The Prime Minister's Question Time

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Food, gasoline, and diesel are expensive. Now interest rates on mortgages are rising, as are rents. Swedish households across the country are struggling. But it is obvious that the government lacks a plan to manage the situation. Instead, they break promise after promise. There was no high-cost protection against high electricity prices on November 1, no lowered fuel prices by 5 or 10 kronor, and no abolished amortization requirement. But there was an increased tax on alcohol, tobacco, and repairs, contrary to the promise of a tax increase freeze.

What did the government prioritize instead? It was not an increased child allowance to help families with children through this winter. It was not even an electricity bill relief. No, instead it was 10,000 kronor in tax cuts for high-income earners.

Now, reviews of the government's actions during these months will come. We will find out the result. The EU regulation that is supposed to ensure that the electricity companies' profits go to the taxpayers has not been implemented in time, even though this is something we all in the EU agreed on. Now, Swedish taxpayers risk losing enormous amounts. Instead, Kristersson and Busch spent time and effort on classifying the electricity support as confidential, so that the public would not find out what portion goes to high-income earners specifically. It was obviously those who were to be protected this winter.

My question to you, Ulf Kristersson, is: When will your Energy Minister Ebba Busch return with new proposals ensuring that the profits the companies have made on high electricity prices this winter do not remain in their pockets, but instead go to Swedish households, who are currently struggling to make their everyday finances work?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall answer this in a moment. May I just first say that it was with very great sorrow that I received the news last night that Police Commissioner Mats Löfving is dead. I want to say in this chamber that my thoughts, and the thoughts of many others, are with his relatives.

When it comes to the economy, this government is convinced that it is inflation that is the absolute worst enemy of Swedish wage earners, Madam Speaker. Inflation erodes the household economy more than anything else. There are few countries that have as much experience of this as Sweden. We had inflation in the 70s in combination with really poor growth. It was then that the term stagflation was coined. In the 80s, every wage movement that did not provide 10 percent was a pure wage cut. That time, inflation was combined with high interest rates.

There are many other countries that also have high inflation. Thus, we are importing inflation. If you add the effects of the war and the effects of the pandemic, this is the completely dominant major challenge for Swedish economic policy right now. We are going to fight inflation, and we will win that fight. After that, we will increase Swedish growth with the kind of reforms that allow companies to hire the right competence and ensure that we have infrastructure and education in the right places. All of this constitutes vital tasks.

The first thing we did was to present a budget that was negotiated in proper order, as was done in the past, when one obtained a majority for their budget, put it on the table and won approval for it. It had been a long time since Sweden had such a government. That was the first step. The second step was to help households cope with really tough electricity bills. Those funds are being paid out right now, while we are speaking. This is a very good basis for a stable economic development.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe you are doing as well as you can, Ulf Kristersson. But it is obvious that it is not enough. There were very many words that came from your mouth. But they are not words that help Swedish households pay their bills here and now.

The very purpose of this EU regulation was that the profits the companies make during this winter – it is now that they are making the large profits – should instead go into the households' pockets. But Sweden is one of the countries in the EU that has failed with this. In the rest of the EU, one now gets access to these funds. I ask again: When will Ebba Busch come with new proposals so that the excess profits that the electricity companies have made and which now lie in their pockets can be transferred over to all the Swedish households struggling to make their everyday finances work?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today, approximately 55 billion kronor are being paid out to hard-pressed Swedish electricity consumers. This is because we in Sweden have long had a system with capacity charges. That is where the large sums end up. Now we are paying them back where they actually belong. We have 40 percent of all of Europe's capacity charges, just to indicate what it is about. This is the big issue. In other countries, they have completely different methods for this.

Now there is a lot of criticism directed at the experts at the Ministry of Finance. It is the same leading experts at the Ministry of Finance now as during Magdalena Andersson's time there. Let me quote the Ministry of Finance's head of legal affairs: "I have never been involved in developing a tax in such a short period. So it is not about not wanting to. This has been high-prioritized. . We have shortened all lead times, both regarding referral times, preparation, and the motion." They have, therefore, done everything they could in the shortest time possible without violating the constitution. They are real experts.

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Government has now chosen to proceed with the investigation on improved opportunities to change gender, which was initiated by the previous Social Democratic-led government and received enormous criticism. The Sweden Democrats believe that the focus should primarily be on the society helping, supporting, and treating the young person and that at the age of 25, medical and surgical help should be provided if there is still a need for it.

It is a fact that more and more people are seeking care for gender dysphoria, and the reason for the increase is unclear. It is primarily young people who are seeking care there. It is in healthcare, school health services, and psychiatry that we need to see interventions.

We should look at the question in a broader analysis of how an introduction would affect gender-affirming care before this proposal becomes law.

That we are now instead to divide the gender identity law into two parts is less desirable in our view, and we are doubtful as to whether it is the right move.

Does the Prime Minister consider that it should be possible in Sweden to have two different genders simultaneously, one biological and one legal based on what one feels as?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us first say something that I believe we can all agree on. These are genuinely difficult questions. Let us acknowledge that.

They are difficult questions. They are not simple questions. But they are incredibly important for those who are personally affected by the issues. I believe we can all have respect for that.

Just as Acko Ankarberg Johansson said in her response to the interpellation just a few weeks ago, work is currently underway in the Government Offices on new gender identity legislation. As she said then, that work has been ongoing for some time.

It is about two things. It shall become easier to change legal gender, so to speak purely on paper, in order to provide a legal recognition. But it shall also not require formal permission from Socialstyrelsen before medical interventions are performed, instead the regular medical profession is granted the right.

We are continuing with that direction. Nothing is finalized yet. But it is the government's direction for the bill.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Prime Minister!

We have stated our position on that issue. This is nothing that concerns the Tidö Agreement. I can continue to point out that this government also has agreed that we shall separate the legal gender from the biological gender with specific legislation for this.

Yes, those are complicated questions. But the conclusion becomes somewhere that the population register will be based on an actual gender identity but at the same time also what one feels as.

Would the Prime Minister like to try to explain to me why we should even have a legal gender if it is also to be based on what one feels like?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! There are strong reasons to try to respect people's own judgment and own decisions as far as it is possible at all. This applies especially if it also does not cause negative effects for other people.

I have great respect for this. Legislation is a bit rigid. I understand that no one can meet all the requirements. But in this way, the government believes that we can meet the legitimate requirements that are nevertheless placed on the legislation.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Many families with children, students, retirees and other households are today under severe pressure from high electricity prices. The high electricity prices have now existed in Europe for some time.

That was the reason why the EU decided to act. Both Moderate and Left Party parliamentarians have agreed that all Europeans shall now receive a crisis intervention, especially over the winter, as we know that electricity prices are high.

All these parliamentarians voted for the crisis package. This means that the excess profits in the electricity companies shall be paid back collectively to Europe's families. The Moderates were very much aware of this. They voted for it themselves.

It was of course important, especially over the winter. Therefore, legislation was put in place early in the autumn specifically so that it would apply from December 1.

According to EU law, EU regulations are directly applicable in Swedish legislation. That is something we hopefully all agree on. Sweden has therefore, since December 1, had a law that limits electricity profits to 180 euros. The rest should go back to the electricity customers.

Still, the government has chosen not to implement the legislation. The Prime Minister speaks about the bottleneck fees. These are public funds. It is something completely different. It is to mix up the cards.

This is about taxing private electricity companies. That is where the money should come from. It is not our own agency that is to distribute money. We shall, of course, also do that, but that is another matter.

The fundamentals stipulate that this is not retroactivity. The expert group is in agreement that it is not. The EU regulation has applied since 1 December. Does the Prime Minister have a different opinion on this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I hold exactly the same opinion as I expressed when Magdalena Andersson asked a similar question.

The big question in Sweden is about the redistribution of capacity charges. It is true. Sweden has it, unlike most other countries. It was a much better way to redistribute to individual households than to take it over the state budget.

The second question concerns the incorporation of EU legislation. We do that as well. The difference was that this legislation was written in such a way that it could not be applied without new Swedish tax legislation. That is what the non-political tax experts at the Ministry of Finance completely agree on. That was also what I presented.

If one is not to violate the constitution, a certain amount of preparatory work regarding tax legislation is required. We usually are quite careful with that. We do not slack off with such matters.

I only note that, in that case, the debate makes Nooshi Dadgostar take with her those experts at the Ministry of Finance who made the assessment that we should follow the constitution when we prepare tax legislation. It takes a little time to do it in that way. Now it is in place as it should be.

I do not think there is any reason to make politics out of this. In all normal situations, we are careful to follow the law. Especially in tax matters, it is extra important to make the preparations that are required. That has also occurred in this case.

I find it somewhat difficult to understand why one wants to make these experts' position on Swedish legislation a punching bag in the political debate. This is especially true because we have fundamentally solved the problem of returning to consumers in the way we have done in Sweden with the payments right now.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! There is politics in this. Families are going under with high bills. The government chose, and I now quote Energy Minister Ebba Busch, to prioritize other issues than families' bills. It chose to prioritize tax cuts for high-income earners and not to tax the electricity companies. Therefore, there is politics in this, Madam Speaker.

We have described this in our KU report but also in the Finance Committee's initiative, which was addressed today. There, everyone agreed that it needs to be investigated further. It is legislation from December 1. The government can now return with a law, supplementary legislation, to withdraw the money from December, January, and February.

Why has a legislation from March 1st been chosen when it violates EU law, Prime Minister? That is the question. Why does the legislation from December 1st not come?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! What is happening these days is that we are making the large payments. There is a reason behind it. We think it is important to do exactly what we said before the election, to help people after extremely high electricity prices. Reimbursing the capacity fees was the best way to do that.

Furthermore, we incorporate precisely the legislation that the EU has decided on. But we do it in the manner prescribed in the Swedish constitution. We refer tax decisions. We do it in an orderly fashion. We do not do it in a sloppy and haphazard way.

It says nothing about us not prioritizing household finances, on the contrary. That was why we were in such a hurry to implement the method we chose ourselves to compensate households for high fees.

I think this is important. One does not slack off with tax decisions. One trusts the experts at the Ministry of Finance who show how the legislative preparation is carried out. One does not run over them. One does it in an orderly manner.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Tomorrow marks one year since Europe woke up to a new war. It has been a year of terrible suffering with millions of people fleeing and tens of thousands dead.

The Ukrainian soldiers are holding out persistently and bravely. Men and women are fighting with their lives at stake, not only for their freedom and the right to their country but also for all of Europe's peace and security.

When new Russian offensives are expected, we must give Ukraine our full support. It is welcome that the government has decided to send the Archer weapon system and the Stridsfordon 90. I am also pleased by the great unity we have in this chamber regarding continuing to support Ukraine humanitarily, economically, and militarily.

But more must be added. Today, the Center Party has therefore submitted an initiative to the Committee on Defence that Sweden, in close dialogue with Ukraine and other NATO countries, shall develop a multi-year plan for how the Swedish military support shall be scaled up and streamlined.

For the Centre Party, it is obvious that such a plan is needed. It needs to include more heavy weapons systems - more than those we have already sent. The Leopard 2 tank is one such example. But - and this is absolutely crucial - we also need, in consultation with the Armed Forces, to review whether it is possible to provide combat aircraft.

We cannot have it as it is today. When the government finally makes a decision to send heavier weapons systems, it takes months of bureaucracy and logistics before the aid is on site.

My questions to the Prime Minister are therefore: Is the government prepared to stand behind the Center Party's committee initiative? And does the Prime Minister see an opportunity to, in close consultation with the Armed Forces, send Jas to Ukraine and begin work in the near term with training Ukrainian pilots so that they are ready if such a decision is made?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first venture to welcome Muharrem Demirok even in this circle, as a questioner during the question period. I truly appreciate his presence.

Fundamentally, I just want to agree with the basic consensus we have on these issues. It is incredibly important. Since we all remember exactly what we did just a short while ago, a few hours ago, a year ago, it is good that we all have a common picture of what we should do now. The broad consensus in Sweden has been incredibly important. There was some stumbling in the first decisions, but after that we have been united in that we help Ukraine in all ways, including with weapons.

I also place enormous value on the broad consensus on the Nato issue, not least when it is as complicated as it is. We are six parties out of eight who now unequivocally stand behind the Swedish Nato accession.

I was in Munich last week at the large security conference. If there was a common message from Munich, it was the coordination of arms deliveries. And if there was a common message from everyone I met in Kyiv, also last week, it was: Do not delay for too long! If you are going to give us weapons anyway – do not wait until it is almost too late! It is easy to agree with both.

Much of what Demirok is now describing is exactly what is happening right now. There is much more coordination. We are counting, for example, on a joint procurement of ammunition in the entire EU, partly inspired by the vaccine procurements during the pandemic. Much of this is, therefore, in the works.

I believe everyone understands that there is, however, a difficult balance that must be struck. Sweden must decide on a few things: What can we contribute? What does Ukraine need most? What are other countries doing right now? And what do we dare to forgo ourselves without jeopardizing our own defense capability?

This prism is important. We all have respect for it. It means that we are now joining the Leopard family, which investigates what we can contribute in that regard as well. It can also be about spare parts, service, maintenance and such things. It does not have to be tanks. But it can become tanks; I do not exclude that at all. There is also a large work ongoing in the aviation issue internationally right now.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! When the Prime Minister was in Ukraine, we could read that he received a direct question from Zelenskyy about the Jas 39 Gripen. The Prime Minister answered then that nothing is ruled out. That is good. I agree with that.

But that is not enough, and that is precisely why we need to establish a multi-year plan even here at home in Sweden regarding Swedish military support and how it can be scaled up and streamlined. If the government in the future decides to provide combat aircraft or other weapons systems, it will take a long time. Similar to the USA and the UK, Sweden could already now account for training Ukrainian combat pilots. It is about creating the conditions for freedom and change.

I know that the Prime Minister realizes the gravity of the situation; he has shown this on repeated occasions. Therefore, I also hope that we in this chamber can continue to have the unity that we have had. Because it is not about us. It is about Ukraine's struggle for peace and freedom and their struggle also for our peace and freedom.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely share the basic attitude and stance towards our task regarding Ukraine. I also completely share the overall attitude regarding the importance of cooperating with other countries so that the whole becomes good.

The order of the day when it comes to aviation is that nothing is ruled out, but neither is any country fully there yet. It is important to say this: Nothing is ruled out. No country is fully there yet.

There are many different reasons for this. An intense discussion is ongoing regarding the issues; it is quite obvious. It is just as obvious that Sweden will be part of that discussion, for many reasons, not least because we have such a unique capacity ourselves.

Right now, we are fully occupied with delivering the things we have already promised. The large delivery of CV90 is an important part of this. It is incredibly appreciated by Ukraine. Archer is also an important part of this and much appreciated. Then I appreciate that they are completely unabashed in Ukraine and say: We need more of everything.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! As we heard in the previous question, it is tomorrow one year since Russia invaded Ukraine. It is a terribly ruthless war that has cost the Ukrainian people enormously much in death and suffering.

We can be proud that we have had a broad consensus when it comes to sending both money and weapons to Ukraine. But we should be able to do more. When Ukraine's President Zelenskyy spoke in this Riksdag almost exactly a year ago, in March, he was clear that Sweden should stop importing energy from Russia - the energy that finances the Russian bombs.

Despite that, it took an additional number of weeks before the Miljöpartiets initiative to achieve a total stop for imports of Russian energy actually received support, a broad consensus, and agreement in Sweden's Riksdag. It was in May, and it is nine months ago. Still, reports show that Russian gas continues to be imported for billions of kronor in Sweden. As recently as last week, on Valentine's Day - of all dates - a gas tanker unloaded its cargo in Sweden. It is therefore about billions of kronor.

That we continue with the imports is not only in conflict with what the Swedish people expect; it is also something completely different from what, for example, the Moderaterna put out in the election campaign and said in images and in other ways.

Therefore, I want to ask some questions to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister prepared to now carry out what the Riksdag in broad consensus has decided - not to provide support and military equipment with one hand and at the same time finance the war with the other hand by paying Russia for fossil energy? Is the Prime Minister prepared to make the efforts that are required, or is this another example of saying one thing before the election and doing something else after it?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I also appreciate the broad consensus regarding supporting Ukraine economically, politically, and militarily. I would appreciate it even more if we had had the same broad consensus on the question that is completely decisive for Sweden: joining Nato. There, we are still missing two parties, and the Green Party is one of them.

President Zelenskyy was memorable when he was with us on the screen up here barely a year ago. I especially remember when he described the horror on the ground, and I remember when he described the reconstruction work with optimism. If I remember correctly, he had a passage in the middle where he said: Gotland. He pointed at Gotland and spoke about what risks a country like Sweden runs when we have a neighbor in the east that lacks respect for other countries' futures.

The energy issue is, overall, one of very few bright spots during the past year. Europe has quickly made itself very much less dependent on Russian oil and Russian gas. This energy transition has gone dramatically much faster than anyone could have believed. I find it difficult to see any other bright spot at all, so this is very good.

It is also good that we in Sweden have a broad consensus that it is sanction packages in European unity that now apply. The unity has an intrinsic value, and it is important that we follow the sanctions we jointly decide upon in the EU. That is what Sweden does.

Then one can imagine that every individual country wants to make individual deviations in different ways. But then one quickly runs into different problems. I stand by the position that Sweden should drive unity in sanctions and unity in what we do not buy from Russia, and that Sweden belongs to those countries that cultivate and honor this unity without making their own deviations.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting and important that the Prime Minister remembers President Zelenskyy's words. However, one quote was omitted by the Prime Minister, and it was when President Zelenskyy here, in this chamber, said that every barrel of oil and every oil tanker that unloads prolongs the war and the suffering for the Ukrainian people.

These are words that we now, a year after the war began, have a responsibility to keep in memory. We must do everything we can, as we often say we will do, to stop the war, and we know that the Russian war effort, the bombs falling over the Ukrainian people, is financed by the export of fossil fuels - unfortunately including still to Sweden. The tanker that unloaded here in Sweden just over a week ago is estimated to have provided revenues of hundreds of millions of kronor to Russia, which go straight into the Russian war chest.

One must still be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. One can work to get the EU to do more and increase the sanctions, but one can also do as, for example, Norway and the Baltic states have done and stop imports nationally. Why is the Prime Minister not prepared to do what the Riksdag has stood behind and demanded that the government should do?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! When I sat with President Zelenskyy just the other day, there were a few things that he emphasized extra much. One thing was naturally: Keep the unity between the different countries of the EU, and keep the unity between the EU and the USA, the transatlantic link! It may sound obvious today, but it was not a year ago. It may have been the single most important thing that Finland's president warned against just before the outbreak of war: If this war starts, how do we ensure that we have unity between the countries so that Russia cannot play countries against each other? We have actually managed to do that. They value that unity very much.

Another thing was: Give us more weapons! And then he had a long and impressive precise list directed at different countries.

His last wish was: See to it that the countries that want to see Ukraine in the EU in every way emphasize the progress Ukraine is making in its process toward the EU so that this is not delayed.

These were perhaps the three strongest co-signatures I received.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Madam Speaker! Brussels is a city for both Nato and the EU. On Monday, I was there because the Swedish delegation to Nato's parliamentary assembly took its place among the other delegations in the recurring meetings with the North Atlantic Council, that is to say, the Nato ambassadors and Secretary General Stoltenberg.

The first thing that was noted was the respect for all of Turkey's victims after the earthquake and how important solidarity is. In that regard, the EU has led the way through support, aid, and upcoming donor conferences, not least during the Swedish presidency. The second thing that was very clear was that Russia's war against Ukraine and the solidarity with Ukraine must not be forgotten.

An important matter is then that one keeps what one promises. Therefore, it is important with follow-up of sanctions and embargos as well as weapons. But ammunition was also needed. What can we do, Prime Minister, to provide Ukraine with more ammunition?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Johan Forssell, Minister responsible for, among other things, aid issues and our collective support for Ukraine, was in Turkey yesterday and met with leading representatives together with the EU Commission to discuss precisely the large donor conference that will be created at our initiative during our presidency and take place here a little bit into March. It is an incredibly important meeting, and there is a very great commitment to that issue. We would have done this for every country that ended up in the same situation, I want to emphasize.

On March 7-8, if I am correctly informed, the EU's defense ministers will gather for an informal meeting, and among other things, joint procurement of ammunition will be discussed. Kaja Kallas in Estonia has repeatedly said that Russia is moving in threes and that we must do the same. We must also provide Ukraine with much more ammunition.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! We politicians have the task of enacting laws for our common good. We want to contribute to making the place where we work and live as good as possible for as many as possible.

When the situation arises that more teachers and adults in schools meet more and more students who arrive hungry on Monday morning because there hasn't been enough on the dinner table over the weekend, it cuts to the heart. This is not the Sweden we want. Several families with children live today in a situation that is tough, and it can become devastating in the long run.

I know that the government is aware of the situation and that, for example, families with children who receive housing allowance are being given a temporary supplementary allowance until June 2023. That is good. But my question to the Prime Minister is: Will the government look at more measures, for example regarding the amortization requirement?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree that targeted support for families with children is one of the important things that is being done and should be done in such a situation – in parallel with the broader effort to combat inflation, which otherwise, in the long run, eats up all families' household finances in different ways.

An investigation is currently underway regarding the amortization requirement. Is this working as intended or not? We intend to wait for that investigation.

Then I note that many municipalities and schools are focusing on exactly this: Breakfast is not like any other meal; it is almost a prerequisite for a functioning school day at all. We have probably all experienced that at some point. Helping these families with, for example, breakfast at school, I believe is an extraordinary way to address a situation where the children would otherwise be affected in their schooling by the families' poor finances.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! The war that is now ongoing in Eastern Europe has reshaped not only European but also Swedish security policy. An increasingly unpredictable Russia, which also conducts hybrid warfare with influence operations and cyber warfare, also affects the security situation for us.

But the security policy situation has also highlighted the importance of Nordic cooperation and the significance of good and close relations between the Nordic countries. Yesterday's press conference with Finland and Norway underscored this.

My question to the Prime Minister therefore concerns how the government views the Nordic cooperation moving forward. What initiatives does the government intend to take to deepen relations with our Nordic neighboring countries?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is an extraordinarily important issue. It is always important, but extra important right now. Sometimes we tend to underestimate the Nordic. We take it so for granted that we don't really think about the fact that even that must be cultivated systematically. Sometimes perhaps it has also been complicated by the fact that several countries, but not all, are in Nato and that several countries, but not all, are in the EU, and so we only meet sometimes.

I think yesterday's meeting in the format that Sauli Niinistö created specifically to discuss security policy between Norway, Sweden and Finland was incredibly urgent. Now, for natural reasons, we were specifically focused on the northernmost part where our three countries meet and also meet Russia. But there are also many other forms of cooperation. It is quite obvious that the Danish Nato experiences are incredibly important for us. To take a more domestic policy example, Denmark's experiences of migration policy and crime fighting are incredibly important for the Swedish side right now.

There is, therefore, more to be gained in Nordic cooperation.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker and Prime Minister! My question concerns the constitution, which the Prime Minister has referred to several times during these discussions.

An important part of the Swedish constitution is the independence of administrative authorities and courts in the application of the law and the respect for impartiality and objectivity in connection with the appointment of heads of authorities. During the recent period, the government's coalition partners have attacked the independence in the application of the law by questioning judgments that have not attained legal force and demanded purges in state administration.

What does the Prime Minister intend to do to condemn the coalition partner's attacks on these important principles in the Swedish constitution and to stand up for Swedish administration and the independence of the courts in the application of the law?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! My government does not occupy itself with condemning people, parties, or parliamentarians. My government occupies itself with shaping legislation, leading the country in a difficult time and respecting the country's laws. General condemnations are something one occupies oneself with in other places.

Freedom of speech prevails for all people in Sweden. I do not think that all expressions are appropriate, respectful, or suitable. But freedom of speech prevails in any case.

The government's position is crystal clear. We have great respect for how Swedish laws are to be enacted, for in what way they are to be applied, and for the fact that it is the government's task to change legislation via the Riksdag if one is not satisfied – nothing more, and nothing less.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! Can the Prime Minister imagine a larger review of the regulatory framework for export control in view of the changed security policy situation? The regulatory framework was designed in a time when Sweden was militarily non-aligned.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! In this time when one should not rule anything out, it would be foolish to say that I can never imagine a review. But I can perhaps even more think that the regulatory framework seems to work quite well right now. That is at least my impression.

The rigid perception that existed when the war broke out, that Swedish legislation prohibited donating or selling weapons to Ukraine, was a misconception. There were several who cultivated that notion, probably colored by a time when it was thought that all export of weapons was bad.

In the same way, there were those who claimed that the weapons industry and defense materiel industry were not sustainable investments. I have, for the better, not heard anyone say that since then.

I think we have proven that the Swedish legislation works. When we change our security policy doctrine, the application of the existing legislation also changes. I think that is something that should be taken note of.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! When a child is adopted, there should be no elements of human trafficking. But adoption scandals continue to affect Sweden. This week, Uppdrag granskning highlighted that Serbian children were taken away from their families and attachment environments and adopted to Sweden. Adoptionscentrum is pointed out as an intermediary. It is not the first time in similar contexts.

The Prime Minister's previous role as chairman of the Adoption Center has also been highlighted, and how much he actually knew about any irregularities.

Madam Speaker! It is remarkable that a representative for the Adoption Center has been appointed as an expert in the investigation of the international adoptions. At the same time, no representative for the adopted children is included in the expert group.

How is the Prime Minister going to ensure the trust in and the legal certainty of the investigation, given the Prime Minister's own background as being involved in the issue and considering that one of the experts in the investigation comes from Adoptionscentrum?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! What must still be said is that adoption is always about children who need to get a family, never about adults who want a child. It is incredibly important. That there are then adults who want children but cannot have them themselves is a good basis for children who are abandoned to be reunited with adults who want to form a family. That is what all legislation should rest on, no more and no less.

In Sweden, we have a regulatory framework that allows organizations to work with international adoption according to the laws that exist and with the scrutiny that the authorities perform. It is fundamentally good. There is also transparency. It is quite obvious that problems are being sought, on good grounds. And irregularities that have existed are being highlighted.

Now, further investigations are being conducted into whether Swedish legislation has been sufficient or not. That investigation should, of course, be staffed with people who know their subject. I believe that it is.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We have an increasingly deteriorating security situation in Europe and Sweden. The government and the Riksdag are focusing great attention on strengthening the military defense. Not least, the NATO process is central.

Perhaps we speak less about civil defense. At the same time, we know that civil defense capability and a resilient society are extremely important in times of crisis.

The government decided shortly before Christmas to scrap the plans for new main lines. Main lines connect the country and regions. Perhaps it may have been an unwise decision since a robust and redundant railway network is an important component in the civil defense.

How does the Prime Minister reason regarding more clearly weighing in the civil defense capability when we make decisions on, for example, infrastructure, energy, and food supply?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely share the assessment that civil defense is extremely important. It may never have been perceived as as important as it is right now in modern times. I do not wish to increase the importance of either myself or Carl-Oskar Bohlin, but it is an event that looks like a thought that for the first time in many decades, Sweden has received a separate responsible minister for just civil defense issues.

Is there any lesson we should draw in the short term from the war in Ukraine, beyond joining Nato and strengthening our own military defense, it is that civil defense has extremely great importance. That is what we have concluded. I therefore think that we are drawing precisely the conclusions that the member of Parliament thinks one should draw.

Railways are an important part of the infrastructure and thus civil defense, but it is a bit more than just high-speed trains.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! In the government statement, the Prime Minister mentioned that the business sector is an important environmental movement, world-leading in sustainability and the green transition, and that the government shall be an active party in that work.

Since then, the government has made it more expensive and more difficult to expand the electricity production that the business sector demands in the short term. They have also worsened the conditions for skills supply through proposals for worsened labor immigration.

What does the Prime Minister intend to do to support the green industrial transition?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I think we are doing exactly the opposite of what the questioner says. We are doing everything we can to speed up permit processes so that decisions can be made on those that have been left in the long bank. This applies, for example, to the prerequisites for offshore wind power.

I also think that we do everything we can to create respect for the necessary labor migration by stopping that which is abuse of labor migration.

We cooperate closely with industrial conditions in all possible ways. Just this evening, I sat with many of those very cleantech companies that are at the forefront and discussed how Sweden and the EU should now meet the positive, and risky, initiatives from the USA in what is called the IRA.

We have a very good cooperation. The business community knows that they are at the forefront when it comes to the environmental and climate transition. They want permanent, long-term and political rules of the game to work from, and that is what they are currently getting.

(Applause)

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

Emma Ahlström Köster (M)

Madam Speaker! For a whole year, Putin and his army have unjustly tormented Ukraine. During this period, Sweden has stood tall in its support for Ukraine, both economically and politically, humanitarily and militarily. It is a position for Ukraine and a call for democracy and freedom that we can be proud of.

One also sees other good and generous Swedish initiatives. For example, Svenska Lottakåren is now ramping up its activities. But more people want to do their part. How can we – organizations, associations and private individuals – be even more helpful when it comes to supporting Ukraine?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a very important issue, but I think it would be a bit presumptuous of me to tell how others can be more helpful. I believe that many are already making fantastic contributions.

I met all the voluntary organizations that were present at the Folk och försvar conference in Sälen at a separate meeting where we discussed exactly what they do, what they want to do additionally, and if there are obstacles standing in the way. I must say that I was deeply impressed. I have also visited voluntary organizations, both military and civilian, that are noticing an enormous influx to their activities.

I perceive, therefore, that this actually works very well, even though I understand that one wants to do even much more. I believe that we, not only as voters and politicians but also as fellow human beings, should trust that each person does what they can on their own initiative. I will always show appreciation for that, but I will not expect people to do even more than they already do.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Right now, the needs are enormous among those affected by the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. On the ground, the UN and various countries' public bodies are providing assistance, but also civil society's aid actors, which plays a major role for those affected.

I have been in contact with the mayor in Adana and with regional representatives in Gaziantep, and they are grateful for the help that has been conveyed so far. However, it is almost impossible to comprehend how many buildings have collapsed - almost countless - and left hundreds of thousands of people out in the snow and the cold. These are people who need everything from winter clothes, tents, mattresses, and blankets to stoves, generators, and food parcels. In the long run, so much more was also needed.

I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister about the donor conference that the government has taken the initiative for, based on the fact that Sweden is the chair of the Council of the European Union. Is there anything that the Prime Minister could elaborate on regarding that conference already now?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I just want to agree that what has happened is terrible. It is difficult to take in, seriously. We were all glad to see the few people who could be rescued from the rubble many hours later, against all odds, but we understand that many, many more remain underneath. It is absolutely terrible.

The donor conference is both original and self-evident. It is about quickly ensuring that we take advantage of the experiences we have from previous donor conferences and from the current chairing country in the EU, which is a country that simply needs a format to help each other. Not everyone should just do things with good intentions but in a bit of a disorganized manner. This applies, for example, to physical, material efforts where one can think of very hands-on things – we have search and rescue teams with dogs down there, which is a very special competence – but also ready money.

It will therefore be a very traditional such conference where one simply ensures to collect the money that will at least initially be needed to help with the reconstruction of these places.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Both small and large municipal schools must today follow the principle of public access, but independent schools do not have to. This makes it more difficult for both the media and the public to scrutinize independent schools specifically.

Everyone understands that this is very convenient for the large independent school corporations, but why does the Prime Minister – who should represent the interests of the students and the taxpayers – choose to advance the school owners' agenda by saying no to the principle of public access for independent schools?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is interesting – there seems to be a very broad majority in this chamber for proper oversight also in independent schools, and yet the previous government managed to do nothing at all regarding this for eight years. How is that even possible? How can one not have time for it in eight years? It is fascinatingly slow, I would say.

What we are doing now is recognizing that the principle of public access, with all that it requires of publicity in absolutely everything, is quite simple if one has municipal lawyers and municipal houses but very unsuitable for very small independent school associations and independent school companies. Therefore, we are introducing a transparency principle where it is defined exactly what shall be available for public viewing and what must be reported publicly so that it becomes easy for all schools to report exactly what taxpayers, parents, and students have a right to know.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The European Union is currently being shaken by yet another corruption scandal. This time, it is not large corporations but foreign interests that have succeeded in buying influence.

A number of Social Democratic members of the European Parliament are suspected and charged with, among other things, bribery and money laundering in connection with a secret agreement with Qatar and Morocco. The members have committed to promoting these countries' interests in exchange for luxury trips and millions in cash. Particularly serious is that Qatar, which in practice is an Islamist caliphate, has succeeded in bribing Social Democrats in the Committee on Human Rights and getting these members to whitewash the country's slave-like rules for labor migration.

My question is quite simple: Will the Prime Minister, now that Sweden is the chair of the EU, take note of this? The European Council works very closely with the parliament in many issues.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to first say that I do not intend to make this a matter of party politics, for the simple reason that I believe that politicians abusing their power could exist in different parties in different countries. I therefore do not intend to make this issue a matter of party politics.

However, I can say that the European Parliament takes this very seriously. Every meeting of the European Council is opened by the President of the European Parliament, who has on several occasions raised what conclusions are drawn from this. Some are legal issues and legal investigations which the parliament obviously does not involve itself in, but it also concerns internal control and regulatory systems.

My impression is, therefore, that this is being taken very seriously. It is considered that it simply must not happen and that it jeopardizes the legitimacy and authority of the European Parliament's important work.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, three Turkish TV channels were fined for their news reporting regarding the lack of response from the Turkish government and its authorities concerning the victims of the earthquake disaster and their needs. There are also reports that trucks from aid organizations have been stopped and that centers for coordinating the relief efforts have been taken over by authorities. We also received information from the government that the Swedish intervention could have been on site 24 hours earlier than it was.

The state of emergency introduced by President Erdogan has meant that it has become more difficult for the parliament to scrutinize what the response in Turkey looks like. The Prime Minister said earlier during the question period that he did not want condemnation in his toolbox, but should we not condemn when freedom of expression is restricted and when aid efforts do not reach?

I wonder how the Prime Minister views the humanitarian response and Turkey's restrictions on aid to the earthquake victims.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe one should have respect for the fact that it is currently an incredibly chaotic situation in many places after the earthquake. I believe that one should have respect for that; it would probably have applied to many places hit by the same devastation.

It is also well known that not all countries function exactly like Sweden organizationally and administratively. One can have views on that. Often when we contribute help in different places, we see how effective different support systems are, and I believe that many aid organizations are painfully aware of the shortcomings. That excuses nothing, but it also does not diminish the need for us to help as well as is possible with the conditions that exist.

We were the first to save lives, and now we do what we can so that people do not have to freeze and remain homeless longer than is absolutely necessary. Then we will simply have to work with the conditions that exist.

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

Bassem Nasr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Four weeks ago, the Prime Minister invited representatives from Muslim organizations for a dialogue on the situation of Swedish Muslims. I genuinely believe that such meetings are immensely important, as they send a clear signal that the government takes Islamophobia seriously.

As the Prime Minister is aware, Swedish Muslims are subject to racism, which manifests in discrimination, harassment, and violence. This has been witnessed by Swedish Muslims, and it is also described in the Swedish Crime Prevention Council's report on Islamophobia in Swedish society. Furthermore, there has been ongoing work at several agencies concerning the issue of Islamophobia.

My question is whether the government intends to initiate new measures to combat Islamophobia in Swedish society.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! As is well known, I wanted to listen, not least after the rather tumultuous atmosphere that had been in Sweden during previous Quran burnings and now abroad. I also wanted, partly to show what I said publicly, that even if one does not personally think everything that is legal in Sweden is appropriate or respectful, one must still stand up for the fact that it is legal and shall be legal.

The Prime Minister's Question Time

I thought there were good reasons to have a dialogue here in Sweden. How do you reduce the space for those people who only want to provoke without showing contempt for one another? I also noted that we should probably have this dialogue quite continuously in both directions, so to speak. This was more a way to show that I care about what people think and feel on these issues.

I also think that interreligious dialogues are important. We are quite unaccustomed to it in Sweden - that very secular Sweden. I perceived that they thought it was an important conversation, and I believe that it will continue.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's Question Time

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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