaper to go shopping for those who have it toughest. We have proposed that all schools should offer breakfast to the children who need it the most, so that they do not start the day on an empty stomach. We also want, for example, to increase child allowance and maintenance support. These are measures that would really make a difference here and now for the families with children who listened to Ebba Busch when she said during the election campaign that it was expensive to be Swedish and who believed that the falukorv would become cheaper. Now, on the contrary, the falukorv has become more expensive, as most of the food in Sweden.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is far too expensive to be Swedish, and it affects very many families with children. I will continue to keep my promises and deliver on them, even if it does not happen in a heartbeat. Falukorv, for example, will become cheaper if we ensure that we address the fundamentals that today are driving up the price of food.

Then it is strange that the Green Party says no to further large and heavy power production in the form of nuclear power. More nuclear power could press down the electricity price and thereby the food costs. It is also strange that the Green Party says no to lowering the reduction obligation. A reduction of the reduction obligation lowers the price of producing and transporting food but also the cost of, for example, picking up and dropping off the children.

It is also strange that one is again saying no to the gift tax deduction. Not even when 140 voluntary organizations pleaded to Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna did they change their minds on that issue. But now we deliver, for it is they who help the most vulnerable in this time, and the government stands behind them.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When one now sees how so many crises coincide at the same time and hears how debaters talk about how we perhaps have a polycrisis or a permacrisis, that is to say many crises that risk biting into Sweden and the world, one could indeed expect a government that showed decisive action and showed that it is prepared and mature enough to meet that task.

We have now for decades heard how researchers have raised the warning level for the climate threat. In recent years, they have almost shouted themselves hoarse. The UN's climate panel IPCC states that time to act is running out. It has been a serious situation for a long time. We have listened to the researchers and provided the answers. But now it should be obvious to everyone that the situation is acute. We have extreme heat records, which are being broken by a wide margin all over the world, extreme drought and forest fires, both in our country and in other countries.

The challenge for Sweden and the world is great: to break with centuries of fossil fuel dependency in just a few decades, change energy systems, achieve a fossil-free transport system, and build a sustainable future. In that context, it can be understood that many have hesitated - is it possible in a democracy with democratically made decisions to reach such high ambitions and do what is required?

I am proud that we from the red-green side have shown that it actually works. With the decisions that had already been made, Sweden was on track to reach the climate goals, as the government itself writes in its budget. These climate goals were among the world's most ambitious. Before we began that work, many said that it would come at the expense of the economy, investments, welfare, and jobs. But what we saw was quite the opposite: it created an investment boom. 1,000 billion in investments came into the green industry in Sweden thanks to the ambitious climate policy we had.

Now, on the contrary, the large corporations are writing on the debate pages that they lack the government's response. Why is the government not helping to move development forward? I want to ask the Prime Minister. What will the government do to answer their questions?

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I placed some books here on the podium. I have brought some gifts for my party leadership colleagues. You fight on and take political responsibility for what you believe in and point towards the path you want to take. There are seven copies of Lasse-Maja's Detective Agency. Nooshi Dadgostar will receive Mummy's Mystery.

Now you might wonder why. It is not that I distrust your ability to handle some heavier stuff, and by that I mean heavier books, this summer. I hope that, in any case. I have brought the books with me because we all have an important task this summer. It is to get children to read more and to read books.

It cannot continue as it is now, given that we are in a learning crisis. The reports are unfortunately clear. Swedish primary school students are reading worse and worse. We risk getting an entirely new generation of functional illiterates.

Glued to the screens, children are reading less and less. Despite the research being crystal clear that screens at an early age are not an effective teaching tool, Swedish classrooms are filled with screens and mobiles.

A funny TikTok clip can never replace the reading experience of a good book. We must reverse the development and ensure that we also introduce paper and pen along with books in Swedish classrooms.

We must do more. I want to urge you: If you do not want to read the book yourself, then read it for some child. Or ask some child to read aloud for you and those who are in your vicinity. We must awaken the interest in reading together again if we are to meet the challenges that we have spoken about today.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' right-wing government has chosen its path. There, tax cuts for high-income earners are more important than ordinary people struggling with everyday finances. It is connected to the entire project.

The purpose is to dismantle cohesion, increase contradictions, pit Swede against Swede, and group against group. We see it in the hatred, fueled by the Sweden Democrats' tail.

It is online hate against those who think differently, threats, and insults thrown at people on the subway or on the bus. People even target children because they are selling daisies.

We also see leading Sverigedemokrater spreading murky conspiracy theories about population exchange, without the Liberalerna saying a word. Instead, they let the Sverigedemokraterna gain real political power.

My question is, Johan Pehrson: Are there no boundaries at all for you and your party? Was it right to choose the Sweden Democrats over me?

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! This is not Fake Marriage or Random Tinder Date. When one goes to an election, one must state what one wants to do for Sweden. What major problems do you see with migration, integration, crime fighting, long queues in healthcare, or school results that you have not done anything about for eight years?

I appreciate Magdalena Andersson in many ways. But if one is to get anything done, one must have a majority that tackles the right issues and ensures that we solve the major structural problems we have.

There has been a lot of talk about energy policy. It is now that we see that investments continue to be made in Sweden. People want to invest in Karlskrona and Ludvika, and there is talk about Timrå. Everywhere, investments are seeking out Sweden because we are reforming the energy policy to ensure that Sweden continues to be more attractive.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Investments of 1,000 billion were planned following a combination of Social Democratic industrial policy and Green Party climate policy - in contrast to the last time we had a bourgeois government, where the Prime Minister spoke about the industry being basically gone. Just saying that so that history is correct.

Now the Sweden Democrats hold the decisive power over the right-wing government, and the shift is happening quickly and across many areas. Civil society funding is threatened. Journalists are threatened. They are going after culture and non-political heads of agencies.

It is hatred and threats against opposition politicians, and you even want to choke off the opposition's funding. When I tell people abroad, they are shocked.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats are laying the groundwork for a Svexit debate, and the climate policy is being dismantled. The direction is crystal clear. For every day the SD government governs Sweden, we become a less free country.

I ask the question again, Johan Pehrson: Are there any limits for you and your party? How far should we go in this direction?

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that there are limits. We have ensured that the coalition partners have a direction that solves the difficult problems we see. A good deal are not ideas that the Liberals would have put forward. But we must ensure that we solve the major problems.

A liberal party that does not take the energy challenge, the integration challenge, the migration challenge, the economic development, and people's everyday lives seriously does not need to trouble itself.

Magdalena Andersson has, as I say, great merits to and from. But you have a company that implies we are to go backwards into the future. They do not want to do anything about this. It does not solve the major structural problems that are so important for freedom and security.

It would be good with a slightly lower tone. I met SSU members on the way here. They were dressed up as people with axes who chopped off people's heads. That is the image being spread by a democratically elected government that the Swedish people have voted in.

I offer Fängelsemysteriet as a summer gift. Thank you, Magdalena Andersson!

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The climate issue is urgent. We can already this summer see how the high temperatures threaten food production. It creates great difficulties for the farmers.

I intended to bring up the issue of public transport. It is one of the most important climate measures we can take. If more people travel by bus, subway, tram, or train, we will reduce emissions.

Now we have a major crisis in public transport because the government prioritized tax cuts for high-income earners instead of putting money into the regions and municipalities responsible for public transport.

We now see a deficit of 3 billion kronor. This could mean very high fee increases and that we cannot expand public transport.

We propose a halving of the prices and a higher expansion rate. What is Johan Pehrson's answer now to the regions that may be forced to scale back public transport?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! What we are trying to manage is one of the most difficult economic crises in a long time. We have high inflation and high interest rates. We have de facto a war economy, because there is a war in our vicinity. All of this must be handled carefully.

We therefore presented a budget where we ensured that support that people had paid too much for electricity transmission was returned, and for companies and for gas customers. We have increased the housing supplements and extended them for people who need this. We shall ensure that we continue to strengthen our regions and municipalities so that they can continue to carry the welfare.

But everyone must handle the fight against inflation. Now we see that inflation continues to fall. That is good. We promised before the election that we would fight inflation, because it makes us all poorer. But the Left Party has no limits; you want to halve the price of everything, and preferably with state involvement.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are not going to halve the price on everything. What I wonder - for it is difficult to understand what Johan Pehrson means - is why high-income earners did not need to contribute to this.

You spend four times as much on lowering taxes as on saving public transport. This can lead to fees being raised. It leads to us having increased inflation and that we cannot expand public transport. Sweden is an elongated country, and we need a great deal of infrastructure and transport.

How can it be more of a priority to lower the tax in this way than to make the important climate investments? Would it not be much better if we had modern, cheap and clean public transport in Sweden than that Johan Pehrson gets an extra thousand kronor? Johan Pehrson himself hardly notices it. How is this possible? How can it be that this prioritization was better than investing in climate investments?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that it is difficult for the Left Party to accept that high taxes can harm the economy. Otherwise, they would have had a completely different policy.

With the index calculations that we use in Sweden, we have tried to protect people who need important societal support. It is guaranteed pensions, student support, pregnancy allowance - a long list. We have said that there should not be more people paying state tax, nor fewer, but it should be the same level.

We believe that high taxes on labor lead to fewer people getting an education. It leads to fewer people seeking to come to Sweden to invest. One already knows that one is paid in kronor and not in euros. One knows that one has to pay high taxes on the work one performs. No one wants more, but neither do they want fewer, to pay state tax. That is why we are working on indices for pregnant women and for the marginal taxes when it comes to state tax.

You will get a book too, Nooshi Dadgostar!

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I actually requested a reply to show that we two liberal parties basically think quite similarly. This is seen, not least, in our choice of clothing today; we have identical suits. We seem to shop in the same store.

But I also wanted to thank you for highlighting the books and Martin Widmark's Lasse-Maja. Why wouldn't I be happy when you highlight a Linköping-born author who has done wonders for Sweden and for reading among Swedish children?

I want to return to the question of the school. I truly believe that we could find common ground there moving forward. You pointed out that there was a surplus of 52 billion for the municipalities last year, Johan Pehrson. That is correct; many municipalities have a surplus to distribute.

I am prepared to travel the country with you and speak with the municipalities that are unable to prioritize. But in that case, I want you to come with me and answer a question: What is your answer, Johan Pehrson, to the municipalities that do not have a surplus to distribute and the municipalities that must distribute cuts? From where shall they get the money for the school?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are now managing inflation, and we hope that it is on the right track. But the Riksbank must do a large part of this. We have no views on that in this chamber, and we usually do not have any views on the interest rate level. I did, however, hear some such remarks here just now, and I do not know if Muharrem Demirok is part of that group.

We see the municipalities, and we see the regions. That is why we brought in over 10 billion this year. We will provide notice in the budget regarding how many billions it will be next year.

I just want to emphasize that it would be nice if Muharrem Demirok could realize and agree that prosperity is created by people working and that we cannot have how high taxes as we want on everything. If we are to have the means to have 1.2 million fantastic heroes in the welfare system, as we have today, it must be paid for with tax revenues from people who work and from companies that invest and have invested in Sweden.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Again: I believe we are in agreement that it is people who work and pay tax and companies that employ these people who are the foundation for us to be able to scale up our welfare and for there to be more teachers in school. But right now we face a situation where teachers are being laid off. Eligible teachers do not know if they still have their jobs after the summer break. That is the reality we face.

We have an economic crisis. That is something we completely agree on. But we cannot let the economic crisis become a school crisis. We cannot watch as schools are closed down in the wave of school closures that we are currently seeing continue. Teachers are losing their jobs. That is the big question.

You will give notice next year, says Johan Pehrson. But the need is acute already now - already during this year. The municipalities signal that they need a supplement of at least 3 billion this year. What is the answer to these municipalities this year? Will there be more money, or must they cut back on the school and dismiss teachers?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Long-term perspective is quite relevant. If the Center Party, in its budget last autumn, had had more resources for the school for the current year, this argumentation could have won some respect. But you did have lower appropriations than the government did, despite the inflation economy and the real value of money. You thus had a lower appropriation; it is important to include that.

Much in school is also about reforms. I am very happy that Centerpartiet has woken up and now wants to be involved in reforming and deregulating the friskolor so that we drive the charlatans out of the friskole system. It is very important.

I would wish that I received full support from Centerpartiet as well to support reading and drive out the screen slavery from the Swedish school. We shall get back the reading and the use of paper and pen and increase knowledge and young people's life chances together with engaged teachers.

You get The Diamond Mystery - here you go!

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Johan Pehrson said in a previous exchange of remarks with Magdalena Andersson that when one goes to an election, one should say what one intends to do. That is good, but it is also good if one also does this after having won the election. That is not what Johan Pehrson has made himself known for in quotes or actions.

It is also this we see now in the environmental area from the Liberals' side. What was said during the election campaign seems to have come to nothing. On posters, they called themselves the right's green voice. They beat the big drum because, in the surveys from Naturskyddsföreningen and WWF, they wanted, among other things, to protect more forest and sea and increase sustainability within forestry. These are proposals that Miljöpartiet also stood behind. We meant what we said and have also followed up on it with policy. But the Liberals are doing exactly the opposite.

One becomes a bit curious considering that Johan Pehrson has said that one does one thing before an election and another thing after: How is the work on environmental protection going when you have cut the money by 70 percent for the protection of valuable nature? Are the last remains of old-growth forest here in the country to be cut down or not, Johan Pehrson?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have laid the second most extensive environmental budget since democracy was introduced in this country. I understand that there are even higher ambitions to prioritize this from the Miljöpartiet. I have full respect for that, but I just want to emphasize that this is better than many of the budgets that Miljöpartiet has placed on the Riksdag's table over the years.

We must face the global climate threat. It is here and now. I support the description of reality that Per Bolund has expressed in several of his posts, and I see nothing else. But we must do it together within the framework of the EU – the world's best environmental organization. That we get the mechanisms in the large climate package in place is the greatest thing that has happened for us to be able to reach all the way to net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. There is no shortcut. We must work together. Alone is not strong. EU is strong.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A more accurate description of the government's budget is that it is the largest cut in the environmental area from one year to another ever. It also shows how low the ambitions of the Liberals and the government have - after the election.

It is also quite astonishing that one is now referring to the EU, when we know that Johan Persson's government has opposed precisely those initiatives that the EU has taken regarding achieving more nature-oriented forestry and protecting biodiversity, outdoor life, nature tourism, and the like in the Swedish forests.

It is not only Miljöpartiet that wonders what the government and the Liberals actually stand for. The Director General of the Swedish Forest Agency, Herman Sundqvist, turned directly to the government recently and asked it to clarify: Should valuable forests be cut down, or should they be preserved for the future? The agency itself says that the government is "unreasonably unclear" on that issue.

Now Johan Pehrson has a chance to be clear: Should the last old-growth forests in Sweden be protected and preserved, or should they be cut down?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to state: Can Per Bolund ever admit that we are presenting the second most extensive environmental budget since democracy was introduced? Compared to an inflated election budget from the Green Party or the Social Democrats, it looks different, of course, that is absolutely true.

We also have times that make it necessary to save on all areas. If we, for example, want to protect our forests, we also need to expand the civil defense that is now on its toes and is ready, hour by hour, to be deployed if it, God forbid, were to start a new forest fire like the one we had in 2018. It is also a way to take responsibility. But the money cannot always be enough for everything. That is often what they do in opposition, but not when one is to take full responsibility.

We are making great efforts to protect conservation-worthy forest. We will continue to do so. However, I have great respect for the fact that Miljöpartiet wants to do even more.

The party debate was hereby concluded.

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