The Prime Minister's Question Time

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The recent years have been tough for the Swedish people. There has been a pandemic and then war in our vicinity which created a cost crisis that has carved large holes in the Swedish people's wallets. In this situation, we need to do everything we can to avoid new cost shocks.

The Climate Policy Council notes that the government's climate policy will increase the socio-economic costs with record-high fines for taxpayers when we do not reach our climate goals and heavy surcharges for those who are dependent on the car because we need to quickly reduce emissions.

Now, one is naturally sitting in the Government Offices and wondering how we should handle this situation so as not to create a new cost shock for the Swedish people. It is seven out of eight Riksdag parties that stand behind the climate policy framework and the goals that we have set for Sweden. The Government itself has worked with the goals that exist in the EU. Therefore, the Government needs to have a policy to reach our goals and avoid new cost shocks.

What I want to say is: I am here. We Social Democrats are here. The Social Democrats and the Moderates are two parties that are usually able to reach an agreement on major important issues, such as when you and I cooperated on, for example, the Nato application.

My question to Ulf Kristersson is therefore: Are you prepared to sit down together with us Social Democrats and take joint responsibility so that we can reach our climate goals and avoid a new cost shock for the Swedish people?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to agree that it has been tough years, and we are still in a tough situation. The government inherited double-digit inflation figures from the previous government. It is the worst we have had in many years. We were seriously worried that we would enter a 90s-like situation with high inflation, high interest rates, and constant new cost crises.

The Prime Minister's Question Time

It is well known that our primary economic-political task has had to be to fight inflation and defeat inflation so that we can use the strength of the Swedish public finances to invest in the future. I share parts of the description in any case.

When it comes to energy policy, we are restructuring the overall Swedish energy policy. If you do not have an energy policy, you do not have a climate policy. I know that those who speak most about the climate want to speak least about energy. That is because they are rarely in agreement on energy policy.

For 40 years, the nuclear power issue has paralyzed Swedish politics and resulted in that we have hardly had a single government that has been able to agree on expanding fossil-free energy to the extent required to meet Sweden's commitments.

Getting rid of oil was a purely economic issue in the early 1970s. Then it became a climate issue. Now it is also a security policy issue.

What we are doing now is securing our opportunities for electrification by producing twice as much electricity in Sweden as before. We can then electrify both road transport and industrial processes, and we will then meet our climate commitments.

Putting all the eggs in just the reduction obligation was a dead end. I am glad that almost all parties have abandoned that dead end and left it to its own fate.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! That was not quite an answer to the question. We have here in the Riksdag seven of the eight parties agreed on the climate policy framework and the goals contained in that framework. Ulf Kristersson himself has sat in Brussels and negotiated the climate goals that exist at the EU level.

Here, your own expert body, the Climate Policy Council, now warns that it could become very expensive for the Swedish people if the government does not take measures to reach the goals. It is noted that the climate action plan that exists is not sufficient to reach the goals for either 2030 or 2045.

Furthermore, the government is criticized for doing exactly what Ulf Kristersson is doing now – only talking about a single issue, namely nuclear power. It is precisely having too narrow a focus, and the goals will not be reached.

My question remains: Is Ulf Kristersson prepared to cooperate with me and the Socialdemokrater to avoid a cost shock for the Swedish people and to reach the climate goals that our youth deserve that we take seriously?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First to the question regarding the Climate Policy Council. Its task is to review and criticize. It also reviewed and criticized the previous government's policy vigorously. There will always be things to both review and criticize.

Our designated goal is to complete the long-term energy transition so that we meet the long-term climate policy goals. This is the first government in modern times that creates credible conditions for it.

As you know, I am very happy to cooperate. Can we do more things across party lines and create the stability that the business community wants in the energy supply? No one is happier about that than I am. I also know that you have participated in the energy policy talks that Ebba Busch has had.

If it is the case that even the Social Democrats want to commit to having long-term nuclear power as the base alongside hydropower in the Swedish energy supply, you are very welcome. We can also continue to expand the offshore wind power. The government has done more in eight months than you did in eight years.

Can we agree on this? You are very welcome.

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Two parliamentary parties have put forward legislation that could lead to enormous vulnerabilities. This is being done to meet an extremely small group of individuals who are uncertain in their gender identity. I am, therefore, speaking about the gender identity law.

Many actors and heavy institutions testify that the bill has major flaws. The Police Authority sees a need for further measures to curb the risk of the system being abused for dishonest purposes. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen are skeptical as to whether the risk of abuse can be ignored.

Sveriges Kvinnolobby, with 47 member organizations, shares the view that the proposal could have major consequences for equality work in Sweden. The sports movement warns of unequal conditions.

The Prosecution Authority, the Economic Crime Authority, and the Crime Prevention Council oppose the bill and consider that the legislation should be delayed until measures are implemented to eliminate the possibility of abuse.

Arbetsförmedlingen highlights that the investigation has identified risks that individuals with malicious intent can change their gender identity in different registers to gain access to arenas for people that one otherwise would not have been granted access to.

Mr. Speaker! It is heavy instances that see problems with the proposal. But even the approach is problematic. Committee initiatives were not intended to be used in this way - something that the Committee on the Constitution has also pointed out. The answer to the question about the initiative always becomes rhetorical: It rests with the Riksdag.

But the minister should still be able to have a general understanding of this regarding creating laws without the government's involvement and in what way it affects the government's work? This applies particularly in cases where the legislation is considered to be able to contribute to increased vulnerability, fraud, and crime for which the government must subsequently take responsibility. This is also something that goes against the spirit of the Tidö Agreement.

What dangers does the Prime Minister see in the fact that the legislative process in the future may increasingly be overturned by rapid committee initiatives from the Riksdag, similar to that of the gender identity law? And why should the Riksdag take the detour via the government when even government parties choose to take the fast track in the committees directly to legislation?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first say that I have great respect for the fact that one can have different opinions on this issue. This is a complex social issue that has been investigated in stages since 2014. Everyone understands that the issue has many dimensions, and everyone understands that it is difficult. One can have different convictions and practical views on the issue. I have all respect for this; I just want it to be said.

For the sake of form, I also want to say that the government does not have a position on the issue as a government, also for well-known reasons. The issue literally lies today in the Riksdag's Committee on Social Affairs. All the Riksdag's parties have to take a position on the issue. It happens – not often but nevertheless sometimes – that one chooses that path, where a government cannot or does not want to present a bill but where there is a clear majority in the Riksdag to solve a problem, with the problem's various complexities.

If I am still allowed to answer on behalf of the Moderates, I can say that the Moderates have, since 2011, together with a broad majority in the Swedish Riksdag, held the view that the Gender Identity Act, as it is called, from 1972 needs to be modernized. It is a very broad view that exists here.

So, it is about separating the purely surgical and medical from the legal. With modernization, most have intended this: Let us approach the other Nordic countries! All other countries in the Nordics have such legislation - certainly not without discussion and debate, but without major problems as a result.

If a modernization can help solve a number of social problems for a number of people who are in a very vulnerable social position, I have great respect that the broad majority of the Riksdag chooses to solve this, even in a way where the government does not submit a proposition from the outset.

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I still want to assert that this is a considerably more serious issue than the Prime Minister wants to make it. Not only do we, with the bill, open up for criminals to be able to conceal their identity by changing their personal identity numbers, or coordination numbers for that part, but the profession is also concerned. It expresses a concern that the bill means that it is possible to change gender without a medical diagnosis and that we, in doing so, miss the opportunity for good care and good support. The Sweden Democrats share the profession's concern.

With the proposal, we will also obtain a population register that is based partly on biological sex and partly on the gender that someone feels like at the moment. One can question whether we actually need such a register.

It is a bit delicate in this context that the Moderaterna see it as important that children and young people should be allowed to register their gender identity as they feel and think, while the Moderate parliamentary group is not allowed to vote as they feel on the issue.

I mean that there is still a possibility to withdraw the matter. It is also not certain that our legislation and our population register here in Sweden look exactly the same as those in the other Nordic countries. Consequently, the vulnerability may not be the same either.

Does the Prime Minister really think this is the best bill for all children and young people who suffer from gender dysphoria? That is what I would like to know.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, it is well known that there are different viewpoints on the issue, and I have great respect for this. But a parliament must also be able to move to a decision on whether to make changes or not make changes. A broad majority has for a long time wanted to see a modernization of the law.

I disagree somewhat with the member's description. Significant changes have been made since the original proposal. There is a higher age limit, it is parents who must submit the application if it concerns a 16- or 17-year-old, it must be a doctor or psychologist who provides a statement and determines if the person's gender identity can be considered permanent, and it is Socialstyrelsen that ultimately shall review whether the case should be approved. There is nothing careless about this.

I think perhaps the strongest argument is that we are thus doing roughly what like-minded and neighboring Nordic countries have done when they have solved the same complex social issue - with respect for the fact that there are different dimensions when decisions are to be made.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats have commissioned an investigation to change and worsen the health insurance. The investigation was presented during the week.

We know that the proposals from the investigation that are on the table imply a return to a sickness insurance that led to an endless number of human tragedies. Severely cancer-stricken people were denied insurance. I remember Christine Udding, who before the new rules were introduced was a healthcare hero who worked at Kungälvs sjukhus treating covid patients. She herself became covid-stricken and was denied insurance by Försäkringskassan.

A large number of people wonder whether it is even worth living when one becomes seriously ill and also loses their income. It was such a sickness insurance we had before the Left Party's changes, which were presented in 2021.

We already know what the previous rules looked like, so there is nothing that needs to be sorted out. No one needs to point out today how they looked, because we have already experienced these rules. The Prime Minister is very well aware of what the old sickness insurance rules led to.

My question is very simple: Can the Prime Minister today give an announcement as to whether we shall return to the system that created an endless amount of human tragedies and fates because the seriously ill were not given the rights they should have?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As mentioned, an investigation was presented as recently as the other day in a constantly topical issue - health insurance. The government's very formal response is that we have received the investigation and that an analysis of it is underway. It is no more than that, and no less either.

This is an important issue. I have personally worked with it for many years. No responsible government can just stand by and watch as the sickness rates increase, because we know exactly what happens if one does nothing.

When I worked operationally with these issues, we entered a situation where the old Social Democratic government with Göran Persson at the helm had seen that a sickness absence rate twice as high as in other countries was somewhat unsustainable. It is unsustainable, because it erodes the economy, and it erodes people's ability to return to the working life. It is dangerous in every way.

It was that situation we were working on to reduce unreasonably long and numerous sick leaves, with all respect for the fact that people's illness situations look different.

Now we are in a situation where the sickness rates are increasing again. In that case, we want to be prepared to look at how we can meet this. With what different interventions, measures, and rules can we meet a situation so that we are not standing in an acute stage again in a few years and have to make panic-stricken decisions?

We have a bad habit in Sweden of realizing the problems too late and then being forced to do things in a panic. It has sometimes concerned energy policy, and it has concerned security policy - to take an overly clear example. Let us not let it also apply to the important economic and human dimensions of health insurance!

The literal answer is therefore that an investigation has been conducted which we are looking at to see how the regulatory changes have affected the sickness rates. The investigation has presented a number of proposals. The Government will analyze them, and I promise that we will come back to the Riksdag with our result.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Prime Minister does not think it is unsustainable that people consider taking their own lives because the Social Insurance Agency (Försäkringskassan) denies insurance to the severely ill. It is other things that are unsustainable.

The Prime Minister now claims that he will analyze this. Let me remind you that the first thing this government did together with the Sweden Democrats was to replace the investigator who sat with this inquiry before with an investigator who it was known would come to exactly this conclusion because he had driven the issue previously and demanded this. Furthermore, the directives for the inquiry were changed in order to arrive at exactly this. So, I don't really believe in analysis.

I want to ask the Prime Minister once again: Is the Prime Minister ready to make a decision that entails very large consequences for people and their income when they become seriously ill? Can he imagine implementing the proposals in the investigation?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, the government analyzes issues before we decide what we want and what we want to seek the Riksdag's support for. That is how all serious governments work. One does not guess. One does not hope for anything. One conducts proper analyses: Do we have a problem? Is it the case that sickness rates are increasing? If they are increasing, why are they increasing? To what extent do regulatory changes have consequences for the increase? To what extent are completely different things behind the increase? If one has no idea about this, one also has no idea where to go.

What I am seriously afraid of is returning to the situation in 2004 with doubled sickness absence rates and people who are forgotten and hidden in statistics year after year - a situation with endless sickness absences, twice as high as in many comparable countries, and with people who never return to the labor market. It is expensive, and it is humanly harmful. We do not intend to contribute to returning to that situation.

I know that this has never been the Left Party's priority. But we will analyze the matter very carefully before we make a decision.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are writing in 2024. We have a high-tech industry. We have had three Swedish astronauts in space. We have highly specialized healthcare of absolute world-class standard.

But what happens when the snow hits? Chaos - not just once, not just twice, but practically every time it snows a bit more seriously. And it does in Sweden. Sweden has winter. This affects our entire society, and that is why I choose to also address the question to the Prime Minister and not solely to the Minister for Infrastructure.

The Prime Minister said in his government statement in 2022 that they were now taking over after a government that failed to manage parallel crises. At that time, they were quite substantial crises - the pandemic and so on. They even moved the issue of crisis preparedness to the Ministry of Defence, and it received its own minister. When the snow hit yesterday, the minister tweeted about irresponsible citizens who switched to summer tires and did not have the possibility to leave the car. At the Folk och Försvar conference, he also said that now it is just a matter of doing it. It turns out now that it is not just a matter of doing it. One must also know what to do.

It is completely unacceptable that goods do not arrive, that people do not arrive, that ambulances do not arrive, that one does not have the possibility to get to one's job or one's school, and that companies lose in competitiveness. It is still a quite large crisis if one adds up what all of this is about.

I want to ask the Prime Minister what measures he intends to take so that the crisis preparedness in all parts of the government and its agencies will function in a much better way.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I truly agree: Sweden has recurring winters. Not as recurring, however, is the April weather that hits with great differences between different parts of the country, ranging from sun to heavy snowdrifts. Recurring, we also have orange warnings where people are truly advised against going out into traffic unless it is absolutely necessary. Recurring, it also happens that people, despite everything, drive in winter road conditions with summer tires. Recurring, it happens that foreign long-haul trucks and trucks drive in Sweden on tires that are not adapted for Swedish roads. All of this must be taken into account.

What is happening now, not least after the events the other day on E4 and E20, is that we are looking very closely at how the cooperation between the authorities functions. Do they have the decision mandate they need? Are the bollards far too strong so that one does not know what will happen when it is not obvious whether it is an accident or about to become an accident?

We are also looking at, just as the Minister for Civil Defence suggested, whether people themselves follow the recommendations not to go out at all and, more importantly, whether they follow what is more than recommendations about not traveling on roads with winter conditions with tires that are adapted for summer weather.

We are now looking at all of this in detail. Those who followed the Minister for Infrastructure's press conference yesterday and those who have followed the communication from the Minister for Civil Defence can see that we take this very seriously. That it is not good enough is crystal clear, but we do not intend to jump to conclusions before we know where it has fallen short, if anyone has made a mistake and, if so, who. But there are many reasons to suspect that there is significant potential for improvement here.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Mr. Prime Minister! We know that April weather comes at regular intervals. It is also April every year.

I am still thinking about the parts that the government has highlighted. The government points to individual people who I perceive have not gone out with summer tires because it would be fun to skid a bit, but who actually have a profession, perhaps as a midwife or something else, where it is incredibly important to get to one's work. I think it is a bit careless to point out individual people who have made a serious attempt to get to their job as irresponsible. I do appreciate, however, that the Prime Minister does not want to guess in this matter either, but truly takes this very seriously.

In what way will you work with this in a more concrete manner? Now, one is to look at whether the culverts are too strong. The investigation from Skåne and E22 shows that cooperation is not working. In what way will the Prime Minister ensure that this will work by next winter?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely those analyses that are ongoing following the evaluation of what happened on the E22 and following the lessons from yesterday.

Then I just want to emphasize that it is not unimportant that a minister points out that the state has a very large responsibility and that authorities must do their jobs. They should not only do their jobs but also be sufficiently flexible and capable of making decisions to solve immediate problems and work together when it is not entirely obvious who bears the responsibility.

Individuals also have a responsibility in our country. Sometimes it is like swearing in church to point this out: Individuals have a responsibility. The only thing the minister said was that he did not want to see anyone in this winter road law with orange warnings have set out on the road with tires that were not adapted for this. In the best case, no one did it. In the best case, not a single foreign heavy goods vehicle drove with tires that were not suitable and thereby blocked traffic. But we also want to know that.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When the Climate Policy Council recently presented its annual review of the government's climate policy, it contained not only a total rejection of the climate policy in substance. The Council also stated that the government's claim that the climate plan shows how Sweden will reach net zero by 2045 at the latest is misleading and lacks objectivity.

After the review was presented, Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari had to respond to the criticism. She was, despite the council warning that Sweden was on a dangerous path, "not particularly worried."

She also said that there are different opinions about the plan and referred to the Climate Policy Council - that the Climate Policy Council's review is mostly opinions.

The Prime Minister also was given a chance to provide a comment to the review in Dagens Nyheter. There, the Prime Minister said that "it is well known that there are different opinions."

The Climate Policy Council is an independent scientific expert body whose task is to review whether the government's overall policy follows the Climate Act and leads towards the goals of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.

Today, I do not want to ask the Prime Minister about the government's climate policy in itself, but my question to the Prime Minister is whether he considers the Climate Policy Council's analyses and calculations, carried out by independent experts and researchers according to scientific methods, to be merely opinions.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think I will content myself with the formal correctnesses. The Climate Policy Council shall review and analyze the government's policy, that is the task, and the council is almost always critical of almost all governments. It lies almost in the task itself.

It does not change the fact that one can have different opinions. It is completely legitimate to have different opinions. We have different opinions, in politics but also compared to the Climate Policy Council's basic view.

We differ on the importance of nuclear power in achieving a fossil-free electrification of Sweden. It is not a scientific question; it is a matter of standpoint. We believe that nuclear power, and much more nuclear power, is needed to achieve total fossil-free status so that we can manage the entire electrification of all Swedish industry and transport. That is where we differ.

We also differ on the reduction obligation. Now it is only the Green Party that stands by the old position on the reduction obligation. All others have changed their minds on that point. One can think differently there too. If the only idea one has is to achieve just one thing by 2030 with high gasoline and diesel prices, I understand the logic. We who want to use more tools and furthermore reach all the way to zero think differently, and I note that most parties in Sweden today no longer think that the reduction obligation should be the only egg in the only basket.

We disagree, but let us accept that! This is politics. Sometimes one is in the majority, and sometimes one is in the minority. Right now, you are in the minority regarding the reduction obligation.

Now it is our task to show that Sweden can manage a complete electrification with charging infrastructure and twice as much electrical energy so that we also meet our high climate goals.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I interpret the Prime Minister's answer as that the Climate Policy Council engages in opinions.

It is an incredibly clear, sharp criticism of the government's climate action plan that is being presented. I would basically say that the Climate Policy Council is saying that the government's climate action plan lies. To use the Council's own vocabulary or wrapped words, it is misleading. The government claims things in the plan that cannot be shown, which the Council shows by conducting a review based on scientific methods and proven ways when it looks at this.

Then the Prime Minister says that one can have different views on these matters. The Council says that the plan is irrelevant and misleading and that the government uses rhetorical devices instead of showing how something actually hangs together, for example when it comes to cost-effectiveness. Analyses are missing, and strategies are missing.

Again: Does the Prime Minister consider that these are opinions that the Climate Policy Council is providing?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Climate Policy Council shall and may and has as its task to review the government. It is not the government's task to review the Climate Policy Council. That is not something I intend to do either.

We take note of all the analyses that are made, from that direction and from other directions. Then it is our task to weigh what is the best energy and climate policy for Sweden and the opposition's task to question it. That is how it works in a serious democratic society.

Our fundamental view is that if one does not have a stable energy policy, one has no climate policy. One cannot get around this. If one cannot show how we are to manage the electrification without fossil sources, one has no climate policy in our time.

Look at Germany! They have the world's most expensive, finest electric cars. If they are to be produced with coal and then charged with coal-powered electricity throughout their entire lifespan, it is a worthless climate investment.

We think further. We make different choices. We will manage the electrification and thus our climate goals.

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! In November 2021, the so-called Nytorgsmannen was convicted of 35 different sexual offenses, of which 7 were rapes. Due to low sentencing scales and the generous quantity discount, the sentence remained at five years of imprisonment.

Now Nytorgsmannen has been released on parole from prison after just over three years. His prison sentence has in practice meant that each crime corresponded to only about one month of imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker! During his time in prison, Nytorgsmannen has violated several rules. As recently as this autumn, he death-threatened a correctional officer. According to the Prison and Probation Service's own investigation, he has a high risk of recidivism in general crime, a high risk of recidivism in sexual offenses, and a high risk of recidivism in partner violence.

My question to the Prime Minister is what changes the Moderate-led government is making so that perpetrators of serious sexual crimes will serve longer prison sentences.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe many were very upset. Nevertheless, I must say this: As Prime Minister, I cannot go into individual cases and review judgments and decisions that have been made within the current legislation. Have respect for that!

However, we are making a number of major changes that are important, as pointed out here.

Volume discounts must be changed so that not very many crimes lead to very low sentences in total. That is the first thing.

One must also be able to sentence to life imprisonment if the crimes are repeated and of such a character that they collectively constitute a danger to the public, even if each individual crime would not lead to life imprisonment.

Conditional release must be changed, including that it cannot be the case that conditional release is to be actualized regardless of whether there is a high risk of recidivism or not.

All this is what Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer is doing, almost around the clock. Results will come.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is historically a country of nation-builders. In a short time, our country was lifted out of poverty, and we pooled our resources through both public and private investments. We built an infrastructure to contribute to a growing economy. We developed the welfare so that people could live, work, and reside throughout the entire country. But then it stopped. Today, Sweden is under-invested in what is commonly referred to as social investments.

To solve this, we in the Christian Democrats have taken a position to increase the pace of public investments. We are now working to have the surplus target removed. With loan financing over a fixed period, billions will be released to equip roads and railways and for energy systems, defense materiel, and crisis preparedness. We want to build Sweden strong again.

In times of anxiety and uncertainty, a realistic plan was needed, so my question to the Prime Minister is how he and the government view this.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government is thinking a lot about this, not least Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson.

The very first thing I must say is that the fight against inflation once again is and remains the most important economic-political task. Should we fail in that, none of the things being demanded will be able to be done. Have respect for that! Do not forget the lessons of the 90s! If one does, one loses all control. Then one must not engage in anything other than just the economy thereafter.

With that said, I agree that there are important investments to be made. We shall be able to use the strength of the Swedish public finances for truly socially beneficial long-term investments in higher education, research, digital infrastructure, physical infrastructure, and many such things.

I still have two warnings.

One should not start by seeing how much money one has and then spend it. What are truly necessary and profitable social investments? That is the first thing.

The second thing to keep in mind is to constantly be so careful that the strength in the economy is maintained ahead of the next crisis.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's entry into the NATO community increases our security, but it also places demands on our ability to contribute to the collective defense. A current area is the robustness of our infrastructure. The condition of the Swedish roads and railways can be problematized. This applies to both our east-west connections and the transports across the Öresund. The vulnerability is great with only one fixed connection to our NATO neighbor Denmark.

My question to the Prime Minister therefore concerns the need to strengthen the Swedish infrastructure and, furthermore, what initiatives the government intends to take to increase Sweden's opportunities for cross-border transport.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must first admit that I truly appreciate that after 200 years of non-alignment, there is now impatience to quickly and seriously become a Natoland that takes in everything.

But I must still call for some patience. It will take a few months for Sweden to become fully integrated into all of NATO's processes. To fully understand what we best contribute with and exactly where, and what we ourselves must change to contribute maximally, is a task I have great respect for. It is political, military and civil, including, among other things, in the matter of infrastructure.

A question that was mentioned here is whether our infrastructural systems - roads, bridges - are adapted for the task we may be assigned. That analysis has also already begun. Although I myself am often in a hurry, I want to say that we should let it take a few more months before we fully know exactly what Sweden best contributes with and what we ourselves must adapt in order to be able to contribute as best as possible.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish construction industry is currently facing one of its greatest crises in a long time. 630 companies have gone bankrupt since August 2023, and the forecast for 2024 is that 1,750 companies will go bankrupt.

This crisis has not only created increased uncertainty for construction companies but has also shaken the economy at large. In light of these worrying figures and the risk of a chain reaction affecting other sectors, it is important that the government acts to provide support for the companies. The acute need for help for companies and workers in the construction sector is obvious. Small businesses in particular are extra affected. There are clear demands from the entire industry that the government should act to alleviate the crisis.

Therefore, my question to the Prime Minister is: What concrete measures is the government considering to support companies and employees in the construction industry?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must return to the fundamental major problem, namely that an economy with high inflation and high interest rates in a recession will always be tough for something as sensitive as the construction industry. That is how it has always been, and that is how it will also always be to some extent.

Everyone understands that the demand for housing will decrease when interest rates are high. Everyone understands that caution regarding new investments will decrease when inflation is high. It is therefore why I, with a fool's persistence, say that this—to get control over the economic situation, to bring down inflation and to defeat inflation—is an entirely overriding economic-political task.

We are on our way to winning! We are on our way there now. It is a good signal for those who are going to buy houses, and it is a good signal to those who are going to invest in new construction companies. Then, political changes are also required. There, we believe in simplifying rules, removing bureaucracy, and making it simpler and cheaper to build instead of subsidizing the systems that already exist.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, a number of activists have blocked an important road. Some activists climbed up a portal over road 73. A total of nine people were arrested for sabotage. The traffic stop lasted for almost an hour, and the queue became approximately ten kilometers long.

There are obvious risks to life and health when emergency services are prevented from getting through. For industries and other businesses, these stops mean production losses, and for society, it results in significant costs here.

Will you work for a review of the legislation and for the penalties to be toughened for those who block roads and thereby stop important infrastructure?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand the popular anger that is created when people take liberties at the expense of other people and cause their important tasks to not be completed. I also assume that as soon as someone does something in a way that is not legal, the police intervene and move people. It is not my task to determine exactly which situation is legal and illegal, but we have judicial authorities for that.

I do not want to rule out that if it is the case that one were to act in such a way that could be perceived as sabotage against emergency services, it is extra remarkable and extra reprehensible. It should also be associated with extra severe penalties. But it is not my task to interpret every individual situation and which legal paragraph would be applicable in that situation.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! On Sunday, it will have been six months since the horrific war in Gaza started due to Hamas's horrific attack. Now, famine, death, and hunger prevail in Gaza, and we still do not have a Swedish government that demands a permanent ceasefire.

The world must now put pressure on Israel to achieve peace, and now the UN Security Council has finally come to demand peace and an immediate ceasefire in resolution 2728.

The International Court of Justice has been clear that Israel must take measures to prevent genocide. The UN Special Rapporteur states that Israel's actions now meet the criteria to be classified as genocide.

Now, a situation prevails where over 30,000 people have been killed, thousands have been injured, housing has been destroyed on a massive scale, and UN employees and media representatives have been killed.

What is the Swedish government doing to put pressure on Israel so that the war ends?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a completely terrible situation in Gaza. We see the images every day. It is completely terrible.

Sweden fully supports the common European positions and demands that have been directed, that is, everything from an unconditional and immediate release of the hostages, right now, no ifs and no buts, to a rapid increase in humanitarian access through a ceasefire so that medicine, food, and other supplies can be brought in. Civilians must be better protected than they are today, and we shall quickly return to a discussion on a two-state solution. That is where the common policy lies now, and that is where it must lie.

I have some hopes that a united Europe, together with the USA, can exercise the authority needed to reach the goal. But every day one sees the images on TV, one becomes discouraged and realizes that the situation right now is absolutely terrible. In that case, it is humanitarian access that is the absolute most necessary.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! A month ago, I asked the Prime Minister why one wants to make things more difficult for Sweden's entrepreneurs by raising the wage floor for labor migration to 34,200 kronor. The Prime Minister stated that he has met many entrepreneurs who think it is a good proposal. I, for my part, have not met a single one. Furthermore, the Prime Minister argues that the solution to the companies' recruitment problems can be found among the unemployed and those who live in social exclusion.

Now it appears in a survey from Svenskt Näringsliv that a majority of those who will be affected by the new wage floor have an academic degree and that a further quarter have high vocational competence. Telling the business community that they should be replaced with low-skilled labor is therefore perceived as a mockery.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Why is the government not listening to the massive criticism coming from Svenskt Näringsliv, Almega, Visita, green entrepreneurs, and others against the proposal for a raised wage floor for labor immigration?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We seem to be hearing completely different things. I hear a massive criticism of a labor immigration that no longer works. People are coming here from countries outside of Europe. They cannot speak Swedish and work for wages of 13,000 kronor a month. Talk to the police officers who time and again discover people who are being exploited and abused in the wake of this!

We must also not ignore the absurd fact that there are plenty of people in Sweden who do not speak Swedish either, who do not have higher education and who should take the jobs that are available. It is quite obvious that the system is not working.

All of us who think it is good that people should be able to come to Sweden and work in functions that Sweden otherwise would not be able to perform have a responsibility to ensure that it is not abused. The crime within labor migration has become too great. That is why we are tightening it.

(Applause)

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! The government has taken action against organized crime. The hopes from citizens, not least in the vulnerable areas, are now great that this will quickly have an effect and that the safety in society can once again be strengthened.

The preventive restraining orders have recently entered into force. I wonder if it can already be seen that the prohibitions have begun to yield results.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are back to that matter of impatience and perseverance. It is about impatience to implement well-prepared reforms, but also about perseverance to realize that it takes time to achieve results.

It will take time before they start being applied and before the courts make their decisions. I have never said that it will go quickly to crack the organized crime that has grown over more than a decade. We must have some perseverance when it comes to this.

The other day, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer was in Rågsved, I believe it was. He saw the first signs of what stay-away orders can mean and met people who thought it was absolutely excellent to get some breathing room when criminals would otherwise characterize the surrounding area far too much. Think of the parents whose children thus escape meeting criminal people!

I believe that the support for very tough tags is greatest among those people who are otherwise hit hardest by the serious crime.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Many regions are under heavy economic pressure. Other regions have implemented changes that enable them to manage today's challenges. We can observe that it looks very different in different parts of the country. Given those who are having a tough time, it is good that the government is injecting 6 billion into healthcare to counteract the dismissal of healthcare staff.

We Christian Democrats have long asserted that the zip code should not determine what care one receives. We are pleased that the government has appointed a primary responsibility investigation, the purpose of which is, among other things, to review whether healthcare should have a more national governance.

With the development we see right now, the question is: How does the Prime Minister view more state control?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That was an excellent brief summary of parts of the supplementary budget and parts of the government's statement. I could not have said it better myself.

As Prime Minister, I think exactly as the government does in these matters, down to the last comma. Just as it is stated in the government bill, an investigation has been commissioned regarding a stronger state responsibility. We will also investigate in detail how it should be done and what is appropriate and what is not.

The people and the hospitals are still there. The state is therefore not the obvious answer to all questions.

But people also expect more equality. By that, we really mean high equality, that is to say quality that is good and equal. When it comes to at least healthcare for women's diseases, such as endometriosis or tears after childbirth, I have personally seen that there are enormous differences. They are unacceptable. We will propose changes to solve those problems.

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

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! The crisis in healthcare is a fact. A lack of resources is forcing layoffs and cuts at the same time as hospital beds stand empty, simply because there is a lack of staff. The price is paid today by the sick, who receive poorer care, but also by the staff, who are faced with a completely unsustainable working situation.

The government has actively chosen not to compensate healthcare for the cost increases that Sweden has been hit by in recent years. And when we Social Democrats have time and again proposed more money for healthcare, the SD-government has promptly said no.

I have two questions for the Prime Minister. The first is: Does the Prime Minister not see the seriousness of the healthcare crisis and how it will affect the supply of competence within healthcare in the long term?

The second question is: Does the Prime Minister really believe that Swedish healthcare will function in the event of a crisis or war when it does not even function today?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As we told some time ago, the government will in the supplementary budget allocate 6 billion kronor more to hard-pressed regions so that they can manage their important activities.

We also said then explicitly that we take our share of the responsibility and that we know that the regions both can and want to take their share of the responsibility. It is they who ultimately set their budgets. It is they who bear the actual responsibility. But we feel a great involvement in this and want to contribute to making their task a little easier. That is where we are.

It was, moreover, I myself who raised it for the first time in this chamber, in the speaker's chair here next to me, when I said that I am concerned about the regions' finances. I have since raised the issue time and again and landed on the conclusion that the government will allocate 6 billion kronor. It is therefore not the case that we have been pushed into this.

But if a government were to compensate for all inflation, we would get an inflation spiral, which would harm the regions just as much as everyone else.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In March, two so-called refugees were arrested in Germany for planning a terrorist act against us here in the Swedish Riksdag. It was an attack motivated by the fact that we in Sweden have freedom of speech and that one is allowed to express one's opinion here, which is unacceptable for many believing Muslims.

These people want to kill us to protest against values that we see as completely fundamental in free and democratic societies. The case is yet another example of that the integration of immigrants from the Muslim world is often completely impossible.

I mean that we must do everything to minimize immigration from that type of countries. Does the Prime Minister agree with me on this, or does he believe that this type of problem can be solved through so-called integration policy?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think one should be careful with sweeping formulations regarding something as incredibly serious as terrorist attacks or suspected terrorist attempts. This is serious for real.

For many different reasons, I do not intend to go into details. But the German police have, therefore, identified persons who they believe intended to commit acts of terrorism against Sweden. This proves, above all, that there were strong reasons for Sweden to raise the terror threat level from three to four this summer.

Terrorism is among the most serious crimes one can commit in a society. I think that expressing oneself in sweeping and generalizing terms about terrorism is directly bad. There are very many people with very many different religious beliefs who live so far from terrorism as one can possibly get. So be a bit careful with those words!

With that said, we take the threats to Sweden that terrorism poses extremely seriously.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now the government and the Sweden Democrats want to introduce stricter rules in the sickness insurance again. It will mean a new wave of forced work. It will no longer be the doctor's assessment, but the regulations that the government has decided on, that carry the most weight. Once again, people will be forced to take fictitious made-up jobs, even though they are ill and doctors have assessed that they are in need of sick leave.

When the Left Party's mandate was needed, the sickness insurance was improved. In 2021 and 2022, relaxations were introduced which meant that more people received longer sick leaves, more elderly people were entitled to sickness compensation, and fewer were disqualified.

Now the government wants to return to the rules that applied previously. Despite only a short period having passed, they want to very quickly draw the conclusion that this will mean large increases. I wonder if the Prime Minister has his own crystal ball, as he says that Sweden will get such high sickness rates. Försäkringskassan says something else.

Why does the government want to carry out this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One can have different opinions, but we can have common facts. We have, therefore, received a report from an investigation that analyzed the reason why the Swedish sickness rates are now increasing again. We are, therefore, taking this issue seriously, because we know what happens if the sickness rates continue to increase. It is bad for people, and it is bad for the Swedish economy.

We learned this lesson in 2004, against the Left Party's explicit position. The Left Party probably saw no limit to how many people could be on sick leave for any period of time. We see that limit. It is not about being cold-hearted, but high sickness rates are dangerous. One must do what can be done to avoid it. Therefore, we asked an investigator to look at whether the changed rules have also affected the sickness rates.

Now we have the investigator's analysis and proposals for measures. Now we will analyze what is possible and appropriate to do in the form of political reforms.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker and Mr. Prime Minister! I love to travel by train. Since my teenage years, I have chosen the train as far as possible, in Sweden, in Europe, and in other parts of the world. It is climate-smart and reasonably time-efficient.

The Prime Minister's Question Time

But in Sweden, it has become downright hopeless over the past year. It is more the rule than the exception with severe delays, trains being cancelled at short notice and diversions with more or less impossible transfers at strange locations. It is no longer possible to recommend that people choose the train. This is extremely serious - for everyone who commutes, for industry and for our total defense.

There are absolute reasons; we know that. It is about staff shortages and maintenance debt. My question now is: What is the government doing concretely about this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I recognize myself in this. This summer, I sat and waited for three and a half hours at Stockholm C to travel the route Stockholm-Abisko. A few happy fellow travelers came up and said to me: It feels good that you are sitting here, because it might increase the chance that this is improved before next year.

I do not have that much power, nor should I have it. But I share the description – it is an indisputable fact that there are too many delays. As a former commuter, I also know that very many who commute every day between larger and smaller cities have their workday ruined because of this. There is, therefore, much to be done.

We will return - that is my slightly more bureaucratic answer - in the infrastructure bill regarding a unified program for both maintenance and new investments, in order to improve the possibilities for transport on both roads and railways.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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