Social economy and financial management

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the Committee on Finance's proposal in the report regarding expenditure area 2 Social Economy and Financial Management.

The budget that the government is now presenting sets the course to create more growth and take us out of the recession. We have left behind the high-interest environment that has pressured both companies and households. The loans that have been virtually interest-free are but a memory.

In our neighboring area, we have a war that has lasted far too long, but the government and Sweden have clearly shown that Ukraine does not stand alone. Ukraine's struggle is also Europe's struggle. Let us hope that the peace negotiations achieve success!

During last year's debate on the economy, I pointed out that one of our important trading partners, Germany, has not yet gained momentum in its economy. It is something that unfortunately spills over on us here in Sweden. Very little has changed. Expensive electricity prices make it difficult for companies to expand and compete, something we can actually recognize here in Sweden. The EU needs to sharpen up and facilitate both innovation and entrepreneurship. Our ally on the other side of the Atlantic is conducting a trade war that benefits the large at the expense of the small.

The good news is that Swedish companies are relatively strong under these conditions, which demonstrates a resilience that will allow us to gain momentum in the economy during the next year – not least because the Tidö parties' budget will help with just that. If the forecasts hold, growth will land at around 3 percent, according to LO's calculations.

The high inflation and, furthermore, the interest rate have caused over-indebtedness to become a real problem, especially for households. Therefore, the government has, among other things, tightened the rules for interest and cost caps and simultaneously limited the deduction right for unsecured loans. During the next year, the government will also lower the amortization requirement so that fewer households will be forced to take expensive unsecured loans.

Benefit crime continues to be a problem. Benefit fraud from abroad and gross organized crime target the public and must be combated at all costs.

The Swedish Pensions Agency's work is rolling on, and during the last year, incorrect payments amounting to 3.5 billion kronor were discovered. That is 300 million more than the year before. If one looks instead at the number of prosecution decisions where subsidy crime has been the primary crime, one sees that these have increased from 289 in 2016 to 1,875 in 2024.

One might wonder how it is that this type of crime has increased so dramatically, and I think it is a question that you who are listening to the debate at home on the sofa can ask yourselves.

We had hopes that the Swedish Payments Agency would be able to scale up its work with the help of, among other things, a transaction account, but the referral bodies demonstrated far too great risks linked to this while the benefit would be absent. Instead, the agency shall focus on the analytical work of detecting and making visible incorrect payments.

Mr. Speaker! The major point of contention within the expenditure area is how the work with Statens servicecenter shall continue. The divided opposition proposes, at most, 50 million more than the government. It is a lot of money, but it corresponds to an appropriation increase of only 5 percent compared to what the government proposes.

When I spoke with the responsible Minister Erik Slottner about this as recently as yesterday, I was informed that the goal is for there to be at least one office in each so-called functional analysis region, which corresponds to 71 offices. At the same time, the authority will become mobile and in this way increase accessibility throughout the country, not least in the countryside.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: We are approaching an election. You who are listening to the debate will have the chance to go to the ballot box next year.

Before me is an opposition that is unable to agree even on the expenditure area we are now debating. It is an opposition that does not agree that our record-low fuel prices are good for the country and which, by the narrowest of margins in this chamber, decommissioned Ringhals prematurely. It is a decision that we will remember this winter and that we will do everything to change. Nuclear power was needed for the companies' and our future growth. Think about that in September!

With that, I would like to extend a big thank you to the committee's officials and the Riksdag Administration, and wish the Speaker a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the opening remarks, David Perez!

I would like to ask what the citizens in Arvika, Ånge, Tranås, Enköping, Falkenberg, Lysekil, Mariestad, Brandbergen in Haninge, Bollnäs, Filipstad, Kungälv, Landskrona, Lindesberg, Motala, Trelleborg, Växjö, Åmål, Ludvika, Östhammar, Norrköping, Sandviken, Simrishamn and Piteå have in common. I believe that Member Perez knows what I mean, as all these citizens live in municipalities where the state presence is now being progressively diminished as the government's policy forces Statens servicecenter to phase out the service there.

In some cases, the closure decisions have been rescinded after strong opinion from the local communities, but the government's direction remains firm: The State is abandoning large parts of the country and worsening the service for hundreds of thousands of citizens across our country. To achieve a total saving of 150 million kronor in the state budget, SD and the government are prepared to turn their backs on these towns. The residents can instead rejoice in that they, through this, contribute to making historical tax cuts possible for the country's wealthiest.

My question to David Perez is: How did you come to the conclusion that this was a good idea?

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

It is not the first time I have received this question and that we are debating this topic, but the fact is that one could practice some self-criticism when it comes to Statens servicecenter. Is it the case that the agency has provided fully satisfactory service all over the country, or have there been things that can actually be improved?

That is what the government is proposing. We should let go of the fuss that has existed regarding which locations these offices should be in.

The chairman mentioned two towns, Östhammar and Enköping, which belong to my county. I can say that the authority has not succeeded in conducting its activities in a good way there. It has been very expensive premises in rather poor locations, if I may be honest.

The idea is, as I said in my speech, to rethink here. When the Social Democrats cut back on an activity – for example, the public dental care – and make it mobile, it is actually an investment, I can recall. I think similarly here, because what we want to do is to increase accessibility by making the agency mobile and removing fixed offices so that we can serve more people in the countryside. That is the purpose.

A saving is absolutely occurring, but it is at 5 percent. Given that the economic situation is tough and that we instead invest in lowered fuel prices, lowered electricity tax, and lowered tax for ordinary people, I think this is a reasonable prioritization.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! We know roughly what the population structure looks like in these localities. Relatively many elderly people live here. In several of these localities, quite a few newcomers who come from other countries and who have a strong need for service live here, which they have been able to receive.

I can understand why the member thinks that one must constantly work with efficiency and adapt one's local needs and other things. It belongs to traditional administrative work, and there is nothing strange about this. It can be done even if one enters a phase where one develops and expands the operations.

I think it is strange that the Sweden Democrats, who claim to stand for the development of the countryside and not least for the elderly to have a bearable life, are prepared to participate in this saving in a budget that for 2025 amounts to 60 billion and for 2026 amounts to 80 billion. It is strange that the Sweden Democrats think it is so important to worsen the service all over our country, reduce trust and increase the distance between the state and the citizens for 150 million in such a large budget. Why is it a good idea to tear Sweden apart?

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ingela Nylund Watz again for the question.

I would like to say that my answer remains. Fundamentally, this is about priorities. Sverigedemokraterna and the Tidö parties make different priorities than the Socialdemokraterna do. That is quite sufficient.

The Social Democrats prioritize, among other things, increased aid; we do not. The Social Democrats prioritize phasing out nuclear power; we do not. The Social Democrats prioritize raising fuel prices; we do not.

Fundamentally, politics is about wanting different things. We want to make it easier for ordinary people and increase accessibility.

These authorities are to be highly accessible digitally. Now, not everyone can be present in the digital environments; this applies, among other things, to people with functional variations. That is where the mobile option should be able to come in and have a decisive operation for Statens servicecenter.

The authorities shall therefore not only increase their presence through digital services, but they shall also increase their presence through mobile services.

The member mentioned Östhammar and Enköping as two examples. I can inform her that neither newcomers nor elderly people live in these localities to any significant extent. Enköping is Uppsala County's second-largest urban area, and Östhammar is also a very large urban area. Swedes live in these places for the most part, which are well-functioning communities. I would like to ask the member to think a bit more before she lists examples that are actually not applicable.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today the Chamber is dealing with expenditure area 2 Social Economy and Finance Administration. Since our budget proposal for the area exceeds the limits that the Riksdag has established, we cannot reserve ourselves in favor of our proposal. We refer instead to the specific statement that we have submitted.

The area we are debating today is perhaps not one of the Finance Committee's most high-profile. It is, however, perhaps one of the most important, because it concerns the state's administration. I will make a few points regarding this.

The Government argues that the fulfillment of the goals in the financial markets area has been good, but that the work against fraud, among other things, needs to be improved. The Government appears to be quite satisfied that the banks are now engaging in some self-regulation. In our opinion, it is incredibly important that the Government now truly follows the banks' self-regulation work in an effective manner. There must be readiness for further legislative measures.

In the report on state administration policy, the government notes that the reduction of the grant to Statens servicecenter by 150 million kronor means that 35 service offices need to be decommissioned by 2027. The many debates we have had on this recently clearly show that SD and the government completely lack an understanding of what reduced state presence means in the parts of the country that are affected. It pulls Sweden apart, increases the distance between the state and the citizens, and creates a lack of trust.

The government's management of the service centers has been consistently appalling. Short lead times from the decision on reduced appropriations to the requirements for delivery initially led to the fact that what decided which offices were to be closed was the length of the entered lease agreements. No further analysis was conducted beyond that. It is distressing – no wonder the storm of criticism erupted.

Now the government has gotten cold feet and is coming with a supplement of 10 million kronor so that one can live up to the ambition to provide state service in all FA-regions with flexible and mobile solutions. It will be incredibly interesting to see what it will look like and what level of service it will lead to. Rest assured that we will follow this very closely!

For us, it is obvious that this supplement is completely insufficient. The requirement that Statens servicecenter must complete the reductions remains fixed. More than 30 offices have been closed or will be closed. With our budget, Statens servicecenter would have received 50 million kronor more, and the state presence could have been maintained and even increased.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the government's reporting on the work of implementing Agenda 2030, the reading is as clarifying as it is depressing. The Swedish National Audit Office notes that Sweden ranked very high in the ranking of the world's countries for goal fulfillment regarding Agenda 2030 already when the work began in 2016. Since then, however, the National Audit Office argues, Sweden's goal fulfillment has not increased significantly.

The National Audit Office's conclusion is that the state's work with Agenda 2030 has not been effective. It is also argued – and this is serious – that the reporting to the Riksdag has been deficient and that the latest report is even incomplete. It is not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker! The Payment Authority, which was established at the initiative of the previous S government, has been operational since 1 January 2024 and has for some time been working on introducing a so-called transaction account to make it possible to consolidate all payments from the welfare systems. As recently as September 2023, the Sverigedemokraterna and the government expressed the need for this in an article in Svenska Dagbladet. The implementation committee that prepared the agency's launch had previously stated that it was not necessary to create such a transaction account and that the payments could remain at the respective agencies, but the government nevertheless proceeded and trumpeted this out in Svenska Dagbladet in September 2023.

A little over a month ago, however, news came from Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson, after 200 million kronor of taxpayers' money had been plowed into the development work, that the work would be discontinued and that the agency's work should be streamlined to counter incorrect payments.

In our opinion, it is a sign of clumsy governance on the government's part to waste 200 million kronor in this way on futile investments. With all due respect, the information we have received from the Ministry of Finance's state secretary in the area provides no further clarity as to what it actually is that has happened. We will have to return to this in other contexts.

Mr. Speaker! In our budget proposal, we have also given the Swedish Payments Agency a crime-fighting mandate, just as they have requested. We want to give them access to the Police Authority's intelligence on gang criminals so that they can sharpen their work against these individuals. We also propose that they should be given the mandate to interimistically stop payments pending a decision from the responsible authority.

We deeply regret that SD and the government chose not to support our committee initiative last week when we proposed that the committee should make a notification to the government that this assignment should be given to Utbetalningsmyndigheten. It is, as said, deeply regrettable, but we will also return to this issue.

So to my final point. The government writes in its budget that criminals and unserious actors must be able to be excluded from public procurement and that contracts with criminal companies must be terminated. That is very good. A mandate shall also be given to the National Agency for Public Procurement to support the municipalities in the work of countering labor and welfare crime within public business. That is also good, and we stand completely behind it.

But the government must also sweep clean in front of its own door. The Swedish National Audit Office recently published a report on how ten state agencies and companies comply with the legal requirements to include labor law conditions in public procurement. The reporting is depressing, if not astonishing. The agencies reviewed contribute to wage dumping and poor working conditions among their suppliers. Two out of three procurements in risk industries lack labor law requirements. It is completely unacceptable, and that the government has not acted on the issue is completely unacceptable. We will follow up and scrutinize in which direction the government chooses to go to rectify this so that state agencies comply with today's requirements. Given how organized crime manifests in several forms, including through the exploitation of labor, the state must lead by example.

In conclusion, I would like to wish Merry Christmas to my colleagues on the committee, our extremely competent secretariat staff, the Speaker's Presidium, the Chamber Office, and everyone participating in today's debate.

(Applause)

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have some reflections regarding the member's speech. As I mentioned in my own speech, we are approaching an election. The Social Democrats may then need to cooperate with several parties, one of which cuts quite brutally at, among other things, Kammarkollegiet and Finansinspektionen, which conduct market supervision so that everything goes correctly. Do the Social Democrats also want to cut these agencies? How else is one to reach an agreement here?

The Social Democrats have also stated that they want to introduce a bank tax on our Swedish banks. Why do the Social Democrats want to make it more expensive for consumers to have a bank?

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank David Perez for the questions. Yes, these are certainly questions asked precisely in the pocket that we are in the prelude to an election campaign, but I will try to answer as well as I can.

First of all, David Perez knows that it is a rhetorical tactic to ask questions of the type "How will you cooperate on the issues that you are not currently in agreement on on paper?". David Perez knows, just like everyone else in the chamber, that in negotiations regarding the formation of a government, one gives and takes, and then one sees what the outcome will be.

For our part, the starting point is that authorities that have a strong mandate to manage the administration of the state and contribute to crime fighting need the resources they are allocated. In several cases, they may also need more resources. We have, for example, reflected a lot on how the work within the Economic Crime Authority and the Swedish Companies Registration Office can be developed, and here I believe it is possible to find common points of contact.

The banks have collectively made 100 billion in profit during a period when interest rates have been high and Swedish households have been pressured to such a mild extent that child poverty has increased and many households in Sweden have not been able to afford to put nutritious food on the table. In that case, we think it is highly reasonable that the banks contribute to society. It is, among other things, about having enough tax revenue for a well-functioning welfare state.

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This clearly shows where the parties stand on this issue. The Social Democrats think that the banks should contribute a little to society – as if they do not already pay tax on profits, profit withdrawals, and other things. We should be grateful for our well-financed banks and for the fact that we, unlike many other countries, have a well-functioning financial society. Now things are going well for Swedish banks, but that has not always been the case. That was not the case in the 90s, and that is where I do not want to go back. We shall, therefore, be happy that the banks are making a profit, which is partly due to the high-interest environment we are now emerging from.

Back to the question. If a tax is introduced on the banks, does the member believe that the tax will be taken from the profits, or will it be passed on to the consumers, which is the case nine out of ten times when a tax is introduced?

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Just as David Perez says, we have completely different views here. The banks in Sweden are well-financed, well-capitalized, and stable. There is no concern for the Swedish banks. They have also made enormous profits during the period with high inflation and high interest rates.

When there are households in Sweden that have not been able to afford to put food on the table for their children, when single mothers and fathers have chosen not to eat themselves so that the children can have food, and when parents have not been able to afford to buy winter clothes for the children, it is reasonable that the actors who have derived extremely great benefit from the environment of inflation and high interest rates also contribute to the common good. I am completely certain that it is fully possible and fully feasible to levy this extra small tax on the banks so that society will have better resources for welfare.

I am also completely convinced that a system can be established that makes it transparent how the banks choose to finance this.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! The last three years have seen Sweden undergo major changes. We have had high inflation, economic uncertainty, and a heightened security situation in the world around us. Despite this, the government has purposefully strengthened the state administration, increased pension payments, and equipped our authorities for a new era.

When we today debate expenditure area 2 Social Economy and Financial Management, we are talking about the very foundation of how the state shall function. It concerns financial management, supervision of our banks and insurance companies, statistics that provide us with knowledge about society, state properties, and not least the state's occupational pensions.

For 2026, the appropriation amounts to 22 billion, of which the largest part, 17 billion, goes to pensions. Expenditure area 2 may not be the largest area in our budget, but it can be likened to the nervous system of the Swedish state administration. It is about how the economy is managed, how our authorities function, and how the state's resources are used.

The Moderates have always emphasized the importance of a reduced but efficient public administration. It is not reasonable for the state to grow for its own sake. Every agency and every appropriation must be scrutinized based on the principle: Does this provide real benefit for our citizens?

An important area involving large parts of state and municipal activities is procurement, which is also included in expenditure area 2. The purpose is that procurement shall be efficient, legally secure, and uphold competition in the market while simultaneously promoting innovative solutions. The Government has therefore merged parts of Kommerskollegium, which handles state procurement, with Upphandlingsmyndigheten. Through this, more efficient utilization of expertise and administration can be achieved.

Within the framework of this expenditure area also lie many goals regarding the combating of welfare crime and incorrect payments from the welfare system. It is of the utmost importance both for trust in the system and for the administration of our common tax money.

During the mandate period, many changes have occurred within the expenditure area and the structure of state administration. The government has, for example, removed secrecy laws so that authorities can more easily share information and cooperate better.

Mr. Speaker! For many years, the state administration has grown in complexity. New assignments have been added, but old ones have rarely been removed. The authorities have become more numerous, the administrative processes have become heavier, and the costs have become greater. It is not sustainable and, above all, not efficient.

Our government has worked for efficiencies in several ways. A number of agencies have been merged or are proposed to be merged. Examples of this are Statskontoret and Ekonomistyrningsverket as well as the merger of AP-fonder. More efficiencies are underway. Statskontoret shall, on behalf of the government, analyze operations and agencies from an efficiency perspective, report the effects of state measures, and produce a basis for the review of efficiencies.

It is time for a new view on the state's role, a view where the state does what it is supposed to do and does it very well. It should be the quality of the execution, not the size of the budget, that decides. The state should be efficient, not just large. The state should be modern and digital, not stuck in old structures. The state should be for the citizens, not the other way around.

Digitalization is an area that is highlighted in the government's work with efficiencies and simplifications. Digg, the Agency for Digital Government, is responsible for supporting and coordinating the vitalization of the public sector. They do an important job by supporting and focusing on how all agencies can work to increase efficiency with digital tools. AI is one such tool.

It is however important that AI does not just become a digital aid for existing processes. AI should be a work tool in process improvements that can yield concrete effects on our social structure.

Mr. Speaker! Expenditure area 2 may not be the most noticed in the budget, but it is perhaps one of our most important in substance. To put it clearly: Public Sweden shall not be larger. It shall be better, more efficient, more modern, and more focused on results. Therefore, the government and the Moderaterna are driving a policy that focuses on quality, not quantity, and on citizen benefit, not agency benefit. We do more with less, and we do it for the benefit of those who pay: Sweden's citizens.

I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Listeners and colleagues in the Riksdag! I intend to say something about Statens servicekontor, which is affected by this area. But I must begin with the pleadings from our dear colleagues in the Riksdag from the Tidöregeringen regarding the great economy that this government is said to have stood for. I want to question how economical this government has actually been.

Time and again, we have heard from this very rostrum the Finance Minister say that we are to spend our way out of the crisis. We are to give everything to all households, and thereby consumption will get started. In the government's first budget, 2023, the reform space was 30 billion. In the second budget, 2024, the reform space was 40 billion. In the third budget, it was 60 billion. And this year, in the big election budget, the mother of all loan budgets, it is 80 billion.

Time and again, one is supposed to somehow spend one's way out of the crisis. Time and again, one fails, and unemployment rises to unacceptably high levels.

Hold on now! The government and the National Economic Agency estimate that we will borrow over 400 billion by 2029 with this policy. I want to once again make a stand for the word thrift. The Government Offices, for example, have expanded enormously.

We want to reduce the state bureaucracy in order to create space for what is important. What is important is to create growth in the Swedish economy by enabling small businesses to hire, so that we can get the economy moving again and reduce unemployment. But we will also invest in the core of the welfare system, in healthcare, school and care, and in the services that are often so weak that they reinforce the gaps in our country.

I want to talk about an area that is truly affected by this expenditure area: the state service offices. State service throughout the country and presence in many locations in Sweden is highly practically important but also symbolically important. Therefore, we in Centerpartiet were driving for state service offices to exist in the 148 locations around the country where the state has historically sometimes been evasive and disappearing.

I do not know if everyone is aware of the basic idea behind these service centers, but more and more people in these locations are. It is about making it easier for residents and companies to get in contact with authorities such as Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen, Pensionsmyndigheten, Skatteverket, and Migrationsverket. Previously, these authorities had their own offices and opening hours, and in the worst case, they gave residents contradictory answers about what they should do. Here, it should be coordinated, and there should be a presence.

What is the government doing then? We have talked about austerity. What are we to have the austerity for if not to be able to provide basic services? For a mere 50 million, one is to withdraw more than 30, probably 35, offices around the country. I thank my colleague who went through the long list; it concerns places such as Arvika, Bollnäs, Mariestad, Nordmaling, Ånge and Åmål, many of the small towns in the country and in the Swedish countryside.

There is talk about having mobile offices, which is very good, and more flexible methods, which is also very good. But it is not by phasing out these coordination offices and just having one in each functional labor market region that one achieves the strength needed in the service in the countryside.

We need to develop and invest in healthcare, school, and care but also in services in the Swedish countryside, because the gaps are far too large today. I will return to that in another debate later today.

It is a sorrow that this government, which spoke so much about the countryside before the last election and perhaps will do so again before this election, did one thing in words before the last election and another thing in practice after the election. Let it not happen once more! Let us invest in what is important in the Swedish countryside!

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I reacted to what the member stated here – that it is important to practice thrift, that one should not borrow too easily, and that kind of rhetoric.

I can sympathize with that position, but given that we are in a recession and that we must invest our way out of a recession, we must either borrow or raise taxes. Those are the options on the table.

The Center Party does not want to borrow to the extent that the government does. At the same time, one wants to cooperate ahead of the election with parties that are prepared to abandon the balance target that we have all agreed upon and instead have a deficit target. Is the Center Party prepared to go towards a deficit target for Sweden?

As we heard earlier in the debate replies, the Social Democrats are not prepared to give consideration to your policy. The savings you have proposed in this committee area are rejected outright. My question is therefore: Will the Centre Party be able to cooperate with the Social Democrats ahead of the election, or what is the plan?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, in the absence of a policy that convinces the public and the voters, this government and its dominant party, Sverigedemokraterna, talk very much about everyone else's policy and very little about their own.

But since the question is now posed by the member, I shall say that the fact that both this government under the Sweden Democrats and parts of the opposition are very little frugal does not in the slightest change the Center Party's eagerness to be frugal. On the contrary! Faced with two alternatives that cannot prioritize the core of the welfare state and a government that strangely prioritizes it extremely little despite everything that has been said about the countryside – where the opposition actually stands better – we will be the force for sound public finances and fiscal discipline that we have always been. That is simply how we get the resources.

I just want to underline another part of what I said in my speech. Now I am not looking at the Sweden Democrats, because you have never cared about that, but I am looking at the friends from the former bourgeois side. You have completely forgotten how to get the economy going with the help of companies, with the help of growth, and with the help of lowered taxes for small businesses. Then you do not get the resources. Then you lose the resources on high unemployment, low growth, and bankruptcies. We will, just as in all the collaborations we have had, be a force for the future.

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, even though I cannot claim that it was any answer. No statement has been given as to whether cooperation with the Social Democrats will be possible. No statement has been given as to whether one can even reach an agreement on this committee area.

It is a fantastic announcement from the Center Party: We are not prepared to compromise on anything. Good! Then the voters know. You will not be able to cooperate with the Social Democrats, and you are not interested in cooperating with the Tidö parties either. Good! Then a vote for the Center Party is wasted, that is how one could summarize it.

I shall take the opportunity to ask a concluding question.

In a government position, one has the advantage of receiving briefings from, among others, the Ministry of Finance. They have looked at the various budget proposals and seen that the Center Party's budget motion is actually underfunded, not least because you want to give so much support to Ukraine – more than any other party. How is this then to be financed? Should you cut back on defense? Should you cut back on the Police Authority? Should you cut back on school, health care, and elderly care? Or should you just give more to everything? I wish I lived in a world where one could give everything to everyone, but that's not how it works. It doesn't work that way, so how are you going to finance your budget?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now interesting questions arise here.

I thought that even the Sweden Democrats, despite their past of an all-too-close enthusiasm for the Kremlin, stood fully behind the support for Ukraine in its entirety. I see the member nodding – good! I believe we are in agreement that that support, because a war is ongoing in the heart of Europe, must lie outside the usual budget frameworks. It is a fundamental principle in the current situation. We are prepared to take on our national debt; in that regard, there is no doubt. But we do it because it is an exceptional situation in Ukraine. I hope that you stand behind that.

That the Center Party wants more is not only because it is morally right, but because the costs if we do not invest more in Ukraine now will be immensely greater because it is our shield against Putin and the Russian aggression in Europe. That was one part.

The second part was once again this that is said repeatedly: You in the Center Party are completely irrelevant. You are completely meaningless. But at the same time, every word you say about everything is incredibly important.

Yes, what does that depend on? Well, everyone knows that it is we who will decide what the policy will look like during the next mandate period. One simply has to decide how one wants it to be.

We are very clear. We must have a business and growth policy. We must have a policy that lowers emissions. We must break with what is going downhill right now in the current government's policy. And we have said that we are prepared to work as we have done previously with the Social Democrats to get a policy like in the January Agreement. We will do it again if it should be needed. But we are also prepared to work with the former bourgeois if they leave you in the Sverigedemokraterna and this failed strategy. We stand ready to do that, because Sweden needs that policy and Sweden needs to reverse the development.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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