Guidelines for the economic policy

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! We are approaching summer. I say "approaching" even though I know that in southern Sweden, people have had summer somewhat longer than we who live in northern Sweden.

It is probably many of us in this chamber who are looking forward to tomorrow's conclusion of the parliamentary year. One might be looking forward to going home and having a few days of Midsummer celebrations before Almedalen and some meetings begin while waiting for the real summer holiday to start. But here in the chamber, it will at least be summer. I myself will celebrate with my daughter at home in Umeå, and getting to go home to Norrland feels welcome after much work during the spring.

What one can feel as both a politician and a parent is that it is heavy to see how other parents do not have the opportunity to celebrate Midsummer, summer, and summer holidays with their children. We have a situation where children murder other children in our country. Just a few days ago, a 15-year-old boy was shot to death in yet another of the series of fatal shootings in our country.

This is about children murdering other children in criminal settlements. These are young boys who should be longing for graduation - who should be learning to tie their first tie - but who instead are given weapons and sent to murder other children.

We can no longer accept this development. Now we must do everything in our power to actually break this for real. This is domestic terrorism and must be treated as such. Everything must be done to break the development. The new government continues to invest more money in both crime fighting and preventive measures while tightening the penalties for serious crimes.

Another important part of the budget, Madam Speaker, concerns strengthening the Swedish defense. We are adding hundreds of millions during the current year to strengthen the defense and the Swedish preparedness. It concerns both NATO preparations and strengthening food and drinking water preparedness - many things that perhaps are not what one thinks of first, but there is much that needs to be done to increase the Swedish defense capability.

Democracy must be defended, which has been made clear by what has happened in our immediate vicinity. We do it together with others, and therefore we need to upgrade the Swedish defense and adapt it to the possibility of joining Nato as soon as possible. Through the supplements we make this year, we will be able to speed up the process, and as soon as all Nato countries have ratified Sweden's accession protocol, we will have the opportunity to become a member.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has many problems. It is the gangs and the violent crime, as well as Russia's reprehensible war against the neighboring country Ukraine. Swedish households are tormented by higher interest rates which make the mortgages an ever heavier burden, and we see high food prices and ever more expensive living costs. The high inflation makes us all poorer, Madam Speaker, and it must continue to be fought. Electricity and fuel have also become much more expensive, which at the same time has contributed to driving the Swedish inflation.

Not everything is the fault of the previous government, Madam Speaker – let me be clear about that. But very much is the fault of the previous government. More should have been done to break the gangs and the serious crime. The decommissioning of nuclear power has caused Sweden serious damage and very high electricity prices for both households and companies. The previous government's experiment with the reduction obligation gave Sweden the world's highest diesel price, to very questionable benefit. Several of the problems that the previous government caused have also contributed to driving the Swedish inflation.

It is now the new government's responsibility to solve the problems Sweden has. We have begun that work and will continue it during the coming years. We can already see that many combined efforts to bring down inflation are starting to yield results, even though much still remains. The government will meet the difficult economic situation with a plan that contains three parts.

Firstly, we must fight inflation and support the vulnerable households.

Secondly, we shall re-establish the work line. It must always pay more to work than to live on benefits. That is how one builds their own welfare, and that is how we build welfare in this country together with one another.

Thirdly, we need to implement structural reforms to increase Swedish growth in the global competition.

Given the difficult economic situation that Sweden finds itself in, fighting inflation must be a central priority. The Government takes responsibility by pursuing a continued restrained fiscal policy while support is provided to the vulnerable households.

Regulations that drive price increases are being changed; for example, the reduction obligation, which has given us the world's most expensive diesel, is being lowered. We are lowering it from January 1, 2024. We are doing a lot to rebuild new electricity production. All electricity production is needed - also new nuclear power.

During the current year, households are supported with 27 billion SEK in electricity support. An average villa owner receives somewhere between 4,500 and 19,000 SEK in electricity support, and that makes a big difference in the wallet for very many. We also propose an extension and an increase of the housing allowance for those who have the greatest need. A single parent with two children receives an average of 1,100 SEK more to live on per month. It is important to protect the most vulnerable households from the price increases we have now seen.

It is important to remember that the state cannot or should not compensate for everything. We can, however, support those who have it the toughest, for that is how Sweden holds together during difficult times. But in the long term, we must create the opportunity to reverse the development, and it is only when more people have a job to go to and can contribute to the common good that Sweden becomes a richer and better country for us all.

Therefore, we must re-establish the work line. The tax on work must be lowered when the economic situation allows for it. This is particularly important for people with low and medium-high wages. Measures that break passivity shall be implemented, and we shall strengthen the drive to move from benefits to work. Recently, the government has also presented plans for a benefit ceiling, which shall ensure that it never pays more to live on benefits compared to taking a job. It is one of several steps on the way. Everyone who can go to work shall also be given the opportunity to do so. That is how we build Sweden strong.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to return to the fact that this is a problem-solving budget, with an emphasis on "solution." It may feel bleak right now. There are constant headlines about fatal shootings, violence, skyrocketing inflation, and generally tough times. But it is possible to turn the development around – Sweden can do better. The Government has already begun that work, and this budget is another step on the way toward achieving that.

As the students now sing all around in our beautiful, elongated country when they leave the schools surrounded by light green birches and blue and yellow balloons: The brightening future is ours. It is hopeful, and together we can turn the development around. Not everything is bad, and that which is bad can also become good.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the Finance Committee's proposal for a decision. I also want to take the opportunity, during one of the final debates with the Finance Committee before the summer, to wish the members of the Finance Committee and the secretariat a very nice summer holiday when it finally arrives. I know we have extra meetings and a good deal of other things left, but I want to take the opportunity from here to wish a nice summer holiday.

I know that I speak for the entire Finance Committee when I say that we want to extend a particularly big thank you to the Finance Committee's secretariat for a fantastically good job, both for the government parties and for the opposition parties. We place great value on the work you in the secretariat do. You have had it tough during the pandemic. We thought it would become calmer after that, but it has continued to be a lot of work for the Finance Committee's secretariat. You have handled it gallantly. A big thank you for that from all of us!

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! Edward Riedl is a Moderate. There are certain things that Moderates usually emphasize that they like very much, for example, the King, tax deductions for high-income earners and cuts in welfare. Also markets and the competition in them are things that Moderates gladly highlight.

If one examines this a bit more closely, it turns out however that there are strong indications that the Moderaterna are primarily interested in this as a theory, or as a fantasy, and that in many important and real contexts they are more cold-blooded or directly hostile.

Now that we have an inflation crisis, we see how the concrete competition situation in certain markets causes inflation to be higher there. Through the market power that certain strong actors possess, the entire inflationary pressure is shifted, and more than that, onto the consumers. This applies within the food industry, where we have a few giants who control a large part of the chain. They are doing excellently, while ordinary consumers are doing less well. We see this not least within the banking sector, where the banks have large margins between deposits and lending. This gives them a lot of money in the till but constitutes an enormous problem for millions of households in Sweden.

In these areas, concrete proposals have been presented, among others by Vänsterpartiet but also by others, on how the actual markets - that is, not the idea of them but the actual markets - could be deregulated and how competition could be improved. The Moderates have, however, rejected all these proposals in a high tone and instead defended the importance of doing nothing.

Against this background, I would like to ask Edward Riedl: Would it not be better to be more honest about the fact that it is not competition that the Moderaterna cherish, but the opportunity for those who are better off to always and in all situations enrich themselves further?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I first want to agree with Ali Esbati on something he said. He stated that I am moderate, and that is absolutely correct.

The government that has now taken office made a historic commitment this year to strengthen welfare during tough times. That it was about savings is incorrect - on the contrary, this government has actually invested in welfare.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Moderaterna and Vänsterpartiet collaborated several times to strengthen elderly care and healthcare. It is something that the Moderaterna and the new government safeguard, which is, of course, that the welfare system functions and has sufficient resources for its mission.

What Ali Esbati is proposing, Madam Speaker, concerns what he calls concrete proposals. These are things that cannot be implemented. I am surprised – and I know there are others who are – that the Social Democrats have been brought along on several of these strange proposals, which would obviously conflict with both EU law and much else. It concerns non-feasible proposals about using SBAB to lower interest rates and other things. This is unfortunately not doable, nor is it desirable.

However, we share the view that competition needs to function better. Competition will drive down food prices. Ensuring competition will also ensure that the banks maintain reasonable interest margins. That is why it is important, Madam Speaker, that this government now invests money in strengthening the Competition Authority so that competition functions.

In this context, I should also say that Vänsterpartiet wants to borrow hundreds of billions in the coming years. Then, of course, one can invest in a lot of things. However, these are fake money, or monopoly money - it is money that does not exist. That makes it a bit difficult to have a debate in the chamber about this.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is perhaps somewhat difficult to have a debate when Edward Riedl asserts things that are not true and which also have nothing to do with the question I asked.

I want to agree with Edward Riedl that the Moderaterna were involved and contributed to injecting more money into welfare before the election. On the other hand, it is not correct that the things that Edward Riedl calls investments are investments in reality. Approximately 12 billion is missing just to reach the level that would have been needed to maintain the staffing density within welfare. What we are now seeing in reality are very significant cuts and more than that.

It is interesting to hear what Edward Riedl considers to be outrageous and what is not. When it comes to food prices, it is apparently not outrageous to do things that are already being done in a number of other EU countries. According to Edward Riedl, it would not be outrageous, for example, to give SBAB the same directives that SBAB had before 2012. I remember that Sweden really existed then and was even a member of the EU, so it is a bit odd to say that this is not outrageous with reference to EU law or other metaphysical ideas that Edward Riedl possibly has.

This would stand in contrast to the fact that it would be unreasonable to procure nuclear power in a few weeks; it sounds like Edward Riedl wants to do that. I can imagine that it might not be unreasonable in reality, but we have slightly different ideas about this.

I can refer the interested party to take part of the Left Party's budget - it is available on the internet.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I want, just like Ali Esbati, to urge everyone listening to this debate to read the Left Party's budget proposal. If one borrows hundreds of billions, one can invest in a multitude of different things completely unfunded, but this would put Sweden in a position that it would be completely irresponsible to put the country in. Therefore, it is gratifying to see that there are also serious parts of the opposition that do not work in that way. Both the Social Democrats and the Center Party have nevertheless put forward reasonable budgets where they have started from reality. The Green Party and the Left Party have now in opposition completely let go of reality, and I think that is regrettable.

I am talking about borrowing an infinite amount of money, saddling the country with debt and pushing up inflation. If one took the loans that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to take, it would affect the interest rates for ordinary households by surely several percentage points.

With this said: Before the election, the Moderaterna and Vänsterpartiet cooperated to invest in elderly care, healthcare, and much more. After the election, the Moderaterna, together with the government parties, have continued to invest in welfare. We are making historically large investments this year on exactly welfare, because more resources are needed in schools and in healthcare. One can always claim that even more resources are needed, and that is certainly true. To claim that it is not in the way I have described is, however, directly incorrect, Madam Speaker.

These investments are being made right now. However, the government parties - and neither the entire opposition - have agreed to all the Left Party's proposals on everything from price regulations to price ceilings. These are reforms that we recognize from other types of countries. These are reforms that, according to leading economists, have never worked anywhere. Sweden shall not experiment with this.

On the other hand, we shall ensure that competition works and secure resources for the welfare system. So we will get through this crisis, Madam Speaker.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country, and this debate is held when our country is at its most beautiful. Summer is just around the corner, the lilacs are blooming, and life has returned to the streets and squares. Summer is usually something to look forward to. There is more time for loved ones and time to see new places, get out into nature, or just relax.

But this summer looks set to be the toughest in a long time for many. Inflation has plagued our country for more than a year. We have had the fastest increase in food prices since the 1950s. Housing costs have hit the ceiling as electricity prices skyrocketed and mortgage interest rates multiplied several times over in a very short time. Swedish wage earners have lost ten years of real wage increases. The proportion of households living in economic vulnerability and who cannot afford the most basic necessities has increased for the first time in many years. Single mothers are particularly vulnerable.

Even though inflation seems to have peaked both in Sweden and internationally, the development in the real economy looks gloomy. Sweden's GDP is falling, and we are becoming poorer. In fact, Sweden is also heading towards a full-scale healthcare crisis if nothing is done, as the regions are to manage to counter the largest deficits during the entire 2000s. Meteorologists warn of extreme weather this summer with drought and forest fires.

Madam Speaker! Gang crime with its ruthless violence plagues our country. Recently, we have seen how gang violence has escalated, how the shootings are becoming increasingly ruthless, and how the gangs are recruiting ever younger boys. At the same time, our children and young people face a summer break that will be characterized by the cost crisis, where the municipality may have been forced to cut back on leisure activities and cannot afford to employ enough field assistants and safe adults who are present on streets and squares. Taken together, this risks becoming a recruitment festival for the gangs.

The cost crisis is hitting healthcare with full force. Of 21 healthcare regions, 17 budgeted for a deficit this year, and several others have also stated that there will be a deficit this year. Heading into 2024, the deficits are expected to grow further, and we already see how healthcare regions are taking measures to meet the crisis. They are doing everything they can to protect healthcare. They are cutting back or increasing fares in public transport. Primarily, administrative staff are being laid off, but we know who is next in line. It is the nursing assistants and then the nurses, because when the regions are to recover billions in deficits, it will be felt in healthcare. In the end, it is the patients and the employees who will pay the price through longer care queues and a tougher work environment.

Madam Speaker! Overall, Sweden is in a historically difficult economic situation. What is the government doing to meet the crisis? Almost nothing. In tough times, leadership is required that can prioritize and make tough decisions. Instead, we have a government that has sat back in the stands. We have demanded that the government return with a decision before Midsummer regarding the state subsidies for welfare for 2024. Now there are three days left, and I want to give the Finance Minister one last chance to give a clear decision. How much will the government invest in welfare in the autumn budget? The Sweden Democrats and the government must be able to prioritize the welfare issue. Otherwise, we risk seeing how teaching assistants, nursing assistants, and nurses are dismissed entirely unnecessarily. The responsibility for the welfare crisis is home-grown and falls heavily on the government.

Madam Speaker! In this economic situation, we Social Democrats have done our best to contribute constructive proposals that would make a real difference but also show that there is an alternative to the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's passive policy. When the government, in the autumn budget, alongside all the broken promises, chose to inflation-protect high-income earners and move forward with a tax cut of 13 billion kronor, we showed how we could have prioritized instead. We wanted to invest twice as much in supporting welfare, give a temporary increased child allowance, and invest in education and labor market policy.

In our proposal for the supplementary budget, we put forward additional support for families with children and single parents as well as an initiative for summer activities with lunch for children and youth, specifically targeted at municipalities with socio-economic challenges. We also showed how it could be financed.

The difference in policy is fundamentally about how we believe society should handle crises. In the Social Democrats' Sweden, we face difficult times together, we stick together, and we ensure that the gaps do not widen. But the government's political agenda and crisis management risk, on the contrary, increasing the division. In the Sweden of the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates, millionaires receive electricity support while single mothers have difficulty putting nutritious food on the table for their children. In the Sweden of the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates, they spend twice as much on inflation protection and lowering taxes for high-income earners as they do on supporting welfare through the cost crisis. It is not enough.

Madam Speaker! Also, the outlook for the Swedish economy is gloomy to say the least. Last week, the OECD presented its new forecast, and once again Sweden is at the bottom when it comes to growth prospects. We are one of the few countries where the economy is shrinking this year. In the entire OECD, only Estonia appears to be set to have worse growth than Sweden. We are also the country in Western Europe that has seen the largest drops in real wages, and inflation is still significantly higher than in our Nordic neighboring countries.

This is something the government should take most seriously, but instead, they are conducting a perverse crisis policy with cuts to labor market policy and educational places. The government chose to cut the queue for investment support for rental housing at the same time as we face the worst crisis in the construction industry in a long time. In fact, it is likely that so few homes have been built in Sweden since Ulf Kristersson last sat in the government.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the guidelines for the economic policy, so I intend to take the opportunity to look forward. Sweden's development potential is actually enormous, but the government seems to lack a direction for Sweden. When it comes to growth policy, the Finance Minister places all their trust in a well-intentioned productivity commission that is to be completed in October 2025 but does not take responsibility for decisions that need to be made here and now.

In Sweden, a green industrial revolution is underway with the establishment of industries in towns that, in some cases, have been characterized by relocation. Being at the forefront of the green transition is absolutely crucial for Sweden's competitiveness, but the new right-wing government has chosen to take the leadership jersey off Sweden, sit in the back seat, and let the Sverigedemokraterna steer the climate policy. The government notes that the business sector has become the new environmental movement and seems satisfied with that. I see rather how the business sector is running away from the state when it comes to both responsibility and ambition.

The largest party in the government base wants to go as far as tearing down wind turbines, and for the first time in 20 years, Sweden has a government that actively contributes to increasing emissions.

The government's passivity risks having consequences for a long time to come. We are currently at a decisive point for the new industrialization where companies face investment decisions regarding establishments and new factories. Either the investments and the jobs end up in Sweden - or they end up somewhere else.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must be equipped for our time's great societal transformations. The green transition, AI and new treatment methods and revolutionary medicines in healthcare represent enormous opportunities for prosperity in our country. But it also places demands on society's ability to transition and ensure that people are given the opportunity to further their education and take jobs in an industry that is developing and needs to hire.

Last year, a completely historic transition agreement was concluded on the Swedish labor market. With the new transition study support, Sweden may receive the world's most modern transition support. When fully implemented, 40,000 people per year will be given the opportunity to further their education in the middle of their working lives with 80 percent of their salary. But the government is not honoring its part of the agreement. It has chosen not to provide the funds required for CSN to fulfill its mission, which means that the applications that have come in are not being processed. In the same way, the parties' establishment work is being risked, which could contribute to thousands of newly arrived people and the long-term unemployed getting into work.

I mean that it is ultimately the Finance Minister who bears the responsibility if the agreements are not fulfilled and for the consequences this has for skills supply and productivity. I therefore expect the Finance Minister and the Moderaterna to step forward and take full responsibility for securing the transition study support and the establishment jobs. They are important pieces of the puzzle for building a stronger Sweden.

With this, I move for the approval of reservation 1.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the office and the entire Riksdag Administration, who make our work easier, and of course all members of the Committee on Finance for good cooperation during the year. I wish you a nice summer.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I thought it might be appropriate to say a few things after Mikael Damberg's opening speech. When one listens to the rhetoric, the obvious question is whether the electricity support, which was admittedly much lower, that the previous government introduced when Mikael Damberg was Finance Minister also went to millionaires. Or was it only directed at those who were not millionaires?

From the speech given by Mikael Damberg as we now discuss the spring budget and the government bill, one could almost believe that the Social Democrats are adding a lot of new money now during the spring. That is not the case. There is not a single krona more for municipalities and regions in the spring budget that the Social Democrats are presenting here. It sounds like there would be a lot of new money, but it is not a single krona more for municipalities and regions to handle this.

When the Social Democrats in the autumn actually invested something more than what the government did - marginally more, but still - in municipalities and regions, they wanted to finance it by raising the tax for nurses and midwives and one million wage earners. Mikael Damberg forgot to mention that the investments they wanted to make would be financed by, among others, those who work in healthcare.

Then I just want to say that the worst economic outlook for Sweden was achieved during Mikael Damberg's time as Finance Minister. Hopefully, we will be able to change that now.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to growth, it can be stated that Sweden had a faster recovery after the pandemic than many other countries. We also dipped less than many other countries. Therefore, one can calculate that we, some year later, do not have as large a recovery as some countries that had a much poorer economic development. One must, therefore, see it over time.

Regardless, I am somewhat surprised that Edward Riedl is taking the floor regarding the electricity support, as it is arguably the government's biggest broken promise but also a blunder in government position. First, one managed to trick the Swedish people into believing that the electricity support would be in place on November 1; one stood and said that one was in complete agreement on that. One promised a very generous system during the election campaign which one then did not implement in government position. It became very delayed. One placed no cap on the payments to the millionaires, which meant that among those who received the most payments, there was one individual person who received 700,000 in electricity support, while others had very difficult times managing their finances. It was only after we and other parties had pressured the government to include all of Sweden, including northern Sweden, that any electricity support was received at all. The municipalities in northern Sweden have still not received any electricity support, while southern Sweden has received it.

There are so many mistakes and so much bungling in the handling of the electricity support that the government deserves criticism for. My point is that there were no ambitions from the government to set a cap on the electricity support payments, but that they cannot afford to improve it for the single mother, who we know has it absolutely toughest in society. They can afford to allocate 13 billion in tax cuts for those who are members of parliament with 1,000 kronor a month, but they cannot afford to guarantee the welfare sufficient resources so that we would not have had to have the healthcare crisis we have right now or the savings in the school. It is a wrong prioritization from the Moderaterna.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the total lack of humility regarding the problems that the Social Democrats created during the last parliamentary term. When one listens to Mikael Damberg, one could believe that he had nothing to do with the problems we have today. The fact is that nuclear power was phased out by the previous government, in which Mikael Damberg sat, and that created the problems and the need for electricity support.

This government has paid out electricity support that is several times larger than the electricity support that the Social Democrats introduced during the previous term. It is also directed at companies.

In this situation, when one has caused the problems by shutting down nuclear power and when, with these high electricity prices, one had a smaller electricity subsidy that took even longer to get in place, Mikael Damberg stands here with a high tone and talks about how this government has faltered, when one oneself has caused the problem that we now must solve. It is a total lack of self-awareness and humility regarding what one has done, Madam Speaker. It is provoking.

I hope that those of you listening to this debate actually take in what Mikael Damberg is saying here. The problems were created by shutting down nuclear power and paying out an electricity subsidy that was much lower, and now you stand here and criticize the new government. It is provocative.

When it comes to economic growth, it was the lowest in the entire European Union during Mikael Damberg's time as Finance Minister. The outlook continues to look dark, but that is because of the eight years that the previous government had. We will turn this around.

When it comes to ensuring that those who have it the toughest receive support, this government has done very much at the turn of the year and now during the spring. I must stop there, because time is running out.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! As it happens, the Moderates did not manage to speak about those who are in the worst position in Sweden. Because very little is being done. One extends a support that we introduced during the pandemic and adjusts the level. One increases the guaranteed pension, which we fought a battle with the Moderates and the Sverigedemokraterna over to raise before the election. It was the last political battle before the election, and it was about how we could improve the pensions for those pensioners who are in the worst position by 1,000 kronor a month, above all many women who have worked an entire professional life for a very low wage. Imagine if they had not received that guaranteed pension increase, how would they have managed the inflation now?

I previously responded to the discussion on growth and the pandemic. Sweden was one of the countries that managed the pandemic best economically. There were problems with the pandemic management, but Sweden chose a balanced line where we both took responsibility for reduced spread of infection and ensured that at least the welfare sector had the resources required to manage a pandemic. It was incredibly important when we went through the pandemic. It was also one of the reasons why Sweden had a faster recovery after the pandemic and thus, overall, had a better economic development than most other countries, linked to precisely that economic crisis. One can, to some extent, compare the crisis management during the pandemic and the crisis management that the government is trying to conduct right now.

Then it was what was said about nuclear power that was wrong, and I do not need to go into all parts of this. But it is Social Democratic governments that have built Swedish nuclear power. It is Social Democratic governments that have always taken responsibility for the energy supply in Sweden. We know that it is the basis for the industry we have in our country.

Last year, despite the high electricity prices, Sweden had the lowest electricity prices in Europe. We had the largest export of electricity in the entire EU. That is not enough; we must do more. Therefore, we propose a new energy policy goal of 60 new terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity by 2030 - so that industry can expand and make the investments in Sweden and nowhere else. But with the Moderaterna's cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna, this is jeopardized, because they are not pushing for electrification and will not achieve the environmental transition.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Combating inflation is the single most important economic-political measure this year, and probably also during the coming years. It is inflation that causes municipalities and regions to be hit by cost increases, which affects welfare, and it is inflation that causes the average wage earner to suffer real wage reductions for the first time in I don't know how long. With high inflation come also high interest rates. In that case, one must maintain at least a neutral stance on fiscal policy.

An expansive orientation, that is to say, stepping on the gas, pouring it on, increasing expenditures and running the state with large deficits, would in this situation have worsened and increased inflation and forced Sveriges riksbank to even larger and more interest rate hikes.

We in the government base believe that the economic policy we pursue and the budget bills we place before the Riksdag represent precisely a neutral and not an expansive orientation. Here, both the Riksbank and the Fiscal Policy Council are correct in supporting us.

That it is boring is a completely different matter. I also want to compensate every individual, every municipality, and every company that has been affected by inflation, crown for crown. But that is not possible, because then we create a larger problem than the one we are trying to solve. Sometimes one also has to do things that are boring.

It is actually more interesting than it sounds, Madam Speaker, because all the Tidö parties stand behind this fundamental reasoning. Can the same be said about the opposition's four parties? That was a rhetorical question. The answer is no; it is incredibly fragmented.

Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to run the state with gigantic budget deficits and indebt us with 200 or almost 300 billion kronor during this budget period. What would happen with inflation and the interest rate then? It is a toxic cocktail that they are holding and mixing together on that side of politics.

Madam Speaker! If one accepts this reasoning, however dull it may sound, one understands that we cannot do everything and definitely not do everything at the same time. One also understands that it truly reinforces the need to prioritize and preferably to prioritize correctly.

What we in the government base prioritize is clearly evident from both the latest budget bill and the economic spring bill. It is about protecting the economically most vulnerable groups, who have been hit hardest by inflation, and it is about internal and external security.

The Tidö parties have pushed through a number of reforms and proposals to strengthen economically vulnerable groups. We have strengthened the unemployment insurance. We have strengthened the guaranteed pension. We have strengthened the housing allowance, and we have made it cheaper to fuel the car for an average family with children.

Madam Speaker! These are concrete examples. There are obviously more, but these are concrete examples of how the Tidö parties have strengthened the purchasing power for the households that have been hit hardest by inflation.

We allocated 12 billion kronor to the municipal sector in this year's budget, but the state cannot or should not do everything. The municipalities also need to prioritize. It is therefore not the time for any extravagances or luxury projects. It is possible that one becomes unpopular by saying this, but still: Focus on the core activities! Better good food for the schoolchildren than municipal swimming pools. Better high quality in the elderly care homes than municipal-employed communicators. It is about preschool, school, and elderly care. Focus on the core task!

It must be said that most municipalities do an incredibly strong and good job, but unfortunately, there are examples of the opposite as well.

Madam Speaker! In the context of extravagant projects, I want to mention Stålverk 80. It was a while ago. I was small then, small and cute perhaps. When it comes to Stålverk 80, the Social Democrats pushed billions after billions of tax dollars into what would later turn out to be a dead project. And now we are there again, but now it is no longer called Stålverk 80 but Hybrit.

It is a "hallelujah moment" like never before. Then I become worried and take a few steps back. It is billions of taxpayers' money that goes through the taxpayers' authorities, through the taxpayers' government, and also through the taxpayers' limited companies, that is to say LKAB, SSAB and Vattenfall.

Not a single krona of private risk capital wants to approach the project, and it is only tax money that is being invested. We who are taxpayers have not even been consulted. I fear very strongly that all the tax money that is now being pumped into the project will end up in the same way as it once did for Stålverk 80, that is, with a gigantic loss of the taxpayers' money. Hybrit will not become commercially profitable. And you shall not play venture capitalists with the Swedish people's tax money.

Madam Speaker! I also mentioned internal and external security. It is about how the state should be able to re-establish the monopoly on violence within the realm's borders and how the state should be able to protect these borders. It is a long journey that has begun now, and there is an enormous amount that needs to be done: more police, more powers for these police, more prosecutors and longer sentences.

It is about a massive development of the correctional services: 16 large and completely new facilities is the assessed need that is a result of the Tidö parties' crime-fighting policy. From the economic horizon, we will respond to the needs for resource reinforcements that have revealed themselves. After eight years of Social Democratic rule, these needs are bordering on the infinite.

Madam Speaker! When I did my military service, which is starting to be a while ago now, we obviously understood who the presumptive enemy was, even if it wasn't said explicitly, and what it actually was that we learned and practiced. But the sharp execution after all this practice, that is, bringing other people to their deaths with extremely high levels of violence, felt very distant. We were, of course, glad about that.

Then it felt distant, but today it unfortunately feels less distant. Every day we continue with the upgrading of the Armed Forces so that we do not have to end up in that sharp situation, i.e., when the exercise turns into a sharp operation.

We have seen how the Russian troops have behaved in the independent and sovereign state of Ukraine. It is ethnic cleansing, it is rape, it is looting, it is war crimes, it is pure terrorism and it is torture.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

After my rather sad words, I would still like, like previous speakers, to take the opportunity to wish the Finance Committee's excellent secretariat, the members of the Finance Committee, and of course also the Speaker and the Speaker's Presidium a pleasant summer. I want to extend a special thanks to the Chairman of the Finance Committee, who has kept track of us so that the meetings have not completely spiraled out of control. I wish you and your daughter a pleasant summer, Edward Riedl.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! Since last autumn, the Sweden Democrats have demonstrated a rather impressive ability to systematically do something other than what they promised the voters in the election. At that time, they made a big deal out of wanting to strengthen pensions, but in the budgets they have negotiated, there is nothing of this at all. For the pensioners who need elderly care, the Sweden Democrats instead offer cuts when lowered taxes for earners are prioritized over securing the municipalities' finances.

In the choice between the homeowner's economy and the bank directors' profit margins, the Sweden Democrats side with the bank directors. This was demonstrated in the position taken regarding the directives for SBAB that were discussed this week.

Leading Sweden Democrats fantasize about train staff saluting them as saviors of the nation, but Oscar Sjöstedt has no problem with Swedish public properties tumbling around among speculators and potentially ending up in Chinese or Saudi ownership. That school groups can suffer the same fate is not just okay for the Sweden Democrats, but an important reason why Oscar Sjöstedt is where he is.

The Sweden Democrats have betrayed what they have expressed regarding the sickness insurance, where they are now to investigate deteriorations for the long-term ill instead of improvements, and regarding the railway maintenance, where they are now wavering away from previous promises of stronger state coordination.

For those of us who have followed the Sweden Democrats for a while, this actually comes as no surprise. But I believe that this way of behaving and speaking with a double tongue can be a surprise for many voters.

Then I want to help Oscar Sjöstedt a little bit in telling poor pensioners, small-house owners, and worried parents of school children why he and his party are more interested in standing on the side of the bank directors and the school company profiteers when it comes to the bottom line.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! There was a lot, and I have to see if I caught everything. Ali Esbati began with the pensions. I believe we have had an exchange of remarks on that earlier. My answer is the same now, and it is that the Sverigedemokraterna do not sit in the Pensions Group. Hopefully, it will be able to be changed, and hopefully, it will be able to be changed in a fairly near future. If we are to push through different types of reforms in the pension system, they will need to pass the Pensions Group in one way or another.

I hope that we receive an invitation there in the near future. In that case, we will accept such an invitation, and we will come with constructive, realistic and feasible proposals when we are finally in the Pensions Group. Right now, the Sweden Democrats are not sitting in the Pensions Group.

We have not cut back on elderly care. On the contrary, as I mentioned in my speech. We allocated 12 billion kronor in this year's budget. These are large additions. Much of this money will trickle down to, for example, elderly care, but of course not all 12 billion kronor because there are needs in preschool, school, and healthcare as well. But a large part of this money will trickle down to elderly care. And it is therefore an addition and not any cutback.

Member of the Board Esbati was in at SBAB. Vänsterpartiet has submitted a proposal that did not receive a majority in the committee. The reason for that was that it is not a feasible and realistic proposal. Then we would perhaps have a discussion about whether the state should own a bank at all. I am not entirely convinced about that. But that must be another discussion.

When it comes to public properties, Fortifikationsverket has been tasked with inventorying which public properties are security-classified, precisely so that they do not end up with the Chinese or anywhere else. There is also a government bill on this lying on the Riksdag's table which is being handled by the Committee on Justice.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! It is true that I raised a lot. That is because there is much that the Sweden Democrats have been involved in doing which stands in conflict with or in contrast to what they presented to the voters in the election.

I see a pattern here that is very clear. In the election, the Sweden Democrats gave the impression of standing on the side of ordinary people when it comes to how the everyday economy should balance and when it comes to what it is that is the problem in ordinary people's everyday lives.

When the Sweden Democrats sit and decide on the budgets, it is completely different things that are prioritized, and that is to stand on the side of the powerful and the established on every single point. In every issue that arises where there are priorities and choices to be made, the Sweden Democrats choose a side incredibly clearly, and it is not the side of ordinary people.

Now, money is going to trickle down to elderly care. Oscar Sjöstedt claims that investments are being made. It is the same nominal sum as before. This means, as I believe Oscar Sjöstedt actually knows, that it does not keep pace with developments, not even when it comes to maintaining the same staffing levels as before, but it is cuts. These cuts are not theoretical, but they are ongoing all the time in all municipalities and regions in Sweden. The responsibility is shifted from the state, which holds the money, to the municipalities and regions which have no possibility of solving these problems, regardless of the color of the government. The municipalities and regions can make different prioritizations, but you cannot conjure things out of thin air.

What Oscar Sjöstedt's message ends up being is that one should wait for some money to trickle down and otherwise come up with something else. But there is money in Oscar Sjöstedt's budget to lower taxes for the richest and to stand firm on the fact that the Sverigedemokraterna stand on the side of the privileged. This is the point here, and I hear that Oscar Sjöstedt does not want to comment on it.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is no need to wait, because these funds have already entered the municipal financial equalization system.

"Sippra ned" was perhaps the wrong expression. But the money lands in the country's various municipalities and regions. Then it is the municipalities themselves that dispose of the money. It is perhaps some municipality that hypothetically does not want to invest a single krona in elderly care, even though I do not believe that, and another municipality that feels that one needs to invest very much. It is this I mean. It is not the Finance Minister or I myself, for that matter, who sit and decide what each individual municipality shall do with these supplements.

But one can reasonably not call an addition of 12 billion kronor a cut, Madam Speaker. Somewhere there has to be a bit of reason and balance.

We have taken a number of measures. Why are we pushing so hard for further tax cuts on fuels and fuel? It is so that ordinary families with children can afford to fuel their cars. It has nothing to do with any directors here or there. It is about ordinary people. Electricity support went to ordinary people. We ensured that it went to ordinary people even north of the Dalälven, to electricity price area 1 and electricity price area 2, which otherwise would not have been the case.

Then we are back to this with 1 million wage earners who would have received a tax increase with the Left Party's budget policy. There we find midwives, police officers and other quite ordinary occupational groups. Ali Esbati therefore wants to move forward with a substantial tax increase for completely ordinary wage-earning groups. 1 million individuals would have been affected by it.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I had intended to ask my question about welfare specifically. I think that Ali Esbatis's exchange with Oscar Sjöstedt was nevertheless illuminating. It seems that Oscar Sjöstedt still believes that it is a lot of extra money trickling down to municipalities and regions. If that were the case, then in principle every single healthcare region would not be running a deficit. We would not be talking about savings in elderly care and in leisure activities in schools in municipality after municipality, if a lot of resources were trickling down from the state that the municipalities could sit and distribute and make investments with. That is not how reality looks.

It is surely basic to understand that we live in an inflation economy where the cost increases also hit the municipalities? By making other priorities, the government is not prioritizing welfare. Instead, the government chose a tax cut that Oscar Sjöstedt stands here and defends. Then healthcare and school fall into these troubles. That is the reality.

Reality does not seem to have set in quite yet for Oscar Sjöstedt. But this is the reality in the municipalities that must manage the budget that Oscar Sjöstedt has been involved in pushing through. It is a political choice he has made by, at this point, betraying the employees in elderly care and in healthcare. You spoke so much in opposition about standing on the same side as them. The working conditions for the women in healthcare were very important. Where are they now? Now they are met with savings because the government is unable to make the investments required to maintain the quality of welfare in schools and in healthcare.

My second remark will be about whether Oscar Sjöstedt understands what kind of uncertainty he is creating in Swedish business. He has spoken about dismantling wind farms in Sweden. That is one thing. Now he stands and is against the technological shift that the Swedish steel industry faces. This is about whether the steel is to be processed in Sweden or if it is to be done in other countries. These are billion-dollar investments at stake, and it is thousands of jobs in Sweden at stake. Does Oscar Sjöstedt understand what he is saying?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is about 12 billion kronor in supplementary funding for the country's municipalities and regions. Had we invested 20 billion kronor, Mikael Damberg would have stood here and said that it is not enough and that we must invest 21 billion kronor. Had we invested 30 billion kronor, Mikael Damberg would have said that it is not enough and that we must invest even more. He would never have been satisfied. And everyone, including municipalities and regions, households, companies, and public activities, is obviously affected by inflation. Everyone is forced into tougher prioritizations. My point from the rostrum just now was that the state also needs to prioritize tougher, primarily on the expenditure side.

Before we start the work in earnest with the autumn budget - the budget bill - more forecasts will be released. And depending on what these forecasts look like, they will determine which additional supplements to municipalities and regions that we will need to decide on.

If it turns out that the forecasts are very good, that it looks very optimistic and encouraging, and that inflation falls back to normal levels, I will in any case assess that the need for additional supplements is lower. If it turns out that the high-inflation economy remains and perhaps even worsens, it obviously affects the needs in the other direction. So that is clear.

As mentioned, further forecasts will be received before we make decisions on the budget bill later this autumn.

I have no views on how steel is manufactured. That was not the point. My point is that it is not a single crown of private risk capital. When one has a business operation or a business idea, one normally says: "Look! I have a business idea and want to kick-start a company. Is there anyone who wants to come and help me invest in the company?" After that, one is good to go.

My point is that it is tax money that we are putting at risk in this case. I have nothing against technological development, but I safeguard the taxpayers' money.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! SSAB is a private company operating in global competition and which sees that customers will want high-quality steel. One will not be able to compete on the world market with old technology.

It is not only Hybrit that is trying to work with this technology to make a technological shift. In H2 Green Steel, it is only private actors who are making an investment. Why are they doing it? Yes, because they see that they will not be able to compete on the world market with the old technology where one uses very much coal in the process to manufacture steel.

The business community has therefore made the assessment that the shift must occur. The decisive factor now is that we make the right choices in Sweden so that we continue to be at the forefront of the green transition. That is what drives the investments and the new jobs in Sweden.

Now, however, the announcement has come that the Sweden Democrats will not only try to brake the expansion of wind power, which is the entire prerequisite for the green transition in Sweden, but that they will also stop the technological shift in the steel industry. It is a very serious statement from the largest party in the government constellation.

This jeopardizes jobs and investments in Sweden and creates enormous uncertainty. The risk is great that some of the investments that have been planned in Sweden will instead end up in Finland, the USA or Germany, because these countries are on track to drive the green transition and position their countries in it.

Should we just take iron ore out of the mines and export it to other countries? Or should we refine the products in Sweden and build the industry of the future in our country? That is what the question is about. Unfortunately, the Sverigedemokraterna have ended up on the wrong side of the issue, because they want to turn climate policy into a new culture war in Swedish politics. Swedish industry cannot afford that.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The state is, after all, the largest owner in SSAB? In LKAB, one owns 100 percent of the shares, and in Vattenfall, one also owns 100 percent of the shares. This is the taxpayers' money, and that was my point. It is the taxpayers' limited company.

It is Mikael Damberg who must explain where all these terawatt-hours will come from for the project to be possible. Do not shoot the messenger! I am only the messenger here, Madam Speaker. I stated that the terawatt-hours that had been required for the project to be made possible do not exist. It is not my fault. Where are we to find them? From where shall they come? We must get an explanation for that first.

Then it is not correct when it comes to H2 Green Steel. Time and again, funds have been allocated from the government's agencies Vinnova, Tillväxtverket, and Energimyndigheten. I would have believed in the project if it had occurred on commercial grounds with private risk-tolerant capital, but not a single private investor wants to inject money into it. Then one should take a step back and say: Oh dear, why is it that way? Why does no private investor want to invest a single krona here? Is it because the risks with the project are so high? Is it because it is unrealistic? Yes, probably that is the case.

Don't shoot the messenger! I am only pointing out the problems. The terawatt-hours are not there, whether it is 70 or 100. They would have needed to exist for this to be realistic and feasible, but they do not.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! This issue has been raised before, but the Sweden Democrats claim to be a party that prioritizes welfare. That could be heard in Oscar Sjöstedt's speech. Now, for the first time, you are sitting and deciding together with the government. Then it is up to be proven. What we have seen so far is not impressive.

They moved forward with an autumn budget that included tax cuts for high-income earners while welfare was put on a starvation diet. It is classic right-wing politics and thus also the Sweden Democrats'.

Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has, ahead of the upcoming autumn budget, requested clear decisions regarding next year's state grants, but they are not receiving them. The government wants to be able to lower taxes next year, obviously with the Sverigedemokraternas good grace. They have also referred proposals to specifically lower taxes for high-income earners.

I would like to ask Oscar Sjöstedt how a party that claims to stand up for the welfare can agree to present tax cuts for the rich instead of providing announcements about more money for the welfare.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is very interesting that Janine Alm Ericson knows more than I do about what we will move forward with in the autumn budget. We are not finished with that yet. In the budget negotiations that we will have towards the end of the summer, I and the Sverigedemokraterna will push for tax relief on primary electricity and fuel. I believe it is a wise measure that also has a dampening effect on inflation. That is what I and the Sverigedemokraterna will do. No one knows yet where we will land, except for Janine Alm Ericson who apparently already knows. It is absolutely fantastic. How did that happen?

Last autumn, we allocated 12 billion kronor to municipalities and regions to strengthen welfare. What need for additional supplements there will be this autumn will be determined by the forecasts that we first want to receive before we decide on the autumn budget.

If the situation is approximately as it is now with continued high inflation and the economy accordingly, there is obviously a greater need for additional supplements. In a happy scenario where inflation falls back to more normal levels, the target levels, the need for additional supplements to the municipalities decreases.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, I naturally do not know how the debate is going. What I do know, however, is that you have written a tax report regarding tax cuts for the wealthy, but you have not informed the municipalities and regions about how much money they can plan for.

That is the point. They asked several weeks ago, before the spring budget bill, to receive a decision. They need to plan their operations already. If they do not receive any supplement, they must cut back. It will affect ordinary people throughout Sweden.

It cannot be fun for those who voted for the Sweden Democrats in the belief that they would stand up for the welfare to now see how Oscar Sjöstedt and the Sweden Democrats act when they have real influence over the conducted policy for the first time.

It does not help to say that the municipalities should invest in core activities when you then do not provide the resources that are needed. If there is not even money for what is the core – healthcare, care for our elderly, and a good schooling for our children – one cannot invest out of nothing. The government should have provided a decision, and a long time ago.

I notice that Oscar Sjöstedt is not answering the question. That is why I asked it, even though Ali Esbati and Mikael Damberg had already done so. I will therefore ask it again and be a bit clearer: What is most important for you in the upcoming negotiations? Is it the tax cuts or welfare?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit strange, nevertheless, that there is a debate about that we have not provided a decision. When does a decision usually come? Is the autumn budget usually ready in the middle of June? That is not the case.

I have full respect for the fact that those who are sitting and planning want to have information as early as possible. This applies to the municipalities, among other things, but the entire society is, of course, affected by the budget bill. But it is not common for the autumn budget to be ready already in the middle of June, is it? It has never happened, has it? We are not finished with the autumn budget, and therefore I have no information that is quantified. But it is nothing that is out of the ordinary or strange in any way.

The needs will show themselves in the forecasts we will receive. Then we will see how much more money we need to inject into municipalities and regions. But I cannot mention any figure at this stage. It is as it usually is; we are in the middle of June.

When it comes to tax cuts, I am quite selective. I believe that the situation we are currently in with high inflation means that we need to prioritize even within tax cuts. I do not believe it is the time for any large income tax cuts. I believe it is the time to lower the tax on input goods, such as electricity and fuel. Both households and companies benefit from this. Then we get down the costs in the production stage, so that companies can lower their costs. Then we also get down the costs in the consumer stage, and inflation falls back. I believe it is wise economic policy to lower the taxes on input goods, such as electricity and fuel, and not the income taxes.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker and Oscar Sjöstedt! Now I hope that all those voters who by mistake happened to vote for the Sweden Democrats in Norrbotten County and Västerbotten County - where members were elected who in some cases had not even been in Västerbotten - listen very carefully to this exchange of remarks. Oscar Sjöstedt has in some kind of general statement - populist as usual, which SD are experts at - attacked the largest project that all of Norrland is now investing in, surely also SD's representatives in the municipalities in northern Sweden. Look at Edward Riedl from Västerbotten, who is sitting here in the chamber and is surely fidgeting. Look at the Finance Minister, who is standing behind Oscar Sjöstedt and is surely fidgeting. She has just been at a major climate conference, where the industry has been promised more wind power and a major investment in that which the whole world is now turning its eyes towards: the fossil-free steel in Norrland.

I have a small piece of information for Oscar Sjöstedt, who has his little Stockholm perspective. Private investments of tens of billions are being made in H2 Green Steel in Boden. It is the pride of all Sweden. Feel free to go up there! I will give a reference, so that you understand how big it is. The area where they are to build is as large as Kungsholmen. They are to have 140-meter-high towers to create the fossil-free steel. All of that is what you are now prepared to lower.

I want to ask one more question; that was actually the original question. Does Oscar Sjöstedt know what the price of milk is? By that, I do not mean the store price, but the price that Sweden's farmers receive for milk right now.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, I actually do not know that, if I want to be honest and say so. I would very much like to be enlightened on that.

Now we must keep certain things separate. The technology behind fossil-free steel is very impressive. That is not what we are talking about. But perhaps even the Center Party should back down when we have three limited companies involved, of which two are entirely state-owned and one has the state as the largest owner, and the government's agencies are sending out money in different types of grants to this project. It is our tax money - mine, Martin's, and everyone else's.

There are no private investors in Hybrit. And why is that? We are not discussing that this in any way would be a bad technology. The technology is super cool. It is the fact that it is only taxpayers' money behind this that makes me worried. If this now really is a hallelujah moment, which will change everything and be so good, should not private investors in a functioning market economy pour money into the project, so that we would not need to provide tax money?

I want to ask the same question to Martin Ådahl that I asked Mikael Damberg. It was in my second reply to him, so he had no opportunity to answer the question. It concerns a "small detail": Where are all these terawatt-hours supposed to come from?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I hope that everyone who is investing in this, those communities and regions that are putting in all their effort to contribute, heard what Oscar Sjöstedt said. Now SD is belittling Norrland. Now SD is belittling Swedish green industrialization. What SD repeats in its populist ignorance is not true. Tens of billions of kronor are being invested by international investors in Sweden. Be proud of Sweden, Oscar Sjöstedt! Be proud of Norrland, Oscar Sjöstedt! Do not belittle it!

You have forgotten the farmers. In the store, milk costs 13-15 kronor. I believe you know that too, Oscar Sjöstedt. But today, the farmers receive 5.50-5.60 with the latest settlement prices. There is an enormous crisis right now due to the drought. The summer looks set to be worse than 2018. Then the farmers need to be informed about what we are doing for their long-term competitiveness. It is not enough to just say that one is extending the reduction for diesel that we in Centerpartiet pushed through. It is a matter of having a long-term agricultural deduction. One needs to start today, so that the guarantees are there, so that Swedish farmers do not go bankrupt in this climate crisis, so that there is a group exemption, and so that the money is not distributed at some point next year when everything is over.

Why is SD so interested in stopping things in Norrland and so uninterested in the farmers? I heard nothing from Oscar Sjöstedt about the Swedish countryside and the deep crisis for Swedish farmers. Now, apparently, the election is completely forgotten. Now all the promises and all the fine words about Sweden's farmers are gone.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now Martin Ådahl is taking it so hard that he is bursting. My concern is genuine and justified. What I said in my main speech and in previous exchanges of remarks, Madam Speaker, is that I fear that all the tax money going into this project will be lost, much like what happened with the Social Democrats' Stålverk 80. There are very many similarities. The state enters and becomes an actor in the market when we have a market economy. One might think that the market actors could solve this if it is so fine and good. I hope so. But I have a legitimate, genuine, and justified concern that the taxpayers will lose a lot of money. Martin Ådahl does not need to take it from the ankles so that he bursts. It is a legitimate concern regarding the taxpayers' money. That concern has not been alleviated by either this exchange of remarks or previous exchanges of remarks.

I also asked the question: Where will all the terawatt-hours needed for this project to be possible at all come from? It is a matter of enormous amounts of energy. It is an activity that is extremely energy-intensive, incredibly energy-intensive. Where will all the terawatt-hours come from? Perhaps they can come from Finland, where they have actually managed to start a nuclear power plant. But it is not certain that the Finns want to sell their electricity to us.

The farmers were what we were into. The tax on agricultural diesel is lowered to the absolute minimum level, practically abolished. This applies during the budget period. The reduction obligation will be lowered at the turn of the year. We will get the diesel costs down very significantly, which will benefit the farmers, and we will hopefully also be able to push through further tax reductions on fuels.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! On October 18 last year, I, in like manner with most others in the chamber today, had the dubious pleasure of sitting in this hall and hearing Ulf Kristersson's government statement. Much was said in it, some with the now well-known touch of reactionary malice-signaling, other parts of a flatter and emptier character, also this an ever-stronger hallmark of today's government.

One sentence, early in the government statement, I nevertheless return to sometimes with a certain reluctant admiration: "The cooperation lays the foundation for a long-term policy, with the goal of seriously solving Sweden's major social problems." Thus spoke the Prime Minister and therefore referred to the bourgeoisie's submission to the Sverigedemokraterna.

I am thinking of the fine expression "to possess the gift of impudence." For it is indeed a gift to build an entire government project, without blushing or apparent qualms, on something that so fundamentally, so demonstratively, stands in direct contradiction to what one stands and says in the Riksdag's rostrum. And rarely does the contrast between the said and the done become so obvious, so concrete, as in connection with the budget proposals that the government, under the supervision of the Sverigedemokraterna, presents and, perhaps even more importantly, does not present.

Is it something that truly characterizes the economic spring proposal that we are now debating, is it that central economic-political problems in Sweden are out of focus and, above all, that solutions to them are conspicuously absent.

We have heard the Finance Minister speak like a mantra about inflation during the spring. But what we see is a political passivity that is costing the Swedish people dearly, now and in the future. This spring budget would have been lackluster in a situation that was not characterized by several ongoing crises. Now, it is rather remarkably apathetic.

Madam Speaker! The inflation crisis is not something that this government has created. But it highlights and intervenes in some structural problems in the Swedish economy. Someone who is interested in how the economy actually looks would, for example, have seen and cared about the oligopoly of the food giants - which has resulted in higher price increases in Sweden than in many other countries. These are price increases that persist and which hit families with children and households with small margins disproportionately hard.

A responsible government could have gathered these actors and acted to exert downward pressure on prices – as the Vänsterpartiet pointed out early on and as more and more in the international debate point to in order to specifically push back inflation. Instead, we first received irritated rhetoric about that nothing can be done, then some lackluster photo opportunity completely devoid of ambitions.

We could have had a government that analyzes and acts when the poor competition conditions on the mortgage market cause Swedish major banks to have happy days, while many Swedes feel a growing anxiety every month when the interest on the mortgages is to be paid. The tools exist. The state ownership in SBAB could easily be used to improve the competition conditions – those that the right-wing parties otherwise like to speak warmly about in theory.

We know that SBAB had differently formulated directives and return requirements just over ten years ago, and we see in the statistics that it had a restraining effect on the interest margins of other commercial banks. Such a proposal was also raised by Vänsterpartiet with the support of S and MP in the finance committee, but the Sverigedemokraterna and the supporting parties in the government chose to side with the bank directors instead of helping Swedes who are burdened by mortgage loans.

Madam Speaker! Not least, we now see as a direct effect of the government's refusal to provide necessary resources an ongoing and every day deepening welfare crisis in Sweden. SD and the government shift the responsibility onto municipalities and regions where there is no real possibility to compensate for the long-term state underfunding, for the fat straws that have channeled and continue to channel school funds and healthcare reimbursements to capital owners, not infrequently with party backgrounds shared with or sharing a summer cottage with the governing, and now completely acute for the weight of inflation.

It is not that the money does not exist. It is simply the choices that the SD-M government has made. The 13 billion that went towards lowering taxes for high-income earners happens to be in the same order of magnitude as what the government chose not to give to Sweden's municipalities and regions in the autumn budget so that they could at least have been able to maintain the staffing levels at the same level, given an aging population.

And how does it look moving forward? Yes, the dynamic duo governing the state budget now - Oscar Sjöstedt and Elisabeth Svantesson - have no extra money in this spring budget. They also have no announcement to provide to municipalities and regions that are trying to plan. They are going to negotiate a bit later, and then we'll see. That is the message. The only thing we know that has been referred, as a potential major investment in next year's budget, is tax cuts with an almost parodically old-fashioned Moderate distribution profile, where millionaires would receive thousands of kronor every month.

The government's idea of how to combat inflation is, therefore, to do nothing in the areas where we know inflation is particularly high and to act to keep directors and landlords harmless with tax cuts and the design of electricity subsidies, to subsequently conclude that patients who have to lie in hospital corridors, students who have to crowd into larger classes, and elderly people who have to wait three more days for a shower is good inflation fighting.

I wish this were exaggerations and rhetorical posturing. But unfortunately, it is not. It is government policy in our Sweden, and it is policy for which we as a society will have to pay a high price also much later. It is not simply a matter of snapping your fingers and taking back people who leave the school, the healthcare, or the elderly care. And we shall not speak of what deteriorated education and the slaughter of the social services cost. It has, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister's involuntarily humorous campaign slogan, become "expensive to be Swedish".

Madam Speaker! The government's obvious failure to pursue "a long-term policy, with the goal of seriously solving Sweden's major societal problems" goes beyond what concerns the inflation crisis, households, and welfare in the shorter term.

It is about the rail traffic functioning and about our schools being focused on knowledge. It is about the climate changes that every day change the conditions for welfare and prosperity for people on this planet - and even though some here do not seem to have realized it, I am, therefore, talking about the same planet that Sweden is also on.

These are examples of problems and challenges that most outside the market-fundamentalist bubble understand require societal action. It is not possible to hope that some happy entrepreneur gets a feeling and, driven by consumer power, lays the railway tracks for the future. It is obvious that the idea of playing bazaar with railway maintenance has had fatal systemic effects. But in the government, none of this is visible - no analyses, no action.

School is an area where the problems of marketization are even more obvious. Children's education is particularly ill-suited to be treated as a fun consumer good. And the damages are irreparable. You cannot submit your education for repair if you are dissatisfied or believe that it will be solved by switching brands, as if it were a matter of fast food and underwear.

Is the government doing anything about this? No, on the contrary, this entire government coalition was created to stand guard over these lucrative profit extractions. Without them, there would not have been the same economic incentives to offer Sverigedemokraterna cognac, into the business-generated warmth.

On top of this, or under, beside and around this, we have the climate crisis. No individual consumption choices in the world will give us industrial transition, large offshore and onshore wind farms, powerfully expanded transmission capacity for electricity, or a realistic and systematic transformation of the vehicle fleet.

All of this is needed. None of this is prioritized by the government. It is shameful and irresponsible, and it makes Sweden a country that is worse positioned to compete on the world market.

It is somewhat tragicomic that there are people sitting in and around the Government Offices and, so to speak, fantasizing about how to replace parts of the population or at least recolor things here and there, while the nearby and laborious work is left neglected. How is the subway system supposed to start functioning? We're keeping our fingers crossed. How is the new recruitment to organized crime supposed to be stopped? Through symbolic repression and petty suspicion. How is the school system supposed to be changed when the system is rigged to produce precisely increased inequality and prioritize profit over knowledge?

There will be some more non-binding admonitions from the Minister for Education, as well as some more cheeky idea about supervision. Such things wear out the seams in the public debate.

We have recently heard several representatives of the blue-brown alliance express concern about fairy tales with costumed artists. Quite a few of us, however, have good reason to be concerned about the tangible, harmful effects of basing government policy on fairy tales about perfectly functioning markets and about prosperity that is supposed to trickle down when the wealthiest have managed to scrape together even more of the jointly created values in the economy.

Madam Speaker! The spring budget motion that the Left Party has tabled before the Riksdag - and which I now take the opportunity to move for approval of, reservation 2 - would entail several important acute investments for safety and responsibility in the crisis.

It is about introducing a crisis child benefit, financed by pausing the routine benefits for household services. It is about school breakfast across the entire country. It is a good way to ease the burdens in a situation where households are under great pressure. It is about having the same rules for the quarantine allowance as we had during the pandemic. And it is, not least, about a proper rescue package for the regions, and giving the municipalities the opportunity to use the targeted state grants to salvage core activities. It is also about halving the ticket costs in public transport – important both for households in the short term and for the climate transition in the longer term. It is about noticing and doing something about the strange situation that people born in 1957 have ended up in with the policy that the government has stood behind regarding taxes.

But above all, this is about a different direction in policy - a policy that sees that the trust, welfare, and knowledge capital that has been painstakingly built up in our country over several decades is now being eroded at a rapid pace. Growing inequality, chronic underfunding and senseless marketization of welfare services, heavy underinvestment in infrastructure - it is such things that make our society more fragile, colder, and poorer.

But it doesn't have to be that way. The Swedish people deserve, instead, a real policy with the goal of seriously solving Sweden's major social problems. We shall have a policy that takes this country's citizens and opportunities seriously. It is left-wing politics, if one is to express it more briefly.

I also want to say a few things about the summer and thank people, but I will do that tomorrow in a debate that I will also be participating in.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, students are now seeking further studies, and newly graduated students are seeking jobs. Moving trucks go to where studies and jobs are available. But it is sad to note that moving trucks also go so that one can flee from the insecurity that one experiences in their area.

Now that Sweden has entered a recession with continued high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment, demands are placed on the policy's ability to implement a responsible economic policy and, in parallel, produce the reforms required to make Sweden strong and secure again.

After the past eight years, there is no lack of problems and challenges for our government to tackle. But the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, has made a head start in order to try to get Sweden back on the right course. The Kristdemokraterna have, in a government position, taken a stand that energy policy is to be restructured and that households with the smallest margins are supported through targeted measures. The guarantee pension, the parental leave, and the housing supplement – all of them have been increased. Electricity support to private individuals and companies totaling just over 55 billion kronor has been paid out. At the same time, the government has strengthened the justice system, the defense, and the welfare.

Even though the inflation figures both here at home in Sweden and abroad are now finally pointing in the right direction, it is too early to cry danger. Current forecasts indicate that we continue to require restraint. But already here and now, we can of course, from the political side, focus on which measures and reforms are required to speed up the labor market but also on growth.

The Christian Democrats argue that a policy for entrepreneurship and growth is the key to continued good welfare. It is time to look up and not only talk about crisis management but also review how we can achieve a business-friendly and growth-promoting policy. It is time for structural reforms. We believe that there are some particularly important fundamentals to address this.

One of the most important things is that the incentives for self-sufficiency must increase. It should always pay to work rather than receive benefits. When people move from exclusion to employment, it is absolutely a gain in economic terms. But it is also a gain for the individual and not just for society as a whole. It increases tax revenues and reduces the need for benefits. But the absolute most important thing for me is the gain for the individual on a moral and social level. The knowledge that one can support oneself and one's family naturally provides an inner strength and security that no state or municipal benefits can grant in the same way.

The government's work to strengthen incentives for work includes reforms such as benefit ceilings and qualification. Other important parts are that welfare benefits must not be allowed to passivize people. Passive receipt of social assistance is devastating for the individual, and it can lead to a lifelong exclusion. It must be broken through activity requirements for receiving social assistance. Vocational training, adult education, and the university college are also strengthened.

A particularly serious consequence of the high inflation is that it erodes the incentives for work. While most of the benefits in the social insurance systems are now being adjusted upwards, wage earners have seen their purchasing power heavily eroded by inflation. It therefore becomes important for the government and the Riksdag to review how it can be made possible for work to pay off again.

A functioning welfare state is not built with words, rhetoric or, for that matter, with symbolic politics. Prioritizing the welfare state is our line in a government position from the Kristdemokraterna side, and we believe we do this best by increasing self-sufficiency in this country and letting individuals' diligence and work pay off.

It is based on a simple and blunt observation: it is tax revenues, not tax rates, that finance the welfare. Tax revenues do not arise out of thin air, but they arise when people work and pay tax. More tax revenues come when more people work more. It is facilitated if we in Sweden have a tax and benefit system that encourages precisely work. That is how we can ensure that we meet the welfare commitments that we, from different parties, would like to see and argue for.

Here and now, however, it is important that fiscal policy coordinates with monetary policy to break inflation as quickly as possible and bring it down to the target. This will be crucial for both households and companies. It is based on the knowledge that low and stable inflation is a prerequisite for Sweden to achieve good economic development.

Furthermore, inflation always hits hardest against those households that already had small margins before the inflation. Uncertainty then affects the willingness to invest and consumption, which in turn affects growth.

Everyone has understood that it is a priority measure for the government to combat inflation and likewise to support vulnerable households. But it is also important to ensure that the work line is now reinforced and that we ensure we get momentum in growth in Sweden.

Politicians, as is well known, do not create jobs, but politics and politicians can, through laws, rules and taxes, encourage or put spokes in the wheels of new jobs and for our entrepreneurs. Sweden now has a government that sees the value of us not only getting new but also growing companies so that more jobs can be created and more can become self-sufficient.

We mean that it should be easy to run businesses. It is in the small and medium-sized companies that jobs are created. The Productivity Commission has already been part of the debate, and that is good. It is the first time in 30 years that we have one such. It analyzes what obstacles exist for productivity growth and what opportunities exist to increase it. In addition, the government shall work on reducing companies' regulatory burdens and administrative costs.

The government also invests in research and development and in increased knowledge in schools. It is all such things that provide and promote growth.

But, Madam Speaker, it is not just about breaking inflation, supporting households, re-establishing the work line, and ensuring that we achieve higher growth. We have a government that also prioritizes the work of removing the long queues to healthcare and which wants to work to create equitable healthcare across the entire country so that the quality of care is not determined by where you live.

We have a government that understands that it must build on society's most important building block: the families. Earlier this spring, the government decided to double the number of double days, i.e., those days where mom and dad can be at home at the same time. Quite recently, the government also made a decision that parental days can be transferred to close relatives. Parents shall be able to transfer 45 days each, and those who are single shall be able to transfer 90 days. These are the first steps towards a more modern and flexible parental insurance, something that creates increased opportunities for both men and women to make family life and work life go together.

Sweden now also has a government that prioritizes the work of ensuring that safety returns to Sweden and that we break the seriously criminal gangs that can plague entire residential areas.

The government's work since taking office and this spring proposal and budget amendment show a path forward that ensures that what the students sing about, that "the brightening future is ours," is not just a song but something that both they and all of us can look forward to.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the cooperation in the Committee on Finance. I would like to extend a warm thank you to our chairman Edward Riedl and vice chairman Mikael Damberg. It has been a good and constructive climate in the committee, I think. I would also like to extend a warm thank you to the Speaker of the Riksdag and the parliamentary staff, but naturally also to our fantastic parliamentary staff in the Committee on Finance.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mathias Bengtsson and Camilla Rinaldo Miller (both KD) agreed.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I could actually sign off on many parts of the speech that the Honorable Member just gave. I think it was a good description of what Sweden needs.

My first simple question, however, is: If one truly believes in the work line, in moving from benefits to work, why do you then not stand up for it in practical politics? Why have you instead raised the tax on work, without lowering any other tax on work to compensate for it, very significantly since you took office and raised the unemployment insurance fund by just as much? It is the opposite of the work line. I cannot understand it in any other way than that this government is dominated by another party that pursues a completely different policy.

My second question concerns Sweden's farmers. KD has historically prioritized them and also said before the election that they would do so. Why then can one not, in this extremely tough situation, give some clear message so that they can know that they will manage to get through this crisis, which is the worst since the drought in 2018?

Then I have a very specific question that also concerns the countryside, where you have the responsible ministry: Why has Gotland to this day not been able to receive any news regarding its transport, where costs have increased by 50 percent? The entire island is dependent on a single lifeline to the mainland. 150 million has been requested due to the skyrocketing fuel prices for the ferries, which in turn lead to skyrocketing ticket prices. Help has been requested from the government and the region to manage this but received zero and no response. Gotland is now in a serious cost crisis.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the work line, I believe Martin Ådahl was present and saw our initiative to introduce something that we called state unemployment benefit. We see that there are very many who are capable of working but who are unemployed and end up on social assistance. A capable but unemployed person should not be there. Those people should, of course, be equipped so that they become employable. We had an idea to introduce a state unemployment benefit that would mean that one received not only the education part but also the opportunity to, for example, take a job for a few hours and actually keep a portion of the money for the work effort one performs. That is not the case with social assistance today, as it is deducted entirely.

If we are to talk about incentives – and we absolutely should; I am in favor of it – I believe it is extremely important for establishing a work line that those who are unemployed today but are not employable become employable. I believe there are very many who would gladly like to go to a job if there were only someone who would hire them. In that case, it is a matter of ensuring that they are equipped so that the companies can do this.

It is true that the unemployment benefit remains at a higher level. I believe it can be wise to have it at a higher level now as we enter a recession. I am convinced that many appreciate that announcement from the government. But the work principle is composed of a number of different things. As I mentioned in my speech, we now have an investigation that the government has commissioned to look at and establish a benefit ceiling. The work principle is central, but then it must also always pay more to work than to receive benefits.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I understand that Hans Eklind has a lot to answer, so I will repeat some questions.

I really received no answer as to why the large sums of money are being spent on raising the unemployment insurance, what was previously called socialist policy, while the tax is being raised to finance it. Sweden's entrepreneurs know that at the time we negotiated with the Social Democrats, we ensured that we got substantial tax cuts on employer contributions and other things so that it actually became a delivery of what was at that time called bourgeois or liberal policy. But there I did not understand the answer at all, even though it is good that you have something completely different.

We have also placed something resembling this concretely on the Riksdag's table: When one moves from benefits and social assistance into work, one should receive a 50-percent stimulus so that one can keep much more of the money. You have said no to this. It is very good that KD has its own proposal, but it is good to start with what resembles this and already exists in the Riksdag.

Then there were the two other questions. The farmers need a lot right now so that we can maintain a Swedish food supply where we do not import more than half of everything we eat and have a much better preparedness. They must not be knocked out again. In the climate crisis that is unfortunately ongoing, they need help with irrigation and better competitive conditions where we convert the deductions that exist today on, for example, diesel into a permanent agricultural deduction.

The dairy farmers in particular are having a very tough time right now, as I mentioned earlier. They now need confirmation that there is the same form of support as there was during the previous drought – this time it might even be worse – and that they can also receive this group exemption in the EU.

Finally, it concerned Gotland, which is cut off and has enormous problems right now. Answer that question!

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Martin Ådahl and I had this debate in connection with the submission of the budget bill. Martin Ådahl then gave the impression that the government does not see agriculture and the countryside, but that is simply not true. This government is truly investing in the countryside. We are looking at agriculture and have said very clearly that the tax on agricultural and forestry diesel shall be at the EU minimum level. This government has announced that. We have also ensured that the travel deduction has been strengthened. We have ensured that even the diesel used in aquaculture activities shall be at that level tax-wise.

We are investing in the expansion and maintenance of socially important infrastructure. Everyone who has lived in the countryside – I have; I do not know if Martin Ådahl has ever done so – knows how important it is that the maintenance of roads and so on functions in those parts. This, combined with the fact that the travel deduction is designed in such a way that one can commute to one's job at a reasonable cost, naturally develops the countryside.

Once again - perhaps the most important thing is that the reduction obligation will be lowered to the EU's minimum level on January 1. This will mean an incredible amount for everyone who wants to live in Sweden's beautiful countryside. The Center Party still needs to deliver a sustainable answer as to why one must ensure that the reduction obligation is not reduced. They want to continue on the trajectory that makes diesel and gasoline more expensive. It will not benefit those who want to live in the countryside.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Together with Hans Eklind, I want to raise the unreasonable tax situation that pensioners born in 1957 have ended up in since the retirement age was raised without the transitional rules keeping pace. This means that those born in 1957 pay more in tax than others.

Hans Eklind has said that he thinks that injustice should be addressed. I welcome that. That is good. Therefore, I want to ask when a proposal will come that compensates those who were born in 1957 for the tax injustice they have suffered.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! The background is that the 57s will have to pay a completely different tax than, for example, the 58s will be able to do. The 59s can end up in the same situation if one does not ensure that the target age, the transitional rules, and the regulatory framework are adjusted in parallel. They can also be affected by having to pay higher tax during the first year. Then those born in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965 will have to pay the tax that one is supposed to have when one becomes a pensioner. While the 66s, my generation, will have to pay higher tax during the first year if nothing is done about this.

There is a reason why I have been clear that this must be corrected. In the Pensions Group, during the time Annika Strandhäll was minister and led the Pensions Group, we actually put our foot down regarding this issue with the retirement age. It was extremely clear that everything related to the retirement age, everything from LAS rules and so on, would be adjusted in parallel.

But last year the government submitted a bill where they did not include an increased basic deduction. That means that these pensioners in the sense of labor law are pensioners, but in the sense of tax law, they are suddenly working professionals. It is not reasonable. Therefore, I believe it is a priority task for all political parties. We cannot have it so that a cohort of over 100,000 pays more in tax than other cohorts are to do.

I hope that we will be able to announce that such a measure will be taken. I do not believe that it will be possible to do so during the current year. However, there is, as I understand it, a possibility to do it retroactively. I am pushing for this, because right is right and wrong is wrong.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that it is an injustice that should not persist.

I thank Hans Eklind for the detailed explanation of why it has arisen. But what I actually asked about was whether there will soon be a proposal or if it is something that Hans Eklind and the Kristdemokraterna intend to push forward in the budget negotiations.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have been clear that I intend to take this all the way to the end. For me, it is first and foremost a moral question. It is morally completely reprehensible to, as was done last year, submit proposals that mean that one year group has to pay more in tax than other year groups.

All parties in the Pensions Group were nevertheless in agreement that all systems would be adjusted in parallel, precisely so that this would not occur. I mean, therefore, that it is reasonable that at least all the parties that are or were part of the Pensions Group – since Miljöpartiet sat in a government position, you also sat in the Pensions Group at that time – join forces with one another and say: It went wrong, and it must be rectified.

I hope that we will be able to give notice on that. It will be done as soon as possible. But when, I cannot answer here and now.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I begin by thanking you for a fine parliamentary period. Now that we are approaching the conclusion and what looks to be a very warm summer, I would like to thank the committee for good conversations and the chairman and the Speaker for fine debates.

I also want to take the opportunity to move for approval of our reservation. Since the Center Party now stands as the last liberal, green, and common-sense alternative to the Tidö Government and the Social Democrats in Swedish politics, it is important to stand up for this.

It is a very tough economic situation. One can cite as much data as one wants about how inflation has eroded the households' purchasing power. Many are pressured when they go shopping. I note when I speak with friends and acquaintances how expensive people feel it is to shop just ahead of the Midsummer meal.

Interest costs have multiplied for many households. Sweden's GDP is now at the bottom, among the worst countries, of the EU's growth-oriented. And our unemployment is at the top. It is a very serious situation.

What worries me most, however, is that confidence has plummeted so much. It is not just that there is no confidence in the government, as we read about. It is also about the consumer's confidence. That households have believed in the future has been an asset in our country. That no longer exists at all.

We know that a large part of it has to do with the deplorable shootings, which affect us all. We stand fully behind the investment in the police. We have done so for a long time, and we will continue to do so. Furthermore, we want to invest in reaching the youths in the classes that are the recruitment base. In our alternative, we make a major investment in social workers - it sounds boring, but it is important - who can meet all those youths. The police say that nine out of ten youths whom the gangs want to recruit are missed today because that type of intervention does not exist.

Of course, the pessimism also stems from the war in Ukraine. It is currently ongoing with full force. The people of Ukraine are fighting for the freedom of all of Europe. They are sacrificing an enormous amount. Naturally, it weighs heavily on everyone's minds right now.

But it is more than that. It is also about the fact that we cannot get any information from the new government. They promised terribly much: gold and green forests, cheap gasoline, and everything at once. There was to be order in Sweden. But we get no information. We get no information on how the country's municipalities are to manage running the schools. We get no information on how the countryside is to manage the crisis with both closed schools as well as higher prices and an agriculture that is hit hard. We get no information on the climate, where Sweden is lagging behind in the EU.

There is no ability in this government to prioritize after all the populist promises. As Reinfeldt said: Either you are prepared, or you are not. And then it shows.

An alternative was needed here. Everyone thinks we should fight inflation. That is obvious. We in Centerpartiet are known for being hawks when it comes to pursuing strict policies. But moderation is a virtue; paralysis of action is not. The answer to what will provide economic growth is not to bury one's head in the sand and pretend that it will go away.

I may have thought differently than Anders Borg when he was Finance Minister, even though our parties sat in the same government. But please, dear someone - everything is forgiven, Anders Borg. Come back to the Ministry of Finance!

Then you did something! It was a crisis, and you implemented the earned income tax credit and strengthened the work principle. And yes, you dared to put a stop to benefits. Now you do nothing – or rather, a few things: You raise the tax on work, and you raise the unemployment insurance. With all due respect, Mikael Damberg – at the time you did it, it didn't work. It worked better when you worked with us. Sossepolitik in a new form will not work now either.

Why don't you take the chance to do as the experts say and lower the costs of hiring? Should it be that difficult? Do you have to raise the tax instead? Dampen the costs!

Why can you not, as mentioned earlier in the debate, now that there is such an enormous need for competence which in turn can provide more jobs and more growth, invest in vocational colleges, continuing education, and the fantastic transition study support that unions and employers agreed upon when LAS was made more flexible while at the same time people were given the chance of a lifetime to educate themselves in the middle of life?

The green industry and digitalization mean that the municipalities have enormous competence needs. Why don't you do this? Why this total paralysis of action? Why not just ordinary, bourgeois politics - liberal politics? Why is it always SD with the plastic bag tax or the unemployment insurance fund and so on that is supposed to take precedence?

Several have been looking into the situation in the municipalities. It is about to go from an economic crisis to a welfare crisis. The municipalities' situation is such that it is as if their results - minus 28 billion - are plunging into some kind of Grand Canyon. They have very high inflation costs while tax revenues are decreasing, and furthermore, you are raising the tax on employing young people by 2 billion, so they will lose those funds as well.

We already see that the number of qualified teachers being laid off in the municipalities is counted in the thousands. It is thus teachers at hundreds of small schools in the Swedish countryside who risk being laid off. This has long-lasting effects - and why? It is not because one wants to be moderate in the inflation, as is said here, but because one cannot give the notice to the municipalities that one usually does in the spring! They have nothing to go on. They are forced to take panic measures just because SD is to decide over the government and you cannot reach an agreement.

One must give notice. We have said it. Give them at least the billions they need to be able to retain qualified teachers and the hundreds of millions required to keep the small schools! Ensure that they receive general funds. Convert the extra funds into targeted funds as you have had and lump them together so that they can be used in this crisis and meet the needs of tens of billions. It is about real needs in the everyday life of many small municipalities.

Finally, I must also say something about how the government's policy on the climate crisis is beginning to closely resemble a crisis for climate policy. What is heard from the rostrum is absolutely incredible. Not only is wind power to be stopped – now it is also about green industrialization. All that you talked about at that conference is apparently to be stopped in practice by SD now.

We see for the first time that because so many important climate measures have been implemented in a short time, all assessors say that emissions will increase. Listen to that! The whole world is going to quickly scale back because of the ongoing climate crisis. It is wonderful when the children can swim in 30 degrees and it is 21 degrees in Siljan, but it is a symptom of something that we all worry about. And what do you do then? Well, Sweden is going to increase emissions, even though we have all the chances thanks to the fantastic industrialization in the north. These are fantastic opportunities.

Regarding the electric cars, which were supposed to save the situation, the announcement came today that the share sold is falling because you removed the only instrument that influenced it. It is 16,000 fewer electric cars in the new forecast from Mobility Sweden.

Everything is just collapsing in climate policy! The Center Party says: Give people a chance now, before next winter when the new electricity bills arrive, to save electricity. I have met many people who have large houses in the countryside, and they have not been able to afford to make energy savings. They are now getting the highest electricity bills ever because of the major energy crisis. Reach out a hand to them! We have proposed a green deduction so that they can buy a heat pump or even geothermal heating. Also give them a green credit that can be used by those who cannot go to the bank so that they can make these profitable savings for Sweden, the climate, and their own economy and then pay it back over a longer period.

Regarding the reduction obligation, the cut will mean that Sweden in this situation becomes completely dependent - friends in the Sverigedemokraterna - on Saudi and, in fact, indirectly, Russian oil. You increase that proportion and that dependency. Centerpartiet just says: Refuel Swedish! What we wanted with the reduction obligation was to go all out on Swedish production of Swedish fuels.

Okay - we have to redo this. We cannot just scrap it, but we must redo it so that we have as low a tax as possible on the Swedish biofuel and that we procure it as cheaply as possible and not as expensively as we do today. There must be requirements that the cleanest fuel shall be the cheapest. Tank Swedish!

The Energy Authority says that we can get Swedish biofuel from the remains of Swedish forests for 15 kronor per liter. Dare to do what is good for Sweden! Dare to fill the tank with Swedish fuel that strengthens the Swedish countryside and strengthens our independence!

I will stop there, because time is running out, but there is so much to say about the green, liberal, common-sense alternative that we have put forward. I may eventually return to the farmers' crisis ahead if the opportunity arises, but I have already done so in many exchanges of remarks. I just want to say to all those who have given up hope a little, all those whom the confidence indicators show have given up hope: Do not give up hope! Sweden will lead the green new industrialization.

We will turn this crisis around. The government may be doing nothing, but in the end, it will get better if we dare to have the debate and put forward alternatives.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I ask the members to change places at the rostrum.)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! It is not easy to know which side to stand on in Swedish politics, but the Centre Party ends up on the wrong side time and again - so even here.

Let me raise a few points first. Regarding the claim that the Center Party would be hawks when it comes to economic policy, the Center Party has repeatedly proposed large, unfunded reforms directly into the Finance Committee, and they would fuel inflation. Those who have listened to Martin Ådahl in the rostrum have heard him list proposal after proposal that would drive up cost developments.

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to hear a representative for the Center Party, who I actually believe was the only party in the Swedish Riksdag in the autumn that wanted to save on welfare, cut the money to municipalities and regions and implement austerity requirements on municipalities and regions. It would then mean less money for what Martin Ådahl is now talking about. There is a small investment in the spring budget that I believe is around one-third of what one wanted to save in the autumn. One wants to take away more than one wants to add. It is symptomatic of much of what Martin Ådahl talks about in the speaker's chair.

When the farmers do not receive any information, as Martin Ådahl says, he can read in the newspaper how the Minister for Finance, who is also sitting here in the chamber, nevertheless says that one will not leave municipalities and regions in the lurch, that one does not rule out support if the drought hits and so on – naturally with consideration for the high inflation.

Let us be clear regarding the reduction obligation: Soon it will only be Martin Ådahl and Centerpartiet who stand for the completely unreasonable policy. I believe that even the Socialdemokraterna will try to sneak out of the old positions. Today, the Swedish National Audit Office also condemned the reduction obligation. Still, Martin Ådahl remains and defends that Sweden should have the world's highest fuel prices. How would that help the countryside, Martin Ådahl?

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I must really thank Edward Riedl for giving me the opportunity to speak about matters that are close to our hearts, but unfortunately, there were not many correct answers to the three questions.

First and foremost, we do many things for the school in our budget. Above all, we direct an appeal to the government to save the qualified teachers and put money into that. We prioritize that over the unemployment insurance. We prioritize that over filling the SUVs of city commuters with even cheaper gasoline and diesel, which you do. It is those in the countryside who are dependent on the car who should have the money. We prioritize that, and we stand by it.

You have also increased the taxes on the municipalities and regions by 2 billion through your increase of the fees for the young people they employ. They shall get that back. Furthermore, we are allocating 5 billion straight away, that is 7 billion compared to you. One only has to read our budget. I can return to the calculation for the autumn budget, but it also does not seem to add up when you read the opposition budget. I hope that everything is in order at the Ministry of Finance.

Then it is the farmers. Aha! Well, it is good that general statements are made, but everyone who experienced the drought last time knows - and Edward Riedl knows too - that they need notice now. We must get the groups started now, otherwise the money will arrive too late. This has been a recurring problem, and much broader measures than now are needed.

Then there was the question of the reduction obligation. It is probably good not to write the questions before I have given my speech or read on our website about what we propose if one is not up to speed on it.

We are not saying that the reduction obligation should continue as it is today. We are saying that we will transition to what everyone actually wants, that is, the cheapest that is possible of Swedish biofuels from Swedish residual raw materials from the forest, where there is great potential, into the tank to replace the oil from Saudi Arabia. The tax should be lowered as much as possible so that the fuel becomes cheap. Tanking Swedish is our policy now. It is time to update oneself.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to remind those listening to the debate that the Center Party is saving more on municipalities and regions in the autumn budget than what one wants to add to the spring budget. It simply does not add up.

Regarding the farmers, this government has issued a decision on the diesel reduction for the entire year. What Martin Ådahl requested in other parts where the Center Party has been involved, the farmers were informed about a long time ago. They know that they will receive the reduction. If the drought hits, the government will have grounds to return to the matter.

There have been early announcements. The diesel reduction came early. And it is important because one can plan based on those conditions.

When it comes to the reduction obligation, I can state once again that reality does not quite align with the rhetoric. As far as I understand, almost everyone except the Center Party has abandoned the unreasonable position that Sweden should have the world's most expensive fuel prices. It is a direct consequence of what the Center Party has been involved in pushing through and which the Center Party stands by, that is, filling the tank with a lot of biofuels, even though the environmental movement also condemns this – one simply cannot make the climate calculations work.

In that situation, it is said that cheap Swedish production should be kept in mind, but the fact is that the policy the Center Party had regarding fuel led to us having to vacuum up a large part of Southeast Asia for slaughterhouse waste at very high costs, which in turn led to the world's most expensive diesel prices in Sweden - before the war in Ukraine.

Martin Ådahl is welcome to elaborate on how this is supposed to work. What Martin Ådahl is talking about does not exist in reality, but the reality became the world's most expensive fuels. That is bad for the countryside. We who come from there can speak about that, unlike Martin Ådahl.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is striking how many times it is referred to who comes from the countryside. Seriously; talk to people in the countryside about how worried they are that services are being shut down, elderly care is being cut, and the small schools are being closed. Talk to your friends in the small municipalities all around the country, then you will get a bit of a reality check on that.

(EDWARD RIEDL (M): We live there!)

Exactly! But then you should perhaps care a bit more about them. Then we can also maintain the speaking order, Madam Speaker.

I actually wanted to ask questions to Edward Riedl. Now you have privileged access to the rostrum to what the Center Party actually thinks. It is also on our website, and that is what we are pushing for across the whole country. Soon there will be small caps that say: Think Swedish!

We must become more independent of oil from dictatorship states. We must use our Swedish forests. Take instead as revenue now that we hoped the reduction obligation would provide production in Sweden. We were all behind that. Then it did not become good enough, and above all, it became an uncertainty because you did not make the large investments.

Now let's get straight to the point: Lower the tax on the good fuel, the Swedish fuel, procure it not as expensively as possible but as cheaply as possible. Then demand that high-blend from those types of raw materials goes into the tank. Get straight to the point. That is what we all want. What is so bad about refueling with Swedish, not Saudi or Russian? Let us build up a cheap Swedish production base. It is not me who is saying so, but there are investors already today. But they are waiting because of your climate-hostile policy. Give them the chance. Invest in large-scale production of Swedish fuel instead of how it is now. Then we will meet our climate goals, and we will avoid that type of climate crisis. Sweden can lead instead of lagging behind.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! The uncertainty that has existed regarding the economic development is now decreasing. The previous forecast appearing in the material that there will be a recession well into 2025 appears to be overly gloomy. Let us rejoice in that.

This is important because everyone demands more money for something or everything. It must be paid for, and it can only be paid for with growth in the gross national product either today or tomorrow. Tomorrow, many people think it should be paid for; we can always use the National Debt Office to borrow the money. It is quite obvious. Here, billions after billions are promised, and they will not exist in the Swedish budget unless they are borrowed.

Let me move on to my main question. It concerns Sweden and the European monetary cooperation, the euro. When the question is discussed, it is almost always about exchange rates. Why is the krona so weak and so unstable?

But let us not get stuck on the question of Sweden's future currency policy on this simple and extremely short-sighted issue. It is, of course, popular in the business community but is not particularly useful when dealing with economic policy, even if the question of the exchange rate becomes important for companies and consumers in certain situations.

What we must think about instead is the political and economic situation in Europe. Why does Sweden not proceed further with joining the euro cooperation? The sooner, the safer; and better conditions for a stable Swedish policy for economy and economic growth.

First and foremost, it is not possible because changes must be made to laws, perhaps even constitutional amendments. But the Liberals argue that Sweden should become a full-fledged and more participating player in the EU's macro- and fiscal policy, which so often over the years has only had the simple goal of minimizing Sweden's contributions to common tasks in economic policy.

Thankfully, the attitude that has been a side effect of the war in Ukraine has given way to increased political foresight and realism. The penny-pinching regarding the EU's budget has been tempered.

We must be clear that Sweden should belong to and benefit from belonging to the core of Europe, and that Sweden, with its policies, its analyses, and its positions, wants to contribute to the stability and economic growth of the whole of Europe. It will not come for free. It is in the core of the political and economic European cooperation that Sweden shall be present, benefit from being present, and where Sweden shall contribute to knowledge, analyses, and commitment.

I believe that when we look back on the war in Ukraine in five or fifty years, we will note that that war practically made impossible Swedish ambivalence and attempts at, in somewhat halting German, going it alone in European politics and economy.

I think we should absorb the insight that we are in a completely new situation when it comes to economic policy in a European context. Sweden has also, in just over a year thanks to the war in Ukraine – no harm that does not bring some good with it – become much more of a team player. Today, we weigh in to a greater extent the fate of all of Europe in what we do, and what we did in the 50s and later lies truly far away and is foreign today.

The alternative is that we complicate things for ourselves, and if Swedish entanglement were to benefit anyone, it would be Vladimir Putin. The stronger and more united the EU stands, the more difficult it becomes for Putin and Russia to sow division and start wars and conflicts with their neighbors.

If we instead want to contribute to a stronger and more democratic EU, which one can naturally have as a very genuine political goal, the natural role for a rich, well-managed and stable country like Sweden is that, to the extent of our ability, we take part in the responsibility for democracy, prosperity and economic policy in Europe and do not continue to hold ourselves out outside, for example, the euro, outside the ECB and outside a banking union that would strengthen the stability of the entire Nordic region.

We should therefore now follow Finland on the euro issue in approximately the same way as we try to follow Finland on the Nato issue. We should follow Finland into the euro cooperation.

Finland chose in 1999, that is 24 years ago, to join the euro primarily for political reasons. Finland's motives 24 years ago were, among other things, to secure support and backing from its European surroundings against the eternal Russian threat in the east. But in that debate, it was strangely the economic issues – wage formation, buffer funds and similar questions – that were the focus of the discussion 24 years ago in Finland. But a broader perspective on the decision than just the exchange rate and the budget, which was what was being discussed, had been anticipated and prepared, and the decision was made that Finland would join the euro without further hesitation. While we in Sweden – including myself – at that time focused on interest rate differentials and exchange rate forecasts which today are all completely overplayed and forgotten, Finland kept its thoughts on the main question, namely the relationship to Russia.

In the European issue, we should steer in accordance with the larger and broader perspective and then follow and do as Finland does. As a country, we shall accept that we win from a treaty-based, full-fledged European cooperation being entered into. This will occur with countries that to a large extent are like us: Germany, France, the Benelux countries, Finland, the Baltics and like-minded EU members. In that way, we take responsibility, not least for the entire Baltic Sea area.

That is why it becomes very important for the entire EU which political direction Sweden chooses. To confirm that one sees oneself as a full-fledged and responsible actor in European cooperation is what we hope that Sweden will do. Sweden shall not be some difficult stepchild in the European family. We shall both benefit from the cooperation and ourselves contribute with full force so that the cooperation is deepened and ensured far into the future. We shall not act as temporary EU visitors but as full-fledged, integrated players in the cooperation of the European democracies.

I also want to join those who thank the office's and the committee's competent staff for an outstanding cooperation. Thank you!

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now summer is at the door. While many families long for long days off with sun and swimming, there are others who dread the weeks that lie ahead of us. For what happens to the children without a fixed point in their lives when school activities cease and they perhaps lose contact with the adult role models who ensure they stay on track? Yes, they are left alone, often completely without the prerequisites to get the summer break we wish every child would get.

The open violence has escalated for a very long time, and after last weekend's deplorable shootings, it is even more evident that we, from the side of society, must take decisive action to reverse the development. In that case, we must work with both policing methods and preventive measures.

Now, unfortunately, all the focus and the entire debate is on the policing and the judicial. But it is the preventive measures that address the problem in the long term, and that work lies to a very large extent with the municipalities. It is remarkable that it is precisely there that the government is cutting back, because that is exactly what happens when municipalities and regions sound the alarm that more money is needed but the government turns a deaf ear. It is not only outrageous but also very sad. In this situation, the municipalities must be given the conditions to invest in social services and schools in the vulnerable areas.

I am extremely worried about what effect the cuts in our common welfare will have on the recruitment of new members to the gangs. I truly hope that the government, in the very near future, gives municipalities and regions notice of increased economic resources for next year. Otherwise, there is a risk that they are already starting to cut back on municipal activities that are completely crucial for society to hold together and for young boys to be kept away from the gangs' claws.

Increased penalties and tougher measures will never compensate for a wrecked welfare state. It is an insight that, by this point, should have reached even the government.

But it is not only the schools and social services that will be affected by the government's inability to prioritize what is our common good. The care and support that everyone in this chamber says they uphold also faces major cuts if we do not act. It hits all those who take care of us when we need it most and every one of those who are in need of care and support.

So it doesn't have to be that way. Already for this year, we in Miljöpartiet submitted a proposal to allocate 14 billion, in addition to the government's budget, to Sweden's municipalities and regions. That is money that would have been needed here and now. But the government chose to do what right-wing politicians always do – to give more to those who already have.

We know that another way is possible. By giving Sweden's municipalities and regions the money required to be able to maintain and develop the welfare across the whole country, we build a better Sweden - a country where the healthcare staff has more colleagues and higher wages, where extra support for every child in need of it is available in school from day one, and where social services have the time, money, and opportunities to provide the right interventions, not just to the children but to the whole family.

Madam Speaker! While some families are packing suitcases for the family's annual trip to the Mediterranean, other parents are terrified of not having enough money to pack food for a picnic basket. High food prices and skyrocketing costs have made families who previously lived in economic vulnerability even poorer. During the spring semester, reports have been received that more and more food is being wasted in schools. Now, during the summer, school lunch will no longer be an option for many children across Sweden. The summer break, which should be a time for relaxation and fun activities together, will for many families instead be about keeping costs down.

But this cost crisis should not have to be paid for by families with children. When everything becomes more expensive, the society's compensations must also follow suit. We have proposals such as making the child allowance inflation-proof so that it is not eroded when it is needed most. And when food prices have skyrocketed, we have proposed to completely abolish the VAT on important basic goods such as milk, bread, and butter during the coming summer months. This would make a big difference for those who are having it toughest now during the summer holidays, when more food must be cooked at home.

But the right says no. And it is as little surprising as it is incredibly serious for the children who have to face the consequences here and now. Unfortunately, it is the same children who always have to pay the price when society falls short and abdicates.

Madam Speaker! The heat records and the alarm reports about various types of extreme weather have appeared frequently in recent weeks. And unfortunately, it will continue. In Sweden, we are now only at the beginning of the summer, but when we look around at nature, it looks as it usually does after many, long summer months. Many say that the situation is already worse now than it was during the very dry summer of 2018. Several experts warned already this spring that it could become a very dry and warm summer.

We in Miljöpartiet therefore proposed that support for agriculture's climate adaptation should be increased, with a particular focus on measures to prevent drought. The government did not act then, and we now see how harvests risk drying up and how the queues to the slaughterhouses are growing. That means hard times for Sweden's farmers, but it also means hard times for our self-sufficiency - which we in this chamber usually say we agree needs to increase.

But it is not only agriculture that is affected by extreme weather. The extremely hot summer of 2018 also led to approximately 700 more deaths, entirely unnecessarily. We see that we must also strengthen the work on climate adaptation, because it is literally a matter of life and death. Today, we are doing far too little.

Miljöpartiet wants to see investments in heat care, information on where one can cool down, and measures to reduce the risk of heat islands and surfaces that can be flooded when heavy rains occur. I truly hope that more parties in this chamber can realize that it is now starting to become really urgent to strengthen the work with climate adaptation in Sweden when heat records are being broken on a rolling basis.

But of course, we must not only manage the effects of the climate crisis. Emissions must decrease, and they must decrease rapidly. All warning lights are flashing red. Climate researchers have exhausted their vocabulary in their attempts to emphasize the gravity of the situation. We hear that 2023 is on track to become the warmest year ever recorded.

It should be completely obvious that we must increase the pace of climate work - but no, not for the Tidö parties. They choose instead to pursue a policy that increases emissions. This government's climate policy is nothing less than a failure. They make it cheaper to emit and move forward with a policy that makes us miss the 2030 climate targets - which we were on track to reach. They want to increase the proportion of fossil fuels in gasoline and diesel. When one then asks how we are to reduce climate emissions, the government answers that we should electrify the vehicle fleet. And yes, that sounds like a good plan; it needs to be done. But with one day's notice, the government instead abolishes the electric car bonus and crashes electric car sales to private individuals. It is the exact opposite of what they say they want to do and is therefore completely absurd. With the Sverigedemokraterna in the driver's seat, this government is driving us at full speed toward the climate catastrophe.

This is unworthy of the Sweden that can actually lead the way in the transition, if we want it to. But this government has time and again, and with all the desired clarity, shown that it actually does not want to. It is embarrassing, and it is dangerous.

We in Miljöpartiet have a policy to accelerate the transition. We want us to invest 100 billion per year in the green transition. We see that the USA and the EU are doing it. They are increasing the pace of climate investments, and Sweden risks falling behind.

We cannot afford to have a lagging railway that threatens Swedish competitiveness. We cannot afford for wind power to be expanded far too slowly. And we also cannot afford to lose large green industrial investments to other countries.

But we actually have the means to invest in the climate. Miljöpartiet has long pointed out that the fiscal framework should be climate-proofed. Now we also hear how everyone from LO to Svenskt Näringsliv and the Agenda 2030 coordinator highlights the need to change the rules for fiscal policy. Sweden can do better. We have all the prerequisites to be a country where new green technologies are developed and scaled up. We should be a pioneering country for the green societal construction, not a country that digs its heels in and resists.

Madam Speaker! After every summer comes an autumn. Although it feels far off now, it is with a starting point in what we have addressed here today that we enter it. For us in Miljöpartiet, it is clear: It is only with investments in the climate, households, and welfare that we can face the autumn with confidence. I hope that the government will come to the same conclusion during the summer.

With this, I wish to move for the approval of reservation number 4. I also want to thank the committee and its chairman and vice chairman for very good cooperation during the year. But above all, I want to extend a very big thank you to the secretariat, who always endure, are very knowledgeable and with much patience help us correctly through the administration's twists and turns.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! We hear about eleven-year-olds who are enticed by drug dealers to perform jobs for criminals, fourteen-year-olds who carry out bombings for the same criminal networks, fifteen-year-olds who are picked up after football practice to then go and shoot someone, and children with automatic rifles that they can hardly even carry.

Madam Speaker! It was 21 shots from automatic weapons that not so long ago extinguished the lives of a man and a boy, in the middle of Farsta centrum. This has left many very affected, indeed. This is not how Sweden should be, or needs to be. Reversing this brutal development is linked to political priorities. It is about political will and the power to act.

To break the development of violence and the wave of insecurity sweeping across our entire country, to build up and expand an energy system that has been severely damaged and does not at all favor the climate transition, and to take us through a rarely difficult economic situation are some of the great and difficult tasks that we four coalition parties have decided to take on. We know that it will not be easy, but it is possible. We now have the responsibility, and we take responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Many hard-working people are now on their way to vacation. Some have already taken vacation and perhaps are enjoying the warm weather that has been there over the last few weeks. It is pleasing with warmth and sun, but we also know that it is very concerning for many of Sweden's farmers. They are worried about their harvest, rightly so, and furthermore, many forest owners are now also worried about forest fires. The Government is following this development closely and has ongoing contact with both the industry and with the authorities. But we also stand ready to handle a difficult situation this summer. Much may need to be done to help both forest owners and farmers.

Madam Speaker! It has been midsummer heat here outside the Swedish Parliament, but that is not the case in the Swedish economy. There, it is still economic winter. We have an inflation that is up at record levels, and that core inflation is not going down is very concerning. At the same time, we are now expected to be heading into a recession. All this means that we find ourselves in a rarely seen trial.

Furthermore, the uncertainty factors are greater than they have been in a very long time with, among other things, the war, Russia's brutal war in Ukraine, where we do not know how the development will continue.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the coalition partners have a plan to take us through this economic situation. I have told about it before, but I want to repeat it here in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag. It is a plan in three parts.

The first and most important thing right now is to fight inflation. It may sound obvious to some, but clearly not to everyone. Inflation must be fought because it is a prerequisite for us to be able to have good economic development, and it is a prerequisite for future real wage increases for ordinary wage earners. Inflation must simply return to a low and stable level. It is also a prerequisite for households to be able to manage their everyday finances. For those who are most vulnerable right now, the fight against inflation is completely central.

It is also a prerequisite for all of Sweden's municipalities and regions to be able to push back their costs and for the costs not to continue to increase. If they are to be able to maintain a good welfare, inflation control is obviously an important part.

But with that said, Madam Speaker, I want to say that the coalition parties for this year provided 12 billion in various types of support to both municipalities and regions. I know that many of the municipalities want more. I speak with them very often. But I also know that it makes a difference. And just so we have said it: The fight against inflation is also one of the most important things we do for Sweden's municipalities and regions. Otherwise, the costs in elderly care, in schools, and in healthcare will continue to increase.

Madam Speaker! There are no shortcuts. Restraint is required. After having read the opposition's four different spring motions, I can state that this perception may not be shared by everyone. Some parties here in the Riksdag think that it is perfectly in order to proceed with strongly expansive politics in this situation. It would, therefore, be like throwing money on the inflation fire. It would burn even more. The fire becomes larger, inflation increases, interest rates increase, prices of goods and services increase, and households become poorer.

My message is that our four coalition parties will not lift the blanket until the inflation fire is more or less extinguished. Therefore, the budget for this year was restrained, and even the spring budget that you are to make decisions on today is restrained.

But this does not mean that it is a passive budget, on the contrary. The 2023 budget and this spring budget do great good. They do great good in defense and in the justice system. They do great good with the 12 billion to municipalities and regions. It was a third of the reform space we had.

We have also been active in supporting households and companies. Enormously large electricity subsidies have been issued in recent months and make a big difference for both individuals and companies. The list can be made very long, and I will not use all my time on that. But we have done all this by prioritizing. We have done it by taking responsibility. Overall, our policy is restrained and responsible, and it does not fuel inflation.

Madam Speaker! Let me say something briefly about the supplementary budget. Here we are making a targeted effort for those who have it the toughest. Several have mentioned it before, but I still want to bring it up. It is about the housing allowance for families with children, which is increased by 40 percent and also extended. It is incredibly important and accurate so that precisely those who have the smallest margins also receive a reinforcement.

Furthermore, we provide supplementary funding to civil society, which also supports people in particularly vulnerable situations. Not everyone wants to turn to the municipality or to authorities.

Madam Speaker! I just want to mention one more thing. There has been talk about prices here in the speaker's chair today. I agree that one can sometimes wonder how certain prices have increased. We, as the government, believe it is enormously important to also ensure that there is good competition in various markets. Therefore, the Competition Authority also receives extra resources in this budget to monitor this development and, above all, to come back and see if legislative changes are required, for example when it comes to the Consumer Sales Act and other matters. There should not be a single company that takes the opportunity to raise prices just because it is, as they say, possible.

Madam Speaker! Even though inflation is the most important thing to combat here and now, we also know that Sweden is in need of major structural reforms. One such reform is to strengthen the work line. Let me say something briefly about this. I received the OECD's report on the Swedish economy last week. One of the important conclusions there was that we must increase the incentives to work. The difference between working and not working is too small. Therefore, we are currently working on benefit reforms in different stages. It is about 100 percent activity and about ensuring that one cannot stack benefits. We will also return to what we call qualifying for the welfare system.

At the same time, our parties during this parliamentary term – this year or next year, I will return – will lower the tax on income. It is about what I have said many times: Inflation is the workers' worst enemy.

The third part of our plan is about permanently strengthening growth and productivity. One can absolutely have many opinions about a productivity commission. Otherwise, it is very popular to demand a commission here in the Riksdag, but I am glad that we have gotten it in place. Finally, several experts will delve into the Swedish economy – the private sector and the public – to see how we can become more productive, so that growth can increase in five, ten, or fifteen years.

But that doesn't mean that the government isn't doing things here and now. The work on simplifying regulations has gained new momentum. The 3:12 rules are to be improved. And for example, we have now also ensured that the Swedish Migration Agency shall have a maximum of 30 days to provide a decision on whether a company can employ persons from other countries. The immigration of labor is an important part for very many companies.

Another part, Madam Speaker, concerning growth is energy. Many have spoken about this today. Today is a historic day for future increased growth and improved transition, and it is about the energy policy goal, which the members of the Riksdag will vote on in just a few hours. Here, every party has an opportunity to take a stand on whether it should be a 100 percent fossil-free goal or a renewable one.

This makes a real difference - that we get a breadth of energy types, so that we can manage all the growth, production, and transition that this country so much needs. It is a big day, and I am glad that there is now a majority in the Riksdag for this.

Finally, Madam Speaker – time is running out! – I want to say something briefly about the autumn budget. There are many who want an answer, and I can understand that.

We will return to the budget this autumn. But as I have underlined previously, we are still in a very difficult situation. Inflation needs to come down. At the same time, our four parties will, of course, focus on important reforms that Sweden, Swedish households, and Swedish companies need. But we will return to this.

It will also be an occasion where we all here in the Riksdag must have the ability to prioritize. A situation like the one we find ourselves in now, with a beginning of a recession, a cyclical trend and high inflation, most of us here in the room have not been in before. It requires something of us. It requires priorities, it requires focus and it requires that we are able to take responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! It has been interesting, perhaps mostly in the sense of being a bit strange, to hear the Minister for Finance speak about inflation and the importance of combating it today as well. For it is difficult, not to say impossible, to find anything that the Minister for Finance is doing to combat inflation.

I cannot see that the Minister for Finance has taken any impression from the discussions being held internationally on how one can best understand the character of just this inflation episode and what it can mean for the design of fiscal policy. That inflation is not wage-driven but rather profit-driven is obvious, but it is nothing that seems to play any role for the Minister for Finance. Likewise, the competition situation in different markets has no prominent place in what the government says and no place at all in what the government does. The Minister for Finance takes no impression of the regulations that have seen some success in, for example, Switzerland and Spain to specifically combat inflation, nor of the investment plans being rolled out in the USA with reference to inflation fighting in the future.

But even if one has landed on the narrow idea that inflation should be fought only by holding back demand, it becomes extremely strange to see what is being protected and how it is presented to the Swedish people. It is, therefore, good inflation-fighting if nurses must be laid off and if patients are left to lie in the corridors of the emergency room. But it is not conceivable to curb tax cuts for members of Parliament and ministers. It apparently helps against inflation to cram more students into a classroom. But one cannot limit the subsidies to those who buy cleaning or silver polishing for the parade floors. The electricity subsidy is great, but when it comes to the fact that there is panic in elderly care, they say: Yes, unfortunately, we must fight inflation.

Would the Minister for Finance perhaps explain in more detail why exactly prolonged surgical queues, dismissed teachers, and desperate staff within elderly care are the methods that the government prefers and has chosen to experiment with as inflation dampeners?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ali Esbati, for the question! For me, it is both simple and difficult. It is simple insofar as we now need to prioritize what is most important. In the budget that we submitted for this year, there was a major investment in defense and the justice system. But the single biggest thing, actually, is about welfare. We ensured that a third of our entire reform space went precisely to this. Will it be enough? No, many municipalities and regions are having a tough time. Above all, much of the staff is having a tough time. But it looks different in different places. I am speaking, as I said, with many colleagues all around the country.

What is inflation about here? I believe Ali Esbati has heard me say this, but I am happy to say it now as well in case there is any TV viewer watching this. What would it lead to if one does as Ali Esbati does? Just here in the spring budget, Ali Esbati places 20 billion in unfunded investments. What would it lead to? It would lead to higher inflation.

Then one can always have a discussion about exactly what type of investments lead to more inflation or not. It is about money that enters the system, but it is also important that the fiscal policy as a whole is responsible and that one does not fuel inflation.

Questions have been posed to me – or rather, questions have not been posed, but allegations have been made in the chamber during the debate – regarding welfare. For me, it is obvious that the coalition parties will continue to support welfare. I have pushed through three budgets here in the Riksdag. In all of them, welfare – both regions and municipalities – has received money. Then it will probably always be the case that the Vänsterpartiet and the coalition parties will not always share the view on how much it should be. But it must be clear and obvious and facilitate those who have it the very, very toughest. This applies to both municipalities and regions, but it also, of course, is about households.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! It is about doing what is most important and prioritizing what is most important, said the Minister for Finance. That is what I am pointing out. What has obviously been most important for this government has been to protect those who earn very well, so that they get their tax cuts, and to protect those who live in manors and estates, so that they get extra much electricity support. That is the prioritization that has actually been made from the government's side.

What Elisabeth Svantesson mentions regarding defense, for example, we agree on. We are talking about what is done in addition to this and otherwise. That became clear. That is good.

When it comes to fiscal policy in general, we can well state that the Left Party in the autumn presented a budget that was neutral, which means it did not incur any deficit during the current year. When it comes to unfunded investments, it is not about that, but rather it is about that we know that it went well from a state finance perspective for the Swedish economy last year, but that it did not go so well for everyone who exists in the Swedish economy. Therefore, it would be reasonable to take measures that in several cases solve acute problems and in other cases contribute to pushing back inflation. Lowered fares within public transport, for example, is something that can contribute to pushing back inflation here and now.

I have, both in my speech and now, touched upon several other matters that are discussed much more outside of Sweden's borders. It is about ways to push back the inflation that we have right now and about doing something about the poor competition situation within certain markets. The Finance Minister and her colleagues have flatly rejected this. It is also about ensuring in other ways that the state pushes back inflation rather than contributing to it.

I still have not received any answer to the question: Why would more money in high-income earners' pockets not lead to inflation? Instead, one should curb inflation through extended surgical queues. It is interesting.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Ali Esbati knows very well that the government has not actively lowered a tax for those who have the highest incomes. On the contrary, it is the case that Ali Esbati, Mikael Damberg and others here in the chamber would gladly want this tax to be higher for midwives, police officers and others who have state tax. If your budget or the Social Democrats' budget were to apply, very many would pay higher tax this year. It is therefore not just members of parliament and ministers. It is very many hard-working people. It is people who take an extra shift in healthcare or an extra shift as a police officer. I just want that said. It is very clear. These people are affected by your politics. You are actually raising the tax for completely ordinary people by somewhere between 20 and 30 billion. It affects people in this situation.

What is important for me and for the government is that we are now fighting inflation while simultaneously supporting those who are struggling the most and at the same time ensuring that the welfare sectors also have resources. But I have said it before, and I say it now: It will be tough for a while longer, as long as inflation is not properly dampened.

Finally: The best thing we can do right now is to also have structurally correct reforms for those who are not working. It is about those who have been left to their own devices, who during the last eight years have hardly had any contact with Arbetsförmedlingen but have instead been stuck in long-term unemployment. It is also about those families where we know that it does not pay off at all for one of the parents to go and work. So it is no tall tale, Ali Esbati, but it is true. It is real.

With a system of grants and incentives but also support and help in terms of vocational training and other types of education – Swedish is, for example, incredibly important – we want to ensure that people are fully active. It is about not receiving grants without a counter-performance. That is how people enter the Swedish labor market. That is how one can build Sweden strong, and that is how you help those who have the least margins right now.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I have a couple of questions for the Minister for Finance, but first I will ask a question regarding what has transpired here in the chamber while the Minister for Finance has been present.

It is about the Sweden Democrats, the largest party in the Tidö coalition or among the Tidö parties, having announced that they are opposed to the large green fossil-free steel project in northern Sweden, Hybrit. They are casting a shadow over this and actually want to stop the support, in the extent that it exists, even for other green industrial projects, unlike all other countries in the world, despite the fact that we are world leaders.

I just want a clear and distinct statement. Is it what SD says that counts, or is it what the government says that counts? Is it what SD says are nonsense that we should ignore, or is it those who will in practice be the ones deciding moving forward? It is very important for Norrland, very important for the Swedish business community, and very important for the industrial investments.

Secondly, I wonder about the following. It concerns all those municipal councilors who believe that schools should be prioritized, that there should be qualified teachers, and that students should be given a chance in life. They are very worried because you now cannot give a decision. They are ready to close schools because you have not given a decision. Are they wrong? Is it in any way so that they should just wait nicely? The qualified teachers will disappear, and then they can be re-employed again when you have reached an agreement. That is my second question.

The third is that there has been much talk about keeping inflation down. But why don't you lower the costs of hiring so that more people who are vulnerable and young can get jobs? The companies ask for it, the business community asks for it, and those seeking jobs ask for it. The experts say that it also lowers inflation. I do not understand this from a so-called bourgeois, liberal government.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I listened earlier for eleven minutes to Martin Ådahl's contribution. It struck me then that Martin Ådahl should start a new parliamentary run with himself, Mikael Damberg, Ali Esbati and Janine Alm Ericson. It was, in fact, very good for laments.

It is completely voluntary. One can spend eleven minutes expressing one's frustration. But I am somewhat surprised by the tone. I believe it would be better if one also used their time to talk about what one wants to do oneself. That is what I have used my time for. That is what I intend to continue doing.

Number one is about the employer contribution for young people. I don't know how many times I have discussed that specific question with Martin Ådahl. It was a temporary reduction. It could very well be the case further ahead that it will be reduced again. But if I were to choose here and now, I would see to it that the employees who have been hit very hard by inflation would receive a tax cut.

We will also do it during the mandate period. I believe it is very important and central. I also believe that Martin Ådahl knows that it is not the young people who are the most expensive to employ. With that said, it absolutely may need to be done again. But right now, it is not a priority.

Since then, I have understood that Martin Ådahl has suddenly become very fond of Norrland. That pleases me very much. I have lived in both Lycksele and Östersund.

I can only remember back to the time when the Center Party and the Social Democrats cooperated on various things, the so-called January Agreement. Many of us have tried to repress it, but it was still there.

It was not that you were always in agreement on all things. Let me say one thing that I really agree with Oscar Sjöstedt on in this matter. It concerns the elephant in the room.

We must get more electricity. More electricity production is needed. Therefore, the Center Party should today vote yes to a 100 percent fossil-free goal so that we can seriously get started even more with electricity production throughout Sweden.

It applies particularly in Norrbotten. In five, eight, or ten years, there is a risk that there will be a shortage of electricity for Hybrit and for others.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit bold to say that one is going to speak about one's own proposals and then not give any answer at all about what one wants to do oneself.

If the Minister for Finance listened carefully to my speech, she could hear that it was really about the visions for what we want to do. We can take the questions a bit quickly again.

Is it SD, who says that Hybrit and the large green investments in Norrland - which we, believe me, have been committed to for a long time - are foolishness, who are the ones who decide, or is it you in the government? What is it that actually applies? Now there is truly great uncertainty here during the debate.

The second thing is again: The experts say that if you lower the costs for companies so that they can hire, it also lowers inflation. Why this enormous resistance to that?

If one does not like the reduction for the young but wants it more for the vulnerable, as the Centerpartiet wants to have moving forward, why don't you do that instead?

It is very good if one lowers taxes on income. But until now, you have raised them. Why raise them only to then lower them?

And again: I heard absolutely nothing for those of us who defend the school about what can happen during the year. Are the municipal councilors and school principals wrong who say: We are now forced to lay off our qualified teachers to long-term detriment for our students because the government cannot provide any proper notice?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have been clear all along that the government is following the developments very closely when it comes to welfare. I think that Martin Ådahl should probably start thinking back to the years that came before.

It was not the case that the previous government gave notice in June regarding how the state grants would look the following year. That is usually not what one does. This applies particularly now in a difficult economic time when we do not know. We do not know how the economy will develop. We do not know what the budget space will look like.

Then I do not want to go out and say exactly how it will be. We have also not budget-negotiated. Does anyone know this, is it Martin Ådahl?

One can be sure that the coalition partners will not leave municipalities and regions in the lurch. But they also have a job to do themselves. It looks different in different municipalities and in different regions. Many are under pressure. We will not leave them in the lurch. But it will also be tough.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, I believe I have answered Martin Ådahl's questions. I do not intend to enter into a discussion about reduced employer contributions for young people once again. Martin Ådahl and I have had that here so many times together. I partially share the view but not completely and fully.

For us and for the government, it is important to continue to fight inflation. We will use the money in the reform space in the very best way. We have received a mandate from the voters to reverse a development that has gone in the wrong direction. We are convinced that it can be reversed.

With that said, I would like to wish everyone a happy summer. I say it now, Mr. Speaker, so that I do not miss it. I would like to express my thanks to the Speaker's Office and the entire Finance Committee for good cooperation during this year.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by stating that the Minister for Finance did not have the energy or the will to distance himself from the Sweden Democrats' attacks on the green transition of the Swedish steel industry.

I believe that it still deserves some kind of comment from the government when the largest party in the government's coalition cooperation makes such a major attack on Sweden's growth prospects moving forward.

It is not just that it has threatened the expansion of the energy system in various debates earlier. Now, a frontal attack is being launched against the flagship project that the government has also spoken about in a European context and internationally as something that can reduce emissions and also contribute to Swedish competitiveness over time.

Otherwise, I have listened very carefully to the Minister for Finance. She usually repeats that we live in a very difficult economic situation and that one must conduct a responsible fiscal policy. I agree with that, even though it should not become an excuse.

What we Social Democrats have criticized the government and SD for is that they are making wrong priorities within the framework of the budget space that exists. They made a mistake by prioritizing a tax cut of 13 billion kronor for the high-earners instead of securing the funding of the welfare system and also being able to make interventions for the families with children who are hit very hard by the economic crisis.

We are not alone in our criticism. I have seen that SKR is pushing for it, and that is one thing. But Lars Calmfors writes as follows: "I am, however, critical of the balance in the government's overall fiscal policy. The support to households should not have been so broad but directed more towards low-income groups. The tax cuts for high-income earners through the indexation of the threshold for state income tax could have been paused. This would have created room for higher state grants to municipalities and regions in order to reduce the risk of cuts in school, care, and healthcare." This was, therefore, written by Lars Calmfors on May 15 of this year.

In light of the reality of school cuts and the healthcare crisis, is the Finance Minister prepared to admit that an incorrect prioritization was made in the autumn budget, which is now creating major problems in the welfare system?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have also had this discussion with Mikael Damberg a few times now. The budget that we laid on the Riksdag's table in November was well-balanced. It was slightly contractionary and, together with the electricity support, neutral. It was completely correct and right.

Many have also agreed on that. It concerns the Riksbank and the Fiscal Policy Council. We did not make the assessment that we should step in and change tax rates in specific bracket limits, just as we did not do in anything else that increases due to inflation. We have had this discussion several times.

I also speak with very many people across municipalities and regions. As I have said, it looks very different. Many are now working on using this tough time to try to do things in better ways. Of course, no parties in here want us to see large cuts in welfare. That is why we have said that we will return in the budget with new announcements for next year.

Mr. Speaker! I do not think a third of the reform space was small. 12 billion kronor were 12 billion kronor to the sectors that now so much need them.

I can only state that Mikael Damberg probably wants to talk about this partly because the money he would use would have resulted in a difference in tax on quite a lot of money for 1 million wage earners. And it is not just about directors - Ali Esbati usually talks about bank directors. There are some more bank directors now because we have better competition. But it is not so much more than 150 people. But it is, therefore, many, many hard-working people who would have had a higher tax with Mikael Damberg than with this government, which I think is worth pointing out - even those who work in the welfare sector.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now, my point was not that the Social Democrats criticized the government, but that Lars Calmfors criticized the government for choosing a tax cut for high-income earners instead of securing the funding for schools, healthcare, and elderly care in a situation where they can be affected by savings.

The Minister for Finance cannot make the logic add up. She says that we are in an exceptional situation and that it is a very difficult situation. And now Sveriges kommuner och regioner are saying that they need a decision now in order to avoid making even unnecessary savings in healthcare and in the municipalities.

If, in an exceptional situation and in a different situation, one cannot act from the government's side and give a notification, when should one then give a notification? It is now that the crisis is. It is now that the exceptional situation is.

I cannot interpret the Finance Minister in any other way during this debate than that there will be no announcements to municipalities and regions before the summer regarding what will happen with the finances. Then the Finance Minister must understand that she also bears responsibility for the savings that may be carried out unnecessarily in healthcare and in schools.

I will continue to quote Lars Calmfors: "The government should at least give an assurance of how large the real state grants - grants in fixed monetary value - that the municipal sector will receive in 2024 in order to provide better planning conditions." All this in order to avoid savings.

That is how reality looks. One cannot flee from reality when one is Finance Minister. One has a responsibility to face reality, act, govern, and prioritize. And so far, this government has chosen to prioritize incorrectly in this crisis situation.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is very interesting. The primary responsibility for the finances of the regions and municipalities lies, of course, with them themselves. It is they who, naturally, collect taxes.

But I have for many years said that the state also has an important responsibility. That was why, for example, I reached an agreement with Ulla Andersson, who is not here now, in the finance committee during the last parliamentary term and stopped the free year and ensured that the money went to the welfare. Some years later, the Kristdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Moderaterna joined in and ensured that elderly care was strengthened. Sverigedemokraterna also voted for it. That was two or three years ago. I have done this several times, and I will support the welfare again.

But now in June, when we do not know exactly how it will look in the coming months and how large the reform space is, it would be utterly irresponsible to do so because the defense needs large amounts of money and the police and justice system will need large amounts of money. Households may continue to need support. There is a multitude of needs. Municipalities and regions are one of all the parts that we will need to support in some way. But they can wait until the autumn. And that is what I have said. Households and companies can also do that. But it is because the economy is uncertain, the development is uncertain, and the forecasts are uncertain. I take responsibility in a difficult situation and do one thing at a time and ensure that we prioritize in the way we consider to be the best way.

Since then, I have great respect for the fact that Mikael Damberg thinks it is a bad way to prioritize. But I feel calm and secure that we have done the right thing.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The climate crisis is here and now. Droughts, floods and extreme weather are overturning people's everyday lives and living conditions both in Sweden and in the world. Species are dying out, ecosystems are being disrupted and both oceans and forests are under enormous strain.

Fundamentally, there is only one single measure that is superior to all others, and that is to reduce emissions. But unfortunately, it is a measure that the government seems to be uninterested in.

Miljöpartiet has for several years highlighted the need to climate-proof the fiscal framework. This has now also been highlighted by both the Climate Policy Council and the Fiscal Policy Council. Most recently, it was actors from Naturskyddsföreningen, Volvo Cars and Swedbank who, together with the Agenda 2030 coordinator, highlighted the need to initiate a review of the framework to ensure that it contributes better to precisely a sustainable development. Even Svenskt Näringsliv has suggested that the surplus target be abolished.

The Fiscal Policy Council pointed out in its report the need for investments in the green transition and that it was an important reason to review the rules and create space specifically for such investments.

It is clear that there is a broad consensus that a review should be initiated promptly.

I would like to ask the Minister for Finance if she is prepared to do so.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to Janine Alm Ericson's question is yes.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was a very pleasing announcement, and we look forward to it because there is no time to lose in this matter.

I would also like to take the opportunity to bring up a theme that I have raised with others, and that is the tough situation for municipalities and regions. Several speakers have asked the Minister for Finance about this previously. But I would still just like to ask once more: Can the Minister for Finance give an announcement on what will happen with money for municipalities and regions next year? Or when else will we find out? They need an announcement now in order to be able to plan and not cut back.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. I have answered it on several occasions, and I have no other answer to give. It is incredibly important that the welfare sectors, the welfare operations – the school, elderly care, healthcare, and psychiatry – function. This is something all four of us coalition parties very much agree on.

I will nevertheless link it a bit to the framework. It is to be reviewed. All eight parties here in the Riksdag agree on this. This work is ongoing now, and we will return. In order for the framework to be launched as intended on January 1, 2027, we must start this work now.

It is important that we have order and clarity in the economy. During the spring, we have pushed hard in the EU work for a new framework and gathered 27 countries to achieve exactly a direction where we all have order and clarity in our finances. It is important in the EU, and it is important here. It is absolutely time to review the framework to see if we need to make adjustments. Exactly how it will become, you will—since I intend for it to be a parliamentary committee—get to discuss. So we can return to these questions later.

But I share the view that one must prioritize correctly and make the right investments, transition, and of course ensure that emissions are reduced.

Once again, I am very pleased that you who are sitting here inside, and a few others, are going to vote on a new energy policy goal. I believe, in fact, that it is a very important piece of the puzzle for it to be possible to have a greener, safer, and freer Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the party debate on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said: Nothing is more important than supporting Ukraine.

Russia's brutal war has cost many lives and created an enormous catastrophe - humanitarian, environmental and economic. The price is ultimately paid by the Ukrainian people, who with their blood pay for their and for our freedom. When we repeatedly speak about how the war affects us in Sweden, we must never forget who it is that makes the real sacrifices.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is clearly in a strained situation with an ongoing war in the surrounding area, a particularly troublesome situation in the energy markets in Europe, and the highest inflation in 30 years. Furthermore, we have inflation at the same time as we have a recession.

Since the Moderate-led government took office in the autumn, the primary priority has been to prevent inflation from becoming entrenched at a high level by conducting a continued restrained fiscal policy. Unlike the Left Party and the Green Party, the government takes this task most seriously. At the same time, support is provided primarily to vulnerable households through targeted investments in the budget and by ensuring that the adjustments made with established automatic mechanisms continue.

In a previous exchange, Mikael Damberg insinuated that the Moderaterna do not want to tell what the government is doing to support those who have it hardest - this after Edward Riedl's speaking time expired before he had managed to address the question. Therefore, I do so instead.

An example of a measure to support those who are struggling is an extension and increase of the temporary supplementary grant to families with children receiving housing allowance. This is done to give these families better conditions to meet their housing costs in these times when the cost of living is increasing.

This measure is significantly more accurate than a general increase of the child allowance, which is proposed in motions by the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet – individually, I would like to add. The housing allowance is, in fact, means-tested and primarily benefits families with children who are dependent on social insurance and other transfers from the welfare systems.

Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet consider that the extended and increased supplementary allowance should not be deducted from the social assistance, which in my opinion is completely wrong. Let me explain why. For groups with weak anchoring in the labor market, increased allowances reduce the incentives for self-sufficiency. There must always be a difference between having a job and supporting oneself and living on benefits.

To support the most vulnerable, the government has increased the appropriations by 50 million kronor during 2023 to the civil society organizations that work with humanitarian efforts for people who are having a difficult time.

Another measure to combat inflation is the tax reduction on agricultural diesel to the EU's minimum level until the end of the year. The Government intends to maintain this tax reduction during 2024 and 2025 to support Swedish food production. The Government also prioritizes the implementation of structural reforms for increased growth.

This is, to say the least, much needed. During the eight years after 2014, under the Löfven and Andersson governments, Sweden was the country in the entire European Union where unemployment increased the most. Sweden is also one of the countries in the European Union that has had the lowest economic growth during the two preceding S- and MP- respectively S- governments.

A little humility would therefore be in order instead of, as the Social Democrats do, writing in their motion about segregation and poverty without mentioning their own guilt at all. That Sweden's problems have not arisen during the months that have passed since the Kristersson government took office can anyone calculate. That the opposition constantly asserts this is not serious.

The devastating and system-threatening crime of criminal clans has not emerged during the Kristersson government's nine months in power. The parallel societies with people who lack the right to stay in Sweden have also not emerged during the last nine months. Nor have the energy crisis, the waiting times to receive care, or the substandard school results.

What we have now is, however, a government that has committed itself to addressing these system-threatening problems of various characters. When we debated the tax policy a year ago, we Moderates thought that the tax policy should be used to meet the problems that Sweden has. Since then, Sweden has received a new government - a government that does just this.

Tax policy is now being used to press down unemployment, to provide increased opportunities for economic growth, and to tighten the squeeze on those who cheat and commit crimes and thereby destroy our security and everyday life. Cheaters and criminals steal several billion from the welfare system annually. What the gross crime costs society cannot even be overseen.

Mr. Speaker! I am the first to regret that there are currently no economic conditions to carry out any significant tax cuts. Combating inflation has, as I have already mentioned, the highest priority. But in addition to combating inflation, the government prioritizes a restoration of the work principle. As soon as the situation allows, an enhanced job tax credit with a focus on low and medium incomes will therefore be introduced. It is an important measure to stimulate job creation and growth.

The government is also working on reforming the benefit system with benefit ceilings, gradual qualification into the welfare system, and requirements for full-time effort for those who still need benefits. It must always pay to work so that people who are in exclusion can transition to supporting themselves and, furthermore, contribute to our common welfare. It is the path to a positive social change: working, more independent, and freer citizens.

Finally, I would like to thank the committee secretariat, the Swedish Parliament Administration, and not least all members of the Committee on Taxation, including the Chairman Niklas Karlsson and the Vice Chairman Per Söderlund, and wish everyone a nice summer.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have previously experienced how the extensive and ambitious election promises that the bourgeois parties, not least the Moderates, put forward during the election campaign have failed to meet reality. This was pointed out earlier in the debate when Martin Ådahl from the Center Party expressed it as that one promised gold, green forests, and lower gasoline prices. Something along those lines. But what do we see of this? Nothing. It became 14 öre at the pump. What happens with the rest remains to be seen.

Despite this, we can discern the civil society construction. The ambition is evident in the government's proposal, even if it has not succeeded in presenting any sharp proposals yet.

Mr. Speaker! Boriana Åberg said in her speech that tax policy should be used to meet the problems. We have many problems. The municipal sector and the regions are crying out for support from the state to meet their obligations, so as not to have to cut back on welfare and to manage school, healthcare, and elderly care. From the government, tax cuts of 24 billion are proposed, but some support to the municipal sector cannot be promised. One can only say in the parliamentary debate that one will not leave the operations in the lurch. But decisions were needed now.

Mr. Speaker! What is the message from the bourgeois parties? What is the message from Boriana Åberg? How do you solve the problems in the welfare state by lowering taxes with a redistributive profile that ensures those who already have get the most?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by explaining how we support municipalities and regions. Already this autumn, municipalities and regions are allocated 12 billion in various grants. Municipalities and regions also get to share in the electricity support of approximately 5 billion. Then there are other ways to get a little more money - the extra supplementary grant to the housing allowance, for example, makes the costs for social assistance decrease. In total, it amounts to approximately 20 billion to the municipalities.

If Niklas Karlsson had listened earlier during the debate, he could have heard that the Minister for Finance said that she does not rule out help if such is needed. It is not clear, however, that all municipalities or all regions have these needs. For example, Moderate-led municipalities such as Kävlinge and Staffanstorp manage quite well because they pursue a responsible policy. Furthermore, they usually end up at the top when it comes to various classifications that SKR usually makes regarding, for example, elderly care. Even in various rankings of safety, Moderate-led municipalities end up at the top. This is something for Niklas Karlsson to reflect on.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I listened to Boriana Åberg, and I listened to the Minister for Finance. I am honestly trying to understand how they think and what the consequences will be of the policy that they place on the Riksdag's table and that they want to implement.

I just heard what Boriana Åberg said now. The Finance Minister said verbatim that they do not intend to leave municipalities and regions in the lurch. The problem is just that they need the decision now. The 20 billion in deficit that municipalities and regions have flagged is actually no longer 20 billion. Just a moment ago, the weekly email from SKR arrived, where they said that now an additional 12 billion is missing compared to the budget that has been set.

The crisis is serious, and it is here now. In that case, one must give an announcement. It is not enough in June to say that one does not intend to leave municipalities and regions in the lurch, one must also speak about in what way one will support them. Otherwise, the work of cutting in the welfare in the municipalities and regions will be started already now. If one does not want that, one must be honest, come with proposals and speak about what it is that one wants.

What I also note in today's debate is that the coalition partner – that is, the Sweden Democrats, the party that actually runs the government – in the debate through Oscar Sjöstedt says that it is now important for our municipal councilors and regional councilors and for municipalities and regions to focus on core activities. They need to prioritize more strictly. It is clear: When the Finance Minister somewhat vaguely says that they do not intend to abandon the activities and the Sweden Democrats say it is about prioritization, it is easy to conclude that no money will come and that tax cuts for those who already have take precedence over healthcare, school, and elderly care.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can do nothing other than repeat what the Minister for Finance said: We will not leave those who need help in the lurch.

It is not customary to make promises in June about what one will do in the autumn budget. We do not know how the economy will change. We also do not know how the global situation will change. I have mentioned that there is a war ongoing in the surrounding area. We all hope that this war ends. There are many variables that we do not control, and we must have respect for this.

When it comes to cuts in core activities, I wonder: Which municipalities started cutting back on teachers and social workers? Which municipalities did this?

Niklas Karlsson addressed Sverigedemokraterna's Oscar Sjöstedt. He asked who has started to cut back on, for example, communicators. There are many tasks in a municipality that are not core activities and which can certainly be very useful in good times. In bad times, however, one must have the courage to prioritize.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In Anki Sehlstedt's *Åldrandets poesi*, we meet Elin, who watches ski races in the dayroom and remembers her Folke. We meet the demented Markus, who can hardly formulate words but still manages to convey a beautiful declaration of love. We also meet Josefina, who her whole life has longed for a woman in her arms, and many more.

What Anki Sehlstedt succeeds in illustrating in her debut novel is, among other things, the experience that my years as an elected representative have given me regarding how welfare concretely and directly affects people's everyday lives - how it creates security in old age, provides life chances in youth, as well as increases people's freedom and improves their conditions for a good and meaningful life.

As a social democrat, I believe in a very simple and common-good principle: Common affairs shall we finance jointly and take responsibility for together. That is how the social contract for the Swedish and Scandinavian welfare model looks. It provides people with tools to free themselves from the shackles of economic subordination. It liberates people, and it means that we do not become dependent on our own economic assets to participate in school, healthcare, and elderly care. We also avoid having to give up large parts of our lives to take care of relatives who need such services and cannot buy them on a market. In this way, through the Scandinavian and Swedish welfare model, we have created perhaps the world's most equal, free, and generous society.

Mr. Speaker! How welfare is to be shaped and what the common concerns are are also expressed in the tax policy. Our way of defining the common good and how we choose to finance welfare determines how we shall pay tax, who shall do it, and how much one shall pay in tax. With this follows also the inverse relationship: Every proposed tax cut shall be paid for with reduced expenditures and less, alternatively poorer, welfare.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to fulfill the welfare commitment, we will need a stable and long-term financing of the welfare. We therefore need to increase the legitimacy of the tax system, among other things by ensuring that welfare and security are financed according to ability to pay while simultaneously making it more difficult for tax fraud, tax evasion, and tax avoidance. The need for a political tax reform exists, and the reform must be built on the principles of uniformity, neutrality, and consistency, with few exceptions and special rules. But such a reform must also be built on the principle that burdens are borne according to ability, where we consider how those with the highest incomes and wealth can contribute more to the general welfare.

Mr. Speaker! Opposed to this Swedish welfare model stands another way of looking at the world - a bourgeois, conservative view of society where market logic governs how welfare resources are distributed, where the common project and common concerns are significantly fewer, and where those who have the most also get the most. This also shows in practical politics, for even with the government's handling errors and despite the fact that the extensive and ambitious election promises have failed to meet reality, we can still discern the contours of the bourgeois system shift. The Right is, in fact, true to itself. They want to inflation-protect the incomes of high earners rather than raising the child allowance. Tax cuts well over 20 billion are prioritized over injecting resources into healthcare, school, and elderly care. To top it all off, it is with a very clear distributive policy bias where those who already have should have even more.

Of all the government's tax referrals, the proposal on reduced marginal tax perhaps takes the prize. Behind the headline itself, however, lies a proposal to remove the tapering of the job tax credit and the increased basic deduction. This means a tax reduction for those who have incomes of 780,000 kronor a year, corresponding to a monthly salary of 65,000 kronor, of just over 9,000 kronor. If one has very large incomes of 2 million kronor, one can look forward to a tax reduction of just over 36,000 kronor.

Mr. Speaker! The government's ambition is clear, even if reality is currently perhaps its greatest opponent. Tax cuts for high-income earners take precedence over families with children, and the principle that those who already have the most should also receive the most applies. One conducts a policy that divides and retreats into the future.

Mr. Speaker! This is how Anki Sehlstedt writes in her book Åldrandets poesi: She stood in the doorway to the ward with a lost, sad mind and looked as if she wanted to turn around, go home again and back to the time when her father was healthy, strong and cheerful. Then her little hand had found security and comfort in his large, rough worker's fist. Now the roles were reversed. Now it was he who gripped convulsively a hand that he initially knew but only vaguely. Yet their firm grip generated warmth, and that gave him peace for the moment. For him, it did not matter where his physical body was located. He had long ago forgotten where home was. The illness had deprived him of everything that was previously familiar and secure.

In a new Sweden with a different system where welfare is not universal and where each person is the architect of their own fortune, it is not these stories we will hear told. They look different and are not as warm and happy.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Niklas Karlsson for a polite speech. Even though I do not agree with the conclusions, it was truly enjoyable to listen to it.

Someone who did not express themselves as politely was Magdalena Andersson in Wednesday's party leadership debate. She then said that lower taxes for high-income earners will not prevent a single young guy from picking up a weapon.

Sweden does not distinguish itself with exceptionally low taxes, rather the opposite. However, Sweden distinguishes itself when it comes to the number of shootings with a fatal outcome. We actually have the highest number in all of Europe.

The connection that Magdalena Andersson tried to demonstrate was not quite clear to me. Can Niklas Karlsson answer whether high taxes will prevent a young guy from picking up a weapon? What is it that will prevent this young guy from picking up a weapon?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is obviously a connection between what we are prepared to sacrifice for common affairs and the quality of the welfare we define as common. If the member's children are also my children and my children are also the member's children, and every single child is our common child, they are our responsibility, and then we must be prepared to allocate resources.

What we are now seeing happening in our society, with young people taking up arms and saying that they will not stop until everyone dies, we must take seriously. Then we cannot say that the tax does not matter and that the resources we allocate to welfare are meaningless, because they are not. We will need to make investments to catch these young people, get them to stop shooting and give them a future to look forward to with successful schooling and a job so that they can occupy themselves and support themselves.

This will require resources, and the answer is definitely not to move forward with tax cuts and say those who have incomes of 780,000 kronor or more shall receive tax cuts. It is not to say that we should have low taxes on assets and capital. In some respect, this is where Sweden distinguishes itself. It is the wealthy in our country who pay little tax, not the working people. So there is certainly room to raise taxes in Sweden, to distribute the burdens more fairly and to contribute according to ability. Let us ensure that we have the resources required to catch every single "tjatting" so that they do not have to look forward to a life of violence, crime, or exclusion.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Last time, the Social Democrats held power for eight years - and for many years before that. They levied high taxes on everyone's wages, yet crime developed catastrophically. Niklas Karlsson is trying, despite this, to make it a question of money. They are going to tax people who work hard and have long educations behind them because they have not had any income.

But is it really the missing tax increases for people who pay state tax that have given criminals free rein in the country and caused children and young people to use weapons and shoot each other? Is there nothing the Social Democrats can admit is their fault and that they did not handle during their time in government, for example, uncontrolled immigration, lack of integration, and general lack of requirements?

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will be honest and say that I think the debate about the violence and the shootings and what is happening among many young people today does not deserve to be trivialized and sharpened in a debate in the Riksdag. If we mean business about addressing this, it is a common concern. It is a task we must take seriously - all parties in the Swedish Riksdag. It is not about the opposition against the government or vice versa.

I can naturally say that there are also errors and shortcomings in what has happened during the eight years with the S-led government, and we are prepared to take responsibility for that. But that is not the whole truth. And if we are to be humble, one must also show this from the government's side and say, just as I am saying, that if we are to succeed with this, we also need your help.

This is a question that is so important that we must solve it together. To solve it, it is not just about pointing fingers at what has happened or should have happened, but also about honestly daring to admit that if we are to rectify this, it will require investments and resources. And if one is to finance it, one must either take it from something else or be prepared to pay for it. In that case, it is not possible to come to the Swedish Riksdag and lower taxes in the billions for those who earn the most. It is not sustainable.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Niklas Karlsson for the speech.

I have a question about the tax system and what one believes it can lead to. As a small country on the edge of Europe, Sweden must guard its competitiveness. The tax system must not hinder effort and economic growth, while at the same time it must finance our common welfare, as the member has spoken about.

A few weeks ago, we had a research day in the Committee on Taxation, and we had invited Åsa Hansson for a very interesting presentation. I assume that member Niklas Karlsson was involved in that invitation. Åsa Hansson argues that if the tax system were redesigned based on today's conditions, Sweden could achieve higher growth and employment - thus more tax revenue for the welfare system. The proposals were definitely not tax increases on income, but rather the opposite.

I wonder how Niklas Karlsson thinks about this and if he can see that lower tax on income can actually lead to higher employment, i.e., more tax money into welfare.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is a fundamentally very intellectual question, and I thank you for it. Politics also deserves to be intellectual a bit more often than it perhaps is.

There is reason to reflect on the tax system we have in Sweden, and I believe there are few today who would say that it is perfect. I stated in my speech that we need a major tax reform, which I believe the Liberals also propose given that we had a point in the January agreement where we wrote that this needs to be done. We will, however, come with different starting points, and we will probably have long and difficult discussions, but the starting point is that we are to review the tax system.

For me, it is a principle that we shall both create growth and have resources to distribute. They must go hand in hand; one cannot just do one. One cannot have a tax system that only creates growth when one is uninterested in distribution policy, and one cannot just say that we shall distribute resources while simultaneously having a system that does not create growth.

That balance, or that starting point, we shall try to find together. If we succeed in that and can reach a broad agreement, I believe it will be to the benefit of all of Sweden, both when it comes to creating prosperity and distributing prosperity. I look forward to conducting that discussion, among others with the Liberals and the other parties in the Riksdag's Committee on Taxation.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Niklas Karlsson for the answer.

I completely agree with the member that we need a tax reform and to review the tax system. The last time we did it, we actually did it together. At that time, there were two principles we agreed on: that one should have half left in the wallet and that 10 percent should pay state tax. That is not at all how it looks now, and the Social Democrats were very quick to abandon these principles. I also want to add that we additionally had uniform VAT for almost an entire year, which was a quite nice thing, I believe, for many of the country's entrepreneurs.

Over the last 90 years, the Social Democrats have governed for 63 years, and they protest every May 1st against the terrible injustices that exist in Sweden. I really want to agree with Member Niklas Karlsson that we have things that need to be corrected and that the system is not perfect. But that is precisely what I believe is the big difference here: Having a tax system that creates growth is the foundation of it all, I think. It provides more money for our common welfare.

I do not agree with Niklas Karlsson when he says that the tax system should not only be for creating growth – that is precisely what it is supposed to be for. If we create growth, we have money for our common welfare so that we can have a strong school and healthcare and a strong safety net that is there if one falls. If we have a strong school and a tax system that favors education, diligence, and effort, we have the opportunity to bring in additional money for our welfare. Therefore, I had hoped that the Social Democrats could move away from the principle that higher tax is always better. What are Niklas Karlsson's thoughts on that?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! My answer to the member is: Not at all, because what the member says is naturally not true. It is a way of fabulating.

If the first post was intellectual, the second was just a thief's trick. Certainly, we deviated from the agreement when we created a tax system in the early 90s. Folkpartiet - Liberalerna - has also actually done so, so in that regard, we are probably both responsible. We probably have to put this aside if we are to reach an agreement and find an agreement that holds over time and that creates a stable majority in the Swedish Riksdag.

What I particularly want to emphasize is that we differ here in one respect. For me, it is not just about a tax system that is to create growth. For me, the distribution policy is important. I think it is unreasonable that we have a tax system today where those with the really large assets pay significantly less in tax than the one who is an ordinary wage earner who has to struggle to put together their income and pay 30 to 32 kronor for every earned hundred kronor. For me, that is distribution policy. And should it turn out that this system is good for creating growth, then I am prepared to reconsider that system, because the distribution is also important.

The principle of contributing according to one's ability and that everyone should participate is, for me as a Social Democrat, extremely important. I hear that this is not as important for the Liberals. We shall see when we get to the negotiating table what will ultimately come out of it.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Our country is in a very difficult economic situation, and the forecast for the future is still worrying. Many households have felt the effects of inflation as the prices for food, travel, and housing have increased at a very rapid pace. The government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna intend to reform several of the taxes and regulations that have driven up the cost levels in our country, not least regarding transport costs.

Mr. Speaker! Sales of electric and hybrid cars have increased, and today many have just such a car, for natural reasons primarily in larger cities. Electric cars are not entirely cheap to buy, and for them to be profitable in the long run, one needs to be able to offset the purchase cost against reduced operating costs. In that case, it can be advantageous to charge one's electric car at work when one has driven it there anyway. From July 1 of this year, a temporary exemption from taxation of the benefit of charging at the workplace is therefore introduced. Such an exemption is also expected to reduce the administrative burden for both employers and employees when reporting this type of benefit.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in combination with the weak Swedish krona, has had major effects on fuel prices. Now, the entire price increase should not be blamed on Russia's violation of international law in its attack on Ukraine, even though it is a strongly contributing cause. The increase began as early as the spring of 2021, when both the price of gasoline and diesel were under 16 kronor per liter. Before the turn of the year 2021/22, the price for gasoline had gone up by approximately 2 kronor per liter and diesel by around 4 kronor per liter.

To alleviate the costs for necessary travel to and from work, the mileage allowance was significantly increased from 1.85 kronor per kilometer to 2.50 kronor per kilometer on January 1 of this year. No such increase has been made since 2008, when fuel prices were between 10 and 14 kronor.

Madam Speaker! It is not only those who are dependent on the car as a means of transport who are affected by the high fuel prices. On the contrary, these hit our entire society broadly. Every link in the production chains, from producer to end customer, is affected by the increased prices on fuels. It can be costs for fuels for our farmers when they produce the food we eat. It can also be costs for transport of various goods that cause prices in retail to increase.

The next step for us is a reduction of the reduction obligation from 1 January 2024. It will have an effect and provide further reductions of fuel prices.

Madam Speaker! Negotiations and investigations are currently underway in several areas between the Tidö parties. One such area is the abolition of the tax on plastic bags. The goal of the tax is to reduce the use of plastic bags, something that the EU requires us to do. Unfortunately, the tax is designed in such a way that it also hits biodegradable, plastic-like bags.

It has been a hard blow to many of the manufacturers who have developed environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic in order to be able to manufacture bags that have the same properties as plastic bags but are better for the environment. These companies lost their entire market when the tax was introduced. Today, the environmentally friendly bags are not being manufactured, and development has stalled. This is nothing other than a prime example of how taxes can hit if they are implemented in the wrong way.

Madam Speaker! The aviation tax has also been harshly criticized for not achieving the intended effect: to reduce emissions by reducing travel. The tax has three levels and is based on the destination, not the flight distance. That makes it a bit tricky.

Flying to Spain involves an aviation tax of 69 kronor, but flying to Morocco, which is just a little further, involves a tax of 288 kronor. If one flies directly to the Canary Islands instead of going to Morocco, which is still a bit further, the tax becomes 69 kronor because the Canary Islands belong to Spain. One is also hit with the same tax as for a flight to Morocco if one flies to New York, which is significantly further.

Instead of taxing the harmful emissions, it is therefore the travel itself that is taxed. In the long run, this tax should therefore be abolished.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps the most worrying thing in the tax area right now is that the EU is reviewing the possibility of changing the decision-making procedure for taxes. Today, unanimity is required for the EU to be able to decide on taxes in the member states. The Commission has, however, presented a communication with a roadmap for a transition to decisions by qualified majority according to the ordinary legislative procedure in the tax area.

The transition shall take place in four steps, and in the fourth step, decision-making by qualified majority for initiatives in the tax area, which are necessary for the internal market and for a fair and competitive taxation in Europe, according to the Commission, is introduced. This is a very worrying development that we need to counteract together.

Madam Speaker! Let me also conclude by thanking the committee for a good job during the past year. I want to extend a special thanks to Niklas Karlsson for good cooperation in the presidium. At times it has been a joy, and at times we have racked our brains to try to solve situations that have arisen in the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a pleasant summer. I also want to thank our very knowledgeable committee secretariat for the work they do and the support they provide for us. They have helped us through a number of tricky situations during the past year. I also want to thank the Riksdagsförvaltningen and those who work here for the support they provide for us members. Of course, I also want to thank the Speaker's Presidium for a very good job during the past year. Have a pleasant summer!

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: Thank you very much, I wish you the same!)

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! In the budget for 2023, the government chose to raise the threshold for when one should pay state tax. People with monthly incomes of 70,000 kronor or more will pay approximately 17,000 kronor less in tax this year thanks to that decision. We in Vänsterpartiet believe that it is an unreasonable prioritization to spend 13 billion kronor on tax cuts for high-income earners in a situation where the welfare system lacks resources.

The parties in the right-conservative government and its coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna usually say that they did not make any choice or take any decision. It was not just the tax threshold that was changed, but also pensions and other insurance systems that were adjusted, they claim.

This is nothing more than excuses. To do nothing is also a decision. The majority could have chosen to pause the threshold and thus not lower the tax and at the same time maintain the adjustments in the security systems. Previous governments have managed to do this.

Another such non-decision is not introducing transitional rules for pensioners born in 1957. We have not done anything – it was the previous government, the governing parties explained, and chose not to include transitional rules in the budget for 2023, despite both PRO and SPF lobbying the government before the budget work.

We have not done anything – it was the previous government, the parties repeated in the income tax debate with me earlier this year. When the governing parties and the Sweden Democrats choose not to introduce transitional rules or provide compensation, it is a decision – a decision to do nothing.

When the Committee on Taxation decided a few weeks ago not to proceed with my initiative that the Riksdag should decide on transitional rules and compensation, the government parties and the Sweden Democrats referred to negotiations on the autumn budget. They are thus letting pensioners born in 1957 live in the same uncertainty as municipalities and regions.

Regions and municipalities are saving and cutting back, not only to manage 2023 but also to prepare for 2024. Pensioners born in 1957 are saving and cutting back to manage until they turn 67, and for those who now must move to a cheaper home, cancel their newspaper subscription, refrain from trips to see their grandchildren, or sell the summer cottage, such a decision would be a welcome one.

How can one be expected to plan when the government parties and the Sweden Democrats refer to negotiations? These are negotiations that they could have had before what we are debating today, namely the autumn budget amendment and the guidelines for the economic policy. But they choose, as usual, to do nothing and let municipalities and private individuals live in uncertainty about the upcoming economy.

Madam Speaker! I have had several debates on the transitional rules for the 57s, and I have pulled all the arguments over and over again and do not intend to repeat them. It is pleasing that several of the parties that previously only blamed each other now nevertheless see the problem, even if it has not yet led to any decision or action.

Vänsterpartiet would prefer to see the retirement age for everyone be 65 years. No age groups would then be affected by transition problems. But now the higher retirement age is hammered down, and then transition rules are required.

Pensioners born in 1957 pay up to 2,995 kronor more in tax per month than a pensioner born in 1956. For those who have the lowest pensions, it is a matter of over 1,000 kronor more in tax every month. Those who have the lowest pensions also belong to those who often have not been able to choose themselves when they should retire. In that case, the government has previously referred to that the 57s should work and receive a share of the job tax deduction.

Those who have unemployment insurance, sickness benefit or similar from our safety systems can, however, not choose when they should retire. The benefit ceases. They can or may not work, because then they would not have sickness benefit or unemployment insurance. Furthermore, we should not forget here that the 57-year-olds who work also pay higher tax than older retirees because the basic deduction applies even for those who work.

Calculations show that up to 3 billion would be needed to correct the tax injustice for the 57-year-olds. The tax cuts for those of us with higher incomes withdraw 13 billion from the state's revenues. I am happy to waive my tax cut of 1,400 per month so that all pensioners can receive a share of the increased basic deduction. The rest we can place on municipalities and regions that are bleeding today.

Madam Speaker! In the Left Party's budget motion for 2023, we presented a policy that would lead to a more equal distribution of the economic burdens. This policy is based on a more redistributive tax policy and extensive investments in the worst-off households through strengthened safety nets as well as lowered fees and taxes on necessary household expenses. The Left Party's policy would have meant that households had been significantly better equipped to meet the crisis that we see today.

In our spring budget motion, we have included several proposals that benefit households and the families who are struggling the most. The most noticeable thing in the government's economic spring bill is the absence of a real crisis policy. Since the government took office with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, they have consistently ducked the responsibility to meet the crisis that Sweden finds itself in.

With reference to the high inflation and the limited room for reform, a passive policy has been chosen. The government offers excuses while simultaneously undermining the municipalities' and regions' opportunities to conduct a functioning operation. They prioritize enormous tax cuts for high-income earners instead of anything for the households that have it toughest.

It has not always been that way. Previously, there was a strong trust in the tax system and the possibility of making a difference together. It was a self-evident matter that social investments should be financed collectively.

The discussion about taxes was then about how they should be levied fairly, socio-economically efficiently, and with maintained legitimacy for the tax system. Today, the discussion about legitimate taxes has a waning existence. Rather, the starting point for the debate is that taxes are harmful and need to be abolished or minimized. The tax ratio, that is, the taxes' share of the economy, has been lowered and corresponds to approximately 440 billion kronor lower tax revenues every year.

The motives for the tax cuts have shifted but have predominantly been characterized by that the cuts should solve one social problem or another. There is, however, no support for that taxes do more harm than good. A strong thesis is that tax on labor inhibits the will to work. Still, we can see that Sweden has relatively high marginal and participation taxes on labor while we have the EU's second highest employment rate.

The only thing that is completely certain is that tax cuts lead to reduced tax revenues and that they have clearly contributed to significantly increased income inequalities.

Tax should be paid according to ability to pay and welfare should be provided according to need. That is the core of redistribution and should be the starting point for tax collection. It cannot be as the government envisions, that is, large tax cuts. Sweden needs a new tax policy that prioritizes redistribution, environment, and welfare.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Tax revenues are absolutely fundamental for our welfare. They are a prerequisite for managing the problems in healthcare, the increasing insecurity, and many other societal problems. It is our authorities, Skatteverket, Tullverket, and Kronofogden, who ensure that the tax comes in.

Tax revenues do not arise from nothing. They arise when people work. To increase tax revenues, the most important thing is that more people work. A tax system is required that encourages work, and it should always pay to move from benefits to a job. By getting to work, one also enters society and becomes a part of the community. It contributes to integration.

Madam Speaker! In today's situation, economic policy needs to be focused on combating inflation and supporting vulnerable households. The recession shall be met with structural reforms. The work line shall be re-established so that it shall always pay to work, and a benefit reform shall increase the incentives to enter employment. Structural reforms shall be implemented to achieve a competitive and innovative business sector.

With the new government, the policy prioritizes welfare with reforms to combat organized crime, achieve better competence in elderly care, increase the number of qualified teachers, and establish a crisis preparedness that improves energy supply and reduces emissions.

Madam Speaker! The best way to get more people into work and increase growth is to make broad tax cuts that benefit everyone who works. But there are also groups that politics needs to make special investments in. Particularly worrying right now is the large group of the long-term unemployed. The previous Social Democratic government failed to reach them.

We had high unemployment even before the pandemic, but in the economic situation that followed the pandemic, unemployment increased further. Therefore, special measures are required to counteract precisely long-term unemployment. Of course, many different types of measures will be required, but one of these must be to design the tax system so that it contributes to counteracting long-term unemployment.

We Christian Democrats believe that the tax system needs to be designed so that the incentives to extend working life are strengthened. Therefore, we have pushed for people over 65 years of age to receive further tax cuts when they continue to work.

Madam Speaker! As we have all learned during the previous parliamentary term, it is extremely difficult to predict which problems are around the corner. The only thing we can be sure of is that over time, new challenges will arise that need to be addressed. But we now have a government that conducts a policy that results in more people entering the workforce, and thus we have a strong starting position when new problems are to be addressed. The Christian Democrats have therefore worked and will also continue to work for a tax policy that leads to more people working more.

Sweden now has a government that prioritizes removing the long queues to healthcare and which works to create equal healthcare across the entire country so that the quality of care is not determined by where you live.

Sweden has a government that prioritizes the work of increasing safety and, once and for all, cracking down on the serious crime that plagues entire residential areas.

Sweden already has a high tax burden, and in order to maintain trust in the tax system, the tax levels must be reasonable and justifiable and stimulate work and entrepreneurship.

Madam Speaker! During the Social Democrats' eight years in power, insecurity has spread throughout the entire society with serious crime taking control over many of the socially vulnerable areas.

Today, more than 1 million people cannot support themselves while employers are desperately crying out for labor. The Swedish labor market is not adapted to today's needs. There are those who have a demanding job to go to every day and those who do not have a job and who live on benefits year after year.

It is a total failure. After eight years with the Social Democrats, they have not succeeded in reversing the trend but have instead allowed long-term unemployment to take hold. More and more people have ended up further away from the labor market. Instead of enabling more people to get into jobs and self-sufficiency, they have allowed exclusion to grow. The distance for all those who are far from work has only become greater. The Christian Democrats want it to be profitable to take a job.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has 1.1 million companies. Of these, 99 percent are small businesses. Four out of five jobs are created there. Small business owners are important for more jobs to be created. They are the backbone of our common welfare.

We want to see more people realize their dream of starting a business, especially among women. Therefore, our Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch has specifically highlighted their needs. With strong entrepreneurship and a good business climate, we reduce bureaucracy and stop increased capital taxes. Then we become attractive for business establishments and investments in Sweden.

Policy must continue to be focused on reforms to combat organized crime, increase the number of qualified teachers, shorten healthcare queues, increase the number of healthcare beds, strengthen the defense and crisis preparedness, as well as improve the energy supply and reduce emissions. For that, we need a responsible fiscal policy, and we get that with this government.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the Finance Committee's proposal. Since this is my last debate this parliamentary year, I would like to express my thanks to the parliamentary staff, who are always professional and guide us well. Thanks also to the members of the Committee on Taxation for good cooperation! I wish everyone a pleasant summer.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker and others watching and listening! I thought it was very unfortunate that the Minister for Finance had to leave, but I understand that she has other things on her agenda. I would like to comment on something she said, even though she is not present. The Minister for Finance said something about the Swedish Competition Authority having been tasked to ensure that food prices do not skyrocket because retailers are charging unreasonably high prices.

Madam Speaker! I actually believe that most traders are hard-working. Most traders are not large entrepreneurs who drive around in the newest Mercedes cars, which some unfortunately like to paint in the media and debates. The general profit is approximately 4-6 percent for a trader. You should also consider that the state collects 12 percent in VAT on food. The state therefore generally receives a larger share of every hundred kronor than the trader.

Then we have not gone through the entire food chain from farm to fork. There are very many taxes, fees, and regulations that could be simplified for the primary producer, that is to say the farmer, for the one who transports the food, for the sausage manufacturer, and for the store. But it is clear that it is more complicated to discuss that question than to point at the retailers as the main culprits.

I will personally, together with the Center Party, return to this discussion in the autumn in the Committee on Taxation, because I believe it is time to conduct a review if there is a serious desire for us to have more farmers producing food in this country. Possibly, one could also lower the costs for ordinary people.

Madam Speaker! A few days ago, 32 farmers wrote an open letter in Aftonbladet. I do not know if my colleagues have read that opinion piece. An appeal was made regarding biogas, which we have discussed quite a bit in the Committee on Taxation. An EU judgment led to the tax exemption disappearing overnight. The farmers pointed out that things are very poorly situated right now and that they are living in uncertainty. They do not know whether this will come back or not, and they are asking the government to try to work on the issue as quickly as possible.

As I have said here in the speaker's chair earlier, I have personally visited the farmers Mattias and Thomas Nilsson, a pair of brothers who live in Kulbäcksliden outside Vindeln in my own home district. Both they and the 32 farmers who signed the Aftonbladet article have invested large sums of money in biogas plants on their farms. They have now received a very large tax hit. It was believed, because tax exemptions were promised from the EU side between 2020 and 2030, that they would dare to invest, which many also did. It is during the last two or three years that they have dared to take the step and make these large investments. The brothers from Västerbotten whom I spoke about invested in their plant quite a few years ago, but then I believe it cost 10 million. That is not something one just pulls out of a hat as a small business owner.

And not only that. This judgment also means that the Swedish Tax Agency has the possibility to demand back tax that has been refunded for 2021 and 2022. The siblings would risk paying 2 million, many other farmers just as much or much more – not to mention larger producers.

It is clear that this is problematic in many ways, Madam Speaker, not least because the gas has already been sold at prices based on the assumption that no tax would be imposed. But it becomes worse than that. Since the tax exemption no longer applies, the biogas becomes radically more expensive, and the conditions for selling the product and making a profit are very poor.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, it does not stop there. The consequences become even more extensive and affect multiple levels. It is a catastrophe for the producers, and it is really bad for the farms, which have made large investments to be able to operate fossil-free and at the same time do a decent business. Now they are locked in with expensive vehicles and even more expensive fuels for which there is presumably a rapidly declining interest to produce. In the next level, it also affects farmers who have acquired machines and vehicles when they calculated with tax-free biofuels. In the end, it is all of us who have to bear the cost, either at the checkout in the grocery store or through all the consequences that arise when it becomes too expensive to produce.

Madam Speaker! The ambition to make biogas tax-free has been very good and, in the best of worlds, could have created more revenue streams for, for example, Swedish farmers. But if private companies, small and somewhat larger, are to invest millions in facilities, they must be able to rely on the fact that the policy keeps what it promised. Now, it has obviously gone wrong, and in that case, the problem must be handled quickly and clearly. I believe everyone in here agrees that it is completely unreasonable to demand money from the companies in retrospect as a result of mistakes that they themselves do not have control over. The producers have followed the rules. That the EU Commission and the government have failed to keep what they promised should not be blamed on the one who has invested.

Madam Speaker! In order to move forward on the issue, the Center Party submitted a proposal for a committee initiative to the Riksdag's Committee on Taxation. We demanded that the government ensure that there would be no clawbacks for Swedish biogas producers regarding tax exemptions for biogas that have already been granted by the Swedish Tax Agency, and that the government should immediately restore full tax exemption with the support of the EU's General Block Exemption Regulation, also called GBER, which according to the industry is a significantly faster path to a possible solution than a new state aid approval.

Unfortunately, I must say from the bottom of my heart - but there is still an opportunity to change one's mind; now I look at my colleagues here in the chamber - if the government parties and SD did not want to proceed with this initiative. They referred to the fact that the work is already being done by the government. In practice, this means that biogas producers, haulage companies, farmers and others will have to wait 15-18 months for a yes or a no from the EU Commission. I would say that is a catastrophe in itself, and it risks, unfortunately, killing the biogas market in Sweden if things go really badly.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about wind power. Eight out of ten municipalities say no to wind power today. It is not because the municipalities are ill-intentioned or unwilling to contribute to fossil-free electricity production, but they do so because it is completely rational. Yes, you heard correctly. It is actually the national policy that has created this problem. Therefore, it was disappointing that no clear answers were provided regarding the municipalities' path forward in the recently presented investigation on incentives to municipalities for the construction of wind power.

Because there are answers. In practice, there exist today two very obvious measures that would significantly improve the situation for the municipalities and for neighbors who are concerned about establishments. I have full understanding that the public may not always appreciate a new establishment if it ends up right on their doorstep, regardless of whether it concerns an industry or wind power, because it, for example, affects housing prices. It is clear that the neighbors must get a share of the economic cake. When the local environment is affected, more of the local values must stay just locally.

That is why it was such a pity that the investigation's additional directive, which arrived during the committee's time this spring, stated that one should not be allowed to affect the state tax. It is a pity, because the property tax could have gone back to the municipalities – as it does in Finland. I can say that many small Finnish municipalities in the countryside fight for wind power establishments because they receive something back at the same time. Why should one allow wind power exploitation if there are no carrots at all? That is something the government and SD can reflect on over the summer. It is a small concession from my side.

When it comes to the establishment of wind power, the same thing has happened previously with hydropower, not least in Norrland. We – I say "we" – submit hundreds of millions in property and energy taxes every year, and when the state then distributes the money, it is based on population size. In a practical sense, Ragunda, Jokkmokk, and other municipalities have become production colonies that are given no conditions at all to develop, despite the enormous values that they contribute.

With this as a background, it is also logical, Madam Speaker, that locally there is no intention of letting history repeat itself. The State must return the property tax that today goes straight to Rosenbad to the municipalities where it belongs. It can contribute to business development and vitality, while simultaneously creating a compensation for the natural resources that are being utilized.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I did not intend to request a reply to Helena Lindahl. However, I want to clarify the claim regarding the biogas, because I believe that people listening to the debate risk misunderstanding what has happened.

First, I want to say that biogas is very important for Sweden's green transition, and the tax exemption has been an important tool. All of us parties stand behind it. Then it was very unfortunate that a German company appealed the Swedish tax exemption. That led to the EU stopping it.

I want to clarify that the committee initiative proposed by the Center Party in the Committee on Taxation could not be implemented. If a new notification is made according to the general block exemption regulation, GBER, in the EU, Sweden needs, without any prior approval from the Commission, to ensure that it does not constitute any overcompensation. This is not simple, because every company must be examined one by one. Furthermore, a notification according to GBER does not guarantee that the tax exemption will not be overturned by the Court of Justice of the EU.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Boriana Åberg!

I also believe it is important to say that it is not the government that has decided that it should be this way, but this is an EU judgment.

However, I have said before, and I say it again, that I believe it is important for the government to communicate the conditions and the work that is being done externally. Right now, there are very many who are living in limbo and are very worried, for example biogas producers and farmers, because one knows nothing more than what one might read in the newspaper.

Should one then wait for a review of the state aid rules, which takes 15 to 18 months, or try to apply via GBER, the General Block Exemption Regulation? For me personally, it doesn't matter as long as it goes as quickly as possible. The industry has wanted GBER, and they have also read through all the conditions and calculated it. It is said that one would rather get a yes or no earlier in the process than wait up to a year and a half and potentially then get a no, because in that case the biogas market is dead.

During this time, one is therefore living in limbo. It is very expensive for, for example, all the trucking companies that have invested in new biogas vehicles. A few months ago, one paid almost 5 kronor more for gas at the pump than for diesel. It is clear that it becomes much more expensive, plus it provides no incentives for others to convert their truck fleets.

When I have spoken with the industry, people have said that they have very close contact with the government and that they still think, through the calculations they have made themselves, that GBER is the best. I am simply proceeding from this.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the option of getting a quick yes or no does not exist. A legislative change is required for the tax exemption to be able to meet the conditions from the EU level, so the proposal is in no way something that can be realized overnight.

Even more complicating, however, is that a notification of tax exemption, which the Center Party has proposed, does not change the question of whether the tax exemption constitutes an overcompensation of the EU's state aid rules. The only option that exists is to hope that the machinery grinds faster than the 15 to 18 months.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I hear what Boriana Åberg says, and I also know that State Secretary Carolina Lindholm at the Ministry of Finance was here and told us. However, I have spoken with the industry, and there they say that one sees only a small risk of overcompensation and that the Swedish Energy Agency had made a miscalculation. The risk is therefore not as great as the Ministry believed.

On the other hand, we can stand here and debate as much as we want about who is right and who is wrong. I simply assume that the industry also knows what they are doing, and I understand that people want it to go as quickly as it possibly can. There is still a difference between 18 and 9 months, even if in both cases it is a long time when one is worried and does not know what will happen with one's investment. The producers are, after all, certainly owing the banks quite a lot of money, and a lot of time and effort has been put into the investments. The trucking industry is also very worried.

I believe that Boriana Åberg and the government are very aware of this. My role is more to be a sounding board, and I will continue with that after the summer. Until then, I wish Boriana Åberg a very pleasant summer! As said, we will continue to discuss the issue further ahead.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals' position is that the tax system should be designed so that it favors diligence, ambition and education. When it is more attractive to work, invest and start companies, we get a larger cake to share for the so important common welfare.

In order to be able to build a strong common welfare, we need good tax conditions for individuals and entrepreneurship. That is how we can ensure that there are more teachers in the classrooms, doctors and nurses at the health centers, and police officers in the squares. The more people who work and start companies, the larger the cake for our common welfare becomes.

It is not, therefore, as many of the left-wing parties claim: that more tax will enter the system if taxes are as high as possible. Lowering taxes can lead to more growth and, in that way, to higher tax revenues. It is a good distribution policy that leads to more resources for the welfare that we all want. The Liberals want to fight poverty. The Socialists want to fight wealth.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is leaving a historical period behind. Interest rates have been very low, and indebtedness has been rewarded. This has led to high indebtedness among households and companies, which has grown at a high speed in line with the interest rate increases. Now a more normalized period awaits, but many households and companies will enter it with large private debts as the Riksbank raises interest rates.

In these times, it is therefore reasonable to adopt a tight budget and a spring budget amendment that targets the most vulnerable. That is exactly what this government did in its budget and what we are now doing in the spring budget amendment, and this is the vision we have in the guidelines for economic policy.

The most important thing now is to fight inflation. High inflation makes us all poorer and hits the most vulnerable households and our municipalities and regions. To then have an expansive budget is like pouring gasoline on the fire.

I also want to add that Sweden is very resilient. We are now in a situation with more normal interest rate levels, and we can see that unemployment has not risen. But note that the situation is very serious and that it needs to be handled wisely so as not to worsen the situation with the high inflation! If one is to believe the economic experts, we can expect further interest rate hikes from the Riksbank.

Furthermore, we have a historically undervalued currency which causes us to import inflation to Sweden. It is time to once and for all end the krona and join the euro cooperation to achieve a more stable and predictable economic development in Sweden. When we woke up this morning, we could note that the krona had almost hit a record low last night. The krona is at historically low levels. Therefore, I want to repeat my party leader Johan Pehrsons demand: Now is the time to investigate an entry into the euro cooperation.

Madam Speaker! It must become easier to run businesses, and those who work must be able to live on their wages. The work line is more crucial than it has been in a long time. No one benefits from a policy that drives people into unemployment.

That is why I am very pleased that the autumn budget was passed and that both this and the next report on the budget amendment also appear to be set to receive a majority in the chamber. The opposition's fragmented budget proposals with inflation-driving and destructive proposals are not something Sweden needs in tough times like these.

What the government has done and is doing are important measures to facilitate things for the most vulnerable households through an extended and increased housing allowance for families with children. We provide an inflation-protected allowance to the most vulnerable and invest in educational places that the business sector demands to give those without work an opportunity to enter the workforce and to give companies the opportunity to obtain the competence they need to, among other things, manage the climate transition.

Having a job to go to is the most important thing in these tough times. Together with a strong school that focuses on learning outcomes and sees every student's potential, this is the very best recipe to counter exclusion, crime, and mental ill-health, and to create meaning for every individual. Beyond all this, it brings more money into our common welfare.

That is why it is so incredibly important and right that the Liberals and the government are making investments in and prioritizing the school and the preventive work. We showed in the budget that was laid for 2023 that this is our focus, and we will continue to prioritize investments in the school from the Liberals' side so that every student will have the conditions to succeed in school regardless of where in the country they live.

Madam Speaker! It is also important to say that we would need to review several parts of the Swedish tax system to improve it towards simplicity and clarity and ensure that it enables entrepreneurship and increased competitiveness. As a small country in northern Europe, we need to constantly ensure that we are attractive so that people want to start and run companies in Sweden, which leads to jobs and development.

Sweden has several advantages here. There is a great trust in research and development that has taken Swedish innovations out into the world both for increased growth, for climate transition, and to reduce our emissions. Therefore, it is so welcome and good that we will now improve the conditions for entrepreneurship and innovation even further with a strengthened R&D deduction.

Another liberal victory that I look forward to and which will become a reality this mandate period is that we will tax-exempt the first 300,000 SEK in ISK – Swedes' most popular form of savings. In times like these, we see that it is incredibly important to have a buffer. I am fully aware that not everyone has that possibility in their everyday lives. But now we make a difference so that every hundred kronor one can save away becomes worth more in the ISK account the day one needs the money to, for example, be able to buy their home or make another important investment for the future.

Madam Speaker! I believe that this is the most important thing: We shall have a strong trust and high demands on everyone who can work when it comes to them doing just that and contributing to the welfare. I am also convinced that the vast majority want this.

The state should, to the greatest extent possible, refrain from interfering in individuals' choices and lives. We shall let individuals have as much money left in their wallets as possible so that they can make their own life choices, which suit them best.

At the same time, as a social liberal myself, I have experienced and constantly see the importance of having a strong welfare state. The welfare state should be a strong safety net that is there if one falls. It should be without holes so that all individuals can take part in the welfare state, and no one should risk falling through. The safety net should contribute to a school that enables you to succeed regardless of your place of residence or your parents' background.

There must be a strong society that, among other things, sees children who are doing poorly and acts. Society must see the oppressed or vulnerable woman and help her, see the sick person and provide the right care and support, and ensure that one receives the support they need when they get older.

The good thing is that these two visions can be combined. I am completely convinced of that, and that is what I will work for every day as long as I hold this role as a member of the Swedish Parliament.

Madam Speaker! With that, I would like to conclude by saying that it has been an exciting and interesting first year. I would also like to thank the Chancellery and my colleagues in the Riksdag and wish everyone a happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! Tax policy can be a powerful tool for steering society in a more sustainable direction. We demonstrated this during our time in government when we, among other things, lowered the tax on repairs and introduced a bonus-malus system that caused electric car sales to skyrocket. We also ensured that aviation would participate in paying for its climate impact. The tax was lowered for residents in rural areas as part of the green tax shift. We decided on a new, more climate-smart travel deduction that would cover more public transport commuters.

Unfortunately, this government seems to have a different view of the situation; it actually seems to have a completely opposite view. One raises the tax on repairs. Then one lowers the tax on emissions. It is the world turned upside down.

I believe that the vast majority agree with me that it is reasonable to favor what is sustainable. That was the idea when we lowered the tax on repairs. We want to move away from the throw-away society and instead encourage people to repair and reuse what they already have. It contributes to jobs, entrepreneurship, and craftsmanship.

The government simply chose instead to double the VAT for, among other things, tailors and shoemakers from April 1 of this year. It is unfortunately entirely in line with how the government acts in sustainability issues generally.

Climate and repairs are connected in a very important way. It might sound like a small thing, but textile waste actually has the fourth largest environmental and climate impact from a global perspective. In the media, we have been able to see what has unfortunately happened in some cases with clothing recycling. Customers who want to do the right thing take their clothes to stores for recycling - they think. Instead, we have seen that the clothes are sent to poor countries where they are dumped or burned. The average for discarded textiles in the world is 9 kilos per person per year. In Sweden, that figure is 14 kilos - significantly more. This is not a sustainable lifestyle. We must rethink and use the planet's finite resources in a wiser way.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet believe that tax policy should contribute to the transition towards a more circular economy where things are used more efficiently. In addition to lowering the tax on repairs, of course, we believe that the tax system should be restructured to favor circular business models where the price of products is calculated from start to finish, so to speak.

Tax policy also plays an important role when it comes to distribution policy. We in Miljöpartiet support a progressive tax system. If taxes are to be lowered, it should primarily be for low- and middle-income earners.

The government unfortunately does not seem to share that view with us. This year, taxes were significantly lowered for high-income earners, and based on what the Finance Minister has said previously, there may unfortunately be conditions to do so in the future as well.

In addition to appearing to stick to raising the threshold for state income tax, the government has also referred a proposal to specifically lower the tax for high-income earners. It is a completely wrong priority in a situation where municipalities and regions have a very tough economic situation. Unfortunately, this is perhaps what one should expect from the Tidögänget. It is classic right-wing politics: welfare is put on a starvation diet, while taxes are lowered for high-income earners.

Madam Speaker! When we stand here in the chamber and debate taxes, I also want to address the situation for those born in 1957. On 1 January 2023, the age limit was raised in several parts of our pension system. When the retirement age is raised, transitional rules are normally reviewed so that unreasonable consequences do not arise. This has also happened this time – but with one exception, namely regarding the increased basic deduction for persons born in 1957. The consequences of this are that persons born in 1957 have to pay more in tax than other persons who have reached retirement age. It is not okay. The situation for those affected was furthermore worsened by the fact that for a very long time there was no correct information about what applied for the 57s.

That they are now hit by a higher tax is very unfair. We in Miljöpartiet want to rectify this injustice and retroactively compensate the 57s for the higher tax they are forced to pay as a result of failing to introduce transitional rules.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 4. I would also like to thank the chair, the members of the Committee on Taxation and the Secretariat, and wish everyone a pleasant summer.

Guidelines for the economic policy

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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