The Prime Minister's Question Time

TALMANNEN

Before the debate begins, I would like to draw the House's attention to the fact that we have today in the gallery a visit from the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, Anthony Rota, and his delegation. They are warmly welcomed.

Today we have some special guests in the Visitors' Gallery: the Honourable Anthony Rota, Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, and his delegation. I am honoured to have the Speaker and his delegation here today and tomorrow on their official visit to Sweden and the Riksdag, and I hope you will find today's debate with the Prime Minister interesting.

I föreslår att vi möter dem med applåder.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is currently led by the first government in 20 years whose policies lead to increased climate emissions. This was recently established by the Climate Policy Council, which directed sharp criticism at the right-wing government.

The Prime Minister's Question Time

Today, 531 researchers are writing about increased emissions in Sweden and that it would be a monumental betrayal. The fact is that Sweden is losing its lead, and this is due to the Sverigedemokraterna and the government's policy.

At the same time, the Prime Minister's government is, to say the least, shaky regarding what lies ahead. On one hand, we can read that SD threatens a government crisis if the reduction obligation is not abolished in practice. On the other hand, we can read that the Minister for Climate and Environment believes that the government shall do everything it can to reach the Swedish climate goals, which eight out of ten Members of Parliament in this chamber stand behind.

In view of this, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: What is the situation? Will the government increase carbon dioxide emissions, or will the Prime Minister present measures that ensure Sweden reaches the Swedish and international climate goals?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the first time in twelve years, Sweden has a government that has a majority in the Riksdag, that can negotiate like adult humans, that can present a budget that passes through the Riksdag and wins a majority, that can present proposals in normal order, as was used to be done in politics in Sweden when one knew what one wanted, and that does not play hide-and-seek in politics. That is the big change.

When it comes to climate policy, the government is convinced that electrification is the answer to our time's great climate challenges. We shall get rid of all fossil fuels and replace them with clean Swedish electricity.

Today we have six Swedish nuclear reactors remaining. The previous government is responsible for four being decommissioned, and had they not stopped the plans to build new ones, we would not have six today but twelve. Sweden would then have had a completely different premise for clean electricity production and to ensure that electrification can be carried out. That is the big difference.

What has happened in recent years is that those who have put all their eggs in one basket and use the reduction obligation as the only method to reach the climate goals for the road transport sector by 2030 failed in 2019, 2020, and 2021. It is only if one has a path for the reduction obligation that makes diesel cost up to 34 kronor per liter that one has a chance to succeed.

My counter-question is: Do Mikael Damberg and the Socialdemokrater stand by that diesel should cost approximately 10 kronor more per liter, in order to reach the road transport goals within the framework of the overall goals?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds like a proud Prime Minister leading a government that is currently increasing emissions in Sweden. That was not the case during the election campaign. We will remember that. Back then, the Moderaterna promised that the climate would be put in order. They promised that Sweden would pursue an ambitious and more effective climate policy. The Prime Minister went so far as to say that Åkesson and Sverigedemokraterna are wrong about the climate. That was one of the reasons why cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna was not possible within climate policy specifically.

Now the Prime Minister cannot even answer whether emissions will increase or decrease in the coming years or what the government's plan for reaching the Swedish climate goals looks like. This is actually not sufficient, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that we do not receive any answer as to whether the Social Democrats stand behind a path for the reduction obligation that increases the costs of driving petrol and diesel cars, until we have electrified cars in place, by up to 34 kronor per liter. That question must be answered by the Social Democrats.

Our answer is that climate policy and energy policy are linked. Without a Swedish clean electricity production, there is no climate policy at all. Thus, we are now creating new conditions to build the clean electricity production that allows us to manage both the households' economy and the climate transition. The previous government managed neither one nor the other.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! Immigration and integration policy has been a hot issue in Sweden, especially during the last few years. During the last two election campaigns, it has, I would say, been an issue that has been decisive for the voters in many ways.

Since the election, Sweden has granted around 15,000 residence permits to asylum-related migrants. We know - this is generally acknowledged and known today - that precisely the asylum-related immigration in recent decades has entailed a gigantic burden for Sweden, for Swedish society, for the welfare, for safety, and for many other parts of our society.

The government base, that is, the Sweden Democrats and the three government parties, is therefore in agreement that a paradigm shift must occur regarding migration policy. It is absolutely necessary with a new direction for migration policy so that we can reverse the development in Sweden in many central areas. Migration policy is also a supporting part of the Tidö Agreement.

My question to the Prime Minister is: When can we expect that already implemented and perhaps especially upcoming measures in the migration area will have a noticeable effect on asylum-related immigration to Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is an important issue. As Jimmie Åkesson says, we are now completely changing course in three really large areas. It is the crime policy, to deal with the serious organized crime, it is the entire energy policy, with a policy that manages both the households' economy and the climate challenge, and it is the immigration policy.

It is still the case that Sweden has taken an unreasonably large responsibility for the total European asylum migration, with major integration problems as a consequence. It is impossible to avoid that.

We must reduce immigration if we are to have a chance to manage the integration. 70 percent of those who come to the Nordic countries come specifically to Sweden.

With that said, I should also say that we are now making major changes, which I believe Jimmie Åkesson is aware of. One thing is, of course, that we are reducing quota refugee immigration by 80 percent - an immediate measure. We are now implementing changes that lead to the EU's lowest level for the asylum regulatory framework. We are making changes that mean those who are in the country without the right to be here - because they have arrived here without an application or have been rejected - also leave the country. And we are implementing reforms that mean it will not be as generous to come to Sweden and immediately gain access to the Swedish welfare benefits - a contribution ceiling and qualification into the welfare system. All of this together, I would say, will be of great importance in dramatically reducing asylum-related immigration to Sweden.

Already today, I would dare say, we begin to see effects of this, without me having any exact figures. In quite a few European countries - the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and several other countries - one sees right now a new large wave of irregular, i.e., illegal, immigration with an asylum connection. We do not see this to the same extent in Sweden right now.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! When it comes to exactly that last point the Prime Minister is touching upon – we see migrant flows to Europe now, and some countries are more heavily burdened than Sweden is right now – how does the Prime Minister assess that Sweden will hold up in this regard? Is this something that is assessed as something we will continue to be spared from, or is there an indication that the migrant waves that exist now anyway will also seek their way to Sweden? And if so, what does the government intend to do in the short term to curb such a development?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think one should be naive in these matters. We have seen dramatic changes before. It is quite obvious. I often quote the Dutch liberal Prime Minister Mark Rutte who says that without a functioning external border, there is no functioning internal Schengen, because then many will make their way to exactly that country that they themselves want to go to. It is not uncommon for countries to have a large diaspora from exactly that country that these people come from. Then there are demonstrably already many in Sweden. So I absolutely do not think one should shout that the danger is over in any way.

Right now, we in the EU are undertaking extensive work to strengthen the control of the EU's external border, which is a prerequisite for being able to maintain a relatively large openness in Europe. In this regard, it is notably countries such as the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium that are very proactive. During our presidency, we are doing everything we can to create consensus on such a stricter European immigration policy.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson was very visible and audible during the election campaign when he was in opposition. He had solutions to all of Sweden's problems. Now he is Prime Minister, and he finds it very difficult to give any kind of information to Sweden's families with children. He is hardly visible at all.

Does the Prime Minister know how much it costs to make pancakes for four children? The price of milk and butter has gone up by almost 40 percent. The price of eggs has increased by 30 percent and the price of flour by 25 percent. It is very expensive to be Swedish today.

Housing costs are skyrocketing, and rents are being raised. Children primarily eat food in school on Fridays and Mondays. They want to eat up before the weekend and after the weekend. And the savings go more and more, both for small business owners and for Sweden's wage earners, to pay rent and other types of running costs - food and the most necessary things. Today's inflation is due to high electricity prices, high food prices, and high housing costs. In each of these parts, the government has said no to lowering the prices. Everything was done to not gather the food giants and to ensure that agreements were reached regarding limitations when it comes to increased prices.

During the EU presidency, this government is now actively opposing "Sverigepriser" (Swedish prices), meaning that we should have Swedish prices in Sweden and not have to buy back our own electricity at high European prices. And the government has abolished the investment support that was supposed to lower rents. So, what is the government doing to lower the Swedish inflation?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually share the first half of Nooshi Dadgost's description of the tough economic situation, the toughest we have had in many years in Sweden. All of us who are fully grown - there are slightly different definitions of that - know that Sweden has been in tough situations before. Very many of us remember the consequences of the 90s crisis. Slightly fewer, but still quite many, know what happened when the economy was mismanaged in the 70s and 80s. It was indeed the last time that Sweden had really high inflation in combination with low growth. Now we also have rising interest rates. We had that then too.

This government has learned one thing from history: Do not mishandle the Swedish state's economy, because then things go south!

Inflation is currently the workers' worst enemy. If we do not get a handle on inflation, it will become a wage and price spiral that erodes real wages just as it did in the 70s and 80s. It sometimes sounds like the Left Party wants to return to that time. This government does not want that.

Now it is a matter of fighting inflation, ensuring that we come out of and through the recession with wise reforms that restore the real wages of the Swedish people and at the same time help the most vulnerable households, which is what we are doing now. This happens, among other things, through automatic adjustments that ensure many systems automatically increase with inflation. This applies, for example, to guaranteed pensions, student grants, and many other things. But it also happens through specially targeted interventions for the families with children who have it the toughest. That is precisely what this government is doing now. If one does not do that but instead blows more money at most things, it fuels the inflation fire. And then all Swedes will fare worse, not least Swedish wage earners who are least protected in an economy with high inflation. This is what this government is doing right now.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that Ulf Kristersson also shares my assessment that the government is very invisible and is not engaging in lowering inflation. On all these points, the government has refrained from lowering exactly inflation. They have decided that it is okay if food prices go up by these large amounts. It will increase inflation. It is the high electricity prices that are driving this inflation. So why is this government opposing Swedish prices? Why should we buy back our own cheap, home-produced electricity at high European prices because other countries have deficits? Why was it so important to abolish the investment support that would lower rents and thereby inflation? How is this government going to lower inflation when you have refrained on all these points?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not want to question Nooshi Dadgostar at all for wanting an economic system that existed before in another part of Europe. But in our part of the world, governments do not set prices on completely ordinary goods. The idea of governments setting price ceilings was tested in, for example, East Germany. It usually ends with gaping empty shelves. It simply does not work.

If governments want to fight inflation, they must do it in smarter ways than that, for example by increasing competition in sectors that have poor competition. It was therefore Elisabeth Svantesson, not Vänsterpartiet, who gathered the food giants for a discussion on how we increase competition and avoid stealth price increases, to take one example.

Even without interest rates and without electricity prices, inflation is rising right now. It is serious. If we do not get a handle on inflation, we will erode the finances of Swedish wage earners for a very long time to come. We will not allow that.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a serious and significantly deteriorated security policy situation. Sweden needs a strong total defense and proper security of supply throughout the country.

More and more people are beginning to understand that Swedish food production is also a central part of our security policy and a central part of the total defense. Without food on the table, we do not have security of supply in either peace or war. Despite the fact that Swedish food production is so incredibly important, the situation is very acute. Many experience today that it is difficult to live off their farming, and the effects of skyrocketing prices on inputs, fuel, and electricity, as well as ever-higher interest rates, are already hitting hard. More and more farms risk being wiped out.

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday I met about thirty leading representatives for Sweden's beef producers, and many are desperate about the situation and the lack of political measures to improve the situation. Despite increased revenues, the cost situation is also increasing, and that makes it difficult with profitability and the possibility to invest forward.

It is completely obvious that the food supply is not functioning as it should and that Sweden has a glaring need for a major overhaul that is not just about marginal adjustments. The government has now announced a review of the food strategy. The risk may be great that it becomes a new document instead of sharp measures in practice.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: What does the government consider to be the most important concrete measures to increase Swedish food production?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to say first that I fully and completely share the view on the importance of food production within the framework of the broader total defense - the civil defense. I believe that more and more people do. People who did not know it before - the questioner certainly did not - now know, after the terrible experiences from Ukraine, that there are many parts of the civil defense where we simply have not understood the extent of protecting and developing.

I do not want to boast at all, but there were indeed reasons why, for the first time in many decades, I appointed a special state secretary - a minister - with responsibility also for civil defense. It was needed precisely right now. This is no afterthought behind the military defense, but it is a core function in the state's responsibility to ensure that everyday life functions in the event of war and crisis. I just want to emphasize that I see exactly that problem as well.

This is quite multifaceted; it is about food, which I will come back to, but it is also about infrastructure of various kinds and about the popular preparedness for the terrible thing to happen. All of this, as many know, Carl-Oskar Bohlin is working very hard on—and it is appreciated, I must say, across party lines.

When it comes to the conditions for food production, it is exactly as was said here that a new strategy will be coming. The intention with our strategies is to establish long-term lines, not to create shelf-warmers. That is an important difference. In Sweden, we have experience with both types: strategies that are strategies in name only and strategies that are of benefit to us. This is a real strategy that is of benefit to us.

It is fundamentally about ensuring that food companies - and to a very large extent farmers, of course - are given good competitive conditions in Sweden so that they can survive in tough international competition. In that regard, it is to a very large extent about energy supply. Farmers also want fossil-free energy supply as far as it is possible at all. It is also, for example, about using the reduction obligation in the right way, in vehicles that cannot be driven in any other way. Those were two examples.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! We also know that many Swedes are in a very tough economic situation and are affected by the increased food prices.

If one wants cheaper food, one needs to focus on improving the situation for the Swedish food producers, in all stages. The costs and the red tape are structural problems, and the policy needs to take a much larger and more comprehensive turn to make it both simpler and cheaper to conduct food production.

For us in Centerpartiet, it is important that agriculture gains increased competitiveness, and we share the Prime Minister's view that the competitive conditions are also important for increasing self-sufficiency. Is the government and the Prime Minister prepared to conduct a real review of how costs can be reduced for agricultural entrepreneurs and food producers in the short term to achieve increased production?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The simple answer is yes. Then I understand that much work is required before this yes takes on a concrete meaning, but let me mention a few things where I believe we share a principled view.

One is, of course, the ownership of forest and land. It is incredibly important for the will to invest long-term in such things that also provide viable food companies. It is incredibly important.

The second is simplification of rules. We can see in almost all areas in Sweden right now that the rules are complicated and that one is often pursued by various rule sets from authorities, which overlap each other. I have received many descriptions of parts of such that many other entrepreneurs, honestly speaking, would buckle under.

The third is, naturally, EU rules. We have a great deal of international, European competition – on good grounds – and that competition should take place on as fair terms as possible at all. Among other things, we should not over-implement various EU rules just in Sweden, to take a concrete example.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The latest report from the Climate Panel paints a grim picture. The climate risks for people, animals, and nature are greater than ever. Emission reductions must occur quickly if we are to have a chance to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The Swedish Climate Policy Council states in its review of the government's climate policy that for the first time in 20 years, the government is pursuing a policy that instead actively increases emissions. Sweden has thus gone from being part of the solution to hindering the climate transition. Today, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency published its basis for the government's climate action plan, and they state that the goals cannot be reached with a significantly lowered reduction obligation, as the government has promised. At the same time, 531 researchers are now demanding measures, not once before, anywhere else.

Before the election, it was said that it was an effective climate policy the Moderates wanted. What we see now is an effective climate policy to increase Sweden's climate emissions. The Minister for the Environment promises that measures will come, and SD promises that they will not. We have not seen any sign of some measures.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the researchers and the Climate Policy Council that emissions must be reduced in the near term, or does he make a different assessment of the state of research? If not, what are the concrete measures here and now?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I, like the vast majority, share the threat that exists throughout the world - in Europe, in Asia, in America - if we do not manage the transition from fossil to fossil-free. In that regard, the vast majority are in complete agreement, including me and this government.

What this is about is how we fastest become fossil-free and contribute to the world's transition. There, we differ on at least two points, Annika Hirvonen. We want fossil-free electricity production in Sweden; you phased out nuclear power. That is a clear difference. You did not want clean nuclear power, and we want clean nuclear power. The more nuclear power Sweden produces, the more coal-powered and gas-powered electricity we can displace elsewhere.

The second thing is that we do not put all our eggs in one basket. The reduction obligation cannot be the only tool one uses to reach ambitious sub-targets towards total emission neutrality. You have put all your eggs in one basket: We are going to vacuum the entire world for biofuels - and thereby delay the transition to electrified vehicles. That is bad climate policy. They should be used where there are no other alternatives.

The answer also from the Swedish transport sector is electrification. More clean electricity, more charging stations and more electric cars - that is the transition that is driving changes in road transport. That is the one.

The second is the electrification of industrial processes and all other things we are to do, all within the framework of a completely new European regulatory framework called Fit for 55, which I hope can be fully negotiated in just a few months, under the Swedish presidency. This is the new framework for Swedish climate policy. That is where we do the greatest good.

It would have been more honest if you said it as it is: You want to get rid of nuclear power and make petrol and diesel so expensive that no one can afford to drive a car anymore.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the Prime Minister's favorite solution to the climate crisis would be that time machine back to the energy agreement on 100 percent renewable energy that the Moderaterna themselves were involved in signing. I understand it.

But in the absence of this, I am still looking for an answer on what the Prime Minister is going to do here and now. Meeting the climate goals is actually the government's most important task, but it is to be handled by someone else – by the EU or by other countries.

The Minister for Climate and Environment has proposed speed limits in traffic and increased congestion charges. These are two good proposals, says Miljöpartiet. What does the Prime Minister think about that? Should we lower the speed on our roads and increase the costs of driving cars in cities, or are there any other eggs in the Prime Minister's climate policy basket? He has only removed support for electric cars and removed measures that are intended to lower emissions.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Without energy policy, one has no climate policy - it is that simple. If one stands without answers to the major energy issues, one may have placard politics but no climate policy.

In Germany, decisions are being made today to shut down the last nuclear reactors. At the same time, coal is growing as an energy source. That is bad energy policy, not just for Germany but for all of Europe, because the climate is global.

Sweden shall do its part with smart energy policy, smart technical solutions and electrification as fast as possible. Europe shall do its part and is currently doing its part. Fit for 55 is the largest European environmental initiative ever. USA is on its way back into the game. Even China, on which one can have many views in other matters, is now showing great interest in climate issues. It is only with global cooperation that we have any chance of succeeding in the climate work.

(Applause)

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps the most important task for the new Moderate-led government is to break the criminal gangs and increase safety. In that case, the penalties must be toughened and more people must be prosecuted. Those who are prosecuted must also serve their sentences - their entire sentences.

Today, Sweden has been shaken by the news of another escape. This time it concerns a flight-prone inmate from one of Sis's special youth homes. It is a person who, according to reports in several media outlets, is convicted of murder.

It is the second time in a short period that an escape has occurred under the prison service's watch in connection with a transport. I understand that the Prime Minister cannot comment on the individual case, but how does the government view this very serious problem with escapes and prison breaks?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have so far only received the media reports, but they are serious enough. I would say that this is extremely upsetting. If this turns out to be true, it is a scandal that a spectacular escape has occurred for the second time in a short period of time.

This raises very many questions. Among others, it raises questions for the Prison and Probation Service. What have they done to allow this to happen, and what should they have done to avoid it?

It also raises questions for this House and for the Government. Which laws must be changed so that this cannot occur?

I think it is scandalous that a person who may have deprived another human being of life can march away with the help of armed friends.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish energy system and its electricity production have long been taken for granted. During the recent parliamentary terms, however, decisions have had negative consequences, which means that today we must prioritize a turnaround in Swedish energy policy. The Christian Democrats believe that the government is making the correct priorities.

A question that has not received as much space in the debate is the valuable and welcome pause regarding the environmental assessments of hydropower that the government has decided on and which has now been introduced. Hydropower is not only an important part of our energy supply but also an important part for, among other things, our local communities out in the countryside.

There are, despite the break, many questions about the treatment of and the attitude towards, above all, small-scale hydropower. This must change. Will the government use this break to take measures that make it possible for, above all, small-scale hydropower to remain and that ensure it does not risk being driven out?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I sometimes say that one must be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. This is also a way of saying that it is sometimes a matter of making difficult trade-offs. Everyone wants to protect the species that are dependent on our waterways. Everyone also wants more fossil-free electricity. It is a classic trade-off where wise decisions must be made.

All of us who believe that hydropower, wind power, solar power, and nuclear power are the energy sources of the future - as far as we know right now - have good reasons to stand guard over the hydropower that exists, even the small-scale. Therefore, the government made the decision to save it from further decommissioning in a situation where there is an acute shortage of precisely clean electricity.

Then one must take a long-term position. Can solutions be found that unite these two interests, or must one choose between two different interests? Can we expand other types of power so that we can forgo small-scale hydropower, or must we have it in the long run? These are the questions that we are testing right now.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! For the vast majority, involuntary childbirth is something that belongs to history, but that is not the case for many of the women who have come to Sweden from countries where the culture of honor is a part of the social norm.

When the child supplement was introduced in 1982, it had an important distributive policy significance. Today, however, it is a woman trap that hinders integration and which worsens the opportunities for many women to learn the Swedish language and enter the workforce.

To break the negative development, we need to review our contribution systems and change the multi-child supplement. All women shall have the power to decide over their own lives. In that case, society's answer cannot be that more children shall lead to higher contributions.

In view of this, I wonder what the Prime Minister's position is regarding changing the multi-child supplement.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with the analysis. There is a significant risk that our subsidy systems - fundamentally unintentionally, I must say honestly - lead to subsidy traps and that what was introduced with the best of intentions, step by step and piece by piece, many decades later in practice has led to a situation that we do not want. It can be more profitable to have many different types of subsidies than to work. Independence, not least for foreign-born women, becomes of a completely different kind than what we want it to be in Sweden.

This must be viewed soberly. One must see the problems.

The exact answer to the question is that we, from the government's side, are now looking at how we should design the subsidy reform that we promised in the government statement. It concerns both subsidy caps - that one cannot stack subsidies - and a successive qualification into the Swedish welfare systems. This issue is included in that analysis. I promise that we will get back to you as soon as we are finished with it.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! A paradigm shift is occurring right now in Swedish politics. We have a government that chooses to increase emissions. That may, as the Prime Minister just said, be due to the fact that one now has a majority.

Today, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency presented its basis for the climate action plan. It was incomplete, because the government has not given notice regarding the reduction obligation. The agency has simply had to guess what the Prime Minister's government wants. In the media, we read that the largest party in the government support threatens a government crisis if the government does not lower the reduction obligation to zero.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Who shall pay for a reduction of the reduction obligation? Shall it be at the expense of forestry and entail a ban on logging? Shall Sweden's motorists be given lowered speed limits and increased congestion charges or only be allowed to drive cars on certain days of the week? What is the message from the Prime Minister to the Swedish people? Who pays for the reduction of the reduction obligation?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the parties on the left wing, who actually only have two answers to all climate questions, namely abolish nuclear power and increase the reduction obligation, are concerned right now. You should be, because we intend exactly the opposite.

We begin with the energy policy and expand the Swedish clean electricity production. It creates the conditions for electrification so that we can get rid of all that is fossil-driven. Vehicle fleets and industries shall be electrified. We also capture carbon dioxide at the source with new technology, and we cooperate internationally. It is real climate policy that works for real - not symbolic politics that is intended to prevent people in the Swedish countryside from using the car.

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have all been reached by the massive protests regarding the parties' agreement on an eleven-hour daily rest between work shifts. I can agree that it is fundamentally good for public health and the staff that they receive the required rest. But for many who work night shifts, this has consequences for their scheduling and everyday lives, and they are now threatening to leave their professions.

Sweden has previously interpreted the directive from the EU with common sense, I want to assert. But after criticism, the parties have tightened the rules in the matter, and new agreements have been entered into.

In areas such as personal assistance, for example, the proposal leads to the users' lives being characterized by more staff changes, and for the staff, it becomes difficult with scheduling and private life. For staff within ambulance and rescue services, the situation looks the same.

The requirement will most likely lead to increased staffing issues within not least healthcare, which is already strained, but also within other professional groups that work night shifts.

How does the Prime Minister intend to ensure that we do not face an increasingly difficult staffing situation due to the new, narrower interpretation of the daily rest period, which now affects many professionals and is therefore threatening mass resignations?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I too have taken note of the extensive protests and have great respect for them. At the same time, I want to be careful about over-examining the parties' agreement. It is a good tradition in Sweden that we do not do that and do not attempt to make political decisions regarding this.

I hope that a solution is found within the framework of a correct interpretation of EU law that ensures Sweden does not end up in great difficulties.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! "It is when evil dresses in a suit and adopts borrowed vocabulary that it is truly dangerous. To be let in and be taken by the hand is evil's highest wish, for once inside and accepted, it can spread like a contagious epidemic." So wrote the Holocaust survivor Emerich Roth to the Moderaterna when the Moderaterna chose to begin cooperating with the Sverigedemokraterna.

Now we hear the representatives of the Sweden Democrats, including the chairman of the Justice Committee Richard Jomshof, spreading conspiracy theories and racist lies about Islamization and population exchange.

History has taught us what hatred and lies against minorities can lead to. Hédi Fried and Emerich Roth have many times reminded us of this.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is answerable for how he and his government can accept a coalition partner that spreads lies, incitement, and hatred against Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQ+ persons, and other minorities in Sweden today. Why does the Prime Minister say nothing about this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe in conspiracy theories, whether from the right or the left, and whether they are directed at Muslims or Jews. They are equally terrible in all situations and have been for a very long time, and in our polarized social media-driven climate, they will unfortunately probably continue to be so. Let us others instead engage in adult conversation.

However, one must not underestimate the problems surrounding Islamism, for it is something completely different. This extremism is truly dangerous, and one must be able to speak openly about it without being accused of spreading danger.

I do not intend to comment on individual statements but merely observe that the extremists in Sweden are fed by a climate of conversation where all of us others cannot have a sensible conversation with one another.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Men's violence against women is an eternal pandemic against thousands and again thousands of women and children. This year's statistics on women who have been murdered by a man with whom they have or have had a relationship are completely incomprehensible, appalling, and unacceptable. Until 2020, approximately 15 women were killed annually, but during the first week of April this year, six women were killed in seven days, in all cases suspected relationship murders. Consider if these had been murders linked to gang criminal circles, how would the media picture have looked then?

The best thing would be if a woman in a violent relationship received support and help to leave the man early in the relationship. Therefore, the Center Party has proposed that a national exit program be introduced with long-term financial support, an exit payment, and housing via a nationally coordinated housing queue, that is to say, very similar to the support given to those who leave criminal circles.

What is the government's position on introducing such a support? Or are there other proposals from the government on this issue?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I completely share the description. I usually say that the violent, deadly gang crime and men's violence against women are completely different but equally heinous and should be taken with the same great seriousness.

I also share the view that the serious gang crime gets more headlines in the media, perhaps because it occurs much more visibly. That does not make the other deadly violence any less serious in any way, almost on the contrary because it is harder for everyone else to intervene.

The government takes this very seriously. We were finally able to agree to at least extend the sentences for aggravated violation of a woman's integrity the last time we had several murders in a short period. Now we are taking new steps and toughening the sentences, allowing more people to wear ankle bracelets in connection with restraining orders, and expanding the prohibited areas where a suspected perpetrator is not allowed to stay in order to protect more women who are about to break up from such a relationship.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have heard here that there are quite large differences between what my party and the opposition think versus what the government parties and the coalition party Sverigedemokraterna think when it comes to environmental and climate issues.

There is, however, a question where we have long been in agreement, at least on paper, and that concerns the fishing and the herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic Sea. There are major problems here with large-scale fishing that vacuums up fish intended for industry and not for human consumption. This means that there is no fish left for small-scale fishers near the coasts.

I was pleased when the Prime Minister, in his government statement, read out that the trawling limit for large-scale fishing would be moved out. But it seems that even this time it will only be a token gesture in the form of an experiment that is to continue until 2027.

Will the Prime Minister and the government move the trawling limit permanently to protect the fishing?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first acknowledge. I think it is genuinely important to speak in plain language when one disagrees and when one agrees to stand up for it and make a stand on the matter. I think it is liberating in politics that one sometimes dares to stand up for different opinions and sometimes dares to admit that one has the same opinion.

We are strongly committed to the issue of limiting large-scale coastal trawling, and the government's absolute ambition is to make a reality of what I said in the government statement: This must not continue.

But as always, when one is to change laws, it must be prepared according to all the rules of the art, and it often takes longer than one oneself thinks would be necessary when one is engaged in something.

But the answer is yes, we will tackle the issue and will fulfill the promise we made in the government statement.

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

Ellen Juntti (M)

Mr. Speaker! Tintin, eight years old, lived in Luleå. His parents were in a custody dispute for a long time. Tintin was afraid of his father and did not want to go to him. Still, Tintin was forced to go to his father. Think that a small child of eight years is forced to go to a father he is afraid of, completely alone.

Tintin no longer exists. He was murdered. A small child was murdered. Society betrayed him in the most egregious ways imaginable.

As a child investigator, I heard many times that all children need their parents. I used to say: No, that is not true. Unfortunately, there are far too many bad parents. We must dare to say that. One can love one's child and at the same time be a bad parent.

No child should be forced into contact with a parent that the child is afraid of.

I know that work is ongoing in the Government Offices regarding the report Safer homes for children. Can the Prime Minister promise that the government will come forward with legislative proposals that mean it is the child's best interests that shall prevail and not the parents', as it has been until now?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is yes. That is precisely the government's ambition, among other things for the very reasons cited here. We have a situation today that is absolutely terrible. One knows that children are in practice at great risk, and then one witnesses that the risk that existed became a reality.

It is a mistaken and old-fashioned view that parents' rights to their children in Swedish legislation systematically take precedence over the child's right to safety and stability. Then, it is always extremely difficult trade-offs that must be made. It is rarely black or white.

That the law must be changed to protect the child's rights is absolutely obvious. We knew that before what happened to Tintin. We know it even better after what happened to Tintin.

There is a strong connection to the previous question, regarding men's violence against women. It is often about children who have been exposed to witnessing it. And the mother knows that the same violence risks also affecting the child.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Endometriosis affects up to one in ten women of childbearing age. This means that a quarter of a million women in Sweden have the disease. A classic symptom is very severe menstrual pain, but other organ systems are also affected, such as the urinary tract and intestines. Endometriosis causes great suffering, and the sick leave costs society large sums of money.

For five years, the National Board of Health and Welfare has had national guidelines for care for endometriosis, after not least the Christian Democrats pushed for it. But access to care and treatment sometimes depends on where in the country one happens to live.

This is an example of why women's healthcare needs to be addressed. Another example concerns pregnancy, childbirth, and aftercare, which also need to be improved so that women can feel safe, regardless of where in the country they live.

What is the government doing to improve women's healthcare?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a very interesting question. It so happens that I, together with Acko Ankarberg Johansson, was at the Academic Hospital's women's clinic just a couple of weeks ago and met exactly the specialists on endometriosis but also on ruptures after childbirth, which can also be said to be a hidden disease. It is very painful, but hidden and unknown to many, not least for many men. Many men have perhaps also not heard of endometriosis at all. It is a deeply underestimated issue.

We were there for a reason. Acko Ankarberg Johansson wants to ensure that the state's responsibility increases for more equal treatment across the country. One must learn from the best. Akademiska sjukhuset and a few other places are the best in the country. That was one thing we noted.

Another thing we noticed was the socioeconomic differences. Some groups of women are reached very well. Other groups of women are not reached at all. They remain completely untreated for their pain. It is completely unacceptable.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! Now emissions in Sweden are increasing for the first time in decades. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says in its report today that it is uncertain whether the interim targets for 2030 will be met. The concern over where Sweden is headed is great in our country but also outside the country, in the EU.

When we Social Democrats in the chamber asked the Minister for Climate Action what is happening with the climate action plan, there were few answers regarding climate tools. On the other hand, there were plenty of contradictory promises, a defensive attitude, and scattered messages. But one thing the Minister for Climate Action stated: that the transition shall take place with the help of electrification. Now the Prime Minister said the same thing in the chamber regarding the transport sector.

There is nothing wrong with that. But Mobility Sweden has produced figures showing that electrification within the private market is currently stalling. The private market for electric cars is slowing down. The number of new electric cars has decreased by 38 percent during the first quarter of this year. And the leasing of private cars has decreased by 47 percent. Mattias Bergman, who is CEO of Mobility Sweden, says that if the government does not promptly introduce new policy measures, electrification will come to a standstill.

I wonder what the Prime Minister says about that, when electrification is now so fundamental.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe unfortunately that the high interest rates, inflation, and the recession also affect the new sales of cars. I believe that most analysts agree on that.

When it comes to the reduction obligation and the target fulfillment by 2030 in the transport sector, the Social Democrats sometimes forget to point out that the report from 2019 failed it, the report from 2020 failed it, and the report from 2021 did the same. I never hear Social Democrats mention that at all.

It was only when it was decided on a draconian increase of the reduction obligation that there was any chance of reaching the goal for the transport sector by 2030 in that manner.

The question goes back to the Social Democrats. Do the Social Democrats stand by that the reduction obligation shall continue to increase up to approximately 34 kronor per liter of diesel? Yes or no?

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: It may be seen as a rhetorical question.)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! According to a document from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that the newspaper Kvartal has obtained, hundreds of thousands of people have traveled from Sweden to places that the UD advises against traveling to. The most popular destinations were Iraq, Iran, and Somalia.

It is hardly a wild guess that the travelers themselves have roots in those countries and have then come to Sweden as so-called refugees. If we assume that those persons are rationally thinking human beings – which I think we should do – there simply cannot be any general need for protection against those countries. It is impossible to claim that one has a need for protection against a country that one later vacations in.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn, I think, is that the so-called asylum migration is largely an organized fraud. People are exploiting the system for purely economic reasons.

I would like to know what conclusion the Prime Minister draws from the report.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Two conclusions must be drawn. One is that we need to reduce immigration to Sweden. And that is what we are doing right now. It was one of the major issues for which this government received a mandate in the election. Others wanted to increase immigration. We want to reduce immigration, and we are carrying that out right now.

The second conclusion to be drawn is that the person who nevertheless has a right of residence in Sweden or is a Swedish citizen and who, contrary to UD's recommendations, travels to a country with a firm travel warning takes extremely large risks. The Swedish state has no responsibility to help such a person from there. I will not go into any individual cases, as it is usually said. But in general, one does right by refraining from going there. If one nevertheless goes there, one must be aware that the risks are extremely large for the person who remains there.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ebba Busch has said in an interview with TT that the payment of the second round of the electricity support, which will also cover Norrland, is delayed. Ebba Busch said: "We are talking about months, not half a year."

The article was published yesterday, April 12. That same evening, Ebba Busch went on Twitter and refuted the statements she herself had made. She wrote that the work is going well and proceeding according to plan, that Försäkringskassan will return with an exact date, and that the claim about a delay was incorrect.

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but it cannot just be me who is getting a bit confused by Ebba Busch's statements. I hope that the Prime Minister can help me and clarify what applies.

On the Government Offices website, one can read that electricity support round two will be paid out during the spring. Can the Prime Minister answer when electricity support round two will be paid out and whether it is delayed or not?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think one should take note of what Ebba Busch herself said, that that was a misunderstanding and an inaccuracy. It sometimes happens that things get wrong in the media - it has even happened to me - and then you have to correct it. That is what I think Ebba Busch did yesterday. I therefore have no other opinion than the one Ebba Busch herself has, namely that things are going according to plan and that there will be payments in accordance with previous promises.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The so-called Paris Principles were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993. They establish the overarching principles that should guide the work of national institutions in promoting respect for human rights.

Sweden established the MR Institute in Lund in January 2022, which is intended to be the institution in Sweden that fulfills the principles. This happened after a very long struggle from the side of Swedish civil society. Among other things, this issue has been one of the highest priorities for civil society as a whole in the so-called UPR process, where Sweden has been reviewed in the UN's HR Council. In the latest review in 2019, Sweden received nearly 40 recommendations from other states regarding why we then did not yet have such an institution.

This week it became known through the media that the Sweden Democrats want to abolish the MR Institute and that this is an issue in the budget negotiations. Therefore, I am of course curious to hear what the Prime Minister's and the government's position is on the MR Institute. Is it to remain?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Generally speaking, I can say that it is good that it is being evaluated how Sweden also lives up to the MR obligations. I think that is absolutely excellent. If a separate Swedish authority is then needed for just that task, I am more uncertain. I have no firm opinion on that. That question probably deserves to be discussed, and it was certainly that discussion that was ventilated publicly the other day. I believe generally that Sweden has a few too many authorities, not a few too few.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe everyone is aware of how inflation is hitting Swedish households. For individuals and households with small economic margins, the situation is beginning to become truly acute. Surveys show that three out of ten single parents with a salary of up to 35,000 kronor per month have difficulty affording nutritious food for themselves and their children.

At the same time, the government and the Sweden Democrats are lowering taxes for the wealthiest by 13 billion kronor. One could have invested the resources in the most vulnerable households if priorities had been different, without risking inflation. Why did the Prime Minister prioritize a tax cut for high-income earners of 13 billion kronor when three out of ten single parents with a salary of up to 35,000 kronor per month have difficulty putting nutritious food on the table?

The Prime Minister's Question Time

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a completely incorrect description. This government refrained from raising the tax because of inflation, exactly as our tax system is intended to function. Otherwise, more and more people would automatically be considered high-income earners and pay more than 50 percent of their income in tax. "Half left," if anyone remembers that.

We do not think that taxes should be automatically raised because of inflation. It is tough enough as it is. We are going to fight inflation, and that is what this government is doing. Then one must - and there I agree with the questioner - also direct special attention towards those with the smallest margins, and therefore we do exactly that. We are extending, for example, the supplementary allowance to those families with children who are having it extra tough right now. That is correct inflation fighting.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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