Party debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just now, a divided left-wing opposition tried to remove Sweden's Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari. But the vote showed the opposite—that she has the confidence of the Riksdag as she reshapes Swedish climate policy. Romina Pourmokhtari is a skilled and well-prepared minister. I am proud that it is she who represents Sweden at the major international climate conferences and that she is the first climate minister ever to have a credible plan for how Sweden will reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest.

Instead of making political theater out of one of our time's most important issues, the divided left-wing alternative should engage in self-reflection. Why did they shut down fully functioning nuclear power when the need for more fossil-free electricity is so acute? Why did they put all their effort into Europe's highest reduction obligation? And why did they never succeed in presenting a plan of their own to reach all the way to zero emissions? Do your homework now, is my message. Listen to the business community, which sees new nuclear power as a necessary part of the climate transition. Be part of the solution; do not be part of the problem!

Party debate

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! We are now leaving a dark year behind us. The number of explosions was the highest ever. A record number of outsiders were killed in gang violence. Safety has become our time's great freedom issue. But the problems have worsened over a decade, and they take time to solve. Even 2024 will be a testing year.

We live in the shadow of a war in Europe. The Ukrainian people are not only fighting for their own freedom; they are also fighting for ours. The price that Sweden, the EU, and the USA pay in the form of continued military and economic support is nothing compared to the price that Ukraine pays for its independence.

The tough economic situation is pressing households and welfare. Inflation also hits healthcare. Let me therefore emphasize: Sweden shall have a welfare to rely on. The government sees the worsened economic situation, especially in the country's regions. The main responsibility for welfare lies with municipalities and regions, and they take it. They shall shoulder their part of the task and should consider, within the applicable regulatory framework, using previous surpluses and prioritizing core activities over peripheral activities. But the state shall also, of course, do its part, and we have the readiness to do more. We will not betray the Swedish welfare.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Let me also point out some of this year's highlights. When the government took office, inflation was in double digits. Now it is on its way down. The victory is not won, but it is evident that our economic policy is now yielding results.

At the turn of the year, we lowered the tax for all wage earners and pensioners, as well as the sky-high reduction obligation. This means a long-awaited relief for many families in total.

Another reason for hope is all the reforms that are now becoming a reality. In 2022, we received the mandate. In 2023, we laid the foundation for change. In 2024, we begin to implement the paradigm shift, step by step.

The government's plan against serious crime follows the calendar. In January, we double the penalties for serious weapons and explosives offenses. In February, the police and prosecutors are granted the right to use stay bans. In March, we introduce visitation zones. In April, we strengthen the protection for many police officers who work against criminal networks. In May, we make it easier to evict criminal tenants who create insecurity in their areas. In June, we increase the possibility of confiscating criminal profits – to take luxury watches and cars from gang criminals. In July, we introduce preventive secret room surveillance and house searches.

Mr. Speaker! We are reducing immigration to Sweden. We have already tightened the requirements for family immigration, tightened the rules for residence permits, and reduced the number of quota refugees. In January, the police received new tools to also combat the shadow society.

We are upgrading the Swedish defense in a dangerous time. The Armed Forces receive an additional 27 billion kronor this year alone. We reach NATO's goal of 2 percent of GDP. We are upgrading civil defense. And this Friday, the Swedish civil obligation is reactivated.

We are strengthening the Swedish electricity supply. Step by step, we are laying the foundation for a new, historic expansion of nuclear power in our country.

Mr. Speaker! It will require hard work to get Sweden in order. That is why we have a high tempo in this government. The risk is not that the government goes too far or does too much. The risk in Sweden is almost always that it takes too long. Therefore, both impatience and perseverance are needed now, just as this government has.

During 2024, the government will be submitting sharp proposals to this Riksdag at a high pace. Let me therefore address you in the opposition - to those of you who also want to get Sweden in order, who want a powerful offensive against serious crime, who want to see more nuclear power to manage the climate transition and less immigration to manage integration. You who want that, jump on the train!

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg, Johanna Rantsi and Oliver Rosengren (all M) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! As we gather this January 2024, our country faces a world in turmoil. There is war in Ukraine, war between Israel and Hamas, increased tensions in the Red Sea, shootings, explosions, and gang crime here at home in Sweden, and a climate crisis that is worsening. In addition, we see an increasingly pressured economy for households and brutal cuts in schools and healthcare. Yes, the crises are piling up, and many feel anxiety—towards the new year and towards the future.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is fundamentally a strong country. The Swedish people have faced uncertain times before, and we have made it through economic crises and pandemics and fought back against insecurity and forces that want to divide our country. We have done this through cohesion and by meeting what challenges us, whether it is a crashed labor market, a virus, or terrorists, as a country, as a society, as a nation. This requires clear and upright leadership from politics and action and the ability to prioritize what is important: that politics is directed toward what is best for Sweden and for the Swedish people.

Mr. Speaker! The most important issue for Sweden's security right now is that our Nato application is completed. Now is the time for Turkey and Hungary to ratify the application submitted by my government, as Sweden meets Nato's requirements and the commitments we have made during the process - the commitments that ensured we were granted status as invited and that 28 countries could ratify us record-fast.

It is regrettable that we are forced to conclude that the largest party in the government's support has not been a constructive force in this process, but has time and again put its own party interests before the security of the Swedish people. But let spring 2024 be the spring when we finally become full members of Nato.

Mr. Speaker! We must also strengthen our own defense capability. Our goal is that Sweden shall have a strong people's defense, a total defense of the Swedish people and for the Swedish people. For us Social Democrats, it is a self-evident matter that we shall all be prepared to step up and defend our country. That was why we reintroduced the conscription that the alliance government abolished. Our military capacity must be strengthened, and there is broad agreement on this in this chamber. But even the civil defense must be reinforced. That is also what the government says, but they act to the contrary.

Let me focus particularly on three areas, Mr. Speaker.

Firstly, we have healthcare. It is one of the most crucial societal functions for preparing Sweden for a crisis, and it is a fundamental part of the resilience that simply must function. This was made clear, not least during the pandemic. But unfortunately, we see devastating consequences of the government's priorities. Despite warning after warning, including from Sweden's regions, the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have refused to provide the resources required, and now the situation is acute. Many are raising taxes and fees, but at the same time, one is forced into cuts.

This is not about individual politicians or individual decisions, but 17 of 21 regions in our country state that they are forced to cut back on healthcare. And what does this mean? Well, laid-off staff, less availability, lower patient safety, and a worse working environment for the staff who are already struggling. If healthcare is not given the resources required to fulfill its task in peacetime, how will it go if there is a crisis or, even worse, war?

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we have that which binds our elongated country together, namely functioning roads and railways and the transport of people, goods, and military materiel. The Armed Forces express that there are critical needs for investments in the railway and that it must be upgraded ahead of our NATO membership. I agree, for if our infrastructure does not function now in snowstorms, how will it fare in the event of a real crisis?

Unfortunately, we also see devastating consequences of the Sweden Democrats' and the government's priorities in this area. One of the government's first decisions was to stop planned investments in the railway and to drastically cut back on railway maintenance, all in order to be able to lower the tax for Sweden's high-income earners.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we have the climate crisis, with this summer's flooding of roads, devastating forest fires, and natural disasters that hit our communities hard and put severe pressure on our crisis preparedness. In the future, it risks becoming significantly worse. We and the world need to act.

That the government and the Sweden Democrats are slaughtering the environmental and climate policy in this situation, despite the fact that seven of eight parties stand behind the Swedish climate goals and that the voters were promised that they would continue to follow them, to increase emissions while simultaneously cutting back on climate adaptation and making us more dependent on dictators' oil, and to present a climate plan that cannot be described as anything other than one big breach of promise is the opposite of taking the crisis seriously. The right is about to make the same mistake here as was made with the defense policy in the 2000s.

Mr. Speaker! There is another way to go, where we allocate the resources required in healthcare, where we invest in roads and railways and where we treat the climate crisis as the threat to national security that it ultimately is - a way where we prioritize the safety and security of the Swedish people and call for unity and community, not division, with a rock-solid security in that here in Sweden we hold together, not least in the face of threats of crisis or war.

So that is how you build resilience. That is how you strengthen the will to defend - exactly that which Sweden so fervently needs in insecure times.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden in January 2024 is a country that is in the process of replacing a harmful, terrible social democratic policy with something that is much better. What is happening right now in Sweden is a counter-proof of the mantra that the Social Democrats' various governments have for decades built much of their political defense on, namely "It is not possible."

It is certainly possible. It is possible to conduct a responsible policy with the best interests of Sweden and the Swedish people in mind. It is possible to ensure, in a relatively short time, that people in this country do not have to pay for the world's most expensive diesel. It is possible to ensure that criminals actually receive punishments worthy of the name. It is possible to carefully and focusedly put the pieces of the puzzle in the right place again when it comes to the totally wrecked and irresponsible immigration policy. And it is possible to send a firm message to all kinds of extremists and other types of imported criminals. The message is: You may have been welcomed with open arms by both Social Democrats and Reinfeldt-era Moderates. But that was then, and now is now. You are not welcome in our Sweden. Period.

(Applause)

All this is possible if one simply wants to, Mr. Speaker. Sweden is now the country that finally, after a long, unnecessary and very destructive wait, does what virtually all other comparable countries, at least in our part of the world, have done for a long time. Now we put our own citizens first, we stand guard over security and we react and act resolutely against all who threaten it. It will take time.

I can say here and now that I am proud - proud that honestly working people all over Sweden now fuel their cars cheaper, proud that criminals can look forward to longer sentences, proud that crime victims are finally put first and given redress, and proud that Islamists and other extremists are receiving increasingly clear messages that their presence is not welcome in our country.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, but, to quote a former Social Democratic party leader: I am not satisfied. We are at the beginning of a task and a healing process that will continue for years, perhaps even decades. Everyone knows how Sweden has ended up in the state we find ourselves in now. Everyone who can add one plus one and who has followed Swedish politics over the last decades understands this. Everyone with the slightest degree of observational ability knows this, everyone except—it seems—the Social Democrats.

The Social Democrats' speech about that my Europe builds no walls and that it is indecent to talk about volumes in migration has now suddenly become: We have indeed always stood up for a strict immigration policy.

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not remember ever, during my political career over the last nearly 30 years, hearing a single Social Democrat call for a stricter immigration policy, even though the Social Democrats now claim that they have always done so.

Who, in that case, were it that snarled, gaped, and shouted ugly words at everyone who tried to do something else and who tried to disagree? I can tell you. It was the Social Democrats. I know it, because I was there. It was me whom you called ugly words instead of debating as adult, intellectually capable people. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats year after year, also in this speaker's chair and from the Government Offices, have disparaged and spread defamatory images and lies about everyone who has warned against mass immigration and multiculturalism. Now it seems that they themselves have completely forgotten how they have acted.

Mr. Speaker! My question, which is primarily addressed to Magdalena Andersson, is: Are you not ashamed of this total shamelessness? You should be.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jonas Andersson, Sara-Lena Bjälkö, Yasmine Eriksson, Rashid Farivar, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Jörgen Grubb, David Lång, Thomas Morell, David Perez, Charlotte Quensel, Patrick Reslow, Eric Westroth and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We could have taken another path for Sweden, where we implement reforms that lower food prices and increase competition in the food market. Then we would have recognized the prices of tomatoes, oil, and milk. It is a policy that taxes the banks, which this year intend to make outrageous dividends of 90 billion kronor, while many families empty their savings accounts. We could have increased the child allowance and the sickness benefit, taken control of the Swedish electricity market and lowered the electricity price.

We could have expanded our fantastic healthcare, shortened the queues and ensured that general practitioners have more time for the patients. We would not have needed to have emergency rooms that are over-crowded with worried and sick people. We could have expanded the ambulance care which would have given security to 10 million Swedes. It would give the message: We are protected, we can handle a larger crisis and even war.

But this is not what the Sweden Democrats and this government want. They are now forcing through enormous cuts in Swedish healthcare.

In Sörmland, 700 people are being laid off. It is such an extreme understaffing that the unit managers at the emergency department at Kullbergska sjukhuset have resigned from their occupational environment responsibilities. In Östergötland, Angelica Staff of the District Doctors Association sees a risk of collapse of primary care.

And so we have Sahlgrenska University Hospital, which since the 1700s has taken care of the people of Gothenburg and everyone in the Gothenburg area - the heart of the region. I will not downplay that it means a lot to me as someone who ran in the corridors of the hospital as a little girl visiting my mother, and I know exactly how much the hospital means. Now, more than one in ten people will disappear from the hospital - 2,000 people. "It is a healthcare massacre. Irreplaceable top competence will disappear." This is what the chair of the medical association at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Hanna Kataoka, says. They plan to shut down entire care departments. Patient safety will not be able to be guaranteed. This Ivo has already established in his national hospital supervision.

Mr. Speaker! This is incomprehensible, uneconomical and immoral. One cannot bring down a temporary wave of inflation by breaking down Swedish healthcare. It harms us in a way that is very difficult to repair.

Bring down inflation for real instead! Implement our proposals on lowered food prices, Swedish prices on electricity and increased competition on the banking market! Healthcare slaughter will affect inflation very little. But for those of us who live in Sweden, it is completely existential.

Emil Skoglund, ambulance nurse, comments on the cuts in healthcare in the following way: "I honestly do not think the public understands how serious it is, here and now, without war." When your child is having a seizure, there is no ambulance available, and when your mother has a heart attack, there is no place in the cardiac intensive care unit.

The government and the Sweden Democrats are using the current economic situation to tear down our healthcare. They are sacrificing the elderly, pregnant women, children, and the seriously ill. They are sacrificing our collective security to successively privatize healthcare and make it entirely dependent on one's own wallet. We all understand that this is the ultimate goal.

But of course, it is nothing that the government wants to talk about. Instead, Kristersson wants to initiate a debate on the passport's status as a travel document. Excuse me, but that is perhaps a conversation that Ulf Kristersson should have with Tobias Billström before the next trip.

(Applause)

But of course the media are writing columns about this debate. At the same time, the government and the Sweden Democrats are making large cuts to our welfare in the shadows without any major news reporting. The government and the Sweden Democrats are desperate to change the subject, and unfortunately, the media are swallowing the bait.

I urge the Sweden Democrats and the government to rethink. Stop the madness! Stop the cuts in healthcare!

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Civil defense is not a seminar exercise. Civil Defense Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin's message the other day was crystal clear. It was also completely correct and right. Because it is serious, and it has been for a long time. We all need to act based on a reality that places new demands on us.

But even if we as individuals are to do our part, and even if municipal councilors, heads of agencies and business leaders are to do what they can, the government still bears the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the state leads the way and shows the path. Therefore, it is also regrettable that Carl-Oskar Bohlin's message has not reached his colleagues or his boss. For when one listens to the government, it is obvious that one does not understand the gravity of the situation.

When we need to make the whole society stronger, increase cohesion and resilience, build companies and welfare stronger, and when we also must brake the climate crisis, then the Tidö Government does exactly the opposite. Then, one continues to set people against people and to reinforce exclusion instead of reducing it. Then the message is still that we should wait and see, when every day we see how the welfare that has built our country strong is now being destroyed. When two out of three municipalities are forced to save, and when 18 of 21 regions run with deficits, then it is in the schools and in the healthcare wards that the layoffs will come.

Then this government continues to pursue a climate policy that increases emissions and destroys years of successful climate work. Then one blames the Center Party for being unserious when we demand that the responsible minister do what the government has promised and what reality requires of us. Then one barks, when one should instead be ashamed.

A good preparedness rests on a society that holds together and functions every day, on the fact that resilience and the power of opportunity are taken equally seriously – for it is only when each of us moves forward that the whole country moves forward.

For the Center Party, it is completely clear that welfare needs more money here and now, that we should have more, not fewer, teachers in schools, more nurses and emergency rooms and not fewer – because we do not betray welfare.

For the Center Party, it is clear that Sweden should have the world's most offensive climate policy, that emissions must be reduced and the green transition forward - because we do not fail the climate.

For the Center Party, it is obvious to give companies better conditions, because stronger companies and more jobs increase both tax revenues, security, and faith in the future – because we do not fail entrepreneurs.

It is equally self-evident that you should be able to live your best life wherever you live in Sweden, that farmers' conditions improve, that potholes are filled and roads are plowed so that both home care staff, home guard members and parents picking up small children can get where they need to go – for we never fail the countryside.

Every Swedish politician now faces a choice. Will one continue to amplify the smallest contradictions and deliberately misunderstand their opponents and continue to compete over who was most wrong ten years ago? Or is one prepared to rise above this and do what is required to strengthen the country for which we collectively bear a responsibility?

I and the Center Party choose the latter. We do everything we can to equip our country and those of us who live here to be stronger for the future, regardless of how bright or dark it is. We know that it is what the Swedish people expect of us all, regardless of how one voted in the last election - because we never betray Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a stronger sense of community and a stronger social construction. The Swedish state needs to take a much more active role and become more of a catalyst for the business sector's growth engine. We must realize that if Sweden cannot or should not compete with cheap labor or massive state subsidies, we must compete by being a country where welfare and infrastructure function. Therefore, we in the Kristdemokrater are prepared to review the surplus target and are open to loan financing. Here, we would like to see as broad a support as possible.

Mr. Speaker! We have looked at, among other things, the Long-term Investigation's proposal and see that it can free up quite a lot of money. We could, for example, go with a 0.5 percent deficit and then free up a corresponding 50 billion kronor per year. This deficit could be higher some year, lower some year, but if we do not dare to reconsider the surplus target, Sweden will see itself overtaken by other countries.

Sweden simply cannot afford to abstain. We cannot afford to be without functioning roads and railways. We cannot afford to let municipalities be forced to say no to industrial establishments, just such as those that could provide those new jobs and new tax revenues, one time because of a lack of power and another time because the municipality lacks the money to build that new school or health center to be able to match the needs that follow with the establishment.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats emphasize the importance of values for community but also for a strong social construction. In these dark and restless times, there truly needs to be a realistic plan for a brighter future. And to reach there, we need to invest heavily in Sweden. We need to equip Sweden's infrastructure, and we also need to upgrade our defense.

The latter is something many agree on. The need that prompts investments in defense is apparently more sensitive to articulate, but it is a fact that Russia is now an aggressive and active warring state.

Mr. Speaker! War scares. It is fully understandable. I have myself heard it in stories from my own upbringing, when I heard my Norwegian grandmother Ebba tell about how her life was changed by World War II, how they were shot at, and about my grandfather who became a resistance fighter when the Nazis occupied Norway.

We have people who still remember when the Nordic region was a war zone. In addition, there are many who have made Sweden their home in recent years because they have been forced to flee from war and persecution. These are people who have witnessed the horrors of war.

Mr. Speaker and dear members of Parliament! I share this country with you. Ours is the trust and the task to safeguard Mother Svea. It requires bold, tricky, and difficult debate, a tough and accountability-demanding one regarding tax rates, structurally correct labor market reforms, and the organization of healthcare. But when war rages in our vicinity, when it could also become war in Sweden, then something else is expected of us. When storm and dark waters are a fact, we need to build a bridge that takes us there where our country can find peace.

Some of the people I feel the greatest sense of kinship with are, on paper, most different from me. We do not share faith, political affiliation or background, but we share certain universal values. That makes us rise above ideological boundaries and see beyond the barriers that turn other people into a "them". Instead, we see a "we".

We share the understanding that it is we who are Sweden, and when this "we" is threatened by forces that challenge our fundamental ideas about human dignity, equality, freedom and the future, it is you I want to stand with at the front.

Dear Swedes! We share this country in success and in adversity, in good times and in difficult times, with all its flaws and all its strengths. Sweden is worth defending with weapons, food stores, wood stoves, sewing kits, and first aid courses. So we can all arm Sweden strongly - together!

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag has today voted on its confidence in the Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari. Miljöpartiet chose to move a motion of no confidence because the government, since taking office, has taken extensive steps towards dismantling the climate and environmental policy that has been built up over several decades.

The Minister has a duty to follow Swedish law. The Climate Act states that the government shall pursue a policy aimed at reducing emissions. Based on the recent years, one can say nothing other than that it has gone completely in the wrong direction. It is irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker! Climate policy does not exist for no reason. Neither does the Climate Act. Ultimately, climate policy is about protecting the population and future generations from serious risks. It is about the life we live here and now being put at stake.

During the past year, we have seen a dismantling of Swedish climate policy. Never before has a government's climate policy met such compact resistance. Researchers, environmental organizations, and the government's own agencies and expert councils have all agreed in a scathing criticism of the government's climate policy, and this on good grounds. Emissions are increasing sharply for the first time in two decades as a result of political decisions.

The sitting government has rejected it with reference to the upcoming climate action plan, but what a disappointment it was when it arrived. The government has presented a plan that delays the climate transition and which thereby means that one fails with it. One pushes the responsibility for the climate transition ahead of oneself. The consequences and the bill are sent to ordinary Swedes and to Swedish companies.

I wish that I could stand here today and speak of a bright future and of a pioneering spirit that unites us and, with common goals, takes us towards a time that is sustainable and resilient, where we have cast off the fossil yoke, but I cannot.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a restless time. War, conflicts and climate change are shaking up large parts of the world and putting lives, societies and freedom at stake. The world we face today is not the same as it was a few years ago, and the world we will have in a few years will not be the same as the one we have today.

Peace and freedom can never be taken for granted. We who live in peace and freedom must build a society that stands firm even if the worst were to happen.

Mr. Speaker! During the past weeks, the government has repeatedly fed out the message that war could come and that we must all stand ready to defend Sweden with weapons in hand. This is a rhetoric that has frightened many while simultaneously omitting the most important thing, namely that Sweden's resilience can never be reduced to a military defense. The most important defense is a robust society.

Resilience is built through a robustly expanded civil defense and society and by strengthening all parts of the long chain that works every day for our peace and freedom. Resilience is also built through a strong welfare state. If healthcare is to function in war and crises, it must also function in peacetime. It is not possible to force through savings in the regions and then expect that this will not affect the work of healthcare, not least the work to create preparedness in both war and during pandemics.

We do not build resilience by withdrawing support for peace organizations. All voices are needed in this time. Resilience is also not built by us reducing democracy assistance or by our authorities being deprived of the work with the goals in the UN's Agenda 2030.

Resilience is built through the green transition, renewable energy, domestic food production, and independence from fossil fuels. All these things are parts of a total defense that stands firm in a restless world.

Solidarity is also needed. Together we build Sweden's resilience.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag has spoken: Sweden's Minister for Climate and Environment will continue to be Romina Pourmokhtari. That is very good. It means that the support for a liberal and conservative climate policy is firm. The goal is to reach net-zero emissions as soon as it is possible. Without clean electricity, there will be no new power for either the electric car or the night train to Berlin.

In order for Sweden to achieve the goal, nuclear power is at least as important as solar, wind, and water. We listen to Swedish industry – the climate and prosperity need nuclear power. Sweden's leading companies also say that a broad consensus on this is needed, but such a consensus is unfortunately still lacking.

While the Liberals and the government pave the way for new reactors, the opposition can only agree on one issue - they say no to new nuclear power. Most recently, in the autumn, the red-greens voted against new reactors being allowed to be built in more locations in Sweden. But new reactors strengthen the preparedness and security for Sweden and alleviate households' future electricity bills. They are also crucial for the climate and ensure that we can hand over a living planet to our children and grandchildren.

In order for the decommissioning line not to reappear, you in the Social Democrats must take the tape off your mouths. You must stop opposing new nuclear power just because you are completely dependent on Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet. I urge everyone in this chamber to take responsibility for Sweden, the climate, and the future.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is the nation of education that awards the Nobel Prize in Literature. Sweden is also the nation of engineers that develops the green steel and batteries of the future. But, Mr. Speaker, how are we to maintain our knowledge economy if the children do not succeed in school?

After eight years with a red-green government, the latest PISA report shows that every fifth eighth-grader cannot count or read properly. This is enough to strike fear into my father's heart, and it is enough to strike fear in many others' hearts as well. How will these children manage? How will these young people be able to face the future? Without complete grades, one gets neither a graduation cap nor their first job, and in the worst case, one can end up in the gangs' machinery of death.

At the same time, alarms are being raised that the number of reports of threats and violence in schools has more than doubled in recent years. This is hardly space research - the rowdiness drives young people away from knowledge.

It must be a final cleanup now. With the Liberals in government, the school returns to the basics. This means peace and quiet in the classroom, school desks filled with real textbooks - not screens - and a complete renovation of the independent school system so that knowledge always comes first.

Mr. Speaker! The government's forecasts show that unemployment will rise. For the builders of our society who commute to work every morning, the wages are covering less and less. We need to meet this, partly with lower taxes for those who work, and partly with investments in more job training that lay the foundation for thousands of new truck drivers and battery technicians.

We know that the economic situation has created challenges in the common welfare. We hear how alarms are being raised about hiring freezes. We see that layoffs are occurring. We see that teachers who retire are not replaced, and we see that students who need extra help can be left without it.

If the local politicians cannot manage to prioritize the school, we must do it with a majority in the Swedish Riksdag. There are many worried mothers and fathers who expect us to put the school first, not least for the future. We can do that now when the tough inflation fight is actually starting to yield results.

We Liberals believe that the time is now ripe for greater investments in the future—in children's knowledge and in their future. Sweden needs to abandon the surplus goal in order to be able to reverse the so-called PISA collapse and fill holes in the welfare system. Sweden needs a school that returns to the basics, with resources for skilled teachers, proper textbooks, and safe classrooms. It is only in this way that we can guarantee that Sweden continues to award literature prizes and develop the green technology of the future. It is only in this way that we create security and freedom for new generations in our country.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The left-wing alternative usually claims that the business community does not want new nuclear power, but last week 14 heavy business leaders went on DN Debatt and underlined that new nuclear power is necessary to secure Swedish industry and Swedish prosperity. They understand that it is urgent. They want to move from words to action. They are even ready to be involved in paying for new nuclear power – that is how important it is. But they need long-term perspective and clarity from Swedish politics. And that is exactly what we will give them. We have a concrete plan for new nuclear power with a capacity corresponding to two large reactors by 2035 at the latest, and last week we presented a nuclear power coordinator who will ensure that every step in a complex process is taken at the right time.

But surely it would be a message of strength if the left-wing alternative also wanted to be part of this historical offensive and, just as in the Nato issue, show that when it matters we can agree and change course. It is urgent, with more predictable and fossil-free industry, and the business community wants to be able to make long-term investment decisions for both Swedish prosperity and the climate transition. Therefore, it would be good to have a clear statement, especially from the Social Democrats, already today. Do the Social Democrats intend to listen to the industry and stand behind the government's plan for new nuclear power? It is the only credible plan that has been presented so far. And above all, when will the business community receive the Social Democrats' answer?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We live in an uncertain world, and that Sweden is strongly armed is more important than it has been in a long time, and that vital societal functions work and receive the resources required so that the Swedish people can be secure that society is there when it is needed.

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson has prioritized lowering taxes for high-income earners, and in the absence of sufficient investments in the regions, Sweden faces a healthcare crisis. It is not about the decisions of individual regional politicians. No, 17 of the country's 21 regions state that cuts are looming. It is about layoffs and closures. Even Moderate regional politicians are deeply critical of the government's policy.

This policy of cuts to healthcare, Ulf Kristersson, in what way does it make Sweden more resilient in the event of a crisis or war?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! My answer is twofold. For the first, we are now undertaking a historic upgrade of the Swedish defense. We focus on civil defense, which has been underestimated in Swedish politics for decades. The fact that we have a special minister for civil defense suggests how seriously we take this. We join Nato. We went so far as to save the Social Democrats from their own government base in order to be able to join Nato. We do all this in a dangerous and difficult time. We speak plainly about where we find ourselves and do not gloss over the problems.

Secondly, inflation was double-digit when we inherited it from you. It was not just your fault, I want to emphasize. But double-digit inflation is bad for everyone, not least for welfare and not least for healthcare and the regions. Therefore, I point out exactly that. The regions take their responsibility, and they have done tough things before. But the government is prepared to take additional responsibility if needed, and we are following the issue extremely closely.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the regions take their responsibility. But does the government take responsibility when 13 billion is spent on lowering taxes for high-income earners while doctors, nurses, and nursing assistants are being laid off? Is that your picture of how one takes responsibility, Ulf Kristersson?

Yes, you have a Minister for Civil Defence, but what does it help when healthcare in Gävleborg saves 700 million and Östergötland reduces by 600 positions, Värmland by 750 employees and Sahlgrenska by a corresponding 2,000 positions? I believe the overall assessment is that over 5,000 doctors, nurses and nursing assistants will be laid off this year. Are there too many employees in Swedish healthcare, Ulf Kristersson? Is Sweden better prepared for crisis or war when so many people are laid off?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, high inflation is bad for everyone. It is bad for wage earners, the state, and the regions. It is bad for the economy. If one has learned anything from previous years with high inflation, it is that combating inflation is of primary importance. We inherited double-digit inflation, but now it is on its way down. We have created room to act in the Swedish economy. For us, it is fundamental.

The regions know that the state is providing its share of the responsibility. The single largest investment in the budget went to municipalities and regions, and as I just said, we are prepared to do more. The regions take great responsibility. They know that tough times require tough decisions. But they also expect the state to do its part, and the government is prepared to do more. We are following the developments very closely. Everyone is hit hard by inflation, not least the country's regions.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Get on the train, said Ulf Kristersson. But there are no trains running on time in this country, so that is perhaps something to take action on.

I know that the Prime Minister does not want to speak about this, but it is the Swedish people's most important issue. I know that Ulf Kristersson would prefer to speak about the status of the budget and so on, but I am going to ask the question anyway. The Government and the Sverigedemokraterna chose not to increase the state grants to the regions, which are responsible for healthcare, and now Sweden faces a healthcare crisis. 2,000 people are to be moved from Sahlgrenska Hospital. It is our largest hospital and enormously important for western Sweden. We see cut after cut in healthcare.

Is Ulf Kristersson satisfied with what is happening in Swedish healthcare? Is he satisfied that he did not increase the support for healthcare?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I just said, we included 16 billion kronor in the budget to contribute to municipalities and regions in a tough time. It was the single largest investment. Since then, things have worsened, especially in the regions, which I was clear about. The forecasts change over time. Municipalities and regions know that they bear a great responsibility. They want to take a great responsibility and lead their operations themselves. Many have experienced tough times before and understand that inflation is a major problem for everyone, not least for them. They also expect the state to contribute in different ways, with money and better regulations.

My view is that municipalities and regions are now doing everything they can to get through a difficult time. Some are using previously good results, and some refer to special circumstances in their budgets. But they also expect the state to contribute, and the state is prepared to contribute more. We are following the development very closely.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! If Ulf Kristersson has seen this, why doesn't the government provide more money so that the staff can be retained? No experts or forecasts, nor the Riksbank, as far as I know, argue that too many staff members at Sahlgrenska, Kullbergska, or other hospitals in Sweden is the reason for inflation. The government is also not tackling the high food prices, the high electricity prices, and other things, which they would gladly do. But the fact that 2,000 people are now disappearing from Sahlgrenska will not be solvable in a few weeks when inflation has gone down.

When will Ulf Kristersson present proposals that will stop 5,000 people from disappearing from healthcare? Otherwise, this will affect cancer patients, the seriously ill, pregnant women, and children. That is not what we want.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As Nooshi Dadgostar knows, we submitted a budget in September based on the information available at that time, and it entered into force 17 days ago, at the beginning of a new year. The Government will return if we judge that we need to do more as we see how it develops in the country's municipalities and regions. As I already said in my opening remarks, we are following this very closely. We see that above all the regions have it tougher now than before, and we see that many regions take a very large responsibility and use the regulatory frameworks that exist. This is fundamentally a shared responsibility, and the state intends to take its share of the responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have been told that one is not allowed to bring props into the speaker's chair. Otherwise, I would have brought a portion of freeze-dried food – one of the two and a half million portions of freeze-dried food that are currently being prepared in my home municipality, Linköping.

This is done so that one can meet the crisis in the best way if it comes. One builds up stocks of food and creates safety points for such as childcare and elderly care in the event of crisis times. Linköping is a municipality where Moderater and Socialdemokrater rule together. It is a municipality with a good economy; I know that because I was part of building up the good economy that is now being used. But the reality looks very different in other municipalities, even in Östergötland.

Based on this initiative and after having heard the Minister for Civil Defence so wisely point out that civil defence is not just a seminar exercise, I wonder: What is the government doing concretely right now so that every Swedish municipality can follow Linköping's initiative?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree that Linköping is a fine city. Much is good in Linköping - the university, Saab and much more.

We do a lot in this area, and as I said just a moment ago in another exchange, civil defense issues have been deeply underestimated for decades. It was as if these issues were not needed. It is a misconception. We learn some things from our Ukrainian friends' heroic struggle. One thing we learn is the importance of defending civil infrastructure and the importance of shelters. When you run down into the shelters from the Kyiv School of Economics with wifi, you realize that they are needed.

But there is also much else. We are reactivating the civil obligation. The Minister for Civil Defence has systematic discussions with regions and municipalities about them also having to think more about civil defence and preparations. This is a marathon; this is not a sprint. Rebuilding the Swedish civil defence capability will take time, but we do it systematically, and we do it ambitiously.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! After having listened to the Prime Minister in the previous exchanges, I cannot interpret it in any other way than that regions and municipalities shall bear this themselves.

Welfare is being eroded, and the civil defense, which is to be built up, costs money. Teachers, nurses, doctors, firefighters, home care staff – thousands of people are being laid off right now. These are men and women who form the backbone of the civil preparedness. Two out of three municipalities must save this year. They do not have the conditions to do what Linköping and some other municipalities do. But still, the government is not injecting enough money.

We are following the situation closely, I have heard the Prime Minister say. But this is no news, as municipalities and regions have for a long time signaled that they are in desperate need of more resources. Still, the government is not providing enough money.

Exactly how does the Prime Minister mean that the municipalities and regions should be able to take greater responsibility without the necessary money? And how is civil defense to be anything other than a seminar exercise if they are not given the necessary resources?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have just described what we are doing regarding civil defense, including that it will take time to rebuild what has been neglected for decades.

Then I didn't quite understand what is meant by that "they shall bear this themselves." I have just said in three exchanges that we have a shared responsibility. I explicitly said that municipalities and regions bear and take a great responsibility for their municipalities and regions, which they also want to do. That is certainly known by those of us who ourselves have been municipal councilors. But I also explicitly said that the state shall bear our share of the responsibility.

What it is about now is to get out of a situation with high inflation. It is incredibly important. Municipalities and regions have different circumstances. Some, but not all, can use accumulated surpluses. Some, but not all, refer to very specific special reasons due to the high inflation.

The state shall also contribute with its part. There are more occasions during the year where we can step in and make contributions. Everyone who takes responsibility follows the developments very closely. So does the government.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has been almost two years since Russia invaded Ukraine. It is a ruthless war that Putin finances with Europe's dependence on imports of Russian gas and energy.

Despite this, it took additional time before the Riksdag rallied behind the Miljöpartiets demand to stop all fossil imports from Russia. This was in May 2022. We stand here now in January 2024, and this weekend another large ship fully loaded with Russian fossil gas arrived at Nynäshamn. That we continue with this import is not only in conflict with what the Swedish people expect; it is also something completely different from what the Moderaterna said during the election campaign.

Madam Speaker! Swedish money continues to finance Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. How does the Prime Minister intend to comply with the Riksdag's demands to immediately stop the import of Russian oil and gas?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first welcome Daniel Helldén to the circle of party leaders. I look forward very much to both the conversations and the debates in the coming years.

The big thing that has happened regarding energy after Russia's terrible invasion - and perhaps the only good thing, if one is to look for something good in this - is a dramatic shift in European energy supply away from Russian fossil gas and oil. It is no small matter. For bad reasons, the transition away from fossil Russia to other things was accelerated. It is far from perfect, but it is still an important thing.

For Sweden's part, we follow exactly this. Sweden is a very small user of Russian gas and oil, but we naturally follow the sanctions that exist. We also do everything we can to transition away from the fossil. If Miljöpartiet had been involved in building new nuclear power, we could have moved away from all fossil faster. That is the goal for this government. Hop on the train!

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Nuclear power will not do the trick. It will take too long, it will be too expensive, and it will hinder the transition.

When we talk about Ukraine, it matters what Sweden does as an individual country. During only the first nine months of the war, at least eight large oil tankers had delivered Russian fossil gas to Sweden. The deliveries have an estimated value of approximately 1 billion kronor. I think it is a minimum requirement not to finance Russia's warfare by purchasing this gas.

Finland is heading towards a ban, and I wonder why Sweden's government is not acting in the same way in solidarity with Ukraine.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is about two things. For the first: We have been very careful to be involved in creating the sanctions and in being involved in expanding them. For the second: Let us stick to the sanctions that we have agreed upon! It is important. Then everyone knows that everything we can do in renewables and in nuclear power will reduce our needs for fossil energy, not least of oil.

If things take time, and if things are important, it requires drive in the step. One must be in a hurry when it takes time. It takes time to rebuild the Swedish military defense. That is why we have drive in the step. It takes time to rebuild the Swedish civil defense. That is why we have drive in the step. And it takes time to build new Swedish nuclear power. That is why we have drive in the step and make the decisions. Again: Jump on the train!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! The economic crisis is hitting Sweden hard. Since Kristersson and Åkesson took power, Sweden and the Swedish people have become poorer, despite the high tone before the election. We are one of the countries with the lowest growth in the EU. We see more bankruptcies and warnings. Inflation has been higher than in our Nordic neighboring countries. Ten years of real wage increases have been erased.

Madam Speaker! Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson are doing far from enough to support Swedish households that are now struggling to make their everyday finances work. Broken promises have been followed by broken promises. Those with the highest salaries have been prioritized over ordinary people.

We see the results. Alarms are being raised about longer queues at the churches' help centers. The Swedish people's debts to the Enforcement Authority have reached record levels. Single parents are forced to borrow money to afford food. The number of families with children being evicted from their homes is the highest since the last time Ulf Kristersson sat in the government.

Now comes the next killing blow: At the same time as the banks make payouts of 90 billion kronor, 375,000 pensioners receive a reduced premium pension.

Madam Speaker! There is another way forward for our country, a way that involves us sticking together in tough times - with increased child allowances, increased student grants, maintenance support and fair tax cuts, financed by a bank tax on precisely those banks that are now making record profits on our mortgages and our savings accounts.

Our path is simply that one prioritizes ordinary Swedes over high-income earners and the bank directors' bonuses, because it builds faith in the future, trust, security, and ultimately the community that has built our country so strongly.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Many of us have noted how the Social Democrats over the past year have made quite large efforts to rewrite history. First, it was the deeply harmful energy policy that was everyone else's fault, even though the Social Democrats held government power in 22 of the last 30 years. Now, it is the immigration failure that is everyone else's fault. The Social Democrats have always, it is claimed now, stood for a strict immigration policy - this despite Stefan Löfven's "My Europe does not build walls", this despite over 2.5 million residence permits during the last 30 years, of which the Social Democrats have, therefore, governed in 22.

Madam Speaker! Then my simple question to Magdalena Andersson is: Do the Social Democrats have no shame at all in their bodies?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! If Jimmie Åkesson wants to talk about Sweden's historical migration policy, I actually think he is turning to the wrong person. It is no secret that I myself was a driving force in the major paradigm shift that was carried out in 2015, when we implemented the largest tightening of Swedish migration policy ever. Jimmie Åkesson should turn to his friends instead – to the Christian Democrats and Liberals who year after year here in Sweden's Riksdag have pushed for more liberal migration legislation, or to his own Prime Minister who, during a large part of his political life, has pushed for completely free immigration and called Social Democratic migration policy "bad Social Democratic immigration and refugee policy" because it had been too strict.

The tightening we implemented in 2015 shall remain in place. Now we shall focus on ensuring that those who have the right to stay in Sweden get a job and become a part of our society. The Social Democratic Party's line is clear: strict migration, yes, but racism, no.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Magdalena Andersson is right that it is not only the Social Democrats' fault. All governments in this country over the last 30 years, or even further back than that, are responsible for the failure. But now it is Magdalena Andersson who stands at the rostrum and whom I am replying to, and then it is reasonably also she who should answer the questions I pose.

Magdalena Andersson can be completely assured that I also raise these matters with my "friends," with other parties, and not least with the government. The difference between Magdalena Andersson and, for example, the Prime Minister is that the Prime Minister has publicly distanced himself from the previous policy and even apologized to the Swedish people for the mistakes he has committed. What Magdalena Andersson is doing now is precisely the opposite. She takes no responsibility for anything. She blames everyone else. She even blames me for the fact that Sweden has experienced this immigration failure. It is totally shameless, Madam Speaker.

I think that Magdalena Andersson should take responsibility for what she and her party themselves are responsible for.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that it is the parties that Jimmie Åkesson cooperates with, and more specifically his own Prime Minister, who have pushed for us to have more immigrants in Sweden and who also implemented the most liberal policy for labor migration in the entire Western world. In that regard, it is good if we now proceed with some of the proposals that we developed during the time when I was Prime Minister.

Let me clarify once again that we Social Democrats implemented the largest reorganization of Swedish migration policy ever in the paradigm shift that occurred in 2015. We continue to stand behind that policy, and that policy will remain in place with the Social Democrats.

But seriously, Jimmie Åkesson: We can certainly talk about what parties have done during the last 30 years, but is it to the Sverigedemokraternas advantage?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! There is a bad tradition in Swedish politics of sweeping problems under the rug and then apologizing afterwards for having been naive or not seeing it coming, or in the worst case, shifting the blame. A good example of this is when the Social Democrats try to rewrite their own history in migration policy.

The new government does not work in that way. We speak plainly about the problems – about immigration, about energy, about defense, about the risk of war and about the possibilities for peace. Then we gather majorities, make decisions, and get something done in Swedish politics.

I believe that cohesion and trust are built when the state shows that it can manage its most fundamental tasks and when everyone understands both their rights and their obligations in a country - the social contract. That is when we succeed best.

The question that remains is: Why do the Social Democrats believe that the old policy that has brought us here could solve problems if a new Social Democratic government took over?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's very big problem is that we have had a right-wing majority in the Swedish Riksdag since 2006. We see the consequences, not only of the alliance government and right-wing government that Ulf Kristersson sat in previously but also of the limitations that existed during the years when we Social Democrats led the country. We wanted to move the positions forward and increase tax revenues from those with the highest incomes, but Ulf Kristersson blocked this with threats of no-confidence motions if we even moved forward with extremely modest proposals that the richest could contribute a little more to better school and education for all the children and young people sitting here in the stands today. This was something you were completely against, Ulf Kristersson.

If we are to build a different Sweden, a completely different policy is needed where society steps forward. It is not further market liberalizations, further privatizations, and further tax cuts that will solve Sweden's problems; it is a completely different policy. That is the policy I will run on in 2026.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I hear that the Social Democrats want to write reports but not discuss immigration policy. That is interesting.

There is a pattern in this. When the Social Democrats do not govern, they [advocate] for a strict immigration policy. When they govern, they increase immigration. This can be due to different things. It can be because they actually want it. Now, the Social Democrats explicitly want to actively increase Swedish quota refugee reception and are also putting money into this. It can be because the Green Party sets conditions for a Social Democratic government that simply mean they have no alternative.

It is no coincidence that it was precisely the right-wing majority that Magdalena Andersson refers to that pushed through a number of the changes that we can now implement against the old government's will. It was no coincidence that the Social Democrats and Morgan Johansson in 2015, when we wanted temporary residence permits, said: Then we are no longer human beings. That says everything about the hypocrisy in social democracy.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Hypocrites, says Ulf Kristersson. It is a joke!

Ulf Kristersson! It was your migration policy that laid the foundation for the refugee crisis in 2015, and you stand here and accuse me of the result of your policy. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

What Sweden needs is a completely different policy, a policy that builds a strong society. There, all citizens in our country shall have the opportunity to have a decent home, a good education and a job, so that one can pay tax and become a part of our country, and there we solve our social problems together and are prepared to invest in it. It is precisely the opposite of what you have worked for throughout your entire political life.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Magdalena Andersson and I have stood here and debated labor immigration before. I intend to stick to that again.

The Social Democrats and the government now stand together behind the idea of making it more difficult for labor immigration to Sweden through wage requirements that we see lead to people unfortunately being forced to leave the country. They also make it harder for companies to find the right competence. Now we also see that they risk breaking the Swedish model, which many of us here in the chamber cherish.

My question to Magdalena Andersson is: Do you see the danger that a wage floor risks breaking the Swedish model?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I see the problems with the labor shortage in parts of the Swedish economy. In areas where there is a shortage of labor, we Social Democrats see the need for people to be able to come here and take those jobs. But right now, Sweden has the Western world's most liberal labor immigration policy. Labor immigrants also come to occupations where there is no shortage of labor at all in Sweden. There are people who really would need a job, become a part of our society and be taxpayers who would need to take those jobs.

We also see major problems with today's system. People are lured here, exploited, live under appalling conditions and perhaps do not even receive the wages they were promised. We therefore see major problems with today's system.

We think that what the government proposed is a step in the right direction. But fundamentally, we want a labor market test. That is the only way we can seriously get order and clarity in the labor migration policy.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I believe that most of us in this chamber are in complete agreement that poor conditions in the labor market are not something we should have at all. One should receive one's salary, which one has worked for and which one is entitled to.

With the wage floor, however, we see that there is a risk at this moment that certain people are expected to have a certain wage, while the same wage floor is not demanded when it comes to other workers, such as those who are Swedish-born. It is there that the entire Swedish model ends up in a situation of testing.

My question to Magdalena Andersson is: Will we see a situation where a wage floor will also be required for Swedish-born healthcare assistants in Mellerud?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! The problem that Muharrem Demirok raises points to the need to have a labor market test instead. Then one will bypass those types of problems. With a proper labor market test, where the parties in the labor market are involved, there will be order and clarity regarding the immigration of labor. Then we will get labor here in areas where there is a shortage of labor, but people from other continents will not come here to work in areas where there are people in Sweden who could take the jobs. It is a much better arrangement than the one we have today. It is also a better arrangement than having a wage floor.

The best thing would, therefore, be if the government presented such a policy. We would be extremely enthusiastic about that. But given that it is probably not in the near future, we think that this is better than the order we have today. We see that there is no order regarding the labor migration today.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall recount an excerpt from a debate article written by some of the most prominent advocates for Swedish industry: Our country's prosperity and Swedish industry are dependent on a stable supply of affordable electricity. A national initiative on new nuclear power is therefore absolutely necessary. Our companies are ready to cooperate to support the construction. But then we need clear leadership in this issue and a process that is broadly anchored in the Riksdag.

The message is crystal clear, and the news is heavy.

Madam Speaker! My question is whether the Social Democrats and Magdalena Andersson are with us on this.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! In this matter, political leadership is truly required. Leadership is required that is capable of gathering a broad majority in the Swedish Riksdag beyond the own government base, so that a stable order can be secured also after the 2022 election. That type of leadership would be required in this situation. Sweden needs cheaper electricity quickly, and we need more cheaper electricity in the long term.

I therefore look forward to Ebba Busch demonstrating such leadership and inviting all parties in the Riksdag to energy talks that can lead to a long-term and broad energy agreement. We Social Democrats would welcome such political leadership.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! As Minister for Energy, I have had conversations with several prominent current and former Social Democrats. They are constructive and knowledgeable. It involves many difficult trade-offs. There, we lay the foundation for a sustainable energy policy that does not put party-political deadlocks but Sweden's best interests at the center. I am happy to continue those. They continued after the summer, before Christmas, and will also continue next week.

I have two questions. Does Magdalena Andersson wish to sit down and talk with me? I would very much like that. And will Daniel Helldén's veto regarding nuclear power and supporting a Social Democratic government in a potential change of power be what Magdalena Andersson navigates from?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know which Social Democrats Ebba Busch is speaking with. My tip is to speak with those who sit in the Riksdag.

(EBBA BUSCH (KD): Fredrik Olovsson.)

What Fredrik Olovsson has received is an opportunity to look at the government's finished product just before it is to be submitted to the Riksdag. These are not real negotiations. If one wants an agreement, one needs to have real political negotiations where both parties are prepared to give and take. Ebba Busch has not had any such negotiations with Fredrik Olovsson. I spoke with him as recently as yesterday evening.

It is no use inviting me to tell what the government wants. But the day the government is ready to negotiate to reach a broad and long-term energy agreement, we Social Democrats are, of course, ready to participate in the negotiations. But it must be a negotiation where one is prepared to give and take. Otherwise, it will be meaningless.

(Applause)

(EBBA BUSCH (KD): Yes. But the other is a lie.)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Now, we are not to have a bad atmosphere here. We are in the Swedish Riksdag, which is known for openness and clarity and that we can actually discuss serious matters.

The need for new nuclear power is important. Can Magdalena Andersson explain to me why she voted no before Christmas to opening up for building new, modern Swedish nuclear power alongside investments in wind power, solar power, and hydropower? The Social Democrats voted no to building more nuclear power plants. What in this does Magdalena Andersson want to negotiate? It is a one-zero question - either you are for more new nuclear power plants or you are against it.

The government has presented a nuclear power program where this is an important part. Why do you say no to the new sites for nuclear power in Sweden?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is good if Johan Pehrson reads up a bit. We Social Democrats voted yes to the possibility of building more nuclear power plants in Sweden. But we think that they should primarily be built in places where nuclear power already exists, as we assess that it will be cheaper for the Swedish people and also safer because the security arrangements already exist there to ensure they are not attacked.

We have, therefore, voted yes to more nuclear power plants, but we do not assess it as being either fast, cheap or safe to invest in new locations.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! If new nuclear power is needed, perhaps also of a smaller scale, to be the regulating power that is so important for the entire energy system to function, there are areas in Sweden that are already identified today as possible locations in the work that has been done previously. But there, the Social Democrats cannot imagine that we use nuclear power to maximize. No one wants more nuclear power than necessary. The absolute best would be if everything could run on wind, but that is not controllable, so it is a bit difficult. This is therefore unthinkable for the Social Democrats.

The other day, several municipalities in Norway signaled that they also want nuclear power. Even Norway wants to see several nuclear power plants in many municipalities! Why do the Social Democrats say no to the strategy of building nuclear power plants where they really do the most good? Are the Social Democrats only interested in large-scale projects?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I judge that they do great good in southern Sweden, where there are several places where one could have many small modular reactors, for example.

The problem with the government's policy is that you have not presented any plan for how this is to be financed. I have constantly said that nuclear power takes time and can become expensive. The government has in no way shown any plan for how it can be financed in a way that is reasonable for the Swedish people.

There are researchers who argue that the government's nuclear power plans could cost 100 billion every year. Much of that electricity will also be exported to Germany. Should Swedish taxpayers pay for that?

Before we start talking about new locations, I think it would be good if the government could show how this is to be financed and get the business sector on board to pay, so that one does not end up in a situation where 100 or 50 billion of Swedish taxpayers' money is exported to Germany every year. We Social Democrats think that is important.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is always fascinating to listen to Social Democratic party leaders in these debates, in particular Magdalena Andersson. On several occasions today, she has repeated that Sweden needs a completely different policy, and then it has been followed by a lot of platitudes on the theme that everyone should be well off and no one should be poorly off. It is possible that one or another die-hard Social Democrat is content with that, but in the name of honesty, that is not enough. It is not enough if one wants to steer the country in the right direction, away from all the crises and problems that, not least the Social Democrats, have created.

The Social Democrats are throwing out clichés and will present their policy eventually, before the election, while the majority in the Riksdag - the government base - are acting and doing things that make Sweden better, safer, and more secure.

Welfare has been discussed a lot here today. It is naturally important. We have a very difficult economic situation. A recession in combination with very high inflation affects everyone, which has been pointed out here by not least the Prime Minister. It affects families, the business sector, the public sector, and so on.

This has not occurred in a vacuum, but we are currently living with the effects of an inflation-driving policy that previous governments have pursued in the form of surcharges, taxes, and regulations of fundamental input goods - not least fuel and electricity. They have broken apart a fantastically well-functioning energy system. It drives inflation. Now we are doing something about it to ensure and secure the welfare in the long term.

We are four parties and a majority in the Riksdag that have a common direction. I am absolutely convinced, Madam Speaker, that it will become good eventually. But it takes time to clean up after the Social Democrats.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson's party now holds power over politics, and with power comes responsibility – for example, regarding who should be prioritized in the economic crisis.

At the same time as the Swedish people struggle and turn over every krona to put food on the table, the banks are making record profits. It is about pure excess profits on our savings accounts and mortgage loans. The banks are distributing 90 billion to the owners.

In this situation, Jimmie Åkesson and his Sverigedemokrater vote no to our proposal to increase child allowances and student grants and finance it with a bank tax. It shall be designed to protect the customers. If the banks attempt to pass the tax on to the customers, they will have to pay even more in tax.

Madam Speaker! Here, Jimmie Åkesson has the opportunity to explain to the audience and the Swedish people why he prioritizes the bank directors' bonuses over Sweden's families with children.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am not aware of that during any second of the budget negotiations that have preceded the budget that has now applied for nearly three weeks, it has been about bank directors. It has been about the large, overall problems and challenges that we have in this country, how we will approach them and fight inflation while we try to secure the welfare. It has been about how we make Sweden safer and focus on building up a police force and a justice system that can meet the gigantic problems that, among others, the Social Democrats have created. It has also been about how we in different ways can build Sweden strong and emerge from the crisis.

It is clear that one can focus on raising taxes for different actors or residents in our country and also raise the subsidies. But what I do not understand, Madam Speaker, is how that fights inflation or builds Sweden stronger in the long term. It does not do that. On the contrary, it makes us poorer and drives up inflation. That is why we do not listen to the Social Democrats but instead pursue the policy that we believe and know is correct and right.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Much talk and little work. It is telling for the government that Jimmie Åkesson is the guarantor for.

The budget negotiations have not been about the bank directors – and that is exactly the problem. You have not seen the enormous profits that are being made in the banks on the interest net right now. You do not see that those monies – which are our money – should be transferred to the families with children who are struggling. Inflation has eroded the value of both the child allowance and the student grant. That is what you do not see.

We have presented this concrete proposal in the Riksdag, but the Sweden Democrats have voted no to it. It is then obvious that the Sweden Democrats think that bonuses for bank directors are more important than families with children. They want to fight inflation, and therefore one cannot increase the child allowance. But how can one then lower the tax for high-income earners by 13 billion? It is no problem for Jimmie Åkesson. It is a prioritization: always capital before ordinary people.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! That was a radical rhetoric, I must say, even for it to come from the Social Democrats.

In the budget that has now been in effect for nearly three weeks, high-income earners are not prioritized. On the contrary, in this budget, a change was made which means that the threshold for state tax is not being raised. Instead, we focus on lowering the tax for those with normal incomes. I think that is a reasonable policy. It was precisely that policy we went to the election on, and it is also the policy that is now being implemented, which I am very proud of.

Since then, it is clear that one can choose to prioritize everything for everyone. In this debate and in previous debates during the parliamentary term, it has been about everything for everyone on the left. Everyone shall have everything. Everyone shall have it good. No one shall have it bad.

Speaking of responsibility: One does not need to take responsibility when sitting in opposition. That is quite true. But one can still conduct a serious economic policy. The Social Democrats do not do that. You throw out platitudes. We act.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Some shall have it good, and some shall have it bad. The Sweden Democrats have concluded that the property owners shall have it good and the tenants shall have it bad.

In the autumn, the Sweden Democrats said that the issue of rent setting is not a heart issue for the party. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats think it is welcome to negotiate and implement market rents as long as something is received in return.

There are 3 million tenants in Sweden. Market rents would mean thousands of kronor in increased rent for Sweden's tenants in this situation. The Sweden Democrats have taken a positive stance toward this.

Then one becomes curious. What do the Sweden Democrats want in exchange? Is it enough to get to tear down some places of worship or to get to burn a holy scripture on Sergels torg? Or is a coffee break enough? For gains in welfare, a coffee break with the business community was enough. What is Jimmie Åkesson's price tag for introducing market rents?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can reassure Nooshi Dadgostar that we do not intend to contribute to the introduction of any market rents. We have not done so until now, on the contrary – together with Nooshi Dadgostar and her party, we have actually brought down a government because of that very issue. We have not changed our minds, but we stand firm. You can be completely at ease, Nooshi Dadgostar.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Mikael Eskilandersson said in the Althing: For the Sverigedemokraterna, the question of the tenants' housing security and rent setting is not a heart issue. Therefore, one is prepared to introduce market rents in exchange for something else.

Do the Sweden Democrats and Jimmie Åkesson distance themselves from their member in the Committee on Civil Affairs? Who is it that decides in the party? What does Jimmie Åkesson mean by that I can be calm? I have seen this in the newspaper. Wasn't that true? Are we not to believe what Mikael Eskilandersson says from now on? Is that the message to the Chamber? It is good to know for the future of the tenants. Otherwise, I want to return to my question: What was it that Mikael Eskilandersson was talking about? What did he want in exchange for the Sweden Democrats to implement market rents?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have a good piece of advice for Nooshi Dadgostar: One should not always believe completely blindly in everything one reads in the newspaper. There can be many reasons why things are misunderstood or misinterpreted. It can also be that someone says something that perhaps a majority in the party does not agree with. At least in my democratic party, it works so that it is the majority, the vast majority of the members, who decide. In this context, perhaps it is the majority of the parliamentary group that decides what the party shall pursue. I also have a certain influence over that.

I repeat it, Madam Speaker: Nooshi Dadgostar can be completely calm. We will not contribute to any market rents.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! "We are the only party that can credibly promise to take new, real steps forward for the welfare." So write the Sverigedemokraterna in their latest election manifesto.

Now the Sweden Democrats have been part of governing Sweden for over a year. The result is a wave of school closures across the entire country, dismissed teachers, fewer care assistants and fewer part-time firefighters. Two out of three municipalities are now forced to save powerfully. 18 of 21 regions are running with deficits. It hits elderly care homes, special education teachers and emergency rooms across the country.

Nothing came of the election promise that the Sverigedemokraterna gave. Swedish welfare is currently worse with the Sverigedemokraterna at the helm.

When Jimmie Åkesson speaks about that some must get it better, others must get it worse. Is it Jimmie Åkesson's intention that teachers, part-time firefighters and nursing assistants are those who should get it worse when priorities must be made?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is true that all politics is about prioritizing. If you prioritize one activity, you deprioritize another. It is quite logical.

What I said was an expression of how I perceive the opposition handling the situation right now. They throw out platitudes along the lines that everyone should have it well and no one should have it badly. That is not enough, because anyone can say that. But one cannot live up to it, because everyone cannot have it well at the same time. It is that simple.

The fundamental issue, welfare, which I touched upon in my speech. I described, at least in part, how we have ended up in the inflationary spiral that we are now in the process of getting out of, not least by lowering fuel prices and other things that raise costs.

One thing that Muharrem Demirok, Centerpartiet, and actually most parties in this chamber completely miss is the fact that we have brought here hundreds of thousands of people who do not support themselves and who are to have a share of the welfare without contributing to it. It is obvious that it erodes the welfare, and that is what we are trying to do something about now with a restrictive and strict immigration policy.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! There is always a safe corner for Jimmie Åkesson to go and sit in: immigration. Everything can be traced back to immigration.

But now we were talking about priorities. I have been a local politician. I know what it means to prioritize. I also know what the consequences of priorities will be. With the Sweden Democrats at the helm, the priorities are crystal clear. Teachers are laid off. Schools are closed down across the country. Emergency rooms are shut down. Half of the boys in Nordanstig Municipality do not graduate with full grades. Now there is an alarm about a staffing crisis. But Jimmie Åkesson retreats to his safe corner and says something completely different.

The Sweden Democrats are clearly disregarding elderly, sick, and vulnerable Swedes. They are disregarding schools, healthcare, and psychiatry. I cannot interpret your speeches on priorities as anything else, Jimmie Åkesson. You have the choice. You are at the helm. You can be involved in prioritizing welfare. But you choose to do something else.

The Sweden Democrats have betrayed the welfare state. Jimmie Åkesson's answer here today speaks for the fact that they will continue to do so.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am a municipal politician; I just want it to be said. The situation that many municipalities find themselves in right now, including my own municipality, is not a fun situation. It is about making tough priorities. It concerns everyone. It concerns households as well. It concerns the business sector. It concerns, not least, the public finances, which are currently incredibly vulnerable due to inflation and recession. It is clear that everyone must then take their responsibility. Not least the Prime Minister has expressed the majority's view on how we should handle this in the long term. There, we are open to doing more. But 16 billion for welfare in the budget that currently applies is not small change. It is quite large sums of money and large supplements to welfare.

That I highlight the large-scale immigration in this context has nothing to do with wanting to retreat into a safe corner. It has to do with wanting to hold Muharrem Demirok and others accountable for the politics they have pursued and which have caused the erosion of the welfare state that we see today. Hundreds of thousands of people who are part of and share in the welfare cannot, do not want to, or are not allowed to contribute to it. It does not add up. That must be understood.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! In an article in Julas, the Sweden Democrats wrote that Sweden's shores are a natural resource of great value for the public as well as for plant and animal life that is dependent on aquatic environments. I would say that we agree on that. That the government now, together with the Sweden Democrats, wants to loosen the shore protection and make it a free-for-all to build in our protected archipelago and at sensitive lakes and watercourses goes in the completely opposite direction.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet believes, unlike the Sverigedemokraterna, that Sweden's shores deserve our protection, and that protection must be strong. Therefore, I wonder why Jimmie Åkesson and his party are prepared to tear up strong environmental legislation that has stood firm for 70 years. Should not the Sverigedemokraterna safeguard the most Swedish thing we have, that is, the right of public access?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do believe that the passage which Daniel Helldén just quoted expresses the striving to stand guard against this. But there is also an important word in politics which is balance.

We need to have balance. We must be able to have two thoughts in our heads at the same time, as many and not least our Prime Minister often says. We know that we have a situation in many parts of the country where people are moving into larger cities. We know that we have a housing shortage.

We know that many municipalities around the country, in particular, need to utilize the competitive advantages they have, namely, for example, the opportunity to build near the coast. In that balancing act, it is not easy to always get it right. But I think we are on our way to getting it right in this.

I am convinced that we can do both. We can stand guard over our nature. We shall do that. But we can also ensure that the municipalities that are being depleted today are given the opportunity to utilize the competitive advantages they have by building, for example, near the coast. That balance is what I am trying to find. I think we have found a good balance.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to hear about a balance. I would say that Sweden has had a good balance in this area. That one is now trying to loosen it means that one will get a much, much larger construction in the places that really must be protected, and above all, one also restricts the right of public access in that way.

In the latest measurements in 2022, it was 20 miles of Sweden's shores that were directly affected by construction. That is essentially two-thirds of Vättern's shores. If we continue like this, it will mean that the areas that exist to protect both flora and fauna and people's access to those areas will be eaten up.

The only thing I can see is that the Sweden Democrats' way of working with the issue actually means that exclusive rights take precedence over the right of public access. Is that really the right way to proceed in this issue?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We safeguard the right of public access. It is an important and quite unique thing for Sweden that we must stand guard over.

It is still interesting that it is Miljöpartiet that is raising this issue. I believe that everyone who is or has been a municipal politician can testify that Miljöpartiet is always the party that puts a stop to everything. As soon as someone finds a toad or something anywhere where it is to be exploited and built, Miljöpartiet is against it. They are always against it, always against it, and always against it, and do what they can to stop it.

At the same time, one stands here and says: We must strengthen the welfare. One is worried about how, not least small municipalities, will be able to manage the welfare in the long term. The government must do more and so on. Is it then not reasonable that one gives municipalities in our country the conditions to increase the number of inhabitants and increase and broaden their tax base so that they can manage the welfare in the long term?

That is what this aims for. You should be able to build housing throughout the country and also in those municipalities that are currently being depopulated. That is what it is about, Madam Speaker. I am proud that we are now trying to find a better balance than the one we have had until now.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought that we would cross the bridge to Denmark and further out into Europe. There we can observe that our challenges are common. Together we can handle the climate challenge. Together we can handle the enormous challenge that lies before all of Europe's countries to manage in tough competition in a world that in many ways is a bit worrying, to put it mildly, regarding security and safety.

The Liberals want us to cooperate more in Europe so that we can combat serious crime. It is exactly as we cooperate with Finland and Norway. We have joint police stations here and there, or under construction. We need to have a common EU police to combat cross-border crime. Can the Sweden Democrats imagine deepening cooperation in the EU in that way to protect safety in Sweden?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Denmark is in many ways a fine country. I gladly travel there across the bridge. Now, it is also cheaper to drive the car across the bridge. If we were to remove the aviation tax, it would also be cheaper to fly out in Europe. Then we can be integrated even more and get to know each other.

The answer to the question is yes, naturally. It is clear that we shall fight international organized crime together. Much separates the Sweden Democrats and the Liberals when it comes to the view on European cooperation. My experience is that the Liberals essentially want to send everything to Brussels and let other countries' politicians decide everything, while we want to bring as much power as possible back to us elected representatives in Sweden.

But when it comes to certain specific areas that are international in nature, and in particular international organized crime, we must cooperate. I do not perceive us acting in any other way, whether in this chamber, in the European Parliament, or in other contexts where this issue is relevant. We are involved in strengthening both the external border protection and the police cooperation in various ways.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is, in that case, very welcome. We need to have a cross-border Europol that can act against, not least, the international serious crime operating in different parts of Europe. It must not be the case that people in Sweden can commit serious crimes, and then they can sit down and sunbathe on the Spanish coast. That must be ensured to be stopped. Then one must have a stronger cooperation that is international.

I welcome it if the Sweden Democrats are prepared to take that step. It is part of what the European Parliament election will be about, which Europe we are to have. Europe is not just a mass of other countries. Europe is Sweden and all of us in here. Europe is everyone sitting and listening to the debate here in the gallery. It is you who are Europe. We must work together. If Europe does not defend its freedom and its security, they will come to an end.

I promise you, Jimmie Åkesson: Both you and I and most of us can afford to pay an aviation tax of 76 kronor when we fly to Copenhagen or to Lisbon.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is an example of how we differ. When we talk about cooperation, it is precisely that we are to expand the cooperation. If it is the case, for which there are indeed examples, that knifemen go down to Marbella and sit and sunbathe there, it cannot be allowed to happen that way. Then we must have a cooperation that ensures that those persons are prosecuted either there or here, or however one chooses to set it up.

It is not the same thing as us having a European FBI that has powers beyond what is reasonable. That is what the Liberals are talking about here. What the Liberals are talking about is a federal European police force that is to go in and take over and over-examine things that our national police decide. I am completely against that. I do not believe that we need to go that far.

We are not going to build a federal Europe. We are going to have a strong and fruitful cooperation in Europe. But we are not going to have a federation. That is where we differ, Johan Pehrson. We are welcome to do that. It is fun that there are also some differences of opinion sometimes.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! We hear stories of children in Gaza who no longer react to the sound of bombs. We are reached by news of bakeries being bombed. Children and the rest of the population are suffering from acute famine. There is an urgent shortage of food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity. Nearly 2 million people have been forced to flee from their homes. Gaza faces a human catastrophe.

People need an immediate ceasefire. South Africa has filed a notification with the International Court of Justice that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention of 1948. The world must hold Israel accountable. Impunity cannot prevail. In the submission, it is stated that Israel's actions in Gaza are a genocide in character, with the aim of exterminating the Palestinians.

What has the Swedish government and Ulf Kristersson done to stop the killing? Where is the Swedish voice? The Swedish government's passivity is a shame for Sweden.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! "There is where one is not. Here is here where one is." If there is any time when the government should have listened more to Magnus, Brasse, and Eva, it is precisely in climate policy.

When I stood in muddy boots on Anders' flooded field outside Sala this summer, we stood in the middle of climate change - in the middle of a crisis that does not only hit there, where one is not, but to the highest degree here, where one is. It is a crisis where Swedish farmers and forest owners are forced to live with drought, flooding, and shattered life's work.

The effects of the climate crisis are currently hitting Swedish preparedness, food, and resilience very hard. The bill for the government's shock-increased emissions falls on the small businesses of the countryside. Less money for climate adaptation is also less money for society's crisis preparedness, because everything is interconnected.

For the Center Party, it is obvious that everything we do or do not do for the climate has consequences. For us, the climate issue is everyday life. It is instant noodles and pancakes with milk. It is about jobs and about security. We know that every krona for the climate is also an investment in a more secure future.

Therefore, we will also always act sharply against the government that turns its back on the climate and ignores the plans and its promises, and that is something I am proud of.

We never betray the climate, and we never betray our green promises. We know that the climate crisis hits just as hard there, where one is not, as here, where one is, and that the only way to solve the climate issue is to do it together.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by wishing Muharrem Demirok a very Happy New Year. I do not know if he set out on the roads during New Year's Eve, but the direct report from the pump sounded like this: diesel price 17.79 kronor per liter and petrol price 17.19 kronor per liter. That is 10 kronor less for diesel and 6 kronor less for petrol compared to the peak recording in March 2022, when we promised the Swedish people to change this. Without reduced fuel tax and reduced reduction obligation, it would not have been possible.

When households are struggling and companies are on their knees, these are absolutely necessary measures.

My question to Muharrem Demirok is: Was it right to lower the reduction obligation to the EU's minimum level?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that we can help families who are having an extremely difficult time right now. People who do not have subways or buses to rely on are completely dependent on the car.

Centerpartiet has presented several proposals that would lower the price at the pump with the same levels that the government is now presenting. The big difference, however, is that we also manage to reduce the dependence on Russian oil and keep the climate promise. The government has completely ignored that. They have turned their backs on all the entrepreneurs who are currently wondering what they should do with their investments in biofuels.

When we are talking about lowering prices and making promises to the Swedish people, I want to remind that this government and Ebba Busch also promised to lower the electricity tax. But now they are doing the opposite. Now they are raising the electricity tax, and they are turning a blind eye to the increase that is occurring and sending the bill to the Swedish people and Swedish entrepreneurs.

Why doesn't Ebba Busch also lower the electricity tax? I am ready to contribute to that.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the constructive tone. We have chosen other measures when it comes to the electricity tax, but as a conservative, I would very much like to make a reduction as well. Perhaps it is something that we need to do in the future. In that case, I would be happy to speak.

But the world's highest reduction obligation did not arise out of thin air, it required political support. During your time as a support party to the red-green government, the diesel price rose by over 60 percent.

If the Centre Party truly wants to discuss how we lighten the burden for ordinary people and create conditions for a vibrant countryside, we are the first to join forces. But then the Centre Party must stop defending the world's highest reduction obligation.

The alternative that C has put on the table would involve a very large risk that we subsidize these companies but the production is exported somewhere else. Then Swedish tax funds would go towards subsidizing biofuels that are not even used in Sweden. We believe that is the wrong way to go. Therefore, it was right to lower the reduction obligation.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Investing in Swedish biofuels is to feed these companies, says Ebba Busch. "These companies" are, therefore, Swedish farmers and green industries. Agroetanol, which is owned by Lantmännen and produces Swedish biofuels, is that "these companies"? If Ebba Busch uses derogatory words about our Swedish farmers, I distance myself from that.

I primarily envision that we invest in Swedish biofuels and that we can increase production and reduce our dependence on Russian gas and oil, especially in the vulnerable position we find ourselves in. It must be a common interest for all of us.

But when we are on the topic of lowering costs for ordinary households, I can present more proposals beyond lowering the electricity tax. And we can vote on the electricity tax tomorrow, if Ebba Busch so wishes.

When will the government present the lowered amortization requirement? Households are being pressured enormously by housing costs now. Why don't you present that proposal? There is so much more we can do for the individual household, but the government chooses not to act.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats do not promise everything, but we keep our promises.

Those who set out on the roads during New Year's Eve received a pleasant surprise. The diesel price was at 17.79 kronor per liter and the gasoline price at 17.19 kronor per liter. That is 10 kronor less for diesel and 6 kronor less for gasoline compared to the peak in March 2022, when we promised change. Now we have delivered change.

The price is, of course, affected by a number of global factors. We cannot control them; it is not possible to fully vaccinate against that. But it is possible to make Sweden less vulnerable. That is what we have done with this.

Now the red-green extra surcharge on fuel prices has finally been removed. The previous government, in its climate budget, focused primarily on one thing, the reduction obligation. But we are restructuring the climate policy so that it actually works - with a focus on succeeding with electrification, which is what will create net-zero by 2045, and at the same time strengthening competitiveness.

One simply should not be punished when one takes the car to visit grandmother or when one drives the children to school and sports practice. That is not how we solve the climate transition.

Now it will become a little cheaper to be Swedish, and we will continue to deliver. In a time when many continue to carry a heavy burden, we Christians Democrats do what we can to alleviate the burden. We strengthen healthcare. We lower the tax for pensioners, and we give those parents who struggle to make the finances work a little more room to move.

Madam Speaker! We take responsibility in a difficult time. With reform after reform, we make life a little easier to live. We are making Sweden strong.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Ebba Busch has begun to speak about a spirit of new construction and state initiatives and investments. This is, of course, very welcome. The trains must start running. The electricity grid must be expanded. Housing must be built. Healthcare, schools, and elderly care must be strengthened. Housing must be built and healthcare must be expanded when new companies are established.

KD has large investment plans. My question is: Has Ebba Busch spoken with the Minister for Finance? The Minister for Finance, in fact, has a completely different plan. She intends to lower taxes, just as she did last year. We have seen what that means at Sahlgrenska Hospital. We have seen what it means in healthcare, in region after region. These are very large cuts. It is less maintenance of the railway. It is less rail that is to be built.

It feels like people are not speaking to each other within the government. Can the Minister for Enterprise give me a single reason why one should take KD's statement seriously?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, one of the reasons is that the Christian Democrats usually act as a stumbling block in our part of politics. It was we who defeated the December Agreement. It was we who were the first to give a clear signal regarding new nuclear power. It was we who opened up the parliamentary deadlocks that existed. It enabled negotiations with both the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats, and it has led to concrete results for both the right and the left. I believe that the time seems to favor the Christian Democrats' line even here, especially if there is an opportunity to join forces, broadly, from right to left.

The Minister for Finance has, of course, my full support when she says that our most important task is to fight inflation, fight inflation and fight inflation.

What the Left Party does in its budget is to light an inflation bonfire which means that one is burning from two sides. They say that from the V's side, they are investing 20 billion in welfare. This means, through increased taxes, an automatic reduction of the state grants. Then only a thumb-sized amount remains, which is what stands in the Left Party's own budget. That is all there is to it.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I have no problem whatsoever with taxing the banks, for example, so that more nurses can be employed in oncology activities or in the dementia wards in elderly care. But the government obviously does.

It is a problem that what the government is doing in practice is more of the same. Now we have lived like this for many, many years. And now there is even less money for the maintenance of the railway. Now the government has removed all investment support for the construction of housing. And now healthcare is nearly collapsing while the Kristdemokraterna have big plans. But what are they doing in a government that cannot even get the trains to run on time? The Malmbanan is in ruins. Now another train has derailed there, and the government cannot provide an answer regarding double tracks. We are losing more and more money every day. It is a decay while the Kristdemokraterna speak loudly and clearly.

How is this going to work, Ebba Busch?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will make it very clear. Vänsterpartiet says that they are allocating 20 billion more to, for example, healthcare, staff, and general state grants. The problem is that Vänsterpartiet also proposes a series of tax increases that eat up the investments they want to make. If you raise the tax, there is actually an automatic reduction of the state grants. Vänsterpartiet has also reported this in its budget. Out of 20 billion, that means 2.4 remain.

Furthermore, one is also involved in governing Region Stockholm, where there are over 7 billion SEK in the result equalization reserve that they refuse to use. Instead, they blame the government when they fire staff. I mean that is wrong. Everyone must take responsibility, and we are prepared to chip in more.

But to be constructive regarding the possibility of long-term investments moving forward, I want to say: I am also happy to reach an agreement with Vänsterpartiet on that issue. Perhaps we could decide to bypass the Socialdemokrater and start by reaching an agreement on nuclear power, if Magdalena Andersson does not know what she wants.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! It almost seems as if we are standing here in the era of broad agreements. We shall see if we can continue this good dialogue.

Swedish crisis preparedness stands or falls with Swedish farmers. Their toil, animals, and crops determine our food supply and resilience. But we have taken this for granted for far too long. Of every krona we spend on food in the store, the farmer keeps 10 öre. The State takes 11. The State therefore takes more when it comes to what the farmer has produced than what the farmer gets to keep themselves.

Centerpartiet wants to change this as soon as possible. We are prepared to support the government in this if proposals are put on the table, but unfortunately, they are still absent so far.

My question is straight and clear: Are the Christian Democrats and Ebba Busch prepared to do the same – support all sharp proposals that strengthen Swedish farmers' profitability and lower taxes and costs?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are happy to continue talking about how we can get more measures that support a vibrant countryside and that support Sweden's food producers forward. The Government and the Center Party completely share the view that this is a crucial part of our preparedness. Furthermore, our farmers are skilled entrepreneurs who have many times survived very tough and difficult times.

We have begun a reorganization of the food strategy with an overall focus: increased production. There, the type of questions that the Centerpartiet raises in the chamber today can absolutely be part of the continued discussion. We have also tasked the Swedish Board of Agriculture to report on which rules and conditions counteract increased production and how those obstacles can be addressed. A natural consequence of this is, of course, that one also discusses the profitability and the sense of the taxation of the farmers' production.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Ebba Busch! For the Center Party, this is a completely crucial part of Swedish society. It is about having viable farms and about farmers getting the best conditions. This is what our policy has been based on for over 100 years. We do not fail the countryside.

We have heard Ebba Busch describe the work on the food strategy and its update. It is very good that an update is being made. But we must also be able to talk about profitability here and now. The government is trying to act that way when it comes to several other areas, that is to say, one fast-tracks things and puts sharp proposals on the table.

Regulations are one thing. Taxes we could regulate immediately. Therefore, I ask again: Is Ebba Busch prepared to stand behind concrete proposals that strengthen the profitability of agriculture here and now?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not rule out further measures from the government's side, but I want to point out that a very marked shift has occurred since the Social Democrats and the Green Party left the government.

This will be a shout-out to newborn Edith Leonora Kullgren. She is hopefully not sitting and watching this debate - but her father probably is, rural affairs minister Peter Kullgren, who has ensured that we have removed designations of environmentally hazardous activities around farmers' activities. We have financed new, uniform slaughter fees to simplify regulations and favor production. We have injected more funds into plant breeding to improve future competitiveness.

Again: Sweden's farmers are skilled entrepreneurs, but between 1996 and 2021 the regulations increased from 278 to 648. It is time to reduce that burden, and beyond that, we are happy to discuss more proposals for a viable countryside.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The expansion of renewable energy must go faster. Both our companies and our households need cheap electricity now, and since wind power is one of the fastest ways to solve the challenge, that is where the investment must be made.

The proposals for how this should proceed are already on the table, so Ebba Busch actually has a very easy task. In the near term, two things are needed above all: economic incentives for municipalities and neighbors where wind power is being built, and a predictable process for the permits to build wind power, both for the sake of the municipalities and for the companies. The municipalities' veto shall remain in place.

I wonder when these two proposals can come from the government. The wind power industry is waiting for a decision, and the Swedish people want better access to cheap electricity.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the short answer and leave room for follow-up questions: It is not scheduled yet, but this is prioritized.

In the short term, more renewable power production is what we have the possibility to release in the coming years, and that is why it was important for the government to be able to provide information on two new offshore wind farms despite we have only been in government for eight months. The wind farms are strategically placed based on where we believe they do the most good in the electricity system. It is also why we continue to welcome more investments in storage solutions, but we cannot place the entire task of doubling electricity production and the electricity system on that path forward.

To return to the concrete question from Helldén, Madam Speaker: We are actively working on these issues and look forward to laying them before the Riksdag, but I do not have the dates in my head here. The conditions for parts of this will be presented in connection with the energy policy direction bill, which, according to the plan and the bill list, will arrive in March.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The government has been in power for almost one and a half years, and the only thing we have seen regarding new projects in the wind power area is that they are braking. They have removed the support for offshore wind power and the land connections. There is an investigation that proposes incentives, and they talk about it becoming easier – but nothing is coming.

Instead, you are putting all your effort into nuclear power, Ebba Busch. You are putting all the work into it even though we know that it will not come and that it will not be able to solve the task. If it comes, that is to say if you manage to ensure that enough state funds are pumped into it, maybe it exists somewhere after 2045 - by then we are already supposed to have completed the entire transition.

The wind power is here, and it is possible to expand it now. The industry wants the renewable energy in this situation, and the government has the proposals. I do not understand why you are dragging this out. We are happy to participate and work for more wind power together with you.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Helldén and I have not yet had the opportunity to meet and sit down together. I would gladly do so now that we have finally been able to meet in this way. Congratulations on the new assignment, Daniel Helldén!

The previous government, which the Green Party was part of, pushed forward the Climate Justice Inquiry and also the Environmental Assessment Inquiry. We did not like everything in those, even though it was very much. We have simply seen that there have been some white spots that are not covered in this, when it comes to increasing the pace in the permit processes.

We agree that it is far too complicated and associated with far too great uncertainties when someone starts a costly project for either land-based or offshore wind power. One is left with a very large risk because the unpredictability is so great and the process takes so much time. We would like to review this, and that is what we are working on. We look forward to returning to this.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would speak a little about nuclear power here at the end of the debate. There are not so many left here in the chamber, but there are many who are interested in the issue.

There are many reasons why nuclear power is a bad deal. It takes an extremely long time to build, which means the electricity arrives too late. It requires enormous investments from the taxpayers' pockets, and it seems that Vattenfall's investigations show that it is even much more expensive than the government ever imagined. Nuclear power is also to be considered a major security risk in a time of high alert and conflict. This is common knowledge, and it is completely incomprehensible that in the uncertain global situation we face, we have a government that wants to invest in building danger into our energy system.

Madam Speaker! Electrification of Swedish industry and Swedish transport is a completely crucial part of getting rid of the fossil dependency. However, we must not exchange our fossil dependency for an environmental, geopolitical, and security-related dependency on nuclear power. The government's reluctance to tackle the green transition - the one that is truly needed - with renewable energy is harmful to Swedish energy, Swedish business, and Swedish wallets. Something else was needed now and here, namely wind power.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! We continue to duel in the chamber, Helldén and Busch!

I have thought a lot about the net-zero goal for 2045. It is generating quite a lot of interest even internationally, namely that we in Sweden have said that we will achieve this five years before very many others. To succeed with that, we have landed on the fact that incredibly much more electricity is needed. We are going to meet an electricity demand that is at least double compared to today.

Now that it is the first chance to debate in this manner, Madam Speaker, I still need to understand if we share the view that Sweden's electricity production must be doubled. Do we share the view that it is urgent? I also wonder where the base load will come from when Miljöpartiet does not want to pave the way for more nuclear power. I really do not understand that. How is it going to work with much more intermittent, weather-dependent power production and without more base load?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, we have a lot of base power in hydropower, which is also a regulating power. It is the best and most effective system we have.

Yes, we likely need a doubling of energy by 2045 if we are to transform the industry. This applies in particular to the steel industry, which needs enormous amounts of energy. I know that the discussion is how to manage this. Those who read the Swedish Energy Agency's report from April 2023, which also lies on the minister's desk, see that what is needed is 100 terawatt-hours, which will go towards producing hydrogen that is then stored. There we have the big solution. It is a third of the entire energy demand that lies there.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want, first of all, to raise a warning finger because we risk ending up in a situation where power production in Sweden is not there where it is needed when it is needed and at the right time; that is, a power shortage. In that case, it does not matter that we can export a huge amount when the wind blows and the sun shines on certain days, because there will be a lack of electricity for the municipalities to be able to say yes in the right place at the right time.

Secondly, I believe there is a real risk that we will get hydrogen pipelines where Swedish power production goes to other countries instead of being used for Swedish industry.

Thirdly, there is no well-functioning system for hydrogen. If one is worried about the safety risks with a nuclear power plant, the risks with hydrogen are large. It is not realistic, even in the next ten years, to have a fully developed system for creating storage corresponding to the base load that can only come from nuclear power.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Much is said about it not being possible with hydrogen, but that is what the large industry in the north is working to use. In Luleå, for example, they are working with hydrogen storage - and also in other places. That is the path that must be taken. If one does not do that, the electricity will not be needed because that type of energy cannot be converted. When we speak with the state-owned companies and the private companies, that is the path they intend to take.

There are other solutions, and there is a fantastic development right now regarding regulatory power, storage possibilities and so on, which will have that effect.

I am not at all worried about problems. What worries me is that you are putting all your resources into nuclear power, so if you manage to waste the taxpayers' funds or have a planned economy model - an exciting way - we will not have the electricity that is needed and cannot make the transition. Then we will not meet the 2045 goal.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! We live in a very serious time. Not since the Second World War has Sweden faced such great security threats as it does now. This is not something to be said to cause fear, but it must be said because it is true. Let me quote a general; the more we sweat in peacetime, the less we bleed in wartime. Just as gold medals do not fall from the sky for athletes like Duplantis, peace will not come without Swedish effort. Simply put, demanding preparations are needed to secure peace and democracy in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! A large-scale war of invasion is taking place in our Europe, in Ukraine. Not everyone saw it coming, even though many did. Now we must quickly and forcefully bolster our country's own defense capability. That is why the Liberals are prepared to take out defense loans and adopt a special war budget to be clear that we will hold out in our support for Ukraine for as long as needed without having to raise taxes for ordinary people, which the red-greens would prefer, and without having to see cuts in the Swedish school system.

It is by supporting Ukraine in their struggle for freedom that we best ensure our own security and, furthermore, soon build security together with our partners in Nato. We must not let the buildup of our defense be limited by short-term considerations, not when there is war in Europe, not when we live in a world where our neighbors are being invaded. We must simply be prepared to sweat for peace. That is the only way we take responsibility for the future.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! The year 2023 became a pitch-black year when it comes to accidents at work. 65 people set their alarms, went to work, but never came home again. The year 2024 has not started any better.

We Social Democrats have submitted proposals for increased resources for Arbetsmiljöverket, expanded access rights for regional safety representatives, and expanded opportunities to impose sanction fees against companies that fail to comply. Johan Pehrson has said no to all of this. When we look at the government's list of propositions, we see that they do not intend to submit any concrete proposals during the spring.

Can Johan Pehrson at least give notice that he stands behind our proposal to appoint a crisis commission for the hard-hit construction industry in order to stop the fatal accidents?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is easy to agree with the consternation and think of all the people who go to work, have a family waiting at home, but they do not come back because things went south at work. They died or were injured for life.

The great challenge with the working environment must be addressed in a structured and long-term manner. We have tasked Arbetsmiljöverket with carrying out more unannounced inspections. We have asked them to lead a project to ensure that more people are prepared to engage as safety representatives.

Regarding the accidents that have occurred - one of the worst happened just before Christmas - investigations are ongoing at the Accident Investigation Authority, the police, and the Work Environment Authority. We want to await these. The Government invites the parties to discuss the issue, and we will, of course, discuss the issue with all parties in the Swedish Riksdag, including the Social Democrats.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Was it a yes or a no? Does Johan Pehrson stand behind the Social Democrats' proposal to establish a crisis commission against fatal accidents in the hard-hit construction industry?

I also want to point out that when Johan Pehrson says that he wants more people to engage as safety representatives, we must be clear about what that really means, namely the risk that safety representatives are in the companies' pockets. It will not reduce the number of fatal accidents in our workplaces.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! The work environment strategy that we are working according to is the one established by the previous government, and it requires substantial revisions. In no other way can one address the fact that there are so many more fatal accidents after the pandemic.

I also want to point out that the government is clear that we must do more to combat crime in the workplace. We know that many companies today act in a very unprofessional manner. Furthermore, they can be in the clutches of criminals. If they are in the clutches of criminals in the work of hiring out labor, the risk is small that they care about the working environment.

We cannot anticipate any individual case, but the government is working on a new work environment strategy. We have invited the parties, and we are also talking with the Social Democrats in the Committee on Labour Market. No one wants it to be like this in the future.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Now we see each other again, Johan Pehrson!

(JOHAN PEHRSON (L): Nice!)

Spain, Greece and Portugal are not the Swedes' most popular travel destinations, but they are the only EU countries that today have higher youth unemployment than Sweden. During Johan Pehrson's time as Minister for Employment, unemployment among young people has unfortunately increased further. Nevertheless, the government has made it more expensive to employ young people by raising the employer contribution for specifically young people. This is happening at a time when the economy is wavering and companies are tightening their belts a little extra.

I would like to have an answer to a single question from Johan Pehrson and the government today: Does Johan Pehrson believe that more or fewer young people get jobs when you make it more expensive for companies to hire them?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! We must be honest: The money is not enough for everything. One must prioritize very strictly.

In the budget for the labor market expenditure area, we allocate a bit over 90 billion to protect people who are vulnerable, ensure that one has good compensation if one is affected by unemployment, and streamline the labor market policy. We invest in adult education, both vocational colleges and komvux. We are restructuring the entire youth school. It is the most important way to counter the unemployment that we see.

Lower taxes generally and lower taxes on labor, I think, can be good. We often have a debate about whether the tax on labor is too high or too low. We can state that it is quite high in Sweden. Therefore, it is important to continue reducing the tax on labor. But this does not only apply to young people; it also applies to people who have passed youth, such as Muharrem Demirok and Johan Pehrson.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Johan Pehrson! I agree - we have an all too high tax burden in Sweden. The Centre Party has presented several proposals in that area.

But the truth is also that when the students run out from the schoolyard and sing that "the brightening future is ours," they are met by a completely different reality with increasing unemployment specifically for young people.

Taking a first step into the labor market is incredibly important for young people. But the answer to the question I asked is, of course, that fewer young people will be in jobs if you make it more expensive to hire them, which the government has now actually done.

That is why the Centre Party wants to do exactly the opposite and lower the costs of employing young people, especially in the situation we find ourselves in, because starting the life journey is one of the most important steps for a young person to move forward into adult life and land in a respectable age like yours and mine, Johan Pehrson.

Now we have a liberal Minister for Employment who watches as Swedish schools are eroded and simultaneously actively makes it more expensive to hire young people. I ask again: Exactly how will it give more young people a first job if costs are increased?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Some evaluations have been made regarding the targeted reduction for specifically young people. They have shown that it may not have been the most effective way.

That is why the government is investing in the youth school. We are investing in the university college. We are investing very heavily in vocational adult education, in addition to the measures we make within the framework of the Public Employment Service, whether it is subsidized employment or the new establishment jobs. Everything is intended to give people a helping hand if they have ended up in unemployment.

We have guarantees that ensure young people get in. But we also know that regardless of whether we go to Arbetsförmedlingen in Skellefteå or Arbetsförmedlingen in Skövde, we see that unemployment among young people with approved upper secondary school grades is almost non-existent.

That is why the focus must be on constantly equipping our youth so that they have their own future, self-determination, and the opportunity to realize big and small dreams. All these journeys begin in school. That is what the Liberals prioritize. But we would also like to see lowered taxes if there is room for it.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Swedish business is clear: We need to increase the pace of the climate transition. We politicians need to respond with concrete reforms and policies that show the way.

Here, our government, which Johan Pehrson is a part of, has created a policy that is going completely wrong and in completely the wrong direction.

Sweden could continue to hold the lead in terms of the transition and be a role model. But then one cannot carry out reforms that mean we increase emissions and make it harder for the business sector to do what it really needs to do: transition and sell goods that are produced in a way that is not fossil-dependent.

The Liberals have had a good climate and environmental policy. I wonder where it went and how it feels to be a minister in a government that is tearing it up.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! The fact is that it requires very large efforts for Sweden to be able to meet the challenges we face.

First and foremost, one must be clear that we can set the framework and the regulatory system and create the conditions, but the climate transition itself must be carried out by companies and people and organizations out in society.

Then a lot is required. It is absolutely crucial that we get more controllable power. That is why we insist on nuclear power. But that is not enough. We also ensure that we whittle down the obstacles that exist for faster decision-making for, for example, wind power. I share the view that we need both solar, wind, and nuclear power. Daniel Helldén would certainly gladly say solar and wind.

I saw that Ikanosfären or Ikeasfären is now pushing forward in order to be able to invest in even more wind power. They are seeking this; they see the opportunity and have hopes that we will shave down the obstacles so that the conditions will be met.

We are investing, alongside that, in natural sciences and technology and more engineering education, because someone must build all these facilities—all these wind farms, solar parks, and nuclear power plants that we need. That strategy is also required.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I just want to say that nuclear power is not a regulating power. It is a base power, and it is quite sluggish and cumbersome in that context.

What is needed is for the state and the government to take the lead and provide opportunities for the business sector to transition. We were on our way. Now we don't know at all how it is going to go.

People are talking about education. I would say that the climate action plan that was presented would not even be approved as a B-thesis at a university in its current form. It is troublesome, because we need guidelines and direction. We need to know what is happening.

It is not possible to discern from the climate action plan how we, for example, are to meet the goals for 2030. It is not possible to discern how we are to meet the goals for 2045, despite the fact that it is nagged about all the time.

I believe that the Sweden Democrats were allowed to dictate the climate policy. It must be difficult to be a liberal today.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that it is difficult to take responsibility. It is much easier to sit on the sidelines and say: Look, what a mistake! Look, what a mistake!

We do what is possible, and we focus on what is important. That is why we work broadly with all types of energy to find a viable path for Sweden.

The need will double. We are moving away from the parenthesis called internal combustion engines for, for example, diesel or gasoline. In that case, we of course do everything to produce more energy but also better charging infrastructure. We also ensure that shipping and aviation are transitioned in this direction. We ensure that we electrify and provide support for transports other than passenger transport. We work with the technology concerning carbon capture, not least so-called bio-CCS. We restore wetlands. Here we make investments worth billions. It is a multitude of things that must be done.

We also believe that the conditions exist for us in Sweden to introduce a national carbon pricing system, which is included among the 70 proposals. But it is not a final conclusion. It is a project plan to reach all the way to net zero.

The party debate was hereby concluded.

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