Party debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Polish and NATO air defense shot down Russian drones 35 kilometers inside Poland last night. These Russian violations constitute a serious threat to European security, and the government is in close contact with Poland. I have spoken with Donald Tusk about our readiness to support them with what they perceive Sweden could contribute.

Russia wants to test us, our capability and our determination. Tonight it concerned Poland, but this is ultimately about European security – about Swedish security. This also shows why it was so right to join Nato and why we are now undertaking the largest buildup since the days of the Cold War.

Poland has now, this morning, invoked NATO's Article 4 for consultations between NATO countries. Do not underestimate what this means for European security! I have now, this morning, informed both the National Security Council and the opposition's party leaders that we are following the developments minute by minute.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish families have struggled in recent years to make the money stretch. The old Social Democratic government left behind an inflation of over 10 percent. It ate up an entire decade's worth of wage increases, made food more expensive, and drained the welfare system of money. Mortgage interest rates tripled. Electricity prices skyrocketed after fully functioning nuclear power had been shut down, and with the Green Party's reduction obligation, many people could not afford to drive their children to practice.

The Swedish people grew tired of this. The Swedish people replaced the government.

Mr. Speaker! Now we have won over inflation. Real wages are rising again, and the welfare economy has been strengthened by 50 billion kronor. Today, my message to all families who have struggled so hard and for so long is: Now it is your turn. Now comes the payback!

(Applause)

Soon the government will present a budget for hard-working people – for those who arrive early and turn on the light at work, who put on the coffee, who stay late in the evening, who work weekends and overtime. We are halving the tax on food. There will be tax reliefs on work, savings, and electricity, and we are lowering the preschool fee. For a family with children, it is about 1,800 kronor a month. After the years of inflation, we want to instill confidence in the future again. More people should be able to feel that the money is enough.

To be able to keep more of one's own salary is a matter of justice, but every person who goes to work also makes Sweden stronger. Only then will we be able to afford everything that must now be done, such as investments in healthcare, schools, the police, and defense.

Now that inflation is defeated, we enter a new phase to kick-start growth in Sweden. The government is investing historical amounts in upgrading the railway so that the trains run on time. We are renovating roads and getting rid of the potholes. We are making the largest investment in research ever, and we are investing in fossil-free energy so that companies can start and grow throughout Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In area after area, Sweden has received a new start.

Many more serious crimes are being solved, and even more are being prevented. Since the change of government, the number of shootings has decreased significantly, but as long as they continue, we are not finished.

Sweden is now a natural NATO member, and we are carrying out the largest upgrade of the defense since the Cold War. We continue to support Ukraine because it is right, but also because it is about our own, Swedish, security.

Since 2022, asylum applications to Sweden have decreased by almost 60 percent. Asylum immigration is now the lowest since 1985, and now we get a chance to manage the integration.

Mr. Speaker! We live in serious times, and I understand that many Swedes are worried. On my side of politics, we will continue to invest in security and growth. Security and growth! At the same time, the Social Democrats are making the biggest turn to the left since the 70s, when they wanted to socialize the business sector and marginal taxes were over 100 percent.

Their leftward turn must also be compromised with both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. Vänsterpartiet wants to reintroduce property tax, and Miljöpartiet wants to raise the tax on ISK savings. Both want to raise the tax on labor, and both want to significantly increase asylum migration.

This is not the recipe for a stronger Sweden, but it is the recipe for more of precisely the problems that we are now working so hard to solve.

Mr. Speaker! In a year's time, it is election again. Then we will have two alternatives standing against each other – again. On my side of politics, we have not only the will to solve big problems but also the ability to gather a majority and implement important reforms. We simply get things done.

(Applause)

Our goal, Mr. Speaker, is not only to get Sweden in order – as great as that task actually is – but our goal is to build a fairer Sweden where diligence and effort always pay off, where cheating and crime always result in punishment, and where people in our country begin to feel faith in the future again.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sten Bergheden, Crister Carlsson, Ludvig Ceimertz, John E Weinerhall, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, Caroline Högström, David Josefsson, Mattias Karlsson i Luleå, Joanna Lewerentz, Johanna Rantsi, Magnus Resare, Maria Stockhaus, Helena Storckenfeldt, John Widegren and Boriana Åberg (all M) as well as Mats Arkhem, Erik Hellsborn and Robert Stenkvist (all SD) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In a year, the Swedish people will go to the polls, and we will do so in a historically uncertain world. The violence continues with an almost indescribable cruelty in Gaza, and tonight Polish airspace was violated by Russia.

It is neither the first nor the last time that Europe will be subjected to that type of violation and hybrid warfare. We must be prepared for it, and we must act quickly and decisively to increase our collective resilience. We must stand united in Nato and the EU.

At the same time as the world is shaking, Sweden finds itself in a worse starting position than we should have allowed. We have high unemployment and low growth, and ordinary families are struggling to make ends meet in their everyday economy. The number of young people involved in murder cases has multiplied. Just yesterday, two shootings occurred. Last year, the longest healthcare queues ever were also recorded.

In these times, Sweden needs a strong leadership that is capable of taking control of societal development and that does not get stuck in yesterday's conflicts and yesterday's solutions, but instead tackles today's challenges.

We are also not in a position where one can promise the moon and the stars or everything to everyone. I do, however, promise that we Social Democrats will do our utmost to take control of the societal development and unite our country.

In a year's time, I will seek the Swedish people's mandate to become Sweden's Prime Minister and lead a government that works according to a number of principles.

Firstly, Sweden's external and internal security shall be strengthened. Our country is worth defending against all forces that threaten our way of life. Therefore, we shall arm our military and civil defense. Therefore, we shall introduce a Swedish mafia law so that we can reach the gang leaders. Therefore, we shall also stop the new recruitment of children and young people into the gangs.

Secondly, Sweden's prosperity must grow, and it must be noticeable in your everyday life and in your wallet. Therefore, we shall pursue an economic policy that not only gives ordinary wage earners more in their wallets but also makes it so that companies want to invest in Sweden so that we get growth, jobs, and real wage increases.

Thirdly, Sweden's social cohesion must increase so that each of us becomes safer and Sweden becomes a stronger country. We shall secure stable funding for healthcare, school, and elderly care, resolve the market chaos in the welfare sector, secure strict migration and requirement-based integration, ensure that more people learn the language and can get a job, and reject the divisive politics and the suspicious rhetoric that have characterized Sweden in recent years.

It is a policy that takes Sweden into the 2030s.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Fundamental to Sweden standing strong in a restless world is that we solve the societal problems and have a strong economic development. Let me therefore focus on the principle that our prosperity shall grow.

It can be stated that after three years with the Tidö parties, Sweden finds itself in a problematic economic situation that is much worse than it should have been. It is one of Ulf Kristersson's and Jimmie Åkesson's most fundamental failures. The results speak for themselves. Sweden has 100,000 more unemployed now than three years ago; it is as if an entire Norrköping had gone and lost their jobs. Youth unemployment is at 25 percent. Sweden has the EU's third highest unemployment, and Swedish growth lies at the bottom of the EU. Food prices have increased by 30 percent, and more and more Swedish households end up with the Enforcement Authority.

Now the government is trying to rectify its mistakes at the eleventh hour, but it is the government's incorrect priorities that have forced this economic situation. They have pursued a completely backwards economic policy. When food prices rose the most, Jimmie Åkesson and Ulf Kristersson abandoned the families with children. They refused to increase the child allowance and instead gave themselves a 3,000 SEK tax cut every month. So they chose to prioritize when the situation became tough. It will be Åkesson's and Kristersson's political legacy.

Furthermore, they have damaged the long-term growth policy. For three years, they have weakened the Swedish growth agenda by waging a culture war against new green technology, rejoiced when large industrial investments encountered problems, and failed to make sufficient investments in railways and housing. They have sent completely wrong signals to Swedish companies and foreign investors. It has made Sweden poorer. I understand that the Swedish people are upset, and I share people's frustration. The Swedish people deserve an economic policy that puts ordinary families in the foreground.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! In a year's time, power will lie in the hands of the Swedish people. Shall our country continue in this direction, with high unemployment, low growth, more explosions, and a welfare state that is constantly put on a starvation diet while being drained of money by welfare capitalists? Or shall our country take a new direction? Shall we build that strong Sweden again, where more people get a job to go to, where children get a secure schooling, where all residential areas are safe, where ordinary families not only manage everyday life but can afford to treat themselves sometimes, and where we take control of social development and unite Sweden in an uncertain time? That is where the dividing line in Swedish politics lies. I want to give Sweden a new direction.

(Applause)

In this speech, Denis Begic, Serkan Köse and Carina Ödebrink (all S) concurred.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me briefly comment on the threatening situation that Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin was subjected to the other day. It pleases me that many in the Swedish establishment and in this chamber, from all conceivable parties, join in when such directly un-Swedish behavior manifests itself.

At the same time, it is irritating. Why has one turned a blind eye to this behavior until now if one thinks it is reprehensible? Is it only when it affects those in power – people whom one knows and can identify with – that this behavior is a problem?

This has been everyday life for many Swedes for decades. We have known that, at least most of us. Very many, not least in this chamber, have however turned a blind eye to this and called those who have protested against it various ugly words, such as racist, xenophobic and so on. The victims of this tasteless charade cannot even be surveyed, and for that, a very heavy responsibility rests on many in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker! In a year's time, there will be an election. Ahead of the last election, immigration and crime were very important issues for the voters. In a year's time, it is up to those same voters to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to the fact that Sweden now has the lowest asylum-related immigration in 40–50 years, that more dangerous people are locked up and furthermore do so for longer periods, that the provocingly low sentences for serious crimes are disappearing, and that the crime victims now stand in focus.

Whether this is good or bad, the Swedish people will decide in a year, but one thing is certain: This tougher policy yields results. For example, we have seen figures from the police that the number of thefts has decreased by 30,000, which is a direct consequence of the work of throwing out foreign theft gangs. We also see how gang crime is slowly but surely being forced onto the defensive.

We have turned the development in many respects, but very much remains to be done, naturally. The screws must be tightened, and it must happen at an even higher tempo than until now. We must continue the offensive against crime.

We must also minimize the number of people who come to Sweden and end up in already burdened areas with dependency on benefits, unemployment and crime as a result. Those things are connected, and we know that in this chamber, Mr. Speaker.

Together, we four parties are lightening the burden for everyone who works. People who toil should feel that politics sees and hears them and that we value and appreciate every effort to create a better life. An offensive is required against the protracted recession we find ourselves in, and that is precisely what is happening because we, together with the government, have presented a long series of reforms and important matters in the budget for next year. It is about halved food VAT, reduced electricity tax, high-cost protection against high electricity prices, reduced tax on work and pension, reduced tax on sickness and activity compensation, and reduced fees for preschool and after-school activities. Furthermore, fuel prices have dropped drastically over the last three years as a result of the policy we four parties have jointly pursued. We are making it more profitable for those who work. But at the same time, we are also making reinforcements for those who, for various reasons, do not have the same conditions to work.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats now say they want to do much of what we have already done or are doing, but which they themselves never did during the eight years they had the chance. What is the difference now compared to then? There is no difference. It is all about the political reality. We have shown that we can deliver and do what we promised the voters, and we intend to continue doing that this year and gladly for another four years after the election.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mats Arkhem, Sara-Lena Bjälkö, Chris Dahlqvist, Staffan Eklöf, Yasmine Eriksson, Mikael Eskilandersson, Josef Fransson, Ann-Christine Frohm, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Jörgen Grubb, Göran Hargestam, Erik Hellsborn, Patrik Jönsson, Angelica Lundberg, Thomas Morell, Eric Palmqvist, Daniel Persson, Michael Rubbestad, Jessica Stegrud, Robert Stenkvist, Victoria Tiblom, Pia Trollehjelm, Martin Westmont, Eric Westroth, Markus Wiechel and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden can do better – because we are a country with great opportunities. We are one of the world's most successful industrial nations, and for decades we have built up a welfare state with healthcare, school, and care that everyone has a right to regardless of income. Sweden could be a country with its eyes on the future, full of faith in the future, optimism, and expectations. But never has the Swedish people been so negative towards a government. There is a lack of faith in the future, and it is based on reality.

The only one who is satisfied is Ulf Kristersson, I was about to say, but then I noticed that Jimmie Åkesson was also extremely satisfied up here in the speaker's chair.

(Applause)

Oh, how satisfied they are that the rents have been shock-increased every year during the mandate period and the mortgage rates are sky-high!

Ebba Busch promised lower food prices, but food prices increased by 3,000 kronor a month for a family with children. No VAT cut in the world can remedy that. The government has approved that electricity grid customers shall pay 100 billion kronor more in increased fees in the coming years. Despite the fact that Sweden's families have struggled, saved, and cut back on what they can, they cannot make ends meet. A family with two children goes into the red every month. 100,000 more are unemployed today than last year. It is an unemployment almost as high as during the pandemic. And in just two weeks, the allowance will be lowered, and many who now lose their jobs because of the Sverigedemokraterna and the government will receive thousands of kronor in reduced income. It has never been so expensive to be Swedish.

But there are layers that glide on top of us others. It is them the government has invested in through enormous tax cuts for themselves and the moderate core voters' million-portfolios – exactly where the money was not needed. Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson let money drain out of our common welfare, our schools and preschools to businessmen and directors who instead buy houses and Porsches with the money. That is why the cuts in healthcare are counted in thousands of dismissed healthcare workers. The waiting times are the longest ever, and the severely ill do not receive care but are left to live with worry and anxiety because the Sverigedemokraterna and the government prioritize them away. Sverigedemokraterna and the government do everything to weaken our public healthcare. We are not surprised. The goal is, after all, to step by step privatize our welfare to make it dependent on each individual's wallet.

Now there is one year left until the change of power. We want to build Sweden strong again so that children can crawl up onto the sofa after taco night to watch Bäst i test, not lie sleepless at night out of worry for the economy and whether the family will be able to afford to stay. We want the person who is on sick leave to be able to live their life without being forced to borrow money every month and that the person who has worked and struggled for an entire working life can receive a dignified pension.

For three years, the government and the Sweden Democrats have pushed down families with children and pensioners into the dirt. "Eat cookies" they seem to have thought, all while prices have risen and households are on their knees. But now that they are afraid of losing power, the election pork is being brought out. The Sweden Democrats and the government are borrowing billions to give a small consolation prize to everyone who for three years has been forced to live under their starvation diet – a starvation diet that has been completely unnecessary. But the voters are not stupid. They know what you have done to them and their children. They do not buy the priorities.

Sweden has over 540 billionaires. That is more than ever before. It is a wealthy country, but the money is not visible. Private wealth for a few has laid the foundation for endless public poverty for us all.

We want to see a new direction for Sweden. That is how we create faith in the future and can build Sweden strong again.

(Applause)

In this speech, Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V) concurred.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish politics gets stuck in darkness all too often. It is easy in dark times. There is war in Ukraine, we see children starving to death in the ruins of Gaza, hundreds of thousands of Swedes lack a job, the mafia shoots in Swedish terraced housing areas, and Sweden has gone from being an example to completely lacking ambitions in climate policy. Then it is easy to get stuck in the darkness. Problems pile on top of problems, challenges become threats, and the future is painted in black both in the chamber of the Riksdag and in the media. It is a narrative where darkness is met with more darkness and where solutions are never allowed to take place.

The two parties that claim to be government-forming are competing over who can place the heaviest weights on the Swedish people's shoulders. But there is a lack of interest in prioritizing solutions that allow Sweden to move forward with a straight back. It affects our society. But the future is not a problem – the future is an opportunity.

For us in Centerpartiet, politics is about building something new, not about giving up. It is about seeing the problems as they are but at the same time having the ambition to solve them. It is this that is missing in today's political debate, both in the government as well as among the Socialdemokraterna.

What is it that we see? Well, a government that has given up its international leadership and which will soon have more stances in foreign policy than there are parties in the government – while the situation in Gaza worsens. It is a government that has forgotten about the companies in a situation where we need entrepreneurship and more jobs more than ever. It is a government that cannot manage to fight unemployment despite that hundreds of thousands of people long to contribute. It is a government that does not want to do the work for the climate despite that emissions should decrease faster than ever. It is a government that does not want more with the countryside when all of Sweden needs to be developed. It is a government that cannot manage to lift the school when all children, regardless of where they live, have the right to a good start in life.

There is a lot of uncertainty, exhaustion, and resignation from the Tidö parties. I know that many have given up hope for this government, who no longer have the strength to be outraged by the rhetoric and the messages. To you, I want to say: Together we can choose another path.

We choose higher ambitions for the future. We choose to meet problems with solutions, not with more problems. We choose to build strength from crisis, hope from anxiety, and a future from difficulties. Centerpartiet wants Sweden to be the country where we lower emissions while increasing growth, the country where we have higher ambitions for the climate transition, create the jobs of the future, and ensure that people throughout Sweden get the opportunity to grow. We have done this before, and we can do it again.

We want children to feel hope, not worry, about the future. We want entrepreneurs to feel that society stands on their side, not that politics turns its back on them. We want the countryside to be seen as a force to build upon, not as an obligatory item in the nation's budget. It is not easy, but it is possible. This is what politics should be about: doing what is required for the future to become better than the present.

Mr. Speaker! We need a policy with high ambitions, a policy that sees the whole of Sweden, a policy that takes the climate seriously and a policy that creates jobs, security, and faith in the future. We in the Centerpartiet stand for that policy. We are the counterforce to the government's gloomy future. We are not the part of the opposition that will have the darkest color on our brush, but we are the part of the opposition that sees the future brightly.

To all of you who know that Sweden can, wants to, and dares: Help us put our country on a new path. Help us give Sweden a new government!

Politics is not about seeing whether the glass is half full or half empty. Politics is about filling the glass with a new force for Swedish politics and hope for a country that thirsts for faith in the future and high ambitions. In other words: Pull up the blackout curtains! Ensure that the future gets a chance! Get the job done!

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Do you all remember the spring of 2022, when eight years of Social Democratic rule reached its peak? Inflation was at 10 percent, the price of diesel had risen to 28 kronor, and food prices were skyrocketing. Families and pensioners were hit hard by sky-high electricity prices.

Then it was a government that cared more about staying in power than about truly taking care of our country and that cared more about the conflicts at Sveavägen 68 than about the realm of Sweden. During three of the eight years, the Social Democrats did not even get their own budget through in this chamber. Magdalena Andersson was elected Prime Minister one day and was forced to resign the same day seven hours later. On top of this came a special agreement with a left-wing wild card named Amineh Kakabaveh. This ultimately affected ordinary people. It became expensive to be Swedish.

This parliamentary term is a new start for Sweden. It is an opportunity for Swedish faith in the future. Now, we in the government have, step by step, gotten the country in order. We have gripped inflation. We have pushed down electricity costs, fuel prices, and taxes. Three years after the red-green mess, the diesel price is now around 500 kronor cheaper per tank. A family with children will have 43,000 kronor more in their wallet than during the previous parliamentary term. Food prices and electricity prices are more under control. Dear members of Parliament! Now it will be cheaper to be Swedish.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! We are, however, still in a recession. Everyday life is still expensive for many families and seniors, but we have a clear message to all Swedes. Finally! Now comes the tax refund – praise God, as they say in the Robin Hood movie. Now we have started the restart.

The government is now presenting a budget for all hard-working people. It is a historic investment to get the economy moving. It should pay to be diligent and to do right by others. Access to care must be there when and where it is needed. Now we are lowering the VAT on food from 12 to 6 percent. You may know the classic calculation example with a police officer and a nurse, the Snutsyrra family, with two children. It will now be 6,500 kronor cheaper for them per year to shop for food. We estimate that two retirees will receive approximately 4,400 kronor in reduced costs through the reduction of the food VAT.

The payback does not stop there. Hold on, because now it's time for a bit of number bingo! The Snutsyrra family receives an additional 10,350 kronor every year through reduced tax on labor, approximately 4,500 kronor through reduced preschool fees, and 12,000 kronor through increased housing allowance for the most vulnerable, along with a leisure card for everyone but most for those who need it most. We also lower the tax by 1,800 kronor for the average retiree and remove the tax gap for sickness and activity compensation.

Mr. Speaker! Did I hear bingo? No, I didn't, because that would be deeply inappropriate. But I shall continue. We are also lowering the electricity tax. It will result in approximately 1,000 kronor lower electricity costs per year for a villa without electric heating. Then some wonder what all this means. With our budget, a hard-working family with children will have around 1,800 kronor more in their pocket every month.

As you can see, this is not a Social Democratic Alott being sold with aggressive telemarketing methods from some unclear call center in Spain, but it is guaranteed profit for all Swedish households.

(Applause)

On average, 13–16-year-old girls and boys spend 6 ½ hours per day outside of school time in front of a screen. I think it is time that we start considering who it is that we allow to become our children's and youth's voice for 6 ½ hours and who gets to set the norm for what it means to succeed in this country, how one should look as a woman and what it means to have a good and great life.

The struggle over our children's future is one of our time's most important battles over values, and we will take it. We will take it for our children. We will take it when it concerns which Swedish values must once again apply on Swedish streets and squares, where activists are not allowed to restrict our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. It is time to reclaim Swedish values, both online and on Swedish streets and squares. Trust us in the coming election year! We will take that battle over values.

(Applause)

In this speech, Yusuf Aydin, Gudrun Brunegård, Hans Eklind, Cecilia Engström, Dan Hovskär and Kjell-Arne Ottosson (all KD) as well as Erik Hellsborn (SD) agreed.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This summer, Europe has once again been engulfed in flames. The heat arrives earlier every year. People have died, others have lost their homes. Even here in Sweden, we see how vulnerable we are to extreme weather, which will only increase in tandem with climate change.

In Västernorrland, where I live, the weekend's downpour has caused basements to flood. It has destroyed people's properties, washed away roads, and destroyed infrastructure that for an uncertain period ahead will cut off train traffic for large parts of Sweden. One person has died. This is horrific.

We in Miljöpartiet now demand a national mobilization to climate-adapt Sweden for extreme weather. Society is not sufficiently equipped, and we need to take a holistic approach. The government needs to take responsibility for more resources, for better governance, for better coordination, and for strengthening critical infrastructure. It is clear that what researchers have warned about is now our shared reality, and we must take this seriously.

We must, of course, also do everything to reduce emissions, and do it quickly.

Survey after survey shows the same thing: A clear majority of the Swedish people want politics to do more. And let me be clear: I and Miljöpartiet will do more, unlike this government, for you know what? Ulf Kristersson's government is the first government in 20 years whose policy actively increases Sweden's emissions. We have seen a dismantled climate work, slaughtered environmental budgets, a weakened climate leadership in the EU, an electrification that has stalled, and the largest increase in emissions in 15 years. It is not enough.

Emissions must decrease rapidly, and the transition needs to be permeated by justice. Everyone must be able to participate, regardless of where in the country one lives and what wallet one has, and the gains of the transition must be distributed fairly: more jobs, better welfare, and better public health.

Just transition, Mr. Speaker, is to give low-income earners in rural areas the opportunity to lease electric cars more cheaply so that the car remains but the dependence on gasoline can be phased out. It is to invest in public transport in the cities, to introduce a Sweden card so that one can travel across the entire country at a low price. It is to transition forestry from large clear-cuts to nature-oriented forestry. It is to move from throwaway culture to a circular economy, where companies like Shein and Temu no longer get to exploit either people or the environment.

Mr. Speaker! A just society also invests in our common welfare. Healthcare must be available to you when you need it, and access to care must not depend on where in the country you live. Our teachers must be given the conditions needed to prepare the children for the future. And it should be obvious, Mr. Speaker, when we hear how shareholders take out large profits while they skimp on the butter for the children's sandwiches, that profits in welfare must be scrapped once and for all.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! We must invest in Sweden. When unemployment spirals, politics has an important task: to create new jobs and ensure that more people get the opportunity to contribute to the building of society. Young people in Sweden must be able to feel hope for the future, regardless of whether they live in the suburbs, in rural areas, or in small towns.

Mr. Speaker! Climate change is a major threat to our society. Despite this, the government is actively acting to slow down the transition. We in Miljöpartiet want to instead tackle the challenges while we still can, in a good and controlled manner so that the entire society can be involved. We need a just transition that benefits people, because that strengthens Sweden. But it requires political will, and unfortunately, it is precisely that which the Tidö parties lack.

(Applause)

In this speech, Leila Ali Elmi, Janine Alm Ericson, Emma Berginger, Camilla Hansén, Daniel Helldén, Annika Hirvonen, Rebecka Le Moine and Jacob Risberg (all MP) agreed.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The autumn term is finally underway, and it pleases me that the country's students will attend a school with requirements for staffed school libraries.

It is thanks to the Liberals. No school should be able to get away with having just a single shelf with a few books. We do this in a time when every fourth 15-year-old cannot read properly, in a literacy crisis where screens have been allowed to push out books and where reading and literature are becoming a class issue.

Every child, from the suburbs to the villa area, has a right to reading, which opens up life dreams and new opportunities. It is very much thanks to the Swedish school and thanks to teachers who insisted that students should read Swedish classics that I stand here today – a girl from Hamburg who could hardly speak Swedish but who, through school, received the tools to meet the future, continue studying, work, start companies, graduate, engage in association life and become a party leader. I learned early on that if one's future is not pre-written, one must write it oneself.

More children should be able to write their own history. The next step is therefore to make the entire primary school mobile-free, to restore respect for teachers, and to put an end to the rowdiness.

It is precisely the school that has been the Liberals' priority one, two, and three in the autumn budget. I have a small budget teaser for all of Sweden's teachers: Your time for teaching shall not be negotiated away. We shall move away from a school where teachers are scheduled to clean and do not get time to plan the lessons. There is a school party in the Riksdag that always puts students and teachers first. That party is called Liberalerna, and we will always put the school first.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! A dozen kilometers away from the Riksdag, there are some of Sweden's 180 areas of exclusion. Exclusion is parents who do not go to work while the children are in the classroom. It is the girl who does not want to wear a veil but is forced to do so. It is the boy who is born in Sweden but still does not speak Swedish.

It is the Social Democrats' failure that has brought us here, to a country where our rights are decided by zip code and wallet, because the Social Democrats did not dare to take a stand against values that limit people's freedom. They have allowed these values to take root and this exclusion to grow.

I and the Liberals want something else. We want to lead Sweden in another direction. We want more people to learn the Swedish language, support themselves, engage with others for others, respect laws and values, and take part in the freedom that exists in our part of the world. Then we will get a Sweden where people educate themselves, behave, and care, and a community of values where everyone takes their responsibility for a better tomorrow.

Unlike the right-wing nationalists, my Sweden is not static, and unlike the left, my Sweden is not filled with low expectations of people. My Sweden is built on a liberal community of values, which is open to all who do not intend to throw away the chance they are given.

To those who think that values do not matter, I want to say: Say that to the woman who is not allowed to divorce her husband, the guy who is not allowed to come out as gay, and the girl who is not allowed to participate in swimming lessons! Say it to the eight-year-old girl from Hamburg who has come to a new country! Values certainly do matter.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mauricio Rojas (L) agreed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe many remember exactly how it was. It was governments that fell and entire state budgets that fell, time and again. It was a Social Democratic Prime Minister who was voted out by the Riksdag and another who did not even have time to take office before she was forced to resign. Government power hung on a Left Party wild card. The Social Democrats were simply unfit to govern.

In the Social Democratic shop window, taxes are now being raised in both the municipality and the region. At the same time, they are cutting back on security guards, and in one year, 178,000 bus departures have been removed. Last summer, central Stockholm had only one ambulance in service. When the Social Democrats' alternative is tested in practice, it is still unfit for government.

Mr. Speaker! I am concerned about the terror romanticism and antisemitism that flourishes within the Left Party and the Social Democrats. Leading representatives are revealed at the Hamas conference, and grossly antisemitic images are spread. It is relativized and excused, and it takes an eternal time to clean up in the ranks. This is also incompetence of government.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Today, our four coalition parties are announcing that the age of criminal responsibility for particularly serious crimes will be lowered to 13 years. 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds who commit murder or aggravated rape shall be able to be sentenced and imprisoned, so that other teenagers will be safer.

On my side, we agree on this. Today's debate can show what it looks like on the left side – regarding government incompetence.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! After three years with Ulf Kristersson in power, we see how Sweden's growth is at the bottom of the EU. We see how a record number of companies are going bankrupt and how the signals from the Tidö parties to Swedish business and potential investors are completely wrong, when one conducts a culture war against new technology. This makes our country poorer and weaker.

During the previous parliamentary term, Ulf Kristersson said that a sitting government should be judged according to the following control question: Can more people support themselves, or are more people dependent on benefits?

Mr. Speaker! What is Ulf Kristersson's answer to his own control question today – when 100,000 more have become unemployed during these three years and the number of those living on benefits has increased?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If it were not so serious, this would be somewhat amusing. Now, the very policy that the Social Democrats, during eight years in power, could not or did not want to pursue and which was then not implemented, is being carried out. There are still remains of problems from that time. This now puts Magdalena Andersson against us.

We have saved you from yourselves. You could not carry it out. Your fine task in Swedish politics today is to sometimes vote yes to proposals that we put forward. This applies to proposals that you now say you are for but which you could not have put in a government position. You would never have gotten Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet on board. The Social Democrats are welcome as a supporting party!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is so that during Ulf Kristersson's three years in power, an entire Norrköping, Sundsvall or Halmstad has been deprived of their jobs.

Now Ulf Kristersson will say that this is due to the world economy and the global situation – but it might have something to do with the fact that the government has pursued an inverted economic policy. In an inverted cyclical policy, the government has lowered the tax for themselves by thousands of kronor a month rather than supporting families with children and people with low incomes in the way that international institutes recommend. They have also dismantled vocational training that can provide jobs.

More people are living on benefits today than when Ulf Kristersson took over. There are 100,000 more unemployed. How does Ulf Kristersson assess this based on his own question? Can more people support themselves, or are more dependent on benefits? An answer would be appropriate.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I know that the Social Democrats always want to raise taxes, if the alternative is to lower taxes. I believe that today's families, who have made it through many years of inflation, are grateful that we are lowering costs for families. There will be more money left in the wallet, lower food prices and lower electricity prices, because now inflation is defeated.

Now we can, without fueling inflation, do the things that were impossible to do during your time in power. We both know that inflation is the ordinary wage earner's absolute worst enemy.

When it comes to growth, there was a major international conference in Stockholm last week on growth issues. It almost sounds like an event that growth in Sweden was halved in 2014 – precisely when you took power. Growth went from being twice as high together with Europe to half as high growth. It has been so for many years since then. You should reflect on that legacy a bit.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The government promised to lower food prices. Instead, they have risen by 3,000 kronor per month for every family with children.

Since the government has done nothing during all these years, food prices have galloped away in such a way that the VAT reduction will not be anywhere near able to lower the prices to the previous levels.

We are in favor of all proposals that can lower food prices. However, there is a great risk that the food giants will stealthily raise prices ahead of the VAT reduction that will be introduced in April, much like what is done during Black Friday: they stealthily raise the prices and lower them a little bit. In the end, they have simply raised the prices.

We need to know what the prices of the goods are here and now. We propose a requirement that the grocery stores shall state in the store what the price of a good is now. Then, in a year's time, we can compare the prices and see if they have been lowered.

In what way does Ulf Kristersson want to ensure that the food giants do not sneakily raise prices until April?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We begin with the issue of food prices. It was the government that you in Vänsterpartiet actively supported that administered a policy during high inflation. That is why food prices skyrocketed. This is what we are now doing something about.

After the years of inflation, we have the means and the opportunity to use the public finances to support households. You would never have lowered the tax on food.

There is a point. A food price commission shall carefully examine whether lower taxes on food actually lead to lower prices on food. We will be keeping a close eye on them.

I want to raise one more point, Mr. Speaker, and it concerns lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years. I just want to know one thing: Is Vänsterpartiet prepared to vote yes to this, or will you vote no?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson themselves who have given us the right answer. The market does not work. We have a number of dominant companies, which makes it entirely possible that they do not lower their prices even if one lowers the tax. Both Ulf Kristersson and I know that is the case. The government has said this itself.

Ulf Kristersson does not answer the question of how we are to prevent the food giants from stealthily raising prices until April. How are we to ensure that 20 billion kronor of the taxpayers' funds go to the taxpayers themselves in the form of lower prices? The government has no answer to this.

I have an appeal to everyone out there listening to this. When you are in the grocery store, take a photo of what the goods cost now! I naturally urge Ulf Kristersson to do the same. Then, when the VAT reduction is here, we can compare and see that the stores have actually lowered the prices properly.

It is time to take matters into our own hands, when the government does not do its job.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We take it once more! Exactly so. We lower the food VAT to lower food prices. We will keep track with the help of a food price commission, which month by month shall follow exactly how the prices develop. Some large companies have already promised that they will lower the prices by at least these 6 percent. Those who do not do so will be pursued by the food price commission.

Let me repeat the second question once more. We intend to lower the age of criminal responsibility from today's 15 to 13 years. The number of 13- and 14-year-olds who are now suspected of the most serious crimes has multiplied many times over. Will Vänsterpartiet vote yes or will Vänsterpartiet vote no to that reform?

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson is not only the first Prime Minister in modern times to lower climate ambitions, but he is also the first who will send a hefty bill to the Swedish people for having increased emissions.

According to the Riksdag's investigation service, the government's climate policy will cost Sweden over 100 billion kronor. These are funds that could have gone to school, security, and more jobs. It is a climate bill that threatens welfare, pressures taxes, hits companies, and erodes household finances. It is to build up a moral and economic debt to current and future generations.

We do not accept that one takes a shortcut for their climate capitulation. The voters have the right to know what it costs to not take responsibility. How has the government, Ulf Kristersson, intended to pay the debt?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me say two things to the Centre Party today.

The first thing is that I genuinely appreciate the new tone you have adopted when it comes to political issues. If I have understood correctly, you are saying in principle that from now on, the issues are the most important thing, not who is behind the issues, not who one happens to vote with, but it is about what one thinks, what problems exist and how they can be solved together with others. I genuinely appreciate that approach.

The second matter is the climate. There, I think that C speaks with a somewhat conflicted tongue. We have made a major change beyond the big question of the energy system – fossil-free electricity that can handle electrification – namely, not to put all eggs in the same basket and call it a reduction obligation of 28–30 kronor per liter.

If you want that policy, you must say that you stand for 30 kronor per liter; then we can achieve the old goals in a short time. If you do not want that, you must find other ways.

Then we have the split tongue regarding the forest. If we are to live up to today's EU rules for forestry, we will almost have to shut down Swedish forestry. Does C really mean that?

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the praise. I can reciprocate the praise and say that I think it is good that Ulf Kristersson has also opened up for the broad cross-bloc energy talks. We will always be a constructive force when it comes to such matters.

From the Center Party's side, we have shown how one can lower both fuel prices and emissions simultaneously. When we were in the alliance government – the Center Party and the Moderates – we lowered emissions and increased growth.

The problem is that the government is now both increasing emissions and decreasing growth. We are missing our climate goals, which we actually should be meeting. It is a huge problem. At the same time, we are also increasing the import of fossil fuels via detours from countries like Russia. Ulf Kristersson is still accountable to the voters. How will the government pay the bill of 100 billion, which the government is placing on future generations?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The fundamental problem was that during the very high inflation that pressured households, Sweden had adopted an environmentally partisan idea of a reduction obligation, which drove up fuel prices to sky-high levels. It was an unsustainable policy for families but also as a sole climate measure.

Our idea, instead, is to increase electrification, which requires extensive access to fossil-free electricity. That is perhaps where we can find common ground. Excellent, then!

But say it as it is; if you really want to reintroduce the reduction obligation to previous levels, 28 kronor per liter, you must dare to stand by that. In the same way, you must be honest and say that if we are to reach every single comma in the EU's current, not yet renegotiated, forest policy, we will essentially have to shut down the Swedish forestry as we know it today. It is a matter of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of kronor in export revenues. I do not believe that C actually means that.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Before the election three years ago, the Moderaterna wallpapered the country with large posters where it said: Now we can get the climate in order.

Now Ulf Kristersson has almost had a full mandate period to govern Sweden. What is the result? Escalating emissions. Climate initiatives that have been torn up. Enormous investments in the fossil.

We have seen the highest increase in emissions in Sweden in 15 years, and this is the first time in 20 years that a government is implementing policies that actively increase Swedish emissions.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that Ulf Kristersson has never been further from getting the climate in order. On the contrary, he has completely lost control. Why was the climate important in the election campaign but not afterwards?

In this speech, Janine Alm Ericson, Emma Berginger, Rebecka Le Moine and Jacob Risberg (all MP) concurred.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The climate is important. It is perhaps one of the few things we agree on. But we are absolutely not in agreement on how to solve the climate problems. They are well-known differences. You want a reduction obligation. You want, in practice, to tax people out of their cars. We want to electrify. We believe that the technology that is now emerging will solve the climate problems – if there is enough fossil-free electricity in Sweden, that is, the electricity that you yourselves have laid down. There we fundamentally disagree.

I want to point out that even during your time in power, it happened that emissions increased because the economy functions with different intensities in different years. We had a period with very high inflation, and we had to help Swedish households through the inflation years. When we simultaneously create more fossil-free electricity in Sweden with this, we create long-term conditions to meet the climate problems.

I also had a question. To lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years – does Miljöpartiet intend to vote yes or no to that?

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about his fundamental climate failure.

The electrification that Ulf Kristersson speaks so passionately about has slowed down because you have withdrawn measures. You have slowed down the investments in renewable energy in the electricity we need in the near term to actually carry out the electrification and the green industrial transition that Ulf Kristersson also says he wants to safeguard. It is a government statement empty of answers that pushes the questions to the EU. It is a weak climate leadership.

Mr. Speaker! That is not enough. I have just come from Härnösand, where I have seen the consequences of the heavy rainfall. These are consequences that, due to climate change, will become common in the future. Extreme weather is becoming increasingly common, but Kristersson has cut the funds for climate adaptation. Not one word does he touch upon this in his government statement.

When will the government pull its head out of the sand and stop abandoning people, companies, and entire municipalities?

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I recently sat and spoke with the Swedish CEOs of the large, heavy vehicle manufacturers – Daimler, Volvo and Scania – about the electrification of heavy vehicles. It is a matter of destiny. They pointed out, of course, that high inflation, a major recession and unfair competition from China affect the ability to sell such large volumes of electrified vehicles as they had hoped. That is quite obvious.

Now we are out of inflation. We could get the economy back if we correct trade imbalances with China. All of this creates the conditions for a Swedish triumph, namely fossil-free energy and fossil-free vehicles.

Mr. Speaker! I note that I am receiving no answers from the Social Democrats, the Green Party, or the Left Party regarding the age of criminal responsibility. They remain unfit to govern.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Hundreds of thousands of parents got up this morning, made breakfast for their children, and got ready to go to work. Perhaps there was a little arguing in the hallway when the rain pants were being put on, and they had to look for a rubber boot. Then they took the children by the hand, left them at preschool, and headed off to work.

The basis for Sweden's prosperity is that almost all parents can work full-time, behave responsibly, pay taxes, and leave their children in a tax-funded preschool. They are secure in the assurance that the children are doing well there, getting to develop their language and discover the world. That is how it looks for many parents, but not for everyone.

Recently, we have been able to see reviews of profit-driven preschools that, instead of conducting pedagogical activities, leave the children in front of an iPad with Babblarna at high volume. Instead of hiring educators, they hire people who lack experience with children or who cannot speak the language. They even cut back on the butter on the children's sandwiches – all so that the owners can make as large profits as possible.

But children never get their upbringing back. It is obvious that we must do something about this systemic error and uproot the problem. Now that the Riksdag has opened, we Social Democrats will therefore place a sharp proposal on the Riksdag's table to ban profits in preschools and to ensure that municipalities can forcibly manage private profit-making preschools that neglect their responsibilities.

I would like the governing parties to tell Sweden's parents clearly what you are choosing – Porsche cars for the owners or educators for the children? Are you on the side of the children or the welfare capitalists? Sweden's parents deserve an answer.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Magdalena Andersson said in her first speech that we find ourselves in a worse starting position than we should have. I naturally agree with that. During the years that Magdalena Andersson was responsible for the state budget, she brought Sweden to the brink of a systemic collapse. Cancer operations had to be postponed, and the health insurance and the assistance allowance were worsened. What she prioritized – alongside mass immigration, sky-high aid, and meaningless climate measures, such as discounted electric bicycles – was to abolish the wealth tax for those who earn the most.

My question, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are more than just me who are raising it. Is it not quite bold to, with that baggage, stand and point fingers at those who are now trying to clean up after this total chaos?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to inform Jimmie Åkesson that in a democracy, it is the opposition leader's responsibility to oppose the government even when it hurts.

It is brave of Jimmie Åkesson to bring up healthcare and operations specifically, when under Jimmie Åkesson's policies, the longest healthcare queues we have ever had in our country have been recorded. They have been recorded after Jimmie Åkesson has, budget after budget, prioritized lowering taxes for himself and other high-income earners rather than ensuring that healthcare has sufficient funding to be able to clear the healthcare queues.

It is my task to point that out, Jimmie Åkesson, even if you think it is difficult.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think it is the least bit difficult. I stand behind the policy that we pursue together with the government precisely to clean up after the eight years when Magdalena Andersson was responsible for the state's finances.

I can state that Magdalena Andersson and the Social Democrats in the debate are giving our four parties the right point by point. The Social Democrats systematically avoid conflict on issue after issue, also when it comes to things that one at the time, when one had the chance, either did not want to or was unable to implement. They have agreed to almost everything of importance in the Tidö Agreement, but they have received nothing in return. This is a fact.

Mr. Speaker! I note that Magdalena Andersson has turned Sweden's largest party into a doormat that has received nothing in return. Congratulations!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that Jimmie Åkesson stands behind the policy. Jimmie Åkesson has an enormous influence over this government. Everyone notices that.

But before the election, Jimmie Åkesson said that he would be a guarantor for the welfare. I am thinking of all those who are now standing in the record-long healthcare queues. One perhaps did not think that was what one was voting for. One perhaps did not think that one was voting for a deteriorated welfare system. One perhaps did not think that one was voting to lower the housing supplement for the most vulnerable families with children. You have actually lowered that by more than the small increase that you are now introducing in this budget.

It is clear that many in our country believed that Jimmie Åkesson would stand up for the welfare state, but one is now forced to conclude that it was only empty words.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Since it now happens relatively often that the Social Democrats say they have completely different views than the Social Democrats had when they themselves were in government, I would like to give Magdalena Andersson a chance.

Between 2012 and 2022, the fatal shootings in Sweden tripled. And the number of suspected young people is increasing dramatically. The number of young people under 15 years of age who are involved in the most serious crimes has increased tenfold in just a few years. Late this summer, a 13-year-old was identified by the district court as the shooter in a shooting in Västerås.

We will lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years. Now I want to give the Social Democrats a chance as well. Will you stand by your no, or will you change your mind even on this issue?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that Ulf Kristersson notices that we Social Democrats have made a reorganization of our crime policy. This is against the background that we have, in recent years, undertaken a major policy development work, with in-depth social analyses and a long series of new proposals. It is a work that we brought to port in connection with our party congress.

We emerged from that party congress as a changed party. We are both clearer and more direct regarding crime policy and migration policy. We are updated regarding growth policy and have a really good and socialist welfare policy with more money for school, healthcare, and elderly care and an abolished career deduction.

I welcome that Ulf Kristersson has also changed his policy. The line that Ulf Kristersson pursued for decades, that Sweden should have the EU's most liberal migration legislation, resulted in the large refugee crisis and in us Social Democrats having to tighten up. On that point, Ulf Kristersson has changed his mind.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is, quite frankly, a bit ridiculous. We are talking about the social problems that we have had in the very recent years. During that time, you did not get anything through for eight years, either because you did not want to or because you could not.

Now you have changed your opinion, which is very interesting. How are you, together with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, going to be able to maintain a truly tough crime policy when they want to go in the opposite direction? How are you going to be able to maintain a strict migration policy together with Miljöpartiet, who want to go straight in the opposite direction? And the tax policy, with those who want to raise all taxes, one hardly even dares to think about it. You are unfit to govern.

But can I get an answer to the question: Do you intend to vote yes or no on the lowered age of criminal responsibility?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is perhaps not particularly fact-based when Ulf Kristersson says that we did not get anything through. We started, for example, two new police colleges. We carried out a major reorganization of the criminal justice policy. The vast majority of the bills in the field of justice that this government has submitted come from investigations that we Social Democrats initiated.

That I as Prime Minister would not have accomplished anything – I mean seriously! I believe I submitted 100 propositions during my ten months as Prime Minister. Three days after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we decided to send weapons to a country at war for the first time since World War II. We decided to raise the defense spending to 2 percent of GDP. After a great deal of work, reported in the Riksdag, which took place in cooperation with Ulf Kristersson, we decided to apply for Swedish NATO membership. When I left my post, we had reached invitee status.

One can define government incompetence in different ways, but I do not quite believe that the Swedish people share your view regarding specifically the spring of 2022.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The few times Magdalena Andersson mentions the climate in her public statements and speeches, she says that the climate is important. But in the Social Democrats' budgets, it is conspicuously absent. There are no major investments or clear priorities. It is as if the climate crisis is not worth a line in the S-marked financial plan. When Sweden needs investments in power grids, renewable energy, and climate-smart infrastructure, there is silence from the Social Democrats. They have no green reforms or long-term visions.

We in the Center Party have presented a number of concrete proposals: a green deduction for households and companies, powerful investments in biofuels and electrification, and a climate policy that strengthens both growth and security. We know that the climate cannot wait.

Therefore, I ask: Can the voters trust that Sweden's largest party is not missing the mark on Sweden's biggest challenge?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I truly appreciate Rickard Nordin's and the Center Party's commitment to climate issues. It is important that there are many green voices in Sweden's Riksdag, even though we know that many of those who raise their green voices face a great deal of hate and threats in various media and on streets and squares.

The times we have cooperated with the Center Party, we have been able to present a really good climate policy regarding investments in new green industries with state credit guarantees. We have also ensured that a climate transition can be carried out throughout the municipalities in our entire country, but also by climate-proofing Sweden.

I hope now that the government seriously wants a broad energy agreement. It would be good for Sweden and is something that the business community also demands. I would welcome close cooperation with the Center Party in all these matters.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! We welcome that. The desire for cooperation is mutual. It is also something that is missing in the government's current climate policy. The question to Magdalena Andersson therefore becomes: Will the Social Democrats stand up for more ambitious climate goals? This is also being discussed in the Environmental Goals Commission. Or will they yield to the government's failing ambitions? It is not enough to say that the climate is important and that one wants to cooperate. It must also be reflected in practical policy.

We have presented concrete proposals, and we are examining the government's climate note. It is about money and important matters concerning companies, jobs, and future growth that creates money for our welfare. We are ready to push forward, but we do not intend to let anyone else, neither the government nor the Social Democrats, stand by passively when climate ambitions are eroded.

What is Magdalena Andersson's message? Will one be prepared to stand up for the Swedish climate goals and strengthen the ambitions? Or will one take the government's side and want to water them down?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Rickard Nordin raises a very important issue, namely the climate goals. I myself am also extremely concerned about the EU's climate work. There is a problem with the government's overall policy. They want to use a lot of the taxpayers' money to produce more fossil-free electricity in Sweden. We also see that it may be needed, as it will be expensive. It also relies on the fact that there will be a demand for more electricity in the future. Otherwise, this becomes a risk and a cost that the Swedish people bear completely unnecessarily, so that we instead have to send the tax-subsidized electricity to Germany or other countries.

The whole thing is based on us in the EU standing up for the climate goals. But we know that the Sweden Democrats oppose the climate goals that make it necessary for us to have nuclear power. It is uncertain where the Christian Democrats' and the Moderates' party groups in the EU will actually land.

The risk is that we end up in the worst of worlds. We are spending a lot of taxpayers' money on nuclear power, but we will not have a demand for it because the green transition is being opposed in the EU. It is a bad combination.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes when I listen to Magdalena Andersson, I think: How much we agree! This applies especially when I hear Magdalena Andersson speak about permit processes, about the industry's fundamental needs, about constructive dialogues regarding energy issues, and about what is needed for our heavy base industry to be able to generate both growth and the jobs that are needed moving forward.

But that thing with the permit processes went so poorly with Miljöpartiet. The Social Democrats should perhaps try governing with someone else, Mr. Speaker?

I like the Social Democrats better in opposition. Then they are suddenly for anonymous witnesses, visitation zones, and changing the reduction obligation. They are open to prisons abroad, and they are slightly positive towards lowering the age of criminal responsibility.

My question is very simple: How is Magdalena Andersson going to get her policies through? What is actually the Social Democrats' alternative government?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome the flirtation from Ebba, if I understood it correctly.

We Social Democrats are a cooperation-oriented party. I have been clear at all times since I was elected party leader that I am prepared to cooperate with other parties that want to solve Sweden's societal problems. I do not, however, include the Sweden Democrats in that.

I also see a need for more broad cross-party agreements, not only in defense matters, which we have managed to agree on very well. I truly hope that we can now reach an energy agreement as well. That would be good for Sweden and for Swedish business. But I can also imagine other areas where we can have broad agreements.

Looking across the sound to Denmark, we see that in the area of criminal policy, for example, they have been able to agree on both harsher penalties and a very offensive policy to break the recruitment of new members to criminal gangs. That could be an area where Ebba Busch and the Socialdemokraterna could cooperate.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! For me, as I have said, the content is what is important. But for many years, it was debated whether Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, as opposition leader, would be able to put together a government basis. Now we are demonstrating, area by area, that we reach agreements. We provide Sweden with stability in a very turbulent global situation.

My question remains nonetheless. How can the politics of Amanda Linds, Nooshi Dadgostar and Rickard Nordin or Anna-Karin Hatt land alongside the Social Democrats'? On the red-green side, there is complete disagreement on issues of migration, crime fighting, Nato, reduction obligation, forest, taxes, entrepreneurship – yes, in principle on all politics from right to left. I do not think we are getting satisfactory answers.

I welcome the opportunity to reach an agreement with the Social Democrats on decisive issues for Sweden. I believe that is good. But in that case, it will be red-blue and not more red-green.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Ebba Busch forgets the fact that we Social Democrats, when we sat in government with the Green Party, overhauled the extremely liberal migration policy that the Christian Democrats and the other Alliance parties had implemented. It worked perfectly well to act forcefully together with the Green Party in such a situation.

It was also with Miljöpartiet in the government that we initiated the largest reorganization of the penal policy, which lays the foundation for many of the measures that the current government can implement.

We are four parties who share a common fundamental view of humanity that one does not value people based on where they or their parents were born. There is still a bottomless chasm – I hope – running through the Tidö parties.

Another question we agree on is that we have a prime ministerial candidate. The question is who is the Tidö parties'.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats say they want to deal with the exclusion that is the result of the Social Democrats' policy. Magdalena Andersson's right-hand man in Gothenburg, Jonas Attenius, speaks about mixing the population. A party comrade in Solna speaks about how many immigrant friends one should have. It is a policy that diminishes people to merely being figures in an Excel sheet and to being chess pieces to be moved around however one likes.

My question to Magdalena Andersson is: Is it reasonable that families with children in Botkyrka and in Bromma should be used as political tools to make up for your political failures?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by reminding Simona Mohamsson that the Liberals have had a decisive influence in or on Sweden's governments for 15 of the last 20 years. In 15 of 20 years, the Liberals have had a more decisive influence than any other party in Sweden's Riksdag. When Mohamsson says that it is only about the Social Democrats' Sweden, the Liberals have had more influence than any other party.

What we Social Democrats want is that all children in Sweden should grow up in safe areas. They should see their parents go to work and attend a school that ensures they make it all the way to the high school graduation. That allows them to get a job, secure a home, and live a good life. If we do not succeed with that, we will never get to the gang crime. We have a plan for it. Are the Liberals in?

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting how the Social Democrats have now given the Liberals influence over Sweden over the last 20 years. I appreciate that. We gladly have influence, because we have seen what the consequences of the Social Democrats' policy are.

The Liberals want to highlight all areas of exclusion in Sweden. But we do not want to do that by moving people like chess pieces. That is why we invest in schools in areas of exclusion. That is why we push back and take action against clans and gangs that exist in our areas of exclusion.

That is also why we are re-establishing the work line. It should pay to take a job and to take responsibility. My starting point is that one should educate oneself, behave, and care in Sweden. But the question remains.

Is it the case that Magdalena Andersson will use the families in Bromma and in Botkyrka as chess pieces for the Socialdemokraternas own failures?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is an election year, and the right-wing parties are speculating about Social Democratic policy in the same way they have done so many times. I have seen so many posters about the Social Democrats reintroducing the property tax. We are not going to do that. Are we going to forcibly relocate some families? It is obvious that we are not going to do that.

I do not want children to grow up in insecure areas with widespread poverty, many unemployed, schools that do not meet the standard, or where they see drug dealing on their way to school. I want us to fly the flag in every square in our country and for all residential areas to be safe and good so that people will want to stay there when they get jobs and when they educate themselves. It is about others wanting to move in, among other things by us building more mixed housing.

I do not understand why Simona Mohamsson pretends to be critical of it. I believe fundamentally that it lies very close to the ambitions that the Liberalerna also have.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Many of you surely saw Magdalena Andersson in Agenda the other day. I note that it sounds roughly the same as it has during these three years. It is no independent policy. It is no independent ideas. It is no answers to the question of who she is to govern with and how it is to be done.

It is a constant evasion of all responsibility. It is just platitudes and whining at me and at the Prime Minister, and she shifts the responsibility onto someone else. This applies to the problems in Sweden for which the Social Democrats and Magdalena Andersson are fully responsible.

Mr. Speaker! It is worth reminding that the last time Magdalena Andersson presented a budget here in the chamber, she had failed so capitally with her legislative construction that she had to negotiate with a communist wild and with radical groupings in Kurdistan.

I claim that quite little speaks for it becoming better this time. When Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have pushed through their punitive taxation on work, their billions on ineffective climate measures and their shock increases of aid, and when Centerpartiet has restarted the mass migration, there will not be any money left at all for low-income earners and the sick. We know that because we have seen it before.

Mr. Speaker! The red-green mess has not become any better just because it has been left to ferment for a few years.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö, Chris Dahlqvist, Yasmine Eriksson, Mikael Eskilandersson, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Jörgen Grubb, Göran Hargestam, Erik Hellsborn, Thomas Morell, Daniel Persson, Robert Stenkvist, Martin Westmont, Eric Westroth and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! No own policy, says Jimmie Åkesson. I have a concrete proposal. It is that the parents who leave their children at preschool, even if it is a profit-making preschool, should know that the money they have paid in tax so that the children are safe at preschool, get nutritious food, meet educators who can help develop language and make the children ready to then take the first step into school, goes to exactly that. It should be a security to know that.

We have received examples of how private profit-driven free school corporations are extracting large sums of money instead of hiring educators. Jimmie Åkesson promised the voters that he would be a guarantor for the Swedish welfare. We have presented concrete proposals in the Riksdag to stop this. Will Jimmie Åkesson vote for those proposals, or would it not have been more honest of Åkesson to say that he is the guarantor for the welfare capitalists' profit extraction?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Magdalena Andersson just stood here and said that she does not intend to negotiate with me to make Sweden better. In that case, it will be difficult for her to get my support for the proposals. It is not so strange, because that is how it works here.

Extra billions for healthcare, lowered fuel prices, lowered electricity tax, lowered food VAT, lowered tax on work, lowered tax for pensioners, lowered tax on sickness and activity allowance, lowered preschool fees, increased housing allowance and so on, and so on – this is what we have already managed to achieve during these three years of the mandate period. One year remains, and we intend to achieve even more.

Mr. Speaker! What has Magdalena Andersson achieved more than these platitudes and this general complaining about the government?

Mr. Speaker! My answer is: absolutely nothing.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson has caused 100,000 more unemployed people, the longest care queues ever measured, and a 250 percent increase in the number of children involved in murder cases over 15 years – just to mention some of the results.

Furthermore, Sweden has gone from being a country that can boast high growth and falling emissions to being a country on the shame list with increasing emissions and low growth, a growth that is in a slump.

I heard no answer. Jimmie Åkesson promised the voters to be a guarantor for the Swedish welfare. Will he instead be a guarantor for the welfare capitalists' profit withdrawals? Was it the answer yes to the latter question that I heard? It is therefore the welfare capitalists that Jimmie Åkesson puts before the children.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Either Magdalena Andersson heard an answer or she did not. Obviously, she did not. My answer was that it becomes very difficult to get your proposals through here if one is not prepared to negotiate, above all with the large parties in this chamber. If one says that one consistently does not intend to do so – does not intend to cooperate, and does not even intend to talk or negotiate – one does not get their proposals through. I do not intend to stand here and negotiate with Magdalena Andersson; that speaks for itself.

It is true that we have a lot to clean up. That is the case, and we knew that when we sought the people's mandate to do just this: clean up after Magdalena Andersson. We are cleaning up after double-digit inflation, failed goals regarding Europe's lowest unemployment, fuel prices at upwards of 30 kronor, nuclear power that was decommissioned, and a historically extensive asylum migration with everything that entails in terms of crime, social exclusion, and general division in Swedish society.

I am proud of what we are doing. I am not satisfied, but I am very proud that we are cleaning up after the Social Democrats.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson chooses not to answer the question of whether he wants our tax money to go to directors for the purchase of Porsches and other things or if they should go to our children.

The preschool group Tivoli could not afford to buy toys for the children. This is probably because they are taking out 41 million kronor from the operations. At Hagvidson, they demand rationing of toppings and Bregott. The children are not allowed to spread too thickly. They take out 64.5 million in profit. There are many examples, and until now, Jimmie Åkesson has blocked all types of regulations of this. What we would need to do is to forbid the operations from taking out profits and instead invest everything in the children.

Is Jimmie Åkesson prepared to stop the outflow of our tax funds to profits and instead invest them in the children?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if Nooshi Dadgostar has read the Tidö Agreement. This question is addressed there. We are four parties who, as far as I know, are negotiating on this, and there will be proposals regarding this. But the question is silly. It is well-understood that our tax money should not be used to buy fancy cars. It goes without saying. I do not understand why one even asks such a question in this chamber.

We and our coalition parties in the government have been incredibly clear that we will support and help functioning operations – operations that work well and provide children with what they need. This is good, and it creates diversity in Swedish society when it comes to people who need and want to be able to choose where they should place their children in preschool or where they should go to school.

If one does not live up to these basic requirements, one should not operate a preschool or a school. It is no harder than that. Do not stand here and pretend that anyone here thinks otherwise! Because I do not believe that is the case, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with that. It is completely stupid to vote against a proposal for a profit ban, and that is exactly what the Sweden Democrats have done. That is why we are standing here. You have allowed this huge stupidity, as you yourself have claimed it is. You have blocked the proposal to stop all flows out of the operations.

Every single krona must land in the operations and go to the teachers and the children. That is our demand. Does Jimmie Åkesson stand behind the demand that one should not be able to take out profits from preschool and school activities? Never could it be more important that the money disappears out to owners who buy other things with the money than that it ends up in the operations.

For me, it is incomprehensible that you cannot give a clear and distinct answer to this clear and distinct question. Will you vote for our proposal on a profit ban so that not a single krona disappears from the operation now until autumn – yes or no?

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: I would like to make a precautionary reminder that one speaks through the Speaker in the debates here.)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to remember this.

I am very clear in my answer, and I was also when Magdalena Andersson stood where Nooshi Dadgostar is standing right now. I do not intend to vote yes to any proposals that I have not had the opportunity to be involved in negotiating and developing. I do not intend to do that. It is quite obvious; I do not think it is the least bit strange.

Nooshi Dadgostar does not vote yes to my proposals either, because we are not negotiating about …

(NOOSHI DADGOSTAR (V): Because they are bad.)

Now I am speaking. We simply do not negotiate with you about them, but I negotiate with them here behind me. We have a majority in this chamber, so we get our policy through. We also negotiate on the issue that Nooshi Dadgostar touches upon.

But I am not a Marxist, I am not a socialist and I am not a communist. It is very unlikely that I would vote for the Left Party's proposal on this.

But there are things to do, it says in the Tidö Agreement that we shall do this and we are doing it now together with the government, period.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Mining uranium in Sweden is one of the most environmentally damaging things we could do. Yet the Sweden Democrats are pushing for us to do just that. In Sweden, the uranium is found in alunschist, in such low concentrations that one would have to dig up entire landscapes to extract anything.

In Oviken in Jämtland, where the current find is located, those living in the area fear poisoned drinking water, ruined farmland, and risks of contamination for generations to come. At the same time, Jimmie Åkesson wants to remove the municipalities' right to say no.

The Sweden Democrats, who always want to safeguard self-determination and who never want to move power to Brussels, now want to move power from Jämtland to Stockholm. The Centre Party, of course, does not want to run over either the environment or democracy. We will not accept this.

But what is it, Jimmie Åkesson? Do the Sweden Democrats want to decide over people in Jämtland and ensure that, against their will, they get a uranium miner as a neighbor?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! "Decide" is a very strong word. But now it is the case that Sweden is a democracy. We have gone to elections, and then the Sverigedemokraterna received votes. We received a majority together with three other parties, and then we have the opportunity to, as Rickard Nordin expresses it, "decide" things here. We have influence over how Sweden shall be governed and so on; that is how our system works.

I note that we need nuclear power. We need nuclear power because it creates stability. It creates predictability, and it creates long-term conditions for those who use electricity in our country, namely households and the business sector. Therefore, I am strongly in favor of us significantly expanding nuclear power in Sweden.

Then the question arises: Should we buy uranium from other countries, often countries that we perhaps actually do not want to trade with in that way? I think then that it is better that we do what we can to get the entire Swedish people on board to utilize the deposits that exist in Sweden – but naturally not at any price whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is getting really confusing. The largest uranium deposits in the world, which we also trade a very large amount of our uranium from, are in Canada and Australia. Are these countries that the Sweden Democrats do not want to trade with? That is how it sounds. There, the uranium is mined more safely, in higher concentrations and with less environmental impact than what would occur in Sweden.

The fact is that it is the Sweden Democrat members in Jämtland, in the Västgöta region, in Skåne, on Öland or in Östergötland who have the deciding power in their hands. When the Sweden Democrats want to take power from the municipalities and move it to the government, they take the power to Stockholm to decide whether we shall have a decent environment or not.

I am not prepared to sacrifice Jämtland and our cultural regions to create uranium mines. The Centre Party stands firm: If Jämtland says no, it is a no. How is it for the Sweden Democrats?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think the question is fully relevant. It is not entirely easy to answer, but I will nevertheless make an attempt.

On the one hand: Yes, the resources that exist in our country belong to us all. If there are resources in Blekinge – there are to some extent; there is a lot of stone – they also belong to Rickard Nordin. If there are resources in Jämtland, they also belong to me. We are one country.

On the other hand: Something that we are driving and, above all, are now looking more closely at is how one can to an even greater extent compensate for the type of impact that, for example, mining can entail. It is not just uranium we need; we need masses of things that are down in the ground in our common country. Then we must find a system to compensate economically in a way that is both reasonable and generous, and then perhaps it will also become more interesting for, for example, Jämtland. But Jämtland may answer when it becomes relevant.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When the school is viewed as a market, parents become customers, small children become wallets, and educators become service personnel – all with the same purpose: to maximize profit for the owners.

It is easy to state that these are not individual mistakes or individual operations that fail to fulfill their mission. This is a fundamental systemic error where companies are allowed to make money from running schools and preschools, money that comes from the public and should go to the children but instead ends up in the owners' pockets. Furthermore, it harms our school system and shifts responsibility onto the municipalities.

My question, which Jimmie Åkesson still has not answered, is: How can Jimmie Åkesson think it is acceptable that money that should go to the children instead goes to the owners' profits?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think so. I also said it: If one conducts an activity that means one cannot fulfill the assignment one has in a satisfactory way, one should also not be able to take out profit. I do not think that one should even be able to run a school under those circumstances. That is exactly what we are negotiating with the government about.

I cannot answer more clearly than that. I believe everyone else understands what I mean.

Then I can think that it becomes a bit far-fetched. It is clear that Miljöpartiet today, 2025, can shift the responsibility for this onto me. I was actually against this in the 90s. I did not think it was a particularly good reform. But for Miljöpartiet, it was a heart issue during their early years here in the Riksdag. It was actually Miljöpartiet that pushed for us to get the free school system we have today, together with the then-bourgeoisie. For me, it therefore becomes completely incomprehensible.

I do not think that one should be able to run a school if one does not fulfill its mission – period.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, that was a clear answer. It means that for Jimmie Åkesson it is still okay that we have a market school. It is okay that we have the fundamental system error that makes Sweden the only country in the whole world where owners of school corporations and preschool corporations can extract profit for the shareholders. It is nothing that Jimmie Åkesson wants to put a stop to.

The investigation that the Tidö parties commissioned to "address" these problems was not even allowed to submit a proposal on a profit cap. It is completely absurd!

The proposals that are now on the table and that you are negotiating, Jimmie Åkesson, are about stopping profit extraction for newly started schools for a period of five years. After that, it is free game.

Mr. Speaker! It is very obvious that this is a system that the Sweden Democrats continue to defend and are not prepared to do anything about. Money will still be able to end up in the shareholders' pockets.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I simply note that Amanda Lind did not listen to what I said. In that case, it is not so meaningful to debate, so I thank you.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am Swedish. I share the Swedish, liberal values that make Sweden unique – even extremely unique. I speak the Swedish language, which only we speak. My father even gave me a sonnamn.

Jimmie Åkesson likes to speak of Sweden as a place where generation after generation has lived. That is a view of Swedishness. But my Sweden is instead the values – values that both new and old people can partake in, regardless of whether one has lived here since time immemorial or if one came here as a child a little more than 20 years ago. It is an open Swedishness that more can become a part of.

My question to Jimmie Åkesson is: Do you agree with me that our Swedish, liberal values are what hold our society together?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When one puts it that way, it is part of what holds us together – that we have democracy, the rule of law, and such important principles. But for me as a politician – and it is politics we are engaged in here – the only thing that is relevant is citizenship. If you are a Swedish citizen, you are Swedish. That is what I base the politics I pursue on.

Then I want to raise the requirements for being able to become a Swedish citizen. I think that for decades we have been far too generous when we have distributed citizenship. It has had consequences. Today there are people who I perhaps do not think should have been granted a Swedish citizenship but who have still received it. It is that we need to handle today.

Sweden has changed. It has been noted in the debate, not least in recent weeks. Sweden's demography looks different today. It is simply a matter of stating that it is so.

If one is a Swedish citizen, one is equal before the law. That is what is most fundamental in the rule of law, and I stand behind that. It is also what is politically relevant.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! In my Sweden, it is as self-evident to participate in Vasaloppet as it is to attend a Kurdish wedding, to celebrate Christmas as it is to celebrate Eid, and to refuse pork as it is to have a beer with friends. This is the new Sweden with all its differences. It is my strong conviction that Sweden needs a community of values that is open to those who roll up their sleeves and ensure they do their best to become a part of that community, where everyone shapes themselves, behaves, and cares.

Do you not agree with me, Jimmie Åkesson, that this is the way to an inclusive society where more people can feel a sense of belonging with what is Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not agree – not about everything. There is a Swedish culture. We have seen that, not least in the cultural canon that has been presented. It is also manifested in many other ways. A very large part of the population in Sweden belongs to that culture and has done so for generations.

I have all the respect for Simona Mohamsson and others who have a background in other countries and who have come here and have a different value community. I also have respect for the fact that it is probably more in that direction that we need to build society, because the demography looks the way it does today. But there are people, Swedes, who have a different view and who live in a different view. I think that the respect for them is also valuable.

One must show that even we have a value that does not think that, for example, Kurdish culture is Swedish. I do not think that it is, but if one wants to devote oneself to it, one can of course do so in Sweden. One can of course still be Swedish. But ultimately, in a political context, it is the citizenship that matters.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! That Sweden is one of the world's most successful industrial nations is largely due to the natural resources in northern Sweden. The hydropower, the forests, the ore – it is from there that we get what makes Sweden function. Yet so little remains.

Now we are in the middle of a new shift. The whole world is watching as the green industrial transition is to be carried out. But as it looks now, it is only municipalities and regions that are stepping up for our independence from technology from the superpowers. It is not the state, SD or the government that are making the large investments when new industries are established. It is Boden, Skellefteå, Luleå and Kiruna. The list can be made long of those who step up and pay and make investments. Then the state and Stockholm get 80 percent of the revenues. 80 percent! It is not fair.

Why don't the government and SD do more? New jobs require more housing, investments in infrastructure – better roads and railways – and investments in schools. It requires an expanded healthcare system even in rural areas. Where is the state? Where is the government? Now, instead, enormous costs fall on the people of Norrland and inhabitants in other parts of the country.

The weekend's devastating rainstorms in Västernorrland show that our country is literally falling apart. Where is the government and the Sverigedemokraterna?

I have a clear message: Norrland shall be paid for its riches. The state needs to take responsibility so that people can live and reside in the entire country, even north of Dalälven.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I welcome that the Left Party is now joining the line that the Centre Party has championed for decades – that more of the value from natural resources should remain locally. That is good politics. What Nooshi Dadgostar, however, forgot in her speech about investments are those who actually make the investments, namely the companies.

Welfare is built on companies that are viable and people who have jobs. Still, Vänsterpartiet pursues a policy that makes it more expensive and harder to run companies in Sweden. They want to raise taxes on jobs. They want to introduce new taxes on entrepreneurship. They say no to labor immigration, which has made the skills shortage even worse. The result is fewer investments, fewer jobs, and fewer resources for welfare. It is not just bad business policy; it is bad Swedish politics.

My challenge to Nooshi Dadgostar is to mention a proposal from Vänsterpartiet that would have made it easier to be an entrepreneur in Sweden.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party has betrayed the rural areas. They are not a rural party. For example, they have seen to it that Sollefteå Hospital has been closed. Despite the party's decision being that it should be kept, the members in the regional council voted down the proposal to keep Sollefteå Hospital.

All the major cuts that the Center Party advocates for and pushed through during the last parliamentary term mean that we now lack healthcare in rural areas. We lack money to make large investments in roads and railways. That is why it looks the way it does in, for example, Västernorrland.

Major investments are needed to be able to take care of the investments that are coming now. Investment support for housing is needed, because there is a lack of housing in Kiruna, Luleå, and Boden. If people are to be able to move there and participate in the great industrial transition, we do need to invest. Those investments are proposed by Vänsterpartiet, but not by Centerpartiet.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! With the Center Party's policy, Västernorrland would have had completely different resources. Hydroelectric power would have kept its property tax, not least in Sollefteå.

The problem here is that Vänsterpartiet completely misses the mark. To get resources for the common welfare, jobs and companies are needed.

I asked a simple question: Does Vänsterpartiet have a single proposal that makes it easier to be an entrepreneur in Sweden? They failed to answer that. There was nothing about the small hairdresser, the trucking company, or the local restaurant in the countryside.

When you raise the tax on jobs, fewer young people get their first job. When you make it more difficult for labor immigration, it is especially the green industries in the countryside that do not get any labor.

We want to facilitate. We want to make it simpler. We want to make it more profitable to run businesses, while the Left Party does exactly the opposite. They want to make it more expensive and harder. The challenge to Nooshi Dadgostar remains: Name one proposal from the Left Party that makes it simpler to be an entrepreneur in Sweden!

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I mentioned a number of proposals. It is unfortunate that Rickard Nordin does not think it is important for Sweden's entrepreneurs that one can travel on Swedish roads even in rural areas. We think it is important. We think it is important that freight traffic can run on Swedish railways. We think it is important that there are regions and municipalities that have the resources to maintain good healthcare. With the Center Party's proposal, all Norrland regions would have had even less money and needed to cut even more in healthcare.

We need to build a strong society, a platform, so that the new investments can be managed. There is no investment support for Kiruna. Therefore, it is difficult to move there and take the new jobs. The Centre Party does not think there should be any investment support for new rental apartments – or any housing at all, for that matter. That is the problem.

We must make large investments so that companies can function and put money into people's pockets so that they can go to the hairdresser and the restaurant.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Students and teachers testify to disruption and brawls in classrooms. Reports of threats and violence in schools are increasing. It cannot be accepted that a school, which is supposed to open doors to life, is instead characterized by disruption. That is why the Liberals have acted and continue to act.

In last year's autumn budget, we strengthened the support for emergency schools so that students who behave violently, threaten others, or disrupt lessons are moved away. But in their budget motion last autumn, the Left Party proposed a straight and clear no to emergency schools.

My question to Nooshi Dadgostar is why Vänsterpartiet is against acute schools, which can relieve teachers and students who want calm and safe classrooms.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that Simona Mohamsson is asking this question. Swedish school is like an enormous monument to the Liberals' catastrophe. They have had responsibility for the school for many, many years.

We now have a market school where it is being filled with students in classrooms where they do not fit. The teachers are on their knees and need to perform magic just to be able to manage different situations at all. They are soaked in administration that you have placed on them, Simona Mohamsson. The money continues to roll out to Porschar, waffle huts, and everything else. This can no longer be managed.

When we take power, we will take back control of Swedish schools for the Swedish people. We will bring order and clarity. We will ensure that classrooms are of an appropriate size and have an appropriate number of students, so that teachers have the time and opportunity to teach in a good way. And of course, unruly students shall be removed from the classrooms and taken care of by others.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that Nooshi Dadgostar believes that the Social Democrats, who have sat on their hands for eight years at the Ministry of Education, will suddenly start doing things within the school area.

Swedish school has long been characterized by an inclusion mindset that has caused more harm than good. In order not to single out or exclude any students, all students, regardless of circumstances, have been placed in the same classroom. But it has not worked. It has increased the workload for teachers. It has opened the door for disruption in the classroom. For me and the Liberals, it is obvious that it must be possible to move students who threaten classmates and teachers.

My question remains: Does Nooshi stand by the inclusion principle that no students should be moved, or does Nooshi, like the Liberals, think that we need to have a school that is free from disruption?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Of course it should be free from disruption. Of course those who cause trouble should not be in the classroom but be removed from there and taken care of by other teachers and adult staff. But the schools cannot afford that, so either they are at home or they are in the classroom and causing disruption.

It is a completely fantastic piece of historiography that Simona Mohamsson is providing. It was Simona Mohamsson's party that governed during the previous term. The most important thing for the Liberals then was not to touch anything in the Swedish market school. That was the most important requirement the Liberals had during the previous term. We were not allowed to do anything. We were not allowed to change anything in the school. There were to be more cuts and more money rolling out in stock profits. This is the Liberals' responsibility.

That is why the school looks the way it does today. There are many students, a lot of noise, and far too few teachers. Now, furthermore, trained teachers are being replaced by untrained ones because they are too expensive.

We will change this next mandate period. I am glad that we are spared the Liberals in that government.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Before I came to this chamber today, I was at the Environmental Goals Preparation meeting. There, it was expected that all of us parliamentary parties would make decisions that determine Sweden's climate policy for decades to come. So far, not all decisions have been made, but the choice is very simple. Shall we have high ambitions and chart out a greener and wealthier future, or shall we turn our backs on the opportunities, dilute the climate goals, and engage in loopholes and creative accounting?

Lowering climate ambitions is like turning off the lighthouse when the storm is blowing up. It does not make the sea calmer. It only makes the journey more dangerous. The consequences are obvious. We are building up a moral debt to future generations. We are also building up an economic debt we can never repay.

A country with high climate ambitions attracts investments, jobs, and faith in the future as companies seek it out. Sweden wins by wanting. Sweden wins by daring. Sweden wins because the world knows that there is a country far up there in the north that shines a little brighter than others, a country with midnight sun, northern lights, and a brilliant climate policy.

When we governed, emissions decreased while growth increased. We showed that they go hand in hand. It gave us respect, influence, and faith in the future. Today, the government weakens Sweden's voice in the world, when we should speak with a clear voice more than ever. The Center Party refuses to accept that. We have higher ambitions for the future.

The Centre Party will never accept a path where we create a weaker, dirtier and poorer Sweden, where we send the bill, both morally and economically, to future generations and where we extinguish the beacons when the storm hits. We choose responsibility, we choose leadership and we choose the future.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! We in the Left Party proposed this spring that SD and the government should save the emergency hospital in Sollefteå. But the proposal was voted down by the government and SD.

The Center Party now has the opportunity to do so instead. There is a constituency decision from the Center Party in Västernorrland to pause and stop the closure of the acute hospital. Despite that, the Center Party's members in the regional council have voted to close the hospital. Why? Why do they not listen to what the constituency decision has said? Do you have no democracy in your party, Rickard Nordin? What is the matter? Why do the members not follow the members' decision regarding the closure?

The need is enormous. We need healthcare in rural areas. It is good for the preparedness. Sollefteå will grow. An acute hospital was needed there. People will die if it is not kept. Why are you going against your own parliamentary decision?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! With the Center Party's policy, this question would not have existed, as I told Nooshi Dadgostar earlier. There would have been resources in Västernorrland as well as in many other regions. The property tax on natural resources, which is currently collected in Stockholm, would have remained. Then it is a matter of decisions we can make here in Sweden's Riksdag.

We have democracy in our party. That means that we in the Riksdag cannot dictate what should be done at the local and regional level. This applies both in Centerpartiet and in Vänsterpartiet. There is no possibility to dictate such requirements. We have a parliamentary decision, and it has been urged that it should be followed. But we cannot decide over those who are elected. They are elected on personal mandates, in the same way as in Vänsterpartiet, which has now created a couple of wild cards here in the Swedish Riksdag. It is not possible to dictate what those who are already elected should do.

But there is one thing that is certain: If we had been able to implement the Center Party's policy here in the Swedish Riksdag – with exactly the proposal that the Left Party has now also put forward – we would have had a completely different situation. This situation would not even have arisen.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Do I understand correctly – will the Center Party now, therefore, initiate expulsion proceedings against these individuals? It must be the effect of what Rickard Nordin is saying now.

The hospital in Sollefteå is central. The Center Party can save the hospital by changing its votes and fulfilling what the assembly has said, not by pointing at some dream policy somewhere else. The Center Party can save the hospital now.

We in Vänsterpartiet have said that we can revisit the issue in the regional council. The Centerpartiet has the opportunity to stand behind that proposal, ensure that the issue is brought up in the regional council once more and pause the closure. Otherwise, people will die in Sollefteå and the surrounding area during acute situations and cases of illness. Surely we cannot accept that?

What is Rickard Nordin doing to stop this? Will the chance to save the hospital be taken?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Now I am sitting in the Swedish Riksdag and do not have the mandate to decide over Region Västernorrland. Therefore, I personally cannot make the decision that Nooshi Dadgostar says I should make.

However, I have together with my party been very clear towards the members who sit in the regional councils: one must follow the decisions made by the assembly. That is how it works in a democratic party. That is how one should act and how one should vote.

But I can also state that with the policy that we would have pursued here in the Riksdag, the question would not have arisen. There would have been plenty of resources. Sollefteå would have been a wealthy municipality if it had had the money that the hydropower currently sends to Stockholm. If they had been allowed to stay, there would have been welfare and security. One would probably also have had a hospital remaining. This is a policy that we stand up for and that we fight for both today, tomorrow, and after the election.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals and the bourgeois government are currently carrying out a complete renovation of the independent school system. Now we are moving forward with profit caps, if school owners do not behave. We do this to protect children's right to a good and safe schooling. I and many at home react strongly to reports of independent schools that skimp on the butter and on the students' school fees – and the money has gone to something other than education.

Despite this, we can read how the leader of the Center Party, Anna-Karin Hatt, defends the profits of the friskolor. My question to Rickard Nordin is therefore: Does the Center Party think it is good to have profit interests in the Swedish school?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by welcoming Simona Mohamsson to the debate. It is probably the first time, at least in a very long time, that two people from Gothenburg are standing and debating in a party leader debate. It was about time, I think.

On behalf of the Center Party, it is crystal clear. Of course, quality must come before profit in schools. Those who do not manage to employ qualified teachers, provide good teaching, sensible school libraries and so on, should also not be able to take out any profit. It is crystal clear. Of course, the children's education comes first.

Scrapping the entire free school system, however, is nothing we stand behind. We also know that it is often the only possibility in rural areas when the municipality wants to close the village school. In that case, there must be an opportunity to run it in another form. But quality always takes precedence over profit, even for the Center Party.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I can still state that the Liberals and the Centre Party, despite us being two Gothenburgers, do not have the same view on the profit interest in Swedish schools. I myself belong to the generation of friskola. I have seen how friends have attended schools without laboratories and without qualified teachers and have received food vouchers for "Donken" instead of breaded fish with cold sauce in a school canteen.

The Liberals will therefore always show that we put children before listed companies. Therefore, the Liberals and the government will present proposals on profit caps. My question remains, however: Will the Centre Party listen to the country's students and teachers and stand behind our proposal on profit caps, or will you instead listen to the listed companies and remain in the 2006 view on the independent school system?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Mohamsson was either stuck in his previous remark or did not listen properly. Because if we do not have the same view, it means that the Liberals do not stand behind that quality should always take precedence over profit, as I said.

For us, it is also a matter of course that this must work in the entire country. Today, knowledge-wise, it can differ by as much as a whole school year if you attend a rural school or a school in a suburb compared to if you attend one of the best schools. This is completely unacceptable. We must erase the geographical differences and the injustices we see.

We are ready to deal with the systemic errors that exist in Swedish schools. But then one must be able to see the whole picture of the problem, not just the one right in front of one's nose.

We do not want people to be able to hire unqualified teachers and, in that regard, pocket profits by cutting corners when it comes to laboratories, school libraries and other things. It is a self-evident matter that education comes first. But we must also have the possibility of a free choice of school so that students and parents can choose what suits them best.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! You have all heard the government basis describe what we are doing to make it cheaper and safer to be Swedish and to give more people a reason to feel Swedish faith in the future. At the same time, I believe we need to fight for our common Swedish values.

During my over ten years in national Swedish politics, I have many times been heckled for claiming that there is such a thing as Swedish values, when I have spoken about the Christian Swedish cultural heritage that has influenced our entire legislation, and when I have stepped out to the Swedish flag in Almedalen. I have been accused of fishing in murky waters. I have received much criticism when I have pointed out that there is a conflict of values in Swedish society.

But now I do not think anyone can manage to deny this. We have over a quarter of a million young people living under honor-oppression-like circumstances. Now we see anti-Semitic slogans quite openly on streets and squares in the capital almost every weekend. We see unacceptable verbal and directly barbaric, aggressive attacks on our streets. Activists use the Swedish freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in a way that restricts others' freedom of assembly and freedom of speech and have taken over large parts of the public space.

It is time that we reclaim Swedish values on the streets and squares. Islam needs to adapt to Swedish values and cannot be practiced in the same way as it does in Iran and other totalitarian states. We should not have influencers here who say that one should not let children learn Swedish or who think that women should wear the niqab. And we must give the police the legal space and the support needed so that they can interrupt and address the barbarism that we are currently seeing take over Swedish streets and squares. It is time to take them back.

(Applause)

In this speech, Lili André, Mathias Bengtsson, Magnus Berntsson and Magnus Jacobsson (all KD) concurred.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I wonder if Ebba Busch has been to Kiruna since the announcement came that an additional 6,000 people will need to move due to the mining operations. I assume that as Minister for Enterprise, one travels up immediately when such an announcement is made. This is a very important industry for our country.

Has Ebba Busch sat down with the elected representatives, the municipal leadership, and discussed how the government and the state should solve this? It is reasonably not something that one or two municipalities can solve. LKAB's mine supplies Sweden and all of Europe with iron ore, and the sacrifices that are now being made there for the Swedish economy are absolutely enormous. Last week came the announcement that 6,000 homes, families, children's rooms will need to be moved, and that is not a cost that a few can bear. So what is Ebba Busch's announcement? How is she going to solve this question? And has she traveled up to Kiruna and spoken with the municipal leadership after this?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by answering the question directly: No, I have not been on-site in Kiruna. I have focused on finishing the negotiations on a budget which, among other things, means that we will be able to support municipalities, cities, and local localities when a significant expansion, a new large company establishment, or other major society-transforming projects occur. But we were in contact with the municipal leadership for Kiruna immediately when this announcement came.

It is fundamentally positive that LKAB continues to make large investments in Norrbotten. It provides growth and jobs. In Kiruna, people are used to living with and from the mine. But this is an enormous strain – Nooshi Dadgostar is completely right about that. In total, it now looks like perhaps 12,000 people will need to move. It is clear that this creates concern. I want to be very clear that where the state can and should provide support, we will do so. We are in close dialogue and will continue to do so.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I have spoken with many people in Kiruna. They do not trust anything that the Minister for Enterprise says, because she has done nothing until now.

Investment support is needed so that there are housing in the municipality. Money is needed for the municipality so that it is not necessary to cut back on the food at the elderly care homes.

In municipalities such as Luleå, Boden, Kiruna and Skellefteå and a large number of other municipalities where the green transition is taking place, extensive investments are needed in the municipalities so that the municipalities do not have to take out billion-dollar loans to do things that contribute to the climate transition for all of Sweden as a nation. It is a state responsibility.

Can the Minister now account for all the things she is now going to do and the investments and initiatives she will make for the people of Kiruna specifically? There are large cuts occurring in these municipalities. They need to sacrifice very much for something that is Ebba Busch's responsibility. She has instead chosen to spend the money on Stockholmers, and I mean that is unreasonable.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Mines in Sweden shall serve the Swedish people. They shall also serve the people of Kiruna and the surrounding area.

Just look at how we have managed the relocation of the city that has been carried out so far! Look at how the whole world followed the relocation of the great church, which was carried out by drivers with A-tractor licenses! It shows the strength in a cooperation between the local population and the national level. This is something we shall learn from and apply moving forward.

But look at the difference between the attacks from Nooshi Dadgostar and the actions that we stand for. It is not Nooshi Dadgostar who has established the Norrlandsfonden, which makes it possible for us to now build more housing in growth municipalities such as Kiruna.

It is not Nooshi Dadgostar who has decided on the largest infrastructure policy initiative ever in Swedish history or the largest initiative on research and innovation. It is also not Nooshi Dadgostar who has pushed through an industrial strategy with risk-sharing between just the state and the municipality. We will continue to support Kiruna moving forward.

(Applause)

In this speech, Lili André (KD) agreed.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! The forest is a completely central part of many Swedes' image of Sweden. We are a forest nation. The forest has long been important for our nature, for us humans to spend time in, and also for our tourism and our economy. Therefore, it upsets me so much when important values in our forest now risk being thrown away when short-term economic gains are allowed to take precedence over long-term sustainable forestry in our country.

The recent forest investigations miss the mark completely. Large-scale clear-cutting is rewarded, even though many forest owners want to transition to more nature-oriented methods. We know that it is needed, because the forests must become more resilient against extreme weather and insect attacks.

We must safeguard biodiversity. Letting trees grow a bit larger before they are harvested also reduces the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

My question to Ebba Busch is: How can the negative trend that we see in the forest be reversed if we do not achieve a new direction in forest policy and transition to more sustainable methods?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now we have a rural affairs minister who fights for the Swedish forest in an EU context. Unfortunately, one cannot say that we had that with the Green Party at the helm of the government during the past parliamentary periods.

There is a difference between forest and forest. There are pine forests in other countries too, but it is actually possible to speak of something as Swedish as Swedish trees and Swedish forest. Here we fight so that we can fully be able to use the forest and that it can be seen as a decisive part in our way of binding carbon dioxide. Here we fight so that it shall be possible to not only reward large forest owners but also smaller forest owners. We shall trust more that the one who has economic incentives to manage the forest over generations and pass on their company to the next generation of leadership will also manage it in a better and wiser way.

With MP's policy, we risk laying a wet blanket over the entire Swedish forestry.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! That is not correct. First and foremost: What we in Miljöpartiet want to see is a sustainable and enduring forestry that not only gives us opportunities to take part of the forest's resources now but also in the future.

Secondly, the government is wrong about the forest. We do not have a long-term sustainable forestry in Sweden today. The government's forest policy has a one-sided focus on increasing production in the short term. They disregard the forest's central role both for climate policy and for the irreplaceable natural values and biodiversity.

My first question to Ebba Busch is: The forest investigations that have presented serious proposals to weaken the forest's resilience – will you proceed with them or not? My second question is: Will you allocate funds in the budget to ensure that all the forest owners across the country who want to contribute to increasing the forest's nature and climate benefits receive compensation?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! A forest that is managed is the absolute best forest. Trees that grow also bind enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. This is what we fight for in an EU context. We fight for this to be fully recognized.

I do not agree with Amanda Lind's description of the forest policy that we are conducting. Regarding the forest investigations that are now on the government's table, we will return to them in a collective manner. But we are aware of the value of the Swedish forest.

The dividing lines are clear. With Miljöpartiet, Sweden becomes more expensive. With MP, you cannot build a cottage by the water as easily. With MP, we get no new fossil-free base power in the form of nuclear power. With MP, it becomes more expensive to drive the car. It becomes more expensive to live and reside outside the city. A hobble is placed on Swedish forestry. We are changing this now.

(Applause)

In this speech, Lili André (KD) agreed.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time. All around us, we see war, conflicts, and catastrophes. When I grew up, democracy won ground all over the world. But as my children grow up now, democracy and human rights are instead in retreat.

In Ukraine, the struggle for peace and freedom continues after Russia's full-scale invasion, and it is absolutely central that we continue to stand up for Ukraine. At the EU level, negotiations are currently underway regarding a new sanctions package. Here, it is crucial that Sweden pushes for a total ban on Russian fossil imports. Everything else is a betrayal.

Madam Speaker! Last week I was visiting Israel and Palestine. What I encountered there I will never be able to forget. I am speaking of the sorrow of those affected by Hamas's terror or of those who have family inside Gaza, in the hell that is unfolding there. I am speaking of the desperate needs to get emergency aid to the starving population and about the severely worsened situation in the West Bank with increased settler violence, more annexations, and serious restrictions on the lives of Palestinians.

Madam Speaker! More and more in the world, such as researchers and Israeli human rights organizations, see that what is now happening in Gaza is a genocide. I took an important message home with me. There are so many, both Israelis and Palestinians, who want peace. They want the violence to cease and the hostages to be released. They want to see a negotiation and a two-state solution. But to achieve this, increased pressure from the world is required. Increased pressure is required on Hamas to unconditionally release the hostages and on Israel, which must cease its warfare.

The government has gradually realized that the tone towards Israel must be sharpened, but it is not enough. We must restore the aid to UNRWA, accept patients from Gaza, and stop all European arms trade with Israel.

In the meeting with all those who fight for peace, there is hope. But it does not help if Sweden and the world do not act.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! One in four 15-year-olds cannot read properly. Universities are sounding the alarm about students who can hardly write. At the same time, Swedish teenagers spend an average of seven hours a day behind their screens. Brain researchers point out that children are learning worse and worse, especially with the screen. The Liberals have therefore agreed on screens in preschool and want to make the entire primary school mobile-free.

Amanda Lind's representative Peter Eriksson has himself said that the red-green government was clueless when it pushed forward the digitalization strategy for the Swedish school. My question to Amanda Lind is therefore: Do you agree with your party colleague? Was it really right to force through digital tools in school?

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not doubt Simona Mohamsson's commitment to ensuring that children in Sweden have a good preschool and school experience. I want that too.

The discussion about digitalization in schools tends to become very populist. Of course, children should not be using Babblarna in preschool. Of course, one should not be on social media in primary school. But Simona Mohamsson knows, just as I do, that this is already something that the school staff can manage today.

The Swedish school today needs a major investment, so that we can have more people in schools and preschools who have time for the children and to sit down and read with them. We need more books in preschools. It is a task that we in Miljöpartiet initiated when we were in government. It is about ensuring that there is staff in the school so that we can fulfill the read-write-count guarantee that we in Miljöpartiet pushed through when we were in the Ministry of Education. These are concrete measures that strengthen the school at its foundation. The Liberals lack these answers.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Eight lost years are what we are picking up after you at the Ministry of Education, Amanda Lind. The Liberals want to see safe classrooms with study environments and discipline, where no student needs to act as a punching bag, where the teacher is the one who has the first and last word, and where proven methods form the basis for teaching.

Miljöpartiet has historically stood for exactly the opposite – for an inclusion ideology, for students to have power over teachers, and for digitalization. My question to Amanda Lind is: Can parents trust that Miljöpartpartiet stands up for study and knowledge in Swedish classrooms?

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a statement from Simona Mohamsson. When the market school was introduced in Sweden in the 90s, Miljöpartiet was not even in government. It was Folkpartiet. Every time the curricula have been revised, Folkpartiet has held the pen.

During the time when I myself sat in government, we worked hard together to get the law on staffed school libraries in place. What I fear now is that the municipalities, with the austerity policy for the municipalities that the Liberals legitimize in the Tidö agreement, will not be given opportunities to employ trained staff and the school librarians who are required to guide the children into reading.

Furthermore, the Liberals still want there to be an opportunity for shareholders to extract profit from Swedish schools. It does not strengthen the children's learning.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! All the best has not happened yet, Håkan Hellström sings. I count at least five party leaders in here who believe he sang incorrectly and who are looking in the rearview mirror. Nostalgia has made its grand comeback in Swedish politics, not least within the Social Democrats. It is tax increases, subsidy lines, people planning, and state pharmacies. But, Magdalena Andersson, there is a reason why the windshield is larger than the rearview mirror.

I believe in the future, not because problems disappear on their own, but because we have a plan to get there. We are realistic regarding the extent of the problems but optimistic about the power of politics to solve them.

In area after area, the bourgeois government delivers reforms to solve Sweden's societal problems, combat gangs, and strengthen people's economies and future dreams. It is a Sweden where the school opens more doors to life, where every child gets to see their mom and dad getting ready to go to work in the morning, and where the newly married couple settles down and starts a family in a terraced house or in an apartment without constant anxiety over the insecurity outside. It is a Sweden where young entrepreneurs dare to turn their ideas into reality and start the Ikea or Spotify of the future, with the knowledge that it is possible to find experts both here and abroad who can contribute to prosperity.

Naive, say the pessimists here in the chamber. But hopefulness is not synonymous with naivety. A better, safer and freer Sweden is within reach.

(Applause)

In this speech, Helena Gellerman and Mauricio Rojas (both L) concurred.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! The scandals are thick and fast in the Swedish market school. It is money from the public sector that ends up in the owners' pockets and goes toward the purchase of Porsches, while the children's butter on their sandwiches is being rationed.

We have known all this for quite a few years. But the measures have unfortunately been difficult to implement. The Liberals and the Centre Party blocked those types of interventions during that time with the January Agreement. Now the government and the Liberals, above all, are raising that they will tackle the market school and perform a complete renovation. But seriously: The proposals being put forward are mostly a bit of superficial broker-fix.

My question to Simona Mohamsson is: How will the proposals that the government plans to present to address the issue of shareholders being able to withdraw money that should go to the children come about?

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I fully share the frustration regarding the free school companies that put profit before the children. I want to remind that I myself belong to the generation of free schools and therefore have seen the downsides of the free school system that we live with today. I have also been very clear that this is something we must build a majority for in order to be able to do something about.

The Social Democrats and the Green Party did not get a single proposal through to stop the profit-seeking. It was eight lost years. Now the Liberals and the government will present real and important profit limitations.

The question remains, however, Amanda Lind: How will you reconcile on your side together with Centerpartiet, who have been clear that they still live in 2006's view on profits within the school area?

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is a bit ironic, because it was among others the Liberals who blocked various types of profit caps that we proposed when we were in government last time.

The proposals that the Liberals have now put forward, and which are claimed to address the profits in the school system, concern, among other things, a temporary profit limitation during the first years with a newly started company. The proposal says nothing about the possibility of making a profit later. It also does not affect all those gigantic corporations that are already today making a killing on the Swedish school market.

My question to Simona Mohamsson is: Would Simona Mohamsson like to remove the market school completely, that is, forbid profit extraction in the Swedish school? If so, I think it is time to be clear about that. If the Liberals do not want that, I think it is time to be clear about that as well.

What the Liberals are doing right now is false marketing. The policy you will pursue on the other side of the fence will not address the problems with the Swedish market school, Simona Mohamsson.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is easy to think things. Here, the Liberals and the Green Party differ, because politics is about getting things done. The Social Democrats and the Green Party had eight years to push through profit caps in the Riksdag. They did not succeed even once – during eight years!

Politics is about gathering support, securing a majority and getting your proposals through. How is Amanda Lind going to get proposals through with the Center Party, which still today praises wins in school? What is the plan for gathering a majority on your side of politics? We have succeeded in gathering a majority on our side of politics.

The party debate was hereby concluded.

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