The Prime Minister's Question Time

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! A few years ago, among others, Dagens Nyheter initiated investigations into how international adoptions to Sweden have been conducted. The investigations showed that children in, among others, China and Chile were kidnapped or bought over several decades before being adopted away. As the then Minister for Social Affairs, I reacted strongly to these investigations and initiated an inquiry into the international adoptions to Sweden.

The Prime Minister is himself involved in these issues. As chairman of the Adoption Centre, Ulf Kristersson argued in 2003 against the legislative tightenings that a previous investigation had proposed. Despite warnings that child trafficking occurred, Ulf Kristersson did not intervene. For that reason, I want to ask the Prime Minister today: Why did he not act on what he knew at that time?

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

TALMANNEN

The questions are, in themselves, intended to concern the Prime Minister's performance of duties, but the Prime Minister may, of course, answer the question.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, I will do so more than gladly!

It is both a correct and a completely incorrect description that the Social Democrats give in this issue. It is completely correct that many reacted to the information that irregularities could have occurred within the framework of international adoption - absolutely right.

I note that the then Minister for Social Affairs wanted an inquiry. I also note that I myself demanded an inquiry, a white paper, where one examines what has occurred with the information we have today that one did not have previously, in order to investigate whether there are grounds to change Swedish legislation.

Not everyone can know all the details in this matter, but those who know the details know that we have an authority in Sweden that regulates with which countries and in what way Sweden may conduct international adoption. This authority issues regulations to the adoption organizations, and the authority in turn is subject to that legislation.

I think that one should have a constantly ongoing process. There is nothing as important as total openness in these issues. Therefore, every alarm signal must be taken seriously.

It is equally obvious that we work with countries that quite often have relatively complicated situations domestically. The vast majority of countries that have Swedish prosperity and normal democracy do not need any orphanages at all, let alone international adoption. One must therefore be humble regarding the situation that the children have in the countries where this occurs, but it can never be an excuse to turn a blind eye.

So I land in the same conclusion that Lena Hallengren did as Minister for Social Affairs. There must be total transparency, and the matters must be investigated. A new white paper can provide grounds to investigate whether Sweden should now change the legislation.

(Applause)

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! I hear that the Prime Minister noted that he himself demanded an investigation, and that is quite correct. I believe it is wise that this investigation is allowed to work and that we carefully follow what the result becomes.

I still cannot help but follow up and say that early warning signs were not lacking, but that the Prime Minister in his role at the time in 2003 nevertheless did not take any measures.

I realize that the Prime Minister chooses whether he wants to answer the question, but I still wonder if the Prime Minister does not feel that he could have taken more measures based on the knowledge he had at the time.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There were a few times during those years almost 20 years ago when I was chairman of the Adoption Center, which is a non-profit organization that works with adoptions under the legislation and under the authority I mentioned, that signals came that something had been wrong somewhere.

Chile was quite noticeable. Every time this happened, we looked at whether there was anything in our systems or in our contacts that suggested we could have done something wrong. There wasn't. Was there something that happened in Chile, in a Chilean domestic situation, that we could not know about? It cannot be ruled out, but it could also not be required that Sweden should know about those things.

But ultimately, this is not a question for a single non-profit organization. If there are reasons for Sweden to terminate the adoption cooperation, it is the authority that must make such a decision. If the authority had done so, all cooperation would have been terminated immediately.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! Fuel prices are something that has been debated liviely, one might say, not least during the last year with the almost abnormal price levels we have seen when ordinary people are to fuel their cars. It was also an important issue for very many in the election campaign.

The Sweden Democrats went to the election on substantial cost reductions for Sweden's motorists. With the budget bill that we have negotiated together with the government, important steps are now also being taken in this direction. We see how the travel deduction is increased significantly. That is very good. We see how the energy tax on gasoline and diesel is lowered. That is good. The reduction obligation is lowered to the lowest possible level. That is also good.

Even though I, as a Sweden Democrat, would gladly have gone both further and faster, this is an important step on the way to facilitate things for the households and those citizens who are dependent on their own car. Especially if one compares with the alternatives that have now been presented from the other parties here in the Riksdag, it is obvious that the four Tidö parties are the parties that stand on ordinary people's side.

The reduction obligation is perhaps the individual measure that will have the greatest effect on the price at the pump. Many voters would probably have expected faster action from the government's side in the budget that has been presented, but it will therefore be on January 1, 2024.

I wonder if the Prime Minister can account for the trade-offs that underlie this specific date, 1 January 2024.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is exactly as Jimmie Åkesson says: We have negotiated a number of solutions that we believe are well-balanced.

Let me begin by saying that one must be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. Transitioning the Swedish vehicle fleet to electrified is an important part of Swedish climate policy. Electrification is proceeding at full force right now. Everything that makes it even faster is better.

I would think that charging infrastructure across the country will be the single strongest incentive for this, in addition to having a stable energy supply at reasonable prices that allows one to charge their car in a decent manner.

The second thing is that we must let people be able to get around, go to work, go to training with children and live their lives. Not all parts of the country have immediate access to the Stockholm metro - to say what we both know about.

I think all of this is important to take with us. We must, therefore, both do everything we can to increase electrification and at the same time ensure that Swedish households and Swedish companies can manage this.

What we are doing now is, as said, to lower the price at the pump by 1 krona compared to how it would have become without changes. With the EU's minimum level on the reduction obligation, we will lower it further.

There were two important reasons for doing this first in 2024. One is that these are often quite large procurements that are made long in advance. Many of the companies that today sell gasoline and diesel are already booked with this. Thus, it would not have led to any major price reductions if this had been done earlier. January 1, 2024, is our assessment of the best time point that can be reached. The other is that we are waiting to see what the EU's new minimum level will be, so that we get a harmonized level all around Europe where we do not have skewed competition situations between different countries. These are the two main reasons.

Could it have been done faster, not against me. I will not rule out every such possibility, but I believe that what is realistic is what is in the budget, namely that January 1, 2024, is the date.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is still a welcome announcement that the government does not rule out acting earlier if the opportunity is given.

I have two follow-up questions. Are there any indications of where the new minimum level in the EU will land once that decision has been made? What can we expect the EU's new minimum level to be? I also wonder more generally if there are further measures to facilitate things for all those people in our country who do not have access to the subway or tram but are dependent on driving their own car to be able to get to work, drive the children to school, or whatever it may be – for example, a further reduction of the energy tax on gasoline and diesel.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, I do not dare to guess. I do, however, dare to guess that it will be quite tough negotiations. That is usually the case when different countries with slightly different prerequisites are to discuss and agree together. It is the same thing with the gas prices in Europe right now.

These are very sensitive issues, on good grounds. I believe that most countries realize that we are in a tough position in two ways. We are in a tough position in climate policy, where we must transition to electrified as soon as possible. We also have a very tough position in household economics and must have respect for the fact that individual people are hit hard by this. What remains at the end of the month cannot just be the money that is left over after very high gasoline bills.

I do not dare to guess where this will land. However, I dare to say that with the alternatives we now see in the other budgets, the difference becomes very clear compared to those who do not lower the price at the pump at all and those who continue the increase of the reduction obligation, which would lead to much higher costs in the coming years for Swedish consumers.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! Things can happen quickly when there is a crisis and a recession occurs. People start losing their jobs and are forced to sell their homes, family relationships can be damaged, and children see their parents breaking down. In such a situation, a responsible government must prioritize correctly and counter such a crisis with force. We know, for example, that food prices have increased by 20 percent just this year. This means that households with small margins must receive support. We must raise benefit levels and ensure that we do not deepen the crisis by, for example, making it so that more people lose their jobs.

We ourselves have experienced that type of crisis in Sweden before and know that an incorrect way of handling such a crisis can lead to deep wounds for many years to come for very many people.

How can it be, in this crisis situation, that it is prioritized that high-income earners who earn over 50,000 kronor a month should receive a tax cut of 1,000 kronor - and if one earns 70,000 kronor, one receives even more in tax cuts per month - instead of securing jobs in healthcare, school, and elderly care? More staff are needed there, and if we do not invest in our welfare, unemployment will skyrocket.

What is it that makes it so much more of a priority to lower these taxes for high-income earners than to hire another nursing assistant or secure her job?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first establish what we obviously agree on, namely that we are facing a very tough economic period. Everything points to that. We perhaps also agree that it was quite a long time ago that we had such a tough economic situation. One probably has to go back to the mismanagement of the 70s and 80s that led up to the reforms of the 90s – those who are fully grown will remember the stagflation of that time, that is, stagnant economy and high inflation at the same time – and the lessons we drew then.

At that time, our parties drew different conclusions. You primarily wanted to continue the old policy; we and the Social Democrats wanted to reform the policy to achieve more stability in the Swedish economy. But that was then, that.

I agree that we face a very tough economic situation. In the government, we have decided that it requires a very responsible economic policy. Not fueling inflation is perhaps the single most important thing the government has to do now. If one fuels inflation, we will return to what we had in the 70s and 80s, and that is where we do not want to go.

What we do not agree on is obviously that the fact that we are not raising the tax now would mean that one is lowering the tax. I do not understand that. We have a number of systems in Sweden that are based on inflation assessments and inflation figures. Therefore, they are adjusted, in this case so that not more people automatically should be considered high-income earners, have to pay state income tax, and have higher tax. We established those rules many years ago, and we stick to them. When we then have higher inflation than before, it does not mean that we want many to pay more tax than they otherwise would have done, in a situation where many already have limited resources.

If I have understood the matter correctly, you think exactly the opposite, that it is now time to raise the tax for completely ordinary people such as midwives and police officers. We do not think so.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson refers to a time when half a million people actually had to leave the public sector, from healthcare, school, and care. Is this what Ulf Kristersson envisions? Is it his goal to lay off so many people from our healthcare, school, and care? It is clear that the message is out among regions and municipalities, which now lack very large funds. It could mean that the government is now deepening the crisis, that we are now going to fire people, healthcare staff at over-crowded emergency rooms. Is that the government's priority?

Now Ulf Kristersson says that he does not have power over the budget and cannot decide on the threshold levels. I was personally involved in adjusting these threshold levels. They are there to follow wage developments, and there is no wage group in Sweden that will receive 10-percent wage increases. It is completely obvious that these adjustments must now be frozen so that high-income earners contribute more in this situation. How is it possible that Ulf Kristersson does not share that view?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not understand why Nooshi Dadgostar is putting words in my mouth that I have not said. It is clear that I have the power to influence Sweden's budget. I said nothing about that. I said that, in a tough economic situation for Swedish households, I do not want to raise taxes and make it even harder to be Swedish. I do not want to now step in and raise taxes for many people.

If one now decides to change the legislation, as you want, depart from the old regulatory framework and increase the tax for 1 million people who today pay state income tax, it is a major departure from the reasonably predictable and stable tax policy we have had, where we have been able to have different opinions on how high the tax burden should be but have been in agreement on the rules of the game.

What I said was that I am afraid of returning to the situation of the 70s and 80s with permanent high inflation, eroded household economies, and poorly managed public finances. That is something I do not intend to contribute to.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson's government statement established that Sweden shall be a driving member of the EU. The government's message to the rest of the world at the climate summit last week was that it was urgent.

Sweden has previously led the way and shown how our country can and should be a role model for others. But it cannot escape anyone that these are different times now, a paradigm shift, if you will. Now the government shows with its first budget that it is backing down on the climate ambitions. It settles for the EU's absolute minimum level when it comes to green additives in gasoline and diesel, and it increases our emissions by 55 million tons by 2030. That is as much as Sweden's total emissions in a year.

The government's own assessment is that the policy the government pursues leads to increased emissions. It is stated in black and white in the budget bill. But the fact is that even if the government chooses to back down in the future at home, it does not work in the EU. Emissions in the EU are to be significantly reduced by 2030, according to new, tightened climate goals. For Sweden's part, it means that we need to reduce emissions by approximately 50 percent.

I do not think I need to remind the Prime Minister that the climate targets at the EU level are binding. It is legislation that Sweden must follow. Nevertheless, it is stated in the government's budget that the EU's requirements for 2030 are judged not to be achievable. That is not something to shrug off. It will cost, sooner or later.

Therefore, my question to the Prime Minister is: What does the concrete plan look like for Sweden to be able to follow the binding EU targets regarding a 50 percent reduction in emissions? Does the government take into account panic measures further ahead, or does the government take into account buying its way out? Is one already taking into account, in this economically tight situation, hefty EU fines?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me also here take hold of something that we perhaps agree on. Yes, it is a paradigm shift. We are reorienting Swedish energy and climate policy, from what we assess as eight lost years. Imagine if we had today had massive amounts of fossil-free Swedish clean energy that had accelerated the electrification. Imagine if we had not had eight years where nothing has been done regarding our time's truly major climate transition: the electrification. That is where we reorient the policy.

We do it on a symbolic level. We combine energy policy and climate policy into a single department, just as in, for example, Germany, so that one hand knows what the other hand is doing. It is one way.

The second thing is that we do not put all our eggs in one basket. We do not focus Swedish politics solely on the reduction obligation. If one does that, I think one should be honest. If it is the only tool one has, one should say: We will make it so expensive for Swedish motorists that no one will be able to afford to drive a car and raise the price by 5 or 10 kronor per liter. If one does even more, even fewer will be able to afford to drive a car. If that is what one means, I think one should say it. We do not mean that. We mean that it is one of many tools. It cannot be the only tool in a time when we also have a very great shortage of biofuels.

Our main strategy will be to accelerate the electrification of the vehicle fleet in Sweden. That is the single most important thing. The second important thing is to ensure that industries can electrify with new technology and the right types of support. That requires large amounts of clean electricity production in Sweden.

One must see the context, not isolate individual parts where Sweden cannot be an example for the rest of the world. It is as many researchers who have pointed that out as those who have pointed out that it is symbolically the wrong way to go. I place less emphasis on symbolism and more on efficiency.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to return to my question about the bill if EU's emission targets are not met. It is there. It is legislation that must be followed, and if it is not followed, it remains to pay EU fines or something else.

But first, I want to point out that both the Moderaterna and the Centerpartiet are responsible for the energy policy that has governed Sweden over the last 15 years. It was an energy agreement within the Alliance that has resulted in a massive expansion of energy production over the last decade. That is something I am very proud of.

I would like to return to the point regarding not meeting the EU's emission targets. The Moderates have clearly pushed that countries that fail to meet the climate goals should be fined. Therefore, I ask again: What does the concrete plan look like for Sweden to be able to follow the legislation regarding the binding EU targets of a 50 percent reduction in emissions? Is it to pay hefty EU fines? Or does the Prime Minister intend for agriculture and forestry to compensate for the government's missed targets? It would be a fitting message to precisely those sectors if they are the ones who are to receive radically higher costs and halted production.

I ask again: How will it be compensated for not reaching the EU's climate goals?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it states in the Climate Act that one should come back with a climate plan the following year. We will, of course, do that and describe exactly what our concrete plan looks like.

I am not as proud that Sweden in recent years has decommissioned four fully functioning nuclear reactors and stopped the construction of two new ones. Had we refrained from doing that, Sweden would have been much better equipped for what everyone says they want now: a rapid electrification.

If you do not have answers on how to solve the energy issue, you do not have answers on how to solve the climate issue. The climate issue begins and ends in energy production. Ask the countries that are now desperately dependent on either Russian oil and gas or that have decommissioned their nuclear power and hope that there is other energy available but discover that there is none. They are not managing this.

I am not at all worried about Sweden's reputation. Sweden has a good reputation as an ambitious climate nation, and we will maintain that reputation through faster electrification of our society.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Turkish airstrikes over the past few days against Kurdish targets in Iraq and Syria have claimed a large number of casualties, including many civilians. There is reason to remember that the Turkish military and their allies have also previously shown a great lack of respect for civilian lives. Residential areas have been attacked. Civilian victims have been killed and injured.

The USA has now directed sharp criticism towards Turkey because worrying signals are emerging that the YPG are now, due to the Turkish attacks, giving up the fight against the terrorist group IS. From the American side, concern is expressed that much of the work to push back IS risks being lost due to Turkey's actions. In the worst-case scenario, it could lead to IS regaining territory in Syria.

But from Sweden's side, Mr. Speaker, only understanding and sympathy have been expressed so far for Turkey's attacks in Syria, despite the many clouds of concern.

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask the Prime Minister if he shares the USA's concern over Turkey's actions and whether Sweden will now, with the support of the USA, dare to criticize President Erdogan in that matter.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, Sweden has urged all parties to restraint, to calm, and to ensure that civilians and civilian objects are not exposed to military danger. We have pointed out all of that. Many countries have done so.

I believe that many understand that it is a complex combination of conflicts. It concerns, among other things, the fight against IS and the different coalitions that exist in this. Both Sweden and Turkey are involved there.

It is also a matter of recognizing that Turkey is a country that is subjected to terrorist attacks. We note that Turkey has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. The rest of the world has reason to recognize that the terrorist attacks hitting Turkey are just as bad for Turkey as other terrorist attacks hitting other countries.

Regarding the NATO issue, we have noted that Sweden shall not be a place where people who in different ways finance terrorism or terrorism-related activities shall find a haven, simply because their activities are not directed towards Sweden but towards Turkey. I believe everyone understands that these are complex issues.

Sweden's voice has been as it usually is. We try to coordinate with the EU on major issues. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does not. Sometimes the EU reaches certain agreements. At the same time, Sweden has good reason to recognize that Turkey is a country that has been subjected to many terrorist attacks and that they are doing everything they can to defend themselves against this.

I understand that it is an answer that will not suffice for the questioner, not least because I suspect that there is also a NATO connection here. If one is against NATO, one thinks that one can say almost anything. We believe that we have reason to be quite careful with our words on that issue.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To use an expression that the Prime Minister is often fond of: I believe everyone understands that Turkey is bombing civilians and that Sweden is no longer criticizing those bombings. In 2019, the Chamber agreed that Sweden should not export weapons to Turkey on these very grounds.

Mr. Speaker! From the right-wing parties, we have long heard that a NATO application would strengthen Sweden's voice for peace and freedom in the world. Instead, we see how Sweden's government is now groveling to the authoritarian regime in Ankara and that Sweden's criticism has fallen silent. This is what the European Parliament's Turkey rapporteur Sánchez Amor said: "Every report from the EU and other international organizations underlines that Turkey is losing its democracy. Turkey lacks an independent justice system. I do not know how the new Swedish government views democracy." To be honest, Mr. Speaker – I do not understand it either.

Does the Prime Minister consider that Turkey fulfills the requirements that must be imposed on democracies regarding free elections, free press, protection for minorities and the safeguarding of human rights?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The new government places the ideals of democracy at the forefront of foreign policy, but the new government also places Swedish interests at the forefront of Swedish foreign policy. It is Swedish interests in Swedish foreign policy.

There are two parties in this chamber that are against Swedish NATO membership and do not think it matters whether Sweden becomes a member or not. All of us others think it is important that Sweden, in a situation where we have war in our surrounding world, enters the defense alliance and defense community that secures peace on our continent.

If one does not think it is important, one can say almost anything. If one thinks it is important, one is careful about how one expresses oneself and careful about what consequences it has - not because one is groveling, but because one cares about Swedish security interests. In the agreement that exists, no one is groveling, but we fulfill our part of the agreement.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! What happened to Esmeralda must not happen again. Esmeralda was the three-year-old little girl who was called "Little Heart" and who was found dead only ten months after she moved back to her biological parents. She had then been torn away from her safe and loving family home where she had lived since she was only a few weeks old.

Esmeraldas fate is a painful reminder of the need to strengthen and change the legislation so that the best interests of the child seriously and always come first. Therefore, we Moderates proposed a so-called committee initiative at the beginning of the previous parliamentary term to strengthen the protection for children cared for according to LVU. The work we then began in opposition must now be continued by the government.

That is why I want to ask the Prime Minister how he and the government intend to strengthen the protection for socially vulnerable children. How does the government intend to tackle the task of also giving those children who are born with the most difficult circumstances a fair chance in life?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is an interesting and perhaps somewhat unintended connection between this question and the very first question regarding internationally adopted children, and that is that it must always be the child's best interests that are at the center. International adoption is always about children who need parents, never about adults who want to form a family. For Swedish placed children, it should always be about what is best for the child's long-term security and future - not what is best for either foster parents or biological parents. That is not where Swedish legislation is right now.

After the committee initiative - which the old government took rather moderately seriously, if we are to be perfectly honest - extensive legislative work took place in this chamber, which is unique in itself. Our commitment to these issues remains, and now we gratefully accept the work that the Riksdag has performed and take it into the Government Offices.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is the first question period with the Prime Minister for this parliamentary term, and I and the Christian Democratic group would like to say: Huge congratulations on the valuable assignment as Prime Minister for Sweden, Ulf Kristersson!

Climate change is a fateful issue that the new government has very high on its agenda. As a Christian Democrat, I am proud of the new super-ministry that brings climate, environment, energy, and business issues under one and the same roof and opens its doors on January 1.

However, for many years we have seen a development that means we will need more electricity in the future, not less, if we are to meet the climate challenges. Both industry and the vehicle fleet are of great importance in this transition, but it requires that politics has the courage to do what it can. What are the most important reforms that the government is working on to meet precisely these needs?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I truly share the view that one must have a holistic view of this. I just said that the climate issue begins and ends in the energy issue. Someone else has said that the climate issue begins and ends in China. It is not just about China, but it is a global issue that requires very many global solutions. It must be sustainable, and there must be good examples that others can follow. I agree with all of this.

We will do a few things. One is, naturally, to do everything that leads to electrification. It is both about maximizing Swedish energy production in the short term, by preserving the fossil-free electricity production we have and facilitating what can be done in the relatively short term, and about laying the foundation for the next generation of nuclear power. It is an important part.

The second thing is to ensure that the incentives are real – that there are charging stations all around our country so that people dare to buy more electric cars and fewer fossil fuel cars.

The third is, naturally, efficiencies and savings in different ways, so that energy, climate, and environment are linked.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! This is the week when violence against women is highlighted globally, the so-called Orange Week.

We are all aware of the grim statistics when it comes to women who are murdered by a person they have lived or live in a partner relationship with. There are also thousands of women all over the country who live under threat and hate and in the fear of being murdered by a person they live or have lived in a partner relationship with. Many of the murders that occur have been preceded by a threat. Therefore, it is important that these threats are taken seriously at an early stage - and that we take the women's fear seriously.

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Prime Minister is: What does the work look like in the government when it comes to working against men's violence against women?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first just agree and say: Let us take these issues and this deadly violence as seriously as when it concerns the gross gang criminality! The violence is obviously different, but for individuals, it hits just as terribly.

A year ago, almost everyone noticed that five women were murdered within a period of three weeks, and suddenly there was a broad consensus on the toughening of penalties that we had wanted to see for a long time. Good! But now we must move forward. We want to see mandatory detention of those accused of such crimes, so that they cannot threaten and commit new crimes. That is one example. We want broader restraining orders and contact prohibitions, also with ankle bracelets, so that they cannot seek out the family they have just terrorized.

It is two concrete examples of issues where the government is now working out new, concrete legislation.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister has in a couple of remarks here pointed out that one should be careful with words.

On August 31, the Prime Minister expressed that it was cowardly and weak not to send Archer to Ukraine and that it could happen with immediate effect. Now, that was not the case in the package that has been decided to send. The package is based on the basis that the Armed Forces presented on October 25, in accordance with the directive that the government I was Defense Minister in initiated.

This is probably due to the fact that Kristersson and the Minister for Defence have received proper information from the Armed Forces. This also shows that that type of statements and hasty conclusions did not withstand confrontation with reality.

Why were you so careless, Ulf Kristersson? Why were you not careful with your words on August 31? Why did you make Archer more or less a campaign issue in the election campaign?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The campaign was not about Archer. The campaign was about Sweden increasing its support for Ukraine. That was the big question. It was about Sweden now having higher ambitions to help Ukraine militarily, humanitarily, and economically. We did not think the government was forward-looking or engaged enough in the issues. We said that with significant force.

What we did this week was to launch the single largest package so far, the largest in economic terms and military terms. It is a larger military package for Ukraine than the previous eight combined. We thus put power behind the words.

That we landed on those weapon systems was because they were at the top of Ukraine's list of requests regarding what they needed - after coordination with other countries. That was the concrete reason. Everything else was further down and would have taken longer.

The Archer question remains completely alive for the Swedish side as well.

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The media reported this week that a record number of children in Sweden are taking antidepressants. In 2021, the figures were higher than they have been in Sweden in the last 15 years, while they have decreased in other neighboring countries. In Denmark, usage increased until 2010 to subsequently decrease to the same level as in Norway. In Sweden, therefore, medication with antidepressants for children is three times as common as in Denmark and Norway.

Young people's mental health must be taken seriously and prioritized. Sverigedemokraterna view our agreement on investments positively, especially to strengthen mental health in Sweden. Children and young people should be highly prioritized in this area, and we need to consolidate efforts around the issue as a whole.

I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister the following questions: Does the government intend to act and take a major turnaround regarding the health of young people? Does the Prime Minister, like myself, feel that it is extremely worrying that there are so many children in Sweden who are taking antidepressants?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that many at this point have heard that I am seriously concerned about what is happening with the mental health of young people. Why are the children not doing as well as they are? That is the subtitle of a well-known book. This concerns me very much.

I am perhaps more concerned about children's mental health than about the fact that quite a few children receive help when they have been affected by mental illness. It is an important difference. Then there are different traditions in different countries.

I think we should take note that we are talking about this issue. It is good that parents get more tools. We must acknowledge that these are big and important issues in many families' lives. School health services should become as good at helping people with mental ill-health as they are at patching up other perhaps slightly simpler things. To invest more in suicide prevention is incredibly important.

All of this concerns me very much. I am not sure that one should fixate on those who are medicated, but rather we should see it as a sign that the problem is palpably large.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister traveled to Ankara for a meeting with Turkey's despotic president Erdogan. With him on the journey, he had a dream of a Turkish yes to a Swedish NATO membership. But unfortunately for the Prime Minister, he traveled home from Ankara without clear answers regarding his dream.

Much suggests that Erdogan will take the issue of a Swedish NATO membership into the Turkish election campaign in June next year. This occurs at the same time as Erdogan does everything to ensure that the Turkish population forgets the 85 percent inflation that currently prevails in the country by committing crimes against international law when he bombs in Iraq and Syria.

But one thing Erdogan was clear about, namely that at the joint press conference with the Prime Minister, he expressed the request to have the editor-in-chief and the journalist Bülent Kenes extradited, which is in line with the recurring attacks that Erdogan has made on journalists and oppositionists.

How does the Prime Minister view Erdogan's request to extradite Bülent Kenes?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the few parties in the Swedish Riksdag that are opposed to NATO membership also have interesting views on what one is and is not allowed to speak to Turkey about. It cannot be a coincidence.

If one does not care about Swedish NATO membership, if one thinks it is unimportant whether Sweden is protected or unprotected, one can do whatever one wants. That is not how I view Swedish security. That is not how six of the eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag view Swedish security. For me, the security of the Swedish population is a completely decisive issue.

That is why I went to Turkey, not because I dreamed of anything, but to discuss in peace how it is going with the trilateral agreement between Sweden, Finland and Turkey that we are working on. Everything is within current Swedish legislation and within current European conventions. Neither more nor less.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Government itself writes in its budget that the climate goals can no longer be reached with the help of this policy. The Government says it wants to pursue a new type of environmental and climate policy, but the result seems to be to remove the majority of all initiatives that Miljöpartiet pushed through during the years in government.

In addition, the government's only policy in this area seems to be new and expensive nuclear power. It does not reduce emissions during at least the next 10-15 years.

Which of the government's reforms are those that will lower emissions during the next year? Or is it simply the case that the government does not have a single reform that lowers emissions? If the Prime Minister intends to once again have expanded charging infrastructure as the only example, I would like to know how much the government expects that investment will lower emissions.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If one only has a single climate goal, and it is to be reached with the help of the reduction obligation, I think one should be honest and say that the reduction obligation should be raised to levels so that no one can afford to fuel their car at all. It will guaranteed lower emissions in that specific sector. The reduction obligation will also reduce many other things, not least people's household finances. But then one must be honest about this. We have higher ambitions than that.

Let me respond with a sincere courtesy. We are keeping important things that you introduced. It is Industriklivet, which helps to electrify industrial processes. The part of Klimatklivet that deals with charging infrastructure, we are making much, much larger than before – because it is good policy.

Last but not least: The budget we have presented is the second largest climate budget ever in Swedish history. It is only surpassed by one budget, namely when our budget won last time. So it was with the climate slaughter.

(Applause)

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

Marie Nicholson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I speak more and more often with companies in my constituency that do not know if they will manage to get through the winter with the current high electricity prices. But I also speak with companies that are ready to grow, develop, and transition to a climate-neutral state. But they are hesitating now because of the electricity prices, but above all, they are hesitating out of concern for the future availability of electricity – that it will not be sufficient and that investments in electrification today will undermine them tomorrow.

What is the Swedish government, the Prime Minister, doing to ensure that companies in Kalmar County, and in all of Sweden, can have confidence that the electricity will be sufficient for their needs even in the future?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is naturally that it would have been better if Sweden had not dismantled one of the world's best electricity systems. That is the honest answer. I do not say it to point fingers but to state facts. You cannot conjure things out of thin air.

Now we are where we are, and we are doing everything we can to transition the energy system. It will take time, and until then we must do everything that is possible to do along the way.

The paradox in this is that part of the climate transition requires a lot of electricity. Those who want to make large investments in CCS technology, that is, carbon capture, need a lot of electricity to manage it. If they are left without that electricity, they cannot make the climate investments.

The state's major contribution is to create long-term and stable conditions for this. Therefore, it would have been good if we could have agreed in the chamber that nuclear power shall return and stay, and thereby obtain long-term rules of the game for that issue. Then we can disagree on other things. We will do everything we can to create that predictability.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The most important theme of the election campaign was healthcare, specifically healthcare's inability to manage the reduction of care queues.

We can see the previous government's failure. During the eight years, the length of the healthcare queues increased every year, and this government had to take over that problem.

For me, it is important that we take large steps forward and that the healthcare queues actually decrease during this mandate period. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what we can expect moving forward. What measures will be taken to reduce the healthcare queues and increase the quality within healthcare?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I completely share the view that long healthcare queues are probably the most palpable problem for many patients in Sweden who know that the care will be good when they arrive, but that they will not arrive in time.

As Ebba Busch used to point out before the election and Acko Ankarberg Johansson points out now, many people wait illegally long in Swedish healthcare queues. So we cannot have that in the long run.

One answer to the question is that we are now taking a stronger state grip on this, that is to say that the state responsibility for it being more equal around the country shall become much greater.

Another thing is to ensure that patients' right to choose care where care is available increases significantly, while individual regions' right to act in different ways, which affects the patients, becomes a bit smaller.

Much more must be done, but we are now beginning a laborious task of shortening the queues and increasing the state's responsibility for that task.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have war in Europe, and at this moment we have learned that the government, in a secret agreement, has made a deal with the right-wing nationalist Sverigedemokraterna regarding large parts of EU policy. It concerns climate and environment, energy, and migration.

My question concerns how the government intends for important decisions on climate, energy, and migration to be reached during the EU Presidency together with a party that is a climate denier and strongly critical of the EU.

The Social Democrats would like to be a constructive force, not least during the chairmanship, but it cannot be a secret that we Social Democrats have said that we can cooperate with many parties in this Riksdag but not with the Sverigedemokraterna.

Why was this secret agreement with Sverigedemokraterna regarding EU policy not presented publicly earlier? And are there more secret agreements that the government has with Sverigedemokraterna?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly: There are no secret agreements, nowhere. We do not deal with papers that are not allowed to be shown and so on, as the previous government did. We do not do such things. There are no secret agreements at all.

What is extremely improper is that when a government is to make a decision in this chamber regarding a mandate to go to the European Council for decisions, the government must have a mandate. The previous government often lacked a mandate, because one had no majority.

We will obtain mandates. Then we negotiate with other parties. It could be regarding the issues where we have agreements with the Sweden Democrats to cooperate on, and if those issues also have EU consequences, it is natural that we have the same cooperation in the EU Committee. In other issues, it could be with others that we cooperate.

We are happy to cooperate with the Social Democrats, however, not on the condition that we are not allowed to speak with other parties. That is how the previous government worked. That is not how my government works.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as the Iranian people rise up against the theocratic dictatorship, Sweden today in practice allows the same dictatorship to spread its state ideology here in Sweden, including in my home municipality of Järfälla. Despite the fact that we have a law stating that persons who constitute a threat to national security may be denied a residence permit, persons who have well-documented and obvious connections to the regime in Iran are allowed to work as, for example, imams, which gives them the opportunity to conduct intelligence activities, influence certain minority groups, and monitor, for example, democracy fighters.

My question is quite simple. Will the new government do anything about this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe no one has missed that the new government is very committed to the fight against terrorism in various ways. There is a paradigm shift there as well. It will be noticeable in many different ways.

I will not go in and comment on individual incidents, neither in Järfälla nor elsewhere. That is not my task. On the other hand, I am very confident that Swedish authorities are very careful about keeping track of people who may pose a threat to the security of the realm or to the safety of individuals. And that people who come from other countries with purposes that violate everything Sweden stands for should not have the right to be in Sweden is my general but very firm opinion.

Then we act in Sweden together with the EU in many different ways - bilaterally and together with the EU, as said - to express our very strong opinion about what is happening there.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It has now been nine months since the invasion of Ukraine began. It is a war where millions of people have fled, and thousands of them have come to Sweden.

Protecting the civilian population is a very important part of the total defense. Knowing that the family is safe allows soldiers and volunteers to devote all their time and effort to defending Ukraine against the invasion that has occurred.

Many of us in here have surely met Ukrainian refugees who have come to Sweden. I did so on Monday at a folk high school. The women I met expressed great concern, of course for the situation at home but also for the situation they live in here in Sweden. They live on very low incomes and have difficulty making ends meet in their daily lives.

How does the Prime Minister think about the lives of the Ukrainian refugees in Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I naturally fully share the description of what has happened since that terrible day exactly nine months ago today. It is unfortunately good that we are reminded every time another month has passed.

I believe that Sweden today is doing what we should do fundamentally. Together with all other EU countries, we have opened up our country for Ukrainian refugees. All EU countries do this. Quite a few countries do it more than anyone could have expected and hoped for - we should also take note of that and acknowledge it - not least those who live in the immediate vicinity of Ukraine.

As I said just a moment ago: Humanitarily, economically and militarily, we are supporting Ukraine heavily right now. It is the single most important issue in Swedish foreign policy right now. I think Sweden is taking that responsibility. I have all respect for the fact that Ukrainians desire even more support, and we must always be prepared to give more, but we are taking our responsibility right now.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! In Malmö, where I come from, we have 40,000 adults who neither work nor study. In Sweden, we are talking about several hundred thousand.

Many of these come from abroad, from countries where small businesses and family businesses are a given. But in Sweden, they see a reality where one either lives on benefits or must support oneself and two others while paying VAT, social security contributions, and taxes.

Does the Prime Minister see any opportunities to adjust and change in order to facilitate for many people to start smaller family businesses?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Outsidership is, just as Peter Ollén describes, one of Sweden's by far greatest social problems and integration problems, which leads to a lot of other consequential effects: children who never see their parents go to work, to say the obvious, and adults who do other things during the day than enter into work communities and thus do not learn the Swedish language and perhaps do not understand what is happening in Sweden – all this.

Much of the election campaign was also about this. We are determined to carry out the major reforms: a benefit reform that ensures it can never be more profitable to live on benefits than to work, make it easier to start a company, remove red tape in entrepreneurship and appreciate entrepreneurship as a form of work.

I believe all of this are the methods moving forward, but it must fundamentally be based on people who can work working and not living on benefits. It must be the absolutely dominant and normal way to support oneself in Sweden, and unfortunately, that is not the case for many people today.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In the election, the voters voted in a new government, a government that is capable of tackling growing healthcare queues, creating security, and ensuring that we get a migration policy that takes into account our integration capacity.

But things are happening within the economy. This morning, the Riksbank announced that they are now raising the policy rate by 75 points, i.e., to 2.5 percent. We are therefore entering a recession, with high inflation, rising interest rates, and high unemployment. In that case, a well-balanced fiscal policy is required.

My question to the Prime Minister is how he views the possibilities of continuing to support households and companies in the recession that we know we are entering, without us ending up in a situation where the fiscal policy undermines the monetary policy's ability to break inflation.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is one of the major tasks, naturally. But I want to first step back and say that we went to the election with the message that change is absolutely necessary, but also possible. It is possible to change things that do not work in Sweden. We received that mandate, and we will take it very seriously. That is why we say that there will be a paradigm shift in Swedish politics - believe nothing else!

The second thing I want to say is that we are humble before the magnitude of the task. It is difficult, and it will take time. These are problems that have grown over a very long time. Had this been easy, someone would have done it a long time ago. We understand that it is a large and difficult task.

The third thing I want to say is that we have respect for all people who are worried right now about many things: the war, the economy, the violence. We have respect for this; there is an anxiety in our society.

To now solve economic problems in a much tougher economic climate than before is a difficult task. To be very precise in its support and not fuel the inflation fire was exactly what the budget we have now presented aimed to achieve.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! This week, Dagens Samhälle and Magasinet Filter report on the Prime Minister's and several other ministers' close connections to the top management of private school giants. Education Minister Lotta Edholm was a private school owner when she was appointed, and the Prime Minister himself owns a summer cottage together with a high-ranking official in the private school group Watma. Sweden's most prominent private school lobbyist, Peje Emilsson, stated in Dagens Nyheter this summer that he usually sends text messages to the Prime Minister when he thinks the Prime Minister has done a good job.

In the Tidö Agreement, the government base establishes that the pursuit of profit in schools shall continue. When the agreement was presented, it was welcomed by the CEO of Academedia with the following comment: "Many of the proposals Academedia has put forward over the years are included here."

This makes me wonder: What contacts have the government parties had with representatives for school groups when they have designed the Tidö Agreement?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I know many teachers in municipal schools. I know many teachers and principals in independent schools. I know many who have worked so that independent schools can exist. I know many who work so that municipal schools can become better. I know, above all, very many students in municipal schools and independent schools. I have never questioned their good intentions in their activities.

I know that there are those who are obsessed with the idea of closing the country's friskolor. I do not belong to them. If one is obsessed with it, one throws accusations about left and right. That is not what I intend to do.

I like the school. I like the students. That today's students should learn many things, regardless of which principal the schools have, is what I am passionate about - not about trashing individual school forms.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time is hereby concluded.

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