Special debate regarding prices in the grocery trade

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Politics has failed to distribute the burdens during the crisis. An all too large share of the consequences has fallen on the laps of ordinary families with children and pensioners. The workers have taken their responsibility. Those in power have let the price-driven inflation run wild. Therefore, households are more fragile than they have been in a very long time.

I am glad that we are going to discuss today the political responsibility for the sky-high food prices and the systemic failure with the poorly functioning markets that we have in Sweden. The Government and the Sverigedemokraterna must now provide an answer on how they intend to act to provide relief for the citizens.

Vänsterpartiet has the proposals for lowered food prices and increased competition. I will return to these during the debate.

Behind the statistics is the little person. The single mother Carolin skips eating herself to be able to give her children food. I want to remind that it is her situation we are talking about today – and there are many with her who are in that situation.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, both Ida Gabrielsson and Vänsterpartiet, for raising this important issue for debate today!

The inflation that Sweden had when the government took over after the red-greens was around 10 percent. It was, to say the least, painful for very many Swedes to see that the wages did not at all suffice for the grocery bag they had previously purchased. The wallet was hollowed out.

Furthermore, many have experienced a lump – or perhaps even a punch – in the stomach when paying their mortgage. The rapidly increased interest rates have made – and make – the economy tighter for very many Swedish households.

Mr. Speaker! High inflation is harmful in every way for the Swedish economy. That is why it was a top priority for the Tidö parties to address it when we took office. We took responsibility. We inherited high inflation, but we took responsibility. We presented one and then two restrained budgets. Here in the Riksdag, there were many who then called for a more expansive policy. That would have driven up inflation and continued to make food prices and other things more and more expensive, and interest rates would not have been able to be lowered in the same way.

Food prices are still high, Mr. Speaker, and it is important to remember that. That is why I think this debate is so important. The UN Food Price Index shows that this is a challenge for many of the world's countries, especially when it comes to the goods where supply and demand might feel strongest, for example coffee or cocoa.

With that said: It is possible to both influence and facilitate the households' situation. Let me give three examples of where I, the government, and the Sverigedemokraterna have been active.

Firstly: Have you thought during the week or over the weekend that fuel costs 10 kronor – or a little more – less than it did in October 2022. 10 kronor per liter amounts to approximately 500 kronor on a tank. That makes a difference. Without blinking, the red-greens raised fuel prices dramatically for Swedish households – with a rather activist policy. We lowered them by changing the reduction obligation. That was the first thing.

Secondly, we have actually lowered the tax for everyone who works and everyone who has a pension. A nurse and a police officer have only 9,000 kronor more to live on this year. That is still a few bags of groceries.

For the third point, I want to raise here and now that I have had conversations with the food giants. In March 2023, it was very clear that it was food prices that were the single largest contribution to increased inflation. But from April of the same year, that changed. Now we have again seen an increase – not as broad but still an increase – when it comes to food prices. But during March, it seemed as though that price increase began to level off. The trend holds, according to Matpriskollen. That is statistics that came in yesterday.

Mr. Speaker! In difficult times – in times of high prices – it is important to know that this government has every household's situation before its eyes. It looks very different across Sweden. There are those who are having it very, very tough right now. And for those who do not, the situation is still being affected. But one must know that we have the households before our eyes, and we will continue to strengthen the households and do what we can so that food prices do not continue to rise.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Food prices continue to rise. An ordinary family can today pay 30,000 kronor more for their food every year, compared to before the cost crisis. The prices of everyday goods continue to go up. A pack of coffee will soon cost 100 kronor. People are forced to prioritize away breakfast juice, cheese or meat.

In Sweden, many ordinary families are forced to empty their savings accounts and borrow money to manage their daily lives. In fact, every third family with small children has already been forced to borrow to make ends meet. Single mothers are the worst affected. Every second single mother states that she cannot manage unforeseen expenses – in Sweden today.

At the same time, the government stands passive. It seems that the government and the Minister for Finance do not really know what everyday life and reality look like for ordinary families all over Sweden. They have, in fact, said no to strengthening the child allowance, even though Sweden is the only country in the Nordic region that has not increased the child allowance during the cost-of-living crisis.

In the latest party leader debate on Sunday, it was clear what the Sweden Democrats think. They admit that they refuse to increase the child allowance. At the same time, the government is proposing cuts to the housing supplement for those families with children who have it the toughest. This could mean more than 2,000 kronor less per month for a single mother and parent starting from July 1st.

This distribution profile becomes provocative when one also refuses to tackle the root cause of the high food prices. The government's own agencies have stated that there is a competition problem that must be addressed.

We Social Democrats have presented several proposals to increase competition in the food market and lower prices for ordinary people. We want to strengthen competition. It should be easier to start local grocery stores. We want better price comparisons in stores. We want clear labeling against shrinkflation. We want to establish a food price commission that reviews the food giants' price increases and acts to protect Swedish consumers. In our latest spring budget, we proposed extra funds for Konkurrensverket so that they can be a watchdog against increased food prices.

All of this, the government says no to. Instead, the government has chosen to have a coffee with the food giants, and that has demonstrably not yielded sufficient results. I mean that Svantesson and the government must act. I believe that there are many Swedes who think: Enough is enough. We cannot have it this way.

They are tired of constant price increases and poor competition, and they ask the perfectly reasonable question: Why is the government doing nothing? You know what? I wonder that too.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When the Tidö parties took over, we inherited double-digit inflation in Sweden. Therefore, we also made the fight against inflation the single heaviest priority in economic policy. That fight was successful. Today, inflation is closer to 2 percent, which means near the target level. During this period of high inflation, households' purchasing power decreased in real terms. Now that situation is reversed. Households' purchasing power is increasing again. The wage increase is thus greater than the price increases.

Regarding food inflation specifically, we can observe that it is lower in Sweden than in larger EU countries such as Poland, Germany, and Spain. We can also observe that consumer prices, that is, what we pay when we shop in the store, have not increased to the same extent as producer prices. The observant person has surely noted how the prices of certain goods – coffee was mentioned by someone here; cocoa is another example – have increased significantly. This is mainly due to poor harvests in other parts of the world.

We can observe that Ukraine, at least previously Europe's largest food exporter, has been in a full-scale war of defense for over three years now. That Ukrainian food exports have suffered as a result of Russia's violation of international law invasion is quite obvious, and that it has caused a subsequent supply problem is equally obvious.

It is clear that one can start boycotting Ica, but when every other field in Ukraine is contaminated by both landmines and artillery shells, it will not solve very many problems. I do not place a very strong value on this type of boycott, but one could still call it somewhat juvenile.

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Tidö parties have lowered the tax on so-called agricultural diesel to the EU's absolute minimum level. This lowers producer prices and, in the long run, also consumer prices. I hope and believe that we will be successful when it comes to removing much of the red tape. The more regulatory burdens we impose on the grocery trade, the more the retailers are forced to raise prices.

Electricity is, of course, also an input in food production. Had we retained reliable base load, that is, nuclear power and the low and stable electricity prices it entails, we would also have had lower food prices. Unfortunately, the other group wanted it differently when they were in the majority during the last parliamentary term and pushed through a premature decommissioning of fully functioning nuclear reactors.

Above all, Mr. Speaker, the EU's collective so-called climate policy has resulted in enormous cost increases for the continent's farmers. 37 percent of the farms in the EU have been shut down due to one climate directive or another. Some parties here might perhaps should speak with their respective colleagues in the European Parliament about how they have voted on these issues.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Here we are talking about everything except the responsibility of the government and the Sweden Democrats!

Everyone should be able to put food on the table in a welfare state. It is our task as politicians to provide for the citizens and do everything we can so that people can manage in times of crisis.

I wondered, Mr. Speaker, how I can in three minutes summarize the extreme situation that Swedish households have been left in during the years of price shocks and crisis. We have markets that function as oligopolies. Sound competition is absent, and whatever prices can be set are set for us customers. Citizens have been hit by the largest real wage cuts in decades but see how the food giants shamelessly continue to make billion-kronor profits. Small shops are pressured by the wholesale sector and have to pay high prices. Farmers are hardly paid for the food they produce. The same corporations today own both the stores and the wholesale sector – that is how it works.

In times of crisis, the burdens should be distributed between the state, the citizens, and the companies. Now, the citizens have instead had to take the entire hit, while the government and the Sweden Democrats let the food giants off the hook. They have put on the silk gloves and offered pastries when they should have put on the iron gloves and explained that now it is time for other buns. But it became a coffee break and then business as usual for the food giants.

Why is the government not acting to lower prices for the Swedes? Today, we in Vänsterpartiet are presenting several new proposals that could lower prices and create a healthier market. Now the government needs to wake up and act! The government must stop shifting the blame and instead propose concrete measures and say what it is going to do.

Mr. Speaker! I am ashamed of Sweden when I meet all those people who have to take the hit when the government and SD do not act. They are single parents, often mothers, who struggle for their children. They want to be able to put food on the table and be able to treat their children to an ice cream on the beach during the summer holidays. They want the children to be allowed to be children. They want to give them memories and a carefree childhood.

All of this is being deprived from them because those in power in Sweden are not doing their part of the job. Actually, I only have one thing to say: That you should be ashamed!

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Are you better off than you were two years ago? I believe many are asking themselves that question and wondering if they are better off.

On the one hand, food prices have risen again and again. Food costs at least a thousand kronor more per month, and the ring of falukorv that Ebba Busch swung is approaching 80 kronor. On the other hand, the economy is not growing. People's wages are not growing but are back where they were ten years ago. The wallet is gaping empty, if one even has any wage at all. Half a million Swedes are unemployed and have no wage. We have one of the Western world's highest unemployment rates. A kind of game of "Svälta räv" is being played with Swedish households, who are getting fewer and fewer cards in hand and less and less freedom.

Then I can truly understand that people feel frustrated when the only thing the government highlights, even here, is that they are going to have coffee with the food giants.

It seems to me that there are two concrete things that can be done; I notice that the Finance Minister is calling for something here. The fastest and easiest would be to lower the costs of hiring, not to raise them. It is clear that if this government has placed a 10 percent tax on all young people who are at the checkout, who are in the warehouse, who drive the truck, who work on the farm, is it then so strange that the food becomes 5 percent more expensive? If one adds a billion in increased costs and taxes on all those who are to deliver the food, is it then so strange that the customers have to pay that billion afterwards?

This applies in particular to our Swedish farmers. It sounds here at SD as if we are somehow supposed to import all food from abroad, and there it should be cheap. But we must have a strong production base in Sweden, and then we must keep costs down. We must get the economy and the jobs moving at the same time.

The second is, of course, competition. Then one cannot, as Nooshi Dadgostar, take on the small Icahandlaren in Brålanda or Hemköp in Leksand. There is never anything wrong with more stores and competition. It is absolutely necessary, and we should encourage it. But the biggest competition problem is the wholesalers. It affects both the small grocery retailers and the farmers.

The Competition Authority has mapped this out, and we now have a huge amount of data. They should be given a permanent mandate, just as in other countries, to monitor, act, and do things. That is what they do in Finland. There, they have a completely different pressure now. They don't just sit around and have coffee, they act.

Then we must, of course, also get growth, development, and real wages moving in this country through lower taxes on companies and jobs. It is not only good for food prices, but it is good for everyone's economic conditions and, ultimately, for the resources for the welfare system.

Now it is time to not only press down food prices with concrete measures but also to stop playing "Starvation Fox" with Swedish households by doing nothing!

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to start by thanking the Left Party and Ida Gabrielsson for that this important debate is taking place. It can be important for several reasons. The most obvious is that high living costs during the years of inflation with rising food prices pressure the economically weak groups, not least families with children but also pensioners. This debate also gives us a good opportunity to drill a little bit into the question of why food prices are increasing. It is good if we are to be able to take the right measures instead of just creating newspaper headlines. We also need to once and for all put an end to the description that rising food prices are dependent on rich traders who make excess profits at the consumers' expense. That is not true.

This government has fought inflation for a number of years. It is of very great significance if one wants to curb food prices. A restrained fiscal policy has been pursued so that this shall happen as quickly as possible. At the same time, we have lowered the tax for everyone. All those who earn over approximately 16,000 kronor get a tax reduction. For a police officer and a nurse, it means, just as the Finance Minister noted, 9,000 kronor more during the current year. The pensioners also receive a corresponding tax reduction.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, almost 400,000 people are currently working in this important industry. It does not only contribute to employment and GDP but is also, of course, central from a security policy perspective. Today, however, we have a situation where every second bite of food is imported. We must make ourselves less vulnerable. We Christian Democrats see that the cooling of food prices that everyone wants requires better competition and a regulatory framework that contributes to this. We welcome the discussion about a lowered food VAT. It is relevant, and it is also supported within our party.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is not easy to come in so late in the debate and have something new to say. The problem has been formulated very well by previous speakers, and we all know what it is about: skyrocketing food prices that deplete families' finances and a government that stands helpless.

Elisabeth Svantesson said before the election that it is expensive to be Swedish and that it is due to political priorities. Implicitly, improvement was promised if we only got a new government in Sweden. Ebba Busch and her hot dog appeared very close on TV. The whole thing promised well – if only the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna came to power. Many probably voted for them for that as well.

Now they are there, with responsibility for food prices and the Swedish economy. But what happened when they came to power? Well, food prices continued to rise. The parties that are now in government proved to have no plan. One thing was said before the election and another after, as Johan Pehrson said. Food prices were not lowered but continue to dig deep holes in the wallets of many. Many cannot even manage to put nutritious food on the table for their children or cannot afford to eat themselves. Many also have to take out loans to cover their ordinary monthly expenses, even though they work and seem to be precisely those whom this government says it cares about.

This situation is not worthy of a country like Sweden, where we are used to taking care of one another. Now it is time for the government to act and move from having coffee with the food giants to doing something that actually is noticed in people's wallets. First, one must know how it looks. Why does it look like this? Could it be as several expert agencies say, that it is due to a lack of competition? Why does one not want to find out? We in Miljöpartiet think it is important to know how it looks in order to be able to take the right measures. Therefore, we want to see a food price commission that reviews the entire food chain and gives us answers on why it looks the way it does in Sweden.

The second government could do something directly, which is to support households. It is a political priority that it does not happen. We in Miljöpartiet have proposed increased child allowances, maintained housing allowances, and maintained high-cost protection. That would provide relief directly. These are just a few examples of things that would make everyday life a little easier for many of the families who are struggling now.

During the election campaign, the Tidö parties seemed to care about food prices and the economy for ordinary people. Unfortunately, that interest cooled quickly once they came into power. But now it is time to deliver. The Swedish people deserve it.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, food prices have increased significantly, just as several have said before. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, escalating climate change, poor competition, and an increasingly weaker krona are some of the reasons for this development.

For the Liberals, it is obvious that we need more cooperation, above all more European cooperation. It is through EU membership that Sweden has become wealthier. The internal market and our common free trade policy are cornerstones of our prosperity.

To influence food prices in Sweden, we must look at this from a holistic perspective. For the first thing, Sweden is not a full-fledged EU member. As long as Sweden stands outside the euro, a weak krona will cause our imported food to become more expensive. We pay more, not for higher quality but because of a weak exchange rate.

Secondly, about 30 percent of the EU's total budget goes to various forms of agricultural subsidies. It is about 55 billion euros per year that is used to exclude non-European producers from the EU. The support is expensive, inefficient, and unfair. It is an agricultural subsidy that is not intended to promote innovation, productivity, or sustainability, but rather cements a system where farmers are kept alive through grants while consumers pay the bill. That is the problem, Oscar Sjöstedt, not the EU's climate goals.

We must dare to look up and say that the EU's agricultural policy is not sacred, that subsidies that do not lead to either sustainability or competitiveness are a waste, not solidarity, and that the EU's internal market must be for both producers and consumers. Now, consumers pay first through the EU fee and then through high food prices. We must step in fully into the EU cooperation. With the euro, we strengthen Sweden's competitiveness. We reduce the price gap, simplify trade, and give Swedish households better protection against currency crises and import inflation.

It is time to take consumers in Sweden seriously. It is time to settle the score with agricultural populism, and it is high time that Sweden joins the euro.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the discussion.

Something that is important to me in this responsibility is precisely taking responsibility. It has been and is my guiding principle from the first day on the job. When we took office, inflation was up towards 10 percent. Many suffered from this. Our priority was to dampen inflation. Did it make a difference when we, the Riksbank, and the parties took responsibility? Yes, it made a big difference. With the policies from some of the parties in the Riksdag, inflation would have risen and interest rates would have become higher.

But we do not mean that it was enough to dampen inflation. We both wanted and want to strengthen households' purchasing power. Even though there will be wage increases ahead, we see that many wage earners who have not received compensation for the high inflation now receive tax cuts for two years in a row. We are lowering the tax for pensioners for two years in a row. We are lowering the tax on savings this year and next year. We are lowering the tax on fuels. We are also lowering the tax on agricultural diesel, which of course affects Swedish farmers.

All of this, Mr. Speaker, I mean is to take responsibility. One can choose different paths in that responsibility. But we have taken responsibility, and we will continue to do so. As I said initially, households are always in front of us in the work we do. And the households should know and trust that they will continue to do so as long as I am Finance Minister.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Finance seems very pleased with the policy pursued, but I will not go into that right now. I intended to be a bit more serious.

Three actors dominate the Swedish grocery market. The government's own agency has stated that the lack of competition leads to higher prices. We Social Democrats have presented a number of proposals to try to improve competition in order to be able to press prices. This concerns everything from getting more local grocery stores that can press prices to better price comparisons, labeling against shrinkflation, and tougher measures against the wholesale sector to increase competition there. The lack of competition in that sector affects many local retailers across Sweden.

Now that we have a debate on food prices, I wonder: What is the Finance Minister's reform agenda to press down food prices through increased competition? Why has the Finance Minister done nothing? Time is passing.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for a very good question!

An important matter, besides what I have already mentioned for the households, concerns what Mikael Damberg was touching upon, namely improving competition. The Competition Authority has conducted a review, after being commissioned by us, and now we are working on new competition legislation. It will be important. We are changing the legislation but also granting extended powers to the Competition Authority. Mikael Damberg is touching upon an important point. I can promise that we deliver here and are working on the issue.

Another important competition issue is that all 290 municipalities in the country need to be open to more alternatives. Many Swedes live in municipalities where the alternatives are very few. Then politicians should not be those who block building permits or other permits needed for more people to be able to establish themselves. Otherwise, one works, whether one is a Social Democrat, Left Party member, or Moderate, against the consumers' best interests.

We continue to strengthen households, and we continue the work of improving competition.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Very little has been done to increase competition. When the government's own agency says that this is a problem, one should do something about it.

The other side of the coin is the distribution profile in the government's policy. If one cannot fully overcome the market – food prices are increasing, after all – there are still groups that have it extra difficult. Why has the government, as the only government in the Nordic region, chosen not to increase the child allowance during the cost crisis? All our Nordic neighboring countries have done so.

Why are you proceeding with a deterioration from July 1 and removing the supplement to the housing allowance that has existed for the most vulnerable families with children? It could affect them by 2,000 kronor a month, and it is happening at a time when we know that single parents have it the toughest.

Why don't you do more for the poorest pensioners and support them? They have very small margins.

Instead, you could afford to make a targeted tax cut for those who earn more than 66,000 kronor a month. Does that feel good in your stomach, Finance Minister?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall answer Mikael Dambergs question, as to whether he truly means business.

At the bottom of it, everyone here knows that we work every day to lower taxes and make things easier for households. If Mikael Damberg or anyone else goes and fills a full tank today, there has been a price difference of approximately 500 kronor per tank since we took office. The reduction of prices at the pump is largely due to political decisions. It has dampened inflation, which makes things easier for households.

This government is doing what the previous one did not. I don't particularly like talking about it, but Mikael Damberg was still responsible. He sat in the driver's seat and increased the reduction obligation year after year, and it could have continued straight up. So don't come and talk to me about the households' economy!

Lowered taxes and changed fuel prices are one way. Mikael Damberg can be sure that we will do more.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I too would like to ask a question to the Minister for Finance.

Which of all the proposals we have submitted to increase competition is the government prepared to implement? Is the government prepared to ensure that prices for the population are pushed down and that we get healthier markets ahead? It is not enough to solely take all the credit for the fact that the price level for fuels has changed. It has changed all over the world. Food costs are a large part of every household's expenses.

What measures that would promote competition and that other countries also use are you prepared to take so that citizens will get lower food prices?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is no secret that the Left Party wants price ceilings and preferably also to own every single grocery store in Sweden.

I agree that everyone must now take responsibility. I have said that ever since I got this job. We take responsibility from the political side. The parties have taken responsibility, and the companies must also do their part. One should not place all the blame on those who run stores. They cannot help that cocoa harvests have become poor, but there is much else that can be worked on within the industry. Competition is an important part.

In my previous post, I took up how we work with this issue. Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna never did that during their time. The competition legislation is, for example, outdated. We are lowering taxes. We are changing the competition. And we will continue to do so.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I can tell the Minister for Finance that I myself am the daughter of a merchant. Vänsterpartiet does not need to have any grocery stores; the merchants can manage that themselves.

The small shops are being enormously pressured by their wholesaler. They are pressured to trade with that specific one. The small shops get the worst deal and the most expensive prices. What we see in Sweden has been noted by the EU Commission and others; it is not just the Left Party's perception. We have an extremely strong oligopoly, which affects small shops but also farmers and food producers.

You are now pulling the rug out from under people: no child benefit increase and a reduced housing allowance. At the same time, you have managed to arrange a tax cut of 40,000–50,000 for those who earn over 100,000. What does the Finance Minister want to say to the families with children who are losing out by several thousand every month?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To these families with children, I want to say that we will do everything we can to ensure that the Swedish economy grows but also that their purchasing power is strengthened. I know that Ida Gabrielsson and I have different answers to the question. She would like to raise taxes and believes that it will be good for households. I would like to lower taxes. I believe that it is good for households. These are two different conclusions one can come to.

In our case, we lowered the reduction obligation. It makes a big difference for many single mothers who drive in a new or old car in the countryside somewhere in northern Sweden and drop off their children at school or activities. All of that makes a difference.

Mr. Speaker! But do you know what grates on me? It is that Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna, who often have the highest moral ground, gladly raise taxes for every single person living in the Stockholm municipality, and they have also done so in Region Stockholm. You raise taxes in times of high prices. I understand that there will be a harsh attack, because it is your best defense. But perhaps you should reflect a little and think about it.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I realize that the Minister for Finance considers that the Riksbank does not have that much to do with inflation. In the same way, the world market price of oil does not have that much to do with diesel prices. But I intended to speak about something else, namely the self-sufficiency of food, which is important from many perspectives.

The Moderates spoke very much about the food strategy 2.0 before the election. Through it, they were to solve the high food prices, strengthen the farmers, and reduce the dependence on imports from abroad. But when the strategy was presented a few weeks ago, it was a pure disappointment. I could call it a pancake; a pancake can, in fact, be made with the ingredients that we still have self-sufficiency in.

In the strategy, there were no concrete measures and no concrete goals or means, but only focus areas and agency mandates. Now I wonder: How are the farmers in Sweden supposed to achieve any profitability so that we get a better basis for our self-sufficiency and cheaper food on the table? Why can't you take our proposals to lower their costs and get real measures at the farm level?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not rule out that the Center Party has a number of good proposals in the desk drawer or here in the speaker's chair that could be of value to look into further.

I want to return to what Martin Ådahl started with, Mr. Speaker. No, I have never said that it is only the fiscal policy that has affected inflation, but it has been an important part. As Anna Seim, who sits in the Riksbank's executive board, said, it has been a group effort where the Riksbank, the monetary policy, the fiscal policy and the parties have taken responsibility together. That is how we usually work in Sweden. We manage tough situations together.

I understand that it feels troublesome for Martin Ådahl to have no influence whatsoever, even if the opposition were to join forces as we did last time, when Martin Ådahl and I were involved in lowering the price of agricultural diesel. It is good if one sees it as we do and does not make up things that we do not do.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It was not we in the Center Party who did not have enough proposals, but it was the Moderates who, before the election, said: Now we are going to come with the big food strategy 2.0. Now we are going to bring down food prices. Now we are going to create competitiveness for the farmers. Now we are going to increase the self-sufficiency rate.

And then came the food strategy, but there wasn't even a goal for self-sufficiency there. Everyone who has analyzed it has pointed out that there is no content. It is just continued talk. Now they are going to have coffee with the farmers too, as they did with the grocery trade, instead of coming up with something concrete.

We have submitted proposals to lower costs, increase competitiveness, create more jobs both in the green industry and in the rest of the countryside, and furthermore achieve an increased degree of self-sufficiency.

It is very good that we are to keep diesel prices down. We are completely on board with that, and we have truly worked for it. We also want more Swedish and self-sufficiency, but that is not enough to achieve self-sufficiency when it comes to food and a real food strategy.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, Swedish self-sufficiency shall be strengthened. Now, I am not the responsible minister for the strategy itself, but I have been involved in making decisions about it. It is completely obvious that the government aims for more self-sufficiency. It was an important issue from the first day. In that regard, there is no doubt.

I would still like to recommend something. There has been a lot of complaining about coffee breaks. I can understand that, but sometimes it is good to sit down with people and hear what is needed within their area, within their industry or in their situation, whether they are individuals with a disability, a company working against the wind, or a farmer. I am happy to meet people and listen, and then I make politics out of it.

I know it is difficult for Martin Ådahl to give me credit for meeting the food giants, but he does not need to. I am happy with my only credit: The month after, that is in April 2023, food prices were not the driving factor behind higher inflation.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that it was probably not Elisabeth Svantesson's policy that caused inflation to be broken, but it looked the same across all of Europe at that time.

What I would like to ask is what the Tidöregeringen has done for those who earn the least. Now, I do not want to hear about the broad tax cuts that have been made for the rich, for we hear about those all too often. What I want to know is what the government is doing for those with the worst finances – the families who really feel the increasing food prices in their wallets and those who work but still cannot make ends meet.

We know that petrol and diesel prices have been lowered, largely because the oil price has decreased. But for example, prices in public transport have increased, and many in this group cannot even afford to have a car. What has been done for the households with the lowest incomes?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Janine Alm Ericson, for the question!

When it comes to those who have the lowest incomes, one can read in the distribution annex; we are transparent here in Sweden, which is good. There one can see that our three budgets, in percentage terms, give the most to those who earn the least.

Then I am very surprised when so many in this chamber do not seem to know what policies the parties are pursuing around the country. There is only one Green Party, one Social Democratic party, and one Moderate Party. It is therefore the Green Party, if I have not misunderstood, that is cutting bus routes in Stockholm. It is the Green Party that has been involved in raising taxes for two years in a row. I might be wrong if they are not in power, but I believe they are.

Politics matters at both the national and local level. I and we will continue to lower taxes in various budgets. Exactly when, how, and where we will return to that. I know that many in here would much rather raise taxes and then talk warmly about what they actually do not do for households.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I first wanted to say something about cancelled bus trips. It may absolutely be that there are increased prices in public transport. But that is not something one goes to the polls for or wishes for, rather it is because we have a government that does not deliver the state subsidies needed by municipalities and regions so that they can maintain, for example, bus trips.

Public transport suffered greatly during the pandemic, but we who were in government at the time provided funds so that it could be maintained. Now we see a government that does not make up for it. So yes, we are forced to do it, because environmentalist radicals are taking responsibility for the economy in regions and municipalities across the country. But it is not something we do with joy, rather we do it because the government is not living up to its commitments.

I also noticed that Elisabeth Svantesson preferred to talk about this rather than what those with the lowest incomes have received. Those who earn 16,000 kronor a month get a tax reduction of 9 kronor. I would therefore like to hear again: Does the Finance Minister have any proposals on what should be done for the families who have the lowest incomes?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many households are concerned now. Just as I have said before, it is an important part for us to lower taxes, but one must remember that those who have the lowest incomes have a percentage-wise quite low tax. That is good. We have ensured this through many budgets here in the Riksdag.

It is still the case that one is taxed eleven times more if one earns 125,000 kronor than if one earns 25,000 kronor, even though one does not earn eleven times more. But I leave that discussion there.

Why is it important to talk about Stockholm? Well, because I think one should be genuine. One should do what one wants to do and then stand by it, not lay the blame on the government, which with high priority ensured that both the Stockholm region and many others received a lot of money when pension costs increased. We also see now that it did not lead to mass layoffs.

The truth is that the region has raised the tax but still fails to manage its finances. I do not think it has that much to do with the government in this case. It simply has to do with how one views the taxpayers' money and whether one can have order and clarity in one's finances.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! When listening to this debate and the Minister for Finance, I think it becomes quite clear that the government does not have what is required to tackle the issue of the rising food prices.

Already in March 2023, we Social Democrats demanded that the government introduce a price commission against the high food prices. Two years have passed since then. Nothing has actually happened to increase competition or press down food prices. Instead, it becomes a discussion about more money in the wallet. I am happy to take that debate with the Minister for Finance, because honestly: The staff working in the grocery store do not pay for their food with percentages but with kronor.

When a female trade worker, or male, hears that the government's finance minister gets over 3,000 kronor in tax cuts every month, she becomes a bit provoked because today she has problems paying for enough food for her children. Ask that single mother if she knows what she would use her money for if she got more money in her wallet! She would buy better food. She would get a winter jacket for the kids. She would see to it that the kids can go to activities.

A good distribution profile, more money in the wallet for ordinary people through a fair tax cut, increased child allowance and permanent support to the worst-off families with children would have been more important in this situation than lowering the tax for those with incomes over 66,000 kronor a month. One must also not forget the worst-off pensioners.

If one does not understand this, one probably does not understand how serious the high food prices are for very many people all around Sweden. Those who this affects are primarily the children, for it is they who are hit when food prices skyrocket and an unfair economic policy is pursued in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for the presentation! We in Sweden import approximately half of the food we consume. At the same time, we have a weak and unstable krona, which drives up prices for both households and companies. The euro gives many of our neighboring countries a more stable exchange rate, better predictability for importers of food, and a clearer connection to the internal market.

My question to the Social Democrats' member is therefore: Why do you believe that Swedish households should continue to bear the cost of a currency risk that other EU countries have opted out of by joining the euro? Is it not time to now join the euro – for the sake of the Swedes and for more stable and hopefully lower food prices?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! One can imagine many things, but joining the euro is not a guarantee of lower food prices, especially not when we in Sweden have an oligopolistic market where competition is deficient. I had hoped that also liberal politicians would be concerned about situations where the market does not function well and where competition is not full. Consumers and vulnerable groups end up paying too much for food or for mortgages if the competition is too poor there.

I hope that the Liberals will not only get stuck in their ideological discussions about the euro or the Swedish krona but can also see the reality of many, not least families with children all over Sweden, who are having a very tough time economically right now. It would have been good if we could have taken measures in broad agreement to increase competition in this sector to press the prices.

Then I believe we will continue to have a discussion about the distribution policy being pursued right now, where it is worsened for the worst-off families with children. We are the only country in the entire Nordic region that is not raising the child allowance. It is clear that it affects the children.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! One could accuse me of being shy, but one could also accuse Member Damberg of never answering my questions. I am making an attempt.

The Liberals' solution regarding the high food prices is to improve the market and competition but also to open ourselves and integrate fully with the EU by joining the euro. I want lower food prices, and for that, we need to strengthen our economy, let companies grow, and introduce the euro in Sweden.

To not take the currency into account in this issue, when we import more than half of our food, is like closing one's eyes to half the problem and putting a plaster on a wound that needs a pressure bandage.

Again: What does member Damberg think about this issue – that we import higher food prices by standing outside the euro cooperation? Can the Social Democrats imagine opening a discussion about joining the euro?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will be honest and say that this will not be my main argument for joining the euro. I, who have once voted to join the euro, will not use the currency risk and its impact on food prices as the main argument for joining or staying out of the euro.

However, I want to agree with Cecilia Rönn in what she said in her previous post about the fact that the European agricultural policy needs to be reformed. There are very many subsidies that are not sufficiently effective, do not drive down prices, and do not increase competition. I believe we can agree on that. But there are stronger reasons both for and against the euro than just the Swedish food prices.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is a great deal of evidence that this temporary food inflation is indeed temporary. We can already see that global commodity prices are falling back. This does not have an effect on food prices in Swedish stores today, of course, but in the short term or over a month or two, it will be noticeable.

But above all – this is perhaps something one does not go around thinking about daily – the Swedish krona has appreciated, i.e., risen in value. This applies against the euro just as it applies against the dollar. It applies against the Swiss franc and against the Japanese yen. It applies against the Norwegian krone and against the Danish krone.

In a basket of the ten most traded currencies, the Swedish krona has performed the strongest. This is not only good news for those who plan to travel abroad for vacation this summer, but it is also good news for those who stay home in Sweden.

A higher-valued krona results in cheaper imports. We unfortunately import quite a lot of our food, and that food will become cheaper the stronger the Swedish krona is. This is obviously positive news.

Mr. Speaker! If this is anything other than a temporary inflationary increase – if it is something that will worsen or be prolonged – we shall, of course, not rule out any measures whatsoever to facilitate things for households. We do not do that, in any case, from the Sverigedemokraterna side.

Despite the fact that we have significant investments ahead of us – I am thinking not least of the Armed Forces – the Swedish economy stands strong. We have economic muscles in our public finances to act.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that for every small pack of butter, every egg carton, and every bag of flour that one buys in the store, significantly more kronor go in tax to the state than go in profit to the shop owner. This is not a high-margin industry.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! During the election campaign, it sounded different from the Sweden Democrats. Then everything was supposed to become cheaper and better, and one was supposed to stand up for ordinary people. Now, when you cooperate with the Moderates, there are other priorities in the economic policy.

Looking at the outcome, one can see that it is very many ordinary families with small margins that are being pressed hard by the increased food prices. It is primarily families with children. The single parents are absolutely the hardest hit.

Why do the Sweden Democrats then choose to prioritize cutting back on the most vulnerable families with children in this budget? In Sunday's party leadership debate, the party leader for the Sweden Democrats explained that it was precisely the Sweden Democrats who had stopped an increase in the child allowance.

Then I have a reflection. When even the Moderaterna took a stand on the issue and showed courage in the discussion, the Sverigedemokraterna stood there and raised their hands and said: It is we who are against an increase of the child allowance.

Can Oscar Sjöstedt explain why it is so important for the Sweden Democrats not to increase the child allowance?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats did not, therefore, get 51 percent in the election. We can start from that end. When one is to cooperate between different parties, all parties must give and take a little. I do not believe that this is a situation that is foreign even to Mikael Damberg, actually.

I have no problem discussing what is the optimal level of the child allowance. I would very much welcome such a discussion. It can, however, be serious and be based on serious premises.

I personally believe that the child allowance is not a particularly accurate measure. If it is poverty reduction that we are to devote ourselves to, I do not think the child allowance is the most accurate measure. That is a short answer. We can have a serious discussion about this at any time.

We have the entire answer to the riddle in what I touched upon. It has to do with surcharges at the national level and, above all, at the EU level. There are surcharges on the farmers, the producers, and the retailers. That is what drives up the prices. If you have voted for high prices, you get high prices.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the Sweden Democrats have their own definition of effective measures for poverty reduction. Take a look at this! They present a budget that directs a tax cut only to people who earn more than 66,000 kronor a month, but they do not have the means, they claim, to increase the child allowance, which reaches all those families with children who are struggling financially. Furthermore, they present a deterioration for those families with children who are in the worst position in our country.

Where are the effective measures for poverty reduction? Can Oscar Sjöstedt, in his final remark, not explain where those measures are in the budget that is now presented and that we can see the results of in Sweden 2025?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! My point regarding precision is that the child allowance also hits those families with children who are not struggling to pay bills, who are not struggling with this. That is my point regarding precision. I think it is quite relevant to bring that up.

Is the point of a measure that one should target households with the toughest economic margins—is it not obvious that the child allowance is the most accurate, because it also hits other households – bank directors, members of parliament and even ministers and perhaps the speaker; I don't know.

What are more targeted measures? Yes, we have increased the guarantee pension for the poorest elderly; we have done that. We have increased the sickness benefit, the sickness compensation; we have done that. These are significantly more targeted measures than just giving a lot of money to all people who happen to have children, completely regardless of whether they are unemployed or earn several million per year, whether they have several million in the bank or are completely broke. That is what I mean by targeting, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely think it is a relevant point to object to.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to discuss margins of maneuver and a few other things, but I must begin with the discussion on accuracy.

One thing that is certain is that the reform where they target those with over 65,000 a month is incredibly accurate, and the target group is all those very wealthy people who would happen to get an increased child benefit if even those who are in a bad situation get it. There you have truly succeeded with the accuracy.

But it is a large proportion of families with children who are doing this poorly. It is not just a few poor people, so I must ask you, Oscar Sjöstedt: Is it reasonable to prioritize this specific group, which you yourself are a part of, instead of raising the child allowance and ensuring that housing allowance and other payments are made to those who have it the toughest? It is a prioritization you have made. Do you think it is reasonable?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Even if it was not super clear, I suspect that what Ida Gabrielsson is after is the reduced marginal tax. The marginal tax was previously around 55 percent. It was lowered to 52 percent. Let me say two things about that matter.

One is a principled starting point, where one has a principle of keeping half. That is to say that as an individual, one should be allowed to keep half of a salary increase. Now we have a marginal tax that stands at 52 percent. It is just over half, so in the name of honesty, the marginal tax is still a bit too high. I think it is a pleasant principle to have half left. One should not have to pay more than half of a salary increase.

The second is more of a pragmatic argument. This is a reform that has a so-called self-financing rate of 125 percent, Mr. Speaker. That is to say that when you lower the tax in percent, the tax revenues in kronor increase because it leads to more hours worked and so on. That is to say that the state or the public sector gets more money to move with after this reform.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now one must also take that one about Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf, because even in the government's tables, the tapering of the job tax credit is financed.

It is also funny that precisely those parts that go to the absolutely most well-off are always self-financed, not inflation-driving, and something that one can prioritize without any problems.

What there is rather evidence for, and what experts state, is that it is those with small margins who could set the wheels in motion in this recession. They could buy that jacket and ensure that the child gets to go on a trip. Then the children get nice memories while we get the economy moving. Keeping money on the sidelines is not good for either Sweden's economy or the families with children who have ended up in a difficult situation because of the government's policy.

What do you want to do for the families with children and the poor pensioners?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not I who have sat in the chamber and cooked up these 125 percent. That very figure comes from the National Audit Office's report. The National Audit Office has analyzed this. One can saw them to pieces if one wants to; I have no problem with that. But I choose to trust that report, and it is there that the figure of a self-financing rate of 125 percent is provided.

It does not mean that it stands in opposition to anything else. That and the other tax cuts we have proposed – tax cuts for completely ordinary wage earners with salaries as low as 16,000 kronor a month and upwards, tax cuts for pensioners, tax cuts on fuels and so on – do not contradict each other in any way. One can lower the marginal taxes, which will affect those who have the highest marginal taxes. It is for natural reasons that they have the highest incomes. One does not have sky-high marginal taxes on low incomes, fortunately. One can also lower taxes for completely ordinary wage earners, pensioners and families with children and, above all, make it cheaper to refuel and drive a car.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I had intended to ask a different question, but it is a bit fascinating to listen to the Sweden Democrats. Everything is apparently very good. It is great! The very high food prices and the weak real wages are, like, something temporary that comes and goes again. I don't know if it works out in the households.

The solution to the high food prices, if I heard correctly, is to import cheap food from abroad. It was a new kind of nationalism, I must say. One is to lower the already very low self-sufficiency rate in Sweden.

So to my actual question. You promised before the election that you would lower costs for companies. It was supposed to become cheaper to employ the person who sits at the register, the person who puts the goods on the shelf, and the person who drives the truck between the warehouse and the store. Instead, you have increased the cost of hiring by 13 billion kronor. No wonder food prices are going up then. Will you continue to do that, or are you prepared to do as the Centerpartiet and reduce the costs again?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Even Martin Ådahl must stay within some kind of boundaries of reasonableness. Nowhere here today, in any speech, in any interview, or in any other context have I or any other high-ranking representative for my party said that the goal is for us to import more food. Nowhere can it be found, but Martin Ådahl has made it up entirely by himself. There must actually be some kind of boundaries of reasonableness even for the Center Party's Martin Ådahl.

I said that there is much that indicates that this increase in inflation, namely food inflation, is temporary. There is much that indicates that. I also said in my speech that if it turns out that it is not temporary and that all signals indicating that it is temporary are incorrect, if it becomes an aggravated and prolonged situation, we should not rule out taking measures.

I thought I hinted quite clearly as to what measures they could be. It is, therefore, more kronor on every item one buys at Ica that goes in tax to daddy state than goes to daddy shop owner.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! There were many comments about what was said, but not particularly many answers.

I noted that the primary solution in the first stage is that it is such expensive food from abroad. It is that the EU's high food prices should become lower that is supposed to solve everything.

If I were a bit more patriotic, I would probably have focused on increasing the self-sufficiency rate and lowering the costs for Sweden's own food producers. The fact is that the countries in Europe that have a high self-sufficiency rate have been less affected by the price increases than Sweden has. That can be seen very clearly in the statistics.

I also did not hear any answer to my second question. You, who promised so much about lowering the costs of employing the person who works in the checkout, the one who puts the goods on the shelves, and the one who drives the goods to the store, have raised these costs by 13 billion kronor. Do I understand correctly that you are going to take it back now? Now you are going to lower the costs again so that we get more jobs and more young people in jobs, get lower food prices, and get better development instead of the sky-high unemployment that we have now.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is, for God's sake, part of the EU. What happens at the EU level also affects our farmers.

One only has to look at the entire emissions trading system, the Emissions Trading System or ETS, and the directives on emissions trading that the Center Party has voted for and the Sweden Democrats have voted against. A revision of the ETS for aviation, the common agricultural policy, genetically modified maize, the nature restoration regulation, packaging and packaging waste, CBAM, LULUCF and a number of other measures have been voted through by the Center Party and Martin Ådahl's colleagues – or colleague, perhaps it is only one – in the European Parliament. These are obligations on European, including Swedish, farmers that the Sweden Democrats in the European Parliament have voted against. Anyone can check this.

These are measures that drive up prices for the producers, that is to say for the farmers, and they will inevitably also drive up prices for the consumers. Producer prices and consumer prices correlate with each other – listen and be amazed!

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Oscar Sjöstedt does not highlight anything specific he wants to do to help households. He only says in a somewhat sweeping manner that he is prepared to act. I also note that there was no action to help households in the spring budget amendment that was submitted.

I wonder why one should actually believe what Oscar Sjöstedt says. Nothing has been done yet. Or, well, instead of improving things for the households that are on their knees, one has worsened the social security system, reduced the housing supplement we added during the crisis, and worsened the high-cost protection. All of this is such things that could help people who have difficulty putting food on the table.

I would like to ask Oscar Sjöstedt: Why should the voters trust that the Sverigedemokraterna will deliver next time, when they have not received help in the cost crisis they are facing here and now?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is clear that we have done quite a lot to help and strengthen households financially. We have not just on one occasion but on two occasions lowered the income tax for households. This began to apply at the beginning of the year. We have also lowered the tax for pensioners by a corresponding amount per krona at the individual level – not as many kronor, as there are not quite as many pensioners. We have turned up the guarantee pension for the poor elderly, and we have turned up the sickness benefit and the sickness allowance.

Above all, we have made it much cheaper to fuel the car. We heard that in a previous exchange here. I believe it is 500 kronor per tank – or almost 600 kronor, but that depends on how large a tank one has. It is quite clear that we have done quite a few things specifically to strengthen households. It becomes a bit strange in some way. It is a bit difficult to take this completely seriously, actually.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Oscar Sjöstedt for the answer.

It is still very many families who have difficulty putting food on the table today. They work and try to do right, and yet the money is not enough. We hear this from many organizations that work closely with these people. Obviously, it is something that is not working. More support is needed.

When it comes to the tax cuts, they have gone to those who are rich. You and I have received more money in our wallets, but if you earn 16,000 kronor a month, you have received a tax cut of 9 kronor. That is less than what the price of falukorv has gone up by.

There is no real targeted support. They are worsening the support systems that exist. I wonder again why a financially vulnerable household should vote for the Sverigedemokraterna when they do not live up to the promises they gave about taking care of the families in Sweden.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my second speech, there are quite clear signs that this food situation is precisely temporary. We have already seen how raw material prices have started to fall globally. It will trickle down to us and to the stores eventually. I want to say again – and I want to be humble: If this turns out to be wrong and it becomes a prolonged and worsened situation, there is ammunition in the machinery. The food VAT can be an example of that.

I want to go back to the basics of this. I have an entire list here – a barrage of measures that Miljöpartiet has voted through in the European Parliament with cost burdens for farmers on the continent and in Sweden. Again: If you vote for more expensive food, you get more expensive food. If you place a lot of burdens on the producers, the producer prices increase. Believe me or not, but producer prices correlate strongly with consumer prices.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that one calls this temporary. One does not want to do anything regarding the prices that still remain fixed – even if they were not to increase – and which, regardless of what happens in the future, will take a whole childhood for families with children to catch up with.

Instead of mourning for the citizens in times of crisis, it feels as if the government has checked out. At best, they show up and act as lifestyle coaches and give tips on how to shop cheaper. Good day, axe handle, I say. You know very well that we in Sweden have an oligopolistic market that you have not taken the necessary decisions to break up.

I could go through the V-proposals in detail regarding how food prices could be lowered. I could highlight the neighboring countries that have done what they have done, but where the Sweden Democrats and the government have not done the same. But I thought I would use the minute I have left to address all of you who are struggling.

I myself remember how it was during my upbringing to worry about my parents' finances. It is tough for the children, but also for the parents. I address the mother who, crying, told me that her son could not have any proper children's party on his sixth birthday, and to the older couple who described how humiliating it feels to have to receive financial help from their own children despite a long working life. I address all of you who are trying to make everyday life work.

I want to emphasize that it is not you who have difficulty putting food on the table and are receiving bills from debt collection or do not know how you can pay for the children's activities that should be ashamed. You are heroes. You have done everything and much more. You have done right. The fault is not yours. It is the those in power who have left the citizens alone with the burdens that have the responsibility. It is the government and Sverigedemokraterna who should be ashamed, not you.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is actually quite concerning how little the Tidö parties seem to care about Sweden becoming poorer, that it is not growing, and that wages and jobs are not growing. I intended, however, to talk a bit about some who truly deserve to be talked about more in this debate, namely Sweden's farmers. It is actually they who produce the food – or rather who produce about half of the food in Sweden. It is a huge problem when we discuss food prices.

Sweden, therefore, does not have self-sufficiency of food. We only produce 50 percent of what we eat. In Finland, for example, that figure is 80 percent. We cannot reach Denmark's 150 percent, but still.

When we see that prices are now soaring on the world market, it is countries with low self-sufficiency that are in a bind and get higher prices. It is not good in the security situation we are in. If we were to be completely cut off, we would have to eat carrot cake, because that is all we are self-sufficient in – sugar, eggs, flour and carrots.

When it comes to food prices, one should primarily ensure that there is an opportunity to compete fully. In that case, it is about the costs.

If you sit down, as the Minister for Finance said, and have a coffee with farmers and talk to people who are actually doing this, they will answer that the costs are too high. They will ask: Why are you doing nothing? This also applies as an answer to the Sweden Democrats' claim. I have absolutely not voted for higher costs in the EU. Now the member has disappeared from here, but it is pure fabrication. We have voted for lower costs.

The government, however, has said no to all our proposals to lower costs so that it is possible to lower food prices. They have also said no to Swedish farmers receiving a share of the EU funds when the krona was previously weakened. The government said no to that for a long time. And now there is a food strategy that has neither goals nor means to increase self-sufficiency. Then we say to the government: Say yes now to concrete measures for increased self-sufficiency and concrete reductions for Swedish farmers. Say no to skyrocketing food prices, when they are skyrocketing on the world markets.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Just a few days ago, Matpriskollen published a more subdued development for food prices for the month of April. The average was 0.4 percent. If one removes the sharp increase in coffee and beef, it was according to Matpriskollen no price increase at all.

The fact that beef prices are increasing is due to the fact that farmers are receiving better pay for milk. Consequently, fewer cows are slaughtered. The fact that the coffee price is increasing is due to the fact that the price of coffee beans on the commodities exchange has increased, primarily as a consequence of poorer harvests in Brazil. Given that every other bite eaten at Swedish dinner tables is imported, the strengthening of the Swedish krona is one of the explanations for why food prices are not rising now. Regardless, this is a welcome news for all those who have a strained household economy.

The fact that I begin my contribution in this way is because I want to point out something that I think has become very skewed in this debate. It is not the case that the grocery stores set their prices arbitrarily. The prices are influenced by a number of different factors, and I have mentioned some: raw material prices, transport costs, the value of the krona, production disruptions, etcetera.

Last year, 184 Icabutiker showed red figures. That is 15 percent of all Icabutiker in Sweden. Of those that showed red figures, 80 percent were so-called Ica Nära stores. For 2023, Coop Syd made an operating loss of 273 million kronor.

It is not the grocery stores that are robbing Swedish households. It is nonsense and incorrect to say so. The price increases in Sweden follow the same pattern as in the rest of Europe. We also know that the operating margin in the grocery trade is now the lowest in the business sector. We need to politically enable increased competition, and we need to continue to review the rules.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Profit margins are stated in percent. If you take 200 kronor for a cheese and the profit margin is 3 percent, you get more back in number of kronor than if the cheese costs 100 kronor, right? Therefore, it often becomes a quite misleading measure. There are more measures.

Retail is not a production-intensive industry. It is not much more than the distribution of goods that is performed. The labor costs – which are the largest expense – have not gone up as much as the prices, have they? We know that they have been held back. The entire explanation for the 25 billion in profit that is being made now is not that one has had it tougher and taken its responsibility, but just as the Competition Authority says, the poor competition implies an oligopoly market and thus oligopoly prices. Is that not your opinion, member?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I listen to and read with great interest what, for example, the Competition Authority points out. They point out, among other things, that we must ensure that the municipalities' planning monopoly is broken. A significant change must occur here so that we get a simpler establishment of local grocery stores. This could lead to increased competition and, consequently, lower food prices. There is thus a number of different proposals, even if Ida Gabrielsson does not choose to take up all the proposals that the Competition Authority points out.

As a matter of fact, I did a quick Google search, because I thought someone would probably ask about this issue of operating margin. It is quite clear that a large store with an operating margin of 3 percent has a better margin in kronor and öre than the store that is small. But what is a good operating margin, according to Ida Gabrielsson? What is reasonable to have as an operating margin? It can look different in different industries, I know that. But since the member brings up the grocery trade, what does Vänsterpartiet consider a reasonable operating margin there?

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party's and politics' task is not to specify an exact margin of movement. But in times of crisis, one should distribute the costs of the crisis equally, and it is not the case that the food giants have taken that cost.

It is usually an internal matter when it comes to the member's point, that is to say that Ica Nära performs absolutely worst. That is because Ica Nära receives absolutely worst terms from its own wholesaler. That is why Ica Nära has it difficult while Ica Maxi can expand in different places. It is still the case that in crowns and öre, much larger profits are made now than before, and it is crowns and öre that we trade food for – yes, not öre anymore, but crowns at least.

With a margin of 3 percent, you make more on 200 kronor than on 100 kronor. You raise the prices very much and keep the same margin, or a slightly lower one. That is why you can see a much higher profit in that column. That is how it is. Do you think it is reasonable that the food giants, due to the lack of competition, can fleece households in this way, Hans Eklind, or are you prepared to take action?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I think the Minister for Finance has been very clear. The government has a grip on this industry. They have a grip and are trying to ensure that we can achieve better competition. We absolutely shall not pass on the costs to the consumers.

It is, however, what the Competition Authority also notes: That is not the case. To varying degrees, they have succeeded in maintaining the operating margin. The Member of Parliament does not want to specify what constitutes a reasonable operating margin, but it is usually said that such as 5 percent is reasonable to have. This industry has, however, seen a declining operating margin over a number of years. It is therefore quite reasonable to assume that it has taken a portion of the costs that primarily stem from inflation. This has, rightly, circulated very much in the debate.

I think we can agree on one thing: We need increased competition. There, the Social Democrats and the Left, who govern in a majority of the country's municipalities, can ensure that we get a Planning and Building Act that opens up for more small local shops that can compete. That would be a solution.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! To follow up on the previous exchange: There is a major problem in the wholesale sector. There, it is not about the municipalities, but it is the Competition Authority that should be able to monitor this continuously – as is done in other countries – and propose real proposals that have an effect.

I want to go back to what the Christian Democrats placed great emphasis on in the last election, namely the countryside and the farmers. They were to be the highest priority. They were to receive reduced red tape, and there were to be better economic conditions in the heartland, as it was called.

Now the Christian Democrats have handled these issues for two years, and still farmers are being suffocated by bureaucracy and high costs. It is high taxes and tangled regulations that make it difficult to produce cheap and competitive Swedish food. A dairy farmer has to manage 650 rules and 15 different agencies. These are unreasonable burdens. Furthermore, you have increased the costs for Sweden's entrepreneurs by 16 billion, Hans Eklind, and every farmer is a small business owner.

The costs for companies, and not least for farmers, must be lowered.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Member of Parliament has now, in a number of remarks, stated that there are no measurable goals in the Food Strategy 2.0. I believe the Member of Parliament is aware that the Swedish Board of Agriculture has been tasked with concretizing the objectives.

In the old food strategy, there were purely general objectives, such as that we should increase food production. What does that mean? Here there are proposals, for example from the meat industry itself, that 80 percent should be produced in Sweden. We know, for example, that the consumption of lamb meat is increasing while production is decreasing, and therefore the government is reviewing regulatory simplifications and how this can be solved.

I would still like to say that it becomes a bit tricky. I understand that it is the member's task to blacken the government and so on, but it still becomes a bit tricky when one says that nothing has happened on the agriculture side. If one is a member of the Centre Party and truly cares about agriculture, one should not stand and say it in this way, because the member knows that a lot has happened precisely regarding agriculture and to improve the farmers' conditions to achieve profitability in their business operations.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now, it is not I who is criticizing and saying that there are no concrete goals and means, but it is LRF and all others who are involved in this. Above all, there are very many farmers who have commented and written about this.

Of course, there are a lot of agency assignments, future plans and such, but it was you yourselves who, in your own rural policy program, called for a concrete goal in a food strategy, Hans Eklind. It was point 1 in your own program. For example, the preparedness storage was to be increased. You have not acted on that at all, but it is still just an investigation that is lying around gathering dust and that you have not made any progress on.

You have, of course, done something, but you have not done enough. And now we stand here with high food prices, a low self-sufficiency rate, and a great deal of red tape. Above all, it is the increased costs, from your side, for those who are to produce the cheap Swedish food so that we can keep food prices down and achieve a good self-sufficiency in our country.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Achieving increased self-sufficiency is a priority not only for the Christian Democrats and the Minister for Agriculture but for this entire government. It is, of course, important from a number of different aspects.

A lot has been done, and more is in the works. My party colleague Magnus Oscarsson is a single-person investigator and is now reviewing regulatory simplifications across the entire food chain. The reduction of fuel prices has meant a lot. I also meet with farmers; they are in my vicinity and in my circle of friends. They are very satisfied with much of what the government is doing, but they think it should go faster. Then I have to explain that this with politics also means that one must conduct investigations before one can implement regulatory changes.

As a stark contrast to Martin Ådahl's image, I can state that the chairman of LRF says it is positive that the government wants to take a more active role in the cooperation with the other actors in the food chain. There are some other tones than those Martin Ådahl chooses to quote.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We know how things look now and that we must act to bring down prices or at least maintain the price level we have. We must support households, but we must also act in the long term.

We must strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. It does not provide an immediate price reduction, but it increases our opportunities to produce more food and raise the self-sufficiency rate in the future, which in the long run also provides the possibility for lower prices.

We must also face the climate changes that will inevitably affect us. The Sweden Democrats have decided to wage a culture war against climate policy even though we know what will happen if we do not reduce emissions quickly. There will be droughts and floods, and this will increasingly affect food production. Everything we take for granted today could be overturned. We are already seeing a major impact. The drought in southern Europe has led to significantly smaller harvests and pushed up prices. Climate changes also affect the price of coffee. We see the climate effects not only in the form of extreme weather but also in the economy.

In summary, we must strengthen competition here and now and stop the large price increases on food while simultaneously strengthening the households that are struggling. In this way, we create a Sweden that holds together. But we must also act against emissions and at the same time strengthen the farmers so that, in the long run, we avoid skyrocketing prices due to climate change.

Unfortunately, this government is doing none of this. To get reasonable food prices and support for households moving forward, we obviously need to change the government. This government is not delivering – today's food prices show that, and this debate has also clearly shown it.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, we have heard that nothing is being done. That is not true, but we need to do more.

Removed employer contributions for young people and reduced food VAT are unfortunately blunt tools that risk missing the mark. The risk is that price increases will ultimately eat up any reductions in VAT or employer contributions. Food prices need to – and can – be lowered through one thing: better competition in a functioning market, both in Sweden and in the EU.

In my opening remarks, I highlighted the euro and the EU's agricultural subsidies as important factors for our high food prices. However, I also want to highlight what we are doing at home, which can have a positive impact. When this government took office, inflation was over 10 percent. Workers' real wages have decreased significantly. Our goal has been to push back inflation. We have also succeeded in this together with the Riksbank and the workers, who have taken a huge responsibility in this.

The Government has tasked Boverket with reviewing how competition can be better strengthened through easier establishment of grocery stores. Today, 100 municipalities in Sweden lack a low-price chain. Furthermore, Konkurrensverket has been tasked with analyzing the competition within the grocery industry.

The Liberals are prepared to do more to ensure that prices are pressed down, but not through regulations but through conditions for better competition and a functioning market. We do not rule out that higher requirements are placed on wholesalers to sell to small actors on the same terms as to the wholesalers' own stores. It could mean that the Competition Authority can map out the wholesale market and that the government can come forward with concrete proposals to improve the market and competition.

We cannot control and regulate our way to cheaper food, but we must create the conditions for increased competition and innovation.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but here the eminent member from the Liberals actually said that lowered employer contributions are not good and that this is a blunt tool. Cecilia Rönn's representative, Mats Persson, said before the election that the Liberals' absolute highest priority at the start of the election was to lower the employer contributions in order to lower costs.

We are now in a crisis situation when it comes to food prices and when it comes to the Swedish economy. Unemployment is one of the highest in the Western world. Then I hear from the Liberal Party member that reduced costs through reduced employer contributions are not so important and that it will not be noticed in the prices if we increase the costs for the food chain by billions through increased employer contributions. I just want to be sure that I heard correctly.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for giving me a chance to clarify if I was unclear!

I definitely want to lower the employer contributions and also believe that it would be good to do so. This applies primarily to the general wage contribution, which has increased without leading to any improvements for Sweden's entrepreneurs at all. Now, I am speaking generally.

Lowering employer contributions specifically for young people can also be good from various perspectives, for example, if we have a situation with many young people who are unemployed, if that is indeed the problem regarding the companies' possibilities to hire. But when it comes to a clear correlation between lowered employer contributions for young people and lower food prices, I think that is blunt.

I experience that the companies' major problem when it comes to being able to hire is a lack of competence and not primarily the employer contributions. The employer contributions do, however, need to be lowered, and we need to improve the companies' conditions to hire and grow.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with that. We really must – unfortunately in a completely different way than this government has done – strengthen the supply of skills. We also need to do several other things, for example, strengthen competition. We absolutely need to lower the employer contributions, also with a bit more breadth – as the C has proposed – so that it affects small businesses and those who are about to enter the labor market with low wages. Here, I and the member are actually in agreement. It would just be nice if the government also did this instead of doing the opposite.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that Martin Ådahl and I are in agreement.

Of course, we do things in this budget as a whole, also for the companies. Growth support and investments in vocational training and school are parts of that. I welcome that the Center Party also wants to lower employer contributions and make things better for the companies so that growth will improve in Sweden, but I would probably recommend that the Center Party join this government and its parties. I believe that the Center Party has much better conditions to push through a liberal and market-friendly corporate policy together with us than with the friends on the left side.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ida Gabrielsson and Vänsterpartiet for the debate.

This issue concerns all parties, meaning that households should be in a better situation. We protect them, and everyone wants to improve the margins. In that regard, there is no doubt. Sometimes, however, we have different ways to achieve this.

Mr. Speaker! I think well of everyone in the debate, and I know that you want to work for the households. But I must conclude by saying that Martin Ådahl, in every single contribution, chooses to misinterpret, put words in my mouth, and perhaps even distort the truth, and I think that is unworthy of this debate. I know that Martin Ådahl is a wise and sensible person. He is welcome to read this and our previous budget, for then he will see that we prioritize households and companies. And I can recommend that you sometimes take a cup of coffee to get to know someone, Martin Ådahl.

(Applause)

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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