Party debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Politics is not everything, but politics matters. After several difficult years, Sweden has finally defeated inflation. The government managed to pursue a tight economic policy, and it yielded results.

With inflation under control, we can now lower taxes and improve household finances. With inflation under control, interest rates also go down, and that can mean several thousand more per month for an ordinary family with children. It is needed when everything has become more expensive - I know that many still have it very tough.

We see the results of our reorganization of the crime policy and the migration policy. Asylum immigration to Sweden is now the lowest since 1985. Gun violence is decreasing for the second year in a row, and the police are preventing and solving more crimes than before. It matters who governs Sweden.

It is brightening on the horizon, but it is still dark times. No question is more important for this government than Sweden's internal and external security.

In Ukraine, the sound of aircraft echoes in a war that will soon enter its fourth year. We stand by their side for as long as is required. Sweden's and Europe's security is largely determined by how that war ends.

Sweden, Mr. Speaker, is not in a state of war, but there is also no peace. We and our neighbors are subjected to constant hybrid attacks, often difficult to assess and prove. It concerns disinformation, prohibited election interference, orchestrated migrant flows, and threats of sabotage. We are now seeing sudden cable breaks in the Baltic Sea, and yesterday I was in Helsinki and met all my colleagues in the other NATO countries around the Baltic Sea to discuss exactly that issue.

Together with our neighbors and allies, we are now building security in our entire surrounding area. We do this through historical investments in military and civil defense. Already this year, we are marginally above NATO's two percent limit.

But we are also doing it in more ways. The Swedish submarine rescue ship HMS Belos was on site in Finland to assist with their investigation. And a mechanized battalion from P 7 in Skåne is currently on its way to Latvia in Sweden's very first operation as a NATO member.

We are therefore systematically strengthening our external security, but safety is also about internal security. Explosions, shootings, children being tasked to commit murders - all of this threatens the foundations of our society, and therefore we have launched a historic offensive against gang crime. During 2023, all the necessary investigations were initiated. During 2024, the offensive began, and in 2025 we continue at the same pace.

Last year, we doubled the minimum sentence for serious weapons offenses, enabled stay bans, and gave the police the right to create security zones. We made it easier to imprison criminals and expanded the preventive measures, such as wiretapping, and recently expanded the possibilities to seize the criminal gangs' assets, such as expensive watches and cars. And that possibility is now being used.

(Applause)

Applaud the police! According to the latest report I received, the police have made 140 seizures worth 30 million kronor. The luxury must be drained out of the gangster culture.

This work continues. On January 1, the possibility to testify anonymously was introduced. In April, the confidentiality barriers between school, social services, and police will finally be removed. In May, it will become easier to use camera surveillance in more locations. In July, we expand the possibilities to use DNA from genealogy to reach rapists and murderers. And this is only the first half of the year.

Gang criminals have long thought themselves above the law. Our message to them is clear: We will monitor you, deport you, lock you up, evict you and take your luxury items. And now we also want to be able to take your passports – because a passport is more than a travel document. It is a symbol of Swedish citizenship, and with it come not only great rights but also important obligations, such as wanting to be a part of the Swedish community at all, learning Swedish, supporting yourself and living an honest and decent life. We want that those who have dual citizenship and engage in system-threatening crime should be able to have their Swedish passport revoked. It is right, and it is necessary. Swedish citizenship shall not function as a protection for gross criminals.

(Applause)

On my side, Mr. Speaker, we agree on this, but all four parties in the left-wing alternative are opposed. When it really matters, it is only we who are prepared to do what is required to truly get rid of the criminal gangs. On my side in politics, we know what we want. We have a stable majority, and we are carrying out step by step and reform by reform what we promised and what we were mandated for in the 2022 election. And we get things done.

Already next year it is election time again, and then two alternatives stand against each other again. It is our alternative, which in a restless time gathers strength around Sweden's internal and external security, with reforms that make our fantastic country richer and safer. Against us stands a left-wing alternative that quarrels over all the big issues: the security policy, the energy policy, the taxes, the asylum immigration, and the crime policy. Next year it is time for the Swedish people to choose again.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In our world, the dark clouds are thickening. Netanyahu's warfare in Gaza has crossed all boundaries. The hostages have not yet been released. In Ukraine, Russia's brutal war continues. Tensions in our immediate vicinity are increasing, with cable breaks and the Russian shadow fleet.

At the same time, we live in economically turbulent times. The recession in our country is deep, and the growth forecasts have been revised downwards. Unemployment is rising. Youth unemployment is as high as 25 percent.

New business formation has fallen to the lowest levels since the financial crisis. Bankruptcies are higher than during both the financial crisis and the pandemic. More and more end up with the Enforcement Authority when ordinary families have difficulty making ends meet, and the government's own figures show that more are dependent on benefits to be able to support themselves. Such is the year-end balance for Sweden when more than half of the parliamentary term has passed.

Mr. Speaker! The problem is that the government and the Sweden Democrats lack a growth agenda. And when one lacks a plan for Swedish growth, well, then it is not so strange that one repeatedly prioritizes incorrectly. As when ordinary wage earners and hard-pressed families with children need to receive some relief – then the government and the Sweden Democrats choose to use tens of billions of the budget space to lower the tax for the very richest.

When unemployment begins to rise, cuts are made to the labor market policy. It is made harder for people to transition, retrain, find a new job and secure a livelihood. When the needs for new and cheap electricity and strengthened infrastructure grew, the choice was made to stop the expansion of offshore wind power and stop the expansion of new main lines. When construction begins to decline, the choice is made to remove the investment support for the construction of new housing.

In three budgets in a row, Kristersson's and Åkesson's impoverished policy has been presented. We are forced to conclude: It has not worked.

Mr. Speaker! Those who bear the costs for this are the Swedish people. It is the families with children who struggle to make the everyday economy work. It is the electricians, construction workers and welders all over our country who went to work in the morning but were met by locked gates because the employer has gone bankrupt.

The Swedish people have become poorer. Sweden is becoming poorer. It is decades of investments and hard work that are currently going up in smoke - investments that could have led to Sweden being at the forefront of the historical green technology shift that is currently taking place in the world. They could have led to more new industries in our country, more jobs that hire new employees, higher real wage increases for ordinary families and secured funding of our welfare.

Fundamentally, it is about the fact that the Tidö Agreement completely lacks an economic idea. There is no plan for higher growth and better real wages. There is no idea of what we are to live off of in Sweden in the coming years or the coming decades.

Mr. Speaker! For me it is clear: It is only through a functioning growth policy that we can secure real wage increases for ordinary wage earners, ensure that more people get into work and secure the financing of the welfare system. That is why Sweden needs a new direction and a new economic policy.

Firstly, we need to invest in that which builds Sweden rich and secure. We need more housing, trains that run on time, education, research, green transition and new industries, so that our country can be at the forefront of the technological shift, in exactly the same way that we have always built our prosperity. The labor market policy needs to become more active and ensure that more people move from benefit dependency to real jobs with good conditions and a wage they can live on.

Secondly, we need a fair economic policy that puts ordinary Swedes first. We Social Democrats want to see a fair tax cut for ordinary Swedes rather than large tax cuts aimed at the very wealthiest. Furthermore, we want to meet the households' pressured situation with increased child allowance, increased housing allowance for pensioners, and increased student grants.

Add a policy for real wage increases. And we need to secure our welfare. We need to ensure that resources are increased at least with inflation every year, so that healthcare, schools, and elderly care are there and functioning all over our country.

For the third: Right now, important investments are being held back due to the government's lack of ability or will to unite our country and conclude long-term agreements or stand up for the agreements that have already been concluded. Our country needs stable conditions for energy policy and industrial policy, so that more companies dare to establish themselves in Sweden and so that more Swedes can get a wage they can live on.

Mr. Speaker! We are facing a new epoch. Society needs to step forward and arm itself to meet the societal challenges we have. Today's low-growth policy needs to become a historical parenthesis if Sweden is to be able to become a wealthier and safer country for our citizens.

The Sverigedemokraternas and the government's impoverished and backward-looking policy must be replaced by a policy that seriously takes Sweden into the 2030s - a policy that makes our country richer, gives us higher growth and more jobs and ensures that everyone who can work also works and participates in our society. That is how we can build the welfare stronger, so that all Swedes get a future not only to look forward to but also to long for.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Last week we were reached by the news that the first spades for a research reactor in Oskarshamn will be taken soon. The ambition is, of course, to research the nuclear reactors of the future. From the time when the Social Democrats introduced the so-called "thought ban," which prohibited research and development for the purpose of building new nuclear power, we are now, 40 years later, moving slowly but surely forward.

Sweden shall build new nuclear power. We have ensured this together with the government parties. But unfortunately, it will be several years until the goal is reached. Until then, we are stuck in the broken system for electricity supply that the opposition left behind. It is a system that – one must admit – gives us electricity at reasonable prices if it blows, if it does not blow too much, and if it is not too cold. It thus gives us cheap electricity when the temperature is just right and it blows just enough.

I know that there are many who do not want to talk about this and do not want to feel responsible for the situation. But the previously almost world-unique stable, almost entirely fossil-free, and for consumers and industry affordable Swedish electricity system has been torn apart. People do not want to talk about this precisely because they themselves have been involved in tearing it apart. They do not want to talk about it; instead, they want to turn the page: That was so long ago, why should we dwell on that – we have always been for nuclear power! That is how it sounds in the debate today.

For me, it is quite uninteresting to talk about what the other parties want and do not want. Why should such a betrayal, which the guilty do not even have the sense to apologize for, be silenced because a certain amount of time has passed? I do not buy that, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a flawed reasoning.

The logic is reminiscent of the old parties' monumental betrayal when it comes to other issues, for example, migration policy and the fantastic, enriching multiculturalism. They spent 30-40 years forcing this system on us Swedes. When it then fails, they say: We didn't know, we have been naive, we didn't see it coming and so on - but now we certainly know better!

It is easy to tear down, but it is much harder to rebuild something that works. In particular, within the Social Democrats, the coat is turned both inside out and up and down at a frantic pace.

Will the Social Democrats' talk about all energy laws being necessary hold up over time, even after a potential future change of government? Will the coat be turned again? Will the Social Democrats, when they are forced to dance to the tunes of the Green Party and possibly the Left Party, once again tear down and destroy?

The Social Democratic power-holding is a prime example of how badly things can go when there is a lack of both common will and good politics. The common thread is that, in reality, nothing happens. When something does happen, it is usually something that is bad.

Nothing happened when it came to seeing and understanding the situation of crime victims. Nothing happened when it came to provocatively low sentences. Nothing happened when it came to the general lack of requirements in society. Nothing happened when it came to restoring discipline and order in Swedish schools. Nothing happened because one neither wanted nor could. One simply had no common idea.

The cooperation that we have with the government is based on completely different premises. We want to, we can, and we do. It is perhaps not unknown to anyone that the Sverigedemokraterna is the party that is a bit sharper and a bit more straightforward and that wants to go a bit further than all the other parties in this assembly. Sverigedemokraterna is a bit ahead of its time. But our cooperation can withstand this. It can withstand it because we are fundamentally in agreement about pulling in the same direction on the issues that are most important right now for our country and for the people who live here. Beyond the issue politics, there is a higher goal of strengthening cohesion and getting more people to feel involved in the building of Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Pontus Andersson Garpvall, Clara Aranda, Aron Emilsson, Yasmine Eriksson, Mattias Eriksson Falk, Rashid Farivar, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Sara Gille, Daniel Lönn, Thomas Morell, Charlotte Quensel, Patrick Reslow, Jimmy Ståhl, Johnny Svedin and Eric Westroth (all SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is still a good country - a strong country. From being Europe's poorest, we became one of the world's richest in a few decades. We built up a strong welfare state, which leveled class inequalities. Sweden's welfare system has equipped us with knowledge, self-confidence, and dignity and created conditions for successful companies.

But now we are backing into the future. It is about priorities. For 30 years, different governments, both Moderate and Social Democratic, have dismantled important building blocks in our country, those that made us strong. Sweden's growth is now at the bottom of Europe. We have mass unemployment. We have records in the number of bankruptcies.

We on the Left Party saw this coming. We knew it would turn out like this. We warned against exactly what is happening today. The neoliberal project was doomed to fail. It was a poor idea to deregulate the world's best and most equal school. Naturally, unserious financial interests would exploit the situation. The result now is segregation, violence in schools, and weak school results.

We on the Left Party warned early on about what it would lead to when government after government chose to withdraw the state from large parts of Sweden and privatize Arbetsförmedlingen, the pharmacies, the railway, the electricity system, and the vehicle testing.

It was not we who abolished the state housing policy. We said that it would lead to a housing shortage and dilapidated residential areas. This is something we are paying a high price for today - in every way. Far too few homes are being built. Young people manage to become adults before they move out of their parents' home.

Many years ago, we demanded a stop to unserious actors who make money on vulnerable children in HVB homes. We warned that gang criminals could in that way get in and systematically recruit young people into gang criminality. We see all of this happening today. But we were outvoted by the Sverigedemokraterna.

(Applause)

It is not just about naivety. The decisions have been made with eyes wide open. Selling out healthcare, schools, elderly care, and much more to those who do not have the democratic responsibility has corrupted our country. The Swedish government has for years sold out the democratic control. Instead, criminals have taken over. The government and Sverigedemokraterna are simply continuing on the same track.

We need change - for real. We need to stop the robbery of Sweden's families. We must bring down the prices. Children should not go to bed with rumbling stomachs - or should they, Ebba Busch, who claimed she would stop this. Ebba Busch has raised food prices by nearly over 30 percent since she became minister. Young people should not have to live at home until they are 30-35. Therefore, it was wrong to remove the investment support - or was it, Jimmie Åkesson, who chose to do it.

Food, rents and electricity - the prices have gone up far too much. They must go down. This is destroying families' finances. We need to re-establish a housing policy that actually builds away the housing shortage. How can concrete workers and timber workers be unemployed in Sweden today when the need is so great? There are soon half a million unemployed - they are going without work. We need to take back control over the market school and market care. We must raise pensions, strengthen the unemployment insurance, and get the sickness insurance to work. We must make Sweden work - invest in Sweden and in all of us who live here.

It is not unemployment that should grow; it is the companies. We need to stand up in the competition with the USA and China. We need growth that reduces emissions, not blue-brown decline that increases emissions.

We will get there, but we will do it with a new left-wing government.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! It feels good to stand here in the chamber before colleagues again after another Christmas break, but it also feels heavy with responsibility. As we now step into 2025, it is indeed evident that Sweden is not doing so well.

Cohesion is broken, and far too many experience that politics does not have answers to the problems they face in everyday life. Far too many risk losing faith in the future if we in here do not act based on the trust we have been given.

As we now look forward toward the rest of the year, toward the election and toward the next mandate period, there are some societal problems that stand out more than others.

Let us begin with the school. A good school gives every student the opportunity to succeed in life regardless of where they live or what family background they have. But that is not how it looks in Sweden today. Instead, we have a school system that knocks out tens of thousands of students every year. Students who need support receive too little, and they receive it too late. Violence and insecurity have been allowed to spread, and the knowledge gap is increasing. The government, of course, does not bear sole responsibility for this – this has been allowed to grow for far too many years. But the government demonstrates an inability to solve these problems.

The same thing applies to the jobs. It is no coincidence that Sweden has the EU's third highest unemployment or that a record number of Swedish companies went bankrupt in 2024.

Sweden could become the world's best country for life journeys, where everyone who makes an effort can also work their way to a better life for themselves and for their family. But that requires precisely liberal reforms, and it requires political courage - something this government clearly lacks.

Another area that stands out is the enormous betrayal we see towards the countryside. Healthcare, school, and care are significantly worse in the countryside than in the rest of the country, despite the fact that one simultaneously pays much higher taxes. It is a completely unacceptable injustice in our country that is allowed to continue. The government's only response to this has been to move more power from healthcare and school to precisely these neighborhoods here in Stockholm. All reforms that could make a difference are conspicuously absent, as are the funds that could actually change lives.

Many in this chamber have over the years raised the issue of gang crime, but let us speak plainly. It is about the mafia - the Swedish mafia - and the Swedish mafia must be defeated. The criminal structure has not only eaten its way into large parts of society but today finances its acts of violence by committing frauds against, among others, our elderly. At home in Östergötland, the fraudsters have cheated 50 elderly people out of all their life savings in just the first ten days of this year.

The government is doing quite a lot, that must be acknowledged, but if we are to truly defeat the mafia, we must also attack what drives the mafia, namely the money. It is only when the blood circulation is choked that the head can die.

On top of all this lies our time's great fateful issue: the climate. The only way forward to lower emissions is green growth. We must not, and must not, choose between economic development and care for the climate. With the right policy, we can make it faster, cheaper, and simpler to transition, but the government is now doing exactly the opposite with devastating results. Emissions are increasing while the economy deteriorates.

These five social analyses are the basis for what the Centerpartiet will continue to drive during this mandate period. These are the five social analyses that people talk about at the kitchen table and that are noticeable in our everyday lives. With these five social analyses as the basis, the conclusion also becomes clear: Sweden needs a new government. It is obvious that the one we have is not capable of solving Sweden's problems.

The next government must solve these five social problems, and that is also the clear message from us in Centerpartiet to the one seeking our support to form a government. It is clear that Sweden cannot afford another four years without a warm and green liberal policy that sees the needs of the entire country.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Slowly but surely, it will become cheaper to be Swedish. To Magdalena Andersson and Nooshi Dadgostar, I want to say: It takes time to clean up after a red-red-green government.

When we took over, inflation was almost 10 percent. Now it is down below 2 percent. Inflation is the worst enemy for all the hard-working families with children out there. The year we took over, we had fuel prices that were at 28 kronor, actively driven by politics. Now fuel prices are around 18 kronor. Nooshi Dadgostar can raise her voice as much as she wants, but actions speak much louder than her words. This government is now delivering bit by bit for the sake of the Swedish people. Bit by bit, it will become cheaper to be Swedish in this country.

We have only just begun. Sweden, which is our home, shall become both safer and wealthier. One must be able to trust Sweden. We Christian Democrats went to the election with a promise that the healthcare shall be reliable. It is time to strip the regions of the responsibility for healthcare. The Christian Democrats have unfortunately been alone in fighting to let the state take over. Nevertheless, an investigation is finally underway on how the state management of healthcare shall be increased and how healthcare can become a state primary responsibility.

Year in and year out, in an eternity that has not felt like a short second, we have seen examples of how the regions falter in their mission. People have talked about benchmarking and best practice, and people talk about learning from one another, but still, every region seems to believe it knows best how healthcare should be managed.

The healthcare's digital desert trek continues, most recently manifested in Västra Götaland and Skåne. Instead of inviting digital services that can increase accessibility in the care chain, these are being portrayed as a threat. Your zip code therefore continues to be decisive for how long you will be illegally forced to wait for the care you are entitled to.

Let this be the best proof that legislation intended to guarantee you rights in healthcare unfortunately is no longer sufficient. It is not enough when 21 independent regions fail to do what law and decency require.

Mr. Speaker! The parliamentary commission has the task of producing a feasible proposal on how healthcare can become a state primary responsibility. If one listens to how the talk about the commission sounds in Regionsverige, however, it sounds rather like it is free to stick to that Vårdsverige which obviously is not to be trusted.

Let me be very clear: the Christian Democrats are not a party that will accept any half-measures or accept proposals characterized by lack of interest or lack of insight into the disease when it comes to why staff and patients end up being squeezed in this country. Swedish healthcare needs to be changed fundamentally, and nationalization is the way forward. We must stop patching and repairing a system that is beyond saving. State-run healthcare, Mr. Speaker, is the prerequisite for a healthcare system that can be relied upon in the entire country.

(Applause)

Thank you, dear Christian Democrats! It is fortunate that we have the Swedish people with us outside this chamber.

Mr. Speaker! One of the Constitutional Committee's proposals concerns citizenship. The investigation has stopped at proposing a possibility to revoke citizenship for persons who commit crimes such as terrorism and espionage. That is not enough. The person who commits serious and system-threatening crime, that is, the one who is a gang criminal, should of course also be able to be deprived of their Swedish citizenship. This is, however, something the investigation does not propose, and it is a failure caused by the opposition.

We have known gang leaders, such as for example Rawa Majid, better known as the Kurdish Fox, who control their crime syndicates from abroad. People who sit in Turkey, Iran, and Spain and run the gangs in Sweden should no longer be allowed to call Sweden their home! Those who systematically commit crimes that threaten safety, security, and social cohesion should be given a "thank you and goodbye." It is a mark of poverty that the opposition still does not understand this.

Sweden can do better, Sweden's citizens deserve better and you should be able to trust Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Yusuf Aydin, Camilla Brodin, Gudrun Brunegård, Cecilia Engström, Dan Hovskär, Ingemar Kihlström and Camilla Rinaldo Miller (all KD) concurred.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A violent world places higher demands on leadership in Sweden. Vladimir Putin's war of invasion continues to grind down a generation of Ukrainians. We welcome the Riksdag's broad consensus behind Sweden's support for Ukraine.

At the same time, Sweden needs to break the fossil dependency that contributes to maintaining the global demand for oil and gas that finances Russia's war. The government chooses instead to deepen the fossil dependency with massive subsidies.

We are now hearing that a ceasefire is near, but we have still not seen an end to Benjamin Netanyahu's killing in Gaza, which is reaping tens of thousands of civilian victims. The terrorist organization Hamas has also not released its hostages. What is the Swedish government doing in this situation? It bows to Israel and strangles the support to the UN organization UNRWA, which provides virtually all humanitarian aid in Gaza. It is spineless.

Mr. Speaker! The climate crisis also poses a threat of violence. We see it in the flames that swallow neighborhood after neighborhood in Los Angeles. We see the same violent consequences in the masses of water that destroy people's homes in Spain and Poland, but also in Gävle and Åre.

The year 2024 became the year in which we passed 1.5 degrees of warming, and the UN warns that we are heading towards a nightmare scenario of over 3 degrees. We are about to trigger what has been called nature's irreversible violence against humanity. Nevertheless, the Tidö Government acts as if climate policy were a greater threat to the population than climate change. It is to expose Sweden's population to unacceptable risks.

More than half of the parliamentary term has passed, and the result is that the Tidö government has increased emissions and is braking the transition. This is shown by both the Fiscal Policy Council, the Climate Policy Council, and statistics on emissions and electric car sales. Instead of helping households break their fossil fuel dependency, the government has poured money into fossil subsidies, as we just heard. The result is that Sweden not only belongs to the minority of EU countries that are increasing their emissions – we are the country that is increasing its emissions the most.

Mr. Speaker! EU's climate policy is based on the member states fulfilling their commitments. When the government nonchalantly bombs our climate goals, it is not only Sweden's transition that is damaged, but all of Europe's. This ultimately threatens the entire world's transition. EU's role as a global driver in climate work is central. And if EU's member states do not reduce their emissions, why should China keep what they have promised? Furthermore, the government is pushing to tear up EU's legislation on increasing the climate benefit of forests. But if we are not to sequester more carbon in the European forests, why should Brazil do so in the Amazon?

Mr. Speaker! Climate change poses a threat, but the climate transition is our best chance to build a stronger, safer, and freer society. Miljöpartiet wants to see a just climate transition across the entire country, and we have hundreds of political proposals to implement it.

We shall invest in, renovate and expand the railway and public transport. Where the car is necessary, we provide fair support to help people switch from fossil fuel cars to electric cars. We shall accelerate the electrification and the expansion of a renewable energy system.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants to drive out the profit interest from the school and invest in welfare and the preventive work that authorities and the police agree we need to break the gang violence. We want to create a society where all people have economic basic security and time for recovery, today by immediately inflation-proofing the child allowance, the housing allowance, and the maintenance support.

It is fully possible to transition to a better society. The proposals exist, and we can afford them. Unfortunately, the current government lacks the political will. It is time to change the government.

(Applause)

In this speech, Leila Ali Elmi, Janine Alm Ericson, Camilla Hansén, Annika Hirvonen, Amanda Lind and Nils Seye Larsen (all MP) concurred.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden and Europe are in very stormy political waters. Geopolitical changes and aggressive ambitions threaten peace, freedom, and security in our country. Putin's bloody war against Ukraine continues with bottomless brutality. In the Baltic Sea, ships mysteriously lose their anchors and happen to tear up the cables that bind liberal democracies in Europe together.

Sweden may not be in a state of war, but the gray zone is becoming ever darker.

Nationalist winds are spreading across the Atlantic and risk weakening the successful cooperation between North America and Europe, now with Greenland in renewed focus. It hardly requires rocket science to calculate what could happen, for example, to the Swedish krona and the Swedish economy if we are threatened with the same measures as Denmark and Greenland. Imagine if new tariffs are formed to strike specifically at our mining industry, pharmaceutical industry, or tech industry!

Mr. Speaker! Alone is not strong. Sweden is a proud industrial and trading nation that must be armed for the worst. Our prosperity is built on exports to the rest of the world through the EU.

In January 2022, not many believed that Sweden would join Nato. On the contrary – several parties had recently, with their customary wishful thinking, asserted that the defense alliance was unthinkable. Now it is January 2025, and we face new, very difficult challenges. It is now, when it is overcast, that Sweden and Europe need more and stronger cooperation. Therefore, we must storm-proof the Swedish economy and move from the krona to the euro, preferably yesterday. That is how we better protect Sweden from antagonistic activities from Beijing, Moscow, or Mar-a-Lago.

Mr. Speaker! Let me turn my gaze toward the future, toward the Swedish school and the Swedish classrooms. There are too few rules in Swedish schools. Sweden has not given teachers the conditions and the tools that are needed. The consequences are rowdiness and a lack of structure and respect in the classrooms. Students spit and kick at teachers, a violence that is never tolerated in other workplaces.

The Social Democratic municipalization and the subsequent deregulation of the school have opened the door for pedagogical experiments without support from any research whatsoever. Many students in school encounter listening reading and nonsense pedagogy instead of volume training and real books that prepare them for the future. It is perhaps not so very strange, Mr. Speaker, that there is a literacy crisis in Sweden, from first grade to our universities and colleges when it comes to reading academic text.

Swedish schools can once again become a world-class knowledge school, but for that to be possible, they must return to the basics. First of all, we must give back the decision-making power to teachers and principals. It must become easier to move students from the classroom. With special investments in safety teams, emergency schools, and reinforced cooperation between police, school, and social services, the possibilities for studying also in the classrooms increase. The literacy crisis shall be met with a re-regulation of the school's foundations with clear requirements on maximum caps in the classes, real textbooks, and real laboratory rooms if one studies natural sciences.

We know that school is the path to the broad middle class. It is how we create real empowerment for young adults to shape their own lives and build the future of Sweden together with generations before and after.

Mr. Speaker! It is always the wealth-creating forces that build prosperity and welfare. This is quite well-established knowledge. In order for us to remain a wealthy country, hard work, education, and investments in Sweden must pay off, and that is why the government has lowered the tax on work from this turn of the year. We have ensured to lower the tax for small businesses that employ more employees. There are many question marks surrounding what the red-green parties want, but one thing is very certain: They never hesitate to raise the tax on diligence, education, and savings.

This government is doing the right thing. The Liberals argue that it is central to have half remaining. It must pay to work, to educate oneself and to be diligent. That is how we build Sweden strong. That is how we give more empowerment to ordinary people. This is the foundation for the Sweden that we love.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Day by day, we are tackling the problems that made Sweden poorer and more dangerous and which were allowed to grow far too large for far too long. Serious politics must always be about solutions: work out necessary reforms, build majorities, and get things done.

The left-wing alternative in Swedish politics could not agree on reducing asylum immigration and could not even, during an ongoing wave of extreme violence, agree on real measures against the criminal gangs. But let us give them one thing. They could actually agree on nuclear power, and they shut it down. Southern Sweden is paying for that today. The left-wing alternative also did not see things coming, and what one does not see, one does nothing about.

On my side of politics, we have agreed on the major issues to build our country safer and wealthier, while the opposition is still divided on every issue that is truly important for Sweden. They cannot agree on whether more asylum seekers who have received a rejection should return or on limiting the number of quota refugees. They cannot agree on anonymous witnesses, residency bans for gang criminals, or preventive coercive measures. They cannot agree on taxes. They cannot even agree on Sweden's security policy.

The left-wing alternative would not be able to present a single bill that makes Sweden richer and safer. But we can, and we do.

(Applause)

In this speech, John E Weinerhall (M) and Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Three of the four of the government's budgets are presented, and it is the same story time and again: large tax cuts for the rich, a complete halt to construction, wrecked energy policy, and a brake on investments in new green technology that creates new jobs. We see the result. New business creation is falling for the third year in a row and is now at the lowest level since the financial crisis. Sweden belongs to the bottom of the EU when it comes to growth. Unemployment is rising. Youth unemployment is 25 percent. More are dependent on benefits than when the government took office.

Time and again, the government has to scale down its own forecasts for economic growth. No matter how you spin it, it is obvious that the recession is deepening due to the government's policy.

My question to Ulf Kristersson is: What would Ulf Kristersson, with the benefit of hindsight, have done differently during these two years?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, our budgets pass through the Riksdag, unlike how it was for the government that preceded ours. We can, therefore, conduct an economic policy. We do not submit a budget as a tip to the Riksdag – maybe it passes, maybe it doesn't. One has no idea. If you do not have a budget in a recession, you have no economic policy, and that would not be the case for you.

If we had followed the recipe to fuel the fire during high inflation, households would be in a worse position today. We inherited an inflation of 10 percent from the previous government. Now it is under 2 percent. Interest rates are falling. Now there are conditions to truly support households. All of this is proper economic policy.

It is quite true that all of Europe has a growth problem, but it would not have become better with high interest rates and high inflation. Now the conditions are in place.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I really must thank you for the answer. It is incredibly clear. When did we last see such a satisfied Prime Minister in Sweden?

He is satisfied that all of Europe has low growth. But Swedish growth is at the bottom of the EU's swamp. He is satisfied that every fourth young person in the labor market is unemployed. He is satisfied that what is called the work principle is in practice a benefit principle, because more people live on cash benefits and social assistance. He is satisfied with all the bankruptcies we see in the construction industry, with a total halt in construction as a result. And he is satisfied with a railway policy that, much like the energy policy, has failed.

If there had been an Olympic event in contentment, the medals would have hung heavy around Ulf Kristersson's neck.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is becoming a bit ridiculous. If one reads our budget and listened to what I said, is there anything that suggests that I am satisfied with the situation in Sweden? We are working around the clock to solve the problems that mean we have no reason to be satisfied, those that you left behind: too high asylum immigration, too much gang crime, too high inflation, and too high taxes. We are working on all of this now. That is why we take politics so seriously.

Let us look at what could be Sweden's great growth engine, that is to say, Stockholm. There you have the power. That is probably the shop window. There you have succeeded in raising the tax for two years in a row, which means 6,000 kronor more in tax for a completely ordinary family with children in Stockholm. Yet you make cuts in public transport in just Stockholm of all places. The healthcare queues are increasing, and for purely ideological reasons, you pull the rug out from under estimated healthcare clinics. You don't even manage the preventive; there are fewer security guards. That is your result when you have the power.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a tense security policy situation. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is a violation of international law and a humanitarian catastrophe. It is an attack on peace in all of Europe.

In connection with this, Ulf Kristersson has appointed a national security advisor, who increasingly appears to be and is becoming a national security risk. What I understand is that Henrik Landerholm is a childhood friend of the Prime Minister. He has employed people who are not security-cleared. He has left his mobile phone at the Hungarian embassy. Now it has also emerged that he has left not only classified but also security-cleared material at a training ground, which means that it has been leaked, and he has lied about this.

Is it Ulf Kristersson's opinion that he nevertheless has a personal responsibility for this? How does he evaluate what has emerged and the disclosed classified information? Is it good to have such a national security advisor in the current situation?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I answered these questions last week. This is, therefore, about two-year-old events, which have been handled by the Government Offices' security department according to the routines that exist when things that should not happen still happen. I have no reason to question their handling. I do note, however, that the question has been referred to the Committee on the Constitution, and it is then their task to review the Government Offices' handling.

Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that I take no lessons from a party leader who has difficulty keeping clean from terror romanticism in their own ranks.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson is not taking this issue seriously. He blames everything and everyone and uses it as a stunt in this debate.

We live in a tense security policy situation. Ulf Kristersson has chosen to hire a childhood friend as a security policy advisor, and this has not occurred through standard hiring processes. I am saying nothing about that, but this is a person who has repeatedly leaked security-classified material, which is a threat to the nation's security. Ulf Kristersson does not think this is important and uses it as polemic in the debate. Is that serious?

Does Ulf Kristersson not care about this? Is his view that this is not his responsibility but concerns an administrative unit at the Government Offices? Is Ulf Kristersson's view that he has no personal responsibility for that this person has acted with falsehoods, disclosed security-classified material and in itself, in this situation, is a security policy risk inside the Government Offices? Does Ulf Kristersson not care about this?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not I who am making a general polemic of this issue, but it is Nooshi Dadgostar.

I have answered several times exactly what has occurred and what I know about the matter. The Government Offices' security department has handled this issue as they handle problems of this kind. Such things should not happen, but they can still happen. I have no reason to question their handling of this. I have not been involved in the matter, but now the matter must be reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have seen that the government is happy to call press conferences to talk about new records that have been broken, how many people have left the country or how few are allowed to come here. I would, however, like to ask the Prime Minister about some other records, which the Moderaterna seem to want to sweep under the carpet.

Last year, a new record was set in the number of bankruptcies: over 10,000. New business formation hits a record low and is at the lowest levels since the financial crisis. As a consequence of this, unemployment is increasing and reaching record levels. Employment is falling.

My question is quite simple: What is the Prime Minister doing to solve this problem for Sweden's small business owners?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is an important issue. I and this government inherited an economic situation with a recession and 10 percent inflation. Everyone who has any memory of Swedish economic history knows roughly what 10 percent inflation and high interest rates mean for households and, to a very large extent, for companies and their willingness to hire and make investments. These are serious matters, parallel to the serious security policy situation.

All of this we inherited, and all of this we have worked with. It started with that we did not want to fall into the trap of giving everything to everyone during high inflation and fueling the fire even more. That was the first thing we did. Then there were many who protested and said that we should do more and fuel the fire.

Those who have read this year's budget – this is not a tip, the budget has been negotiated and is being processed in the Riksdag – see large growth reforms, investments in infrastructure and research, as well as tax cuts on effort and work. It builds growth.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Once upon a time, labor market policy and small business ownership were the Moderates' forte. They understood that jobs and entrepreneurship were the key for more people to be able to build a better future and for growth to be strong in this country.

We have now heard the Prime Minister stand here and say that one works day and night to make Sweden better. Yet the figures are going in the wrong direction. Yet the number of bankruptcies is increasing. Yet unemployment is increasing. Yet new business creation is decreasing.

Other countries have also had inflation. Other countries have also struggled with what Sweden has struggled with. There, the bankruptcies have not reached these levels. There, unemployment has not increased in the same way as in Sweden.

Small businesses are left to struggle. There is a budget, but small businesses see no light in that budget. I cannot interpret this in any other way than that the Moderaterna either do not want to or actually cannot remedy what Swedish small business owners are facing in their daily lives right now.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have, as everyone knows, nothing against us arguing with each other when we disagree strongly. That is how it should be in politics. I am, however, even more in favor of us being able to come together and get things done when we think roughly alike.

This is a bit ironic. We are reviewing the 3:12 rules. We want to defend property rights in the new constitutional investigation. We want to lower the marginal tax so that one keeps at least half. The government and Centerpartiet are fundamentally in complete agreement on all of this. The irony is that you have the wrong gang. What of all this are you going to achieve with Vänsterpartiet? It is simply incomprehensible.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! During the election campaign, the Moderaterna promised that new nuclear power would lead to lower electricity prices, solve the climate transition, and be expanded without state support. Elisabeth Svantesson guaranteed that the construction of new reactors would begin within 100 days after the election. Now, 820 days have passed, but so far, no groundbreaking is in sight. On the other hand, it has become brutally clear that new nuclear power requires gigantic state subsidies. It is also a fact that the government's fixation on nuclear power risks slowing down the expansion of other fossil-free types of energy.

In this situation, one must ask oneself whether the Prime Minister knew all along that it would not be possible to build nuclear power without state support but chose to mislead during the election campaign. Or did the Prime Minister seriously believe that it would be possible to produce new nuclear power with only regulatory simplifications?

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must say that I am a little surprised and pleased by the Green Party's eagerness to get new nuclear power in Sweden as quickly as possible. Welcome to the club – this is very good!

The fact is that no serious country has abdicated from energy policy in the way that Sweden has. Sweden has thought that one can just leave it be and see how it goes. Maybe it works; maybe it doesn't. No serious country lets that question go and hopes that it resolves itself. Therefore, we began by removing the explicit prohibitions that you were involved in introducing. Now we ensure that there is a basic idea of how the risk for investments in new nuclear power shall be shared.

The only country that Sweden can be compared with is unfortunately Germany. They shut down nuclear power, only built wind power and hoped that would be enough. Now they are burning coal and oil. It is unfortunately really bad environmental policy.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) concurred.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I did not perceive any answer from the Prime Minister on the question of whether he truly believed it would be possible to build nuclear power without support or actively chose to mislead in the election campaign. I believe that the voters would like to know that.

In the autumn, Ulf Kristersson's former State Secretary for the Green Party called the new energy realists and pointed to the Green Party's proposals for investments in more renewables, energy efficiency, and green baseload. This combination is the answer to many of the challenges that Sweden faces today, but the moderate fixation on new nuclear power instead slows down the climate transition, increases emissions, and threatens Swedish competitiveness. How far does it have to go before the Prime Minister manages to face reality and let go of the prestige?

(Applause)

In this speech, Camilla Hansén (MP) agreed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are talking almost exclusively about nuclear power because you, Daniel Helldén, always want to talk about nuclear power. It is you who are obsessed with this. First, you dismantled nuclear power, and now that we want to build it up again, you think that we are obsessed with it.

We are obsessed with one thing when it comes to energy: stable, reliable and fossil-free energy at reasonable prices. That is what I am easily obsessed with; that is allowed. Then all types of energy are needed. It is not enough with only weather-dependent power. We are, after all, one of Europe's coldest and most elongated countries and a highly industrialized country where industry wants to move from fossil to fossil-free. So that is roughly what the simple calculation looks like. But these are difficult things, and therefore we are now doing difficult things.

The investment issue is about removing the political risk because, in the business world, it is quite rightly a fear that you will regain power once again and return to a policy where fossil-free energy is dismantled.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) concurred.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This debate has been ongoing for over an hour. I believe that the Swedish people would have expected to receive information from the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna on how they intend to tackle the economic crisis in Sweden, what new initiatives they will now take now that it has been shown that the politics of recent years have failed, and what new conclusions they have drawn after three out of four budgets this mandate period have pushed down our growth to the bottom of the EU, abruptly halted construction, and made more Swedes dependent on social welfare and cash assistance.

We have, however, not heard a single word from the government and the Sweden Democrats regarding any new announcements or new initiatives. More of the same seems to be Åkesson's and Kristersson's recipe. It is more tax cuts for the rich rather than support for ordinary families so that they can live a good life, more cuts in school and healthcare, more stalled investments and more backward-looking politics.

Mr. Speaker! Our country needs a new direction. We need a policy for growth to increase productivity - a policy to invest in new technology and infrastructure, to build housing and to invest in that which makes us richer. We need a more just economic policy so that more people have a job to go to, so that we once again get real wage increases and so that households can leave the tough years behind them.

Mr. Speaker! We need to unite Sweden so that we can move our country forward. The idea-poor politics of division needs to be replaced with stability so that everyone who works hard and behaves correctly in our country can live a good life. Then we will have a future to look forward to.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Asylum-related immigration is now at its lowest since 1985, meaning the lowest in 40 years, and yet the promised paradigm shift is only in its infancy. The major reforms remain.

So, it matters how you vote, and it matters who is in power. Magdalena Andersson and the Socialdemokrater, as is well known, claim that they have always been in favor of a strict migration policy. That naturally lacks all credibility, but apart from that: How does Magdalena Andersson imagine she will be able to continue a strict migration policy when the rest of her government base wants to do exactly the opposite and increase immigration?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is good that we start from the facts. The asylum legislation that we have in Sweden right now was developed by the Social Democratic-led government. No legislative changes have occurred since the current government took office.

The major paradigm shift occurred with the new migration legislation in 2016. The major decline in the number of asylum applications came after that. It went from over 100,000 granted applications down to approximately 10,000 when we handed over government power. Now the number has decreased by a few thousand more, but it was with the migration policy that was developed during the years I sat in a government position that it became tens of thousands fewer.

We Social Democrats stand firm on this migration policy, and it shall remain.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is naturally just a pure coincidence that this is happening now when we have a new government in place and not when Magdalena Andersson was Prime Minister - of course!

The Social Democrats use tricks and rhetorical fixes, but when it actually comes down to it, they are not there. They are unable to make the decisions that need to be made. One example is the citizenship of gang criminals. They are unable to do what is required.

Mr. Speaker! Why is it so important for the Social Democrats and for Magdalena Andersson that gang leaders with dual citizenship should be allowed to keep their Swedish passports? In my world, it is completely incomprehensible that the Social Democrats can think it is so important. I think that Magdalena Andersson must answer why it is so important that gang leaders are allowed to keep their Swedish passports.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) concurred.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Here in my hand, Jimmie Åkesson, I hold a paper with some migration policy history and a curve showing how many asylum applications were granted in 2016. As I remember it was approximately 85,000, but when we handed over 2022 it was approximately 10,000 or something fewer. Now it is a few thousand fewer again. The major paradigm shift thus occurred after the reorganization in 2016, just so we have that with us.

With this said, I would like to see that we had legislation that means we can take away gang leaders' Swedish passports. This has been worked on in the committee. We Social Democrats were constructive in finding a solution, but one did not succeed in reaching any.

What you want to do now, Jimmie Åkesson, is far too broad. I think this: If one associates with gang criminals so closely that one even invites them to one's wedding, it may be a reason for one to lose one's job, but one should not lose one's citizenship because of it.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! For a long time, it has been all too easy to become a Swedish citizen. Now we are tightening the requirements. We will ensure that those who want a Swedish passport must learn Swedish, become part of Swedish society, support themselves, and live an honest life.

It is not enough, however, to just tighten the requirements. On my side of politics, we want those who have dual citizenship and who commit crimes threatening the system to be able to lose their Swedish citizenship, but the Social Democrats say no to this.

Why, Magdalena Andersson, do the Social Democrats want the leaders of the criminal gangs to be allowed to keep their Swedish passports?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is very good that we in the Committee on the Constitution have reached a broad agreement in Swedish politics on several large and important changes to the constitution, including the fact that one shall be able to be deprived of their Swedish citizenship if one, for example, has received it on incorrect grounds or commits high treason or other crimes against the security of the realm. I stand behind the agreement we have reached. I assume that Ulf Kristersson also does so, that the agreement will come as a government bill to the Riksdag and that the Moderates can also vote for it. It would be good to receive a clear statement from Ulf Kristersson on that point.

I just answered Jimmie Åkesson's question about whether I also think that gang leaders should be able to lose their citizenship. No such solution was found. I would have liked to see it.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is not true. "No such solution was found." No, for the Social Democrats said no. What are we others supposed to do about it? The problem was not that no solution was found, but that you did not want to proceed with legislation that ensures that those who have dual citizenship and commit system-threatening crime can be deprived of their Swedish citizenship. Stand up for that position - or even better: Change your minds!

Denmark has done exactly this. Denmark has provided much inspiration regarding how we combat the criminal gangs. Ultimately, there is only one language that really works. Sweden is not a sanctuary for people who are grossly criminal and threaten all the values Sweden stands for.

You have one more chance. Change your minds! Why are you against taking away the citizenship from those who commit system-threatening crime?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson did not answer the question. Is this what is going to be presented? Is Ulf Kristersson throwing his own party secretary, who has sat on the committee, under the bus? In the agreement, it was stated in writing that one will only move forward with matters on which there is broad consensus. Here, Ulf Kristersson needs to clarify.

We worked constructively to find a solution, but we assess the solution you propose as being too broad. If, for example, one leaves security-classified documents in a courtyard, one should perhaps lose their job, but we do not think that one should be able to lose their citizenship because of that.

On the other hand, we want to ensure that gang criminals are in prison, regardless of what citizenship they have. Therefore, we have proposed RICO legislation - a mafia law - which could ensure that the gang leaders are in prison. For some incomprehensible reason, Ulf Kristersson has refused to investigate it. Why does Ulf Kristersson not want to implement effective measures to ensure that the gang criminals are in prison and not going to wedding parties?

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! We see daily the effects of a significantly deteriorated security situation in our immediate vicinity. Russia's cowardly aggressions in Ukraine are now followed by sabotage in the Baltic Sea and cyberattacks against Swedish companies and authorities. We obviously need to invest more in our security.

The Center Party pushed hard within the Defense Preparation to increase expenditures for Swedish defense to at least 3 percent of GDP. Unfortunately, we did not find favor among the other parties. But Magdalena Andersson sees reality for what it is and has previously had the ability to also adapt her party's actions based on that. Therefore, my question to Magdalena Andersson is whether the Social Democrats are now prepared to stand behind the Center Party's demand for defense appropriations of at least 3 percent of GDP.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by saying that I appreciate the great responsibility the Center Party has always taken for Sweden's security and security policy. You have time and again stood up for a policy that is to secure the security of Sweden and the Swedish people. You deserve gratitude and attention for that.

We Social Democrats are naturally prepared to adapt Sweden's military expenditures to the prevailing security policy situation. That is why we carried out the major realignment of security and defense policy - also in cooperation with the Center Party. We increased it so that military expenditures are now the highest since the Second World War. It is important, and it needs to continue. The Defense Preparation [Försvarsberedningen] ensures that the military and civil rearmament continues to increase. We stand behind the agreement that has been reached.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Some of us may have spent Christmas watching SVT's series Whiskey on the rocks. There is much to say about that series, but one thing was clear: Thorbjörn Fälldin and Centerpartiet have always stood up for the motto "hold the line". It is more important now than ever. Hold the line! That is something we all need to stand behind.

This summer's NATO summit will be extremely important. There, it will be discussed that 3 percent will be a minimum, i.e., a floor, for NATO's member countries. I met Poland's defense minister last week and had a long, confidential conversation. He also highlighted this as an issue that will be pushed forward.

The question is whether Sweden should remain silent and sit on its hands in these contexts or whether we should take a leading role. I hope that more parties here in the chamber can muster the courage and actually drive this issue forward. The Defense Preparation Authority's work is commendable, but now it is time to highlight the issue of 3 percent as a floor for our defense spending.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We naturally need to adapt defense spending to the current security situation. That is also the reason why we agreed in the Defense Preparation Committee to increase to 2.6 percent of GDP. I want to emphasize that it is not just about the level in relation to GDP, but also about getting as much defense capability as possible for the money we have. It is a central task to work on, as well as naturally the fact that all Nato countries must live up to the decided floor. So that has unfortunately not looked the case at all during recent years. It is therefore a fundamental task for Nato. But that being said, I truly appreciate the Center Party's work. Hold the line! That is what we need to do, against both external and internal enemies.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes it feels a bit stuck in Swedish politics, but now we are going to talk about an exciting opening that has revealed itself. The Social Democrats have, in their proposal for a party program, finally opened up for increased state control of healthcare. I am very happy about that. It is a good first step for the leading opposition party towards meeting us Kristdemokrater in the will to create conditions for equal healthcare of world-class quality throughout the country, regardless of which zip code one has.

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask Magdalena Andersson if she believes that the Social Democrats' change of course will have time to take effect in the parliamentary inquiry that is now looking at the organization of healthcare. Can we Christians Democrats count on the Social Democrats' support when it comes to state responsibility for healthcare? That would, so to speak, be a KD-S solution.

In this speech, Gudrun Brunegård (KD) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The problem for Swedish healthcare right now is not which zip code one has, but that there is acute underfunding. It is unfortunately the result of the decisions that have been made here in Stockholm regarding the state funds. Ebba Busch's budgets have led to the fact that there will be thousands fewer employees in Swedish healthcare after this year and the large cut and savings packages we see. More state governance with the Kristdemokraterna is therefore not an obvious recipe for success, regardless of which zip code one has in Sweden.

We do, however, see points in increasing the state's management of healthcare. This could, among other things, involve better support regarding IT and, in a different way than today, securing equality across our country.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps the Liberals were right even in this question. Sometimes there is too much S and M in politics - and too little KD-S. The other is not the Liberals' conclusion; it is mine.

Thanks to our government base, we have been able to dampen the inflation blaze that Magdalena Andersson left behind. Sweden's municipal sector now gets 50 billion more to work with thanks to our tightening of the grip on inflation. But the question here was whether we can find a way to agree on increased state control of healthcare moving forward.

Magdalena Andersson has already received my private number with an offer to talk about nuclear power and energy systems. Magdalena Andersson is going to get another number here today. No, she is not going to, of course. The same number applies both for talking about nuclear power and for talking about healthcare.

I feel a bit like the matador in front of Ferdinand. Meet me in this! Don't say no! Say maybe, maybe yes! Parla con me! Call me, maybe! Ring, ring, just you hit a signal!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would very much like to speak with Ebba Busch. Perhaps Ebba Busch could listen to me a little as well? That is what dialogue is – it is about giving and taking.

We Social Democrats have repeatedly pointed out the situation in Swedish healthcare in the Riksdag. We had Ulf Kristersson's healthcare promise, where he promised that no one would be laid off in Swedish healthcare. But I have met staff who have received exactly that message: You will no longer be able to do your work - not because it is not needed, but because the money is not there, because Ebba Busch has chosen in the budget to lower the tax for herself by thousands of kronor every month instead of ensuring that there is safe and secure care all over the country.

Please Ebba Busch, listen to me!

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have spoken quite a bit with Magdalena Andersson over the years. Predecessors of mine in the Liberals have reached agreements with the Social Democrats regarding this matter of taxes.

They reached the conclusion, for example, that keeping half of a work income is smart. It is morally right. It contributes to more people getting an education, more people working a bit extra, and more people participating and contributing so that we get a growing Sweden – and, believe it or not, tax revenues increase even if one keeps half.

The Social Democrats are changing their minds all the time. If Ebba Busch is to meet Magdalena Andersson and talk about anything at all, she should therefore bring headache pills, because you get a headache afterwards.

As soon as we have made a reform about "half remaining" and that it should pay to work, the Social Democrats are there: Raise the tax! Raise the tax! As soon as they get the chance, they will raise the tax. They are raising the tax in Stockholm where they now govern so that it hits ordinary middle-income earners, and they are against "half remaining."

Why are the Social Democrats against half remaining?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! If I were Johan Pehrson, I would be a bit cautious about talking about how one changes their mind, because there isn't a single red line that Johan Pehrson drew during the election campaign that he hasn't now stepped far over.

With that said: Is it the case that Johan Pehrson seriously wants to go back to the tax reform that we agreed upon in the beginning of the 90s? That is an incredibly interesting opening. There are parts of it that I do not want to see, but if Johan Pehrson is interested in a property tax, a wealth tax, and an inheritance and gift tax, stop the presses! It is time to flash now.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I hear that there are many tax-hike lovers in this chamber. Make sure they become fewer, citizens!

So Magdalena Andersson wants to reintroduce the inheritance and gift tax. That was how I interpreted this post. No, is it the wealth tax you want to reintroduce? But which taxes do you want to raise?

We are [for it] so that we have half left. What is morally right is that people go to work, that people educate themselves and that we get researchers here who want to work in Sweden so that we can continue to develop our industry, medtech and Sci Life, all that. We must develop it, and then we shall have people come here. Then the Social Democrats say, with manic interest, that we should raise the marginal taxes. It should be more expensive to educate oneself and more expensive to work a lot.

Why is it wrong with half remaining, what the government is doing now and what the Social Democrats once thought?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! My point was that the previous tax reform, including half of what remains, was a whole where we also had other parts of the taxation that targeted those with higher incomes. If Johan Pehrson likes the entire tax reform, he includes that as well. I was clear that there are parts there that I do not like, for example, the taxes that Johan Pehrson raised here.

It is also against that background that we have a different view on how the tax should be collected. Johan Pehrson speaks of morality. But Johan Pehrson's morality right now means that Johan Pehrson shall receive more than 3,000 kronor in reduced tax every month while a single nursing assistant with two children, who is dependent on housing allowance to manage everyday life, shall receive a reduction of over 700 kronor. That is Johan Pehrson's morality.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Magdalena Andersson concluded her speech here a short while ago by saying: Our country needs a new direction.

That is exactly what is about to happen. That is exactly what we, together with the government, are now ensuring that Sweden gets - a new direction, which is not the one that Magdalena Andersson and her coalition parties led our country in for eight years.

I assert, Mr. Speaker, that next year's election and election campaign will be a struggle over the description of reality. I think it becomes quite clear today. We have a government basis that delivers promise after promise. We have an opposition that searches with a flashlight for things to complain about, but it mostly becomes forced populism of everything to everyone. Everyone shall have it good, no one shall have it bad, and so on. That means nothing in practice. It is an opposition that simultaneously refuses to take conflict and declare its colors when it comes to decisive issues regarding migration, crime, the electricity supply, and so on, simply because they know that what we do is what gave us the election victory and what the Swedish people want.

And we have only just begun. Now the paradigm shift is being rolled out, step by step. Migration is being regulated. Immigration shall continue to decrease. Criminal foreigners shall be deported. Return migration shall be stimulated. Crime shall be combated. Dangerous people shall be locked up. The police shall receive the resources and the tools that are needed. The correctional services shall be expanded significantly. The energy system shall be restored with a focus on stability and long-termism and stable base power instead of unreliable wind power.

Mr. Speaker! It matters how one votes.

(Applause)

In this speech, Clara Aranda, Mats Arkhem, Sara Gille, Daniel Lönn, Thomas Morell, Mona Olin, Charlotte Quensel, Robert Stenkvist, Martin Westmont and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) concurred.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it matters who you vote for. Many are noticing it right now, as we enter the toughest month of the year. Families with children, ordinary wage earners, and pensioners all over the country are doing their utmost to make the money last until the salary arrives. January is a harsh month for almost everyone.

For high-income earners like Jimmie Åkesson, however, this month is a rain of money. He receives a tax cut of over 3,000 kronor every month. But for a single nursing assistant with two children and housing allowance, he cuts the support by over 700 kronor every month.

Jimmie Åkesson calls it populism to point this out and want to do things differently. But can Jimmie Åkesson once and for all explain to the Swedish people why it is right and fair that he should receive over 3,000 kronor in tax cuts while struggling families with children are to receive a reduction of over 700 kronor every month?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I usually remind in these contexts who it was that abolished the wealth tax. It was Magdalena Andersson and the Socialdemokraterna who did it. It probably had about the effect that she is now describing.

Politics is many things, but above all, politics is about prioritizing. It is especially in tough times that one needs to prioritize, such as times of high inflation and recession. That is what this government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, has managed to do. We ensure that people who work and toil have more left in their wallets, not least after the extreme inflation we saw under the Social Democratic government; years of real wage increases have been eaten up by precisely inflation.

Mr. Speaker! We know that it is work that makes it so that we have a welfare system at all and that we have common resources to distribute at all. It is based on people working and paying tax.

It is a question of political priorities. The Social Democrats' and the Left's eternal whining about everything for everyone does not hold up to scrutiny in reality.

We get our budget through. It is good. It creates growth and leaves more money in the pocket for more people.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! No, one cannot give everything to everyone, one must prioritize. That is what we Social Democrats do, and that is what Jimmie Åkesson has also done. The problem is about how one prioritizes. We prioritize the families who work, struggle, and have it tough, while you prioritize high-income earners, Jimmie Åkesson.

You say that those who work and toil should get relief. It becomes so provoking to hear that. I am thinking of this single mother, a nursing assistant, who sets the alarm early in the morning, ensures the children get breakfast and get to daycare, and then goes to that nursing home and ensures that our elderly get breakfast, lunch, are cleaned, and have their shopping done. If one is lucky, perhaps one has time to hold a hand for a while. It is these people I want to be able to be rewarded, while Jimmie Åkesson wants to reward himself and other high-income earners. It is they who are prioritized, while the single mother nursing assistant is being saved on. I think she works and toils. Jimmie Åkesson obviously does not think so.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One can, of course, stand here in the Riksdag's rostrum and tell who one is thinking about, who one is fond of, and so on. Magdalena Andersson had eight years to show who she thinks about and who she is fond of. During that time, she removed the border fence, and then she imported to our country a long row of people who have no possibility whatsoever of getting a proper job or their own livelihood in Sweden without us now being forced to provide for them with the money that we who work toil together to put into the common tax chest - and so on, and so on. I think that Magdalena Andersson, during her years in power, with all desirable clarity showed what she prioritizes. Those are not my priorities, Mr. Speaker.

I tried to present an argument to Magdalena Andersson, who is an economist nonetheless and should understand this, that our welfare system is built on people working. The more we work, the more money we earn and the more money we also put into the common tax pot. That is why tax revenues increase when one has more reasonable taxation of labor. That is what we are now ensuring to have, so that we can strengthen welfare in the long term and, above all, strengthen the situation for those people who have difficulty supporting themselves. That is what our policy is about, Mr. Speaker: long-term perspective and stability, not populism.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It has never been clearer than in the previous exchange what the Sweden Democrats and Jimmie Åkesson prioritize. He simply prioritizes himself. Everyone else - they are not really working. That is the message from the Sweden Democrats.

But that is not how it sounded before the election. I was part of the debates where Jimmie Åkesson promised that he would ensure that this government did not go too far to the right. He would ensure that the welfare would be protected. He would ensure that this government would not abandon the principle of fair distribution and genuine social responsibility.

Now, the situation is that Jimmie Åkesson has pushed quite hard. He has now lowered the allowance, so that the construction workers whom the government and the Sverigedemokrater have made unemployed will receive a substantial reduction of the allowance by several thousand kronor. The largest cuts in healthcare in several years have been made. In addition, they have made dramatic tax cuts for themselves and everyone else in the same income bracket. I wonder if Jimmie Åkesson considers this to be protecting the principle of not cutting back on welfare.

Furthermore, Jimmie Åkesson's party will vote for - and thus decide the vote - the proposal to significantly increase the fees for medicine in Sweden. With 30 percent, he wants to raise the price. Then I want to ask - and I want him to answer Carina, who has sickness benefit and will not be able to pay this high price: Why is it so important for you to prioritize your own tax cut over keeping down the price for medicine? Why should you vote yes to this proposition, which is being submitted here in a few weeks?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This unfortunately happens all too often, but it is incredibly difficult to contend with a rhetoric that is based on hedging, not sticking to what is true, lying straight out, and making up things that have no basis whatsoever in reality. It creates a strange dimension in the debate. Nooshi Dadgostar is an expert at standing in the speaker's chair and making things up that she then has to stand here and answer for. Then she asks a completely different question that has nothing to do with these lies.

We are making no cuts in healthcare; instead, together with the government, we have added several billions to secure healthcare even during this year, just as we did last year. That is what is true, nothing else.

We have also not lowered the fund. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have overall strengthened the fund. We have raised the ceiling in the fund. Despite a bourgeois government, which does not have the same attitude as we do regarding the view on funds and insurance systems, we have ensured that we get a strengthened fund. I think it is an achievement that Nooshi Dadgostar should applaud instead of standing here and making things up and lying and accusing me of things that are not true, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the Sweden Democrats are well acquainted with lies and disinformation. Jimmie Åkesson is, after all, the leader of the troll factory that runs this. I understand that you are involved in that, Jimmie Åkesson.

(Applause)

But what I am saying here is fact. Jimmie Åkesson is trying to make me believe that he has not seen to it that nearly 6,000 people in healthcare have been laid off because he voted through budgets that do not provide enough money. It is a reduction of 6-7 billion just this year on healthcare.

He does not answer my question. Why should the Sverigedemokraterna cast the deciding vote to raise the price of medicine by 30 percent? Why is it less of a priority? Why has he prioritized his own tax cut over keeping down the price of medicine?

Carina has submitted a referral response to your bill that you will present regarding a 30 percent increase in the price of the medicine for the severely ill in Sweden, which they need to survive.

She is on sick pay. She cannot afford this high price. What do you say to her? Why are you going to vote for it? Why was it more important to lower the tax for yourself instead of ensuring that the price of medicine is kept down, Jimmie Åkesson? Answer this now.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In Nooshi Dadgostar's and the Vänsterpartiet's world, it is probably the case that we politicians here in the chamber of the Riksdag decide the price of things. But in my world, that is not the case, but it is other forces that set prices on food, medicine, and other things.

However, there is a high-cost protection that we have decided on politically. A prerequisite for us to be able to have such a high-cost protection is that people work and pay taxes so that we have common resources that we can distribute to those who cannot support themselves entirely. I think that, fundamentally, it is a very good system.

Now we have gone through inflation. We are still in a recession. We need budgets that take these actual conditions into account. This means that we must dare to make tough decisions now in order to be able to strengthen welfare in the long term and, for example, the high-cost protection for medicines.

That is how you should read our budget. We take responsibility instead of the Left Party's eternal everything for everyone. Everyone should have it good, no one should have it bad, and we have infinite resources.

Mr. Speaker! I am incredibly grateful that it was not the Left Party that led Sweden through the inflation.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I previously highlighted from the rostrum the injustice that rural residents receive worse welfare than that which exists in the rest of the country. It is an injustice that, in particular, hits Sweden's elderly.

Elderly care in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas is almost twice as expensive per inhabitant compared to in large cities, and home care likewise. Accessibility, proximity, and freedom of choice are clearly lagging behind.

Jimmie Åkesson claims to be the champion of both the countryside and the elderly. My question to Jimmie Åkesson therefore becomes how he can accept that it looks like this. Elderly people in the countryside live a life with clearly higher risks than their friends in the big city. What does he do concretely to achieve a change so that we get a good welfare even for our aging population in the countryside?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is a concern. It is a structural problem that has not arisen now but that we have lived with for quite a long time, which I am convinced that Muharrem Demirok is well aware of. It is something that we naturally must also solve structurally and in the long term.

One should be able to live in the whole country, and one should be able to have access to equally high quality and availability in healthcare and elderly care, and for that matter school, regardless of where in the country one lives or, as Ebba Busch just expressed it, regardless of which zip code one has.

We are working, for example, with tax reliefs, write-offs of student debts for those who choose to work in depopulated areas and so on. That type of policy, I believe, is important.

But the single most important thing in the long term, I believe, is increased state responsibility. I believe that increased state responsibility for, for example, healthcare is something that will increase equality across the entire country.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jimmie Åkesson, for the answer! It is interesting to hear that more power to these districts would create a better situation in the whole country.

Let me just give a few examples of what the government's policy is leading to out in the country right now. It leads to the hospital in Ljungby facing a threat of closure. It means that the emergency room in Motala is being scaled back. It means that we get worse schedules and fewer colleagues at nursing homes and in care activities out in the countryside. It erodes the welfare for ordinary people who have done right by themselves their whole lives and who do not expect anything other than close and accessible care. These effects are the result of Jimmie Åkesson and his Tidö comrades' continued treatment of the countryside as a backdrop.

Yes, these are problems that have existed for a long time, but you promised to address them. You yourselves wrote in your election manifesto that local safety would be maintained. Now, the elderly in the countryside are getting the exact opposite.

My question remains: What is Jimmie Åkesson doing to achieve results?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is different things and different problems that Muharrem Demirok describes. On one hand, he speaks about elderly care, which is a primary municipal matter. On the other hand, he speaks about healthcare, which is a regional matter. It is therefore not I or the government who is in control. If a hospital or an emergency room is to be closed, that is a decision that is made regionally in the first instance. We cannot influence that.

I think we could influence that. That is why I am talking about increased state responsibility for healthcare, even a long-term nationalization of health and medical care. Then we get the opportunity, with our helicopter perspective here in the service of the state, to pursue a policy that increases equality regardless of where in the country you live.

I believe that is the long-term solution. Then one can patch and repair along the way. But the long-term is an increased state responsibility for increased equality.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson speaks about the description of reality. In his first speech, he spoke about a shovelful for a reactor. I think it is a bit comical in this context, because it is something that is to be powered by electricity. In Stockholm, there has been a reactor in Värtan that has been powered by coal. The question is what is the reality here.

The real question is that Jimmie Åkesson favors new nuclear power and says that it is the only alternative. The only thing we know is that what the government is doing will become insanely expensive, and the entire bill will be sent to the households.

My question is whether Jimmie Åkesson stands behind this. Why do you not investigate the alternatives when the referral bodies point out that they exist and that it will be much cheaper?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! To say that something is insane is a very strong expression, I must say. It can be appropriate to use strong expressions from time to time.

It concerns, for example, when we look at how Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna have mutilated the Swedish energy system to such an extent that we now have to burn fossil fuels just to have electricity at all when we plug something into the wall. It is insane, Mr. Speaker, that one breaks down and destroys the world's best planned energy system for ideological reasons and for reasons of pure fantasy.

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I stand behind that policy and the new nuclear power program that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is now ensuring is implemented. It is the only chance to salvage what the Green Party destroyed.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) concurred.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The interesting thing is that the Sweden Democrats say the only alternative is to move forward with nuclear power. Almost all referral bodies that have looked at the investigation and the financing wonder why you are not looking at the alternatives. They exist. They are cheaper and faster, and the equation can be solved. Swedish companies can do this, but then the government and the Sweden Democrats must commit to building new nuclear power.

Jimmie Åkesson also talks about this, that we need to burn fossil fuels. There is a company that started burning fossil fuels because it was profitable, not because it was needed. It was not needed then.

What is needed is a realistic energy policy, and nuclear power is not that. It does not have a place there. There are fantastic companies that can solve the equation, but you are going straight into nuclear power without blinking.

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One needs to somehow stabilize and balance when the wind is not blowing. If there is no nuclear power and not enough hydropower, one must burn fossil fuels. Then it is needed, otherwise there will not be the power that is required and the stability in the system that is required. It is common knowledge, and I do not even think that Daniel Helldén can deny that fact.

One could say that the Green Party has had its chance. The Green Party has shown what Green Party-style energy policy leads to. We are living with it now, not least every winter. My ambition, just as we promised in the election, is to do something about this, to clean up after the Green Party's playground. That is what we are doing now, and it will naturally cost money. But there is no alternative, and therefore we must do this.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) concurred.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to talk about immigration with Jimmie Åkesson, more specifically labor migration.

Sweden is a very proud industrial, medical, and tech nation. We need to attract many people to our country to build it together with all of us who are here. The question then is how we shall do so that more people want to come to Sweden and take the jobs that exist, participate in research and develop important companies that create prosperity and welfare in Sweden.

We are doing some things to lower taxes for foreign experts, and we are working to facilitate for researchers to come to Swedish universities to open up Sweden and make the Sweden we love strong. Does Jimmie Åkesson believe that we can do something more to increase the attractiveness so that many talented people, specialists and others, come here as labor migrants to build Sweden strong?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I and Johan Pehrson, the Sweden Democrats and the Liberals, agree on some things, and not least in recent years we have agreed on more and more. But here I must say that I think Johan Pehrson's starting point is strange, especially given the role he has in Sweden's government as Minister for Education.

Shouldn't the question rather come from me, which it now will: What is the Minister for Education doing to guarantee the supply of skills in Sweden, on precisely the premises that the Minister for Education himself raises? Should we build our entire prosperity on people coming here from other countries? Is it not better that we pursue a long-term education policy so that we can get people who already live in Sweden to take the jobs that we need to have supply for?

I do not understand that starting point, Mr. Speaker. It is a strange starting point that I do not stand behind. Do your job instead, Johan Pehrson!

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) concurred.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Investments must be made in the Swedish school. Investments must be made in vocational training. That is what the government is doing, and Jimmie Åkesson is involved in securing the competencies needed to build Sweden, so that we can bridge the enormous gap that exists between people who are unemployed and the jobs that exist and are available.

When it comes to specialists needed in the Swedish tech industry, the medical industry, and partly in broad industry, it is important that people from other countries can come to Sweden and work. In the same way, Swedish citizens should be able to travel to other countries and contribute. Not least within research, it is absolutely crucial to assemble excellent teams to develop the nation Sweden. Then, one must be able to come from other countries, for example to program.

I am listening to the Swedish business community. There are needs that are not met today. It is not in contradiction to that we should train battery technicians, electricians and nursing assistants in Sweden so that people get jobs. There is no contradiction there.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have nothing against experts coming to Sweden and contributing to research or to industry. I have never been, and I will never ever be.

What I am addressing is the starting point, namely that the Minister for Education stands here and, in his own reply, does not mention with a single word what he will do to secure the supply of skills in Sweden. Instead, he takes as a starting point that people who are to provide for the Swedish labor market come from the outside.

I think it is the wrong starting point. I think it is Johan Pehrson's, my and everyone's responsibility to ensure that there is a supply of competence in Sweden. Instead of people at universities and colleges studying what they find fun, perhaps they must become engineers and systems technicians to an even greater extent than today. There I know we have proposals for the future. Let us focus on that instead.

On issues of expert tax and other matters, we are also in agreement. But my starting point is that we must manage our own competence supply in Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Eric Westroth (SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are now actively participating in transforming Sweden into what the Moderates have always wanted, namely to dismantle the Swedish model, split Sweden into rich and poor, and sell out what we own together to foreign businessmen. The Sweden Democrats have proven to be an excellent training wheel for this policy; the new Sweden Moderates.

Moderate politics makes us poorer. They are pushing through lowered funds. Either Jimmie Åkesson has been deceived or he does not understand that what he has agreed to, a reduction in the state budget, means less money for those who lose their jobs. It is about increased fees for medicine and dental care, extensive cuts in healthcare and the abolition of construction support, which has now put the construction industry in crisis.

The party stands at the forefront of the campaign to weaken our industry and let other countries overtake us in the competition for the industrial jobs. It is a party that fits perfectly into the neoliberal establishment's dismantling of what is Sweden - our soul. This is what they have always wanted. Their method is to destroy our country, and then they will blame it on some other group - over there.

It has never been so expensive to be Swedish as when Åkesson gets to decide. Obedient Sverigemoderater sell out the vehicle inspection to foreign countries and cut back on elderly care. Something new was needed. Sweden can do better. Swedes deserve a better government that works for you, ensures that your child's school functions and that your mother receives the best possible care at the nursing home. They deserve better than these Sverigemoderater.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to speak with Nooshi Dadgostar about security and Ukraine. We both see every day how the Russian attacks reap civilian casualties and how robots against hospitals and preschools devastate an entire country.

We also follow the reporting on the uncertainty regarding the world's support, with Trump in the White House and darker tones in the rhetoric also from parts of the EU. In such a situation, the support from Sweden is and remains even more important, both in a purely concrete sense and as a signal to everyone else.

Centerpartiet has been clear. We want to increase the Swedish support. We want at least 1 percent of GDP to go to Ukraine support every year.

Vänsterpartiet also says it stands behind the support for Ukraine fully. My question to Nooshi Dadgostar is therefore whether one is prepared to stand behind the Center Party's one percent requirement and increase the pressure on the government to do more in that matter.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that Muharrem is asking that question. We completely share that view of reality. And we have demanded that Sweden should send greater support to Ukraine, including Jas 39 Gripen.

Now we need to follow what comes from the new administration in the USA to see if Europe collectively needs to increase the support. We fully share that view. The important thing is to see what Ukraine requests and to meet their needs in order to be able to get out every single Russian soldier.

We think that the transition that is now being carried out in the Swedish defense is very good. One is moving away from being an adventurous defense that is only out and about running other countries' errands to a strong Swedish defense that protects Swedish interests, which is what we want to see. It has been a good transition of the Armed Forces.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Nooshi Dadgostar!

I believe that it is now more important than ever to show that words are also followed by action. I believe that we all here are proud of the support that Sweden has given Ukraine so far. I appreciate the government's and our collective work in many parts of this.

But I am not satisfied. If Denmark can do more, we can also do more. If Estonia can do more, we can also do more. No one in this chamber may be satisfied until peace is won on Ukraine's terms.

I may sound a bit repetitive. I appreciate Nooshi Dadgostar's answer. But I still need to get a clear and distinct statement; I believe it would be appreciated. Will Vänsterpartiet stand behind this line, behind the one percent requirement, which Centerpartiet has pushed, if not otherwise to increase the pressure on the government to actually be able to and want to do more, such as our neighboring countries do?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! To defend Ukraine is also to defend Swedish interests. We are happy to work hand in hand with the Center Party to, for example, demand that Jas 39 Gripen be sent to Ukraine, which they themselves have requested.

I am happy to sit down and discuss this. But Muharrem Demirok must be honest about the fact that he cannot manage to sit down in the same room as me. Time and again, I have opened the door for Muharrem Demirok to sit down with me so that we can ensure we get rid of this government, which is in the process of destroying our country, and ensure that we can expand support together. It is together that one can give and take and become strong.

I regret that Muharrem Demirok has not taken my outstretched hand. In that case, it is difficult to have that discussion. I am glad that he wants it in the chamber, but in reality, he does not want to cooperate with either the right or the left. He himself will have difficulty getting a majority.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! "We are angry, that it is taken and taken and never anything is given back." That is what Lars said to me when I met him in Piteå. Over a smooth cup of coffee, he laid out the text about one of the greatest injustices we have in Sweden in 2025.

The fact is that what the vast majority want to talk about when I travel around the country is this: the injustice that rural residents, despite paying more in taxes, receive much worse healthcare, school, and care in return. Let me give some concrete examples among many.

In the big city, almost eight out of ten elderly people have good dental health after turning 79. In our most sparsely populated rural areas, it is barely six out of ten.

In the rural municipalities, fewer students graduate from primary school with passing grades than anywhere else in Sweden. The knowledge gap cuts like a welding flame between city and country.

We have now reached a point where you who live in rural areas run a double risk of dying from a disease that can be treated with medical interventions compared to if you were to live in any of our larger cities. The risk of dying is twice as great.

I understand the anger that Lars and many others are showing. I share it. Our entire party's existence has for 115 years been built on countering just that injustice. And all too often we have stood alone in this chamber.

The anger is not directed at neighbors or at the region. Nor is anyone asking for any alms. People just want the welfare they have a right to and which they have contributed to through hard work.

Schools, healthcare, and care must function not only in the cities but also in the countryside, in our entire country. It must function well and be nearby. This is something the Center Party will continue to nag about for another 115 years. We will push it very hard before the election, during the election, and in all government negotiations. It is not a wish. It is our demand.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Earlier, Muharrem Demirok himself raised the issue of increasing support for Ukraine, which is an extremely important issue.

We have skyrocketing unemployment, we have a struggling welfare state, we have gang crime, and we have households being robbed by markets that are soon to be monopolized, such as the food market, the electricity market, and others. It is a result of many years of a political direction that does not work. I have spent a lot of time in this debate on how we are to change this.

I want a new direction. And I have clearly pointed out Magdalena Andersson as my prime ministerial candidate, because it is important that we get a new direction and can change and build our country strong again. It is more important than positioning oneself and saying: I don't like you and you, and I cannot cooperate with that and that.

Does not Muharrem Demirok share that view? Can we agree that Magdalena Andersson is our common prime ministerial candidate and sit down and ensure that we get a new direction for Sweden, Muharrem?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Already in my opening remarks, I was clear that Sweden needs a new government. This government is not capable of solving Sweden's problems.

But unlike the vast majority in this chamber, I do not see Swedish politics as a football match, where there are two teams available and no other possibilities beyond that. If you look around Sweden, you see municipal politicians and regional politicians who take responsibility every day. They find solutions to solve the everyday problems for the citizens. It is impressive.

There are collaborations where Moderates and Social Democrats have found common ground. There are collaborations where Center Party members and Left Party members have found common ground. I think it is impressive. And I think more people should take inspiration from what is happening around the country and try to find more solutions.

I am not prepared to lock Swedish politics into two laws. However, I am clear: Sweden needs a new government. Sweden needs a different direction - a warm, green liberal direction.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I interpret Muharrem Demirok's answer as that he is prepared to go to the other side after the election, that is to say, to govern Sweden together with Ulf Kristersson, because there is no other choice. Perhaps the Centerpartiet will, in that situation, put their foot down after the election and go to the bloc that they consider gives them the most. But this is something the voters want to know today, Muharrem Demirok.

I have been very clear. We have a lot of political opinions - we understand that we cannot get everything through. We need to give and take, and we need to compromise. I want once again to extend a hand to Muharrem Demirok so that we can change Sweden together.

My door is always open, and I want to appeal to Muharrem to make a decision before the election so that we do not get a shock afterwards. But I perceive the answer as that the Centerpartiet can also decide after the election to have Ulf Kristersson as its prime ministerial candidate.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I see that the rather devastating Swedish bloc politics gives Vänsterpartiet but also Sverigedemokraterna an unreasonably large influence over the daily political agenda. There is no doubt about where Centerpartiet stands. We stand firmly in the middle when others have moved further out towards the edges. My door will always be closed to Sverigedemokraterna and Jimmie Åkesson. We will not change our minds on that issue; it is crystal clear. We will not say one thing before the election and then, once the election has taken place, do another thing afterwards. It is crystal clear – we will not ensure that Sverigedemokraterna get influence over a government.

One must also be able to see that Swedish politics is something more than just two laws. In the situation we face, there must be more who have the energy and want to take responsibility for Sweden's future. I welcome everyone who is prepared to take that responsibility and everyone who is prepared to contribute to a different Sweden than the one we see today and a different development. I am prepared to do very much for that.

I am glad that Magdalena Andersson is opening the door to cooperate with more. I think it is impressive, and more should actually listen to that and do the same.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Dunkelflaute is a German term for when the wind turbines stand still, the sun is obscured behind dark clouds, and a country is having a rather hard time with electricity. One might wonder why such a term should even exist in the first place. Germany obviously needed its nuclear power.

Hospitals need to function also during the night and machinery must start up when the morning shift begins. Bakeries must be able to spread the scent from their ovens every day, and your future electric car must be charged every afternoon when the kids are going to the stable, football practice, or wherever they are going.

Today, some of those who unfortunately did not see the value of nuclear power are sitting here. It takes time to build a robust electricity system. To tear it down goes much faster. Six of Sweden's twelve nuclear reactors were decommissioned, and it is clear that Magdalena Andersson's and Daniel Helldén's energy policy has left Sweden in a dark lull.

Many households were thrown into turmoil when electricity prices were shock-increased in the middle of December, with various price peaks. The entire Swedish people were forced to pay the price of worry just before Christmas for decades of left-ideological energy policy. Now there is a stop to the irresponsible energy policy and to short-sighted, ideological energy plans.

Mr. Speaker! This government is laying the foundation for new baseload power that will lower electricity prices and form the basis of a stable and functioning electricity system. The saga of short-sightedness is now over. Soon we will break ground for a new research facility for the nuclear power of the future. Before the mandate period is over, we have now begun the journey towards new reactors. One can rely on Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! For the Left Party, women's right to their own bodies and to choose when they want to start a family, become pregnant, and give birth to children is a fundamental right. We see that there are reactionary religious forces that in different ways want to limit this right. We saw it in the election in the USA, where there are sect-religious – in Sweden it would be called Livets Ord – forces who, in different ways, through freedom of conscience or by shutting down or not financing clinics, try to limit this right.

The Christian Democrats seem very inspired by Germany and have now, in connection with the latest investigation, submitted a statement to the Riksdag stating that they want to see abortion legislation similar to that in Germany. In Germany, abortion is illegal. I therefore want to know what is the Christian Democrats' vision for the German type of legislation in Sweden. Is abortion to be made illegal in Sweden as well, Ebba Busch?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that women's rights are so important to Nooshi Dadgostar that she heckled the Speaker here today.

I hesitate to make this comment, but I think I will make it anyway. Freedom of religion is as important to me as women's rights - they are two important freedoms. I do not appreciate the recurring, strange sneers about a context that I grew up in, which I did not choose as a child, and that one does not respect that I already as a 15-year-old chose my religious and congregational affiliation. Instead, one continues with some kind of disguised sneers in this way. It is offensive, and it is unworthy of the Swedish Riksdag. I was 15 years old - I actually think that one can show respect for where I have my religious affiliation.

We stand behind the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. This shall be stipulated in Swedish legislation. But we also stand up for human rights. We are inspired by Germany regarding the constitution, not regarding the abortion legislation otherwise.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker!

(EBBA BUSCH (KD): Now you must give in; he is Mr. Speaker!)

Mr. Speaker - excuse me! Ebba Busch leads a Christian Democratic party. She must take responsibility for that. She has friends out in the world who in different ways try to limit women's rights. It is part of the Christian Democrats' history and tradition, and now they have also submitted a statement where they describe how they want to see the Swedish abortion legislation. It states very clearly there that it is not about the constitutional part but about the abortion legislation. They want to introduce the right to life as a counterpoint to the right to have an abortion.

That is not how I see it. But the Christian Democrats do, and you have informed the Swedish Riksdag of that. Is it not reasonable that Ebba Busch receives a question on this? In what way should Swedish abortion legislation resemble the German one, according to which it is illegal to perform an abortion? In what way is this to happen? Explain it to the chamber and to all the women out there.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to Nooshi Dadgostar is: not at all. We shall not have a situation where abortion is prohibited. The Christian Democrats have for over 30 years stood behind the abortion legislation that applies in Sweden. It is the woman and no one else who shall make the final decision on whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not, and this shall be stipulated in law.

It is also this that the committee has come to and that our representative in the committee has stood behind. All eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag stand behind Swedish abortion legislation, so do the Christian Democrats.

What we have pointed out is that one could have been inspired by the UN Charter on human rights, where the question of life and health is included. We would, therefore, have liked to see, for example, that the possibility of life-sustaining interventions had also been included, as well as the right to care in the case of severe illness such as cancer. We are sorry that this has not been received.

This line is anchored in KD's party board. We stand behind the right to terminate a pregnancy and Swedish abortion legislation.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are in the middle of the "oxveckor" (the lean months), the time when many, not least families with children, find it difficult to make ends meet financially. One has to turn over every krona to make the money last.

During the election campaign, it was promised that it would become cheaper to be Swedish. It was promised to lower the electricity tax. But despite repeated promises regarding specifically lowering the electricity tax, the government has chosen to do the opposite.

Last year, the electricity tax was increased by 9.2 percent, and ahead of 2025, it has now been increased by an additional 2.6 percent. This government has chosen to increase the electricity tax by the equivalent of several hundred kronor a month during the coldest months for an ordinary family.

My question to Ebba Busch is: Why did she deliberately choose to raise the electricity tax instead of lowering it?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will try to give an answer that is as serious as possible. It is, therefore, about an indexing of the electricity tax, something that has occurred every year since some point in the 1990s - Magdalena Andersson can surely answer when. It is, therefore, not an active increase of the electricity tax.

I am really not against lowering the electricity tax, on the contrary. We have such a proposal in the preparedness as well. But for a normal-sized villa with normal electricity consumption, the increase would amount to roughly 300 kronor in a year.

It would have a much greater effect if we implemented the measures that the red-green government was not capable of implementing. We are implementing them now, and it means that we get much more effect out of the electricity that is in the system. It is 60 measures that we have decided on which mean a more even supply of electricity. It has also meant that we now, despite one of the worst energy crises, have had lower electricity prices during last year than the year before and, overall, the lowest electricity prices in four years. It is the result of our policy.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! A serious answer, said Ebba Busch. Why was it then promised to lower the electricity tax?

We have previously stopped indexations in this chamber. We knew that it was an indexation. Nevertheless, during the election campaign, one went out and promised to lower the electricity tax.

Despite the promises, they have now chosen to raise the electricity tax for two years in a row. It may sound like a few hundred kronor is not that much, but for an ordinary family with children, it becomes a lot, especially now as we enter the peak weeks.

This cannot be talked away. It is a conscious choice, a choice that has given people a higher electricity fee than they should have.

If there are now investigated proposals, can Ebba Busch promise here and now that she will fulfill her promise to lower the electricity tax? I believe that the Swedish people wonder if election promises are just something one gives and then ignores, or if they will actually be fulfilled.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have promised, and we are delivering in area after area. It shall become cheaper to be Swedish. The most important thing for the Swedish people and for families with children is not that it happens in a certain way, but that it makes a difference in reality.

It makes a difference whether it is 300 kronor or if it is much more. This government has now tightened its grip on inflation, which has gone from 10 percent to under 2 percent. Thanks to this government, we now have the lowest tax burden in 50 years, primarily aimed at those with the lowest incomes and average incomes. Now we have also freed up 50 billion more for Municipal Sweden for precisely healthcare, school, and elderly care through the fight against inflation.

We have lowered the price for filling up the family car - from Muharrem Demirok's level of 28 kronor per liter, the gasoline price is now down below 18 kronor in many places. And we are equipping Elsverige. That is the important result for Sweden's families with children.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gudrun Brunegård (KD) agreed.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is fascinating to hear how the Minister for Energy has shifted in her rhetoric regarding wind power. From having spoken about stopping the Green Party's forests of steel, she now points to sun and wind as the primary reason for low electricity prices in 2024.

But if one ignores the changed rhetoric and instead focuses on the practice, there is much to be desired from the Minister for Energy. I have a list of measures that have been pointed out by companies and experts as necessary to manage the electrification:

To move forward the municipal veto. There is a completed investigation on this in the minister's inbox.

To give the Armed Forces the mission to work towards coexistence with wind power.

To set up concrete, figure-based planning goals for 2030 and 2035.

To expand the offshore grid, so that we get more wind power.

Can the Minister provide an update on these measures?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have not changed my mind. I am still against the Green Party's steel forests. We must not replace the Swedish green forest with gigantic steel forests and think that it will solve Sweden's competitiveness or the need for not only electricity but also power. We need wind power, and it can help press the price when it is blowing, but we must secure the base load in other ways.

What do we do then to pave the way for wind power? Now, quite a few know what we are doing for nuclear power. The 60 measures seem a bit too difficult for people to grasp, at least for some in the opposition, but they are important, so I mention them again. It is about more money to the county administrative boards to reduce processing times and more money to the Government Offices to increase the processing pace. Now we are implementing property taxes that are to give the municipalities a financial incentive to say yes, and we are leaving the open-door system, which has caused the Armed Forces' views to have come in far too late in processes concerning offshore wind power. These are just some of the things.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! On Friday, December 13 at 14:00, a press conference was held regarding a new permit system for offshore wind power. One might wonder why the government thought that the afternoon of Lucia Day was a good occasion for this. Perhaps it was because they knew that the proposal would be met with harsh criticism from the industry.

The energy companies, including Svensk Vindenergi, came out and urged the government to stop creating obstacles for wind power. They stated: "The combined consequences of the pursued policy risk leading to the expansion of electricity production being jeopardized in Sweden within the foreseeable future."

Does Ebba Busch take these warnings seriously? Can she provide an assurance that the measures I mentioned, which are also requested by companies and experts, will become a reality?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We will do what is good for Sweden. We will do what solves Sweden's problems. I can promise Daniel Helldén that we have had very careful and detailed conversations with the Armed Forces regarding what their needs are so that they can be able to defend Sweden and what creative solutions can be implemented for increased coexistence. That dialogue will continue. I can therefore answer yes, but we will not compromise on the nation's security.

Sweden has a planning goal and a security of supply goal. We have not had that before. But I am not going to make up a fantasy figure for 2030 without us having gotten the foundation in order. Then perhaps we can begin to specify this. I am completely open and straightforward about that.

Now, we have different political colors, but note that it is a blue government base that is capable of delivering increased incentives for wind power. But we believe in technology neutrality and prioritize what Sweden needs, not a single type of power.

In this speech, Gudrun Brunegård (KD) agreed.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Over 350,000 individual forest owners collectively own half of all productive forest land in Sweden. It is a unique diversity. But that diversity is not reflected in forestry, where clear-cutting continues to dominate. The authorities call the situation a market failure. This is because independent advice is lacking, and virtually all advice that individual forest owners can obtain is based on the goal that they should deliver cheap raw materials to the forest industry.

Many people believe today that they have no other choice than to clear-cut in order to earn money from their forest. At the same time, there is a growing movement among individual forest owners who want to transition to more nature-oriented forestry and abandon the large clear-cuts. They see an opportunity to improve their profitability and manage their forest more sustainably in the process.

In Jämtland, over half of the 750 surveyed forest owners answered that they were interested in managing their forest without clear-cutting. Recently, the members of Södra Skogsägarna pushed through that the association shall offer continuous cover forestry advice.

Instead of supporting these forest owners, the government opposes them. Proposals to facilitate for forest owners to transition to more sustainable methods are conspicuously absent from the government's forest inquiry.

For Miljöpartiet, the question is not whether the forest should be used, but how. We want to see a policy for a more profitable, sustainable, and legally secure forestry for Sweden's 350,000 individual forest owners. We expect the government to listen to them instead of prioritizing the large forestry companies' profits over everything else.

(Applause)

In this speech, Janine Alm Ericson and Amanda Lind (both MP) concurred.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thought we would talk a bit about this matter of green base power, Daniel Helldén, which Helldén often speaks about. It sounds like something that I could appreciate morning, noon, and night. But I become a bit puzzled when I try to understand and scrutinize this. I wonder if not MP needs to be clear towards its voters - and perhaps also towards the Swedish people - regarding what this means in practice.

I will give an example. Miljöpartiet wants to see gas turbines powered by renewable fuels but wants agriculture to be organic and opposes farmers and agricultural producers, in my opinion. Germany often stands as MP's model. It is a large producer of biogas and biomass. That is good, but there, a full 6 percent of the country's area is used for energy crops. At the same time, MP actively sabotages Swedish farmers. Therefore, I wonder a bit: How is this going to work? Are my fears regarding the green base power wrong? We cannot risk the industry's transition and our prosperity.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What harms the growth and development of Swedish industry is that the government has become stuck in the rut with new nuclear power. The only thing we know is that new nuclear power will not arrive for more than 20 years, if you should succeed in anything at all. And the talk about new reactors that is to be taken a step forward is just a matter of the emperor's new clothes, I would say.

What we need to do is to work with what we have - all referral bodies speak of that as what is needed. Wind power, solar power and hydropower are central. For this, green base power is needed. We also need energy efficiency - it is absolutely necessary to solve this equation.

Green power means, among other things, gas turbines. It means that one uses batteries. It means that one uses the systems that, among others, Hitachi in Ludvika develops and which are now being ordered from Germany.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! But what I am worried about is: Shall we begin using arable land, at a time when we need to increase our self-sufficiency, to fuel gas turbines? It is this that I cannot make work.

MP wants to see more power and flexibility in hydropower – so do I. But at the same time, one opposes better conditions for hydropower. That does not add up. One wants to see more power and flexibility in combined heat and power. But during the previous eight years, combined heat and power was opposed, and 3,000 megawatts of combined heat and power were decommissioned. This included, among other things, a new tax. Several new plants, such as in my hometown Uppsala, chose not to build any turbine at all but only to deliver heat. MP wants batteries but does not want the mines required for the metals and minerals of the transition. Instead, we will then continue to be dependent on countries like Congo and China.

This simply does not add up. I am happy to join in discussing the conditions for more base power, wind, solar, and water, as part of this. But it does not hang together. One delivers part A but not part B.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can then add that Vattenfall is also working with pumped storage, which is a part of this, which can be seen and which can be sent in when we need the power, for that is what we need.

Ebba Busch is trying to make it sound as if there is no possibility of meeting the required output when it is not blowing enough. It is entirely possible. That is also shown by the energy minister's own expert agencies.

But it is very funny that the Minister talks about how we would harm agriculture in this. I am thinking of these gas turbines that one can have and where one can send in energy, power, exactly when it is needed, which is the point. They are being developed for hydrogen, which one then charges with the electricity that one gets when it is blowing a lot. Then one can get that transfer.

It is true that they can also be powered by biogas, which is fully possible already today. But that is not the point itself, the point is that one should be able to move the energy from one occasion to another. This is not something the government wants to engage in.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Brain rot was selected as one of the international words of the year 2024. It describes the state when people get stuck in front of the endless flow in social media with toxic algorithms. You might have noticed it yourselves during the Christmas festivities when you saw how the screens' attention stole focus from grandmother, from the Christmas table, or perhaps even from Kalle Anka.

We find ourselves in a screen pandemic. Young people spend up to seven hours a day behind a screen - this is after school hours. The truth is that the galloping screen time among young people is a major source of conflict between parents and children. Screen time takes a toll on young people's mental and physical health. It lowers their school results when the TikTok feed competes with the attention in the classroom.

We also see how social media platforms are used in a way that creates very, very serious situations for young women, which end badly. They are incited toward sick body ideals and guaranteed often also toward mental ill-health. We see how these platforms are used to commit very, very gross crimes and to recruit young people to perform dangerous acts or murders.

It is not only the adult world that is reacting now. Many young people also realize that it cannot continue like this. Most of those who sit with their phones all night think they are doing something wrong, but they cannot really stop. But we also see that the internet giants are not taking their responsibility. They would rather see more brain rot, and we others want to see something else.

Sweden must move forward with powerful measures in this area, just like Australia and France, to support parents in setting healthy boundaries. The Liberals, Mr. Speaker, will continue to fight for night locks on mobile phones, regulation of addictive algorithms, and a school that moves from screen to binder. The future shall not be spelled brain rot. It shall be spelled creativity and activity.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Just the other day we saw a mapping on SVT which showed that violence in primary and secondary schools has increased by 60 percent over the last five years. We have heard shocking testimonies from schools, where pregnant teachers have been kicked in the stomach so that they have suffered miscarriages and where teachers have taken sick leave due to violence. We are miles away from Jan Björklund's "order and tidiness in school." The question is what the government is doing in this situation.

Schools must identify disruptive and outgoing students much earlier and provide them with the required support, but also create calm and peace in the classrooms.

My question to Johan Pehrson is whether he is prepared to do what is required in schools to get order and clarity in the classroom and not just focus on digital aids.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Muharrem Demirok, for the important question!

The simple answer is yes. It is absolutely necessary to ensure that the school returns to the basics. It is important to show that it is the principals and teachers who decide in the classroom and to ensure that it becomes easier to have students who disturb leave the classroom immediately to meet safety teams and social teams who work with the underlying issues. It is important to enable more special education teachers and for more and smaller teaching groups. If it is really bad, it should be possible with emergency schools pronto, because it might not really be enough to send these kids home to a family that might be dysfunctional.

This must be strengthened, and we need to ensure that teachers are backed so that they can make decisions in the classroom. It is central. We will also not shy away from the fact that we must focus on the basics of teaching and become better at ensuring that children in early years learn to read, count, and write. Therefore, we are restructuring both curricula and teacher education to ensure that the school in Sweden becomes a world-class school.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! A lot is being done in schools, says Johan Pehrson. What we see across the country says the opposite: far too little is being done. Teachers are being laid off, and all the support resources around the teachers are decreasing across the whole of Sweden.

Acute classes to be able to remove students who cause disruption can be a tool, but it is a temporary disciplinary measure. Resource classes, i.e., actually removing those students who need to get out of the classroom to create long-term sustainability and safety in the classroom, is something else. It is to go back to order and discipline and to start talking about what actually worked in Swedish schools once upon a time. It is something that is being requested.

Despite all the fine words about things that are happening, it is actually far too little that occurs. The figures and the mapping also show this.

The questions remain: When will the money come, when will the tools come, and when will the accountability come to revive Jan Björklund's "order and tidiness in school"?

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that we are currently engaged in re-regulating the Swedish school system, because the decentralization that the combination of Centerpartiet and Socialdemokraterna carried out, with all too free reins for independent schools, has become a toxic cocktail that has led to too many pedagogically substandard experiments. The children have been affected, and so has the order in the classroom. It is therefore why we are currently working with the possibility of more split classes, looking at caps, re-regulating teachers' working hours, and a multitude of other measures to create stability, governance, and structure in the classroom with a focus on the basics.

I also want to highlight the central point that we were against this. We felt that Sweden should have a state school to have better equality. The municipalization meant that there were 290 principals, and it has not served the Swedish school well. There are too many schools that skimp on school activities. The solution when it comes to this is that we work with a minimum school funding norm. It is also a task that the government and the Liberals are driving for increased equality.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Recently, serious reports have been published regarding the fast fashion companies Shein and Temu. It concerns the exploitation of workers and chemicals that can pose major health risks for both adults and children. Online trade from China has grown explosively since the covid pandemic, and the controls have not kept pace.

We in Miljöpartiet have long carried out work against fast fashion in both the government and the Riksdag, not least through our Member of the European Parliament Alice Bah Kuhnke. I was therefore pleased when the Minister for Climate and Environment recently came out with a proposal to stop imports from Shein and Temu. The Minister stated that the Liberalerna would now push the issue toward the other parties in the government cooperation.

I would like to help here. Tomorrow we will submit a committee initiative based on the Liberals' proposal. If the Liberals vote for it, it is very likely to pass, and then the government must act on this.

My question to Johan Pehrson is therefore whether the Liberals will vote for their own proposal tomorrow.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that Miljöpartiet wants to support Liberalerna. This waste consumption driven by Chinese companies dirties our environment and harms our health. The reports are quite extensive regarding the hideous working conditions that people in China live under to produce this all-too-often clean waste.

I have said that we in the Liberals will take this up with the government. We will ensure that we work on this, not least at the EU level, where a considerable amount of work is already being done to meet the Chinese dumping of all kinds of goods. We shall work on this, not least to ensure that we also work on securing Swedish energy technology as well as the Swedish and European automotive industry.

We work that way in the government, so I perhaps cannot promise that we will return and vote for this Green Party initiative in the Riksdag tomorrow. I am, however, glad that you have your eyes on the ball.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that the Liberals intend to drive this in the EU. More are doing it, and we are doing it.

I understood the proposal as that the Minister for Climate wanted to push this in Sweden, because we can introduce bans. There are many other countries within the EU that have done a lot of work in this area. We can do things so that our consumers are not harmed, and we can also ensure that these products are not shipped around the world and burned somewhere far away from us.

The Moderates opposed the proposal to move this on the same day it was presented and only wanted to wait for the EU. But here the Liberals have a chance to truly gain support from the other government parties. As far as I know, consumer policy is not included in the Tidö agreement.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! That is correct, but consumer policy, on the other hand, is included very much in the government cooperation, and then one must prepare these issues together with the other parties. That is what makes it so important that one works both in a structured manner and with strong momentum in a government cooperation. The Liberals have presented these proposals and hope to be able to get support to work with a national ban on PFAS substances in clothing and to ban imports from these platforms. It is others, who perhaps have even worse working conditions, who produce what I just called something in the vicinity of junk.

We hope to be able to get the entire government on board with this. It is central that we reduce this waste consumption and this bizarre fast fashion - one must change shirts sometimes, but not to this extent.

We are ready to take action, and I hope that the government will return with legislative proposals that the Riksdag will be able to vote through.

The party debate was hereby concluded.

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