Party debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Two dead in a week, just in Uppsala - the wave of violence hits relatives and completely innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the bodies of three murdered teenage boys have been found in forest areas around Stockholm - a 13-year-old and two 14-year-olds. New boundaries have been crossed again. No other country in Europe has the same development of violence as Sweden. The gangs will not stop on their own. They will only stop when we have won over them - when they are locked up or deported. They shall know one thing: My government, this government, is prepared to go as far as required to stop them.

Mr. Speaker! In the election a year ago, the Swedish people voted for change, and I take that mandate with a very great responsibility.

The Swedish people want a strong defense in a time of war in Europe, not a one-week defense outside of Nato. The Swedish people want the state to guarantee people's safety every day and in all places. They do not want the police to stand powerless before a stone-throwing mob or shooting teenagers fleeing from Sis-homes. The Swedish people want the power supply to be robust in the whole country, even on cold and still winter days. They do not want extreme electricity prices or emergency-started oil power plants. The Swedish people want a school that provides real knowledge, which equips all children for the future, not least those children whose parents themselves lack education. They do not want rowdiness, brawls, and joy-grades. The Swedish people want a strict immigration policy that is adapted to Sweden's ability to integrate those who have already arrived here. The Swedish people want foreign citizens to be deported if they commit crimes in Sweden. They do not want shadow societies and exclusion. The Swedish people want the trains to arrive on time and that healthcare be there when it is needed.

It is not asking for too much. The Swedish people simply voted to get Sweden in order. They did not demand any new grandiose political vision, but that self-evident things should start working again. And the Swedish people understand that what has been mismanaged for decades will take time to repair.

Large parts of the total defense have been dismantled. Six of twelve nuclear reactors have been shut down, and organized crime has grown so strong that 30,000 people can now be linked to gun violence. The criminal networks are trying to infiltrate companies, municipalities, and authorities, yes, even parties.

"We didn't see it coming," said one of my predecessors as Prime Minister. That is actually not true, because many of us saw it coming and wanted change a long time ago. But otherwise, it is a rather striking description of a Sweden that just let things get worse and worse. But imagine if we had acted in time! Imagine if we had joined Nato already in 2004 when all three Baltic countries joined, imagine if we had kept the nuclear power, imagine if we had tightened immigration already when the first warnings came and imagine if we had dealt with the gangs ten years ago, long before the shootings and explosions.

Mr. Speaker! The government that I lead will reverse this development. We have taken on the mission to restore faith in the state's core tasks. We know that the state cannot do everything, but we also know that there are things that only the state can do - and the state shall do them well.

We received a mandate from the voters, and now we are implementing a paradigm shift in Swedish politics. We are restructuring energy and climate policy, investing in new nuclear power and all fossil-free electricity production. We are carrying out a historic offensive against gang crime with harsher penalties, more police officers, more prison places, and special youth prisons. On October 1, the police will have the right to use secret coercive measures also for preventive purposes.

We invest in what is truly crime-preventive. We remove the secrecy and introduce more early interventions, more parental responsibility, and clearer consequences for the first crimes. We realign social policy so that socially vulnerable children's right to safety and stability takes precedence over parents' right to always regain custody of their children. We reduce immigration to Sweden so that we get a chance to manage the integration.

We are reforming the integration policy. In Sweden, one should be able to live with different backgrounds, but Sweden must begin to become a society for those who want to build a common future. In that case, one must learn the Swedish language, work, support oneself, and respect fundamental Swedish values.

And so we take responsibility for the Swedish economy in a very concerning time. We are pressing down inflation, safeguarding the welfare, and supporting households, but we do not return to a policy that spends more and worsens the problems we have.

Let me be sincere, Mr. Speaker: It will be difficult to get Sweden in order, and it will take time – but it will happen. What I ask of the Swedish people is determination and a bit of patience. What I promise is perseverance and impatience. That is what is required to solve Sweden's problems. Let us now have the debate on how we shall get Sweden in order.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) concurred.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! When the Riksdag reconvenes this autumn 2023, it will be after a summer marked by crises and by anxiety.

It is about the economic crisis. The Swedish people are becoming poorer with every passing week, with higher rents and interest rates and higher prices for gasoline and diesel than a year ago. Even falukorv has become more expensive.

It is about the crisis in healthcare, school, and elderly care, which is being pressured from two sides simultaneously: On the one hand, one faces the same price increases as the rest of society, and on the other hand, one has been given significantly worsened conditions by the government, which chose to lower the tax for high-income earners instead of giving healthcare and elderly care personnel the resources required or giving our youth the education they deserve.

It is about the crisis with shootings and explosions, about a violence that reaches new levels when mothers are shot just because they are mothers and young teenagers murder and are murdered. The promised head start has not materialized.

But it is also about other crises: now about African swine fever, previously about heavy rainfall and floods, natural disasters that damage Swedish roads, Swedish houses and our Swedish nature, and then subsequent expensive repairs that hit already hard-pressed households. After a year with the SD government, we can state: Sweden has become more dangerous, and the Swedish people have become poorer.

Mr. Speaker! The situation is serious, and it does not stop there. We also have the increased terror threat and the corona crisis, and the security police have raised the level from a 3 to a 4 on the five-point scale. Here, it is important that we all listen to the police's advice to be vigilant and alert and, furthermore, ensure that we speak with loved ones, not least children and young people, who often sense the anxiety we adults feel, sometimes more than we can truly take in.

Mr. Speaker! Let us speak plainly about the Quran crisis. It is two people who have carried out the vast majority of the burnings in our country. Both have connections to the Sweden Democrats, the government constellation's largest party. These people have not carried out the burnings in a vacuum. On the contrary, it has happened as part of long-standing hateful campaigns, and they have been encouraged, yes, egged on, by the chairman of the Swedish Riksdag's Justice Committee, Richard Jomshof, who has used his platform in a way that is unparalleled in the history of the Swedish Riksdag. He has explicitly called for book burnings. He has directed hatred toward Muslims worldwide in the midst of a deep diplomatic crisis. He has fueled conflicts that are exploited by forces that wish our country and the Swedish people harm.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have for a long time warned against the security risk it entails to give the Sweden Democrats political power. Through this crisis, it has unfortunately become obvious to everyone what we meant, even though the warning signs have been there for a long time, such as when Jimmie Åkesson, a week before Russia's war against Ukraine, could not choose between President Biden and President Putin.

The risks we see today are part of the party's larger political strategy, which aims to pit man against man and group against group, increase division in society and reduce the trust and community that we need precisely in times of crisis. And we see the consequences of this. A distorted image of our country is spread across the whole world, an image of an intolerant and hateful country, far from the values that we have built our country on and which are us.

This does not only affect our relations with the rest of the world, not only our Nato application, not only Swedish industrial exports and not only our jobs, but it affects the security of the Swedish people. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, how could Sweden end up here?

Mr. Speaker! One could have thought that Ulf Kristersson would act in this situation, but the problem is that this strategy, this behavior and these people must not be touched by Kristersson because this is established in the Tidö Agreement. The result is the paralysis of action that we see.

But there is another way, Mr. Speaker. Ulf Kristersson could seek support and cooperation broadly in this chamber regarding these issues instead of easily waving away our proposals. He could ensure consequences for those individuals who use their positions in Sweden's Riksdag to drive the crisis.

Many of us in this chamber are prepared to take responsibility for Sweden and the security of the Swedish people, and it would be good for our country if Ulf Kristersson spoke with us instead of leaning on the forces and persons who he himself believes aggravate the crisis.

Mr. Speaker! For a long time, influence campaigns have been conducted against Sweden, also from foreign powers, and we have several crises occurring in parallel. How is the government going to manage to meet this when they do not even have the strength to deal with the most obvious, that which we ourselves can control in our country? Richard Jomshof must immediately be removed from his post as chairman of the Swedish Riksdag's Committee on Justice, and Ulf Kristersson must show that there is power behind the Prime Minister's words, that he is willing to act for Sweden and the security of the Swedish people.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am speechless. Here stands Sweden's former Prime Minister and talks nonsense - pure nonsense. She describes a reality that many of us indeed live in, and that description is in many ways completely correct. But Magdalena Andersson, who has not only been Sweden's Prime Minister for a little over a year but also Finance Minister for quite a few years before that, takes no responsibility whatsoever for how our country has developed during the eight years she has been in power.

This is shameless – frightfully shameless. It is incredibly unworthy of a former Prime Minister and Finance Minister to not take responsibility in any way for the chaos that one has caused in the country, for what one has caused, and for how one, through a conscious policy year after year, has destabilized our country and turned it into an arena for all kinds of international conflicts, split, segregated, and allowed crime, not least gang crime, to develop and flourish in a way that is unparalleled in our part of the world. And then Magdalena Andersson stands here and blames me and Richard Jomshof. I think it is shameful, Mr. Speaker, shameful!

(Applause)

It is an honor and a privilege, Mr. Speaker, to stand here and speak freely and to be able to express opinions and thoughts even if they provoke one or another.

If we are truly to be able to restore community and cohesion and truly be able to manage and develop the country that once, not so long ago, was regarded almost as a product of social trust and security – and we shall – we must also have the courage to stand up when fundamental values are attacked, stand upright no matter how much it storms and not yield to terrorists, not crawl for rogue states that hate our way of life and never let ourselves be intimidated into obedience and concessions.

It is not the one who burns a book, however simple, anti-intellectual and clumsy it may be, that is the problem, but the problem is the stone-throwers in Rosengård, Islamist countries that demand changed Swedish legislation and terrorists who threaten to indiscriminately kill and mutilate innocent Swedes. They are the problem. It is they and a spineless opposition that is the problem and who do not hesitate for a second to ally themselves with these Islamists. They throw fundamental democratic values in the trash if they believe it can give them a brief moment in the spotlight and some cheap political points.

To reject this self-evident principle is exactly the same as asking a rape victim: What were you wearing? It doesn't matter. There is no attire that justifies an assault, and there are no legal demonstrations that justify terror, stone-throwing, or other violence. Concessions to threats and violence are a betrayal that risks irrevocably reshaping Sweden as a country. It changes our country fundamentally, Mr. Speaker. I want to urge every man and every woman in Sweden's Riksdag to stand up for Swedish freedom of expression and freedom of opinion at all costs.

(Applause)

In this speech, Pontus Andersson Garpvall, Josef Fransson, Eric Palmqvist, Patrick Reslow, Eric Westroth and Markus Wiechel (all SD) concurred.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The nursing assistant Jana from Vimmerby was clear when I met her at the elderly care home Vimarhaga: Politicians must start listening to us on the floor. It was we who risked our lives and our families' lives during the pandemic when we went to work every day. And what was the thanks? People stood and applauded for us. But what are we to do with that? We need resources - money. The salary is far too low. The politicians cannot just stand and talk. They must act.

It is these funds that Messrs Åkesson and Kristersson refuse to provide. Every year they boast about adding billions to welfare, but they forget to mention that in the right's new language, investments mean cuts.

It is not only within elderly care that there is a crisis. A patient at one of our larger hospitals was to be operated on within 60 days. The operation was postponed to day 152. The person died, which could have been prevented if the patient had been operated on in time.

It is 60 percent of the doctors who are considering reducing their hours, changing workplaces, or leaving the profession entirely due to high workload. 50,000 names have already been submitted to the Minister for Health and Social Affairs with demands for a crisis commission for a better working environment in healthcare before it is too late, as has been expressed.

Patients cannot be allowed to lie in their own feces and urine. It is appalling. This was said by IVO's head of department after the inspection of 27 of the country's hospitals.

Once again, the problem is that Mr. Åkesson and Kristersson do not want to allocate more funds. It obviously does not matter that patients are dying unnecessarily or are forced to lie in their own feces. It is more important to entice voters with some hundred kronor a month in tax cuts.

But what does it look like in schools? Principal Linnea Lindquist has reviewed all school budgets in the country for the year 2023 and notes that in 98 percent of cases, politicians are cutting back on schools in the municipalities. It begins with student assistants, counselors, and support staff. Then teachers are laid off. And in the younger grade levels, the classes are now growing.

The only thing this government does for the welfare state is to force the staff to hunt for scapegoats by introducing reporting laws that belong in a completely different society.

Mr. Speaker! We can afford welfare. Yet we are approaching a welfare collapse. Do Åkesson and Kristersson think that women should have lower wages than men? Because that is exactly what happens when cuts push back the wage demands for school and healthcare staff.

Tell the midwives how they are to get a better working environment when you cut so much! Tell the schoolchildren how they get more help if school staff are laid off! Answer Jan's question: Why did the staff at the nursing home have to settle for applause instead of the money they so urgently need? Be honest and tell about the downsides of the tax cuts! Tell the parents what it means for their children's school, for the care of their elderly parents, and for those who are seriously ill!

Of course, the LO chairperson Susanna Gideonsson is right when she says that it is more of a priority to invest in welfare than in further tax cuts, which only give a hundred kronor to a childcare worker while she risks being dismissed from her job.

Of course, Malin Ragnegård from Kommunals is right that what we should agree on in this chamber is that more must be invested in schools, healthcare, and elderly care - not less. Now, a supplement of 30 billion kronor is needed to avoid cuts, according to Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner.

What the gentlemen Åkesson and Kristersson are passionate about seems instead to be record profits for the food giants, which they achieve at the expense of households. There is nothing that can be done about that. What would it look like? But many EU countries are doing exactly that.

The government seems to be burning for the big banks' excess profits of a staggering 200 billion kronor. It is, of course, nothing that one can do anything about, says the government. But many other European governments do. We are a rich country. We can afford a functioning welfare state. What we cannot afford, Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Åkesson's and Mr. Kristersson's government.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish summer is beginning to draw to a close. For some, the summer has been a holiday and much-needed recovery. For others, it has been full of work and responsibility. Our country is filled with people who every day do their utmost for their region, for their fellow human beings, and for our country. One of the best parts of the party leadership is the meetings with just these people.

For a number of weeks in August, I traveled around on a summer tour, from north to south and from west to east. I met heroes, summer heroes, who staff beach cafes and campsites and guide summer workers toward adulthood. But I also met professional fishermen, nurses in intensive care units, police officers and farmers - those who ensure that our country functions every day.

All this is, of course, so much more than just my bright summer memories. It is the story of the people who make our country function around the clock. It is the proof of how life journeys forward for this country. But it is also a reminder to all of us in this chamber of who it is that we work for. It is a reminder of the importance of lowering taxes for those with low and medium incomes. Full refrigerators and a wage one can live on is the best vaccination against exclusion and insecurity.

It is a reminder of our companies' importance for a strong society, of how it is at the ice cream kiosk on the beach that the teenager gets their first job, and of how it is precisely this job that is the first to disappear when the employer contribution is raised. It is a reminder of how successful companies and more people working are what provide us with money for welfare, for the school in the middle of the city or far out in the countryside, for Uttervägens Hjältar in Umeå, for precisely your health center, and for someone else's childbirth.

If we lose this understanding, we also lose the welfare. Then schools and elderly care homes are shut down. Then the qualified teachers disappear. Then there will be no new colleagues at the intensive care unit in Linköping.

I carry these meetings with me every day, and the Center Party will never forget who it is that moves Sweden forward. We will continue to fight to give more to those who have the least. We will continue to fight for lower taxes for low- and middle-income earners. We will continue to protect the companies and the entrepreneurs and work for better conditions, simpler rules, and lower costs.

We will continue to stand up for the right to a good school, whether it is located in the middle of the action or in the most sparsely populated regions, and for the teachers' security, freedom, and competence. We will work to ensure that there are fewer unserious owners.

We will continue to go at the forefront of the fight to create a people's movement for the climate. We will make it cheaper to refuel with Swedish [fuel] and invest in an infrastructure that connects the whole country. We will ensure that everyday life runs as green and sustainable as possible.

The Center Party will continue to stand guard for every person's right to a secure life and for Swedish police to be present - or here - in every region and in every municipality. The Center Party will continue to stand guard for healthcare and care to be there where you live and come when you call, and for a social service where more people want to work and that can help more people.

We will continue to remind the government of all this, because right now almost nothing is being done of what is actually needed. In its eagerness to appease the Sverigedemokraterna, it has lost its own bourgeois identity and abandoned values and ideals. Instead of strengthening Swedish school, they want to force teachers to grade students. They have lost their way among PR campaigns and broken election promises and led Sweden onto a completely wrong path.

Our country can be better. The Swedish people deserve more. The Swedish summer may suffer toward its end, but the Center Party's work has just begun.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This summer we could read about 101-year-old Mary, who lives in a brand-new senior housing facility in Majorna in Gothenburg. It is brand-new and state-of-the-art, but behind the facade hides something else entirely: unbearable heat. When the sun shines, it can get up to 30 degrees warm in Mary's apartment. It gets so hot that she can no longer stand it, or as she herself expresses it when she is interviewed: "I might as well die here, as soon as possible. I hope that I die so that I can escape this."

One wonders how it could have become like this - how it could end up so skewed. The answer comes from the municipality, from those responsible for the elderly care where Mary lives: In order to reach its climate goals, the City of Gothenburg has decided that cooling systems shall not be installed in new nursing homes and schools. According to the construction company, the residence meets all statutory requirements for construction. No mistake has been committed.

Mr. Speaker! It may be warm in Mary's apartment, but I think this example points to a society that has become cold – a society where people get caught in the middle, where square systems take precedence over common sense and where the welfare system cannot really be relied upon in all situations. It is a society where our elderly are not treated with the dignity they so sincerely deserve and where a misguided climate policy catches mosquitoes and swallows camels.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have a proud history as a nation-building party, and it is a responsibility we now shoulder again. A nation-building requires a solid foundation to stand on, and it requires the right building blocks. If we are to succeed in building Sweden strong again, I believe we need to accomplish three major tasks that we have ahead of us.

Firstly, we need to renovate the Swedish welfare construction. It is when you are at your weakest that the welfare needs to be at its strongest. It should not matter which zip code you have as to whether you receive care in time and whether you receive sufficiently good care when you are ill. Our goal is to turn this around - to turn it into good and equal care throughout the country.

Secondly, we need to reclaim our common ethical mother tongue. Without a common ethics, we will not, for example, manage things such as our integration goals. No matter how many legislative loopholes we manage to plug, we will not succeed with crime fighting without a common perception of what is right and wrong. But with the right compass, the foundation needed for a safe society and a dignified treatment is laid.

Thirdly, there is enormous potential in the green transition. By preparing Sweden for the jobs of the future and equipping our young people with the right skills, we create both economic growth and welfare while simultaneously combating climate change and safeguarding a living countryside throughout the country and households' wallets.

Mr. Speaker! In a week, the government will present its new budget bill. There, we will carry out important investments in healthcare and elderly care - for patients and staff - with an increased queue billion and an extended elderly care lift. And that is not enough: We are lowering taxes for low and middle-income earners and pensioners. We are cleaning up so that even the 57s, which everyone soon knows who they are, are compensated with what they are entitled to - what the Social Democrats failed to achieve.

In a difficult economic situation, we do everything to alleviate the burden on households. We strengthen the housing allowance for families and lower fuel prices, and with lower production costs, conditions are also created for us to be able to bring down the price of that falukorv.

Finally, we are abolishing the plastic bag tax, because it is not a plastic bag tax that will save the climate. Nor do meat-free Mondays or blaming parents who drive their children to football practice save the climate – and the climate is definitely not saved by turning off the cooling system in our nursing homes. What truly is a service to the climate is a robust energy system: 100 percent fossil-free with plenty of base load in the form of hydropower and nuclear power. The path there is spelled electrification. Finally, we are on our way there.

Mr. Speaker! There is hope beyond the economic winter. With the right building blocks, we can leave behind a society that is in better shape than when we arrived. The road there is long, but we have begun it. And for our part, the matter is clear: We will do everything we can so that Sweden will function again.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Jacobsson (KD) agreed.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Researchers have long warned about what our fossil dependency will unleash. Our climate is now collapsing faster than we can manage, with extreme weather events hitting every corner of the earth.

These words are not mine, but those of UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

The summer has once again been record-warm. In both June and July, the 1.5-degree goal was exceeded. Forest fires succeeded one another and killed people all over the world. In Greece, forest fires were succeeded by a downpour of biblical proportions. In the oceans, absurd temperatures were reached that scientists cannot even explain - and on top of this, El Niño is now arriving. The warm water that El Niño brings with it has never been warmer than now. All over the world, people are affected by the consequences of climate change, and across the entire country, I meet people who fear the development.

Mr. Speaker! Still, it is as if large parts of this chamber are sitting and sleeping. They are uninterested and unengaged. Someone is sitting and laughing.

Mr. Speaker! This chamber and this government behave like children who you shout at so that they will do their homework. They pretend not to hear. But now it is time to wake up - it is no longer possible to pretend.

Mr. Speaker, Deputy Speaker, colleagues, government and elected representatives! To those of you who represent the Swedish people in this room, I want to say that it is time to wake up. You have no right to sleep any longer. We deserve better than this.

The climate crisis is happening here and now and faster than expected, and everything matters. It is true that Sweden cannot stop climate change on its own, but it is equally true that this government's policy worsens the warming. The government points to 2045 but turns a blind eye to the fact that all the emissions it causes now affect how warm it will be then.

Mr. Speaker! Mr. Speaker, the Speaker, myself and most others in here will not have to experience the climate changes in 2099, but many of our children will have to. They will have to face the consequences of the emissions that occur during this government.

I will not undertake a review of the government's entire policy, but I want to give an example.

Last week, the Sweden Democrats, together with the Christian Democrats, presented the government's proposal for a tax cut on fossil fuels or, as we can also express it, a tax cut on emissions. This costs 6.5 billion. It is 6.5 billion that does not give a penny to the person who is dependent on a car and who has therefore leased an electric car in order to be able to drive cheaper. It is 6.5 billion that does not help at all for the person who struggles with substandard public transport in order to save a few vital and crucial hundred kronor on work trips.

It is 6.5 billion that gives nothing at all to those who have the lowest incomes and the smallest margins and who cannot even afford a car. Not a single krona of this money goes to them. It is 6.5 billion in tax relief that will primarily go to those who already have the most. These 6.5 billion give the most money to the one who emits the most – not to the one who needs the money the most. The larger the SUV, the more short distances inside the city, and the more cars in the family, the more of the billions you get. The more you can afford to drive, the larger the discount you get.

This is a discount on emissions which means that 6.5 billion Swedish kronor cannot go to school, healthcare and elderly care, to the redress of women victims of violence, to crime prevention work, or to a safer existence for children in social care. These 6.5 billion definitely cannot go to covering the cost increases in healthcare and school.

This is politics from a government that behaves like a child.

Mr. Speaker, Deputy Speaker, members of Parliament and the government! You must grow up now. Wake up!

(Applause)

In this speech, Janine Alm Ericson, Camilla Hansén, Rasmus Ling 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! Imagine that, like the liberal Selma Lagerlöf, we set out on a wonderful journey across our beautiful country where we look down upon all of Sweden's classrooms. There we see tens of thousands of children who have started first grade. They are learning to read. This is happening in Skövde, Sundbyberg and Skellefteå - yes, all around in all of Sweden.

The world that opens up when we as young people learn to read is fantastic. Our young eyes sparkle with a new creativity and a new curiosity for knowledge. Whether it is about Narnia, Nangijala or Hogwarts, the magic of books opens up for all children who crack the code of reading.

That is why the ongoing literacy crisis in Sweden is so serious. Every fifth ten-year-old cannot read properly. Every fifth ten-year-old, therefore, cannot keep up with their classmates as they, with ever-increasing skill, broaden their lives and their minds through reading.

The literacy boost our future needs can only become possible for more through physical textbooks and with real teachers—not in front of blank screens. That is why the government is investing heavily in new textbooks for all of Sweden's students. It involves approximately one million books per year for the municipalities that take responsibility.

We also need to deliver peace and quiet in the country's many classrooms, because when the school does not function, it will sooner or later cause crises elsewhere in society. It is not just about young people's future but also about Sweden's future. Today's school is tomorrow's answer for increased productivity and for Sweden's prosperity. It is the answer to long-term securing the climate, strengthening healthcare, strengthening elderly care, and securing future pensions.

That is why we are investing in vocational training equivalent to an entire Alvesta. With new training places, more people will have the chance to get jobs. We do this to meet the enormous demand that exists for assistant nurses, battery technicians and train drivers, so that more children can see their parents go to work and so that more people can contribute to the common good.

It is through school and education that we give all people the chance to, like Nils Holgersson, set out on their own - hopefully wonderful - journey through life.

Mr. Speaker! In these turbulent times, we need more international cooperation - not less. We need trade to increase our prosperity and more EU to secure peace and the climate. We obviously need a new currency, the euro, for a wealthier, safer and stronger Sweden in the long term.

Now the anti-democratic regimes are on the march. There are extremists who threaten and hate. In our immediate vicinity, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine continues with full force. For over 600 days, the Russian army has murdered our Ukrainian friends with rockets and missiles. But the Ukrainian people refuse to yield and continue to stand up proudly, bravely and resolutely in the fight for their freedom. They refuse to give up, and we here see that their fight is also our fight.

That is why the Swedish support to Ukraine after the Russian invasion has soon amounted to 25 billion in the form of everything from Archer and main battle tanks to training and healthcare. Together with the EU and our friends in Nato, we stand up for blue-yellow solidarity and for peace, freedom and democracy.

Mr. Speaker! For far too long, Swedish integration policy has been characterized by misguided goodwill. Opportunities and demands for personal responsibility have not gone hand in hand. We have thus inherited an extensive exclusion that reinforces welfare dependency, hopelessness, and social problems. The latter cause the growth of gangs and their relentless murderous activities to escalate, not infrequently with children as both perpetrators and victims.

We are now countering exclusion by once again investing in attracting the best teachers to the schools where they are needed most. We are also reforming Swedish language instruction for people who have recently arrived in Sweden – they shall no longer just be able to be parked in SFI.

The Liberals' starting point is simple, regardless of who you are and where you come from. Do you have the right to stay in Sweden? We in the Liberals say this: Welcome here! Learn Swedish! Here are the rules. Find a job!

Now we build Sweden together.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mauricio Rojas (L) agreed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in an exceptional situation. The wave of gang crime that gained momentum a decade ago is now crossing new boundaries every day.

When a 15-year-old boy, as you may remember, was shot dead in Malmö in 2019, all of Sweden stood still in shock. Shortly thereafter, the large-scale police operation Operation Rimfrost began. Now, teenage boys are being murdered and are murdering each other so often that many have probably lost count. Even the relatives of gang criminals have become targets, and completely innocent people now fall victim to the reckless violence almost every day.

We must call it what it is. It is a self-inflicted national crisis. No other country in all of Europe has this development, only we. No task is more important for my government than safeguarding the security of Sweden and its people.

The Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party now want cross-bloc talks. These are the same parties that for eight years blocked necessary decisions. The Left Party has said, promised, or threatened that this afternoon they will vote against giving the police the right to wiretap gangs even before they manage to commit their crimes.

I am for political unity. Could we gather here today if concrete proposals were available, as that would be valuable. It is about us being able to gather on anonymous witnesses and visitation zones and agree on double penalties for gang criminals, on making it criminal to be part of a criminal gang, and on removing the secrecy between social services, school, and police.

Can we agree on this, if consensus has great value? If we are only to continue talking year after year without getting things done, it is not meaningful. The Swedish people expect decisions. Can we agree to do what is required?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is well known that an important part of the negotiations for Ulf Kristersson to become Prime Minister was that the Sweden Democrats would receive heavy posts in Sweden's Riksdag. As part of the trade-off, Richard Jomshof became chairman of the Riksdag's Justice Committee, and Björn Söder leads Sweden's Riksdag OSCE delegation.

During this year of diplomatic crisis and increased terror threats, they have used the platforms they received from the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna to call for book burnings and incite hatred against homosexuals and Muslims.

My question to Ulf Kristersson is: How does it benefit the security of the Swedish people that Richard Jomshof is allowed to continue to hold the post of chairman of the Committee on Justice? Given that it has long been known how the Sverigedemokraterna representatives acted, did you make no agreement on what applies when positions are used in a way that harms the security of the Swedish people? Is there any limit for the Moderaterna for how Richard Jomshof and Björn Söder can act?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is now well known to everyone that the Social Democrats want to talk about the political game and, above all, about the Sweden Democrats. There are probably reasons for that. They do not want to talk about their own policy, because they usually have none. They do not want to talk about their own responsibility for the problems that Sweden has after eight years of left-wing rule. They above all do not want to talk about what a left-wing alternative would now do to solve Sweden's problems. It is a well-known tactic. I think it is banal and cheap. But I do not, of course, control that matter.

Let us talk about security for real. On my side of politics, we are four parties who unequivocally stand up for Swedish NATO membership. On the left side, two parties are for and two parties are completely against. The former Prime Minister thought, a few months before the Swedish application for NATO membership, that NATO would be destabilizing in our region. Take care of your own door first!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, take care of your own door first! Answer a very simple question. Did you not make an agreement on what applies if the Sweden Democrats exploit the platforms you have given them to harm the security of the Swedish people?

That they have done it is not something only I am saying. Ulf Kristersson himself has pointed it out. I repeat the question: Is there any limit to how Richard Jomshof and Björn Söder can act before the Moderaterna put their foot down? Have you made any agreement? Is there any limit? Or is it carte blanche to incite, threaten, and spread murky conspiracy theories about population exchange?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is said by the one who had to negotiate with a political wild card just to manage to cling to power during his time. It does not impress me.

Let us instead do two things. When we are in general agreement in politics, let us then take each other by the hand and get something done. When we disagree, let us then say it in plain text. That is why I have told many, including the chairman of the Committee on Justice, that it is time to exercise restraint regarding how one expresses oneself in sensitive situations.

We have full freedom of speech in Sweden. Not everything that is legal do I think is appropriate. Much should be legal. But one can still wonder how it affects Sweden's security. I have said that in plain text, and I stand by it.

It is the same way if we have a common vision. We could change the laws and seriously protect Sweden's security. Then one must act together. Politics cannot just be about eternal talking. Politics must also be about getting something done.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! In Swedish hospitals, people are being cared for in the corridors today. Patients are given pot lids to use as alarms. The situation is acute in Swedish healthcare. In many parts, this also applies to the school. It is difficult to recruit, and the classes are very large.

We have an ongoing crisis in healthcare, schools, and also elderly care. It has even caused the Prime Minister's own moderate regional politicians to react. In the spring, Mikaela Waltersson, the Chairperson of the Regional Board in Region Halland, Mikael Johansson from Kronoberg, and Carl Johan Sonesson from Skåne signed a letter in which they were very critical that the government did not allocate more money. They warned of drastic cuts in welfare if the state does not inject more money on the scale of the corona crisis, that is, large amounts of crisis money.

What is it that Ulf Kristersson understands in this situation that makes him not release funds, which the regional politicians themselves do not comprehend?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have great respect for both my own and many other regional politicians and municipal councilors. If one has oneself been a municipal councilor and responsible for a municipality, one has great respect for those who do the incredible everyday grind.

But everyone knows that no government has infinite money. It is almost only Vänsterpartiet that has infinite money, if we are to be completely honest. No government has infinite money. No government can ignore inflation. No government can pretend that the laws of economics do not exist. Therefore, inflation will affect all activities.

Our government, as I said yesterday in the government statement, will not leave healthcare, schools, and elderly care in the lurch. We will invest money in welfare and help municipalities and regions through the difficult time.

We do not promise everything to everyone, and above all, not gold and green forests. But we promise to help hard-working municipal councilors navigate a time that is more economically difficult than it has been in a very long time in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The government has presented large expenditures, in the magnitude of 20 billion kronor. It is only about tax cuts that mostly go to those who are richest in Sweden. Why this would be a better prioritization of the state's funds, the Moderate regional councils do not understand in any case. Ulf Kristersson does not answer the question.

Why is this more prioritized than saving those who are closest to the operations and see what is happening? We are in a crisis. In that case, we must prioritize healthcare, schools, and elderly care. Ulf Kristersson cannot seriously mean that he believes people who keep their jobs in schools are inflation-driving. In that case, it is more inflation-driving to lower taxes.

There must be an answer here. Your regional councilors are very clear. They say that they may need to shut down large operations. What is Ulf Kristersson's message to his own regional councilors?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! My message is that we will spend large sums to protect and safeguard the Swedish welfare, in the same way that we will spend large sums to protect vulnerable households - with the realization that there is always a limited amount of money, especially so in times of high inflation. One simply cannot get around that.

But to come back to the previous discussion: When one thinks roughly the same, one can do the same. We have done that a few times – twice. When one thinks differently – let us stand up for that! We do different things, and we make different priorities overall. You are against us lowering the tax on low incomes, because you do not think benefit dependency is such a big problem. You are probably against us strengthening the Swedish defense, because you do not think it is that important. You are against Nato. You are against many of the justice measures that we are making, because you do not think they are that important. So it is likely, because we think differently.

What I am trying to say now is that when we prioritize, we allocate money to things that are absolutely necessary, and that also includes protecting the Swedish welfare.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! The other day we heard the Minister for Finance promise 14,000 kronor in tax cuts for a family consisting of a young police officer and a nurse.

But whoever reads the government's budget and the figures behind it quickly sees that this does not add up. The reality is that the government is raising taxes by 12 billion and lowering them by 11 billion. They are raising more than they are lowering. I cannot make this add up, because it does not.

Instead, it is about a tax increase for precisely these groups: police officers, specialist nurses, and others who uphold our society every day. My question to the Prime Minister is: Why are the Moderaterna abandoning bourgeois economic policy? Why are you raising the tax for police officers and nurses?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The budget has not even been presented yet. I believe that everyone next week, when it is presented, will be able to see exactly what we are doing.

What we presented the other day was an important continuation of what we began a few years ago – and also jointly. It is about making it more profitable to work, that it should always pay off better to work than to live on benefits, and that a lower taxation on low and medium-high incomes, together with a substantial benefit reform and requirements to take the jobs that exist, will reduce exclusion in Sweden.

It is based on our analysis that the exclusion among, above all, foreign-born people is our single greatest long-term economic problem. It is our era's line of work. That is where the analysis lies.

Since it is clear that everything we do right now we do in the light of the fight against inflation and with the awareness that we have limited resources that must be used in the absolute best way. Then we prioritize so that it pays off better to work and it is better to enter the labor market.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! To prioritize what is right, says the Prime Minister – when one raises the tax more than one lowers it for precisely those groups that one claims to benefit. That was hardly what was promised in the election of the Moderates or from other government parties, and it is not what Sweden needs right now either.

Tax increases hinder the work of creating qualified, well-paid specialist positions where experienced people stay and work more in shortage occupations. What we have seen in the Ministry of Finance's own calculations shows that we lose the equivalent of 11,000 full-time positions due to the tax increases. The government can call it whatever they want, but five ants are always more than four elephants. The government raises the tax by 12 billion and lowers it by 11 billion. These are facts. This is the government's own data.

The question remains: Does the Prime Minister still consider this to be bourgeois policy?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit incomprehensible, as the government is not raising any other tax except possibly the one on cigarettes. We are lowering the tax on snus. It is a good prioritization, I think.

What I suspect the center leader is referring to is that last year we raised the threshold so much that it covers two full years of wage increases according to the agreement. Thus, we have done exactly what was the entire purpose: not to unnecessarily turn people into forced state taxpayers. This we have done, and it is not a tax increase – absolutely not.

It means that we ensure that fewer people pay state income tax in 2024 than in 2022. And we use the money to lower the tax for those with low and medium incomes, together with a major benefit reform that ensures it always pays to work and not to live on benefits. It is bourgeois politics.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! On Sunday, thousands of people gathered here in Stockholm to demonstrate against the asylum laws that the government has agreed with the Sverigedemokraterna to implement.

There were teachers, doctors, librarians, social workers, leisure educators and many, many more there. They were also represented on site by their trade unions. Chairman after chairman stood up on the stage and said the same thing: We are not border guards. We do not report.

Mr. Speaker! I have a hope today. It is that the Prime Minister here and now shall say that the government will scrap the reporting law and that it was a poor concession to the Sweden Democrats, but that the government has now found its democratic backbone again and promises 1.5 million public employees in Sweden that they will never be able to be punished for helping children and doing their job.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are no proposals on notification laws. There is an investigation that is to examine how the state should speak with one voice and how it should proceed regarding people who have been denied their asylum application and are to leave the country but do not do so.

I would have respect for the Green Party's view if you said what almost seems to be the intention: It doesn't matter whether one receives a rejection or approval, one can still stay in the country. In that case, there is no problem to take a stand on.

All of us who think that those who have been denied [asylum] should leave the country and not live in a growing shadow society, not be exploited and not risk criminality, know that one must also have a regulatory framework that is followed.

I believe that all adult people understand that these are difficult trade-offs. Many other countries have tried to make difficult trade-offs. How is this going to work? How is it to be reconciled with children's right to go to school as long as the children's parents choose to stay in Sweden despite a rejection? It shall be investigated - no more, and no less.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In school, we have all read Anne Frank's diary, about the girl who was illegally and without valid papers located in an attic in Holland for two years. We read about her feelings regarding puberty, about the irritation towards her parents, and about teenage love.

The diary came to an abrupt end when she was reported by people who only followed the law. Generations of Swedes have read and asked themselves why these people did not show a little civil courage and helped the child instead. How could they refer to a legislation and let her die?

Mr. Speaker! Being a child on the run is not criminal, and helping a child should not be either. Yet, that is precisely what the government is now investigating. They want to be able to punish the teacher who teaches children to read and the doctor who wants to save the child in the womb or alleviate the anxiety of the raped woman. They want to be able to punish the one who refuses racial profiling in welfare—all of this will become consequences of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Informant laws belong in dictatorships, not in democracies. Scrap the informant investigation immediately!

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are investigating how Sweden can have legislation where the state speaks with a common and deliberate voice so that it is not possible to remain in the country if one has a deportation order. That is what this is about. Exactly how it should proceed is what the investigation will look into.

We do not start with any fixed opinions. Sometimes one must investigate difficult matters from the ground up. There are many countries that have different regulatory frameworks for this, which have tried their way forward.

I believe there is a dangerous romanticization of the shadow society, not least in the party that Märta Stenevi represents. We are talking about tens of thousands of people who have been rejected; the parents refuse to leave the country and one lives under appalling conditions. The overall Swedish asylum policy is being questioned - does it matter whether one gets a yes or a no? These are people who are being exploited, people who are often forced to commit crimes themselves, and people who live in a social situation that we should not have in our country. We are investigating that right now.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has become more dangerous over the past year. Shootings and explosions have reached levels that we have never seen until now. It concerns conflicts between gang criminals, but everyone is affected - mothers who are cold-bloodedly executed, young boys who murder and are murdered, a public that is afraid.

Mr. Speaker! The right-wing parties promised before the election a strong start against the gangs, but also in this area they have betrayed election promise after election promise as deadline after deadline that they set expires.

Two things are good. Regarding tougher sentences and more police, it is good that they have continued on the line that the Social Democrats and our government, together with the Green Party, started. They are now beating their chests because they are implementing proposals that we have developed. That is good. It is also good that they have continued with our strict migration policy, where we implemented a paradigm shift from the very generous policy that prevailed when Ulf Kristersson last sat in government.

It is good that there is agreement on these issues, but it will never be enough to stop the violence. Kristersson must start listening to what the police themselves say, namely that it is not enough to imprison those who commit the crimes if new generations are ready to take their place.

So yes, gladly Danish punishments for Swedish crimes, but equally important are Danish measures to break the Swedish new recruitment. Therefore, the government must invest in breaking the new recruitment. But what is the prioritization we see? Yes, for every krona that the government now spends on breaking the new recruitment, it spends 8 kronor on abolishing the plastic bag tax. Is that the right prioritization to ensure the safety of the Swedish people?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In both of her speeches, with a total of nine minutes of speaking time, Magdalena Andersson counts up a fairly large number of crises that we in Sweden are currently undergoing. It concerns inflation, unemployment, the welfare crisis, the NATO process, the terror threat, crime, and the rodent crisis. She does not say a single word during these nine minutes about her own responsibility for these crises, which is highly relevant. It is just whining.

She also does not have a single concrete proposal, except for one: the Prime Minister shall dismiss the chairman of the Justice Committee, and then something sweeping and quite incomprehensible about new blasphemy laws in Sweden. Do the Social Democrats have no policy of their own? How is this single concrete proposal going to solve a single one of these crises that Sweden is currently in? I do not understand this, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Just as I said in my first speech, we have for a long time seen influence campaigns against Sweden. We see a long series of crises, but what I said was that the low-hanging fruit to do something about the Quran crisis here and now is that Richard Jomshof in all cases should not be able to use his platform in the Riksdag to call for further Quran burnings. That was my point.

We Social Democrats have also presented a long series of proposals during recent years. As recently as today, we have shown that there can be broad support in the Riksdag to look at whether it is possible to adjust the legislation on hate speech. The Prime Minister has waved it away, but it would be an opportunity to move forward. It cannot be that Jimmie Åkesson has forbidden the Prime Minister from investigating the question of whether it is possible to adjust the legislation on hate speech?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now, for about nine months, I have heard Magdalena Andersson claim that Richard Jomshof has urged Quran burnings. Let me just quote what he said. It is about how rogue states in different parts of the world threaten Sweden, make demands on Sweden, and blackmail Sweden in various ways. Then Richard Jomshof said this:

"If one seriously believes that we should bow to those kinds of pressures and threats, then one is completely out of touch; on the contrary, I think we should go out and burn more Qurans in that case. I would never do it myself. I think it is completely the wrong way."

How on earth, Mr. Speaker, can Magdalena Andersson manage to issue a call to burn more Qurans? It is quite the opposite.

Say it as it is, Magdalena Andersson! You want to introduce new blasphemy laws in Sweden to appease exactly those people who vote for your party, who throw stones at the police and who belong to that minority that does not respect that we have freedom of speech in Sweden. It is about votes and vote maximization, nothing else.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am speechless.

(Applause)

It is a completely shameless claim that Jimmie Åkesson is making. The truth is that what the government, your government, wants to investigate would risk becoming a major interference in our freedom of speech, where we would make ourselves dependent on what other states and foreign Islamists think we are allowed to do and say in Sweden. What I am pointing to would be a smaller restriction where we ourselves take control over what one is allowed to do and say in Sweden, and which I assess to be in line with how the Social Democrats who abolished the blasphemy ban intended the legislation to function.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Gang crime is a threat to the system. I believe that the entire Swedish people now expect this entire chamber to work together to do what is necessary to reverse this development. People expect concrete political decisions.

If it were suddenly possible to reach an agreement on important measures, I would place great value on that. Therefore, it would be good to receive an answer today from Magdalena Andersson and from the left-wing alternative she leads: Can we now agree on visitation zones? Can we agree on anonymous witnesses? Can we agree on banning participation in criminal gangs? Can we agree on removing the secrecy between school, social services, and the police so that interventions become earlier and clearer?

I believe that the voters expect answers and not more general bickering. Can we now change laws so that we address serious crime - yes or no?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes! We are ready to support all legislative proposals that we judge to be effective in tackling gang crime. We do not, however, support proposals that we judge may be counterproductive.

I think, as I have said, it is good that Ulf Kristersson is now taking credit for the fact that he is moving forward with proposals that we have prepared. There are many proposals that there is broad agreement on in the Riksdag.

Furthermore, we Social Democrats have submitted additional proposals, such as implementing measures already for those as young as five years old. We also submitted proposals for municipalities to receive emergency funding this summer, which risked becoming as violent as it has, to hire more safe adults who can be present on our streets and squares. We want to be able to pinpoint every young guy who is roaming the streets.

And we have more proposals, if Ulf Kristersson is prepared to listen.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly how it sounded during the previous government's time as well. There were talks and commissions. They were to be broad talks - the broader, the better. And the narrower the result became.

With cuts and strikes, we were able to create majorities in this chamber to force the government to do things that the government itself could not agree on with its own government base. We had to save the government from itself. So that was the previous mandate period. That will not be the case this time.

If you want, you can be involved in doing things for real and making the uncomfortable decisions, Magdalena Andersson. These gangs, in fact, will not stop on their own. They will continue until we deal with them. And they are not impressed by broad conversations. They do not get scared by it. They need to notice in physical action what it means to commit serious crimes in Sweden. You go in or you go out.

Broad conversations with the lowest common denominator together with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet will not solve those problems.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I wish that Ulf Kristersson would let himself be rescued from Jimmie Åkesson's grip. It would be good for the security of the Swedish people.

In the question regarding concrete measures, we tightened 80 penalties during the years we were in government. We overhauled the entire criminal justice policy. We started two new police academies, after a historical dismantling during the years that Ulf Kristersson sat in government. And we carried out a historical expansion of the entire justice system.

But we and this government differ in that we see that we will never get rid of crime by only working with harsher punishments and more police. It is important, and we shall do that. But one must listen to what the police themselves say; the new recruitment must be broken. Then one cannot invest 80 million in preventive measures.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Our green industries are having a difficult time right now. Extreme weather is hitting agriculture and forestry. It causes enormous losses and risks destroying entire life's works. As an additional burden, we now see that African swine fever has reached Västmanland.

The government has proposed stricter rules for labor immigration and a wage floor which, if it becomes a reality, would hit the green industries in the entire country very hard.

I regret that the Social Democrats have sided with the government's plans here. I therefore ask Magdalena Andersson if she, now that she is following the developments in the Swedish countryside, is prepared to reconsider when it comes to stricter rules for labor migration.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Muharrem Demirok raises an important issue: that we currently risk seeing not only our Swedish nature – our forests, our mountains and our lakes – being destroyed, but also another part that we truly love about our country. It is about Swedish agriculture and what it gives us: the high-quality food, the open landscapes that we can all enjoy, and the well-maintained forests that provide export revenues and opportunities for green transition.

Regarding labor immigration, we Social Democrats are clear. We see a need for labor immigration. Of course, one should be able to come to Sweden and work in occupations where there is a shortage of skills. But the problem with the legislation is that there should actually be a labor market assessment, a completely different model than the one we have today, which is the most liberal within the OECD when it comes to labor immigration.

We want to see labor market testing. It would solve the green industries' problems.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Labor market testing is one part. But the importance of labor immigration for the green industries is greater than that. Industry representatives are now pointing out that there is a great shortage of everything from livestock keepers to tractor drivers and in roles that are not just seasonal.

It is about skills supply and competitiveness for those who provide us with exactly that healthy food, the open landscapes, a sustainable forestry and agriculture, and growth in the countryside.

I put the question in a slightly different way. Will Magdalena Andersson and the Socialdemokrater, when we jointly stand up for the green industries, at least together with the Centerpartiet work to ensure that labor immigration and the green industries are exempted from the regulatory framework that the government is now proposing?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats will account for our position in detail in the Riksdag's work. But our fundamental position is clear. The government's proposal is a way to quickly address the fact that we have the West's most liberal legislation for labor immigration. It actually contributes to lowering wage levels for people who are in Sweden. We do not think that is good. We stand up for fair wages and conditions in the Swedish labor market.

Furthermore, it has turned out to benefit pure pranksters, and it makes it difficult for everyone who conducts serious business.

We want to see a labor market test. That is the solution. Then people can come here to work in occupations where we lack competence. But we must not take in people who risk being exploited by unscrupulous employers, who dump Swedish wages and conditions. That is what we are against.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In his second speech in the rostrum, the Prime Minister spoke about the deadly wave of violence sweeping across our country. In my own hometown of Uppsala, we had a shooting on Thursday, September 7. On September 10, there was a new shooting. On September 12, there was another shooting. And on the night of today, September 13, the shots of a fourth shooting in Uppsala echoed in a very short time. There have been four shootings, and two people are killed.

It cannot continue in this way. There must be a change.

My question is what responsibility Magdalena Andersson is prepared to take to contribute to our ability to reverse this development. It is obvious that what we have done so far is not sufficient. I did not hear clear answers earlier. Can we agree to introduce anonymous witnesses? Can we agree on visitation zones? Can we agree on double sentences for gang criminals?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I answered Ulf Kristersson, we Social Democrats are prepared to support all proposals that we assess to be effective and constructive in order to address gang crime.

I think, however, that Ebba Busch's question shows how empty it echoes in the government when it comes to what the police themselves point out: that we must break the new recruitment. We must ensure that young boys never fall into the gangs' clutches. Then it is completely different measures that must also be implemented. Yes, we shall have more police, stricter punishments and more places within the criminal justice system and expand the entire justice system. But we must ensure that young boys never fall into the criminal gangs' clutches.

We must invest in schools, field assistants, and social services, as we Social Democrats proposed in last year's budget – but which the Christian Democrats voted down in the Riksdag.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It begins in the family. It begins with present mothers and fathers who set boundaries and who, when they do not know how to do so, also receive support from society to do so. For the first time in eight years, the family is strengthened through support for parents. It is crucial and a cornerstone in the crime-preventive and crime-combating work. That is something I am proud of.

In the budget that we have presented, there is, for example, support for parental support programs in every municipality in the long term. It is an important shift that concerns breaking of confidentiality and other measures to prevent new recruitment and to make it punishable to use children.

Here we can agree. I wonder what else we can agree on, Mr. Speaker. The question to Magdalena Andersson is not sweeping as if one is for world peace and good and effective measures, but whether we can agree on introducing visitation zones. Do the Social Democrats need more time to think about anonymous witnesses and double penalties for gang crime, or can it be a yes today?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is as I say: If we judge that it is effective, we say yes. If we judge that it is counterproductive, we say no. We have indeed put a long series of proposals on the table, such as that measures should be taken much earlier - already from the age of five. Is that something the government can support?

In the spring, when we assessed that this could become the absolutely most dangerous and bloodiest summer ever, we proposed an emergency resource increase to hire field assistants and other safe adults on streets and squares. But the Kristdemokraterna, who voted on it, voted it down. Are you prepared to make such an investment now? Then we can talk! But I can state that what we have seen of the budget so far is that you are investing eight times as much on abolishing the plastic bag tax as on breaking the new recruitment.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We lift our eyes, look into the future and leave the "aimless" and the potentially "shameless" behind us. I thought that we would talk about productivity and structures that in the long run strengthen Sweden as a prosperous nation. It is about a Sweden that becomes safer and more secure and where people and companies receive a strong currency.

It is 20 years since the Social Democrats and the Liberals fought to ensure that Sweden would belong to the heart of Europe and that we moved from a basic subscription to a premium subscription in our membership.

I do not remember if it was we or you who were for the plastic bag tax, Magdalena Andersson. Now it is to be removed! But the question is whether Sweden should become a member of the euro.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I remember. I sat in the negotiation room. It was a very important issue for the Liberals.

(Applause)

But that is perhaps the smallest of the heart issues where the Liberals have had to yield to the Sweden Democrats.

The countries that have been in the euro during recent years and all the finance ministers I sat with during the Greek crisis probably have not realized that it was a premium subscription. It has cost their taxpayers dearly.

At the same time, we must say that there are advantages to the euro. That was, among other things, why I acted on the pro-side in the campaign. But it has become apparent over the last 20 years that the disadvantages are also there – and perhaps more concretely so.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It was dark at night when we sat and negotiated. It may be that Magdalena Andersson did not quite grasp everything when she had her staff inside, but it is a bit funny that Magdalena Andersson is now shedding crocodile tears over the fact that the plastic bag tax is being removed if she was so much against it. She has to make up her mind at some point!

Sweden's future is decided by whether investments come to our country. Sweden's future is decided by that we can trade and interact with the whole world so that we have a strong productivity. In that case, it is not sufficient that we, despite a well-managed economy, have a currency that is weak. After every crisis it recovers somewhat, but then comes a new crisis and then we go back.

What is it that Finland understands, but Sweden does not? What is it that the other countries that are members of the euro understand, but Sweden does not? What is it that the Social Democrats do not understand? Why has Magdalena Andersson changed her mind?

For 20 years we have used the euro in Europe, and it has shown that it holds up. Say yes to the euro, Magdalena Andersson!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! That might have been more credible if things had gone better for Finland than for Sweden over the last 20 years. We have, after all, had a very strong economic development. But it is not in the rearview mirror that one should look, but forward.

The truth is that both the advantages and the disadvantages of the euro have been strengthened over the last 20 years. What we see with a small currency is that the market in a crisis is less rational regarding such things than one perhaps thought 20 years ago, but we also see that in the euro cooperation that has emerged, greater limitations are placed on national policy than we thought 20 years ago.

We also see the weaknesses in the eurosystem. They were clearly exposed during the Greek crisis. That means this issue requires breadth in the debate, not one-track optimism that does not quite see what has happened over the last 20 years.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I continue on the same track because there is so much to say regarding the matters that are linked to the so-called Quran crisis.

Today, it is not least the Social Democrats who have, inexplicably enough, broadly suggested something that resembles reintroducing blasphemy laws in Sweden. It is said that it is about Sweden's security and so on.

It is common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats have a significant voter base in the group that refuses to accept that Sweden does not have a blasphemy ban and among those who throw stones at the police. There are very clear links between the Social Democrats and all sorts of Islamist interests. They have had Islamists in their party board. They have had Islamists in their government. They cooperate with all kinds of Islamist organizations both internationally and here in Sweden. They have literally, year after year while in power, formally poured money over various Islamist organizations - not least here in Sweden.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe once again that Magdalena Andersson should say it as it is. The Social Democrats are prepared to throw fundamental democratic values on the scrap heap in order to appease the Islamists who work within, live off, and vote for the Social Democrats.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It might be better if Jimmie Åkesson started with that talk about his own government base, which wants to make a significantly larger change than what we Social Democrats want to be investigated.

But I have a completely different question. I recently spoke with a man who is a few years older than myself. Every morning when he wakes up, he feels pain in his back, pain in his shoulders, and pain in his joints. After 40 years in the construction industry, he can no longer manage to work. He is one of those who receives sickness and activity compensation, which is among society's lowest compensations.

Now the SD-government has proposed a tax cut for people who are still working and for pensioners. But one has exempted Johan and others who live on sickness and activity benefits. Tell me, Jimmie Åkesson: In what way does Sweden become a better country by Johan not getting a tax cut in the same way as you?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will try to manage both of these matters in one minute.

We begin with the blasphemy laws. It is not as Magdalena Andersson claims, that the government goes further than the Socialdemokrater do, because what the Socialdemokrater want to do is to explicitly forbid something. They refer to the law on hate speech against a population group. In that case, one does not stop Quran burnings but lets them occur. Afterwards, the police assess whether it was hate speech against a population group or not. Surely no preliminary assessment is to take place? In that case, it is an incredible infringement on freedom of speech. I do not understand at all what they want to achieve with that regarding stopping Quran burnings, because that is not what will be done with the proposals they have presented here.

When it comes to the sickness insurance, the Sweden Democrats have been incredibly clear: We will in no way contribute to it being worsened during this mandate period. We stand by that, and in that regard, we have also gotten the government parties on board. I am not satisfied with that, but I am happy and proud that we have at least been able to get this far.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is therefore what the government is investigating that implies that one should stop demonstrations in advance. Again: Talk to your own government base, Jimmie Åkesson! It is you who are in charge of them, after all.

Now, it was not those who live on sickness insurance I was talking about – they do not get a tax cut either – but those who live on sickness and activity compensation. These are people who have very small economic margins. But even for them, the prices of gasoline and diesel have become higher with you in power. Even for them, food prices have risen over a year with you in power. Why should you and I get a tax cut, but not Johan and all the other workers who have worn out their bodies and been forced into early retirement? In what way does that make Sweden better?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One might ask: In what way does it make Sweden better that we raise the retirement age, which the Social Democrats have pushed for? In what way does it make Sweden better that we have had Social Democrats in power for a period of eight years and that they have laid the very foundation for the situation we see today, with unemployment, division, inflation, and the like? One cannot, preferably, blame me or, for that part, the government for how things look after barely eleven months in government power.

When it comes to hate speech laws, Mr. Speaker, as Magdalena Andersson has said, she must clarify what she means and in what way the law on hate speech against a population group will stop Quran burnings; it is what she promises her voters in these areas and groups, who demand it of her. I do not see in what way this stops Quran burnings. On the contrary, it will only continue to happen that Quran burnings occur without anything happening. It is also something that I think is perfectly reasonable. We shall have freedom of speech in Sweden. I naturally do not like that people burn Qurans, but they are allowed to do it. We shall not give in to Muslim threats and pressures.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Mortgage rates have skyrocketed. Millions of Swedes are now paying very much to their bank in high interest rates. For many, mortgage rates have been raised by several thousand kronor a month. At the same time, the big banks are making enormous profits. There is a lack of competition on the Swedish banking market. It is a matter of 200 billion just this year, which is enormously much. That is what the entire primary school, preschool class, and high school cost in the state budget. Many other European countries are therefore taxing the banks extra much right now; it is not that the banks have done anything extra to receive these funds, but it depends on what the economic situation has become.

We in Vänsterpartiet, together with Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna, submitted a proposal to use the state bank to pressure the big banks to lower their prices, so that not so many people would have to pay so much to their bank. But Sverigedemokraterna blocked that proposal. Why did they do that?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It was because that specific proposal was bad. Otherwise, we would naturally not have stopped it. It is quite reasonable.

Mortgage rates are skyrocketing, which makes it more expensive for people and so on. Yes, we all know that, especially those of us who have mortgage rates. It becomes significantly more expensive. What is the reason for that? It does not depend on me or on the government, but it depends on inflation. The rates are skyrocketing because they want to curb inflation.

If Nooshi Dadgostar and Vänsterpartiet had governed with their all-to-all policy, where everything can be financed completely unfinanced because there is an infinite amount of money, how does Nooshi Dadgostar think the interest rates would have developed in that situation? I know how they would have developed, but what does Nooshi Dadgostar think? Does Nooshi Dadgostar believe that she, with her budget policy, could get the mortgage rates down?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Look at Jimmie Åkesson now! 200 billion kronor are to be sent over by working Swedes to the banks in this situation, where food prices, electricity prices, and fuel prices are skyrocketing. All other countries in Europe are doing completely different things than this government. They are lowering public transport prices and ensuring that the banks and electricity companies are taxed. This government chose - as the only government in Europe - not to tax the electricity companies properly this winter in order to bring the money back to the Swedish people. There is money here. You talk about "everything for everyone," Jimmie Åkesson. You want to give everything only to the banks! Is that better, do you think? What you are standing there saying is completely unreasonable.

This proposal was about giving other directives - those that applied until 2012. Why was that proposal stopped?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have now sat in the Riksdag for 13 years. On several occasions, we have presented proposals regarding different types of taxation on bankers' profits. I have no principled objection to it. It can be perfectly reasonable to do so.

The difference between, on one hand, Nooshi Dadgostar and the side of politics she belongs to, headed by Magdalena Andersson, and on the other hand, the government here behind me, is that the latter speak with me and want to negotiate with me and my party. When they come with a proposal, they secure a majority in Sweden's Riksdag by also speaking with us before they present the proposal. Then we can be involved and influence the proposal so that it becomes sufficiently good, and then we can also support it.

You refuse to do it. Then it is up to you what happens. You are welcome to talk to us. My door is open. I am happy to discuss these matters. But do not pretend that we will support your policy without you talking to us beforehand when you present really bad proposals! We do not intend to do that.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats often claim to defend the Swedish countryside. But the actual policy, especially over the past year, has shown something else. Now, Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats do have the chance to make a difference.

Right now we see how extreme weather is hitting forestry and agriculture hard and how harvests and life's work are being washed away. We see how African swine fever has reached Västmanland, with enormous consequences for the entire region - for the industry, hunting, the right of public access, and everyday life.

My question is therefore very simple: Exactly what is the government cooperation's most influential party doing to support the pig industry, agriculture and forestry, and the Swedish countryside, both here and now and in the long term?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have been accused of many things here in the world, but regarding African swine fever, I feel no guilt whatsoever, even though this is naturally a serious situation that in the long run threatens the entire Swedish pig farming, which is very serious.

When it comes to the countryside, we have, unlike for example the Center Party, chosen to understand the conditions for people who live outside the urban environments and outside the Stockholm city limits. We understand that one needs one's car. We understand that in a family with children, one perhaps even needs two cars because both parents work and one might need to drive to extracurricular activities.

That is why we choose now, for the second year in a row, to lower the tax on fuels. This is particularly important now when fuel prices are rising. We also choose to remove the detestable reduction obligation as much as possible to make things easier for people in the countryside. I think this is good politics.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson is empty of answers, as much to me as to the countryside. My question was not about the reduction obligation or about accusing anyone of African swine fever. It was about concrete proposals in a concrete crisis that we must handle here and now and which affects the Swedish countryside - the consequences of extreme weather and African swine fever outbreaks.

Exactly what is Jimmie Åkesson's plan for this? Will he demand an extra supplementary budget? Will he demand new crisis support? Will he fight for better competitive conditions, lower taxes, and simpler rules for agricultural and forestry companies? Or will he do as usual, relinquish all responsibility when it really matters?

Now it is the minute of truth; now it is serious. Will Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna stand up for the rural areas and Swedish land and forestry?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, that is what we intend to do. It becomes a bit strange when one talks about an additional supplementary budget even before the budget that is to be presented next week has been presented. Let us at least first present that, so that Muharrem Demirok and his C members can see what is in it. Then perhaps there is reason to present a supplementary budget, but now we do what we believe is right and reasonable even in this regard.

Even though we do not have any formalized cooperation with the government parties regarding these issues, but are quite free to pursue our own policy within the framework of the Riksdag, it is clear that we are pushing to facilitate things for both farmers and people who are not farmers but live in the countryside. I took the fuel prices as a very concrete example, because I mean that it might be what most clearly will result in improved conditions for people who live there. We can also take agricultural diesel as an example; there we also have a larger reduction to facilitate, not least for farmers.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, freedom of expression is a democratic cornerstone. We have the right to express our opinions without threats of reprisals from the authorities. We have the right to criticize religion and to practice religion without harassment from the authorities. We shall never hand over control of this to a foreign power.

But protection for minorities is also a prerequisite for freedom of speech to encompass everyone. That is why, among other things, we have had legislation against hate speech for a long time. Still, we have seen in report after report how widespread the hatred and threats against religious and racialized minorities in Sweden are. Jewish congregations live with constant threats. Muslim women are spat upon because they wear veils. Afro-Swedes are denied care due to prejudices or receive incorrect treatment due to notions about their skin.

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson leads the government. I would like to know what Jimmie Åkesson intends to do to protect Sweden's ethnic and religious minorities so that they too can be included and exercise their freedom of expression and freedom of religion in Sweden.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is often claimed, not least by the party that Märta Stenevi represents, that Sweden is a systemic racist country, where all people who have not lived here since time immemorial are hated, spat upon, and discriminated against in various ways. We Swedes are claimed to be a terribly racist people.

I do not buy that description of reality, because it is not correct. International surveys show very clearly that it is not correct, on the contrary. The Swedish people are, in comparison to many others, very tolerant in relation to minorities and people and cultures from other parts of the world. I think that is a good quality, which we must guard.

This does not mean that we must be naive and pursue a policy of division, which the Green Party and other parties in this assembly have contributed to for decades. But naturally, we shall pursue a responsible policy.

I do not see that one does not have the right to exercise their freedom of speech in this country regardless of which minority one belongs to. On the other hand, it seems difficult to criticize a religion in Sweden. Märta Stenevi and others want to move forward and legislate against it, and I think that is very serious.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am convinced that the ministers who are now responsible for discrimination issues have the opportunity to produce reports and give them to their colleague Jimmie Åkesson and thereby let him see how it actually looks in Sweden. I am looking at several here in this room.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke in his government statement about being Prime Minister for the entire Swedish people. The truth is simply that he has not received his mandate from the people. The government is historically weak, and all three government parties retreated in the election. Not even together did they scrape together as many mandates as the largest opposition party. The marginal majority that they have managed to scrape together in the chamber is therefore entirely based on the Prime Minister keeping the Sweden Democrats, a party with its roots in Nazism according to their own white paper, satisfied.

Mr. Speaker! It is impossible to be Prime Minister for the entire Swedish people when one sits on a right-wing extremist mandate that does not even acknowledge the racism that exists in Sweden. It is impossible to protect one's citizens from discrimination and hate when one brings the racists into Rosenbad. This government should resign, because it does not represent the Swedish people but the Sverigedemokraterna.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It does not surprise me that Märta Stenevi thinks that the government should resign. That is well her job; it is perfectly reasonable. I do not think, however, that it will do so, at least not because of Märta Stenevi's request.

It is interesting this matter of parliamentary democracy and representation. We had, during the previous mandate period, a government that was, by all measures, historically weak and which rested on the support of a political wild card with interests in completely other parts of the world who did not have the well-being of the Swedish people before their eyes, which is very remarkable.

Something that is also noteworthy in this is that the largest party within the opposition, the Social Democrats, have in principle not complained about a single one of the reforms of the crime policy and the migration policy that this government, with our support, has presented. I believe, therefore, that it represents a larger part of the Swedish people than Märta Stenevi does.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, it was a somewhat strange signal to the defense and to the rest of the world when the Prime Minister insinuated that we are not in agreement in this chamber regarding the upgrading of the defense. It was perhaps a bit strange.

Well - there are no ways to renovate the welfare, Ebba Busch, if one only carries out tax cuts. There is no room for this.

This government is engaged in attacking households, students who are struggling in school, patients and care recipients in elderly care. On the other hand, they are not fighting inflation. For this, one would need to push back food prices, use state SBABs to increase bank competition and push back the high housing costs and lower fees in public transport and preschool. That would put thousands of kronor in the pockets of ordinary workers and lower inflation.

The government says no to all of this. This government presents proposals that provide a tax cut of just over 100 kronor a month for a nursing assistant and many times more for high-earners. It costs us 11 billion kronor. It will soon cost her her job, the pay raise, and the working environment. It costs us the preschool and the healthcare.

The wealthy state and government are withdrawing from the financing of the welfare system and shifting the responsibility onto increasingly strained municipalities and regions. The weakest municipalities and regions in terms of resources will need to raise their taxes the most, those that are already far above the national average. What else are they supposed to do?

This is a recipe for division between city and country, rich and poor. The government pursues a policy that pits people against one another. The ultimate consequence of this is, of course, that we have major problems with gang crime. A 13-year-old boy was found dead in Haninge outside Stockholm just recently. Sweden deserves better.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me quote from the Committee on Finance's report 2021/22:FiU39 - whoever wishes can look up this lively reading. It says as follows:

"The prices of gasoline and diesel have risen sharply for a longer period. As a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they have increased even more. For many people, it means a very tough economic situation. Families who are dependent on the car face major economic problems when prices soar. For many businesses, the costs become high and jobs risk being lost. The knowledge that prices could be even higher tomorrow makes it even harder."

Madam Speaker! This is, verbatim, from the Left Party's special statement – a wise statement. My question is: Does this insight remain with Nooshi Dadgostar? How much will the Left Party lower the tax on gasoline and diesel, or the reduction obligation, for that matter, to help the families and businesses that are struggling?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Yes, Ebba Busch wants to raise the tax on diesel. She wants to lower it slightly for gasoline. Our assessment is that the gas stations will cut it out, because it is an oligopoly. For us, it has always been important that this reaches the customer. It must reach the customer. The government's proposal does not, according to the assessment of very many economists.

That was why my party and Ebba Busch agreed when there was a price shock - yes, it is now a year ago - that we would ensure that we temporarily limit the price shock. And our assessment is that regulations are required. A price cap is required for this to reach the customer.

If one only lowers taxes such that they are to prevail forever, the gas stations will cut it out. Then it will only result in higher profits for the oil companies.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I still want to understand what Nooshi Dadgostar is saying here: a price cap. Does the Left Party therefore want us, from the state's side, to set a price ceiling for the companies, for how much they are allowed to sell petrol and diesel for, or what is the Left Party's proposal here?

This government, the four coalition parties, promises not to leave the Swedish people in the lurch. We are now using all the tools we have in the toolbox to make it cheaper to be Swedish. We are pausing the indexing. We are lowering the tax. And we are reducing the so-called reduction obligation as far as it can go. For gasoline, the tax cut makes a bigger difference. For diesel, it is the reduction obligation that makes a big difference.

If we had continued with Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister, we would instead have seen price levels that would have been 6 kronor higher compared to what we are moving forward with. That is a difference. It is clear that we must be like hawks on the companies if they cut corners, but what is the Left Party's alternative? Is it a price cap?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! One cannot believe one's ears. Ebba Busch, the falukorv-swinger, stands here and says she is doing everything she can. The falukorv has never been more expensive, Ebba Busch.

(Applause)

(EBBA BUSCH (KD): Correct.)

It is during your government's time.

We have not seen such high mortgage loans in decades. Yet you block proposals to lower food prices. You blocked our proposals, which I brought here with Jimmie Åkesson, to ensure that SBAB increases bank competition so that we can bring down housing costs. You have blocked every single proposal. As the only government in the entire EU, you could not agree to tax the electricity companies this winter to return the money to the Swedish people. It is a shame that the Energy Minister does not feel ashamed.

(Applause)

(EBBA BUSCH (KD): That is a factual error.)

Of course, it is important for us that the reductions do not go to the oil companies. And that is where Ebba Busch and I agreed the last time we made a committee initiative on this.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! No, you were not quite in agreement, Nooshi Dadgostar and Ebba Busch. You were in agreement before. Nooshi Dadgostar and I are not in agreement either.

I hear that Vänsterpartiet has money for everything. One goes around and attacks the banks, the petrol companies, and the electricity companies. It is every single person who works: Just go for them, and then we take the money.

But now it is like this: It is easy to talk, Nooshi Dadgostar. But you govern in Gothenburg. Proud Left Party members govern in Gothenburg and cut back on schools. It affects the children in all schools in Gothenburg. You go so far that you cannot even receive the state grants that we decide here, which are to be used for books.

I gave Nooshi Dadgostar a book a few months ago. Could you not have ensured that the books also went to the students in Gothenburg? They would have needed them.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! The school party the Liberals are in government. 98 percent of the municipalities - 98 percent - are now forced into cuts in primary school. How can this be prioritized - to take away the students' books, to dismiss the students' staff, to dismiss all support staff in the school? How can it be prioritized while Johan Pehrson instead wants to ensure that high-income earners who want cleaning help at home receive more subsidies? How can these two things be so difficult for the Liberals to choose between? How can it be that, in the end, the high-income subsidy was chosen over the school students?

The Liberals are not a school party. You let the school pay for the crisis and give grants to high-income earners. We would, of course, not prioritize in that way.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Nooshi Dadgostar received a book. We have here in the Riksdag decided that we shall ensure that all students receive more books. We have a targeted state grant to address the reading crisis.

When I travel to Jönköping, the books arrive. I travel to Sundbyberg; there the books arrive. But in Gothenburg, no books arrive, because there the Left Party members sit and rule. You disregard the books. There are resources for books. Why does the Left Party see to it that they are not used and that instead there should be empty plates and screens?

Please, Nooshi Dadgostar, take responsibility for Vänsterpartiet in practice and not just when you fly around and make landings in Sweden!

Then you go after the banks. Yes, we can do as in Spain, Latvia or the Czech Republic and go after the banks. But then it becomes a socialist economy. You see an unemployment of 11 percent if you go to Spain - goodness.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! No government in Spanish history has lowered unemployment as much as the current one, and they have the lowest inflation in the entire EU. Johan Pehrson's government has the highest inflation in the entire EU and the lowest growth. You choose your fighter.

(Applause)

If that is the case, and now I ask the doctoral party Liberalerna, that 98 percent of the municipalities are cutting back in schools, is it then the people of Gothenburg that are wrong or the government? Let us reflect on this together.

What is Johan Pehrson's own assessment? Now we see tax cut after tax cut, most recently additional ROT and RUT grants to those who earn over 50,000-60,000 kronor a month. How can this be prioritized over giving school students books, Johan Pehrson?

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Repetition is said to be the mother of knowledge. But when one looks at the government's school policy, one begins to doubt, for no one with the slightest engagement in Swedish schools could have missed the repeated alarms. The economic crisis has become a school crisis. Qualified teachers are being laid off. Schools are being closed down. Books do not reach all schools because they are closed down. Knowledge results are falling and reading comprehension as well. Teachers testify to a work environment and a burden that is completely unsustainable. The knowledge gap between city and countryside is growing.

Still, the government does far too little. It is too little new money and no new reforms. The Minister for Education pretends it isn't raining. The Minister for Finance is looking the other way. Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna seem to completely ignore that it is in the school that we lay the foundation for a stronger Sweden.

Centerpartiet has repeatedly highlighted the need for more money for the school. We have raised the issue of better conditions for teachers, a new school voucher system, and stricter quality requirements. We are ready to do our part for a stronger Swedish school. But when will the government take the issue seriously? When will it stop closures and the flight of teachers? When will we get a new school voucher that closes the gap between city and country and rewards those who take greater responsibility? When will it be made easier to say "no, stop, thanks and goodbye" to every unserious force that weakens the Swedish school?

School is the cornerstone of society. It is time to show that one understands this. Listen to and trust teachers and students! Give them back the faith in the future!

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish wolf population is now larger than it has been in a long time. The wolf is spreading across the entire country, and we see how farmers feel anxious about letting the animals out to graze for fear of wolf attacks. Between 2018 and 2022, the number of wolves in Sweden increased from 305 to 460 - with the Center Party's good memory, I say, Madam Speaker.

Now, Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren is putting a stop to that. We have the goal of reducing the wolf population. The Center Party has historically cared about the countryside. We share the commitment to those issues. But during the last two parliamentary terms, one has been more eager to defend a Social Democratic-led government than to care about farmers, dog owners, and residents who have been in contact with wolves.

My question today is therefore whose wolf policy Muharrem Demirok prefers - the government's or the Social Democrats'?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! The answer to that question is very simple. I prefer the Center Party's view on wolf policy, and it differs from both the government's and the other opposition parties' wolf policy. We are clear: There is a decision in this chamber regarding a minimum floor for the wolf population, and we shall stick to that.

I noted in the debate in the chamber, where my colleague Daniel Bäckström raised the issue, that the government's representatives are now starting to waver when it comes to the number of wolves. The wolf population is to decrease, but to what level? What shall we answer the Swedish farmers who are wondering right now? What will be the answer to them in Jönköping County who had a large number of sheep torn apart? Where is the floor for the government's wolf policy?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! The government that now governs Sweden is the most rural-friendly government in Sweden in a generation, I want to assert. The Centre Party may have the ambition to want well, but as a support party to the red-greens, it often became a policy that was not particularly rural-friendly.

Now we have a government that defends Swedish forestry in the EU. Now we have a rural affairs minister who is creating alliances to get the EU to lower the wolf's protection status. Now, Swedish security of supply is prioritized within agricultural policy. With the budget that the government is to present, it will become easier for farmers to send their animals to slaughterhouses at reasonable costs and without long transports.

Step by step, or slice by slice, conditions are being created so that that falukorv on the families' dinner table can become cheaper. Good conditions for the countryside is a win for all of Sweden. Alone is not strong. If one does not have a majority of one's own as a member of the Center Party, one should choose between the government and S.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! The countryside is not a backdrop that can be used in the election campaign and then left outside when one steps into the buildings of the Government Offices. It is large and stately and fancy, but the Swedish countryside functions every day. It is in the soil that the difference is made, and nothing of that which has now been presented strengthens the Swedish countryside or the competitive conditions for the forestry companies.

I read in the newspaper recently that the pig producers are not at all particularly satisfied with the government's handling of the African swine fever outbreak. On the contrary, they lack information. They lack clarity, and they lack direction. What is the clear message from the government? Can we expect that they now deploy the absolute heaviest tool they have, the National Security Council, and say that it is time to take this seriously? This must not develop into a national crisis that risks a million domestic pigs in Sweden and that risks pulling the rug out from under companies. Where is the government's answer to those who feel abandoned right now?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! In my first speech, I spoke about three major tasks: preparing for the jobs of the future, renovating the welfare construction, and reclaiming the ethical mother tongue. I would like to dwell a little on the latter. It may sound a bit lofty, but it is so incredibly important.

This week I visited the Rosengård district in Malmö. I got to stand in the kitchen and meet fantastic working women at Yalla Trappan, one of many good forces in civil society in the form of a social enterprise that creates opportunities for women who would otherwise be far from the labor market. The following day, Rosengård was shaken by violence once again. Yet another despicable Quran burning was carried out. Yet another deplorable riot with car fires and stone-throwing against emergency services followed.

Madam Speaker! None of us desire such a development. When strong forces from two sides try to tear our society apart, we need to hold together. A good society needs to have a clear ethical compass so that we can navigate in changing times. Flatness in the battle for values leads to its decay. Behind us, we have decades of value relativism, where efforts were made to blur the line between right and wrong. We notice that now. It is as the saying goes, namely that he who sows the wind reaps the storm.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats are working hard to restore safety to our streets and squares. We are giving the police the tools they have requested for so many years. We are conducting a review of the Public Order Act, but we will not compromise by a single millimeter on Swedish freedom of speech. We are also strengthening the preventive work regarding the family and civil society, and we will always stand up for the values that have built our country - for all good forces and for a good society.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish healthcare faces two serious crises. It is partly the acute resource shortage, exacerbated by the fact that the SD government chose to lower taxes for high-income earners instead of investing in the care of Sweden's sick, and partly a glaring shortage of staff. It is a shortage that requires us to truly make an effort so that those who work in healthcare will want and choose to stay there.

I am concerned about the plans to introduce a reporting law. They risk that nursing assistants, nurses, and doctors will resign because they cannot compromise on professional ethics. They further risk having devastating consequences for healthcare and lengthening the healthcare queues.

Has Ebba Busch, regarding the investigation that has now been initiated on the whistleblowing law, ensured that it will not lead to staff choosing to resign and thereby increase the staff shortage?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I mean that Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has answered well to the question regarding the investigation that has now been appointed and which is to review what is called the duty of information. Fundamentally, it is about the fact that the Swedish law book is not something where one chooses a little bit what applies and what does not apply, which laws one wants to follow and which ones one does not want to follow.

Let me be concrete: Akilov. He had no right to stay in the country. It would have been good if someone who had met him had reported that he was in the country, informed that a person was breaking Swedish law by remaining in the country despite the person being requested to leave the country. It is that type of shadow society and criminality that we can tackle.

But we will, of course, ensure that our basic welfare functions. We do that with the help of a clear prioritization in crowns and öre and structural reforms. Then healthcare and elderly care will function better in the future.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Ebba Busch and I have the same position regarding persons who do not have the right to stay in the country. A yes is a yes. Then one has the right to stay. One must learn Swedish, get a job and live a normal and good life in Sweden. If one gets a no, one must leave the country. In that, there is no doubt.

But the problem is that we see professional group after professional group protesting against the disclosure law. The risk is that those who have chosen to train as nurses, because they want to care for the sick, are not prepared to compromise on the professional ethics they have learned during their training. They say that they cannot continue working in the emergency room, where they have first cared for a traffic-injured person and then are expected to act as border police and report them. How has Ebba Busch, in the investigation directives, guaranteed that we will not see mass resignations at the country's emergency departments?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! This is, as stated, an investigation to strengthen that Swedish law shall apply in Sweden, and it shall apply to everyone. We shall be able to combat the shadow society which means that people are exploited as black labor under the most inhumane conditions. Children are caught in the crossfire and live in Sweden under appalling circumstances.

We will take note of the result of that investigation and land on exactly how it shall be applied. It will not become a reporting law, but it will become some type of information obligation.

We don't want a society where a nurse or a teacher who suspects a crime in the home, that children are being mistreated, stops talking about it? Should that also be optional in the Social Democrats' Sweden?

We need to proceed carefully here. These are difficult trade-offs. But let the investigation do its work, and we will take action when there is a good basis.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! On September 2 of this year, the anniversary of when Ebba Busch held up a falukorv during Sveriges Radio's party leader debate was noted. Busch promised that food would become cheaper if she were given the power to decide.

I note that Busch is no longer waving the sausage. The Falukorv is, as everyone knows, significantly more expensive today than when she waved it.

When will the falukorv minister tackle the oligopoly situation prevailing in the food market, which allows large chains to maintain their high prices without any significant competition? They are therefore making huge profits - record profits - in an economic situation that affects many households in a serious way. They are having a hard time. In that situation, the chains make huge profits.

Why has Busch not called the food giants to, for example, reach an agreement to curb the price development that harms the Swedish economy?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Firstly: Because the Minister for Finance has done it. Secondly: Because we are not communists.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! That was a strange answer. This is what Macron has done.

The giant chain Ica owns almost the entire market. Then it becomes almost a monopoly, and we do not like monopolies. Or do we? No. Are we in agreement on that? Yes.

It is unfortunate that Ebba Busch is for monopolies on the market. I believe that is harmful for the food market. Macron has gathered the food giants and spoken with them, so that there will not be monopoly pricing in Sweden. Ebba Busch is, I swear, the Minister for Enterprise, despite everything, and can act in this situation. Many people are having a hard time. Prices have gone up by 20 percent, even though the underlying costs are falling sharply. Therefore, the profits are enormous.

Be inspired by other countries! Do more, like those who actually lower inflation in the rest of Europe! Now Sweden is the worst in the class. Where is Ebba Busch? Answer this!

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I mean that what France has done is misguided socialism. Sweden should not go that way. We should, for example, use the authority that I am responsible for, the Competition Authority, to follow, evaluate, audit, and keep an eye on the food actors; if they collude or make unreasonable and unjustified price increases. The Competition Authority takes that responsibility.

But what else is the government doing? I am very proud that we put the falukorv on the map. Behind it lies a very serious message that it is too expensive to be Swedish. We will not give up until we have delivered on the promise to make it cheaper to be Swedish.

But this takes time. Eight years of Social Democratic rule, which has consistently wanted to make it more expensive to produce the food, transport the food, and sell the food, risks ruining household finances. We are reversing that now, and I am proud of that.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! "Let the children come to me!" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" are parts of the Christian message that I myself carry with me in all the discussions and conversations we have about the modern construction of society, and I believe I know that I share a good deal of those values with Ebba Busch.

But these parts seem to have been lost in the work on the government's proposal regarding the reporting obligation. Yes, I will return to that, because we have not received an answer.

Now teachers are to report students, report children, and risk punishment if they do not do so. I want to ask again: Is it Ebba Busch's intention for it to be so? Or is she here and now prepared to, regardless of what the investigation concludes, stand up for teachers and doctors and that they should be exempted from the requirement of the reporting obligation?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am very concerned about how many children there are in Sweden.

We have had a situation where Sweden had migration legislation that in practice provided a strong incentive for families to be split, to send their small children ahead as so-called anchor children to seek a better future. The responsibility for the entire family's opportunity for asylum or a better future was placed on the children's shoulders.

Sometimes when it looks good on paper, it is many times the case that very many of the most vulnerable, including the children, end up being squeezed. That is what we are trying to turn around now, and then we need to address that we have thousands upon thousands who are in Sweden illegally.

Teachers shall be teachers. Nurses shall be nurses. We will not abandon that principle. But Swedish law applies to everyone, and we must reach the shadow society better.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! In the original investigation mandate, teachers and healthcare personnel were excluded. In the additional mandate, teachers and healthcare personnel are included.

We are in complete agreement that Swedish law shall apply. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is Swedish law. Children's right to school is regulated there.

Children should always be allowed to be children. Children should not be afraid to go to school because they are afraid of being reported by their teacher.

Patients who are seriously ill should not be afraid to seek care because the doctor or nurse might report them.

The question remains: Does Ebba Busch think it is right that teachers and healthcare personnel should be forced to report undocumented children or patients? If she does not think so, can she then, here and now, state that she wants to exempt just these groups, teachers and healthcare personnel, from the investigation regardless of what it concludes?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! We will see when the investigation has completed its work in what way it is appropriate to also include healthcare and schools. But we do not want a situation where suspicions that children are being harmed or that parents are committing crimes or staying in Sweden illegally are not handled with force. Therefore, we are looking at what is called the duty of information.

As for the exact application of this, we will have to see what the investigation proposes. After that, we will take a position, but we will not do so in a way that jeopardizes Swedish welfare. We also assume that everyone in Sweden wants to stand up for the fact that Swedish law applies to everyone.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The first thing the government did when it took office was to abolish the Ministry of the Environment. Instead, the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise was established, and there, effective climate policy was promised.

The only thing the government's climate policy has effectively done so far is to increase emissions, accelerate climate change, and move from a policy that had the possibility of reaching the climate goals to a policy that instead increases emissions.

It is still very unclear to me whether the government does not understand the mechanisms between emissions and climate change or if they simply do not care about them. But there are facts to contend with.

Therefore, I want to ask a straight and simple question to Ebba Busch, who is Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Climate and Enterprise: By how many tons of greenhouse gases will the government's policy reduce or increase Swedish emissions in 2024?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! We have presented a series of measures concerning environmental and climate policy. It is all about us succeeding in reversing the development, reaching Sweden's high climate ambitions and at the same time creating more jobs for more Swedes to go to, increasing economic growth and securing a stronger welfare in the future.

The policy that was pursued previously, Madam Speaker, meant that in the short term it looked as if one was taking good measures for the climate in terms of emissions. But in the long term, it meant that we risked missing the targets significantly if we had not also cut our economic growth. If there is not enough electricity for a corresponding doubled power demand by 2045, if there is not enough by 2035 or 2030, the industry will not transition. Then one misses the climate targets. We are settling accounts with that policy.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is very interesting that the Minister for Climate and Enterprise does not seem to have taken part in the Climate Policy Council's reviews of the previous policy. It was, on the contrary, the case that the previous government's policy actually had the possibility of reaching the goals. The current government's policy does not.

I also note that the Minister, who is responsible for the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, does not know how much the effective policy being conducted there will reduce emissions or if it will, on the contrary, increase them.

Does the Minister of Justice perhaps, possibly, know how many nuclear reactors the government wants to build? Perhaps that is why it is time to change the name of the department again, from the KN- to the KK-department – the Nuclear Power Department.

Whatever one thinks otherwise about nuclear power and electricity production, however much one wants to let Swedish households wait for cheap electricity production, the fact remains that a climate policy that accelerates climate change instead of mitigating it is not effective. It is a catastrophe.

Does the Vice Prime Minister know how much the emissions will increase or decrease next year with the government's policy?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! One only needs to read the analysis. For example, we have accounted for how much the reduction of the reduction obligation and the tax on fuels will entail and so on.

We are aware that they increase in the short term, but in the longer term, we are truly creating the conditions to transition.

What is the reason that we have had oil plants that have just kept running lately? Well, Miljöpartiet has boasted about the decommissioning of Ringhals 1 and 2, strongly driven by political decisions. If we have large industries and large companies that could cut their emissions, several of them all the way to zero, but which do not have enough emission-free electricity, it will not happen.

No, I am proud that we are conducting a climate policy that is effective and that will truly be able to ensure that Sweden maintains the lead in the climate transition in the long term.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have a prepared speech, but I must begin with this incredible thing: "I am proud that we" for a policy that increases emissions. Mark that down!

Madam Speaker! I am often asked why politics has become so polarized, why the tone is so high, why we cannot sit around a table and reach an agreement. I remember when I myself said that just over ten years ago, before I had become politically engaged. Why don't they just sit down and settle things as we do in every leadership group and every board in the business sector?

Now, instead, I am more and more frequently asked why I am so angry and why I am so harsh in my rhetoric. The answer is that I am afraid of the silence. During the ten years that have passed since I became politically active, the tone has been raised on TV and here in the chamber, but the silence has also spread. It is silent from the government regarding the climate collapse that is occurring while the government blinks and discounts the emissions. Swedish forest policy is shoveling away values that cannot be replaced and is on its way to transforming the last real forests into clear-cuts, and we would prefer to speak silently about how our seas are warming up faster and faster and that we will soon no longer be able to fish in the Baltic Sea. It is silent about those who are starving to death in Somalia as a result of climate change – silent so that the government can comfortably cut aid and leave them to their fate. It is also silent about the children in our suburbs who struggle every day with an underfunded school and an adult world that has given up.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party will not make the government's betrayal easy by turning a blind eye. We will never stand behind a narrative that tries to deceive the Swedish people into believing that the climate threat can be solved in the future, or accept a narrative about Sweden where children are described as a problem.

Madam Speaker! Now is not the time for silence. Now is the time for resistance and struggle. Now is the time to face the climate collapse and the widespread racism. Miljöpartiet will not be silent.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is starting to get empty in the chamber. There are more people in the gallery than members of parliament in the benches. One wonders what everyone is doing. But it is full speed ahead, I suppose.

Madam Speaker! Tomorrow it is 20 years since Sweden held a referendum on which currency we should use in Sweden. It was a different time. The euro was new, and the skeptics were gloomy and effectively spread their concern. But 20 years later we have the result: The euro is holding up well. Upcoming elections should therefore become a euro election. Sweden would become stronger, safer, and more secure with a stable currency.

We know that the price of us standing outside the euro is significant. There has been a lot of talk about inflation. Yes, we are importing inflation right now. It is worse in Sweden than in other countries in Europe. A weak krona simply makes it more expensive to import goods for the industry and food for people to fill their refrigerators with. A weak krona has made it more expensive for many Swedes to travel abroad, and a weak krona hits our trade with important countries. The truth is that we - completely without intention, of course - are clearing out our country. Land, property, used cars and construction machinery are being unintentionally cleared out with our unnecessarily weak currency.

We all become poorer with a weak krona. Those who care about all the society builders who wake up every morning to go to work cannot reasonably accept this. We need to get a new investigation on the euro. We need to take this step and upgrade our membership and ensure that we sit at the table and not outside the room when Europe's economic future is decided.

All the parties in here who have not yet dared to reconsider their view on the euro can reflect on Nato, language requirements for citizenship and new, modern nuclear power. It will take you a while. But hurry up, because this is important for Sweden! Say yes to the euro!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! We are beginning to see the results after a year of SD cooperation: increased emissions, threats of withdrawn funding to civil society, purges in Agency Sweden, raised taxes, no increase of the breaking point and disclosure laws. The academy is in revolt against the liberal Minister of Education, and for influential positions in the Riksdag, liberals vote for Richard Jomshof, who spreads hatred against Muslims, and Björn Söder, who incites against homosexuals and thinks that Jews can never be Swedes.

I know what conclusion many liberal voters draw: that the party pushed through more liberal policies when it cooperated with the Social Democrats. What conclusion does Johan Pehrson draw?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals draw the same conclusion as before the summer when we had exactly the same debate. Magdalena Andersson may have certain merits. Magdalena Andersson has an ability to make difficult decisions now and then. But Magdalena Andersson sits in a green-red left-wing quagmire where one sinks deeper and deeper and cannot tackle the major societal problems that have been created in Sweden and which we have now inherited. It is about a functioning energy policy for companies, people, and the climate. It is about ensuring that we have a school that focuses on knowledge and where efforts are made early on. It is about doing something real for the future of the friskolor. It is about combating crime and having a migration that works with an integration. In all these areas, Magdalena Andersson stands helpless and is responsible for eight years. We should have done better when we worked together.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Does Johan Pehrson mean the functioning energy policy that is currently an open brawl and withdrawn press releases?

I know that Johan Pehrson neither loves me, Mikael Damberg, nor Lena Hallengren. But that he chooses Jimmie Åkesson, Björn Söder, and Richard Jomshof over us, his voters seem to have difficulty understanding. It is not so strange because Sweden is now becoming a less liberal country. Red line after red line that Johan Pehrson has set up has been crossed. Now there seems to be only one red line left: that regardless of hate speech against groups, hate speech against individuals, hate speech against Muslims and hate speech against homosexuals, as well as conspiracy theories about population exchange, the Liberals will always back the Sverigedemokraterna. There is something to what Jimmie Åkesson has said. It is difficult to understand why anyone at all votes for the Liberals.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! After pride comes a fall. It is about perseverance, determination, and focus on reforming what is so important for Sweden and for ordinary people. Magdalena Andersson cannot have forgotten that there was an election in Sweden. She cannot have forgotten that the Swedish people felt it was time for Magdalena Andersson to sit on the bench for a while and develop new politics and come up with some of her own ideas. It echoes empty. It is so quiet that you can hear a pin drop. Nothing is happening. But instead, one can point out deficiencies.

It is no secret that Jimmie Åkesson and I have completely different ideological backgrounds and disagree on a multitude of issues. But we can be united in making reforms that are necessary to get this country back on its feet. That does not mean that we have adopted each other's political ideologies; that will never happen. But Sweden deserves a cooperation based on parliamentary realities. Magdalena Andersson must understand that this also applies to her.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jimmie Åkesson (SD) agreed.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's economy is not doing well. Thea Konjunkturinstitutet predicts that our economy will develop the worst in the entire EU. Unemployment is expected to rise and growth to decline. Against this background, there is an enormous need for everything that makes it easier to transition in the middle of one's professional life. Companies' competence supply is based on more people being able to change career paths during their careers. In that case, the support and the education must be there.

Centerpartiet has pushed for a faster expansion at all levels, not least regarding the transition study support. With the application pressure for the transition study support, CSN has requested an extra 250 million to manage the processing. Despite this, they do not receive enough money.

The question to Johan Pehrson and the government is therefore: Why is the rug being pulled out from under one of the absolutely most important labor market reforms we have?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Few things are more important than lifelong learning, and it is therefore all the more gratifying that we have now moved from an enormous amount of talk about this in this chamber - and I have been here for a while - to the fact that it is now being implemented. It is absolutely correct.

Now we are providing this enormous opportunity for transition study support in the middle of life so that adults can take a new step. One may have had to quit a factory where the technology has outpaced them - perhaps it is the green transition that has come in - and so one must change jobs and get a new career. Then this tool exists, and it is fantastic. But of course, it takes time. When this was implemented, it was said that it will take until 2026.

We are doing everything we can now to push more resources to CSN, which will examine this. It takes time before one has a functioning practice and is clear about which courses can actually be approved. We cannot, of course, approve people educating themselves in things that previously fell under the free period and which could largely be about learning to peel pineapples.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I value no job more than any other. All jobs are important. But of 23,000 people who applied for the transition study support last year, only 3,000 have received a notification and only 800 have been granted support. Eight out of ten do not even manage to have their applications processed in time. We must be in complete agreement that this is unacceptable.

Thousands of people risk having to wait for a decision, even next year. The trade union central organizations are critical and say it as it actually is: The Government is not fulfilling its part of the main agreement that we agreed upon. The political commitment was clear, and now that part is not being fulfilled.

The government and Johan Pehrson say they are committing, but the fact remains: the money is not enough. Therefore, I ask again: Why is the government not providing the sums that are needed? What is being issued now is completely insufficient. Why are the resources that are needed not being provided, and why is a reform as fine as the transition study support being dismantled?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals are not only investing in the transition study support. Muharrem Demirok thinks that one just goes to CSN, educates people, lines people up and says that now all these things are to be completed.

It is required that a practice is established. It was clear when the parties did this. This government has very close contacts with the parties to ensure that this becomes good. For the parties take responsibility for Sweden, they do too. They do not want courses that are not included in the target vision. This shall be good for the individual and shall also lead to things that are partially good for Sweden. There they are clear.

We are investing in vocational education. We are investing in vocational adult education and we are investing in the university college. The Center Party was involved in pushing forward the university college, this enormously important activity, to ensure that people acquire real and important professions and can become self-sufficient. Children get to see that their parents go to work and can build Sweden together. We are doing all this now. I am glad that the Center Party stands so strongly behind the idea that one should be able to pursue further education throughout life.

The party debate was hereby concluded.

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