The Prime Minister's Question Time
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S argues that there is a poisoned debate climate 1 and that the government allows civil servants to conduct smear campaigns 2. S believes that Sweden is further away from Nato 3, that the government's policy threatens welfare 4 and that preventive work is being slaughtered due to streamlining 5. M argues that opponents are portrayed as threats to democracy 6, that hate must be met with security 7 and that individual responsibility for crimes is important 8. M emphasizes the need for tough measures against criminals 9 and evidence-based preventive measures 9 10. M denies cuts in school and social services 11. SD argues that naive immigration policy has ruined Sweden 12 and wants to toughen penalties 13. V argues that there is a crisis in school and healthcare 14. C proposes a national dropout program for children 15 16. KD wants to put the human before the system 17. MP argues that the government's reforms lead to increased emissions 18.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (52)
- Mikael Damberg (S)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Mikael Damberg (S)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Linda Lindberg (SD)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Linda Lindberg (SD)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Nooshi Dadgostar (V)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Nooshi Dadgostar (V)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Muharrem Demirok (C)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Muharrem Demirok (C)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Camilla Hansén (MP)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Camilla Hansén (MP)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Louise Meijer (M)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Camilla Brodin (KD)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Lina Nordquist (L)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Eva Lindh (S)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Ludvig Aspling (SD)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Gudrun Nordborg (V)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Lili André (KD)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Morgan Johansson (S)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Elin Söderberg (MP)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Magdalena Thuresson (M)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Mathias Tegnér (S)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
- Lars Isacsson (S)
- Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mikael Damberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! Svensk demokrati's traditional festival week is approaching. Almedalsveckan is only days away. But this year, it is difficult not to think of the horrific murder of Ing-Marie Wieselgren last year. The act was a direct attack on democracy and our open society.
Many of us want Sweden to continue to be an open and tolerant democracy and want to see debate and discussion, but that political engagement should be honored and not lead to threats and hate.
In recent years, however, we have seen a polarized debate climate that has dominated primarily social media. We all know the heated atmosphere that prevails there at times, but which can also lead to a wave of hate and threats pouring out. We see, not least, that female politicians are subjected to mockery and hate campaigns.
My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: How does the Prime Minister view that development? Does he intend to act in any way?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I was also thinking, just the other day, about Ing-Marie Wieselgren, whom I knew quite well. I met her in many contexts, when I myself was at the Ministry of Social Affairs and during many years of work with mental health, suicide prevention and such things. I think about her a lot.
I was also thinking of her precisely in connection with Almedalen week. How many will be afraid and worried when we go to Almedalen this time? We always say that we meet that kind of hatred with more openness, but we must, of course, also meet it with security. I thought exactly like the questioner on this.
It is the same child. But we often encounter this more polarized climate of conversation. I see that an Americanization is taking place in many democracies, including the Swedish one. I am very much against it.
Ultimately, we can only lead by example. More adults are needed in the room; that is usually my own conclusion.
Mikael Damberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note what the Prime Minister says.
I can sign off on the fact that there is a concern in the climate of conversation that is escalating. But I am also somewhat puzzled, Mr. Speaker. The government has invested great energy into building an office where the Prime Minister's closest associates apparently spend their time full-time engaging in digital campaigns against the opposition leader.
Does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate for political officials in the Government Offices to conduct some form of smear campaign against the opposition leader instead of spending their working time solving Sweden's major societal problems? What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for this?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! For my part, I note quite often that the Social Democrats portray their political opponents as constant threats to democracy and as almost illegitimate government-formers. I believe one should be careful with that. It is the Social Democrats who repeatedly engage in those kinds of things.
Sometimes we blame social media. I think it exists in more places than in social media. It worries me a lot. But ultimately, each and every person must take responsibility for their own actions.
I will continue to try to have an adult conversation in Swedish politics and not engage in those kinds of things.
Linda Lindberg (SD)
Mr. Speaker! The other day at a press conference, the Prime Minister gave his reaction to the horrific acts in Farsta. The Sweden Democrats have long warned of the consequences of the mass immigration we have seen. And this weekend we saw what an incredibly serious situation we have actually ended up in. Unfortunately, the shooting in Farsta is just one of several hundred examples in recent years.
It should be obvious to everyone that the security that many of us remember has been shaken. There was a time when we could leave the door unlocked and did not need to worry every time our teenagers were out late at night. It was a time when one also did not need to warn one's elderly mother about scammers who cynically try to trick their way into getting money over the phone. It was a time when society was safe.
We adults remember that there was something before the sudden transformation of Sweden. It was before we saw the naive immigration policy, which changed Sweden for all time. While the other parties in the Riksdag stood here in the speaker's chair, blinded by who could be the most good, and said that it was necessary for Sweden's secure future, we Sverigedemokrater stood here and said what needed to be said, that your project is in the process of destroying Sweden at its core.
Thank goodness the course has changed today. Together, the Tidö parties have charted a direction that is good for Sweden. Unfortunately, a large part of the damage has already occurred, and we see deep tracks in society. The consequences include, among others, the violence, the exclusion, the segregation, the parallel societies, the fraud, the housing shortage, the gross organized crime, and much more besides.
I wonder if the Prime Minister agrees with our description of the problem. Today we see a situation where children are armed with automatic weapons and turn a subway entrance in Stockholm into a Swiss cheese in broad daylight.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the irresponsible immigration policy is the very basis for the situation we find ourselves in today?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I was in Farsta yesterday and took part in the memorial service for the 43-year-old man. It turned out that he was a photographer, like myself—he was certainly much better—and that he came from Eskilstuna, like myself. The atmosphere was very moving. It was shown by the many, of diverse origins, who wanted to show their participation.
Every criminal must always ultimately bear responsibility for their own actions. It is a choice to fire 21 shots with a Kalashnikov or to refrain from doing so. I believe very much in individual responsibility there. No other factors can strip away that responsibility.
If one has said it, one must also say that the combination of extensive immigration and poor integration is dangerous. You have pointed that out, and honestly, quite a few others have also pointed that out now for quite a few years.
It is a dangerous combination. Large-scale immigration and poor integration create many tensions. Most of the tensions are of a completely different kind than deadly violence. But it can be tensions that are serious enough nonetheless.
We see integration problems in school. We discussed this the other day in the party leader debate. We see integration problems in overcrowding. We see it in honor issues. We see it in many different areas, and soon in every residential area.
It has caused the government and all our coalition partners to now significantly change course in migration policy. I still want to say, however, that it will take time. It is quite obvious.
Serious crime will take time to get rid of. We also know that from other countries. In that case, one must do things persistently and systematically over a very long period. We are on the right course in this. But I understand the frustration that exists in society when we see the violence continue day after day.
Linda Lindberg (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Of course, it is positive that we now have a government that, together with us, in some sense has a majority in the Swedish Riksdag. We can pass budget proposals and the important reforms that are needed.
Together, we will now ensure that immigration is reduced to a minimum. We are upgrading citizenship. We are tightening the penalties, and we are strengthening social services. If one is old enough to commit a crime, one must also be punished for it. Therefore, criminal youths shall also be imprisoned and not be released in any sense.
Despite this, we are facing an alarming situation here and now. My question to the Prime Minister is: What is the Prime Minister prepared to do here and now so that we can truly and effectively get the situation we see under control?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to point out three things.
The first thing is: Reduce immigration to Sweden. That is exactly what we are doing in the government and in the cooperation. It is also what we are now doing at the European level. It is incredibly important that we have now established a European migration policy that ensures we can manage the external European border.
Without that, we will not manage the migration in Europe. We cannot manage to have open borders between Europe's countries. It is incredibly important to reduce immigration to Sweden. That is the first thing.
The second is the crime policy. Jail those who commit crimes. Deport those who want to commit crimes but who are not Swedish citizens. Be systematic with prevention so that young people do not end up there.
The third is, naturally, to manage integration in every conceivable way. Those who are already in Sweden shall quickly enter Swedish society, understand and respect Swedish laws, and become successful in Sweden. They shall make a class journey like the one that was made in Sweden in the 20th century.
Nooshi Dadgostar (V)
Mr. Speaker! In these summer closing times, we see how the anxiety is spreading both in preschools and in schools. Will the teachers, preschool teachers, and childcare workers who now wish all children and young people a good summer return in the autumn? Many have already been informed that they will need to be laid off. It is now a crisis situation both in school and in healthcare and elderly care.
I noted Vice Prime Minister Ebba Busch's announcement that more money will be included in the autumn budget for welfare. It is a nonsense announcement, because it does that every year. The question is how much and whether the government plans to ensure that the gap of 24 billion kronor for municipalities and regions is filled again.
On the other hand, it can be interpreted as that work is ongoing in the Government Offices and that the government is to do what SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner) demands, but also what the Prime Minister's own moderate regional council demands. That is to give a notification before Midsummer regarding how much money municipalities and regions will receive.
The reason why it is required specifically before Midsummer is that otherwise, regardless, staff will have to be laid off. It concerns field assistants, nurses, doctors and teachers. It is not sufficient to come with a decision in the autumn. It must come before Midsummer.
Does the Prime Minister intend to provide a statement on how much money municipalities and regions will receive before we head towards Midsummer in the manner that Moderate regional councils and municipal councils have demanded?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I initially thought the question would be about the fear that exists in preschools and schools regarding whether the children will return after the summer break.
Will we see the children who, for example, have been in their home countries, or are they children who are taken out of the country and never get a chance to come back? It is one of the most egregious forms of honor oppression. That question also worries me quite a lot.
Will money come to the municipalities? Yes, it will. It does every year. Exactly how much will come cannot be answered until the budget arrives. That is also the case every year, and so it will be even this year.
It is quite obvious that the municipalities and also the regions need money. They will receive money. It is also quite obvious that almost every year municipalities and regions wish for more money in total than the state can give. That is also nothing new.
I understand that many are curious and that many want to know. We have a budget process that we think it is important to keep in order. This applies in particular now when we have high inflation. Combating inflation is a prerequisite for managing long-term Swedish economic policy.
It is a great interest. One cannot argue against managing the welfare. One must find a balanced process where one gives so much money to municipalities and regions that they manage their mandate and do not give unfunded money that fuels inflation and jeopardizes the Swedish economy.
All this is a collective assessment that we make in the budget process. We will return to this successively during the summer, in August, and then in the budget.
Nooshi Dadgostar (V)
Mr. Speaker! Regarding inflation, it is obvious that the planned removal of the cap for the job tax credit, which would mean 50,000 kronor in reduced tax for the Prime Minister and others in his income bracket, would fuel inflation enormously. There, the investment in welfare is to be prioritized to ensure that people keep their jobs.
I interpret the Prime Minister's answer as that Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch has not spoken with Minister for Finance Elisabeth Svantesson. There are no announcements to give. On the other hand, the Minister for Finance has also not been seen for a very long time.
I still wonder if the Prime Minister could get an answer from the Minister for Finance regarding how much money will now go to welfare in municipalities and regions. Otherwise, staff must be laid off. That cannot be okay, Ulf Kristersson.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I do not see much in such conspiracy theories. It is clear that it is not the case that people do not speak with one another.
The fact that the questioner does not know yet is because we have not decided yet. When we have decided, we will announce it. It will be based on a rather in-depth economic analysis. It is not more difficult than that. That is what every government does before a budget, regardless of what one thinks on the merits.
Of course Ebba Busch was absolutely right when she said that money will come to municipalities and regions. But she cannot answer exactly how much, because no one can answer that right now.
We will return in orderly forms. I know that not everyone is equally fond of orderly forms. We think it is important with orderly forms. The economy is important. The economy shall be nurtured, inflation shall be fought, and the welfare shall be protected.
There are quite a few things that need to be weighed together. We will do that in the way we deem appropriate.
Muharrem Demirok (C)
Mr. Speaker! We leave behind a bloody weekend in Stockholm. The deadly violence creeps ever closer and eats away at the sense of security. Crime has become increasingly more severe. Gangs are recruiting children who are ever younger.
The police estimate that there are 1,300 gang-involved children in Sweden. That is 1,300 too many. To reduce that figure, we must work from several sides simultaneously. We must invest in prevention. We must prosecute more but also ensure that more can leave the gangs. When a 13-year-old is first contacted by a criminal gang, all alarm bells must ring.
Fryshuset points to the problem of recruitment from older individuals into gangs. When a 16-year-old has been tasked with delivering drugs but realizes that another life is possible, society's collective efforts must be there.
Centerpartiet has also proposed a national dropout program for children. I truly wish that the words dropout program and children did not have to be said in the same sentence, but unfortunately, we are there.
This proposal would make a real difference. There is a lack of sufficient knowledge about young gang criminals in municipalities, within authorities, and in civil society. A national exit program for young people with proven methods and better resources could address this.
My question to the Prime Minister is very simple and direct: Is the Prime Minister prepared to support the Center Party's proposal for a national dropout program for children?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I think it is interesting. I would like to look closer at this.
We have worked - successfully, I think - with other exit programs, as we sometimes say, or deradicalization programs for extremism and national exit programs when it comes to organized crime. I have personally met representatives for several such programs, which have functioned very well.
Just as Muharrem Demirok, I think it is absurd that one should have to say the combination of dropout programs and children. But since we are in such a situation, I absolutely think that one should look at it.
It is also not in conflict with other responsibilities, that is to say, parental responsibility. I think it is incredibly important. Parents bear responsibility for their children. That it is a strong state interest to help is quite obvious, but ultimately parents must be able to take responsibility for their children until proven otherwise. In the long run, we cannot accept that children grow up in families where they are practically raised straight into gang crime.
There is a terrible disinformation campaign going out that claims the social services kidnap Swedish children. All of us who have worked with the social services know that it is completely wrong. What is true is that the social services intervene and take children into care - and shall do so, also by force - if the parents are not capable of fulfilling their duties. That is true.
I would gladly look at everything mentioned here, together with other preventive work such as breaking the confidentiality between the police, social services, and the school so that those who are in the danger zone but who perhaps have not yet committed any serious crimes can be detected earlier - plus it is perhaps completely obvious that the person who is an adult and a gang criminal and is locked up twice as long in any case cannot, at that moment, recruit new youths into organized gangs. I would also very gladly look at a separate exit program specifically for children and young people entering organized crime.
Muharrem Demirok (C)
Mr. Speaker! I appreciate the Prime Minister's statement about looking at the proposal, but I believe we need to agree that right now it is not enough to just look at it. We need to move forward.
A question was asked earlier about what is being done here and now. I believe we must agree that things must be done here and now. If anything is to be accomplished during this parliamentary term, we must actually make the efforts now.
There is a proposal for a national dropout program for adults on the government's desk. It has been there since 2021. There is broad consensus that it should be implemented, but it has not yet been sent out for consultation. The question is how long we will have to wait for it.
I would really like to urge the Prime Minister today to make the national exit program a reality and to create a special program just for young people. It gives more people a way out, and it saves our young people from being drawn deeper into violence and crime. It is a small task, but it is a task that we simply must take on today.
My question remains. Can we expect the Prime Minister to proceed with a proposal for a national dropout program for children?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! By "look" I do not mean look and set aside. I think it sounds interesting.
As recently as yesterday or the day before, Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer said that we have decided what we will now implement, what we have been mandated to implement, in order to tackle the serious organized crime in Sweden. But we are completely open to more proposals. We do not intend to sit down and generally compromise away things just because someone doesn't want to. But we will more than gladly accept new constructive proposals.
I am happy to add this to a soon quite substantial list of further things that can be done, both preventively and more repressively. I think it is a good proposal. I am happy to look further at that proposal constructively.
Camilla Hansén (MP)
Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! The relentless violence continues on the open street, in front of the eyes of our children. It tears families apart, crushes dreams for the future, and strikes fear into communities.
During the weekend, seven people were shot in the Stockholm area, including a 15-year-old boy who died during the shooting in Farsta. Despite this, the police maintain that they have also prevented several serious violent crimes from occurring during this weekend. More are arrested, more are detained, and more are prosecuted.
The prisons are full. Why then do we not get a stop to the violence? Yes, because the police estimate that three new gang criminals are recruited every day. One can suggest as many increased penalties as one likes, but we must talk about how we break the pattern when it comes to segregation and exclusion and about what gives dreams for the future again. It is we, the children, who have just lost our classmate in Farsta.
At the same time, the Police Union's proposal for a crisis commission is being dismissed. Why does the Prime Minister not want to invite one?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with the description given here of the terrible, reckless violence. It was not least about what we said before the election that this must be stopped, and political changes will be required in Sweden to put a stop to this.
Sometimes I have a bit of difficulty understanding this contradiction that is being painted between prevention and taking tough action against the adults and young people who walk around with Kalashnikovs and shoot people dead. At that point, it is too late for prevention. But there is no contradiction between that and ensuring that today's 10-year-olds are not 15-year-olds with weapons in hand in five years. Both things are needed. I cannot comprehend why so many want to paint a contradiction between these.
Should the option be not to imprison the one who runs around and shoots other people dead? That would be dangerous. Of course, we must do it. It is also a preventive measure, that's all, because then that specific person cannot recruit new ones.
Then we must make large-scale preventive efforts so that new young people are not lured in and want to wear a robber's mask instead of a student cap.
Camilla Hansén (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, the Riksdag has voted for the Green Party's proposal to criminalize precisely the recruitment into criminal circles. But the police, the teachers, and the social workers say the same thing: It is not possible to stop the violence without the entire society joining in.
Then it is a matter of investing heavily in welfare. That is where the prevention takes place. It is completely out of touch with reality to believe that we can invest in prevention if we cut back on social services and school.
My question was, therefore, about a cross-party crisis commission so that we can sit down together and work on solutions to the problems we see ahead of us.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Firstly, we are not cutting back on schools and social services.
However, I do not believe that the social services is the right authority to work with seriously criminal youths. It is important to say that. I have the greatest respect for the social services' work. I have myself worked with the social services for several years. The social services is good at many things – but not at taking care of 15-year-olds with serious weapons.
On the other hand, we must do other things. If we break the confidentiality between social services, school, and police, more can be detected much earlier. If we have higher expectations of parents and parental support, more parents can take care of their own children.
Louise Meijer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Already 13 years ago, it was warned that 5,000 young people were heading into crime. 10 years ago, Kaliber did a report on the criminals' youngest henchmen, the errand boys, who performed services for the older criminals. They transported weapons and hid drugs.
Today, 10 years later, the children are no longer running boys. They are instead murderers, not infrequently voluntarily. They are children who execute and are executed.
In February, a 15-year-old was remanded in custody, suspected of having shot and killed another 15-year-old at a restaurant in Skogås. Both the suspect and the victim were seven years old when the Socialdemokrater took over Sweden in 2014.
My question to the Prime Minister is what the Moderate-led government is doing to not fail so capitally with the crime prevention work as previous Social Democratic governments [did].
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! As I have said quite a few times, not least over the last few days, it is a combination of things that must be done persistently over a long period. If it could have become like this in Sweden, it can also become different. It is not a natural disaster that has swept over Sweden, but all of this can be changed.
I believe in a combination. We must take very tough action against those who are now committing serious crimes and show that this is not tolerated in Sweden. One is locked up for a very long time, or one is expelled from the country, if one is not to be in Sweden - very harsh measures.
At the same time, we must carry out extensive preventive measures so that more children see a different future. But even prevention is quite hard-boiled. Every after-school club is not a preventive measure, if I may put it brutally. Prevention is about doing things that we know have real results: that evidence-based parenting support programs are given proper space and that parents receive clear feedback on what the state's social services accept that they do and do not do.
Camilla Brodin (KD)
Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats more than welcome the high pace of reform that the government is maintaining to build a strong energy system. For example, a welcome initiative was taken this winter to pause the reassessment of the environmental permits for hydropower. The government has also started the process to make it possible to build more nuclear power plants in more locations in Sweden. And next week, the Riksdag will make a decision on a new energy policy goal: 100 percent fossil-free. It is an important decision and a prerequisite if we are to reach the climate goals and simultaneously be competitive.
But this is not enough if Sweden stands alone in the offensive ambition. We know that the issue is also important in a global perspective. So what is the government doing to ensure that nuclear power gets good conditions, not just here in Sweden but also in all of Europe?
With this, I and the Christian Democratic parliamentary group also wish the Prime Minister a fine summer!
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I will begin by acknowledging the greeting so that I do not forget at the end due to lack of time. Many thanks, and the same to you! There is one month left, for my part at least. Spain is starting its presidency with some substantial meetings in the middle of the summer. They think that August is the summer holiday month; we do not think so. So it can go!
I completely share the description. We are reshaping the energy policy. More of everything - it is a bit our slogan, as long as it is more of everything fossil-free. This is important: more of all fossil-free energy. Do not pit wind and nuclear power against each other! We need more of everything. The more stable base production we have, the more offshore wind we can also take in, for example.
Ebba Busch has put in an enormous amount of work to try to unite the European countries that also want more nuclear power, with respect for the fact that each country decides for itself whether to have nuclear power. No one is forcing Germany into nuclear power, and no one can stop Sweden or France from nuclear power. We are building an alliance of nuclear-friendly countries, which can work together to, for example, lower costs.
Lina Nordquist (L)
Mr. Speaker! Summer vacation should be bathing in water sprinklers for all children, or berries and juice on a blanket. But we all know that there are children who go through a hell during the summer. Some have seriously ill parents who cannot cope, and the children must then take care of both themselves and their younger siblings' clothes, food, and everything else when the school is closed.
Other children, in turn, have full attention on them but are subjected to violations and are prevented from living as they wish. Forced marriages are planned for them, or conversion trips because their sexual orientation is not suitable for the family, or "re-education" trips where they are subjected to violence and are locked up and chained.
Mr. Prime Minister! Our country's freedoms and rights must, of course, be for everyone. A secure upbringing must, of course, be for everyone. What measures does the government intend to take for these specific children?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! This is a complex issue. Long summer holidays have at all times been a joy for some children and for parents who can be off for a long time, but a more or less major burden for some families and some children, who think it is too long and too lonely and perhaps have a social situation that makes the summer more of a torment than a blessing. We have known all this for a long time.
To this is now added the entire integration aspect of this, as in so many other areas. It is about integration here as well.
One must start with the most necessary. I mentioned a short while ago the teachers who are afraid that the last school day is the last time they see some of the students - that they will not come back after the break. It is about the entire issue of honor. We have extensive legislative work to stop honor violence and honor oppression in different ways and take this even more seriously. It is an important effort.
The second point is, of course, about what one does during the summer. I would wish that more children in Sweden today were able to attend the colonies that many Swedish-born children used to attend in the past. They would then be drawn into a community that would be integration in itself.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! A strong common welfare is one of the things that unites us in the Nordic cooperation - a Nordic welfare model that I am very proud of and that we Social Democrats are and will be champions for. The idea is that we can strengthen our systems through better cooperation across borders but also through knowledge exchange.
Next year, Sweden is to be the chair of the Nordic Council. It would be an excellent opportunity to put the Nordic welfare model on the agenda. We have some – or quite a few – common problems that need to be solved. We have an aging population. Many are getting older; that is good. But we also have a challenge in how we can take advantage of this. It is difficult to recruit staff to healthcare and elderly care, and we have an increased proportion of young people with mental ill-health.
So I ask the Prime Minister: What will the Prime Minister prioritize when Sweden is the chair of the Nordic Council of Ministers?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! There is much to cooperate on in a Nordic context, not least welfare policy. I am myself a very warm supporter of the Nordic welfare model. When I was minister last time, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Swedish welfare state, with the Swedish general pension starting in 1913. Much water has naturally flowed under the bridges since then.
I happened to find an old article that I myself wrote, which was about precisely the Nordic welfare model. It was based on an investigation. The Swedish people had been asked what primarily characterizes it. The answer was, of course: general welfare policy that is paid for collectively. The answer that came in second place was: freedom of choice. These two things are what the Swedish people consider to characterize the Nordic welfare model. It is not a bad answer. Both must be protected, and both we intend to protect.
There is a huge amount to do here, not least in the area of integration. It concerns general systems but also selective interventions for precisely those people and those families who need the public interventions the most.
Ludvig Aspling (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Last week, Sweden voted for the Council's direction regarding the so-called migration pact. This decision contains both salt and sweet.
We are pleased that more migrants will be directly rejected at the outer border, that more will be fast-tracked in so-called border procedures, and that more deportations will be carried out. Even though it is fundamentally wrong to be forced to pay a fee to avoid migrants who have neither any reason nor any need to come to Sweden, we also naturally welcome that the Council rejects the idea of mandatory redistribution.
The proposal shall now be negotiated with the Commission and the Parliament before it can enter into force. Can the Prime Minister already now give notice as to whether Sweden, even in that negotiation, will say a flat no to the proposal on mandatory redistribution?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Politics at the EU level often consists of salt and sweet. Nevertheless, we believe that the major advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We will not be able to reduce migration to Europe if we do not have a common grip on Europe's borders. This was incredibly important.
The answer to the questioner's question is yes. We will not accept any forced redistribution. My assessment is that a crushing majority of Europe's countries will not do so either.
A significant shift in the center of gravity has occurred. It was this – in addition to Maria Malmer Stenergård's skillful negotiation work, of course – that created the conditions and enabled us to achieve this great success. Very many countries have drawn conclusions from what happened in 2015 and do not want to see it repeated. But we must also realize that if we do not cooperate in these issues, the EU as a whole will not be able to accomplish the task.
The direction is therefore completely fixed. There is very little room for compromise, neither with Parliament nor with the Commission, following this broad agreement.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister has the ultimate responsibility to prevent new recruitment to serious crime. Therefore, I ask the question: How does the Prime Minister believe this should be achieved?
It is obvious that threats of harsher punishments are not enough. Does the Prime Minister have thoughts on, for example, urban planning, schools, welfare, and support for families to reduce violence? Has the Prime Minister noticed that men's violence against women, which is widespread, also means that boys who see their father hit run an increased risk of themselves using violence as a means of power?
Violence breeds violence. A mobilization against violence should be sought. One can spread good examples or find new examples that are creative and, for example, directed towards young people in social media.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! No, threats of stricter punishments may not help, but stricter punishments do help. If you imprison gang criminals for twice as long in Sweden, just as is done in Denmark, they will not be able to commit any crimes.
Stricter punishments also give the police completely new tools to prevent crime and detect crime. Stricter punishments mean that we can deport more people from the country who should not be here at all. Stricter punishments absolutely help.
Sometimes I get a bit curious about those who are always against stricter punishments. In the name of logic, they should then demand milder punishments. Why not halve the sentences for all serious criminals? If stricter punishments are completely the wrong way to go, then shorter sentences are probably a better way. Or is it exactly as the punishments are now that is optimal?
We need Danish legislation against serious crime, plus all preventive measures. Shall I mention one more time, I want to mention the secrecy: Remove the secrecy between the police and social services, so that more children in the risk zone can be detected earlier!
Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
Mr. Speaker! My party leader just asked the question about a national dropout program for children, an unfortunately necessary proposal. I nevertheless appreciate the Prime Minister's open attitude toward the proposal.
In addition to an exit program when it comes to gangs, we also need a clearer effort that prevents the entries into the gangs. Just as the Prime Minister said, we must invest in what we know makes a difference. What we really know makes a difference is the school.
Then one wonders; the government has reduced the money for the school. Decisions that could actually make a difference are being delayed, so that the resources in the school go where they are actually needed, instead of to school owners who do not even deliver the schooling that the children have a right to.
What is the government's policy leading to right now? Well, it is leading to that the children who have the hardest time succeeding in school, and then end up in gangs, lose their support. The social pedagogues are being laid off. The teachers who are supposed to guide them through school have to find new jobs.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Why does the government not ensure that improvements for Swedish schools are actually happening now?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! This is exactly what we are doing. But we do not believe that just more money will help. I am the first to realize that more money almost always facilitates compared to less money. Of course it is so. It applies to all of us. But it is not just money that is the answer to the question.
Think if children do not learn to read! Think if it were the case that 20 percent of all fourth graders could not read properly - will they then pass school? And that is exactly the case, unfortunately.
Think if every seventh student leaves ninth grade without a grade and cannot get into upper secondary school! Think if they then do not get any work! That is exactly how it is.
Think about how messy it is in many schools that teachers and students do not think it is possible to learn things! That is exactly how it is.
This is not primarily about money. This is about the fact that we must change the regulations in Swedish schools. We must start with something as simple as language preschool for those children who do not learn proper Swedish at home. More hours in Swedish and more hours in mathematics were needed, so that the children get a chance to manage the school that is just as important as Niels Paarup-Petersen says.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! The destruction of the Nova Kachovka dam in Ukraine has left deep scars. It is something that will affect people long after the war has ended and far beyond Ukraine's borders. President Zelenskyy was quick to declare that what has happened is a type of ecocide, that is to say, a large-scale environmental destruction.
There are national laws that handle ecocide in Ukraine. But now President Zelenskyy and Ukraine are asking for help. International mechanisms are needed to ensure that those responsible, namely Russia, are held accountable. Therefore, we need to cooperate and work with the Rome Statute.
My question is: Will the government take any kind of initiative to gather support for ecocide to be recognized as a criminal act?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Rebecka Le Moine and I do not always agree with each other, but I completely agree with her here. This is a catastrophe of an absurd magnitude. We think of the people who are literally drowning and having their lives and homes destroyed. We also think of the ecological catastrophes. We think of modern warfare's grotesque way of using civilian systems to win a war. It is absolutely appalling!
Russia must be held accountable for its many different crimes. This will be discussed at the meeting of the European Council - now I am looking at the clock, not for the sake of time but for the sake of dates - in barely two weeks. It is the last meeting of the European Council that we are handling during the Swedish presidency. That is when this issue will come up. I know that.
There are very many who also want to help now. The problem is that it is so difficult for aid organizations to be on site, not least inside the Russian-occupied territory. I understand everyone who wants to help but think that it is terribly difficult.
Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I agree with the approval of children's colonies. I have worked as a leader at a children's colony for very many summers. This is an incredibly important activity that is missing.
Then I want to touch upon something that was mentioned earlier here, namely the international reading survey Pirls. Just as the Prime Minister said, the results have unfortunately worsened since 2016. Every fifth ten-year-old cannot read!
We understand that this will lead to more concerns regarding education in the future. It will lead to a greater risk of exclusion and perhaps also of crime.
The difference in results between those who perform best and those who perform worst is also increasing, which is also a major concern.
Skolverket answers somewhat vaguely that it could be about pandemic effects, for example, which I am very skeptical about. I believe that much more must be done. It is not the pandemic that has caused this, but it is much else that must be improved within the school.
My question to the Prime Minister is: What can we do to address this in schools? This downward trend must be stopped.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I share both the enthusiasm for Kollo and the concern regarding the reading. When I was social welfare councillor here in Stockholm, I was quite often out at Barnens ö, which was the place that the City of Stockholm then had to offer children who perhaps did not have many other holiday opportunities to be able to come together with other children in a completely different environment. Kollo is incredibly underrated. Speaking of the Swedish welfare model: More children who do not have parents who were born in Sweden would today enjoy meeting other children in such forms. This is something we should do more of.
I am deeply concerned about this regarding reading. When one in five ten-year-olds cannot read properly, it has enormous consequences. Already there we have problems that should have been prevented through, for example, language preschool, so that one can compensate for what the parents cannot do, and also remedial school for those who fall behind.
This is an integration problem. Let us speak plainly about it. These are new class differences in Sweden that are based on integration failures. These children cannot be sacrificed for our failure.
Lili André (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Swedish healthcare is good, but far too few get access to it. Last autumn, when this government took office, 163,000 patients had waited illegally long to receive the care they needed. The management and the basic organization are from a time when we were doing both bloodletting and cupping, namely 1862. The development has, thank goodness, moved forward!
It is no secret that we Christian Democrats want to put the human being before the system. But I am also pleased that we Christian Democrats are now delivering on our election promises. Now it is clear that the government is appointing an inquiry to move the responsibility from the regions to the state. But we are here and now, and all patients who today wait illegally long for care do not have time to wait for the inquiry. We must act now for more equal healthcare.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: What measures and initiatives can the government take right now to reverse the development?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! One could almost believe that someone has eavesdropped on Acko Ankarberg Johansson's speech for the reform that now begins with an investigation, in a Swedish manner. It always sounds a bit like that, that we begin by investigating. But that is how Axel Oxenstierna decided we should do it in Sweden, and so we naturally do. It takes some time, but this must be done carefully.
It is a difficult question. We agree that we should have increased state responsibility, increased state governance, and increased equality in healthcare. Then one must start somewhere. Exactly where it will land, we will of course have to see.
Here and now, it is about being able to let patients choose. If one does not receive help in time in one's own region, one should be able to turn to other regions that may have shorter waiting times. And it is about increasing transparency, so that one knows how things look in different places. It also naturally concerns quality issues. We have troublesome large quality differences. I was together with Acko at Ackis and looked at endometriosis care, for example. There are extreme inequalities out in the country.
Morgan Johansson (S)
Mr. Speaker! When the Prime Minister took office in the autumn, he said that his government would have better conditions to get Sweden into Nato than the previous Social Democratic government, even though we already had invitee status and a green light from 28 of the 30 member countries.
Since then, eight months have passed, and Sweden has not come a single millimeter closer to Nato. It is rather the opposite – that we stand further away – especially after the Sweden Democrats' statements that one should burn 100 Qurans outside Turkey's embassy. That alone must be one of the dumbest things that has been said during this century, and it has caused a great deal of damage in the process.
Yesterday, new news came from Turkey that one should not expect any breakthrough in Vilnius. If Sweden is not to receive a positive decision in Vilnius, it is a historical failure for the government and for Sweden.
My questions to the Prime Minister are: What assessment does the Prime Minister make regarding the outcome of the Vilnius meeting? Does the Prime Minister have any plan for Sweden's security if Sweden is kept out of Nato in the long term?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to take up Morgan Johansson's quarrelsome glove, but I intend to build upon the fact that we agreed. When the Social Democrats changed their opinion on Nato, we could agree to join Nato. I take that as a given. I appreciate it when people change their minds and adopt a wiser position. I have built upon that since May 16 last year, in broad agreement. It is partly the same people who negotiate on Sweden's behalf, who are aware of the magnitude and difficulty of the task and are aware of and respectful of the fact that it is ultimately Turkey that makes Turkish decisions.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Tomorrow, the government has invited [us] to a climate meeting. This was announced on New Year's Eve after the government, during the first half of the year, faced harsh criticism regarding climate policy. Many reforms had been implemented that will lead to an increase in emissions in Sweden.
Since the New Year, the IPCC has released its synthesis report, which shows the extremely serious situation. The Climate Policy Council has presented its report, where it states this: For the first time in two decades, emissions are expected to increase in Sweden, as a result of political decisions by this government.
For tomorrow's climate meeting, no researcher has been invited to open the program by describing the task that the government has to solve - the climate challenge. My question to the Prime Minister is: Why has no one been invited who can make that opening and provide a framing around the task that we have to solve together?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! On the contrary, I have met with a great deal of appreciation ahead of the large climate meeting we have tomorrow, which is a finale to many of the sector-specific meetings that have taken place throughout the spring term. I have met with a great deal of appreciation.
For those who are interested, I can say that the meeting concerns three main parts.
The first one is: What does the soon to be finalized European climate policy mean for Sweden? What do the new common rules of the game mean?
The second one is: How do we get massive amounts of fossil-free electricity in Sweden? I am thinking about whether we will be able to double electricity consumption when we are to electrify everything.
The third [point] concerns the role of the business sector. How can the business sector be given faster conditions for its green transition, which both consumers and investors demand?
It is the three things that this climate meeting will be about.
We know quite a lot about the problems. We must become carbon neutral as soon as possible. Now there are partly new conditions for that, and Sweden is doing its job very well. This we shall discuss tomorrow.
Magdalena Thuresson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Russia's illegal, unprovoked and brutal war in Ukraine continues. It is difficult to comprehend the human suffering that the war entails and the atrocities and war crimes that the Russian army commits.
The Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people are not only defending themselves but also us. They are defending freedom. Our support for Ukraine must be large and long-term. It is a strength that we in this chamber are so united in our support for Ukraine.
How does the Prime Minister view how the support for Ukraine will continue? I am thinking of both here and now and the long-term support for the reconstruction.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is a seminar question that one can discuss. But I can take the short version, as I see it. We have maintained a good and broad European support for Ukraine. It was, so to speak, the top priority for our entire presidency. It is about ensuring that the broad support for Ukraine is maintained - politically, morally, economically but also militarily, that which was questioned by some in Sweden in the beginning, before we reached consensus.
I think that we, so far, have done that. Take it in wood, one might say, for in democracies things happen all the time, on good grounds. But we have held this together. We have also held together the European and American consensus on this. It is also incredibly important for Ukraine.
And so we discuss Ukraine's long-term future in Europe, in the EU, merit-based, as it is called in English.
It is about all these supports. I experience very solid support for this. And the Spanish presidency will take over exactly where Sweden ends.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! The cost crisis created by high inflation is now hitting individuals hard, but also municipalities and regions. Specifically, cuts in welfare are now threatened, and this is as a result of the SD-led government's policy. Furthermore, both blue municipalities and red municipalities are flagging for potential tax increases.
For me, it is obvious that the 13 billion that the government used to raise the threshold, in order to thereby lower taxes for those who have the most, really had been needed in welfare.
My question to the Prime Minister is: Is it reasonable to lower the tax for the absolutely richest in Sweden when at the same time pursuing a policy that risks meaning that low- and middle-income earners get increased municipal taxes?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! It will be interesting to see if the Social Democrats now fulfill their promise to raise the tax for all those people who, due to inflation, would end up above the threshold for state tax. Do the Social Democrats promise to raise the tax for police officers, for midwives, and for many others, even though the whole idea with the tax system was that the vast majority should not pay state tax? "Half remains" has never been a Social Democratic hallmark, but for almost all other Swedes, it is an important principle. It will be interesting to see where the Social Democrats land.
We chose a different path. We chose to protect people from high taxes when we also have high inflation and rising interest rates. It is a tough economic situation. It has been a long time since Sweden had this combination. Those of us who remember know that it required discipline and order to get us out of that situation last time. We do not intend to jeopardize the Swedish economy this time.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden and Europe are currently dealing with a deep energy crisis. In my home region of Skåne, I have been in contact with both companies and private individuals who have been severely affected during the ongoing electricity crisis.
During 2022, the Social Democratic government was granted an exemption by the EU to be able to redistribute the so-called bottleneck revenues from the electricity market to households as financial support in the crisis. These funds are surrounded by rules on how they may be used. This exemption expires at the turn of the year.
We Social Democrats are trying to act in the European Parliament to ensure opportunities for this moving forward, but we have so far been able to state that the government, in its presidency in the EU, has not yet made a solution possible.
My question is: Does Prime Minister Kristersson envision other initiatives in the final stage as chairman to be able to safeguard the interests of Swedish private households and companies in this area, or why has one not acted until now to secure a continued exemption?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! We have acted on this point, just as on many other points. But this is not a point that will be completed during the Swedish presidency. A certain media focus lies, for natural reasons, on the points that we can complete during our presidency.
The question of the electricity market and the regulatory frameworks that exist there is large and complex and encompasses many different things. Furthermore, many countries think quite differently, as is often the case in the EU.
We are therefore acting in this matter just as in many other matters, but we have not judged that it can be completed during the Swedish presidency.
Lars Isacsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! At the top of the political agenda stands the fight against gang crime and the shootings that plague Sweden. Regarding increased penalties and expanded police powers, we Social Democrats and the government have been in agreement. Of the 17 bills that we have handled in the Committee on Justice during the year, 15 were initiated by Social Democrats. But when it comes to the view of, or in any case the prioritization of, crime prevention work, we differ.
All over Sweden, municipal councilors face the same dilemma when it comes to efficiencies and cuts, where the statutory activities come first. They are forced to reduce the preventive measures, such as field assistants, student assistants, social secretaries, and so on.
My question to the Prime Minister is: What does the government intend to do to, if not invest in the preventive work, at least ensure that it is not slaughtered?
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I think the questioner is completely wrong in both of his descriptions.
Firstly, we are now carrying out all the crime-fighting measures to increase the penalties that the previous government refused to do, or did not get to do for Miljöpartiet, or could not, or did not dare. This is precisely what we are doing now.
If the Social Democrats now want to change their minds, you are very welcome. I much prefer the one who changes their mind than the one who complains about old things. But we are doing what you did not want to do. It is an important consumer information.
Secondly, we are also carrying out major preventive measures now. I do not understand why one should set prevention against crime control. I cannot comprehend this.
The Prime Minister's Question Time
Removing the confidentiality between social services and the police is what social workers most often mention first, so that they have the correct information and can intervene early.
Parental support programs are what we are investing in, not the previous government, so that those parents who want and can take care of their children but lack knowledge receive these skills.
Then one should also be able to intervene, also by force, if it is necessary.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.