The Prime Minister's Question Time

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Christmas is approaching. The Christmas bustle and preparations are in full swing. But many people in our country feel a sense of unease in their stomachs, a lump of worry about how Christmas will be this year.

Prices have increased on the Christmas ham, on the sausage, on the salmon and on the nuts. At the same time, gasoline and diesel are expensive. We see higher electricity prices, and the rents and interest rates on our home loans are increasing. Ten years of real wage increases have been erased.

Many wonder how they will afford the Christmas food, the Christmas presents, and the trip home to their relatives. Yesterday, we heard about Ingrid, a mother of three, who cannot afford to buy Christmas presents for her children.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, the Swedish major banks are making record profits on Swedish household bank accounts and housing loans - in this situation. It is unreasonable.

That is why we Social Democrats have submitted a proposal to quickly investigate a tax on the banks' excess profits and ensure that those funds go back to all the households and families with children who are struggling right now. For us Social Democrats, it is a self-evident matter that children's economic security must take precedence over bank directors' bonuses.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates and the Sweden Democrats have voted this down, so my question to Ulf Kristersson is how the discussion went between Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson when they reached the conclusion to prioritize the bank directors over the children. What were the arguments? Tell it to Ingrid!

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are living in very tough economic times right now. Everyone knows that. It has been a long time since we had rising interest rates, high inflation, and low growth at the same time. One has to go back to the 90s crisis and the years before it to see what risks that entails.

Inflation has now risen since 2021. It is one of the many inherited problems that this government is now busy turning around. Just like many other major problems, it has grown over a very long period of time. It therefore does not take a few months to solve it.

We are now conducting an economic policy to combat the high-inflation society, and we are doing so on very good grounds. Everyone who has learned anything from the 90s crisis knows that one must get out of high inflation to be able to return and conduct a sensible economic policy from a recession, not least now when we also see a completely obvious risk of rising unemployment. It is, therefore, tough times. It affects very many people, not least those who have it the toughest.

I was there yesterday and met Stadsmissionen's fantastic staff in what they call the Christmas gift shop. It is not a place where one buys their Christmas gifts, but rather a place where one can get Christmas gifts for children who otherwise would not receive any Christmas gifts. Companies and private individuals donate to that shop so that people in need can come there and take a Christmas gift for their children on Christmas Eve. So we help each other in Sweden, even in tough times. I think that is nice.

We do not believe in bank taxes for the simple reason that everything indicates that a bank tax would settle as an extra cost on the mortgage borrowers and drive up the interest rates and interest costs. Therefore, we do not believe in it, but we believe that one must fight the hard way with a sound economic policy.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! A sound economic policy for Ulf Kristersson seems to be to invest in tax cuts for high-income earners.

They are also lowering taxes broadly, and we Social Democrats think that is good. But this lowering of taxes for high-income earners, we do not think is sound economic policy.

I do not think that Ulf Kristersson has familiarized himself with our proposal, because the construction we have on the bank tax would have the effect that if you raise the interest rates and add it to the mortgage caps, you have to pay more in tax. It is a peculiar construction.

But what is important in Sweden is the trust we have in each other – that we can trust both each other and that society is there when we need it. That is how we need to meet the economically tough crises – as a society, where we support those who have it toughest.

Now it is the families with children who are having a tough time, so my question becomes once again: Why are the bank directors' bonuses more important than the families with children now at Christmas?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, no one thinks that bank directors are more important than families with children, but we do not believe in increased taxes on Swedish mortgages.

You always believe in increased taxes, on pretty much everything. It is one of the rather many differences we have. You believe in increased taxes. We often believe in lower taxes as long as one has taxes that are large enough to safeguard the state's core tasks.

If one wants to save trust in our society, the state must re-establish its ability to solve major problems. Trust is built when the state can fight crime. Trust is built when we do not have higher immigration than we can manage the integration of. Trust is built when we have electricity so that investing industries can continue to expand in Sweden. Thus, we establish trust between politics and the citizens. We believe in our way, and you believe in your way.

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a country where everyone stands equal before the law. We have the same fundamental rights. We can choose to study what we want and what professional role we want to have. We can choose to get a driver's license and choose whom we want to marry and how we want to dress.

The feminism that has come to set the tone over the last decade has not led to any increased equality. Instead, left-wing feminism has pressed on that all women are victims in society and that it would be unequal, actually without statistics and outcomes as a basis. The whole thing has rather been a way for certain parties to create a platform for themselves and be relevant in the political space, as the same voices have contributed to increased immigration from countries that de facto have a poor, outdated, and stale view of women.

Honor-based oppression and customs that strongly conflict with the basic principles of equal rights have taken hold in Sweden. Today we see girls and women who are oppressed daily.

It goes unnoticed that the Sweden Democrats have been a voice that for many years has dared to address the issue of the consequences of increased immigration.

Women no longer walk safely on the street today. People live in parallel societies. They are subjected to female genital mutilation. One cannot choose one's own partner. One is monitored by male relatives. Women and girls are prevented from free play. I can mention much here, Mr. Speaker.

Much of this outdated thinking is also reinforced in mosques, which take up an ever-increasing space in Sweden. It worries us, Mr. Speaker. More and more Swedish young girls and women also meet men with this perception and are then met with an unhealthy notion of woman's role in society. Their freedom and rights are slowly but surely taken from them. This we should also talk about, Mr. Speaker.

How does the Prime Minister view the problems I describe, and what is the government doing to ensure that women-oppressing cultures do not gain a stronger foothold in Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I may be able to divide the answer into two parts.

One part is the general: We shall stand up for a Swedish view on equality between women and men and between boys and girls - partly because it is in our law and we need to stand up for the law, partly because it is a very widely respected value in Sweden. We know that we are far from flawless ourselves, but standing up for these values in everyday life falls on each of us in different ways. I think this is incredibly important. When one comes to Sweden, one should know that this is a country where men and women are respected, equal rights and equal obligations.

Then we will always have respect for the fact that different individuals live different lives and that what suits one does not always suit the other - as long as everything takes place within the limits of the law. But if we are to move over to something that is illegal, and which is now becoming even more illegal because we are tightening the penalties, we can speak of honor-related crimes and honor-related oppression.

I think there is a good side to this: The first time I worked with these issues - it was 2008-2010 in Stockholm City Hall - it was controversial to even talk about honor oppression. It didn't exist. There was men's violence against women, nothing else. It took quite a few experts to explain that there is a difference between that type of crime which is sanctioned by the surroundings and that type of crime which is not at all, just as this requires special tools.

At that time, we commissioned the country's first truly scientific investigation to map out how large the problem is. The good thing is, therefore, that we know today that this exists, that we speak openly about it, and that we are doing something about it. We are now also significantly increasing the penalties for several of the things that have fallen within the scope of honor-based oppression, such as virginity checks, certificates of virginity, and those kinds of things. Much more remains to be done, however, and I believe that many of our voluntary organizations are doing extremely great work. They reach, in fact, women who perhaps do not dare to show themselves to, for example, social services.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a fact that we have strong currents in Sweden that work strongly against our fundamental principles and the social climate we want and that our country rests on. There is actually a striving to limit both women's rights and our way of life in Sweden.

Just as the Prime Minister says, the government and the Sweden Democrats are now doing quite a lot in this area. Among other things, we recently said that it should be possible, with the support of LVU, to take into care children and young people who grow up in honor-related oppression. We are also improving knowledge so that even people who encounter those at risk of honor-related violence will receive support and dare to intervene. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we have also been clear recently that we believe mosques that conduct extremist propaganda and spread views that strongly conflict with Swedish values must be restricted.

One needs to be clear about what kind of society one wants. The Sweden Democrats are clear, and we have thought clearly on this issue. We say no to parallel societies and to a multiculturalism that deteriorates and tears apart our society. Is the Prime Minister prepared to work to safeguard the Swedish way of life, and is the Prime Minister prepared to do what is required to maintain a safe and sound Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The simple answer is obviously yes. The more difficult answer is that for a long time we have had an immigration that has been much larger than we have been able to manage when it comes to integration. It is quite obvious.

We notice it every day; soon there won't be a single problem that is not related to this. Most recently the other day, we saw it regarding the result of the Pisander investigation, which is also linked to a lack of integration. This has enormous consequences in social policy, within healthcare, and regarding overcrowding. Many of these problems we thought perhaps we had come far in solving. The valuation issues are also such an issue, but even more difficult.

I think we learned a lot the hard way during the pandemic, when we had many and long discussions with the Public Health Agency regarding how we were to reach families who do not automatically go and get vaccinated just because the offer exists. We realized that we do not succeed as well there and that one then must exert more effort to reach those people. This also applies to many other things, for example sexual and reproductive health and children's rights. Much more was needed in terms of clear – respectful, but very clear – information, as well as consequences for those who do not respect Swedish laws.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We have been reached by the news that the Sweden Democrats are prepared to push for an introduction of market rents. Market rents in Sweden would mean shock-increased rents for 3 million Swedes, in addition to all the price increases we have seen.

To use the words of the Sweden Democrats' spokesperson, this is an issue that is not important. It is not a heart issue for the Sweden Democrats. They said something else before the election, but now they are, therefore, opening up to push through market rents for 3 million Swedes. The Sweden Democrats think, of course, that completely different issues are important; we all know which issues they are interested in, and it is not the Swedish people's housing security. It is completely obvious.

My question to the Prime Minister is very simple: Is the Prime Minister prepared to give something in exchange to the Sverigedemokraterna to push through market rents in Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, it can be said that questions regarding the Sverigedemokraternas policy should properly be posed to Sverigedemokraterna. It is simpler.

The government has absolutely no plans to introduce market rents in Sweden - absolutely not. It is enough to read our documents to see that. This applies to at least market rents in any kind of theoretical sense, that is to say that it would be free to set rents as one wishes. There is no one in Sweden's Riksdag who proposes that.

Sometimes it is discussed whether the impact of new construction should better reflect the production cost. Not even there does the government have any proposals on the table at all. This was something that Nooshi Dadgostar's coalition friends on her own side previously engaged in, in a January agreement. The government has no such proposals.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! If I understand the Prime Minister correctly, the government can therefore promise that during this mandate period, so-called free rent setting on new production will not be introduced in Sweden.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I absolutely do not intend to promise that. I said that we do not have any such proposals.

What I can promise is that this government will never, ever implement the distorted version of market rents that Nooshi Dadgostar often talks about. If, on the other hand, we could implement reforms that result in more rental apartments being built in Sweden, I would welcome that, but we currently have no such proposals on the table.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! In June, the Defence Preparation Committee presented a security policy report where it is clearly stated that Sweden is in the worst security policy situation since the Second World War. These are serious times.

In August, the Swedish Security Service raised the terror threat level to 4 on a 5-point scale. This means that there is a significant threat of terrorist attacks directed against Sweden and our interests. In October, two Swedes were murdered in a shooting in Brussels. They became targets precisely because they were Swedes, and it was a terrorist attack directed against Sweden and our security.

At the same time, we see more disinformation campaigns and influence attempts against Sweden – the LVU campaign, continued Quran burnings, and campaigns linked to the situation in the Middle East and Hamas's horrific attack on Israel.

All of us in this chamber have a responsibility for Sweden's security, but we cannot do this alone. Sweden must join Nato as soon as possible. It should concern more than just me that the leading representatives for the largest party in the government coalition are undermining Sweden's Nato application. According to leading experts, their statements about wiretapping congregations, banning religious symbols, and demolishing religious meeting places will sabotage Sweden's Nato process.

Centerpartiet has demanded that the government invites a meeting together with the NATO Ambassador to update the parties in the Riksdag who advocate for membership on how Sweden's application is progressing. Now we must collectively take responsibility for Sweden's security and for our defense capability. My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: When will an invitation to such a meeting arrive?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share in all essential aspects Muharrem Demirok's description of the very harsh international situation, including the conclusion that it is high time that Sweden joins Nato. We should have done so a long time ago. But now we stand at the threshold.

Each party must take responsibility for its own statements. I do not intend to answer for anyone else. I answer for the government's positions and stances. If Muharrem Demirok wants to discuss the Sverigedemokraterna's statements, I suggest that a separate question period be held for this.

Furthermore, Muharrem Demirok knows very well that we continuously inform the six of the eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag who stand behind the Swedish Nato application on how it is going. We have done this systematically, sometimes just the two of us in my sofa and sometimes jointly – in detail, I would say.

Right now, we all know that we are waiting for the Turkish ratification. We can almost follow day by day what is happening or not happening in the Turkish parliament. We can also follow various discussions between other countries and Turkey. In the meantime, we do everything that we are supposed to do under all circumstances.

Yesterday, Pål Jonson signed the major defense cooperation agreement with the USA, a historic event. This week we gathered in the Nordic and Baltic states, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in the JEF cooperation, and I was together with the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Sweden's highest military officer in the NATO system in Helsinki this week and went through in detail all of Finland's experiences of the integration process itself. We are, therefore, doing all of this.

I have probably presented all the information that exists, but if Muharrem Demirok wants another meeting with me regarding this, I am happy to attend that.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! I do not want to discuss other parties' statements with the Prime Minister. I want answers on what the consequences of those statements will be and how we take this further.

We are a number of parties who stepped forward early and jointly took responsibility for Sweden's Natoprocess. Now it is time for us to continue that work. We are a number of parties who take this issue most seriously and want to be involved and help. It is not about individual meetings - it is about stepping forward together and showing responsibility.

The Foreign Minister has continuously said: Soon we can join! We are on the threshold, says the Prime Minister. But we have still not stepped through the door.

It is time to listen to the opposition! It is time to involve us in this work, to inform us clearly and let us have a forum where we can openly and clearly discuss these issues.

I repeat the question: When will the invitation arrive?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said: We have informed continuously, and we continue to inform continuously.

Right now, our application is placed quite exactly in a committee in the Turkish parliament. It is Turkey that makes Turkish decisions.

There are no new requirements for Sweden, and there are no new changes we are to make, but rather we are waiting for Turkey to make its decision. In the same way that we expect Turkey to respect Swedish decisions and that they cannot discount parliamentary decisions in Sweden, I cannot say when Turkey will make Turkish parliamentary decisions. It is quite obvious, isn't it?

There is nothing new to report in this process, but I am happy to speak regardless. I note that it is six out of eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag that are now in favor of a Swedish NATO membership. It is a historical event. Two of those parties, the Socialdemokraterna and the Sverigedemokraterna, joined the "yes" side quite late. I welcome it nonetheless.

Two parties - two of four parties on the other side - are still against a NATO membership. If you on that side solve your problems, we will probably be able to solve our problems on our side.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! For over a year, the Prime Minister and his ministers have consistently ducked questions of accountability when the government has increased greenhouse gas emissions. The answers will come in the action plan, it has been said. In the list of government bills, it stated that the action plan would arrive in November, and now November has passed.

In a leaked draft that DN has reported on, the government has deleted the calculations showing how the action plan's proposals affect emissions. I wonder: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the climate action plan will follow the climate act's requirements and contain detailed calculations of how emissions are affected by the proposed policy, in the short term to 2030 and in the long term to 2045?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will refer all detailed questions regarding the climate action plan to Romina Pourmokhtari. But just as she has said, it will be submitted to the Riksdag before the turn of the year. We will keep that promise.

I and Elin Söderberg disagree on the reduction obligation. That is what it boils down to. The old government had a path for the reduction obligation. It was to be up to 66 percent reduction of diesel. It is easy to calculate what that diesel would cost. It would cost enough that almost no one would be able to drive a car. In that way, it is quite easy to reduce emissions in the short term.

That is not how we think. We think electrification. It is about getting rid of the fossil by electrifying transport and industries. This is also what COP 28 has largely been about so far. Then we are entering the realm of energy policy. If you have no energy policy, you have no climate policy. Now we are gathering 20 countries for a tripling of nuclear power production, so that we can manage the electrification.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The question was therefore whether the Prime Minister can guarantee that the "should-requirements" of the Climate Act will be included in the climate action plan and whether there will be calculations of the emissions over time, not least regarding the interim targets for 2030.

It is the sum of emissions over time that determines what our impact on the climate will be and thus which serious climate-related risks our population will need to endure.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That the government and the Green Party have different views on energy and climate policy, I believe is completely obvious. I respect that.

It would be exciting to see the other side's common climate and energy policy at some point. It would have been very interesting, not least for the voters. We, therefore, have a completely different view on this. Of course, we will present a climate action plan that follows the requirements of the Climate Act.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Last week we decided to remove all the Social Democratic obstructionists against new nuclear power in Sweden. S-governments have not only forced the closure of six of twelve fully functioning climate-smart reactors in Sweden but have also prohibited all new nuclear power.

At the climate summit in Dubai this weekend, 20 of the world's leading industrial nations, including Sweden, signed a declaration to triple nuclear power by 2050 for the sake of the climate.

Unfortunately, not all Swedish parties are on board with the fossil-free train. We recently saw how the largest opposition party, Socialdemokraterna, continues to oppose nuclear power both in Sweden and internationally in the EU.

I would like to ask a question: If one were to pursue the Social Democratic anti-nuclear power line, how would that affect the possibility of reducing emissions to the extent required both in Sweden and internationally?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was a good description. As we now remove hurdle after hurdle that has stood in the way of new nuclear power in Sweden, the other side in politics takes a dismissive stance and votes no, abstains, or cannot decide. It is quite obvious that the division on that side is completely devastating.

If you want companies to invest in nuclear power and believe that the policy has an idea of long-term fossil-free energy, you simply cannot do it in that way.

Internationally, the consensus is growing. We have a broad nuclear alliance in the EU, and as you saw, we gathered about twenty countries behind nuclear power at COP 28, with John Kerry and Emmanuel Macron at the forefront. I perceive that there is a very broad international movement. We will be part of it anyway, but certainly Sweden's voice—we were a pioneer country in nuclear power in the 60s, 70s, and 80s—would carry more weight if we could say that this is a genuine Swedish view.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The climate summit COP 28 is currently underway. The Government has participated very actively in the negotiations and meetings that have taken place over the past week. Sweden is being pointed out as a very good role model, and this weekend we were able to receive information that we have now entered into cooperation agreements with twenty countries to triple nuclear power by 2050.

We can now observe that more and more countries will invest in building new nuclear power, which is a prerequisite for being able to reach the climate goals. This means that access to uranium will become even more relevant and important. We have uranium deposits in Sweden. At the same time, we have a ban on the mining of uranium. Sweden could be self-sufficient when it comes to nuclear fuel, and one could also see export opportunities.

My question to the Prime Minister is: What does the government intend to do regarding the removal of the Swedish ban on uranium mining?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say something very brief about COP 28, as the major environmental conference is called. I was there for a few days. Then Ebba Busch came for a few days. Johan Forssell has been there, and Romina Pourmokhtari is heading there shortly. It is a very constructive atmosphere. Everyone knows that this is serious. The Swedish key concepts "urgency" and "opportunity" are quite well chosen. There is a hurry to do things, but there are also great opportunities in this. I think it is a serious but also constructive atmosphere at this meeting. I really wanted to say that.

More and more people also see energy policy as completely integrated into climate policy. It is perhaps no news, but I say it because much regarding energy has been so politicized. I believe it was both John Kerry and Ebba Busch who said that it is more about mathematics and physics than about politics today.

If we want to become fossil-free, we must use all fossil-free types of energy, much more renewable and much more nuclear power. Uranium is a necessary part. Everyone knows that uranium mining has negative environmental consequences, but it will have to come from somewhere. If we can do it better in Sweden than it can be done in other places, we will of course also take our responsibility.

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Prime Minister concerns those who do not look forward to more time with their family during the Christmas holidays. It concerns those who instead have a growing anxiety or perhaps even a certainty about what will happen during those days. Red days and isolation - and often alcohol - can indeed be very dangerous for people.

What are the government's measures to take a stand against men who beat women and men who abuse children, and to strengthen and support these women and children so that they can get their lives back?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost a seminar-length exercise that is required for this. But I was at Fannys Förebilder this evening on precisely this issue. I explained what politics is. It is about sharpening the legislation in different ways. This concerns, for example, aggravated violation of a woman's integrity. It is about ensuring that we take it as seriously as serious gang crime. It has not been obvious. Now there is a fairly broad support for this.

But it is also about support for those who work voluntarily and about our personal responsibility in all these matters. People need to be personally engaged. Legislation is necessary but not sufficient. More men must engage in these issues. It is very good that mothers tell their daughters what they should never accept. But fathers must also tell their sons what they must never do. Politics and civil society belong together here, I think.

We have come a good way, and I am pleased that there is now a very broad consensus on stricter penalties for aggravated violation of a woman's integrity and mandatory detention.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! According to the Swedish Security Service, the security situation has worsened further since the threat level was raised in August. We have actors who contribute to escalating this security situation. Statements that mosques should be demolished and hate speech against Muslims are escalating an already very serious situation.

At the same time, we are entering the Christmas shopping season, where hundreds of thousands of Swedes move in public environments - in shopping centers and retail premises. There are many questions among business owners, property owners, and various affected actors about how to handle the very serious security situation and how to increase preparedness against potential acts of terrorism.

What measures does the government intend to take here and now to provide support to the property owners, to the employees within the retail trade, and to all other affected actors who need to mobilize to increase preparedness against potential acts of terrorism?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am afraid that some ran off a little bit yesterday and wanted to draw very far-reaching conclusions. The Security Service must itself account for exactly how they assess the picture. My firm opinion is that they have raised it from a three to a four, and everyone understands the scope of this.

Then they point out that after Hamas's brutal attack on Israel and after the start of the war in the Middle East, the atmosphere is even more heated in many different places. That is how I assess the situation right now. The fact that we have moved from a three to a four means that very many authorities are very much on their toes and are following the developments very closely. There is heightened surveillance in very many different places.

I do not intend to engage in speculation regarding the Christmas trade specifically, as I have no factual grounds to do so.

In other respects, I leave it to the Swedish Security Service to make the exact assessments regarding the security situation in Sweden.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! It is now obvious to the vast majority how harmful the Swedish energy policy that has been pursued for some decade has been. Nuclear power has been shut down, and more renewables, primarily wind power, have been introduced into the system. This has severely worsened the power balance and the energy supply, not least in southern Sweden.

The other day, Svenska kraftnät released a report demonstrating that one of the things that can be done to address the power capacity issue is to reinforce and expand the main grid.

In light of what I have just mentioned, my question to the Prime Minister is: What measures is the government taking to secure Sweden's energy supply - I am thinking perhaps primarily of the power demand in southern Sweden - in both the short and long term?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that most understand that energy systems are both long-term and quite complex. They are unfortunately easier to destroy than to build up. This takes time. But what we are doing now is two things.

We ensure that we establish a new base load in Sweden by building new nuclear power. It is about stopping the decommissioning and starting to build new, and at the same time shortening permit processes so that we can build transmission networks, i.e., distribution networks, all around Sweden. We also remove obstacles for other things. We reduce the risk of decommissioning functioning hydropower, for example.

Many things are being done simultaneously. That is unfortunately the complex answer. One must do many things at the same time. Just building new wind power will not be enough. It will not help. The irony is, on the contrary, the more stable base power we have, the more renewable power we can also have. This government has granted permits for more offshore wind power in eight months than the previous government did in eight years. One must, therefore, do many things at the same time.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Three weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister why he is not doing anything about the acute situation that Swedish healthcare is facing. He then answered that he is prioritizing tax cuts. It is tax cuts that we all know correspond to approximately one or a couple of bags of chips for the Friday night cozy time for the average inhabitant of the country.

This is now being brought to a head. In recent days, it was reported that Sahlgrenska in Gothenburg, Sweden's largest hospital, may need to lay off 2,000 people because the region does not have sufficient resources. Similar reports are now being heard from several parts of the country, regardless of government.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister believe that the Swedish people think it is more important to have a functioning healthcare system than to get an extra bag of chips a week?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think we in this chamber can respect that we sometimes have different opinions - without putting completely unreasonable words in each other's mouths. It is clear that I have never said that I think tax cuts are more important than healthcare - I don't even think the questioner themselves believes that. So it is certainly not the case.

However, I belong to a party and a government that believe that taxes have a significant impact on whether people work or not and also that people's wallets have a significant impact.

I would never accuse the questioner of ignoring whether people have any income after tax. I do not believe the questioner thinks that. However, we disagree on how much tax should be collected. On the left, one wants more tax, higher tax and more taxes, to the right in politics often the opposite. And then we are all to get this to fit into a budget. There we disagree.

We also allocate a very large amount of money to the country's municipalities and regions to help them get through a very difficult economic period.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Snow has fallen to the ground, and Christmas is approaching with great strides. Christmas presents must be purchased, the Christmas ham will soon be garnished and the meatballs rolled.

At the same time, the green industries and our farmers are preparing for the next season. I believe that the Center Party and the government can agree on the importance of Swedish agriculture for Sweden. But in my conversations lately with berry growers, forestry workers, and farmers, it becomes noticeable that they feel a very great concern regarding the government's newly introduced wage floor of 80 percent of the median wage, a concern that they will not be able to obtain the competence they need.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore whether the government intends to take measures so that farmers, forest owners, and livestock owners can obtain the competence they need in their companies ahead of the upcoming spring farming season.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the Christmas-spirit-creating words here in the chamber! I really appreciate that.

With all due respect: If I am to be perfectly sincere, I know more farmers who are very concerned about the company that the Centerpartiet will realize agricultural policy together with, namely Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, than those who are concerned about new rules for labor immigration.

There, we have a really big issue to bite into. You are very welcome into a cooperation that very many farmers and foresters in Sweden would have great joy in.

When it comes to the labor immigration, we have concluded that there is too much abuse when we have such a low level as 13,000 kronor a month. It simply does not work. Ask any police officer you want – everyone points to the same thing. It is being abused.

That is why we have said that if one is to take people from another part of the world, third countries as they are called, outside the EU, at least 80 percent of an average Swedish salary should be reasonable. For berry pickers, planters and other seasonal jobs, there are exceptions that mean one can still come to Sweden for these special jobs.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Dagens Nyheter has revealed salary criteria at the Government Offices which state that non-political civil servants shall receive higher salaries if they work with issues that are included in the Tidö Agreement.

The Prime Minister has not wanted to answer questions from the media regarding this. Neither have others at the Government Offices. My questions are simply: Why is the Prime Minister hiding from the media on this issue? Where did the initiative for this change come from?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am certainly not hiding. However, I do not deal with payroll administration daily, being aware that those are also important issues.

For a long time now, there has been a wage directive that the Government Offices' mission is to ensure that the government can realize its policy. This was exemplified in this description with the government statement and the Tidö Agreement. I think that is completely undramatic.

Then there are many other tasks that are also important. The Government Offices must be equipped with the right competence, either to implement our policy during our government or to implement other policy during another government. There is nothing dramatic in this. There are also completely different tasks, beyond politics, that are also important in the Government Offices. This has been clarified by the administration in a specification afterwards.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we speak Swedish. This week, a worrying report arrived from Pisa. More and more Swedish students are performing worse in mathematics and reading comprehension. A large proportion of the students attending Swedish schools have a foreign background. They are children of parents, at least one of whom has an immigrant background.

For all too long, we have not prioritized the importance of the Swedish language. My question to the Prime Minister is: What measures will the government take so that children with an immigrant background also speak fluent, correct, and perfect Swedish? If we are to crush gang crime and exclusion and achieve a common Sweden, then all children must be able to speak perfect Swedish from day one.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I belong to those who believe that when people come here at an adult age, it goes very well with a functioning Swedish. One does not have to speak perfect Swedish. I believe that is shared by everyone who has been in other parts of the world, you know.

But children should learn really, really good Swedish. We are not succeeding with that today. Swedish and mathematics are the two big problems, and they are connected. If children do not learn good Swedish, they will have difficulty passing even other subjects in school. It is quite obvious when you say it, and we have failed at this for a long time.

People themselves insist that it has to do with immigration, it has to do with integration and it also has to do with rowdy classrooms. It is many different things that are influencing.

We are reforming school policy broadly and significantly. But if I am to point to a single issue, it is the importance of language and everything that ensures very small children learn Swedish early in another place if the parents cannot help them with Swedish. Look at Denmark; there, they make such strong efforts. We have much more to do in Sweden so that small children learn good Swedish.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This EU Commission has come forward with a multitude of proposals regarding the forestry area, an area where the EU actually should not be making decisions. The word "forest" is not even included in the EU Treaty.

In June 2022, the EU Commission presented a proposal for legally binding targets for how much of the member states' nature should be restored - the Nature Restoration Law. The proposal is formulated in such a way that very large areas of productive land and forest land risk being taken out of production, for example by forest not being cultivated and by agricultural land being placed under water.

How does the Prime Minister view this proposal in relation to self-determination in forest policy?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is an important question. I can start by saying that when we had the EU Commission in Sweden before the Swedish presidency, it was a small side intention to take them to Kiruna. We let them fly over almost all of Sweden so that they would understand the extent of the forest's importance here. One of them had said that now we are entering Swedish airspace, and then they flew for two hours over forest.

So we are not talking about a small park somewhere. It is incredibly important to understand this.

Sweden and Finland are now making major efforts to safeguard Swedish and Finnish forestry. This concerns partly the directives mentioned here, partly the basic view on property rights, the forest's importance in a much broader climate policy and the importance of forest raw materials – all of this.

There we are now making very large efforts to ensure that this lands as well as it is possible at all.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister answered a previous question here that he did not dodge the question about the Tidö wages. I believe the Prime Minister is completely alone in thinking that. Swedish media have hunted the Prime Minister for over a week, but the Prime Minister has not answered questions from Swedish media about these serious allegations.

I believe therefore that it is quite obvious that everyone else sees how the Prime Minister is dodging. That is one thing.

The second thing is that it is not only the media and we in the world of politics who are astonished by this. Even a political science professor comments and says that when one reads this, one is shocked.

It is quite strong expressions that one is afraid of how the public administration is being politicized in this way. We are perhaps not used to thinking in those terms in Sweden; it brings to mind completely different countries. In Swedish democracy, one does not do this, so I think the Prime Minister here in the Riksdag should answer regarding the time wages.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government Offices' core task is to ensure that governments, regardless of color, can implement their policies. That is the fundamental task, and the Government Offices must, of course, also be equipped with the competence and resources to fulfill that task. In our case, it is about building new nuclear power, reducing immigration, and sharpening the work against crime. For another government, it could be about phasing out nuclear power, increasing immigration, and taking a softer approach toward crime. Both are legitimate, and one must be equipped with the resources for this.

I have not personally dealt with this issue, but I am convinced that the administration is handling this as it should. Now, the Social Democrats have also submitted a report to the KU regarding me in this matter; then the KU will have to look into whether this has been handled correctly.

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

Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Our preparedness is good, they said in August 1939, and a few weeks later World War II broke out. Sweden then had a downsized and outdated defense.

Nearly 100 years later, we fortunately have a modern but unfortunately downsized defense. We can now state that the rebuilding of the total defense is proceeding too slowly. Authorities linked to civil defense have been occupied with environmental issues instead of defense issues, and it still seems to be a struggle to get the authorities involved in the total defense thinking.

We must not have any illusions regarding Russian restraint or that Sweden would, against all odds, be spared from what we see in Ukraine. These are urgent times now, but everything seems to be hindered by complicated and protracted administrative processes. My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: What measures or initiatives does the Prime Minister plan for agencies under the government to increase the pace and consider the total defense aspects to a greater extent than what is happening today?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am completely certain that if the questioner poses the question to Carl-Oskar Bohlin, she will receive an extremely detailed, enthusiastic description of all of this – both that which is problematic and that which is going very well.

I personally believe I will content myself with saying that there were strong reasons why I wanted a minister for civil defense. One reason was the experiences from Ukraine.

This is incredibly important. The military defense is important, but the civil defense is systematically underestimated. We are also making great efforts in this area. If I am to mention just one thing, it is that the reactivated civil service is an incredibly important part of this – to integrate civil defense and military defense. It is about the total defense concept.

I believe we will see much of this, for example at Folk och Försvar in just a few weeks up in Sälen.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! On October 10, the government decided to freeze development aid to Palestine. At the same time, Sida was tasked with conducting a review of all aid, both humanitarian aid and development aid. Now the review has been completed, and the result was presented on December 1.

Sida notes that Swedish aid to Palestine has no links to Hamas. This is, of course, very positive and shows that the control system that exists for Swedish aid functions. The European Commission's review also shows that nothing indicates that aid has gone to anything other than what it is intended for. In other words, there are no reasons not to resume the payments with immediate effect.

Swedish aid goes to forces that fight against terror and for democracy, women's rights and human rights. My question to the Prime Minister is: When will the government resume the important aid to Palestine?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is: when the analysis has been made and is finished. It was good that a result came that describes in broad strokes how it looks; many countries have done the same to gain clarity on this. Now the government will, based on this analysis, make decisions on the continuation, including any remaining questions that require further investigation. If one asks the question to Johan Forssell, he will be able to give a very detailed answer on exactly which measures we take.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! On Tuesday, the judgment that the residents of Kallinge, who have been poisoned by PFAS in their drinking water, have waited so long for finally arrived. The Supreme Court then ruled that high levels of toxins in the blood are sufficient for it to be counted as a harm and that one is therefore entitled to compensation. On Tuesday, the PFAS association in Kallinge was the winner, but in the long run, of course, everyone who is poisoned by PFAS are the losers.

What has happened to the residents of Kallinge must never happen again. Several systemic errors in the authorities' handling appear to have led to people being able to drink the poisoned drinking water for a long period. It concerns everything from insufficient warnings from KemI, a lack of chemical controls of the drinking water, and permits for fire drills at an important drinking water source, to negligence in connection with fire foam management.

Therefore, I want to ask the Prime Minister what measures the Prime Minister and the government intend to take to ensure that similar incidents can never occur again.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This judgment came just the other day, so I cannot answer right now. Courts, as we all know, make entirely their own decisions. Then the government has to decide whether a court decision warrants a new measure of some kind. I cannot answer that straightforwardly, but I am quite convinced that work is underway to now analyze what this judgment means for existing Swedish legislation. That is also how it is supposed to proceed.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have thousands of dams that affect our cultural landscape and ensure that we have water for both animals and humans. In some of these dams, we also have power production.

In Norway, Finland and Schleswig-Holstein, small-scale hydropower production has been protected, and in southern Sweden, where most of the dams are located, we have a great need for this power production. At the same time, we unfortunately see that our authorities, despite the moratorium that now exists, continue to push for dams to be removed – dams which, as said, protect our cultural landscape, provide us with electricity and ensure that we have water for both animals and humans.

In our neighboring countries, small-scale hydropower is facilitated. My question therefore is: Will the government give our hydropower owners the same conditions to develop these companies and power stations?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to first say that I agree on the importance of the dams, both for power production and as cultural carriers in various ways. There were reasons why the government decided to pause the reassessment which otherwise would have led to the decommissioning of a not insignificant share of this power production. It seemed completely absurd in these times to deliberately decommission stable power production, when we have such an obvious need for it.

The review is therefore paused, and the government will return to how we ultimately view this. But I believe that what we have already done quite well suggests how the government views this issue.

(Applause)

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In last year's government statement, the Prime Minister stated that he intended to establish a function with investigators in the Government Offices. The justification given was that this would shorten, even halve, the investigation times. This is a radical and, for the Swedish social model, untested construction. There may perhaps in some cases be understanding among citizens that some legislative proposals need to be prepared quickly, but concerns have also been expressed that the quality of the investigative system may be compromised.

In Sweden, we have a well-established structure with thoroughly worked-out investigations, with a broad and extensive referral process, independent functions, and additionally a solid parliamentary treatment in the Riksdag - a quality stamp, if you will. How does the Prime Minister intend to, when and if the investigation time is to be halved, ensure the quality of the investigation proposals that are developed?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! What we have observed, which many governments have probably done before us without perhaps drawing any conclusion from it, is that some things simply take too long. Multi-year investigations, which turn and twist all issues and come back with massive reports, have their points in some cases. If one is to investigate constitutional laws, for example, I believe this is a wise way.

If one is to investigate a very specific question to reach a very specific goal, one can have higher speed, for example by using investigators who work full-time instead of part-time or by breaking out specific parts of an investigation for faster processing. I also explicitly said: with maintained quality. It is about very qualified investigators who would not even undertake an assignment if they did not perceive that this was quality-assured.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that I appreciated the Prime Minister's speech in connection with yesterday's Kippah march. It is important to stand up against antisemitism and Islamophobia in this serious situation.

Mr. Speaker, tonight UN Secretary-General António Guterres wrote a letter to the UN Security Council. In it, he urged the Security Council to act for a ceasefire in Gaza in accordance with Article 99. This is the first time this article has been used in over 30 years. This week, EU High Representative Josep Borrell has also expressed that he wants a ceasefire in Gaza. On Monday, the EU's foreign ministers will decide what the EU thinks, and next week the Prime Minister is also traveling to Brussels to discuss Gaza.

The Prime Minister's Question Time

Over 17,000 have been killed. There has been no electricity for 50 days. 300,000 homes have been destroyed, and 2 million people are fleeing in a small area of the same size as the municipality of Kil. Does the Swedish government want a ceasefire in Gaza? Will Sweden push forward in the EU?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the kind words regarding the chicken migration. It was fine and important, I think. That it could take place in broad agreement was also a clear signal to Swedish society. I really appreciate that.

The question that was raised here has indeed been part of the core. From Sweden's side, we have, together with a majority of the EU's countries, said that we want pauses for humanitarian access so that one can bring in supplies and medicines, evacuate the wounded and provide assistance. Different countries have had slightly different formulations, which is very well known. The countries also voted in different ways in the vote in the UN.

I think it is important that we stick to the priorities we have had for a long time. Israel has a right to self-defense. It must take place within international law. Humanitarian access is required. We will remain in the Swedish position.

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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