Guidelines for the economic policy

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! This is the last debate before the summer where we are all gathered, at least in the Committee on Finance. I thought I would start by extending a big and warm thank you to the Committee on Finance's office and to the Chamber. For those of you listening to the debate, I can say: It is not always visible, but the civil servants who assist the politicians here in the Parliament House are essential parts of Swedish democracy. I also extend a thank you to the members of the Committee on Finance for the good atmosphere, constructiveness, and collegial kindness during this term.

With this, Madam Speaker, I intended to enter into today's matter concerning the economic spring proposal, which the government submitted to the Riksdag on April 15 this year. The purpose is to map out the economic policy ahead. We will account for the reasoning that will characterize the autumn budget we present and perhaps even something longer than that. Our proposal clearly shows that we are now on our way to changing tracks. We are entering a new phase in the economy.

But first, Madam Speaker, I thought I would look back. It is good to look at where one comes from when one is moving forward. When the Tidö parties received the voters' confidence in the election, Sweden was in a situation where we had become both poorer and more dangerous.

Sweden practically had the world's highest fuel prices. Electricity prices hit records as a result of the previous government decommissioning fully functioning nuclear power. For those of you who do not remember, I can tell you that ordinary people had to turn off both electricity and heating during the winter, the coldest months, simply so that electricity bills would not eat up the entire household budget.

Inflation was just over 10 percent when our four parties took over government power. Inflation made food more expensive and households' interest rates higher. It concerned Swedish households, hard-working people, pensioners, parents of small children, villa owners - yes, the list can be long. It has been a long list of trials for Sweden and Sweden's citizens.

It has been tough with the high inflation. At the same time, we have had a situation where gross organized crime has plagued this country. There have been shootings and explosions, but there have also been those who are even more sophisticated and who have eaten their way into what is our common welfare. Money that was intended to go to the various welfare systems, to people with great needs, has been taken. Criminals have been in there and taken a large amount of money. It is about tens of billions per year that could have been used for better things but which instead have fed organized crime.

From day one, the Tidö parties have worked hard to fight inflation, support households - most of all those households with the smallest margins - and invest in healthcare, the police, and defense.

We have strengthened Sweden in a very restless time. We have contributed greatly to the efforts in Ukraine with military materiel but also with civilian support and a good deal of other things.

We have used the largest part of the very limited budget space these years to help municipalities and regions as well as local politicians and regional politicians, who have been given responsibility for what is perhaps the most important thing in our lives. It is about ensuring that our children get a good school, that our parents get good elderly care and that those who become ill get good healthcare. There we have allocated the largest part of the very limited reform space, to ensure that these activities function as well as possible.

Filling up a liter of diesel at the election cost 28 kronor. Now it is down to under 18 kronor per liter. The opposition's grand speeches about broken promises and everything else have fallen silent, because this government, our four parties, has delivered in area after area. It has become cheaper. People can now afford to fuel their cars. It is not very cheap with the electricity bills, but they have come down significantly in price. And we have a long-term plan to rebuild nuclear power in Sweden. Nuclear power, Madam Speaker, is important for the green transition, for industry, and not least so that households will have reasonable electricity bills in the future.

Everything was clearly not the previous government's fault - that I want to say clearly. But a large part of the problems that we have had to solve were the previous government's fault. They created them with high fuel prices and decommissioned nuclear power. Some problems should have been addressed in a more comprehensive way and solved, which was not done. Crime and insecurity were allowed to continue spreading.

When we now, Madam Speaker, look forward, it is important to carry with us: Where do we come from? Now we are to build Sweden both safer and wealthier again. Fighting inflation has been the overarching goal. I tried to explain why. It has been the workers' worst enemy. High inflation hits those with the smallest margins the hardest. Those who have it the hardest are those who have to pay the highest price. This government, our coalition parties, has tried to lighten the burden for those who have had to take a large part of it.

But there are now bright spots. Inflation looks to be coming down to more reasonable levels. Hopefully, we can reach the inflation target of 2 percent during this year. It will make a big difference for both households and companies.

When it comes to the long-term outlook for the recovery, we must ensure that we do everything we can to permanently strengthen Swedish growth. We have had lower growth figures all the way back to the financial crisis than what we have seen historically in Sweden. Sweden is not alone in this, but it has also characterized other countries in our vicinity. But the fact remains, Madam Speaker: It is growth that builds prosperity and ensures that people can live good lives in our country.

The development driven by entrepreneurship, innovation, and technological gains has made it possible for a worked hour today to generate more value than before. For prosperity to continue to increase, we must do more. We need a growth agenda. We need a focus on investments in infrastructure, green transition, and good energy production, and we need to facilitate for companies through regulatory simplifications and by ensuring the availability of competence.

Investments in both school and higher education are absolutely crucial to succeed in this. The Government will present a research and innovation bill and an infrastructure bill, both of which will further contribute to the ambitions we have for Sweden. The productivity commission that the Government appointed during 2023 has now managed to present its partial report and will submit its final report on its assignment next year.

A strong future economy of course does not only benefit everyone who lives and works in Sweden, but is also a requirement for us as a country to be able to invest in the very most important things. The climate issue, Madam Speaker, can only be solved in a growing economy characterized by resilience and good competitiveness. It is about growth that occurs in the right way to solve problems rather than being a threat. A strong economy is required to secure safety. The common welfare is naturally an important part, and this also includes crime prevention.

Being able to move safely without being afraid is one of the most fundamental issues of freedom in a country. To trust that institutions are kept free from undue influence from criminal elements is a fundamental right and should be a self-evident matter in every rule of law state.

The government is now carrying out the largest offensive in Swedish history against organized crime. We will make Sweden safer again.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I also want to mention the investments that the government is making in the spring budget revision that was presented during the spring. It covers over 17 billion kronor for our common security. It is about supplements to the welfare, primarily to healthcare. It is about strengthening security here in Sweden by upgrading the police and the justice system, but also in the outside world through investments in crime fighting, a strengthened defense, and increased ambitions to help Ukraine get Russia away from its country.

We have a difficult time behind us. We do not have a completely easy path ahead of us. But we now see bright spots and great opportunities to lead Sweden on the right path into the future.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It has been two months since the government presented its spring budget, and Sweden still faces the same major challenges. Households are still under heavy pressure from high prices. We are still in an acute healthcare crisis, and gang violence continues to plague our everyday lives.

When the government presented its budget, they had an opportunity to change direction, to seriously address the problems Sweden faces. But they chose not to take that chance. Instead, it became clear that the SD-government does not understand what everyday life looks like for ordinary people across Sweden.

I believe that people would have expected the government and the Sweden Democrats to deliver a solution to stop the acute healthcare crisis we have in Sweden. I believe that the Swedish people would have expected measures here and now to unite the country and stop the new recruitment to gang crime. I believe that people would have expected support for ordinary households who are finding it very difficult to get through the cost crisis.

But some such investments were not included in the spring budget. Instead, the government came forward with a jumble of proposals to solve its own problems. It is money for airports and agency cooperation and a substantial supplement for the government's own staff in the Government Offices.

Some of this is certainly good. On the other hand, resources to the Crime Prevention Council are being reduced at the same time as municipalities are working very hard to try to find the right tools to reduce new recruitment and push back gang crime. We need more research-based material to know what actually yields results when we want to push back the explosions and shootings in the future.

The government unfortunately provides no positive long-term news to healthcare despite the warnings that are now being issued, and they are not providing the relief measures for the most pressured households that would have truly been needed in this situation. When I read the government's budget, and perhaps above all listen to the debate here today, I ask myself whether the government and Sverigedemokraterna are taking in how things look in the country. It is obvious that the government is living in a different reality than the rest of Sweden.

The spring budget was a chance for the government to shift to a new course for Sweden. They did not take it, and it is then our task to show that there is an alternative.

Madam Speaker! The first thing I want to discuss today is the national healthcare crisis. I mean that the SD government has created the national healthcare crisis we have in Sweden. The regions are budgeting for billion-kronor deficits during 2024 and warn that thousands of services are about to disappear. Waiting times are getting longer, the staff is already stressed, and fees are being raised.

This is due to the fact that the government has prioritized away completely necessary resources for Swedish healthcare. First, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna chose to underfund the welfare system in order to be able to implement a tax cut, mostly for the well-off. Then they sat in silence when the regions warned of cuts in the billions. When the government and the Sverigedemokraterna finally found it too embarrassing, they did a U-turn, and the Prime Minister promised on TV that no one would have to be laid off in healthcare.

When the government then presented the spring budget, it became painfully clear that what Kristersson said did not apply. That promise is being broken. Most recently this week, new reports arrived that Region Sörmland is now heading towards a billion-kronor loss and must cut further on staff.

This is how it looks around Sweden.

And the healthcare staff cannot count on things getting better in the future. In the spring budget, the SD-government announces that municipalities and regions can expect fewer resources in the years ahead with reduced appropriations in 2025 and 2026. The government provides short-term grants but rolls back the long-term financing. It is not reasonable. It is not a credible and long-term policy, and then it is not strange if the pressure and the cuts in Swedish healthcare continue.

We Social Democrats have, budget after budget, invested more money in healthcare. In our budget motion for 2023, we chose to double the government's general state grants. In our budget motion for 2024, we doubled the resources to healthcare through increased state grants and staffing investments. To reverse the healthcare crisis, we now propose for the third time a doubling of the government's appropriations to healthcare. This means that we are now injecting a total of 12 billion kronor into healthcare.

We also want to provide the regions with long-term stability by indexing the general state grants with inflation - a floor for the welfare. Healthcare must be able to plan for its staff, not just for this year but also for next year and the years that follow. That is how we build a strong common healthcare and avoid cuts today.

Madam Speaker! Households are still being pressured very hard by the cost crisis. It is very positive that the Riksbank has now begun to lower the interest rate, and I believe that many Swedish households are waiting for the next cut, as the interest cost affects many people's household finances. Even though the inflation rate is now slowing down, the cost level is still very high. Food prices are still sky-high. Rents have increased and will continue to increase. Interest costs remain high.

This is noticeable. Every third household in Sweden struggles to make ends meet. Every other single parent with a lower income cannot afford to put nutritious food on the table. Children are reported to be worried about their family's finances. It is also noticeable that the Swedish people's debts to the Enforcement Authority have reached record levels. The number of families with children being evicted from their homes is the highest in a long time. For very many Swedes, there are many days left in the month when the wages have already been eaten up by the cost increases.

That is how it looks in Sweden today.

It is the Swedish people who have to take the hit when the government ignores what reality looks like. It is the nursing assistant, the bus driver, and the teaching assistant who have to step back when the government takes the side of the banks.

It is not possible to compensate for everything in this cost crisis, but that does not mean that politicians can sit in the stands. When ordinary families have difficulty putting food on the table and our pensioners turn over every penny to be able to pay the bills, politicians must take responsibility and put ordinary people first.

To help families with children, we propose in this budget that upper secondary school students should receive two extra payments of the student grant during the summer by extending the student grant. This would provide a supplement of 5,000 kronor for a family with two children – much-needed money when costs have increased.

We have also proposed other measures to help the families who are struggling the most, including making the extra housing allowance permanent and introducing a temporary increased maintenance support. We have also wanted to see a tax on the banks' excess profits, where the money would go back to the households and to the funding of welfare.

Madam Speaker! Gang crime, the shootings, and the insecurity threaten our social cohesion. Crime and violence harm, kill, split families, and create unrest and fear. Organized crime and the criminal gangs must be fought with force. To reverse this development and stop new recruitment, the entire society needs to join forces.

Given the serious situation, I expected the government to implement some measures in its spring budget to tackle the violence here and now. But none of that is really visible in the budget. Sure - more money was allocated to authorities and the correctional services. Agency cooperation is important, but we see no measures to tackle the problem with new recruitment.

Given the acute situation, we Social Democrats see it as obvious that national measures that can have an effect in the short term are needed. Therefore, in our budget, we propose an investment of 700 million kronor to target young people who are heading into crime. The money shall be used either so that young people get a companion, even as much as around the clock, or for electronic surveillance with an ankle bracelet.

We also allocate 700 million to the municipalities to organize activities that reach out to youth on the margins. During the summer holidays, exclusion and disparities are clarified and reinforced. When children and young people lack meaningful activities, there is a risk that it leads to social vulnerability and, in the long run, to more young people falling into the clutches of criminal gangs. The money allows the municipalities to prevent the summer holidays from becoming a recruitment festival for the gangs.

To tackle crime, investments in schools are also needed. In the Social Democrats' proposal for the spring budget, we double the government's proposed increase to schools. This would mean that schools receive a total of 1 billion in the spring budget to be able to stop cuts in schools and teaching.

But we must also address the deeper problems that the market school model entails today, when staff are forced to prioritize administration over the students and do not have time to sit down with the students who they know would need extra support in order not to fall behind.

Addressing the problems with the marketized school system requires a stop to profit-taking in schools, but as a first step, the Sweden Democrats and the government could have stopped the overcompensation to the independent schools in the school funding. That alone could have prevented 2 billion from leaking out of the schools every year - money that every year could have gone to students and teachers. But the SD government chose to prioritize the school corporations - despite the school minister having said that it is an overcompensation that is ongoing today. Why?

Madam Speaker! In a situation where Sweden is becoming poorer and more dangerous, we need a policy rooted in reality that increases cohesion in our country. We need a budget that stands on the side of the Swedish people and tackles the major societal challenges we face. It requires both long-term stability and powerful measures here and now.

We propose a doubling of the government's supplement to healthcare and provide information on long-term financing.

We propose a targeted initiative to break the recruitment to criminal gangs and ensure that the summer does not become a recruitment festival for gang criminals.

We want to reject the government's cuts to the labor market policy.

We are doubling the government's supplement to the school.

All these proposals are fully funded through the tax on the banks' excess profits that we are proposing. Politics is about priorities, and we prioritize households and welfare over the banks.

When the Sweden Democrats and the government turn a blind eye to reality, we show the Social Democrats that there is an alternative to the government's passivity. With the supplements to school, healthcare, and elderly care that we have proposed during the mandate period, we would not have found ourselves in this acute crisis. When the Sweden Democrats and the government let ordinary people take the hit from the crisis, we are able to prioritize differently. When the SD-government pursues a policy that splits society, we choose cohesion. That is how you lay a spring budget that takes responsibility for Sweden.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden, just like the rest of the world, has had a situation with high inflation, as Member Damberg described.

The recent crises have shown that Sweden's economy is closely intertwined with the rest of the world. This was shown by both the financial crisis in 2008 and the corona pandemic.

Member of the Board Damberg said in his speech today that the problems have been worse in Sweden. He has said that several times before.

For my part, I do not agree with the reasons why Sweden has had greater problems. I would like to assert that the reason is clear.

It is among other things our weak currency that has increased inflation even further in Sweden. We have imported additional inflation when we imported, for example, food, which we do to approximately 50 percent. That has caused inflation to rise more here. It is not just about food but also about fuel prices and all other things that we are dependent on. Sweden is a country dependent on both exports and imports.

That is why the Liberals are clear that what is best for Sweden's growth in the long term should be that we introduce the euro as a currency instead. It would also have dampened this type of crisis if we had had a stable world currency instead of a weak krona that is very volatile when the world is uncertain.

I wonder what Member Damberg thinks about this. Can he see that this is a reason why Sweden has had higher inflation and slightly larger problems?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Cecilia Rönn for the question!

It is an interesting question, but it is rather uninteresting to discuss it right now because the Liberals are part of a government that does not pursue the demand to join the euro. It therefore does not solve Sweden's problems.

One can have a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the euro. Would it have eased inflation? What would happen to our growth? How do we fit into the optimal currency area in Europe, and how would it develop over time? There are both advantages and disadvantages. I can state that Sweden, since the euro was introduced, has had stronger economic growth over time than many euro countries.

One can have different arguments for the euro, but it is not an argument that helps companies in Sweden. It is not an argument that helps households that are affected by Sweden having had higher inflation than many neighboring countries.

Then we are back to the government's analysis. If we have now had higher inflation than many of our neighboring countries, what have we done to support the households that have been hit hard by this?

All our Nordic neighboring countries have increased the child allowance during the crisis. Why has the Swedish government not increased the child allowance?

We have had poorer growth in Sweden than in the rest of Europe or at least been at the bottom of the barrel in recent years. There are certain sectors that have been hit harder than others by this economic crisis.

The interest rate hikes have hit the construction industry, very hard. Why have we allowed the construction crisis to drag straight into the Swedish economy and lower growth even further? Why has the government done nothing to prevent the layoffs and the bankruptcies in the construction sector? Is this good economic policy, here and now for our growth, but above all for the young people who dream of a home and for the women who actually divorce their husbands and need somewhere to live?

The policy that is needed in tough times holds society together, and my argument here is that the government has not quite understood how hard this crisis has hit both households and certain sectors. The construction sector is one such, and there the government could have made different choices.

Furthermore, there is a different view on distribution policy and welfare policy that has now managed to break through in the government's budget work.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I think it is fantastic to hear how proactive Member Damberg is now.

It is not actually during the two years that have passed since the 2022 election, when MP Damberg was no longer the Minister for Finance, that all these problems have arisen. The MP and their party have held government power for quite a long time over the last 20 years and have had great opportunities to do many of these things during that time if they had wanted to.

What the government has done during this period of high inflation, high interest rates and a difficult situation is to try to mitigate the effects for those who are most vulnerable, while simultaneously having spent money where it has been needed here and now, but also looked forward at, for example, education and school.

It is still the case that we are now 1 of 7 countries out of a total of 27 that stand outside the euro cooperation, and that has major effects on the Swedish economy both previously and moving forward.

Support from the Swedish people has also increased very much when it comes to whether we should join the euro. Among entrepreneurs, a majority now want us to change currency as it is known that we are both export- and import-dependent.

Would it not be good to have a debate on this issue so that it does not turn out like when the Social Democrats changed their minds about Nato? They did it in a very short time without a debate where the Swedish people could participate.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Swedish people appreciated that when Russia invaded Ukraine, we took in the new reality and acted on it. There was very strong support among the Swedish people for NATO membership, and I appreciate that.

It doesn't mean that it is stupid that we, in an emergency situation where security policy in Europe is being overturned, actually make a new decision in the Swedish Riksdag with very broad political consensus. I think it is a strength that reality affects the policy and the direction.

I think it is good to have a debate about the euro, but the Liberals primarily need to have that debate with the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates, who have made it clear that it is not relevant for this government to work on the euro issue or become a member. It becomes, so to speak, theoretical.

I have no problem discussing the euro, but we can perhaps start by focusing on the weak growth in Sweden. We can start by focusing on the fact that we have a national healthcare crisis that this government has created. We can discuss why this government has not increased the child allowance as previous Social Democratic governments have done, because it is known that it is very good distribution policy.

The risk with this cost crisis is that it is children and young people who pay the price of the crisis and that there will be long-term costs because children and young people are going through tough times now, in school but also in the household economy, which affects Sweden in the long term. I believe that is weak, and I believe that is bad politics. A different direction in politics is required than the one that this government has presented so far.

But I am happy to participate in a discussion about the euro. I myself voted yes to the euro the day we had a referendum. But I am not entirely convinced that there are only arguments for the euro, considering the economic development since Sweden stood outside.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I intended to base my remarks a bit more on what Mikael Damberg actually said in the rostrum. He called the supplementary budget a muddle of proposals. Included in this muddle of proposals is the sector grant of 6 billion kronor. I remember how the debate sounded half a year ago. Then, 6 billion was the difference between standing up for the welfare and demolishing it. I know that in politics, one likes to use slightly stronger words than might be necessary.

What I noted when Mikael Damberg gave his speech was that he was careful not to mention SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, even once. I believe there is a reason for this. In May, SKR delivered another economic report. When I read it, I was struck by a couple of interesting facts.

SKR says in its report that it is believed that within the regions during 2024 there are economically motivated needs to reduce the workforce by 5,000 people, and during 2025 by an additional 700 employees. Then the sector grant of 6 billion kronor comes in. That corresponds to 7,000 nurses.

On page 79, SKR writes the following: "In the revised budget for 2024, a one-time sum directed towards health and medical care of 6 billion kronor is proposed. This is much needed and facilitates the economic adjustment, and for once it is justified that the supplement is only notified for one year."

SKR is therefore making the same assessment as the government, namely that a temporary effort is required. I would like to know how Mikael Damberg reasons regarding this.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Hans Eklind, for an interesting question! It focuses on the healthcare system's economic problems in a somewhat broader perspective. In that case, one must look not only at one budget but at several budgets in succession.

We have warned that the cost crisis will have major consequences for welfare, primarily for healthcare but also for the school. We said this already a couple of years ago, because we saw that this would have an effect. This applies not least to the pension costs, which are of a more temporary nature, while other things are about more long-term development; demography places new demands on both elderly care and healthcare.

That is why we have doubled the general state grant investments. Then we doubled the investments in healthcare, and now we choose to once again double the investments in healthcare.

Hans Eklind ends up once again in a theoretical discussion about whether this would have been enough to save the 5,000 jobs that are disappearing anyway. No one has withdrawn the stakes or the cuts; they are continuing, after all. Had the government's extra funds led to what the Prime Minister said on TV – now we are not going to lay off more people in healthcare – we would not have this debate.

Then my reflection is the following. I understand that there is a difference between temporary measures here and now, which relate to pension costs, and more long-term planning conditions. But if the regions do not know what applies next year, but read the budget and believe they will receive less money next year and the year after, they may not dare to retain the staff they would like to retain. And it will not be easier to get that staff back in this very tough situation.

That is why we have said that, alongside the usual budget discussions, we also want a foundation for the financing of welfare, where we index the state grants with inflation so that the municipalities have planning conditions. This is a way to handle the long-term issues, and then we handle more acute interventions in the budget here and now. That is how we have reasoned when we have chosen to double the investment in healthcare in several budgets in a row. The government underestimates reality, and now we are getting major problems in healthcare, which will affect the staff and the patients.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! We shall, of course, be very careful that it is directly elected politicians at the municipal and regional level who have the taxing power. They also, of course, have an immensely important responsibility to both prioritize and make correct investments. I note that there is no party in Sweden's Riksdag, neither in the government nor among the opposition parties, that fully compensates. We must not make a mountain out of a molehill.

I still want to return to the fact that such a big deal is made out of the fact that 6 billion kronor are missing - it is said that we are destroying welfare and tearing down healthcare. When then the sector contribution of 6 billion directed to the regions is introduced in a healthcare budget, it is the largest individual investment that this government makes in the healthcare budget. There are reasons for this: The government naturally follows what is happening out in the regions and realizes that we must make a supplement.

I think, Mikael Damberg: Could it not be appropriate to say this in such a debate, instead of saying that it continues to be the case that everything is being smashed together with the policy being pursued? It feels a bit unreasonable when we know that approximately 20 percent of what municipalities and regions receive in revenue consists of state grants.

We may have to return to this, but I thought it was interesting that Mikael Damberg said from the rostrum that it is now time to show that there is an alternative in Swedish politics. Then I thought: Please, tell me more! What does that alternative look like? You don't agree on anything. It would be exciting to hear a bit more about how you intend to proceed. There is nothing in your shadow budgets that suggests you have an alternative at all.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! When 5,000 people lose their jobs in healthcare, the Christian Democrats in a right-wing government cannot expect applause from the Social Democrats. It is reality that governs our priorities. Then it cannot be a theoretical discussion about us being kind to you because you provide temporary money to healthcare, which demonstrably has no effect. In that case, you are doing something wrong. Perhaps you started at too low a level so that healthcare was underfunded from the very beginning; that is what we claim, at least.

That was why we said no to the large tax cut that you in your first budget said was absolutely necessary and could not be done in any other way—which took billions in resources that could have gone to municipalities and regions and for which we proposed a different use. The following year, it was then possible to do as we had suggested. The question is whether next year it will sound like it is possible to make investments in healthcare that one forgot to make this year.

But then reality has already passed. People have already lost their jobs, the queues are longer and the patients have been affected. Reality should also govern the budget work for the Kristdemokraterna when it comes to such an important issue as welfare funding.

That is why I am trying to assert that it requires several budgets in a row, with priorities and direction, but also that we should discuss a baseline for the financing so that municipalities and regions have something to plan from even moving forward. Otherwise, it might just become one-off funds. It is said that some extra money will come during the year, but it is not possible to plan long-term based on that. Then you do not get the effect on the operations that you wanted.

We will hold the line on the healthcare issue, and we will face reality. It is reality that determines whether the government has made the right priorities or not. Right now, when 5,000 people risk being removed from Swedish healthcare, it seems that the government has made the wrong priorities.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The fight against inflation is won. I am aware that I touched upon this already last winter, in the budget debate we had then, but this is so central. The inflation that began to spiral during the previous mandate, under the previous government, has affected so much and so negatively that it has been our absolute highest priority to combat it. We have also done that, with a cautious and well-considered economic policy, and we have done it successfully.

The forecast is that KPIF, which is the inflation measure that the Riksbank primarily looks at, will be at the target level from now on. It is this that has made it possible for the Riksbank to begin lowering the interest rate. We can also observe that Sveriges riksbank lowered the interest rate quite a bit before the ECB, the euro countries' central bank, began doing the same. This is extremely central, of course. Slowly but surely, step by step, it will simply become a bit cheaper to live in Sweden.

Almost no Swedish wage earner - there are certainly some exceptions - has had a wage development that has exceeded inflation during the period we are now leaving behind. This means de facto that one has become poorer.

But now this is changing. Now the situation is the opposite. Now we are entering a period where wages increase more than prices increase. This means that one gets increased purchasing power. One becomes a little richer. It will take some time to catch up, but now we are moving in the right direction.

Why do I then mention that inflation began to spiral during the previous mandate period, under the previous government, when it is largely a global phenomenon? Yes, there are elements in this that the Riksdag and the government can influence at a national level. It is about the prices of input goods, i.e., things like electricity, fuels and so on. They in turn affect the price of the final product, pretty much regardless of what final product we are talking about.

Electricity prices in Sweden skyrocketed because the Social Democrats pushed through a completely unnecessary – catastrophic, I would like to say – premature decommissioning of fully functioning nuclear reactors. It affected the electricity price, and it affected the price of virtually everything else too, besides making things difficult for households.

Fuel prices skyrocketed because the Social Democrats pushed through a terribly ill-considered experiment with so-called reduction obligation. We had the world's highest fuel prices during the last parliamentary term. Nota bene: The world's highest! It also affected the prices of everything else.

Now we have reversed this experiment that the Swedish people were subjected to. Furthermore, we have lowered taxes. Suddenly, we have some of the lower fuel prices on the continent. Diesel is today 10 kronor cheaper and gasoline approximately 3.50 cheaper, compared to when the Tidö parties took over. And more is coming. There will be further tax reliefs already by the turn of the year, that is, in just a little over half a year.

Madam Speaker! The message in the economic spring proposal and the supplementary budget is also that the supplementary grant in the housing allowance, which we have strengthened and extended a number of times, will be extended further.

One simply cannot do everything, as some opposition politicians seem to believe. One particularly cannot do it in times of high inflation. One cannot fight high inflation by printing more money. It is essentially like trying to put out a fire with gasoline, which in itself is incredibly fun but not to be recommended. One has to learn to prioritize with limited resources.

Families with children with a low economic standard - it concerns just over 100,000 child households - is precisely the type of prioritization we want to make. On average, our decision means just over 1,000 kronor a month, for some significantly more.

In the large sense, Madam Speaker, the course is fixed. I and the Sweden Democrats already said during the election campaign – and I am speaking of the parliamentary election – that internal and external security will be in focus for this mandate period. Internal and external security will need to be prioritized, because that is how Sweden and the rest of the world looks. We have war in the heart of Europe, and we have gang crime at home that, in at least some respects, takes the form of a kind of low-intensity war, even if it is not fully comparable to the front in Ukraine.

We have not won the fight against gang crime, not yet. But we will do it. The reason why the Prison and Probation Service is allocated an additional 1.38 billion kronor in this year's spring budget amendment is that the agency is to prepare to house many more tenants as we break up and lock up the gangs. We have a completely different level of ambition than the previous government had. We have a completely different view on the very concepts of crime and punishment.

It is, therefore, a paradigm shift. It is no exaggeration. There is much left to do, but we are definitely on the right track.

The expansion and arming of the Armed Forces continues as well. The same applies here: There is much left to do, but we are on the right track. It did not move much at all during either the last or the previous parliamentary term. Now it is moving, quite fast even, and it is going in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! We within the Tidö parties have also agreed on a Ukraine framework. It is extremely important. It concerns 75 billion kronor for the years 2024, 2025 and 2026. It is important that these two things do not, so to speak, compete with each other. There is no competition between the armament here at home, in the Realm of Sweden, and the military support to Ukraine in their war of defense against the terrorist state Russia and against Putin and his war-criminal regime.

In this afternoon's vote, we will not only vote on this, but we will also make decisions regarding Sweden's 16th military support package to Ukraine. It is potent. It concerns high-quality materiel, not least command and control aircraft. It is Stridsfordon 90, Stridsvagn 122, Archer, Pansarbandvagn 302, guided missiles, air defense, air surveillance, command and control aircraft, and more. It is such things that the Tidö parties during this mandate period have agreed on and submitted proposals for before the Riksdag, and which all the Riksdag's parties have been able to stand behind, and Sweden has delivered or is in the process of delivering this materiel to Ukraine.

The unity here in the chamber on this issue is a strength. It sends clear signals to Ukraine. It also sends clear signals to Russia in another way. It would be preferable if this unity could persist moving forward as well.

Now we also have an economic plan that extends at least to the end of 2026. Then I have not been any better or worse at speaking than anyone else, but until a Ukrainian victory is achieved, it should be clear where Sweden stands somewhere.

Madam Speaker! I have spoken about the need for priorities due to inflation, primarily, but the need has obviously been reinforced by the war. Of course, it is in that way.

Then I, at least, become a bit upset, to put it mildly, when I read and learn of further examples of what I consider to be proper waste of the taxpayers' money. In this case, it is the Swedish Energy Agency that has lent out a lot of money to a lot of companies that have an alleged green profile. It concerns half a billion kronor. It is our money that they are lending out. It is the taxpayers' money. Here, the money has been thrown straight down into a black hole, because the allegedly green companies have no possibility of paying back the loans. Then the loans have been written off and instead converted into grants.

We therefore have a state authority that pays out hard-working Swedish taxpayers' money to private companies, and that money never comes back. That money is gone. I do not think it belongs to the state's core tasks to play venture capitalists in this way.

Let me just clarify. We have had discussions and exchanges here where we have spoken about Northvolt and Hybrit. I do not interfere in individual companies' business ideas. That is not my job as a politician. But I do interfere if the companies' financing consists of public capital. In that case, I consider it my job.

If private companies raise private capital on a private market, I will not lift a finger. If it goes well, it is great, and if it goes badly, it is not my problem. But when it is public capital and taxpayers' money involved, I will feel a responsibility for it. It both worries me and irritates me that it only seems to be the Sverigedemokraterna who are upset by this. It should not be so. But I will continue to carry on that discussion in the government.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government have a budget cooperation, and that means we stand behind the report we are now debating. Therefore, I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I begin by stating that it is good that there is a broad political consensus on both Nato and the support for Ukraine in the context of the budget. I also think it is good that a discussion is being held on industrial policy, but perhaps not that it should only be held within the government. I become nervous when the Sverigedemokraterna say that the discussion should continue within the government.

The contributions that have been made in previous budget debates have, in fact, threatened the entire new industrialization we see in Sweden and which creates tens of thousands of new jobs in our country. There has been criticism of both sustainable batteries and green steel as well as financing – that Swedish companies would not be allowed to take part in the large international capital that is now landing in Sweden and which creates thousands of new jobs.

We will gladly follow up on the discussion that the Sverigedemokraterna want in the government, because this could be one of the main explanations for why there is so little of the government's industrial policy. A Norrland strategy and a Norrbotten strategy have been promised but have not arrived. There will be different coordination offices but no workshop. It is clear that within Swedish business and Swedish industry, people are becoming nervous that Sverigedemokraterna seem to have put the brakes on regarding large investments coming to Sweden.

My question is somewhat about Oscar Sjöstedt hitting himself in the chest regarding all the promises that were given in the election. One of them was that he would be a guarantor for the welfare. Now there are discussions about a worsened unemployment insurance and discussions about a worsened health insurance, and furthermore, we have a national healthcare crisis. I wonder about the latter.

Do the Sweden Democrats think that the right priorities have been made if 5,000 people are forced to leave healthcare right now? This means additional pressure on the existing staff, longer queues and worse support for the patients. Is it guaranteeing welfare that 5,000 people disappear from Swedish healthcare? Was this what was the Sweden Democrats' guarantee for welfare?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! There were quite a few things, but we will take them in some sort of disorder.

Just as we heard in a previous exchange, the single largest investment in the supplementary budget consists of exactly funds for healthcare. We are providing 6 billion kronor to healthcare. I understand that those belonging to the opposition think that 6 billion is too little and want 7 billion instead - I understand that it works that way - but we think it is a fairly well-balanced investment.

When it comes to the sickness insurance, we have not put any proposals on the Riksdag's table to worsen the sickness insurance. We have absolutely not done that. Furthermore, we have strengthened the unemployment insurance (A-kassan) not just once, but twice. We have strengthened the unemployment insurance twice during this mandate period, which means that we have achieved more in two years than the Social Democrats achieved during two mandate periods.

I will always view it with great and deep skepticism when the state, or the public sector in some other way, enters and owns and operates companies in the way we are discussing here now. It is not the state's task to do that, and it is not the state's task to inject money into what should be private activities. Private companies must find private capital in private markets - and there is plenty of that - but the state should not do it. The state should not sit and play venture capitalist with our tax money. Because it usually does not go well, and it simply does not usually turn out well.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not receive a proper answer regarding healthcare.

It is still the case that staff are being laid off from healthcare and that we have a national healthcare crisis. It is not just one or another region that faces cuts and problems, but virtually all of healthcare Sweden has problems. That means that incorrect national priorities have been made which force the layoffs and the cuts. I can only state that what was said during the election campaign about being a guarantor for the welfare was not worth much, considering that one lets the healthcare system pay for the cost crisis.

I was in Gävleborg County just a short while ago, and there it was discussed that the next step in the savings work is to privatize all health centers. Perhaps that is the Sweden Democrats' plan – first, one underfinances the regions' healthcare, and then one forces through various privatizations – but I do not believe that the Sweden Democrats' voters thought that was the plan, that is, to first make layoffs and then privatize all health centers in Gävleborg County. Is it a good policy, which the Sweden Democrats stand behind, that is being discussed in the regions right now?

Then I can only state that it is strange that the large private companies that choose to make large investments in Sweden should be met with this compact resistance, the hesitation, and the threats that no support will be provided from Sweden - this despite the fact that these international actors are making enormously large investments and creating tens of thousands of jobs in our country. Is Sweden to be the only country that turns down the investments? Shall we turn down the jobs and the export successes that Swedish industry has created by deciding for themselves to lead the green transition?

The truth is that the Sweden Democrats want to wage some kind of culture war against climate policy. Industrial investments, which create new jobs, must not become something sacrificed on SD's altar in a culture war over energy policy and climate policy. That would be bad and costly for Sweden, and I truly hope that the government does not listen to the Sweden Democrats. Unfortunately, it seems that they are doing so.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! How can one degrade such an important issue and simply dismiss it as culture war?

Just a few minutes ago, in my speech, I took up a concrete example that can be read about in the media – I can send the article to Mikael Damberg later – about how one lends out the taxpayers' money and then does not get it back because the companies were not and did not become viable. That money is gone. It is, as it were, disappeared; the taxpayers' money has disappeared.

Out of respect for the taxpayers, I safeguard their money, and then it is dismissed as a statement in some kind of culture war. It is quite nonchalant, primarily towards the taxpayers. It is quite nonchalant not to have that respect for the taxpayers' money, but okay, there we differ.

I have no possibility of answering questions about which decisions Region Gävleborg makes. I do not belong to that region and have no possibility of answering. The Social Democrats, for their part, want to break up all private health centers, if we are to turn it around. But I cannot answer exactly how it looks there, because I do not belong to that region.

I think we have made large additions, among other things through the sector grant to healthcare. Above all, we have provided large sums within the state budget's expenditure area 25, which contains money for the entire municipal sector, that is, both municipalities and regions. Unlike what the previous government did, these are permanent funds that we have injected. These are, therefore, quite large additions that have been made to municipalities and regions, naturally including healthcare.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! It did, in itself, raise quite a few reflections in me.

To avoid any confusion: A government that worsens the unemployment insurance fund will not receive the Sweden Democrats' support. That is what Jimmie Åkesson said before the election. Now, however, there is a different tune being played.

Madam Speaker! Today I actually believe is the day when the deteriorations in the unemployment insurance are being hammered out. In the budget that you yourselves have agreed upon, which you say here, Oscar Sjöstedt, you write that approximately 100,000 more will become unemployed and that they cannot influence their own situation. It is instead cyclical problems that put, for example, construction workers in that situation. The construction crash is therefore making people unemployed.

It would not result in any deteriorations when the unemployment insurance was restructured, said the Finance Minister, backed by the rest of the Tidögänget. Now it turns out, however, that there will be cuts of approximately 4 billion. Those who have to pay are precisely the construction workers and municipal workers, in the form of reduced compensation and a tapering off in the midst of a situation where unemployment is rising. After three months, the compensation is therefore to be tapered down.

Does Member of Parliament Oscar Sjöstedt consider that a reduction of 4 billion is not a saving or a deterioration? What other promises to the voters is Oscar Sjöstedt prepared to break in order to be part of the corridors of power?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was nuanced and good.

We have strengthened the scholarship twice during this parliamentary term. Yes, I consider that which the chamber will vote on this afternoon to be a strengthening of the scholarship. The ceiling will be raised for the second time, and more will be able to qualify for the scholarship. Objectively, it is a strengthening.

The best thing that can happen for us to remedy the construction crisis is that we pursue an economic policy that allows the Riksbank to continue lowering interest rates. That is the absolute best thing that can happen for these companies. One can tweak things a bit on the side, but one cannot escape this fact.

The crisis prevails among companies that have been over-leveraged. There are many companies within the real estate sector that are doing well, because they have not been highly leveraged. The crisis has arisen because many other companies have been highly leveraged and faced major problems when the interest rate went up. This does not only apply to the real estate industry, but it also applies to many other companies that have taken too large risks and borrowed too much. The best that can happen for these companies is that the Riksbank can continue to lower the interest rate.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! With the proposal that we are now going to make a decision on, one saves 4 billion moving forward. It is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of everyone who can read a table, a deterioration and a saving. It is also the case that the fund is nominal, which means that it is not indexed, or increased, by itself. To keep the fund at the same level as during the pandemic, before the cost increases of 25 percent, actually means a reduction of the compensation levels for those who have funds.

The construction industry makes someone else wonder. The same applies to authorities that do not request the return of funds. Oscar Sjöstedt does not take much responsibility himself, even though it is he who presents this budget.

Vänsterpartiet obviously thinks that the ceiling should be raised. At the same time, those who have a low income and work for a long time should have the same opportunities for qualification as others. The absolutely clearest deterioration in the allowance that is now proposed is that the construction workers and healthcare assistants who are unemployed in the crisis are left by the government after three months. They will then receive a sharp reduction in the allowance instead of, as it is now, a continued okay compensation.

Does Oscar Sjöstedt think that a government is not allowed to worsen the welfare system and that one should not be allowed to receive SD's support then? Does the same apply when one saves 4 billion and scales down the welfare system after three months?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Objectively speaking, the ceiling in the allowance is being raised. We are raising it for the second time during this mandate period. We have raised it twice in two years; the Social Democrats did not fix it in two mandate periods. More people will also qualify for the allowance. Those are two objective things.

Yes, a tapering is occurring. This is a very interesting discussion - there are surely those who think it should be tapered even more. We have a tapering after 100 days. One can ask: Should it never be tapered? Should people be able to be unemployed for several years? Now this is my final remark, so the member cannot answer it. It is, however, clear that there must be a balance in this regard. Perhaps there is someone who wants a tapering after 10 days, but I think that is a bit stingy - 100 days might be more reasonable.

One can also go the other way – will it never be scaled back? Should one receive compensation from the unemployment insurance fund for several years if one has become unemployed? It is clear that there must be a balance in this.

Overall, it is objectively true that what we have stood behind, which the chamber will vote on this afternoon, involves a strengthening of the allowance. More people will qualify for the allowance, and the ceiling will be raised. Objectively speaking, this is a strengthening.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I intended to ask a question to Oscar Sjöstedt regarding internal and external security. He said very clearly that this is the Sweden Democrats' priority now and moving forward.

If one is to talk about security, there must be a threat. One threat that we often talk about is the climate threat. Unfortunately, the Sweden Democrats do not do so as often. But it is a threat. It is a threat to economic development, to the food supply, and to people's living conditions. It also threatens stability in Europe and in the world. Droughts that make it impossible to grow anything and impossible to live will force millions of people to flee, and this has already begun.

The climate threat is very much real, and I would say that it threatens both external and internal security. I would like to ask Oscar Sjöstedt if this is something that the Sverigedemokraterna will try to mitigate and do something about. Or will you continue to bury your head in the sand, stop all emission reductions at the national level and at the EU level, lower the development aid that allows more people to have the opportunity to stay and thus - if you continue with that policy - leave a large part of the work of securing Sweden and the world over there?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is probably quite clear for most - I hope at least - that the Sweden Democrats and the Green Party make very different analyses in this issue. My experience and impression is that the Green Party is a threat to economic growth, with all the policy they have pushed through. High-ranking party representatives have even openly stated that we must sacrifice economic growth and worsen our standard of living in order to somehow prioritize the climate on the other end.

I want to go in the opposite direction. I believe that these two things are connected - we cannot solve anything climate-related without having economic growth. I would probably like to turn that completely around.

It is not everyone who has a worldview where carbon dioxide is the most dangerous thing that exists. To begin with, carbon dioxide is a prerequisite for all life that exists. Not everyone goes around being terrified of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is quite good in many respects.

The Green Party and the Sweden Democrats do not make the same type of analysis in this issue. I do not believe that one will get anywhere or be able to solve any problems if one does not have economic growth.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must say that I think it is a remarkable answer that is very worrying. It perhaps is not surprising, as the Sweden Democrats' rhetoric consists of making it sound as if climate policy is a greater threat to the world's development than climate change. There is no truth at all in this. If one listens to the researchers who know something about this, one gets a completely different picture.

Of all the budget proposals lying on this Riksdag's table – though not exactly right now, as it is rather an amendment budget we are debating – perhaps the Environment Party's proposal is the one that would drive the most economic development. In a previous exchange of remarks, the development in Norrland was raised, and we see it in Western Sweden as well. The green transition is what could drive the Swedish economy forward much more strongly, but the Sweden Democrats are putting spokes in the wheels of this.

Oscar Sjöstedt reasoned that carbon dioxide is a prerequisite for life. That is true, but what we are discussing are the levels of carbon dioxide. Right now, the levels are far too high, and heat records are being broken every month. Water is also a prerequisite for life, but one can actually die from too much water. In a very serious debate, this argument becomes something that one can really reflect upon.

We know that the climate threat is serious and will threaten both external and internal security. It already does, but it will become even more serious. This is, however, nothing that the Sweden Democrats will devote any thought to. Should I interpret Oscar Sjöstedt that way?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, that is not how it should be interpreted. I did not say either that we are against all climate policy. It would be strange to be. What I said was that we are against much of the Miljöpartiets climate policy. Of course, there are a lot of wise things to do, and I believe it is incredibly good if as much as possible is electrified. Sweden is quite poor in fossil raw materials, and if we electrify, we become more self-sufficient and independent and less dependent on others, which is very positive. This, however, is based on a lot of things, and then one cannot propagate and vote against nuclear power; it doesn't work.

There is so much in the Green Party's climate policy that is so very wrong. One of your members criticized that Sweden imports a little uranium from Russia. It is easy to criticize, because no one wants to buy things from Russia. But who are the ones who have pushed through a ban on mining uranium in Sweden? Yes, the Green Party. And it just continues; they are against everything. The Green Party's dream society is not a society where everything runs on electricity, but where one travels by horse and carriage. It is provoking.

I have not said that we are against all climate policy, for that would be a very strange thing to be and say. But I am against much of the Green Party's climate policy because it is hostile to growth and I do not want the society you want. In that case, it is probably good that they are two different parties.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Now, Oscar Sjöstedt, we are back in the discussion about the large green industrial investments in Sweden and in particular in northern Sweden, where many of them are located. Once again, the sweeping, general assertion comes that it is only a matter of state subsidies. The problem is not that it should be so, but the problem is that the Sweden Democrats time and again talk down these large investments in Sweden as a whole and in northern Sweden in particular.

Take the example we discussed last time, where the Sweden Democrats in several exchanges claimed that this is just a lot of large public subsidies. I hope this is not the government's policy, given that it is a government at Jimmie Åkesson's mercy. Regarding the investments that have been made in Northvolt in Skellefteå, they currently constitute only 1 percent of the 60 billion in public subsidies. The member mixed this up with, just as he does today, the subsidies other countries give Northvolt so that Northvolt will build factories with them instead, which might be the effect of the Sweden Democrats' and the government's policy if you continue like this.

Is it not time to stop badmouthing the large green industrial investments in Sweden, and not least those in Norrland?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! How can it be sweeping and general when I am as clear as possible? I am over-clear and extremely specific. It is not my job as a politician to evaluate companies' business ideas. It is not my job as a politician to have opinions about them. Private companies should secure private capital on private markets, and I will not lift a finger for that. I cannot be any more concrete and clear. I am the opposite of sweeping and general in my criticism.

This is about taking taxpayers' money and risking it in a way where it is not obvious that the taxpayers are on board. The point is that it is taxpayers' money that is being risked, at a fairly high risk level, in different types of venture companies. This bothers me, and I will not stop doing so.

From the speaker's chair, I also wondered if it is only the Sweden Democrats who are annoyed that taxpayers' money is treated with this degree of nonchalance. If so, then we shall have to be alone. We are quite used to it, so it is no new situation for us. But I hope that also other members and other parties realize that for the sake of political legitimacy, they must safeguard taxpayers' money much more than they do today. I hope that we are not alone. But if we are, we are quite used to it, and it does not bother us particularly much.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if it is to safeguard the taxpayers' money to spend more money on cheap snus and cheap plastic bags than on teachers in schools. But it is another discussion linked to this budget.

Let me repeat the problem so that everything becomes clear and distinct. The problem is that what the Sweden Democrats say about this being state-subsidized is wrong. It is not true. They are therefore badmouthing a major investment that we should be proud of and are now, once again, saying broadly that it is actually just a lot of state money. In reality, it concerns, as stated, 1 percent of a 60-billion investment in Sweden. Can we not be proud of that?

Seriously, the real problem is that while the private sector risks tens of billions in investments, the government and the Swedish state are unable to deliver the infrastructure and the commitments that are the state's monopoly and responsibility. The Malmbanan stands still because one is unable to maintain it. Railway connections between the large metropolises in Norrland to create a common labor market are not being made.

The state responsibility that is obvious in other countries is not taken by this government. Instead, you talk about the state providing the large investments. But it is the private sector that wants to invest in northern Sweden. Let us be proud of that and not say things that are not true.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now we are suddenly in agreement. Basic infrastructure is one of the state's core tasks, and that was my entire point. That the Malmbanan is at a standstill is obviously a catastrophe, likewise that the infrastructure in, for example, Norrland is insufficient. This is one of the state's core tasks, and that is where we should allocate money. We should not put money into individual companies; that is what I am criticizing.

We agree that the infrastructure should function very well so that we can attract a lot of business activity. That is how we are to work. Now it became a completely different thing. The state should not enter with tax money into an ownership and thereby provide subsidies to different companies. Anyone can understand that it distorts the entire competition and sets aside the market economic system if one company receives a lot of public money and another does not.

I and Martin Ådahl have not agreed on these issues for many years, but now we perhaps entered a new track where we disregard putting state money into individual private companies and instead put that money into making the infrastructure work. Yes, my god, then we are suddenly in complete agreement. It was enormously pleasing. Now I am going to sleep very well tonight. How fun!

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The economic-political debate is being seized by Sweden. When the government submitted its spring budget, the Finance Minister spoke primarily about other things than about which reforms she intended to implement.

By blaming everything and everyone else, one does not have to take responsibility for the crisis that has been left behind for the population. It is not honorable.

Madam Speaker! I was raised in a dutiful family. If one has a job, one must also perform it. People lose motivation when fake news rains down from those in power at press conferences. Now a historic investment in healthcare is being carried out, said the Minister for Finance, and put Swedish healthcare into its worst ordeal. In the emergency room in the midst of the healthcare chaos are the voters, who rightly wonder: Who in the whole world can one trust?

Sweden has been a strong country. Investments in infrastructure and housing created jobs, welfare, and growth. That time has long since passed. Sweden now tops the league when it comes to wealth concentration ahead of both Saudi Arabia and the USA. We have gone from being one of the countries that redistributes the most to redistributing the least among the EU's core countries. The "Falukorv ring" (hot dog ring), if you remember it, which the Minister for Enterprise waved intensely during the election campaign, did not become one more hot dog for the households when she herself gained power.

But of course, the government is hitting some records and creating employment. The interest rate hikes that have emptied the pockets of mortgage customers have created record profits for the big banks and significantly increased employment at the Enforcement Authority.

What does the sitting government offer its battered citizens? Yes, a job tax credit that goes to 90 percent to the half that is best paid in the country. What will a few hundred crowns in reduced tax help when the government has let the economic crisis dig deep holes in people's wallets?

Instead of tackling greed and poorly functioning markets as in other European countries, the government now wants to bribe the population with a small sum. With the Left Party's proposal on bank tax, Swedish prices on electricity and a tougher stance against the food giants, households could earn many times more than what a job tax credit provides. The government's lukewarm attitude towards big banks and food giants is distressing.

Madam Speaker! The chaos on the railway threatens growth. The construction crash is a fact. We have now had periods of constant negative growth. Unemployment is rising. The government is worsening the situation so that people do not lie in hammocks, while they themselves seem to have snoozed the entire Government Offices.

Deregulation has made it more expensive. Sweden has built up bureaucratic colossi that do not put the citizens first. The share price, the consultancy assignments, and the welfare crime have taken over. Can't you read, little friend? The school cannot help you with that. Putting knowledge first is too expensive for Sweden's market school.

Madam Speaker! I do, however, see a change. Everyone has had enough of the neoliberal dogmas. More and more, not just the left, observe that it is not working. But I am a bit concerned about the government. It never seems to get enough. It is like a bourgeois youth organization on steroids. Like a four-year-old in a candy store, it wants everything immediately, regardless of cost and consequences.

As a common thread, the citizens' trust in the welfare system follows the same path as the cuts. When the welfare is not there for someone, it is not strange that even ordinary people can think: "What the hell am I getting for the money?"

Municipalities in northern Sweden have to tax their citizens heavily just to afford the most basic necessities, while Stockholm municipalities such as Danderyd can let their residents live in luxury. Rural municipalities move entire towns and make their natural resources available to guarantee Swedish prosperity, while wealthy municipalities refuse to build rental apartments for the people who, for example, they want to come and clean their toilets.

More low-productive anchors can be sought than these metropolitan-adjacent wealthy municipalities. Nothing is produced there, work is done elsewhere, the roads they use are built by others, the growth is provided by the Norrland residents, and the large neighboring municipalities have to fix the housing. Gated community? Throw yourself against the wall! Here we have entire municipalities on the theme.

Madam Speaker! The left is moving forward across the entire Nordic region. It became clear in the last EU election. People want to know what those in power want to do about their problems, not hear them make excuses. The governing parties and the Sverigedemokraterna seem to be panicking over that fact and are therefore tweeting frantically instead about school graduations in churches, population exchange, identity left, and Islam - which they somehow seem to mean are the same thing.

Madam Speaker! One has to practice acceptance sometimes to maintain peace of mind. God, give me peace of mind to accept what I cannot change, courage to change what I can, and wisdom to know the difference – so I believe that prayer goes.

Today's government does not want better. The enablers in the Sweden Democrats could not care less about the Swedish people's healthcare, bank interest rates, or finances. As safe as they are, they are perfectly content being paid at the Government Offices. Behind every troll account, in reality, hides a little coward, and of all people, it is the one who leads the army. Big in words but small on the ground, that is what should be on SD's election poster in 2026.

Madam Speaker! I turn instead to the opposition. We have much to tackle together moving forward. It is not enough to live solely on the opponents' bad reputation or win on their half of the field. The social contract must be restored. The voters must be able to trust their representatives.

Budget proposals that involve an almost identical economic policy as the governing party's do not work. If we are to equip the welfare state, a new approach is needed. If one is to win, one must stick together as a team. It is fundamental.

That is why it concerns me a little today, when we have the budget debate, when one of the colleagues mostly seems to be running in circles. The Centre Party makes me think of Lucky Luke – shoots shot after shot and always hits something. However, it does not seem as successful in politics as in the cartoon Wild West series, judging by the latest SCB measurement.

When it comes to economic policy, the Center Party shoots alone from the broad center, as they have placed themselves far out on the right wing against all physical laws and all sound common sense. They are tunneling on their own captain but still believe they will be rewarded with more playing time. Maybe it works in the minor leagues, but now we are playing on a different level. Had it been a football match, one would have been benched for such behavior. But now it is not a football match, but Swedish politics we are talking about.

I am glad that the Social Democrats have now moved from "cards lying on the table" to that market forces do not belong in the welfare system. Those who play patience instead of clearing out today's system are doomed to lose. Now it is a matter of showing that we mean what we say as well. Anyone can chatter and talk, but the market school must not be allowed to remain in Sweden after the 2026 election. The voters will not tolerate more budgets or more elections without a change, is my firm conviction.

Madam Speaker! Svenskt Näringsliv, LO and the Ministry of Finance's own long-term investigation agree with Vänsterpartiet: Sweden cannot afford to save the most in Europe when the infrastructure is totally neglected. It seems Centerpartiet was also part of this, so I must behave a bit more nicely towards them going forward.

The single most important climate issue is to enable investments in the transition. That is what we are tasked to do. But the state has allowed itself to be paralyzed by outdated frameworks that make decisive action impossible.

We must save for future generations, people say with common sense. But future generations will probably be happier if the sewers work, if we have transitioned for the climate, and if there are homes to live in. Real assets are also to be saved. If the state withdraws and does not pick up the bill now, it will become more expensive in the long run. The costs have been dumped on households and the municipalities.

Growth and jobs depend on a change. If one is to commit, one needs to invest, everyone understands that. Had Ingvar Kamprad, for example, not invested, he would probably have continued to build furniture in Älmhult. Now, instead, Ikea exists all over the world.

Those who want to strengthen welfare and at the same time enable investments in transition cannot defend the surplus target we have today. We in Vänsterpartiet mean what we say. We keep our promises. We propose several reforms to strengthen households and welfare.

With this, I move for the approval of our reservation number 2.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now we see clearly that the government's prioritization of combating inflation is yielding results. Actually, it is probably the combination of a restrained fiscal policy, a tightening monetary policy, and a responsible collective bargaining movement that has ensured that inflation is now on the way down and that the forecast is actually that we will reach the inflation target during the current year.

This has required a great deal from everyone. However, it has been a real priority, because inflation is ordinary people's greatest enemy. Interest rates are going up, and food is becoming more expensive. It is like a cuckoo chick hollowing out the household budget, which is supposed to last until the end of the month. Inflation makes people poorer and creates problems for companies and the Swedish economy.

Madam Speaker! We politicians are happy to talk about the cake that we have to distribute. One can see in the positions that political parties make different priorities there, but what is most important of all right now is perhaps that we discuss how we can get the cake to grow. Because it must do so if we are to manage the welfare in the long run. That is the very key. Then is, according to us Kristdemokrater, a policy for entrepreneurship completely decisive.

Entrepreneurs are also Sweden's job creators. Companies make it possible for mothers and fathers to have a job to go to so that they can support themselves and their family. It is Swedish companies that are involved in creating growth, and it is certainly they who are involved in baking the cake that we need for our common welfare. The point is that we must take care not to take these job creators for granted. It is therefore welcome that the government is now working according to the motto that it should be easy to start, run and develop companies in Sweden.

A comprehensive simplification package has been launched with a simplification council that is to provide proposals on simplification measures resulting from existing Swedish legislation. The website for companies, called Verksamt.se, where services and information from a number of different agencies are gathered, has also been strengthened.

The Government has also, through regulatory letters, tasked a number of agencies with prioritizing simplification work that leads to real simplification and impact for companies. This contributes to strengthening the Swedish economy and competitiveness.

Just a few weeks ago, Sweden's Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch was able to present that an implementation council is now being launched, which has the task of bringing a business perspective up early in the EU process and working to ensure that EU legislation is not implemented at the minimum level in Sweden. The purpose is simply to reduce the regulatory burden, administrative costs, and other compliance costs that arise as a result of upcoming, new, and amended EU legal acts.

Madam Speaker! A functioning welfare state is not built with words, with rhetoric, and neither, for that matter, with symbolic politics. Prioritizing welfare has been and is a self-evident matter for us Kristdemokrater. Letting the diligence and work of companies and individuals pay off is therefore not in any way in opposition to this, on the contrary. It is tax revenues, not tax rates, that finance the welfare.

Tax revenues do not arise from nothing, but they arise when people work and pay tax. More tax revenues simply come when more people work more, and this is facilitated by the fact that we in Sweden have a tax and benefit system that encourages exactly that: work.

Madam Speaker! I was very pleased when the government, in connection with the presentation of our bill, introduced a self-sufficiency measure. This is something that I have motioned for over a number of years in the Riksdag.

The employment measure that we traditionally use must simply be supplemented by the fact that we in Sweden also find out the degree of self-sufficiency. The statistics for employment can be misleading, and they can also hide the reality that we want to do something about. That a person is in employment is not the same thing as that the person has a job that he or she can support themselves on.

The introduction of a self-sufficiency measure is simply good news for all of us who want to achieve a functioning integration. The employment measure has, in fact, hidden the problem. I remember when the then Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, here in this chamber in November 2019, trumpeted out that it had been ensured that newcomers had come into work and that the time for this had decreased from nine years in 2014 to four and a half years in 2019.

When he said that, I thought it sounded too good to be true, and it was. Entreprenörskapsforum, which has worked on finding out how many people support themselves through their own work, comments on the difference as follows: "Approximately four years after the year of immigration, there is 50 percent employment, but it takes 13 to 14 years for 50 percent to achieve self-sufficiency."

According to Entreprenörskapsforum, the difference is actually larger because subsidized employment is also included in the data. Entreprenörskapsforum notes that it takes 20 years for 50 percent of those who have immigrated from the Middle East to become self-sufficient, that is, to have a salary of at least 15,500 kronor per month. This means that half are still living on benefits after 20 years. So, we naturally cannot have that.

With a self-sufficiency measure, the risk of us taking incorrect and/or insufficient measures politically is reduced. An evaluation of labor market policy measures from a self-sufficiency perspective can simply give a different answer than an employment perspective. From the degree of self-sufficiency, a goal for the same can be created. Those who have come to Sweden with the hope of a better life should not get stuck in unemployment, passivity, and exclusion.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by highlighting a discussion that has begun and which I believe will become increasingly intense, namely the one on how we should design the future fiscal framework. Our country is burdened with significant maintenance debts. The electricity grids are one such example. During the last 20 years, Svenska kraftnät has built 60 km of high-voltage lines, but the need is for 700 km of newly built and upgraded lines.

Sweco estimates that the need for investments in Sweden's existing power grid alone amounts to over 900 billion kronor. They also point out that it is a front-loaded effort. Most of it must, in fact, be done within the next ten to twelve years.

Another example of a maintenance debt that plagues us is the roads. Approximately 60 percent of the Swedish road network was built before 1970, and the roads are estimated to have a lifespan of 50 years. During the deep economic and fiscal crisis in the 90s, the state budget process was tightened and changed. The fiscal framework has undoubtedly served our country well, and we must absolutely avoid high indebtedness and creating a lack of confidence in the public sector's finances.

We Christian Democrats want the surplus goal to be replaced and that we instead create economic space for socially important investments that lead to growth. It is therefore not about financing tax cuts or public consumption through borrowing; such things must take place within the framework of priorities for the annual reform space.

This reasoning aligns well with what was presented by the Long-term Commission shortly before Christmas. Sweden today has room to borrow for investments that accelerate the growth engine. Our proposal is to raise the debt anchor from 35 to 40 percent.

When it comes to exactly how large the deficits shall be allowed to be and over how long they shall be allowed to be large, I think it is important that we reach a broad political consensus. But our message is clear, namely that it is time for us in the Riksdag to reach an agreement on this and that it is urgent.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now almost at the halfway point with the Kristersson government. It is almost two years since a dramatic energy and cost crisis in the wake of Putin's full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine made Ulf Kristersson Prime Minister at Jimmie Åkesson's mercy.

It is clear and distinct that inflation has gone down. I want to thank the Riksbank, whose job it is to bring it down, for that. It is something that Sweden has in common with practically all Western countries in large parts of the civilized world: We have now brought down inflation through joint efforts.

What we do not have in common with the rest of the Western world and the EU is that Sweden is a country with high and continuously rising unemployment - rising long-term unemployment. We have a growth that stands out as the worst, or perhaps soon the second worst, in the EU. Sweden is the country in the EU that was known for having strong growth and decreasing emissions. Now we are the country known for having weak growth and skyrocketing emissions.

Teachers are being laid off in schools just when they are needed and when the needs are so great for young people in rural areas and in vulnerable areas. Care and welfare are at such a low level that basic needs are not being met, and to such a low level that Gotland as a region, governed by Social Democrats and Moderates, now wants to ask Stockholm or the state to take over the region because it no longer adds up.

In this difficult situation, the Center Party believes that an alternative to Tidö's and SD's economic failure is needed. An alternative to the Left and the Social Democrats was also needed. A green liberal alternative was needed that does not want to tear the country apart but build on our strengths: knowledge and diligence, environmental awareness and engineering, entrepreneurship and enterprise, and management of our natural resources for sustainable and green growth. It is an alternative that believes in schools, society, and associations, and which safeguards the core of the welfare system.

In our alternative, everyone is a part of our country, and everyone is given an offer: If you educate yourself, if you work, if you strive and if you toil in your own sweat, you shall become a part of society on the same terms as everyone else. There shall be no A- and B-teams in any culture war, but only one single blue and yellow team.

But this, my friends and Madam Speaker, will demand reforms - reforms that make it more profitable to work, that allow more people to start companies, that make it simpler and cheaper for ordinary households to make the climate transition and that make infrastructure upgraded faster and more efficiently throughout Sweden. The school shall again receive the full resources to do its job so that knowledge and the mastery of the language are valued again in all parts of society.

That is why the Centre Party presents an alternative in our spring budget motion in this crisis situation. I move for approval of reservation 3.

In this context, it should be obvious if one calls oneself bourgeois – but I don't really know what Tidö is anymore – that growth and jobs are created by growing small companies. Four out of five new jobs are created by companies. It is not the Socialdemokraterna, it is not the Moderaterna, it is not Tidö and it is certainly not the Sverigedemokraterna that are creating any jobs. It is the growing companies. The obvious thing, therefore, is to invest in dampened costs and better conditions.

It is very nice that the government, as described here, has improved the website for entrepreneurs that the Center Party was involved in starting. Thank you for that! But it is simply not enough. The employer contributions, which are the companies' biggest problem when it comes to growth, have been increased by at least 9 billion kronor to date. Young people's summer jobs have become more expensive for small businesses just before this summer, when so many young people should be in jobs in small businesses instead of hanging around in town or in the village.

In its previous budget, the Tidö government shocked by forcing small businesses to pay the full sick pay for employees on sick leave. The skills shortage is growing when the government does not invest sufficiently in further education, while simultaneously choking off skills from other countries through a completely artificial wage floor for labor migrants, which goes against the Swedish model.

Get out into reality, Tidö parties, and meet these small business owners who are saying in the newspaper today that their patience has run out! This is not sufficient. Your politics makes things more expensive and more difficult. Go out and meet the companies that are supposed to hire that extra youth and give him or her a chance in life but who cannot do so because of your taxes and burdens! Go out into reality and meet the parents in vulnerable areas who are truly asking for a job even if they cannot yet speak Swedish well enough! They want a job or an opportunity to create a job themselves in a new small business.

It is not strange that unemployment is rising again now that the work line and the small business line have been abandoned. But the Centre Party will always stand up for business, job creation, investments, and entrepreneurship. We will remain small businesses' best, and perhaps only and final, friend in the Riksdag. That is unfortunately how it seems right now.

We will make it easier to hire, as we did both in the Alliance and in the January Agreement. Now we will do it to combat the Tidö unemployment.

We want the employer contributions to be lowered generally and removed for the first five employees in a company. We want them to be lowered to hire those with the lowest incomes so that more small businesses can hire young people and more who lack proper work experience. With our proposal, a small company that employs four people can employ five. It is concrete and clear. A small company that today employs seven vulnerable people can employ eight.

We want the responsibility for sick pay to be removed from small businesses again so that they do not end up in a crisis when an employee is signed off on sick leave. We want to stop the new wave of red tape, and that will not be helped by just some new advice, some new names, and some new authorities.

We must remove the unreasonable and artificial wage floor for labor immigration. We want to invest heavily in education and continuing education so that many more can acquire new vocational skills through transition study support, universities of applied sciences, apprenticeship programs, and vocational adult education. In that way, we can fill the large gaps in the business sector that exist alongside unemployment.

We want to address the acute deficiencies in the infrastructure that are being talked about. It is the broken railway tracks and the potholes in the roads, for which nothing is being done.

Mr. Speaker, above all, we want to give Sweden a new positive vision. I quote the Minister for Finance, who unfortunately is not here today. She said in an interview: "I do not think we will see any new Ikea or ABB in Sweden." No, perhaps not with the Tidö Government. But we need it. In fact, today we have talked about the large green industries that can give us a head start in the future. It is now that the new entrepreneurs can lift Sweden and create the jobs. It is now, if we give them the chance, that they can find solutions to the climate crisis. It is now we can sow the seeds for tomorrow's global corporations.

That is how Sweden has become wealthy, and that is how we will build our future prosperity. We do not build it through polarization, not through rhetoric and not through culture wars, but by, as someone said here earlier in the speaker's chair, we increase the cake concretely so that small companies can hire more and create solutions for our country and for integration.

We will use our mandates in the Riksdag, if anyone had any doubts about that, to push these proposals through. We have done it before. We have forced both Moderates and Social Democrats to care about small businesses, growth, and the opportunities across the entire country.

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

Today we are debating the guidelines for the economic policy. We are in a bright season now. The weeks that have passed, many of us have celebrated students and school graduations. This week we can look forward to celebrating Midsummer, hopefully with loved ones.

Even when it comes to the economic policy, we see signs that we have left the economic winter behind us and that the light is appearing, among other things by the fact that inflation has now turned down and for a time been at a lower level, so low that the Riksbank has now dared to begin lowering the interest rate. It is a pleasing message for all private individuals, entrepreneurs and public employees, as well as the entire public sector, which has been pressed hard by the high inflation and the raised interest rates that have made us all poorer.

Unemployment has increased, but not as much as feared. However, we entered the recession with high unemployment from the start, a debt from a long-lasting boom during which unemployment should have been pushed back properly.

Madam Speaker! The Government has taken responsibility in a difficult time and prioritized supporting the most vulnerable. We have been able to place the money where it was needed most but have simultaneously looked forward through investments in school and education.

Now we need to carry out reforms to get Sweden moving again. We need to accelerate growth, which provides the opportunity to maintain a secure and good welfare and meet all the cost challenges we face in the coming years. We need to carry out a historic buildup of the defense and invest in infrastructure, electricity infrastructure, schools, and the climate. Crime must be pushed back with measures here and now, while we stop new recruitment with investments in, among other things, social services and school. These are things we have prioritized in our budget.

It is about re-establishing the work line in Sweden and giving more people the opportunity to enter employment or start companies, which is crucial for increased productivity and economic stability. I want politics to be an enabler. It can become that by us investing in a school throughout life - a re-established primary school with a focus on the foundations of learning and with a good working environment for teachers, then a high school that can lead to jobs or continued studies, and furthermore an opportunity to retrain and learn new things in the middle of life to adapt to the jobs that exist or the development one wants in life.

I prioritize meeting many entrepreneurs in this role, and I also have a long background in professional life. Everyone testifies to two things that are important: the skills matching in all of Sweden and the labor shortage in northern Sweden.

We are placing great emphasis on meeting the competence needs that companies face. With the Liberals in the government, there will be a major focus on school and lifelong learning, as this is the most important cornerstone in society and provides a manifold return on every invested krona.

Madam Speaker! Growth is not only important for increased tax revenues but also an enabler for improving climate and environment. Some argue and have recently expressed that growth and climate transition are not compatible. I would like to assert that it is precisely the opposite: It is with constant growth that we can bring down climate emissions and reduce our environmental impact. The catalyst, which is now a natural part of the car, made a big difference in its time. Now we are electrifying the transport sector to eliminate the emissions from there.

Digitalization has reduced our consumption while we have increased our growth. Previously, you might have had a lot of CDs at home, for example, whose production required a lot of material. Now you have millions of records in your phone. Previously, you might have had the entire bookshelf full of reference books that weighed several kilos. Now you can find all this knowledge in your digital tool.

There is also an industry where the lack of technological development has caused it to still generate incredible emissions and have a major impact on our environment, namely the textile and fashion industry. The fashion industry accounts for approximately 10 percent of global emissions.

I have visited a number of companies that work with these issues, including Wargön Innovation, where they work with innovation to recycle and utilize textiles. They testify that the lack of technical development means they are far behind what they could be with today's technology to scan, read, and sort out different types of fabric from discarded clothes so that these can have a life again and we have better recycling.

Of course, one can combine growth with sustainability. But obviously, the right policy instruments are needed from the political side.

Madam Speaker! There are two elephants in the room that I finally wish to say a few words about.

The first is the euro. Inflation has made us all poorer and hit private individuals, entrepreneurs, and the public sector hard. Everything has become more expensive. Alone is not strong. Alone is just lonely. Europe's common currency is a guarantee for peace and prosperity on our continent. For the jobs and our influence in Europe, we must upgrade our membership from basic to premium. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

It is about competitiveness and prosperity but also about our country's security and influence in the EU. While 20 of 27 countries today have the euro as their currency, we stand outside. Unfortunately, so far it is only the Liberals who are clear that it would be good for Sweden's economy, growth, and security to join.

Support for the euro has increased greatly in recent years, and I believe the Swedish people deserve the predictability and stability that a currency like the euro offers. Now I hope that more parties dare to take this discussion.

Madam Speaker! The second elephant in the room is the narrative that the opposition, with the Social Democrats at the forefront, is trying to establish—that the only need for Swedish healthcare and welfare is more money. If the government injects more money, everything will be resolved, it is said from this rostrum. There are very many facts that show that this is not true and that the problems are much more complex than that. To only talk about resources in the form of money is to diminish an important debate that affects us all.

The entire basis of my political commitment is precisely that we shall have a safety net without holes for those who fall and a school that sees every child so that they can both manage school academically and gain the self-confidence that they can become exactly what they want.

The state receives approximately 1,300 billion in taxes every year and municipalities and regions receive approximately 1,200 billion. Wage earners and employers pay high tax on wages, companies are taxed on profits and we pay all VAT and other types of fees.

In Sweden, we spend an internationally high amount on, for example, healthcare, but we do not have better quality and accessibility corresponding to the money we spend. We face large expenditures to upgrade the defense, expand the correctional system, equip civil defense, support healthcare and school, invest in climate investments, and plan for investments in infrastructure. Everything is important and must be done. But it will be necessary to ask: What do we get for the money?

The state apparatus generates rules and laws that are cost-driving for municipalities and regions. Furthermore, the amount of administrative staff has generally increased, but not the number of teachers, nurses, or nursing assistants. The fact that the amount of administrative staff is increasing can be justified if it leads to a reduction of the workload for the staff who work with the children, the healthcare, or the care. But that is not the case. It is the opposite: the regulatory burden for public employees just swells.

Then one must dare to ask: What administrative monster have we politicians created? Is this what the residents want? Or do they want school and healthcare for the money? What does the hard-pressed staff want – time for the students or countless reports to fill out?

We politicians should take responsibility for ensuring that every tax krona is used correctly. We must not become blinkered by the fact that we handle large sums, become part of a system that does not question things or take the easy paths by demanding more from our taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker! Let me give some examples. In 2019, Västra Götalandsregionen decided to change its name. It was supposed to cost 10 million. Fortunately, they came to better thoughts and decided against it. One might think that 10 million is a small amount of money. But that corresponds to 13 nurses for a year.

There are reports that healthcare is facing a general productivity crisis rather. A doctor within private psychiatry sees 5.4 patients per day. This can be compared with 2.7 doctor visits per day within public care. Then there must be reasons that are not just dependent on money.

My region, Halland, has in many ways the country's best healthcare. There, they have systematically worked to be able to offer care within 90 days, as the healthcare guarantee states, in Halland or in another region. It has yielded fantastic results.

In Skåne, there are more examples. One is that they have rolled out a new meal concept. It has increased the options, ensured that there are flexible times for a patient to be able to eat, enabled adapted diets for those who need it, reduced food waste, and increased the quality. It is estimated to have saved the region 30-40 million. That corresponds to 27-40 nurses per year. That is not a small amount.

These few examples show that the issue is much more complex and that the solution cannot just be more money. Every responsible politician should think that is reasonable. It is about life-saving jobs, where one should be able to expect a good working environment. It is an incredibly large amount of money that we politicians collect in taxes from our residents and companies. One should be able to expect a safety net without holes and a world-class school.

It should be tossed into the trash to simply shout that welfare is generally underfunded. The solution is not that simple. We need to do both – have the right resources and the right methods of work.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Cecilia Rönn knows that I assert that we stand on the same side and that a cooperation in the middle would mean good things for Sweden.

Since there are elephants in the room, it is difficult not to see a couple of other elephants here in the room. One such is that the Liberals, who claim to stand up for the school, are now presiding over historical mass resignations of teachers.

Another, even larger elephant in the room that we have talked too little about today: that Swedish climate policy is currently spinning completely out of control. It is about emission increases of 5.3 million tons, 17 times the aviation emissions in Sweden. The increase in the share of electric cars has completely stalled. Instead, gasoline and diesel cars are taking over. Sweden's green brand is threatened by this. We are becoming known as a country that brakes.

My question to the member is: What do you say to people in the countryside - I believe and hope that you have met some - who say that they want to buy a used hybrid car or even an electric car and reduce their costs but do not have the means? This government has made it very cheap to continue driving diesel and petrol cars. But that is not the future. Despite that, one remains stuck in it.

The government has made it much more expensive to switch to electric cars, despite all the talk about electrification. This government, in fact, has the attitude that everyone can afford heat pumps, the transition, and electric cars.

What do you say to those people in the countryside who are often dependent on the car? You are not helping them to become part of the new and of the transition, but you are hindering them.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member Ådahl!

There was something small about the school at the beginning there. I want to point out that we are investing in the school. We did it in the regular budget, and we did it in our amendment budget. Furthermore, a large part of the reform space has gone to investments in welfare. There, the school is a very large part for the municipalities out in the country.

We are investing in education in shortage occupations to be able to meet the skills shortage.

And we are now changing much in school policy, in order to be able to return to the basics. It is about moving from screens to folders, about reading, writing and arithmetic, about strengthening school libraries, about the knowledge contribution and so on.

Very many initiatives and investigations are underway. With the Liberals at the forefront, we will reform what is needed and go back to having a knowledge school.

When it comes to the climate and cars, many people are dependent on the car, both in the countryside and in other places. It is clear that it needs to become easier to transition. Therefore, we are investing money in, for example, expanding the charging infrastructure. It is a very important part for people to even dare to switch to an electric car, especially if one lives in the countryside where there are long distances.

We are introducing a scrappage premium, so that one can get money back if one chooses to replace an old car and instead rent or lease an electric car.

We are also making investments so that the rest of the transport sector can be electrified. This concerns trucks, buses and work machines. All parts are important for us to achieve a climate transition.

During this time, people must have the opportunity and means to live. Therefore, it is important that we do both. We ensure that it works here and now, but we also lay the foundation to enable the complete elimination of emissions in the future.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to point out that the government is spending tens of billions of kronor to make gasoline and diesel cheaper for people in large cities but is spending a few hundred million so that people can switch cars, if those funds will be used at all. Anyone can calculate that they will not be enough for many hundreds of cars in the countryside.

We have said that we must have a proper people's bonus so that everyone, even those who do not have the highest salaries or the best conditions, has the opportunity to switch to a better car. Even those who cannot go to the bank should have the opportunity to switch to a simple, used hybrid car that allows them to take the kids to practice and get to work and back. It is time to truly see those people. They want to be a part of the climate transition, but you have made it almost impossible for them. You have removed all the incentives for it, Cecilia Rönn.

I still want to address this regarding the school. Sveriges Lärare, which represents the teachers in Sweden, says that we would have needed to allocate at least 2 billion kronor - they actually want 4 billion - to maintain the teachers and the quality in the school. They warn that thousands of teachers and counselors, many thousands across the country and not least in rural areas and in vulnerable areas, will now be laid off.

The Liberals cannot wave this away. It is happening now. Parents see it in their everyday lives. The support for the children is decreasing. Vulnerable students in our vulnerable areas and in our cities do not get the support they need. It is not possible to wave away that it must become more efficient. It is an immediate crisis in the municipalities and an immediate crisis for the school that I believe many parents see.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for further questions!

The Liberals are not waving away anything, neither the need to electrify our car fleet nor the school's needs.

Regarding the electric cars, I accounted for our initiatives to develop the charging infrastructure and for the electric cars. Furthermore, the prices have fallen. Now it costs approximately the same as when there was the electric car bonus. It was a bonus-malus, which was supposed to be cost-neutral. It was not.

When it comes to the fact that electric car sales have decreased, one can see that all car sales have decreased. It is also caused by the fact that we have had and have a recession.

We are now doing exactly what I described. We are making more investments, for example the scrappage premium, so that one can switch. But we also have a focus on other vehicles that are emitters.

When it comes to the school, we are not leaving them in the lurch in any way. Now the Liberals are finally governing the Ministry of Education again, and as I said, we are putting money into our budget. Even in the regular budget, specific school investments were made together with general state grants. But it is not just about the money. The administrative burden for teachers needs to be reduced. Therefore, such investigations are being carried out now. Equivalent grades are also being investigated, as well as developing teacher and preschool teacher education. It needs to be done.

A national school funding norm needs to be established so that all students throughout Sweden, wherever they live, shall have the same conditions for an equivalent education. We are looking at strengthened safety and study environment. The curriculum investigation is ongoing. There shall be more teaching time for those who need it, and they shall receive early help. School health, etc., shall also be improved. It is a complete package. It is money and resources, but it is also about providing the right conditions so that the municipalities can take their responsibility and provide equivalent and good education to all the country's students.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! On this beautiful summer day when the summer holidays have begun for most, the students have run out, the sun is shining and the peonies are blooming, one would wish that it was a brightening future that the newly minted students were heading towards. Unfortunately, reality is not so bright. Instead, we find ourselves in a time of great societal challenges.

The climate crisis and the loss of biodiversity shake the very foundations of security, freedom, and economic development. Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine plunged Europe and Sweden into a cost crisis that hit households, businesses, and welfare and placed our entire continent in a new security policy situation. Our support for Ukraine must continue to be very strong in all areas. They are not just fighting for themselves and their freedom, but for all of us. They are fighting for democracy and a continued world order based on international law. It will cost, but I am pleased that the parties in the Riksdag are in agreement.

Mr. Speaker! It has become painfully clear during the recent period that we have a government that is unable to take responsibility for either the climate, the welfare, or Sweden's families with children. You are increasing emissions in the midst of a burning climate crisis, you do not care about the researchers' alarms regarding biodiversity, and you have put the welfare into the state of crisis that we find ourselves in. You are not keeping your promises to the healthcare staff, you are doing far too little to help families with children through the crisis, and furthermore, you are forcing schools across the country to make cuts. And in the autumn, it unfortunately looks like it will be more of the same.

One could have imagined that now that we are heading towards brighter times economically, it would be more for the absolutely necessary core activities that the government has until now put on a starvation diet. But it does not seem to be that which will be prioritized. Instead, it seems that what matters moving forward is reduced tax on both capital income and emissions – in short, a crystal-clear concept for those who want to fuel economic inequalities and the climate crisis. Instead of a just transition, we seem to be getting a future-hostile budget and an unjust non-transition.

In the previous budget, the government invested more in climate-destroying measures than in measures that reduce emissions. That is also being done now. The government and the Sweden Democrats invest ten times more on climate-destroying aviation subsidies than on measures that favor the transition. But it does not have to be so. It is possible to act in a different way. With a just climate transition, there is hope and the possibility of a better future. With electrification and the expansion of biofuels, the Swedish economy can flourish while we transition. Instead, the government continues to build us into a fossil dependency that benefits oil companies and rogue states. As long as we are fossil-dependent, we are also more vulnerable.

Miljöpartiet has presented a budget for a just transition where we increase the pace of climate work, strengthen welfare, and support families in the cost crisis. We must meet the climate and nature crisis with policies that reduce emissions immediately and strengthen biodiversity while simultaneously refurbishing what is our common, building a secure Sweden, and ensuring that no one is left behind in the transition.

The government likes to talk about the fact that there must be an acceptance of the climate policy, and of course there is. But they do not act to gain acceptance through good policy. Instead, they sabotage and slander it. Nothing could be more wrong to do if one wants a better policy. Furthermore, it is no climate policy, but quite the opposite.

It is difficult to interpret the outcome of the EU election as anything other than a rejection of the Tidö parties' climate policy. People want a policy that actually does something about our time's defining issue. Instead, we have a government that completely ignores it and pursues a policy that reinforces our fossil dependency.

Climate policy must reduce emissions. We build acceptance through a just transition where everyone gets the chance to be included when Sweden transitions. In that case, different solutions are needed in different parts of the country – the right measure in the right place.

Miljöpartiet proposes an electric car subsidy aimed at people with lower incomes who have a long way to work. A subsidy of 2,500 kronor per month aimed at rural drivers with low and medium incomes can significantly reduce the costs for someone who switches their fossil fuel car for an electric car. If one switches a Volvo V70 for leasing an electric car which currently costs 4,500 kronor per month, one can save 2,000 kronor per month. It is a good transition policy.

For those who have better access to public transport, we have previously proposed a Sweden card for 500 kronor per month. It can reduce car journeys in cities and make public transport accessible to more people.

These proposals have already been implemented in Germany and France. It would of course be possible to do it here as well. It is only the political will that is lacking. That the Tidö parties lack the political will is clearly illustrated in the budget.

I do not think I am the only train passenger who has been frustrated by signaling errors, delays, and cancelled trains this spring and long before that. One could have imagined that the government would act now that it has become obvious to everyone how bad the situation is. But what did the government do? Well, they gave a billion to the aviation industry. It was climate-hostile and incomprehensible. Of course, those funds should have gone to the railway instead.

The government's policy is the opposite of building acceptance and striving for a just climate transition. People want to be part of the solution, and it is our responsibility from the political side to provide the conditions for that.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, the government treats the nature crisis in the same way as the climate crisis, namely by doing as little as possible at best and actively pushing through policies that reduce biodiversity and Swedes' access to nature at worst. That is what we see happening now. The budget that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have presented means that fewer and fewer people can take part in our fantastic nature, that protected forests are logged, that biodiversity is depleted, and that invasive species are allowed to take over.

In Sweden, we have a long history of creating conditions for everyone to take part in and be in nature. This government's policy has hit both biodiversity and everyone's access to nature hard. Now, hiking trails all over Sweden risk having to close at the same time as the situation for the Swedish forest is acute. The authorities are warning that Sweden's last truly valuable and old forests are being logged at a rapid pace.

It is urgent to act so that valuable environments do not disappear forever. We want to see an investment in the protection of valuable nature and the protection of biodiversity. We want more people to have access to Sweden's beautiful nature, not fewer.

But it is not only on land that we see a worrying development. The situation for our seas is also acute. The Baltic Sea is on a steady course toward collapse, and the situation for the West Sea is also acute. Overfishing is emptying the seas of life and destroying the ecosystems. Climate change, overfishing, pollution, and eutrophication have put us in a situation that actually only gives us two choices: act now or lose the life of the seas forever. For me and Miljöpartiet, the answer is simple. That is why we are also presenting proposals for investments in the sea and more sustainable fishing in this budget.

If we are to build a fair Sweden, welfare must function and be available throughout the entire country. We are heading towards a summer where healthcare in almost all parts of the country is on its knees. It is incredibly clear that resources are needed, and they are needed now. The Prime Minister promised, as we all know, earlier this spring that no one in healthcare would have to be laid off, but the money that the government is now injecting is not enough to fulfill that promise. In addition to the government's 6 billion, we see that at least an additional 7 would be needed. These are funds that would make a big difference for patients, relatives, and healthcare staff.

We also want to see a systemic shift in the financing of healthcare. We want the state grants to municipalities and regions to be indexed, so that there are no automatic cuts. This would provide better opportunities to plan operations, and it would contribute to more efficient healthcare.

But it is not only healthcare that is on its knees. Large investments are also required in safety and in schools. If we are to truly tackle gang crime, repressive measures and increased sentences are hardly enough; instead, preventive measures are needed so that the crimes are never committed. In that regard, the investments in schools are completely central. The strongest vaccine against crime and exclusion is that children succeed in school. We must give all children a fair chance at that. Then the school also needs to be prioritized. Despite that, it is now facing major cuts. We propose 1.5 billion more for the school than the government does.

Furthermore, the social services need more money, as they also have an incredibly important role in preventing youth crime. We are also putting more money into crime prevention work, not less than the government does in these times.

Much suggests that we are finally heading towards brighter economic times. But despite the fact that inflation is heading downwards, many Swedes still have it tough and have had so for a very long time. Schools across the country still testify that there are children who eat more in the school cafeteria, and children's rights organizations continue to warn about increased vulnerability among children living with all too small economic margins.

The development we have seen during recent years shows how important it is that child allowance and other family benefits are increased in line with inflation. The child allowance must not be eroded when it is needed most, and society must be able to manage to build a robust economic safety net. In one of the world's richest countries, no children should have to grow up in poverty and no adults should have to live in economic vulnerability. It is possible to reach that. All that is needed is political will. In our budget, we present proposals that take us there. Now it is time for the government to follow suit.

In these times of crisis, it is necessary to have a policy for a just climate transition where welfare and families with children are supported. Those proposals are in our shadow budget. Therefore, I move for approval of our reservation number 4.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! After many years of stimuli, inflation returned to the economy. With inflation came the higher interest rates. Pensioners, families with children, and all households with low incomes got thinner wallets and emptier refrigerators. With increased interest costs and real wage reductions, the work line was eroded. Anxiety increased. Inflation is the worst enemy of wage earners and pensioners.

But it does not stop there, Mr. Speaker. Inflation eats resources from what is common: from healthcare, school, and all other social initiatives. Inflation hinders investments. It becomes harder to know what is profitable when prices change at a rapid pace. Inflation also put acute pressure on many companies and sectors in society. There were commercial real estate companies that had taken on too much risk. Around the world, banks began to collapse. The problems with high inflation are extensive, from everyday life and the empty refrigerator to the large economy and world events.

To that, we have a war in our vicinity. It is a comprehensive tragedy with enormous human suffering but also with associated economic unrest. We have the Hamas terror attacks. We have war and unrest in the Middle East. We have geopolitical tensions that obviously plague the people who are directly affected but also entail burdens for trade and our economic system. In countries that are important for Sweden, Swedish jobs and Swedish industry, there are significant problems. There are concerns in Germany and concerns in China. Everything from an inability to carry out political reforms to problems in their markets weighs in different ways and creates different types of risks into the Swedish economy.

Rising interest rates and, as in Sweden, highly indebted households, which furthermore in an international perspective have short interest rate binding periods, obviously create a downward pressure on our GDP and an upward pressure on our unemployment. One can simultaneously observe that Swedish unemployment is high but lies relatively close to the equilibrium unemployment. For those of us who are specifically interested in economics, it means that there is much more to address than just the business cycle.

We have inflation that has returned to our economies, and we have the uneasy global situation. To that, we have a troublesome situation that has been created here at home in Sweden, with shut down nuclear power and with disorder as some kind of new normal in schools. The crime that occurs on our streets and squares affects us as individuals directly but has also eaten deep into our various types of systems. Fraud occurs where people lose not only their last money but perhaps also their last trust, both in society and in other people. Burdens and bureaucracy have been placed on our entrepreneurship and job creation. Unsustainable migration, fraud in the welfare system, and a deep division in society are other significant problems that are not by any small part created by careless, negligent, or at times completely absent politics.

But this can be reversed. It is possible to set things right, to pivot, and to turn our sights toward a better future. This government has taken the fight against inflation, which is now down to lower levels. Should it return, we are prepared to act powerfully again. This government has said no to the lure of higher expenditures and uncontrolled compensations that would have caused inflation to bite in at higher levels for longer. This government has met the uneasy global situation with stable, large, and sustainable packages to support Ukraine, but also by taking Sweden deeper into many international collaborations, not least the NATO cooperation.

We have also begun the fight against the deficiencies that have existed in Swedish society. It is not a fight that will be over in the coming days, the coming weeks, or the coming years. This will require determination, perseverance, and priorities. Work is underway to build new nuclear power in Sweden. Significant resources are being added to our defense, not only to keep the enemy at bay in other countries but also to stand strong ourselves. Extensive work is underway to upgrade our justice system, with resources for the police and courts. Significant measures are also being taken to strengthen preventive work. Parents shall have a job to go to, and children and young people shall be able to receive support. Different secrecy rules shall not stand in the way of the support measures that are so strongly needed. It is possible to turn the development around.

In this, we shall stick together and move forward. To keep the country together, we have directed efforts to those where the needs are greatest. It is housing subsidies for the most vulnerable families with children, lower taxes on work, and lower taxes on pensions. We have reduced costs for fuels.

The biggest priorities in our budgets have been about keeping welfare under control in very challenging times. It is about large resource additions to municipalities and regions that are converted into more additions in school and healthcare.

Not all problems can be solved. We cannot act in a way that forever cements a strong inflationary pressure in Sweden. But we can help, alleviate, and hold society together in trying times.

Mr. Speaker! We shall stick together and we shall move forward. As we now look ahead, it is about new investments for infrastructure, climate transition, research and energy production. The Government intends to move forward with bills both when it comes to research and innovation and when it comes to infrastructure. It is important.

We must hold together, and we must move forward. We have a productivity commission that has pointed out a long series of deficiencies in how the Swedish economy functions and is organized. All of this has occurred at the government's initiative so that we can both hold together and move forward.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a prosperous country characterized by social cohesion. To be that, work is required. It is about all those people who every day get up and do their best at work. Despite being a little tired, they set the alarm even for the next morning and toil on.

Without people who do this, without sacrifices and efforts, but of course also with joy of work, vacation and social community, we cannot achieve our high ambitions to be both a wealthy and successful country but also a country that holds together and has a strong sense of togetherness.

Restoring the value of work is central for the government. We have had and have very responsible parties in the Swedish labor market. Their responsibility has made it possible for us to return to more price stability. They deserve praise for their efforts.

But the policy is to restore the value of work. It is important for many aspects of society, and not least for equality. In this debate, self-sufficiency has been discussed, among other things. There are few things so closely associated with empowerment, self-determination, and freedom as being able to provide for one's own livelihood.

Self-sufficiency is too low in Sweden. Unfortunately, it is lower among women than among men, and it is lower among foreign-born than among native-born. We need to address this together with political reforms.

We must, of course, ensure that wage earners catch up and achieve a better standard of living. It is central to equality to ensure that women get better opportunities in the labor market and better conditions moving forward.

One could wish that we already lived in a perfect and equal society. But unfortunately, we do not. We see women who take a great responsibility at their workplaces and are then burdened with an even greater responsibility for the home.

We see many women who take the ultimate responsibility for the household's finances. They must ensure that there are Christmas presents, birthday gifts, food on the table, and flowers when one is going to visit.

They may have had to take the biggest hit many times when prices have surged and it has become more expensive in the store. They have been faced with many priorities and very large sacrifices lately. To give them back the value of working and the value of their money is, of course, central.

We need to update and re-evaluate the value of working in Sweden. If we are to succeed and achieve more equality in Sweden moving forward, we must also secure that which is most central for us to have an equal society.

We view with concern how the order and discipline in public finances are being attacked, and how it is spoken of widely about being able to increase expenditures, incur higher debts and, over time, larger interest expenses.

It risks becoming a toxic cocktail for what is the most important glue in equality, or at least perhaps one of the most important. That is that we have high quality in our welfare services.

Many women work there. They work in preschools, healthcare, and schools. One is obviously hit hard if, in times of economic downturns, we have tied up large expenditures in interest costs or other expenditures that are not as central for our country to be well.

But if the quality there begins to falter, we also know that it hits hard against women and against equality. Then we know that one might hesitate to stay for an hour at work if one knows that it is bad at the preschool.

Then one has to take the extra, even greater responsibility at home with homework reading and other things when it fails in school. Then one might not dare to trust the elderly care. Then it becomes tougher and harder to close the wage gaps that exist in the economy.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a wealthy, successful and socially cohesive country. For that, it is required that we support those who are hit hardest when the crisis strikes. We have done that, and we continue to do so.

It is about, for example, increased housing allowance for the families with children who are most vulnerable. It is about having the clearest budget priorities regarding healthcare, school, and that which is common.

It is also about reclaiming the safety and security in our country with significant sacrifices and priorities so that we can get more police in place and a strong defense.

It is about us now being able to take new steps and look towards a better future. For that, the government will return with a research proposition and an infrastructure proposition. We have the work that is ongoing in the Productivity Commission.

We will do everything we can to make Sweden once again one of the world's absolute best countries to live, be born, and be in. But for this, and it is absolutely fundamental, a clear and distinct line of action is required.

By people going to work, we can remedy integration problems. We can contribute to curbing the recruitment to the gangs. We can contribute to once and for all eradicating different types of unjust inequalities between men and women.

Together - one of the world's perhaps most beautiful words, at least in Swedish - we can make Sweden better. It has required sacrifices. It will continue to be required.

It will continue to demand a policy that prioritizes and has the strength to take responsibility. It is a policy that does not promise everything to everyone, but where one sees, understands, and addresses the problems that Sweden has.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Wykman, for the speech!

First and foremost, I would like to thank you for the very clear gender equality perspective. I look forward to the autumn budget. There, we can see very clearly whether the budget bill that is presented actually contributes to increased equality or not. But it still bodes well.

We have today spoken a lot about healthcare. Many here have pointed out that the situation in healthcare is acute. That was the case earlier this spring, when the Prime Minister promised that no one would have to be laid off. But far too little has happened.

Now summer is at the door. With it, an even more strained situation will arise in Sweden's hospitals. We know that there are many women working in healthcare. Many flee from the healthcare profession because they cannot endure it or do not receive a high enough salary.

Cecilia Rönn from the Liberals said here earlier that it is not only resources that are needed for healthcare, but it is also other things. Of course that is true. But this is still a budget debate. If one is to be able to pay more for wages and get more employees into the profession, more money is also needed.

The government and the government representatives have been quite satisfied in this debate. But we others, who measure against how reality looks, are quite alarmed.

My question to the Minister is quite simply whether the government really intends to take real action to stop the resignations in healthcare and build a safe and secure healthcare system across the entire country for both patients and staff, or if you have actually given up.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to Janine Alm Ericson for highlighting important challenges for Sweden and for healthcare!

I hear no talk of satisfaction here in the chamber. It is a strength for Sweden that we, from left to right, have a determination to meet the very uneasy developments we have in our global environment and that there is a broad consensus behind fighting inflation and the cost increases.

A serious discussion must begin there. What is the root of the problem? There might not be a root and a problem. The previous member spoke creditably about the different types of structural problems that can exist within healthcare. It can be everything from what one learns in the education to how the operations are organized and so on.

But the root of the problem we have is inflation. In that case, it is not possible to try to solve the problem by worsening it or prolonging it. That is also why a balance in the policy has been needed. If one had only compensated for all cost increases everywhere, inflation would have stuck at a high level - Mikael Damberg correctly pointed out earlier that it is not possible to act that way. Therefore, the policy has needed to be balanced in various respects.

One can see that supplements to regions and municipalities are the highest priorities in the government's policy. This year, the healthcare sector is being provided with 12 billion kronor to be able to meet the developments. But one also needs to be clear that one cannot compensate for all cost increases, because then the underlying problem will become entrenched. Regions also need to take their responsibility in this. It is therefore about a difficult balance between different interests and about holding back expenditures in such a way that inflation, which causes the underlying problem in healthcare, does not become entrenched while simultaneously providing resources so that healthcare can get through this very difficult transition phase.

In this, the government is acting responsibly, and the government has provided resources.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Wykman, for the answer! Yes, we can discuss the root of the problem for a long time. One very clear root is the inflation and the cost shock that Sweden and all of Europe were subjected to when Putin invaded Ukraine.

We have been very much in agreement here, and I believe we all agree that inflation must be combated. It was just that when the autumn budget was presented, the inflation forecasts showed very clearly that we would largely be down at the target level now. They therefore presented a budget that was for the past when they actually should have budgeted for the future. There, I hope that we see other things from the government moving forward.

What I also find a bit interesting is the government's work line. It is important that people have a job, that they take responsibility for it and that they go to it. We agree on that. We also think that people should have a job to go to, where they receive a reasonable wage so that they can support themselves and their family.

But that is not quite how one reasons when it comes to healthcare. There, one does not want to provide the money needed so that the healthcare staff can feel that the extra hour is worth putting in. There are, therefore, clear gaps in the government's reasoning.

I would like to ask Niklas Wykman if the government will present a more future-oriented budget where they manage the challenges for the welfare system and ensure that people receive sufficient pay, pay for their toil, and more colleagues. Or will we still see a starvation diet and a healthcare crisis?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is easy to share all Alm Ericson's ambitions. Who doesn't? However, you in this chamber and we as the government have a special mission to prioritize and see what is possible to implement in reality.

It is true that the forecasts for inflation are that it is receding, but it is also given that one conducts a responsible policy. Had one strongly expanded expenditures and injected more money into the economy broadly, the forecasts for inflation might have looked different. That is why one needs to be realistic, down-to-earth, and anchored in how reality looks.

It is difficult to understand the very harsh words being used. One can, of course, discuss whether one would have added 1, 2, 3 or 10 billion more. But the reality is that in our first budget, one-third of the reform space was used for municipalities and regions. In the latest budget, 40 percent of the reform space was used for this, and now an additional 6 billion is being added. In this way, healthcare is being provided with 12 billion kronor more this year.

One can, of course, have the opinion that it should be even more, that one should cut back somewhere else, that one should raise taxes, that one should have fewer police officers, or that one should reprioritize in some other way. But it is not a famine cure when one significantly increases resources to an area.

On the other hand, it is a very difficult situation. Healthcare suffers severely from the inflation we have had in the economy and the cost increases that have followed it. In addition, it is certainly true, as has emerged in the debate, that there is one thing or another to be done regarding the content of healthcare. The government is also working on that. How can one be able to get more out of one's work, feel more seen and cared for, and in that way be able to provide better opportunities for patients in healthcare? The structural work is also ongoing.

I turn to the very harsh words. It is a resource supplement, but it involves difficult prioritizations. There are great needs in many places.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by welcoming Niklas Wykman to this budget debate. I think it is interesting that one describes the major problems that Sweden faces. Sweden has become poorer and more dangerous. We have had a period of low growth. We have had a period of high inflation and increasing unemployment. There have been many bankruptcies in certain sectors. We have a national healthcare crisis and gang violence.

But I want to take hold of what the Minister said about a better future, because we had a discussion in the budget debate about where the opportunities for the Swedish economy lie. Where does the development potential lie? What is it that drives the investments? Then we had a discussion about the industrial revolution that is taking place in Sweden.

Now, almost half of the mandate period has passed – there are a few months left. Quite a few people are waiting for news. I read the other day that there were five ships waiting outside Norway because the Malmbanan could not deliver the ore. We have major problems in the infrastructure that hinder deliveries. LKAB has said that when Malmbanan stands still, it costs approximately 100 million per day. These are, therefore, large costs.

One can look at the grip on the industrial development in large parts of Sweden. I follow up on the Sweden Democrats' contribution here. Do you have any internal discussion in the government on how you should view this? I would very much like the Minister to elaborate on how the government views the green industrial development, as there are many areas waiting for a decision. Furthermore, the government has promised some kind of strategy. First, it was a Norrland strategy. Then it became a Norrbotten strategy. When will that strategy arrive, and where are the measures to support the industrial development, which creates tens of thousands of new jobs all over Sweden?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, of course there is something liberating about saying it as it is, seeing the problem in broad daylight and in a sincere way stating which problems and challenges we face. What is perhaps a bit astonishing is that it is perceived as a novelty in politics, a reintroduction of something that should be a self-evident matter.

I am completely convinced that this is welcomed broadly in Swedish society. I also think that I now see traces of this in social democracy. It is good for Sweden with a political debate where one sees the problems and where the exchange of opinions aims to solve or to introduce different types of solutions to those problems. Every post and every comment does not then need to be about some kind of tactic where one is trying to win a vote or bring down an opponent - I believe it is very bad for Sweden to continue doing so. It is good that we discuss the problems that exist and the solutions and reforms that are to come.

When it comes to the green transition, Sweden has fantastic opportunities. We have raw materials. We have technical expertise. We have an industry that can deliver and that can become a winner in this. I think it is good to talk about how this also creates challenges and problems. It is about old technology that perhaps will no longer be valuable. It is about people who have had jobs and who perhaps no longer really fit in or function in this. There are pluses, and there are minuses.

Overall, we shall of course do everything we can to be at the forefront of the green transition, to lead it and to be an innovative and capable engineering nation, as Sweden traditionally has always been.

It does not mean that there are no problems linked to this. As I stated in my previous speech, the government will return with an infrastructure bill and a research and innovation bill, where we will address a number of these challenges. Then, of course, more will need to be done in the future. At the very least, a broad international discussion is currently underway.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Those are fine words, but there is very little action in this area. What the industry needs most are long-term rules of the game and a broad agreement regarding energy policy. It is obvious if one wants the investments that are required in Sweden.

We have proposed a shorter goal to 2030 to focus on fossil-free energy production in the short term. We have proposed new incentives for municipalities that say yes to energy production, something that is enormously important for industrial development.

We have proposed that Industriklivet should be expanded so that we can leverage private money to get the technological shift in place fast enough so that Sweden will become a leader in this. We have proposed that the municipalities should get greater opportunities to back up the industrial establishments. The municipalities that receive these industrial establishments also have large investments in the road network, in water and sewage, and in welfare so that people can function there. To share the risk, we have therefore proposed that the municipalities should be able to use the green credits to be able to build this up.

We have also proposed what the government's own investigator has proposed, namely that there should be support to build more housing in these places. In this way, communities can be built so that it does not just become fly in / fly out to these areas, and in this way, it can result in tax revenues for Sweden. All of this we have in our programs.

The government has said that some form of Norrbotten or Norrland program for industrial development is to be launched. When will that program arrive? When will the measures that are needed for these industries to continue investing in Sweden, and not instead choose Canada, the USA, or Germany because things are moving too slowly in Sweden in these important matters, arrive?

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can, of course, fully agree with parts of what Mikael Damberg says. Other parts are relatively far from what has traditionally been both Social Democratic, Moderate, and in that respect, Swedish politics. It is clear that if we want to rig the international economy so that we fully throw ourselves into a world order where we compete with state subsidies for different types of industries, then we will relatively soon come to the problem that we are much fewer than one is in many other countries.

If we want to contribute to fully accelerating a discussion about having as many state subsidies and programs as possible, it is not certain that it is good for Swedish wage earners and Swedish workers. There are countries with many more taxpayers who can cough up much more money. First and foremost, we must compete with competence, technology, good conditions, and so on.

Even though the ambitions are good, I would therefore advocate that one should conduct that discussion with caution. If we are to compete with France's state subsidies, it is not certain that we will win, and therefore it is important to maintain a distinction in that discussion.

In other respects, it is a bit difficult to understand Klimatklivet. 11 billion kronor over three years, of which much goes to charging infrastructure, and 7.1 billion kronor for the next three years to electrify heavier transport such as trucks, buses, and other. For Industriklivet, it is 4.8 billion during the mandate period, and 3.7 billion until 2030 to restore wetlands.

That is how one can continue. In area after area, major investments are being made to reduce emissions and to achieve the green transition.

It is, however, a bit difficult to fully internalize the criticism regarding the energy policy, because Sweden finds itself in a situation that we should not be in. The nuclear reactors should never have been shut down. Keeping them would have eased the pressure on emissions and reduced the dependence on powers we do not want to be dependent on. It would have been good for the Swedish climate and Swedish industry. Now we are to restart Swedish nuclear power.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is a pleasure to listen to Minister Niklas Wykman! It sounds like the Moderaterna of the old good Reinfeldt era. It is integration instead of rhetoric against Muslims, it is the work line, and it is, to some extent, companies and the like.

The problem is simply that the politics are no longer there, and that is why unemployment is rising in Sweden, unlike in so many other countries. That is why job creation is declining. That is why the newspaper today speaks of betrayal and anger among small businesses because the government does not protect the small business line.

The reason is that they have increased their costs for hiring, first by 6 and now by 9 billion kronor, without offering anything else as an alternative to create jobs. They say no when it comes to employer contributions and increase them instead. Otherwise, it could have helped in our common, important fight to bring down inflation.

Instead, what we hear of is commissions, councils and the like. It reminds very much of the worst old Social Democratic policy. It is only missing that you appoint some kind of small business chancellor to solve these problems instead of doing something concrete to lower the tax for small businesses so that they can hire.

This is so important, and my question is therefore: Why has one not succeeded in prioritizing lowering the costs of hiring in small and growing companies, and instead increased the tax by up to 9 billion kronor and introduced sick pay liability?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for the praise! It is certainly heartening. I have read the Centre Party's budget with great interest and must say that there are very many sympathetic proposals there, each of which obviously has its good intentions and good effects. At times, there may be a tendency to overestimate the positive effects, but there are still clearly many positive effects.

When one takes a step back and reflects, it is not entirely our assessment that very many new small rules and special solutions are necessarily what will lift Swedish wages and Swedish growth. Then, of course, all such proposals can be tested. They can be profitable and occasionally justified to implement. But with many different types of special solutions, it is still often the case that they build and add to a complexity and a regulatory burden. By their nature, they always entail a risk that an entrepreneur is rather benefited by being able to know the rules very well so that one can exploit them to the maximum, rather than by being good at their business activity or in their company. Such things one must always naturally take into such a balancing act.

Sick pay and sick pay responsibility is an important discussion to have. One must also state that high rates of sick leave are a significant problem for Sweden. It is central both that the healthcare system has the resources, capacity, and conditions to meet this and that employers take their share of the responsibility to ensure that workplaces are sufficiently good. The economic burdens must be distributed fairly and in such a way that each one - society and healthcare as well as the employee and the employer - has the right incentives to address ill health in different ways.

It is difficult trade-offs that need to be made, and as to whether I am not as convinced as Martin Ådahl that the Center Party has landed correctly.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I respect that the government is not as convinced about the Centre Party's policy as the Centre Party itself is. But here there is a very concrete issue, and something that we actually achieved during the previous period with the Social Democrats was to lower the costs very significantly for small and growing companies.

We have, moreover, taken to heart the criticism that Niklas Wykman presents here regarding the fact that there have been too many different exceptions. Now we are focusing on broad and, according to economic science, nevertheless well-considered proposals. Small businesses shall, with the help of lower employer contributions and lower taxes, get concrete opportunities to not only lower costs but also hire more. The smallest companies can hire four or five people, while the medium-sized companies can hire vulnerable people who often have lower wages and go from perhaps seven to eight employees.

This is concrete, it is real, it is something that we will push for regardless of whom we negotiate with, and it is something we lack in the government.

I notice from the rhetoric that the Minister is trying to skirt around this a bit; there are still some sympathies that this is necessary and right. But when will we see that kind of small business line and small business policy that is not just words and commissions?

We find ourselves in a situation with serious integration problems, with rising unemployment and unfortunately also with rising long-term unemployment, which naturally requires much more. We need to invest more in education, and we need to have stronger activity requirements and the like. But we also need to have small and growing companies that can hire. Where are the proposals? Where is the small business policy?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I exclude few or perhaps even none of the proposals that the Center Party has.

Everything must be accommodated within a prioritization. But when it comes to how small business owners are to have it, a broad work is ongoing to push back the regulatory burden - a frequently recurring problem that small business owners point out - and the implementation burden from various EU rules. There is much to be done to make it simpler and smoother to run businesses in Sweden.

Since companies do not exist in a vacuum. The crime problems that Sweden is affected by hit the country's small business owners hard. It is a clear priority to address this. That we have good people with the right education and the right competence who can take the jobs that are vacant and that we have order and knowledge in school is also important for small businesses.

I have all the respect for wanting to go in and tweak different compensation systems, tax systems, and benefit systems. But what constitutes the entire business climate is a broader mixture of different policy areas, everything from combating crime to having a well-educated and skilled workforce in the country.

One can always discuss individual measures in the subsidy system, the sick leave system, and other things. That can have its effect. But the reforms to be made by, for example, the a-kassan reasonably increase the willingness to accept different job offers, which is also good for entrepreneurship.

Then Martin Ådahl clearly faces a large and significant problem. Martin Ådahl is to try to unite Sweden's farmers, Sweden's forest owners and Sweden's small business owners and replace a Moderate Prime Minister with a Social Democratic Prime Minister who is dependent on Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. I think it will be tough, no matter how many small measures one has in the various subsidy systems to achieve that. Sweden's small business owners fare best with a Moderate-led government, not a government led by Social Democrats and in different ways to cooperate or enter into agreements with Vänsterpartister and Miljöpartister. It will be very tough for Martin Ådahl.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for the discussion we have had here!

Niklas Wykman argues that it worries him that many of us now see that Sweden needs to reduce financial savings somewhat and guarantee, for example, that the Malmbanan can perform its task so that growth and jobs can be guaranteed.

It does not worry me particularly much. I agree with Svenskt Näringsliv, LO, the Fiscal Policy Council and the Ministry of Finance's own investigation, the Long-term Investigation, that we can reduce financial savings to achieve a transition in Sweden.

What worries me is the government's measures for the transition, which were presented at the same time as my colleague Hans Eklind and I organized a seminar with those I mentioned as eminent guests. They presented a scandal-ridden former Social Democratic politician who, it seems, has run several welfare companies into the ground. That is the answer one gets from the right wing. It worries me more than being in line with Svenskt Näringsliv, LO, the Fiscal Policy Council, and the Long-term Investigation.

Does Sweden not need to invest, just as has been done historically, if we are to have growth and if also future generations are to have somewhere to live, a planet that functions and an infrastructure that we can rely on? That is my question.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I just want to say that I think Ida Gabrielsson deserves a commendation. It at least adds a clear dynamic to the debate when a Left Party member first reads a Christian prayer in the rostrum and then refers to Svenskt Näringsliv in the debate. I think that is refreshing in many ways.

There is nothing wrong with investing. One can, of course, always discuss what are the optimal levels for debt anchors and indebtedness. Such a discussion is conducted broadly. It is conducted here in the Riksdag, it is conducted in society, and it is conducted in various bodies that are more or less closely tied to the government. It is, of course, sound. Public finances should always be scrutinized.

What is important, however, is that one can quickly see what one gets for the money if one increases the debt, if one buys things, and if one invests. It becomes quite concrete very quickly. But then, of course, one has to pay. My simple point, and what is important for the government to emphasize, is that it also deserves space in the debate.

If I remember correctly, Vänsterpartiet wants to raise the debt anchor to 50 percent of GDP. If we were to be at those debt levels, how many more billions would we then pay in interest expenses? Ida Gabrielsson can certainly calculate that. Is it 10, 20, 30, or 40? Let's say it is 30 billion more that we would then have to pay in interest expenses. It is 30 billion that we would not be able to use for healthcare, schools, or other initiatives, or for that matter, for annual investments in Sweden, but that we would instead have to use to pay interest expenses.

We see, and it is written about it internationally in the debate, that many countries that have higher debt levels than Sweden are now being hit hard publicly and financially by their interest expenses. It is not certain that it is a good path to choose that.

A strength for Sweden is that we have low indebtedness and thus low interest costs and a high degree of freedom to act in tough times. Should we incur higher state debt and higher interest expenses, welfare would have to take a backseat, and we could end up with a situation that is difficult to manage.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, all of this needs to be refreshed. That is my job.

As the minister surely knows, the interest margin in Sweden has been good. We have had higher growth than we have had government debt interest. Even if that difference were to change, it is according to others than me – I am a simple person – such as Svenskt Näringsliv, Lars Calmfors, the Long-term Investigation and the Fiscal Policy Council well-motivated to carry out socially beneficial investments that are necessary for the climate transition but also to guarantee growth forward. I believe it is important to get that into the discussion.

I think we have to leave that, as it seems to be stuck. I will move on to this matter of fighting inflation.

The wage earners took a great responsibility. We see real wage cuts on par with the 1930s. At the same time, a large part of the inflation was pricing behavior, a poorly functioning electricity market and banking market, and food giants. The government has done nothing about it while the wage earners did their part. There was no wage-price spiral. There was only a price rocket in the inflation crisis that has been.

Now they proceed and want to further worsen things for the wage earners by worsening the unemployment insurance at the same time as hundreds of thousands more become unemployed.

Does Niklas Wykman agree with colleague Oscar Sjöstedt that it is not a saving, what is happening with the a-kassa and the change that we are to make a decision on today?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost: The new a-kassa will be designed more in accordance with the best research and best knowledge in the field on how to act to counteract people getting stuck in unemployment long-term and permanently. That the incentives to accept job offers gradually increase is good for counteracting exclusion and keeps costs down.

Things and items can be both better and cheaper. It is obviously very difficult to put those things together in the Left Party's world, but it is clear that things and items can sometimes function better and cost less. They can provide better support without being more expensive. It is the core of making the state function to think in that way.

The change in the unemployment insurance is intended to ensure that more people get jobs and fewer get stuck in long-term benefit dependency. In that way, it is an improvement of the unemployment insurance, just as Oscar Sjöstedt points out.

When it comes to the energy market, people say that we are doing nothing. Now, there is an intensive effort underway to get new nuclear power in place that can provide stable conditions for Swedish industry and Swedish households. The more people who want to join in behind that, the better. It is perhaps not impossible for Vänsterpartiet to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker! Then Ida Gabrielsson wanted to quickly leave the discussion on public finances. I can understand that, but it is still, so to speak, the core of what we are dealing with.

If one bases one's revenues heavily on temporarily high bank profits, one still has the expenses even if the profits were to go down. This could create large holes in the public finances. If one proposes, for example, different types of bank taxes that are difficult or take time to implement, one shifts large costs onto those who have mortgages. Or they will not be implemented, and large holes are created in the public finances.

If one increases public borrowing very much, it is clear that those who lend the money will want to have interest. Then one needs to pay that interest instead so that the money can go to the police, welfare, or something else. It is clear that one needs to include this in such a discussion.

If one borrows and makes an investment today, one displaces the possibility of making the same investment tomorrow with one's own money. Then one must be completely certain that it is better to do it today than to do it tomorrow. Perhaps there is a completely new technology that we would have wished we had resources to invest in, but we cannot; those funds went to the Vänsterpartiet budget hole already this year.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I usually begin this debate by saying that our country is in a very difficult economic situation. Let me say this time that we still are, but today it looks significantly brighter ahead than it did a year ago. It feels good to be able to begin this debate a bit more positively.

Mr. Speaker! The high inflation has resulted in a decrease in households' purchasing power. For the average wage earner, the rise in inflation has significantly weakened purchasing power since 2021. Because wages have not risen at the same rate as prices, more than ten years of real wage increases have been lost. The reduction in real wages has particularly affected those employed who have not managed to increase their wages by, for example, changing jobs or working more hours. Even though the average real wage is expected to increase in the future, it is estimated that it will take several years before it is back at 2021 levels.

Mr. Speaker! Many households felt the effects of inflation when the prices for food, travel, and housing increased at a very rapid pace at the end of the last parliamentary term. Those who lived on the margins were hit hardest, even before inflation increased.

To keep inflation down, the Tidö parties' path has been to reform several of the taxes and regulations that have driven up cost levels in our country, not least regarding transport costs. We have, among other things, taken measures to counteract the increased fuel costs being passed on to consumers. The price of diesel is an important factor if one wants to keep inflation down, as it is the fuel used most in both the agricultural and transport sectors.

I am, Mr. Speaker, glad to be able to say that our measures have had an effect. One and a half years ago, I believe it was, I stood here in the chamber and spoke about reduced tax on diesel and gasoline. I said then that the reduction was a first step and that we would continue to work on the issue and return with more proposals to bring down the prices further.

One measure we have taken is that on 1 January 2024 we significantly reduced the reduction obligation, which has further lowered fuel prices, not least when it comes to diesel. Sweden's petrol and diesel prices are now among the lowest in all Western European countries, and for the first time in a very long time, diesel is cheaper than petrol. It was therefore significantly more than the 14 öre per liter at the pump that some wanted to pretend it was about a year ago. It is quite quiet about that now, Mr. Speaker.

How has it gone, Mr. Speaker, with inflation, which is so harmful to the Swedish households' economy? Well, the increase in the inflation rate reached its peak in December 2022 and was then the largest since the 1980s. The month after, the Tidö parties' budget began to apply, and at the same time, the inflation rate began to be dampened to be at the same level in April this year as in December 2021.

It would probably be, Mr. Speaker, a bit too bold to claim that the reduction is entirely due to the Tidö parties' budget, but clearly the measures we have implemented together have had a major impact on inflation. This very thing, Mr. Speaker, has been a very important goal for the Tidö parties because it is so important for protecting household finances.

Mr. Speaker! The inflation target looks to be reached this year, but continued perseverance in the inflation-fighting work is required, not least since the uncertainty in the world around us is great. Geopolitical unrest and war in our vicinity can, for example, drive up energy and freight prices, which would risk increasing inflation again.

In line with inflation stabilizing at a low level, the Tidö parties intend to support the economy's recovery through reforms aimed at strengthening households' purchasing power, reducing unemployment, and increasing growth and investments - with maintained low inflation. This lays the foundation for building Sweden both wealthier and safer.

To create better opportunities for Swedish companies to grow, reductions in bureaucracy and administration are needed. We therefore intend to continue the work of reducing the regulatory burden and the administrative costs for companies, as well as to take measures to ensure that the authorities' processing becomes more efficient and faster.

But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most worrying thing in the tax area is still that the EU is reviewing the possibility of changing the decision-making procedure for taxes so that only a qualified majority is required instead of unanimity. This is a very worrying development that we need to counteract jointly from the Riksdag if we are to be able to continue to pursue an economic policy that is good for Sweden and for our country's inhabitants. The member states have different conditions, and we need variations in taxes to level the playing field for companies and union citizens - not the same taxes in all countries. Already now, we are limited by the EU, for example, when it comes to the level of the tax on fuels because the EU determines the minimum level for that tax in the member states.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by thanking the Committee on Taxation for good cooperation during the past year and wishing everyone a pleasant summer. I also want to extend a thank you to our very knowledgeable committee secretariat for the work they perform and the support they provide us members. They have helped us through several tricky situations during the past year; it has not always been completely simple. I also want to thank the Swedish National Property Board and those who work here and, of course, the Speaker's Presidium for very good work during the past year.

Thank you, and have a nice summer!

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! We could just now hear Per Söderlund praise the government's policy and the changes that have occurred in the tax area. It is not particularly surprising that Per Söderlund does so because we all know that it is the Sverigedemokraterna who decide which proposals the government puts forward.

But there was one thing in the tax area that Per Söderlund very carefully avoided mentioning, namely the funkisskatt. My memory, Mr. Speaker, is that the Sverigedemokraterna had a very high tone in the election campaign when it came to exactly the funkisskatt. To those of you listening to this debate and perhaps have not followed this fully, I want to say that the funkisskatt is about people who have sickness and activity compensation paying a higher tax than everyone else who works. It is a complete injustice in the tax system, which the Sverigedemokraterna had a high tone regarding.

Now, the Sweden Democrats and Per Söderlund are instead defending large tax cuts for those who are already well off. My question to Per Söderlund is therefore, Mr. Speaker: Why do the Sweden Democrats not stand up for a removal of the funkis tax?

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It may not be so surprising that I defend the policy that we pursue together with the government. But I strongly oppose the claim that it is the Sweden Democrats who are deciding. That is not how it works in a cooperation, and I believe that Peder Björk is well aware of that. We negotiate the different parts of the budget.

Regarding the so-called disability tax, I have previously turned against that expression. There is actually no tax that one pays because of one's bodily function, so to speak. There are many with functional variations who have jobs and go to work every day and who pay exactly the same tax as everyone else. We have had this debate earlier, and I turn against that concept.

I would actually like to know which decisions mean that a tax has been introduced on bodily functions in humans; I have not seen any such proposal or decision. On the other hand, we have lowered the tax on work, which is a prerequisite for getting more people into work.

When we have countered inflation as strongly as we have since our budget began to apply, it will benefit everyone. We are keeping prices down and braking the cost development very strongly, I would say - from 12.6 percent inflation in the last months in December 2022 to somewhere around 3.6 percent now in May, with the reservation that I am not entirely sure of the figures. This will benefit everyone. It is not a reduction only for the well-off.

On the other hand, we have done things that are really aimed at those with poorer finances. For example, we have increased the housing allowance for families with children. It benefits those who have a low income, not those who earn well. I disagree slightly with that description.

But I will also say that work on taxes is always ongoing. I will ask to return to this specific tax. Right now, I have no answer to that question.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! Per Söderlund can call this exactly what he wants. He can talk around it as much as he likes, but the fact remains. There are approximately 260,000 people in our country who have sickness and activity compensation. Many of them have an income before tax of 10,000 kronor. At the same time, Per Söderlund and the Sverigedemokrater argue for lowering the tax for those who have the very highest incomes. It is deeply unfair, and it definitely violates what the Sverigedemokrater said during the election campaign.

We Social Democrats will stand up for the fact that this tax gap should be removed. In our budget proposal, we presented a fully funded proposal where we remove this entire tax gap. We will continue to stand up for that.

In conclusion, I want to ask Per Söderlund: Will Per Sörlund and the Sverigedemokraterna submit a concrete proposal to remove this tax gap, or was it, as in so many other cases, just empty words from the Sverigedemokraterna in an election campaign?

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that one must understand Peder Björk's question in light of the picture that the Social Democrats have of how the country is being governed right now.

It is not we who decide which taxes should be raised or lowered, but such things are negotiated. As everyone knows, one does not win all negotiations - some one wins, others one does not. But if one believes that we decide, I can understand that one wants us to go in and lower individual taxes. But it is not we who decide that.

Peder Björk speaks about those with the highest incomes. I just want to take two examples of Social Democratic policy that we have debated previously. One is the travel allowance, where you wanted to compensate for high travel costs, which became less profitable the further one traveled. We debated that last year. We have a proposal that actually benefits those who travel a lot.

The second is the proposal regarding the child allowance, which has been discussed previously. It will benefit everyone, not just those who are struggling. There, we have chosen a path that instead increases the housing allowance for those who are struggling, not for those who earn well.

To claim that we only target high-income earners is wrong. I must oppose that.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! Our society needs to be built stronger and better.

The way we define 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. A logical consequence of this is that the opposite also applies: Every proposed tax cut shall be paid for with reduced expenditures or less, alternatively poorer, welfare.

If we are to meet our welfare commitments, we will need stable and long-term financing. 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 harder for tax fraud, tax evasion, and tax avoidance.

Mr. Speaker! Right now, our common Swedish welfare model is being challenged by another way of viewing the world, namely a bourgeois and conservative view of society. There, market logic governs how welfare resources are distributed, and the common project is smaller, and the common concerns are significantly fewer.

The pace of the bourgeois systemic shift is now being accelerated, and the SD government has chosen its fiscal policy line. The SD government's ambition is clear. The principle that those who already have the most should get even more applies. Tax cuts for high-income earners take precedence over families with children, while at the same time, they do not want to inject the resources that were so much needed for healthcare, school, and elderly care.

Already in its first state budget, the SD government lowered taxes for high-income earners by 13 billion kronor. Last week, the conservative parties here in the Riksdag voted through a luxury-rot that will neither remedy the construction crisis nor support ordinary people. And ahead of the budget next year, they have once again referred a large number of proposals for tax cuts totaling over 20 billion kronor.

Mr. Speaker! Of all the tax referrals from the SD government, perhaps the proposal from last year regarding the reduced marginal tax is the most expensive. The proposal concerns a removal of the tapering of the job tax credit. It would mean a tax reduction of just over 9,000 kronor for those who have incomes of 780,000 kronor a year. An annual income of 780,000 kronor thus corresponds to a monthly salary of 65,000 kronor.

All these proposals are therefore presented by the SD government at a time when Sweden finds itself in a very tough economic situation. Even though the inflation rate is now slowing down, the cost level is still very high. It hits Swedish households very hard, while unemployment is rising and growth is weak. Ordinary families with ordinary incomes have difficulty making the money stretch. Interest rates, rents, and food prices remain at high levels.

It is simply incredibly tough right now. There are too many very many months left at the end of the salary, and our non-profit organizations testify that more and more people are turning to them for basic needs such as food and clothes for adults and children. We are reached by the fact that many Swedes borrow to afford doing anything at all for the children during the summer holidays and on vacation. We also know that many Swedish households would have been helped by an extra child allowance, which we Social Democrats have proposed.

Mr. Speaker! We also have a welfare system that is taking hard hits from the SD government's policy. We are in an acute healthcare crisis created by the government, which, budget after budget, has ignored the great needs in Swedish welfare and chosen to underfund healthcare. One has chosen to implement large tax cuts for those who have it the best instead of providing completely necessary resources to the welfare system.

Despite this, Prime Minister Kristersson promised in a moment of, let us say, submission in a live broadcast on TV4 that no one would have to be laid off from Swedish healthcare. Healthcare would still be manageable despite the large tax cuts. Nothing has come of this.

Mr. Speaker! What is now happening with the healthcare crisis we have is a direct consequence of the policies pursued, where large tax cuts for those who already have are prioritized instead of investing in welfare. I therefore turn to you, members of the chamber who represent a party that supports the SD government, with the sincere question: Is it worth it?

Do you Christian Democrats think it is worth lowering the tax for those who have it the best at the same time as healthcare is in crisis and it is estimated that 5,000 people working in healthcare will be laid off this year? Do you Liberals think it is worth lowering the tax to hear a little more rustle from plastic bags at the same time as municipalities across the country are cutting back on school education? Do you Sweden Democrats think it is worth further subsidizing luxury renovations for those who earn more than 58,000 kronor a month at the same time as you implement deteriorations in the unemployment insurance? Do you Moderates think an eighth, ninth, or tenth job tax deduction is more important than children, the elderly, and working people receiving the care they need?

Is it worth it? Is it really worth it?

Mr. Speaker! Despite the SD government's reluctance and inability to handle the economic challenges here and now, there is reason to lift our gaze and look forward. As today's tax system has developed, it has resulted in that the principles and ideas that guided the last major reform over 20 years ago do not fully reflect how today's tax system is designed. Add to that that the world around us has changed and new challenges have arisen.

Even though there are great differences between the parties in the Swedish Riksdag regarding which taxes should be levied and to what extent, I have nevertheless previously had the impression that there is a perceived need for a comprehensive and far-reaching tax reform. It is a matter of something that goes beyond individual tax rates or an additional job tax credit.

Today I am not as certain. Both here in the chamber and in other contexts, not least from representatives for M, I have heard that a comprehensive tax reform is not as relevant today. Therefore, I naturally wonder if we in this debate today can get clear statements from the parties that support the SD government on how they view the need for a comprehensive tax reform?

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats are convinced that there is a great need for a political tax reform. It should be a reform based on the principles of uniformity, neutrality, and consistency, with few exceptions and few special rules. But such a reform must also be based on the principle that burdens are borne according to ability and that we take into account how those with the highest incomes and wealth can contribute more to the general welfare.

As a social democrat, I believe in a very simple and common-good principle, namely that we shall finance and take responsibility for common affairs together. That is what the social contract for the Swedish and the Scandinavian welfare model looks like. It liberates people, and it means that we do not become dependent on our own economic assets to access school, healthcare, and care.

Furthermore, we avoid having to give up large parts of our lives to take care of relatives who cannot purchase care and nursing 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.

In order for this to be possible, we need a modern tax system that ensures the financing of the welfare state and levels out differences. For me as a Social Democrat, it will always be worth paying tax to our common welfare. And therefore, we need to nurture, develop, and safeguard a fair and redistributive tax system.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Peder Björk for a very emotional speech.

I thought Peder Björk started really well when he spoke about a stable and secure tax base to secure the welfare. I completely share that conviction. I believe that as many people as possible should work, and we should facilitate for all people to make their life journeys with engaged participation in the labor market.

Then Peder Björk mentioned the fight against tax evasion, tax avoidance, and tax fraud. I thought: He is right! That is exactly what we Moderates think too. One must, in every way, combat all forms of cheating and fraud that harm our common good.

Then Peder Björk started to slander a bit and told that we Moderates have not done anything for families with children. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. We have ensured that families with children who have housing allowance have received an extended and reinforced housing allowance to reach precisely those families who have the greatest need.

Finally, Peder Björk said that a lowered marginal tax is wrong because it would benefit the very richest and those who have it best. I do not agree with the reasoning, but now my speaking time is ticking and I will go directly to the question.

If Peder Björk and his party think it is wrong to lower marginal taxes, why was the wealth tax abolished? Is that not in contrast to the emotional speech we just heard from the rostrum?

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that I become a little concerned if my speech makes the Moderates happy, but in the end, Boriana still concluded that it is a rather bad policy that the Social Democrats are pursuing. Then I immediately feel a bit more secure that the speech landed a little bit where it was supposed to.

It is still interesting that when we Social Democrats criticize you Moderates and the SD government for not doing enough for families with children, Boriana Åberg's only example of what has been done is that a prolonged and increased housing allowance for families with children has been implemented. Firstly, the allowance was introduced by the Social Democratic government, and secondly, the government has not lifted a finger to make the allowance permanent moving forward.

Furthermore, we Social Democrats have submitted several different proposals, including an extra child allowance for families, which has also been done in the other Nordic countries as a clear way to help families with children. We Social Democrats have proposed extra study grants during the summer, in order to strengthen the finances of families with children.

All that has been rejected by the Moderaterna in the SD-government. If Boriana Åberg and the SD-government as the only example have an increased housing allowance in the toolbox, I also understand why we find ourselves in the situation we are in. It does not in any way correspond to the tough situation that families with children have all around in our country.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Peder Björk for the answer.

Unfortunately, Peder Björk missed answering the question of why the Social Democrats abolished the wealth tax if they think it is harmful. Personally, I think it was absolutely excellent; I wish it had been a bourgeois government that did this. High marginal taxes are, in fact, harmful to society and prevent people from working extra, educating themselves, starting companies, and in every way contributing more to the common good.

The abolition of the wealth tax has furthermore had a self-financing rate of 200 percent. The tax has been lowered, but tax revenues have increased. Thus, all economic arguments fall away, and what remains are the incorrect ideological arguments that Peder Björk uses, namely that one should squeeze those who, according to the Social Democrats, are rich.

It is completely wrong. Everyone should be able to see it as possible to make a life journey and get better incomes. That symbolism, the envy and the resentment, is harmful. You distort this into some kind of image of equality, but the end result is that people cannot and do not want to take extra responsibility or educate themselves. In the end, it doesn't matter because the extra efforts disappear in taxes.

I would like to know what was the reason for abolishing the wealth tax, despite thinking that marginal taxes are good, in Peder Björk's final remark.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! No, Boriana Åberg, I did not avoid answering the question. On the contrary, I wanted to spare Boriana Åberg the answer I am now going to give.

When we are in a deep economic crisis, when we see that households are being brought to their knees and when we see that we have a healthcare crisis, it is completely out of touch with reality that the Moderaterna and the SD government present proposals for marginal tax cuts that benefit those who earn 780,000 kronor or more.

Let me be clear: No, we do not think it is reasonable that those who earn more than 2 million kronor per year should receive a tax cut of 36,000 kronor per year. It is precisely that proposal that the SD-government has put forward. Instead, one should in the Swedish Riksdag and from the government's side decide to pursue a policy that supports households. One should ensure to provide extra child allowance and extra student grants.

One should also ensure that the healthcare crisis, which the SD government itself has created, is countered by ensuring that the regions and healthcare services across the entire country are given sufficient resources. We Social Democrats have shown that it is possible. We have allocated twice as much to healthcare in our budgets as the SD government. This is something that should concern Boriana Åberg instead of her criticizing the Social Democrats because we do not want to see the introduction of a marginal tax that benefits those who earn the most.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Summer is here. Idas sommarvisa has echoed through the school graduations, graduates have been celebrated and many employees have started or are looking forward to their well-deserved vacation. The days are longer and brighter.

Even the economic situation in Sweden appears somewhat brighter today than a year ago. Inflation is clearly decreasing. The Riksbank has implemented an interest rate cut, and more interest rate cuts await during the rest of the year. We have a center-left government that is working so that Sweden can be built safer and wealthier, and the largest offensive against organized crime has begun.

In March, Sweden became a member of Nato. It is a much-awaited membership at a time when the world is plagued by war and unrest, and it is a membership that has made Sweden safer and Nato stronger. But it is also a membership that is not free. The investments to rebuild the dismantled Swedish defense require reprioritizations and new tax revenues—tax revenues that do not come from increased taxes but from the fruit of more people working. It is an extremely reasonable goal when 1,300,000 individuals of working age are not self-sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden must be built wealthier again. For us Moderates, work, entrepreneurship, knowledge, and innovation are the path to wealth and prosperity – not constantly increased taxes. We are often attacked because we want it to pay more to work than to live on benefits, and it is a discussion that we are happy to have.

It is like this, Mr. Speaker: If there are no people who work and pay tax, there will be no money for either benefits or everything else that is needed - school, healthcare, elderly care, a functioning justice system, defense and infrastructure. All welfare, all the state's commitments, are based on as many people as possible going to work every day. The optimal scenario is that everyone who can work, works. Therefore, the government pursues a policy that strengthens the drivers for work and self-sufficiency. The tax on work has been lowered, especially for those with low and medium incomes and pensions.

If there is financial room, the government intends to submit further proposals during the mandate period to lower the tax on labor in order to increase the incentives for work and education. The unemployment insurance is being reformed with a clearer tapering to strengthen the incentives to return to work. The unemployment insurance is also strengthened by raising the ceiling and including more people. The government has also commissioned an investigation into how a model for a benefit ceiling can be designed to ensure that it always pays better to work than to live on benefits.

Mr. Speaker! Tax policy also affects how profitable it is to invest in and run companies in Sweden. The Government has referred proposals regarding the new growth support, which provides tax relief for the first two employees in new companies. Simplified and improved 3:12 rules are underway to make it more profitable to run a private company.

When Magdalena Andersson was Finance Minister, they instead tried to worsen these rules and, in a classic Social Democratic manner, find ways to squeeze out a few extra tax crowns from the country's entrepreneurs and business owners. Better yet, we Moderates, together with the other opposition parties at the time, succeeded in stopping this and can now instead move forward with proposals for improvements.

In order to attract researchers and experts to come and work in Sweden, the experts' tax is being improved. So that there are no misunderstandings, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that by "improved" I mean that it becomes more favorable so that Sweden can compete with other countries in the competition for experts.

Moving forward, we must also, through tax incentives, support companies that want to contribute to our technological development and commercialize the ideas that have emerged at our universities. The government now ensures this by reviewing the deduction for investments in research and development.

In addition to competent employees and experts, companies need capital. Therefore, it is completely correct to encourage people's savings. Not least, it is important that women save so that they can leave a bad relationship and not be dependent on a man for their livelihood. By making the first 300,000 kronor saved in an investment savings account tax-free, a clear incentive for saving is provided.

The Swedish model of fund savings - and with direct ownership of shares, as with today's investment savings accounts - had its breakthrough when the bourgeois government in the late 80s implemented tax reliefs for this type of savings. In addition to encouraging people to save, it has led to a, compared to other countries, completely unique spread ownership in our Swedish companies.

Finally, I want to say a few words about all the proposals from the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party regarding the introduction of new temporary taxes.

There is no such thing as temporary taxes. Do you remember when the VAT was introduced? I don't think you do, because it was 1960. At that time it was called turnover tax and was a temporary tax of 4.2 percent. For 64 years we have had this temporary tax, which for decades has been at 25 percent.

The Social Democrats abolished the merit tax. I am very grateful for that, even though Peder Björk did not want to admit that the merit tax was abolished to secure their hold on government power. So principled they were. One could sell one's holiest ideals to cling to government power.

The wealth tax was introduced for the rich in the 90s. It was only supposed to exist for a few years. Everyone who was considered rich would pay 5 percent in addition to the 20 percent state tax and the municipal tax of approximately 30 percent. It took 30 years to abolish this temporary tax. It didn't matter that it was a harmful tax that hit education and more hours worked, because it was symbolically important for the Social Democrats.

It is not just me who says this. Göran Persson wrote in his memoirs that the wealth tax did not provide that much extra money to the state treasury, but it was a clear signal that one thought those who were well off in Sweden could pay a little more.

Symbolism is always more important than prosperity for the Social Democrats. Demonizing opponents and portraying entrepreneurs, engineers, and school principals as wealthy is more important than ensuring that more money comes into the state treasury.

Creating contradictions where they do not exist is not safeguarding cohesion – it is to divide.

Fortunately, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party do not have a majority here in the chamber. We have a majority for a tax policy that clearly focuses on strengthening households through employment and growth. It is a tax policy so that Sweden can also in the future be one of the countries with the strongest prosperity.

Already today, we who live in Sweden have fantastic opportunities through free education from preschool to university. Now it is time for the incentive to utilize these opportunities to be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! This is the tax committee's final debate during the parliamentary session. I would like to wish the secretariat and my colleagues a very nice summer.

(Applause)

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! There was very little in Boriana Åberg's speech that I stand behind, but all the more to debate and oppose. It was primarily one thing that I caught onto and that I thought there was reason to ask a question about.

Boriana Åberg was incredibly clear from the rostrum that there are no temporary tax increases. My question is whether the same principle applies when the government itself proposes temporary tax subsidies. The government has indeed proposed an increased level for the rotavdrag and rutavdrag – a temporary level. Should we, Mr. Speaker, interpret Boriana Åberg's statement from the rostrum that there is nothing temporary in the tax system as that the Moderaterna and SD government intend to make the increased levels of the rotavdrag permanent?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! My assertion that temporary taxes tend to become permanent, such as the VAT, or that they span over three decades, such as the defense tax, is actually well-supported empirically. That is the case, regardless of what Peder Björk thinks.

It is precisely about tax increases. I hope that all tax cuts, which have led to people keeping more of their hard-earned money, are forever.

Unfortunately, the Social Democrats implemented a tax increase by abolishing one of the job tax credits for people who earned above a certain limit. The marginal taxes increased by 3 percent.

I do not understand why the tax deduction is such a thorn in the side for the Social Democrats. You have not been against this previously, when you held government power. On the contrary, you have thought it is good that jobs are created for the construction industry. That is what we think.

The construction industry is in crisis, and it is necessary to ensure that there are jobs. Therefore, the temporary increase is just a temporary increase. I believe that the economic cycle is changing. Then there will be more work and more opportunities to build, renovate, and improve.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Boriana Åberg has gotten a bit tangled up in her own little reasoning. Apparently, temporary tax increases are only temporary if they are not called subsidies. Temporary subsidies are supposedly to be seen as just temporary subsidies, in contrast to temporary tax increases. It is an interesting perspective.

It is no coincidence that we Social Democrats highlight the SD government's policy for increased opportunities to make deductions on luxury renovations. This occurs at a time when we have a healthcare crisis across the entire country, when households are on their knees, and when growth is low and unemployment is skyrocketing. In that situation, the money the government invests in luxury-rot for those who earn over 58,000 kronor a month could be used in so many better ways than to further subsidize those who anyway have the means to renovate their kitchen for the third, fourth, or fifth time.

Madam Speaker! Boriana Åberg shall not come forward with the argument that this supports the construction industry. There is nothing that shows that, on the contrary. If anything is needed, it is a proper housing policy from the government, and the government's substandard policy in this area is not saved by luxury-rot.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Peder Björk is using bullying tactics when he says "Boriana Åberg has gotten a bit tangled up in her own little reasoning". It was not nice.

I also object to the designation "the SD government". I understand that it is a marketing thing for the Social Democrats. But the fact is that there is no SD government, rather the government consists of the Moderates, the Liberals and the Christian Democrats. So I have clarified that.

Who decides what constitutes a luxury renovation? Is it insulating the roof or the walls, installing solar cells, which is also very beneficial now, or making improvements? It is neither up to me nor Peder Björk to decide whether it is luxury or not, but it is the client who should have the right of decision – just as in everything else. People should have as much freedom as possible.

The government's absolute largest expenditure item is healthcare. The idea behind the rotavdrag is that it should create more jobs because money for healthcare, elderly care and school, as well as for Peder Björk's and my salary, comes from people who work and pay tax.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall read from the report: "Emissions must be limited. For that, a strategy is needed. The strategy that the government has for this area does not hang together. A number of measures are being taken that go in precisely the opposite direction to what would be needed, and it means that the transition becomes more expensive for everyone."

More specifically, it is the case that households with small margins face particular problems in such a context. They may find it more difficult to hedge against volatility in politics.

I read on: "A better strategy would be to talk about what needs to be done, point out what needs to be done and then direct support of various kinds to those who really need it most. It is clear that there are people in society who will be affected. It concerns low-income earners and motorists in rural areas and different segments of these groups. But it is possible to do a great deal in this area and address what is truly problematic without particularly large costs."

In conclusion, we state that there is a real need for leadership here. One needs to explain and defend the policy to achieve acceptance. It is not possible to adapt the policy to what is currently accepted; it will lead to this type of tension in politics.

Madam Speaker! What I read out was the chairman of the Fiscal Policy Council, Lars Heikenstein's account and evaluation of the government's non-existent strategy for climate transition. The conclusion is that it will become more expensive for all of us and toughest for those who are worst off.

Why does the government lack a climate strategy, Boriana Åberg?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Annika Hirvonen for the question.

The Green Party has truly contributed to it becoming most expensive for those who are worst off. The Swedish people will never forgive the Green Party for closing well-functioning nuclear power plants in cooperation with the Social Democrats. At that time, electricity prices skyrocketed, which hit those who have the least. It also affected Swedish companies as production was moved to other countries with lower energy prices, for example Finland. The closing of the nuclear power plants also caused Sweden to become dependent on dirty coal power from Polish and German coal power plants.

Something else that affected the production of heat and electricity was the waste incineration tax that Miljöpartiet pushed to introduce. This tax caused Swedish power and heat plants to have to reorganize their investment plans, and the production of heat and electricity decreased. Furthermore, waste imported from countries in Europe without good environmental technology for waste incineration ended up in the landfill, and it is still leaking metal. It is Miljöpartiets doing.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Boriana Åberg used her entire speaking time without addressing the criticism the government has received not only from the Climate Policy Council but also from the Fiscal Policy Council, for lacking a strategy to reach the climate goals and for conducting a policy that does not hang together, which increases the cost of the transition and hits those who are hardest hit economically. Instead, we received a speech that was almost about apologizing for Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the enormous increase in energy prices that it led to.

Is it serious that in a debate concerning guidelines for economic policy, where I ask a question about the Fiscal Policy Council's evaluation of the government's policy and the consequences of that, one engages in some kind of pie-throwing in the nuclear power debate?

Madam Speaker! I demand a higher standard. I demand that Members of Parliament from the Prime Minister's party make an effort to answer questions about their own policies and do not play election campaign and pretend that this is a question about nuclear power, because, Madam Speaker, it is not.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I wanted to provide an answer in a context. It was about emissions. As I previously pointed out, Miljöpartiet bears a great responsibility in this. To involve Putin in all of this might perhaps cause one to wonder why Putin and those close to Putin sponsored the environmental movement in Germany, which worked so hard to make Germany dependent on Russian gas and shut down its nuclear power plants.

The government's strategy is that climate policy shall go hand in hand with growth policy. We can never meet the climate challenges simply by ceasing to have growth, as your spokespersons advocate.

Sweden is responsible for a very small share of global emissions. It is more important that we lead by example for countries whose environmental policies would truly make a difference if they could be inspired by us. If we become poor in the process, we will never get China, India, or other countries to follow our example.

We therefore believe that environmental problems should be met with innovations that both save the environment and make people's lives better and our tax revenues greater.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! It is summer, and only a couple of days remain before the Riksdag takes its summer break, if one excludes the EU Committee and occasional committee meetings. Most Members of Parliament are preparing for a much-needed holiday with rest from the political debates. Some may perhaps go on a trip abroad, others will vacation at home in Sweden in an owned or rented summer cottage. Sun, swimming, ice cream, and excursions are likely on the agenda.

Hand on your heart - how many are lying there in the sun lounger and thinking of those who cannot afford to be off, of those in whom the worry about the economy and the future is constantly gnawing, and of those who use their vacation to work summer jobs and who spend the holiday they have at home, without excursions and ice cream?

Too many in our Sweden cannot afford to relax on vacation, and it is the families with children who have it the toughest. More than every fourth single mother states that she cannot afford to go on a week's vacation, and almost half of single parents with lower incomes sometimes need to borrow for basic expenses and therefore obviously do not have the means for any expenses during the holiday.

Under the right-wing majority, we have seen rapid price increases on basic goods such as electricity, housing, food, and fuels, which means that more households are finding it difficult to meet their basic needs. In two years, housing costs have increased by 26 percent and food prices by 25 percent. Families with children are now spending an ever larger share of their income on food and housing.

At the same time as families with children, especially those with single parents, have difficulty paying for the children's leisure activities, eating enough to be full, or buying nutritious food, the person with a higher income can pay someone to cook the food, manage the grill, or renovate the already functioning kitchen.

High-income earners' deductions for RUT and ROT services cost taxpayers nearly 20 billion a year. With the increases introduced by the right-wing majority, it is only people with incomes over 58,000 a month and without loans who can benefit from the deduction fully. The single mother is included and pays for the rich man's deductions, as are the unemployed and those on sick leave.

The latest job deduction benefited 90 percent of the half of the population that earns the most. Almost 10 billion in tax cuts for the upper half and barely over 1 billion to share among the lower half, and thus some hundred kronor a month for the low-income earner.

The gaps in society are increasing, and the right-wing government is doing its best to increase them even further.

Vänsterpartiet has on repeated occasions put forward several proposals to ease the burden on households. We have proposed that the food giants' opportunities for price increases should be regulated and that lower mortgage interest rates can be pushed through with the help of the state-owned bank SBAB. In our budget motion for 2024, we proposed, among other things, abolished quarantine deductions, housing allowances that follow income and rents, increased and inflation-protected child allowance, as well as increased social assistance with a focus on families with children.

These are measures that would have pushed back inflation and simultaneously strengthened the incomes of vulnerable households. But the government has instead invested in lowering the petrol and diesel tax, increasing the deduction for private housing, and introducing a new job tax credit.

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, the news came that the average life expectancy is falling for single women born in Sweden with pre-gymnasium education, while it is increasing for the population as a whole. Several prerequisites for good health for these women have deteriorated. More are single, have low incomes, and have sickness benefit or sickness compensation as their primary source of income. Fewer people in the group were in employment in 2022 compared to ten years earlier, notes the Public Health Agency, which conducted the study.

After many years of increased life expectancy, it is now falling for this group. The class divide is further reinforced by a government that increases the tax gap between those who have jobs and those who have sickness benefits or unemployment benefits.

Despite rising prices and interest rates in connection with falling real incomes, there are completely no major measures in the government's spring budget amendment to support households in the crisis. In fact, there is not a single new krona for households in the government's proposition. On the other hand, the threshold is raised again in 2025, and high-income earners receive further tax cuts.

In Sweden today, we see large and rapidly growing economic gaps. We are among the OECD countries where economic inequality has increased the most since the mid-1980s. Sweden has gone from being one of the countries whose tax system redistributes the most to having the least redistributive tax system among the EU's core countries.

Madam Speaker! In 2023, several regions ran with deficits, and ahead of 2024, 30 billion was missing for the regions to be able to continue providing the healthcare and public transport that is expected. After tax increases, cuts, fee increases, and mass layoffs, the deficit is estimated to be lower, but people have become unemployed and fewer receive the healthcare they need.

Before 2024, Region Örebro, among others, was forced to raise taxes to manage healthcare. Local tax increases hit hard because they are equal for everyone. Now, it is no longer Dorotea that has Sweden's highest tax, but a municipality in Örebro län. In Örebro län, with its old industrial towns, both the population and the business sector are steadily declining. It should not be the most vulnerable regions that are forced to raise taxes, but the state, in order to be able to support municipalities and regions based on need.

Madam Speaker! The government is undermining the municipalities' and regions' possibilities to conduct a functioning operation. They have prioritized tax cuts for high-income earners instead of investing in common welfare. It has not always been that way. Previously, there was a strong trust in the tax system and the possibility to make a difference. It was a self-evident matter that social investments should be financed collectively.

The tax quota has been lowered, which means 500 billion kronor less in tax revenues every year. The motives for the tax cuts have shifted but have predominantly been characterized by that the cuts should solve this or that social problem. There is no support for that taxes do more harm than good. The only thing that is completely certain is that tax cuts lead to reduced tax revenues and that they have clearly contributed to greatly increased income inequalities, increased class divides and an eroded welfare.

Tax should be paid according to ability to pay, and welfare should be provided according to need. Sweden needs a new tax policy that prioritizes redistribution, climate, and welfare - a tax policy that lowers interest rates and electricity prices instead of favoring high-income earners and climate-damaging emissions.

I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 2.

Madam Speaker! I know that I have exceeded my allotted speaking time, but I would like to take the opportunity to wish a pleasant summer to the members of the Committee on Taxation, but also to appeal to them not to forget those who find it difficult to make ends meet. I would also like to wish a happy summer to our eminent Chancellery as well as to the Speaker and the Swedish Parliament Administration, even though we will see each other in this chamber next week at the Prime Minister's report.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We gather this summer with the students' hopes of a brightening future ringing in our ears - hopes of a better future, hopes of work and studies and hopes of being able to realize dreams for the future.

We must seize hope wherever it sprouts, and where hope is missing, we must ignite the hope of a better future. One of politics' most important tasks is to contribute to keeping hope alive—the hope of a secure future for oneself and one's loved ones, where life dreams are realized, social mobility begins, and boundaries are shattered.

After an introduction to the parliamentary term in the wake of the pandemic, a domestic wave of violence and high inflation, we in the new government have slowly but surely tackled the task of building Sweden strong and stable again. It has been an important journey that we have begun, and now it is yielding results.

Madam Speaker! Tax revenues are the foundation of our welfare, so that we can manage to meet the problems in healthcare, the increasing insecurity, and many other societal problems. But tax revenues do not arise out of thin air. They arise when people work and pay tax.

To increase tax revenues, the most important thing is that people work. This requires a tax system that encourages work, and that requires tax cuts on work as well. It should always pay to go from benefits to a job. By getting to work, one also enters society, becomes a part of the community, and contributes to integration.

Madam Speaker! The fight against inflation is on its way to being won. After one and a half years of intensive crisis management, we can now finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. The Christian Democrats do not let the issue drop but expect that households will also need to be supported in the future.

The support for families with children with small economic margins in the form of the enhanced housing allowance continues. This provides slightly larger margins and makes it easier to make the money last the whole month. The reduction of the fuel tax and the reduction obligation, which the Kristdemokraterna promised in the election, has now been implemented. It has increased the economic margins for households and contributed to ensuring that even families with lower incomes can continue to drive their children to football practice and visit grandmother.

Madam Speaker! For the people of the countryside, the reduction of the reduction obligation is important. It contributes both to increased economic margins and to a living countryside. It contributes to spreading hope for a living and flourishing Swedish agriculture.

Agriculture receives a push forward with the combination of significantly lowered reduction obligation and lowered tax on agricultural diesel. In this way, they can meet the competition from countries whose animal husbandry and animal welfare do not belong in a modern society. It must be profitable to do the right thing, and it must be easy to do the right thing. The Christian Democrats do not strive for a utopian society but for a society that holds together and works for ordinary people.

Madam Speaker! The recession is met with structural reforms. The work line shall be re-established so that it always pays to work, and a benefit reform shall increase the incentives to enter the workforce. Structural reforms shall be implemented so that competitiveness and innovation shall characterize the business sector.

The government prioritizes 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.

The Christian Democrats have been involved in pushing through income tax cuts previously. This is something that we will also prioritize moving forward. It has previously contributed to more people entering employment, and thus the Swedish welfare can be strengthened. That it is so is visible, among other things, in how the tax capacity, that is, the tax base per inhabitant, has developed.

The tax system also needs to be designed so that the incentives to extend working life are strengthened. Therefore, we have pushed for that people over 65 years of age should receive further tax reductions when they continue to work.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats want to lower the income tax for the lowest wages. It should always be profitable to take a job. Of Sweden's 1.1 million companies, 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 ensure that more people can realize their dreams and start companies. Therefore, our Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch has specifically highlighted their needs. With strong entrepreneurship, a good business climate, less bureaucracy and a stop to increased capital taxes, we will become attractive for company establishments and investments both at home and internationally.

Red tape and the regulatory burden must be reduced. Thanks to the Kristdemokraterna's diligent work, both a simplification council and an implementation council have now seen the light of day. Now, the requirement for companies to save physical receipts is also being abolished. It is a reform that is expected to save 4 billion kronor for Sweden's companies and which primarily benefits small and medium-sized enterprises.

Madam Speaker! The recession must be met with structural reforms. The work line must be re-established, and it must always pay to work. A benefit reform shall increase the incentives to enter the workforce. Structural reforms shall be implemented to achieve a competitive and innovative business sector.

The policy must also continue to focus 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, and improve the energy supply. For this, we need a responsible fiscal and tax policy, and we get that with this government.

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

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! Cecilia Engström began her speech by talking about hope. It is often said that hope is the last thing to leave us. But I believe that we are now close to that limit where hope is beginning to disappear among the Swedish healthcare staff and the patients across the country.

The healthcare crisis that the SD government has created hits the country's regions hard, and thus the Swedish healthcare system and all patients. We see cuts everywhere. The deficits are enormous. Furthermore, 5,000 employees in the healthcare staff are estimated to be laid off during this year.

Madam Speaker! This stands in stark contrast to what the Christian Democrats put forward during the election campaign. At that time, it was the Christian Democrats who were to ensure that the Swedish healthcare system was organized. It was the Christian Democrats who spoke about the heartland, and I can state that it was probably not the heart care they were referring to.

Instead of ensuring that the Swedish healthcare system is developed and ensuring that it has the resources it needs, the Christian Democrats have contributed to the healthcare crisis. But they have also contributed to that instead of injecting resources into healthcare, they have invested in large tax cuts for those who have the best.

My question, Madam Speaker, to Cecilia Engström is: Is it worth it?

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that the largest investment we are making in the budget is in healthcare. These are funds for our regions and for our municipalities, which also have a responsibility to use the money in the best way. It is a responsibility they have received from the voters, for even in regions and municipalities, one is elected to their assignments.

For the Christian Democrats, healthcare has been, and continues to be, an important issue. Therefore, we also drive the issues regarding healthcare and on obtaining more money for healthcare.

Something that is also important is the fight against inflation. I spoke with a region yesterday that said they have cost increases of 12 percent. In that case, it does not help if we just put a lot more money into them. It is also about structural reforms, which are also needed within healthcare. And unfortunately, they take time.

From the previous Social Democratic government, we inherited an inflation that was high. We have now managed to tackle it so that inflation has come down to a level that is manageable. The healthcare workers in the regions and the staff who work in healthcare are also affected by inflation. Therefore, it is important to constantly work against inflation and fight it. That is an important part in this as well.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! The SD government and the Christian Democrats can argue as much as they want that a large portion of the budget is allocated to the regions. But the fact remains. It is not enough, quite the contrary. It is far from enough for the needs that exist all around the country.

Instead, the Christian Democrats choose, among other things, to stand behind a tax cut of 13 billion kronor for those who have the most. It is 13 billion that could have made a real difference directly in our healthcare.

We Social Democrats have shown that it is possible to do things differently. We have allocated twice as much money to healthcare as the SD government and ensured that it is fully funded.

It is a poor consolation to highlight structural reforms in a debate about the healthcare crisis when healthcare staff are on their knees, queues for patients are increasing, and up to 5,000 people in healthcare risk being laid off already this year. One can have as many good ideas as one wants about structural reforms, but they do not help here and now, either for the patients or for the staff who are working so hard and painfully. The SD-government and the Christian Democrats continue to spit out proposals for lowered taxes for those who have the most.

Madam Speaker! My question remains in light of the healthcare crisis: Is it worth it?

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Peder Björk talks about how a Social Democratic government would have pushed through something else. The problem is that there is no possibility of a Social Democratic government, which would be the alternative to a government with the Christian Democrats together with the Moderates and the Liberals. There is no alternative that is sustainable and that works.

We have regions that are independent and that can use the money in the best way. Even SKR themselves have said that the money they received from the government corresponded to 7,000 nurses, which we have constantly asserted they could retain if they choose to use the money in the right way. It is therefore also up to the regions to use the money they receive in a way that benefits the patients and the employees.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In Cecilia Engström's speech, she spoke about how the government's policy reduces emissions. That is not true - not according to the Climate Policy Council, which has the task of evaluating the government's climate policy. It is also not true according to the Fiscal Policy Council, whose evaluation forms the basis for, among other things, the report we are now debating.

On the contrary, it is argued that there is a lack of a coherent strategy, that the measures lead to increased emissions, and that the government needs to take the lead. The government needs to ensure that efforts are directed toward the groups that need them most. The gigantic tax cuts on burning fossil fuels largely benefit those who can afford it. They are motorists around major cities with good incomes.

If one instead directed the support to the countryside, to the farmers and to families with low incomes, one could ensure that more people manage the cost crisis, manage the increased food prices and have the means to buy a winter overall for their children or find something fun to do with the children during the summer holidays.

Madam Speaker! Now the government has given a huge amount of money to everyone who drives a car, but we still have a large proportion of single mothers in Sweden who cannot afford to put food on the table or buy clothes for their children without first going through the Red Cross or the City Mission's charity shops. It is deplorable.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the contribution! I do not know, however, if it was so much of a question.

There is, of course, a need to reduce emissions, and that is something that the government is constantly working on. It is primarily the Green Party that has removed the cheap power and the neutral emissions that existed from the nuclear power plants and what they produced. One was then forced to start the coal-fired power plant in Karlshamn and operate it instead of the nuclear power plants that we actually had and which did not produce such emissions.

We have also worked with the reduction obligation and the input goods. Every single person who goes to the store and shops notices that food prices are increasing. This is largely linked to diesel prices, which have led to increased transport costs. Therefore, the reduction obligation and reduced tax on fuels are also part of tackling inflation and bringing down the cost increases. So we can use the resources that we actually have.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! There are several ways to compensate people who have difficulty affording the grocery bag. One can take a detour and make fossil fuels cheaper. That pays off primarily for those who drive a lot, regardless of income. It does not pay off at all for those who cannot even afford a car. One can also direct the money directly to those who have great needs. It is about single parents, about families with children with low incomes, and actually also about Sweden's farmers. Their margins are very low, while the big food giants are making record profits.

We in Miljöpartiet present a coherent economic and climate policy that transitions, while simultaneously supporting the households that have the greatest needs. This is what the Fiscal Policy Council requests. This is the climate leadership that is needed.

It is also this that the Climate Policy Council notes that the government totally fails at. People talk about lowering emissions, they have grand visions of some kind of new nuclear power at some point far off in the future, and they talk about hope. I meet young people who say: I will never have children, for what world would they grow up in?

When the government does not take climate leadership, people lose hope for the future. Unlike the government, they have actually read what the scientists say. Unlike the government, they believe that every politician has a responsibility.

It is possible to reduce emissions and support the most vulnerable.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! The housing allowance we provide to the families with children who live in the greatest vulnerability is something that truly reaches those who need it most. It increases their chances of managing to pay the extra cost for food that we have now seen for another month.

The danger with the Green Party's policy is that one does not achieve an inflation fight, but instead gets an inflation-driving policy that results in higher interest rates, which would also affect all those who live in great vulnerability today.

For farmers, we have both lowered the reduction obligation, which helps them in their work, and lowered the price of agricultural diesel so that they can continue to run their businesses.

I must say that I become happy when I look at the Swedish companies, because they are truly driving the green transition. It is they who have the best ideas and who are actually driving our Sweden forward.

There is a hope that the climate can actually be saved if we, above all, listen to those who are on the way and to our companies that have the innovations and the power to come up with new ideas that can help us all.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by paying tribute to the municipal politicians, not least the Center Party politician Tomas Mörtberg in Övertorneå municipality, who has openly announced that they will stop the establishment of wind power until the state does right. Note well, Madam Speaker: This is not based on opposition to a single way of producing electricity. Increasing electricity production is a national interest and of the utmost importance for the new industrialization that is currently underway.

It is likely that Sweden needs more of everything. But wind power installations cannot be driven by national and regional interests against the will of local communities. There is a major conflict of goals here: It is the local communities that are most concretely affected by a wind farm, but today the state takes all the tax money. Therefore, we stand in a situation where the state's visions, regional industrial development, and the local reality create great friction - entirely unnecessarily, I would like to say. It is an extremely small economic sacrifice for the state treasury to return money from, for example, property and energy tax to the municipalities. For the municipalities, however, this can be the entire difference between being exploited and making a rational deal.

The government offer today is so poor that it is completely rational for the municipalities to simply say no every now and then. If one wants to change this, the ball is in seeing to it that the tax revenue from this production ends up in the right public pocket.

Madam Speaker! I note with some surprise that the Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari, recently announced in SVT that they are working on the issue, that they have not yet "found the Swedish model," and that they are seeking a way to both create incentives for the municipalities and compensate nearby residents.

That one has not "found the Swedish model" can probably be explained to a large extent by the fact that the investigator was forbidden from presenting proposals that affected the tax system. Otherwise, there would have been a concrete proposal already about a year ago, which could be combined with a neighbor compensation in line with what the investigation had proposed.

Madam Speaker! It is not so insanely complicated: Redistribute the taxes that are already collected so that the local community benefits, and simultaneously introduce a neighbor compensation! But then, of course, one cannot protect small state tax bases by prohibiting models that would untie the knots. For the state, it risks costing more than it is worth.

I furthermore believe that, in principle, one should go even further. The historical expansion of hydropower is almost to be considered as colonial plunder and a cynical exploitation of small municipalities such as Ragunda and Jokkmokk. Their electricity production sends many hundreds of millions to the state treasury every year, and in return, they have received mere crumbs. It is a historical wrong that should, in principle, be rectified. This too could advantageously be investigated, but this time preferably without destructive directives that prohibit the redistribution of taxes.

Madam Speaker! To double the profitability for Swedish farmers and ensure that domestic agriculture can supply the country's food consumption to at least 80 percent of the food we consume and has good conditions to produce in Sweden is the ambition of the Center Party and mine. Therefore, we previously submitted a proposal for an initiative in the Riksdag and the Committee on Taxation aimed at having the government quickly investigate the state's cost burdens, primarily taxes and fees, through the domestic food chain. We also wanted the government to subsequently develop reforms aimed at the goals of higher profitability and increased self-sufficiency.

The situation today is not entirely optimal. The dream of eternal peace after the Cold War has resulted in decades of lowered ambitions for both the Armed Forces and the country's self-sufficiency in, for example, food. When it comes to defense, Sweden has woken up, and that is good. Now the same journey needs to be made when it comes to food.

Madam Speaker! Since 1995, the farmers' share of every food krona in the store has practically been halved. Today, approximately 10 öre of every krona goes to the farmer, while, for example, the state takes 11 öre via tax. The consequence is more unprofitable farms, more centralized large-scale production, and an increased dependence on imports and functioning supply chains. Every other bite of food must be imported today. This is an extremely poor situation in the event of a major crisis or, in the worst case, war. There, the preparedness is simply too weak.

Madam Speaker! Personally, I consider the situation to be bad even in peacetime. Loading taxes and fees onto the farmer, the slaughterhouse, the transports, the food processors, and other actors in several links systematically pumps up the cost of the final product in the store. It lowers the competitiveness for Swedish agriculture in a way that hampers what could be a significantly more prosperous rural industry.

That is why I and the Center Party want to see a change of course. The primary purpose of the food chain cannot be to deliver taxes and fees to the public sector. It has a more important function to fulfill.

Madam Speaker! Our hope is that a rapid investigation and offensive reform proposals can become a central part of the government's announced food strategy. If we make agriculture and food production more profitable, we will be able to obtain more competitive Swedish food, more small-scale producers, and thus also a higher state of preparedness through decentralized production.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Midsummer Eve is approaching. It is a sure sign that summer is truly here. And regardless of whether it is sun or rain on that day – it is usually the latter – one is usually in a fairly good mood when the herring, the new potatoes, and the strawberries are lined up on the lunch table.

Another sign of summer, which is nonetheless a bit bigger for me, is that which has characterized the cityscapes all around in our elongated country during the past few weeks. I am referring to all the images from primary school graduations. We also see newly graduated university students who will now use their newly acquired expertise in the labor market and thus move from theory to reality. And of course, we have all the runners; students celebrating have filled our streets with joy. They will now enter adult life for real.

Simultaneously – this is somewhat contradictory – a winter is underway in our country. It is an economic winter, which, among other things, entails weak GDP development. This is due to inflation and high interest rates, which have left deep marks. We have continued a war in Europe and increased uncertainty in our global environment, which has further complicated the situation.

But let us remember that every winter is followed by a spring. We do not only face a time of challenges but also face opportunities. I will return to that later.

Much gunpowder has, as I said, been spent on fighting inflation. Even though the fight is not completely over, results have begun to show. Inflation has decreased. But it is important that we remain vigilant and persistent in our work. Geopolitical unrest, war in our vicinity, and other unforeseen events can quickly drive up prices again.

Furthermore, the development of the krona remains a major uncertainty factor. The Liberals have long considered that we should introduce a more stable currency, that we should introduce the euro as a currency. It is now time to investigate this.

Madam Speaker! It should always be advantageous to move from benefits to jobs. By starting to work, one is also integrated into society and becomes part of a larger community. It is the best method for integration. Furthermore, it should always be beneficial to take responsibility for one's own finances.

The education premium needs to be raised, and the opportunities to manage one's own finances need to become greater. Therefore, we have lowered the tax on work and propose to do the same for savings, in order to increase the incentives to work and be self-sufficient.

At the same time, we see that more paths to jobs are needed. Through improved Swedish language instruction for immigrants and measures to strengthen the skills supply, we can achieve that. By strengthening the work line, we can increase employment and reduce the exclusion that exists in our country.

Just marginalization needs to be in extra focus moving forward. The issue has been treated far too neglectfully for a long time. The new integration policy goal, which has now been presented, emphasizes that foreign-born women and men shall have the same obligations, rights, and opportunities as the rest of the population. It is a vision that we in the Liberals have advocated for a long time.

Getting integration in order is crucial for our country. There should be no shadow or parallel societies here. Everyone shall, as I just mentioned, become a part of the larger community. We can achieve this by setting clear requirements on the individual to become a part of Swedish society, while we of course must offer the tools required for one to be able to accomplish this oneself.

Madam Speaker! In order to build a stronger Sweden and maintain a good welfare, we need to have a growing economy. This involves, among other things, investing in both research as well as infrastructure and energy production. But we shall nevertheless work to reduce the bureaucracy and achieve shorter permit processes. Thus, we create better conditions for companies to grow.

The Productivity Commission submitted its partial report in the spring and already provides us with a solid foundation for how we should improve Swedish productivity and strengthen our economy. It appears that growth and productivity are primarily driven by knowledge, innovation, and entrepreneurship. For us liberals, this is no news. We have always emphasized the importance of education and research as the cornerstones of a successful economy.

Another major challenge highlighted in the sub-report is the aforementioned growing regulatory burden, which hampers productivity. We view with concern how unnecessary bureaucracy and long permit processes delay important investments. It is time to conduct a substantial review of the regulatory framework. We should be able to find a majority for that in this chamber.

The Commission also points out the need for a tax system that promotes productivity. We Liberals have long advocated for a broad tax reform that primarily focuses on lowering the tax on labor and making the tax system both simpler and more predictable. This would not only increase incentives for work and entrepreneurship but also make Sweden more attractive for foreign investments.

Madam Speaker! It is a very big step to go from being a sole trader to hiring one's first employee. It involves increased risks, great responsibility and more administration and unfortunately makes many with every right to hesitate before taking this step.

Among the growth barriers that small business owners experience, high employer costs are among the greatest. Therefore, it is pleasing that we are now looking at expanding the growth support from applying to one employee to covering up to two employees. It is intended to facilitate the transition to becoming an employer and help entrepreneurs to take the important step of expanding their business.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long tradition of having strong public finances and a well-functioning welfare state. But it is nothing that happens by itself. As said, it is a matter of us focusing on the work principle, investments, and growth-promoting measures to create the resources needed to meet the needs of the future.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and wish everyone a happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! At the beginning of the speech, Patrik Karlson painted a picture of a bountiful Midsummer table with herring, strawberries, and other things. It is a picture that is true for some. But for many, this Midsummer means anything but a plentiful Midsummer dinner.

The cost-of-living crisis in Sweden still means that many households actually cannot afford to put nutritious food on the table for themselves or their children. It is a failure of the SD-government and the Liberals that they cannot meet it.

For example, one could have supported families with children with an extra child allowance or given two extra study grants to those studying in upper secondary school, as we Social Democrats proposed before this summer. It would have made a difference for families with children all around our country. Then they could have looked forward to a Midsummer table that contains what Patrik Karlson described. But the SD government and the Liberals have chosen another path. They have chosen to focus on lowering taxes for those who are doing the best. It has not only affected households but also contributed to the healthcare crisis. We also see all around in Sweden's schools that municipalities are laying off teachers, and to top it all off, the Liberals have agreed to lower the tax on plastic bags.

My question to Patrik Karlson is therefore: Is it worth it?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! That there are nutrient-poor Midsummer tables in 2024 is nothing new. I can inform the members that they also existed during all eight years that the S-government ruled. This is rather about the major problem that we must address.

I myself grew up in a litter of three siblings with a single, sick-leave mother. I know what it is like to come home when the electricity is cut off and what it is like to go to bed with an empty stomach. I know what it is like to wear torn clothes.

What changed life for my mother was that the alliance government took office and re-established the work line. Then she, who had been forced to live on sickness insurance, instead got her first job. She could start earning money for real, save up, and give us better conditions. It is that line we must return to. That is how we solve problems for real. That is what the government focuses on and what the previous government totally failed at during eight years. That, if anything, was a betrayal.

(Applause)

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! If Patrik Karlson is well aware of how things are, how can he and the Liberals then back a policy from the SD government that pulls the rug out from under the families with children and households that are struggling? How can Patrik Karlson and the Liberals stand for a policy that does not support households in one of the worst economic crises in a very long time? Instead, they present proposal after proposal aimed at lowering taxes for those who have the most. In its first state budget, the SD government came before us here in the Swedish Riksdag with a proposal and voted through a tax cut of 13 billion kronor for those who have it best. That money could have been used in a much better way.

How can Patrik Karlson and the Liberals stand behind the proposals now being presented that concern worsening the accident insurance and the health insurance, if it is the case that Patrik Karlson is well aware of how it is? No, Madam Speaker - Patrik Karlson, the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats continue with their classic bourgeois politics. They lower taxes for those who have it best and ensure that those who have it worst are under-insured. Then they sit and watch as the healthcare crisis they themselves have been involved in creating grows across the entire country without doing anything to prevent the regions from risking having to lay off 5,000 people working in healthcare just this year. The ultimate consequence of that is that the patient queues grow.

Madam Speaker! My question remains: Patrik Karlson - is it worth it?

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! There is a lot to keep track of. I realized that I missed a bit at the beginning.

We are investing in Swedish schools. We have added several billion in both the autumn budget and the year-end budget. There are funds that have been allocated to the schools. The big problem, however, is that the municipality is the primary authority. It is the municipality that is responsible for ensuring that the school functions and that decides how the money is used out there.

I, who come from Linköping, have seen how the S-led municipal management functions there. Despite the fact that the money is there, they completely disregard the school. That is what happens out in the municipalities when Social Democrats are in power. It is the Social Democrats who are the cause of the problems because they removed the state's role as the primary employer.

Madam Speaker! If we were to return to state ownership, we would avoid carrying out much of this debate. It is the same with the regions. We have contributed a lot, but just as many have stood here before me and said that more money in these times will not be the entire solution.

We need to work with larger structural issues to solve the healthcare system's problems. The government is looking into this in cooperation with all 21 regions, but if we simply give them so much that it covers the deficits they see today, we would of course only fuel inflation further. No, Madam Speaker, the problem is larger than that and is not solved with number-tinkering from the Socialdemokraterna.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Before I proceed to what I actually intended to say in the debate on guidelines for economic policy, I would like to draw all listeners' attention to a type of rhetoric that has recurred on several occasions during this debate and which is linked to the consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent cost crisis that has hit Sweden and Europe. I believe it is easy for every politician to think that one can win a short-term point by blaming the cost increase on a previous or current government and saying that one inherited the high inflation from the previous S-government or that it was domestic policy regarding nuclear power that caused the high prices for oil and gas.

Even though domestic policy plays a role in economic development, we – each of us who want to stand up for support for Ukraine and opposition to Putin – need to be honest about the conditions that have fundamentally caused both the increased inflation and the increased prices for energy and fuels. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the single most important cause. Let us not lose sight of that! It risks, in the long run, undermining the entire Swedish population's strong and united support for Ukraine's struggle and the opposition to Russia.

Madam Speaker! So, to the economic policy. Here we have different visions. We have different priorities. No one can afford everything. Economics is about managing limited resources.

We face great challenges. One of the greatest tasks in world history has been placed on our shoulders, namely to transition from a fossil economy to a fossil-free one. It is our responsibility to make a just climate transition that does not leave the poorest with the highest costs. It is our responsibility to manage the crisis in healthcare. It is our responsibility to ensure that also single mothers manage through the cost crisis. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet have an offensive policy for a just climate transition where we provide support to people in rural areas and to those with low incomes while we continue to steer away from fossil fuels.

During this debate, the representatives of the government parties have, unfortunately, time and again returned to how proud they are of having lowered the price on fossil emissions. It is their only solution to the cost crisis, but it takes us in the wrong direction regarding the climate crisis.

We in Miljöpartiet show with our budget that it is possible to choose a different path, a path where we support families with children with increased child allowance, support farmers with agricultural deductions and support people in rural areas and the countryside with tax deductions. This ensures that even those who are dependent on the car get through the cost crisis, while at the same time we do not lose momentum in the climate transition.

We in Miljöpartiet see that one must steer towards what is sustainable. That which is good should also be cheap. Therefore, we believe it is wrong to raise the tax on repairing things that have broken. Raise the tax on emissions instead!

We in Miljöpartiet also think that it should be fair. Those who own a lot should pay more than those who have less. We think that it should pay to work and are concerned that more and more people envision supporting themselves by simply owning. We need to level the tax gap between those who work and those who earn money from already having a lot of capital.

A group that has earned extremely much money while many have been very poor are the banks. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet have proposed an extra bank tax for those banks that have now distributed enormous profit sums because they have raised the interest rate on all our mortgages but not on our savings accounts. A temporary bank tax could lead to us getting the poorest families with children to manage this cost crisis. It could also lead to the regions being able to shorten the healthcare queues instead of shortening the list of employed nurses.

Madam Speaker! Many have spoken about the concern regarding the crime that also recruits children and young people. That also worries me and us in Miljöpartiet. When I hear talk of student assistants and teachers being laid off in schools across Sweden and that the classes are to become a bit larger, it makes my stomach knot. There is nothing more short-sighted than to cut costs on our children's education. But in the municipal economic reality, it is unfortunately the case that one has already saved on elderly care for many years - now it is the children who are paying the bill when the government instead spends money so that the richest can renovate more with subsidies from us taxpayers.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet want to see a tax reform where we ensure that those who have the most pay more, so that we move from being one of the countries regarded as a tax haven for capital to being a country where we have equality and where people who work do not pay more tax than those who earn money from owning. We want to see a tax reform that steers towards a just climate transition where we ensure acceptance for the climate policy by ensuring that those affected by high prices receive compensation - not to continue emitting but to transition.

I move for approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation 4.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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