The Prime Minister's Question Time

Anders Ygeman (S)

Mr. Speaker! TV4 revealed this week that troll factories and fake accounts exist not only in Saint Petersburg but also in the communications department of the Sweden Democrats, the largest party in the Prime Minister's government constellation. The Prime Minister demanded serious answers from the Sweden Democrats. The Deputy Prime Minister demanded a cleanup.

Now we have seen the Sweden Democrats' response. They held an alleged training session and celebrated with Pommac and posters that mocked the auditor. Two employees had to swap desks with each other to give the appearance of relocation.

My simple question to the Prime Minister is: Is he satisfied with the cleanup and the serious response from the largest party in the government constellation?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We devoted yesterday's European policy debate to this issue. Some writer claimed that the opposition spent 19 of 22 minutes on the Sweden Democrats. I think that flatters the Sweden Democrats, but it might not be as flattering for the opposition, let alone for how the European issue is being treated.

I said yesterday what I think about this. I am against mudslinging, both mudslinging of political opponents and mudslinging of partners. I am against the entire Americanization of Swedish politics that has been ongoing for quite a long time. This time, it is the Sverigedemokraterna who, on good grounds, have been asked to answer questions. On very good grounds, they have been asked what they actually mean and have done. They are to answer those questions. Previously, other parties have been in that situation, for example the Socialdemokraterna, who with mixed success have explained their involvement in this Americanization.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I asked a simple yes-or-no question to the Prime Minister about the actions of his government's underlying basis. It ends with a long speech about yesterday and about the Social Democrats instead. It is quite typical for the Prime Minister.

The Sweden Democrats spread images of the Prime Minister and his party as puppets. The images are said to have been removed from the internet. But the Prime Minister is doing his best to continue spreading such an image.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I take responsibility for the Moderates and the government. The Sweden Democrats must take responsibility for the Sweden Democrats. The Social Democrats should take responsibility for the Social Democrats. Today, advertisements are published in the name of the Social Democrats where they compare Swedish public service with Russian state television. That you are not ashamed, Anders Ygeman! That you are not ashamed! An absurdity.

(ANDERS YGEMAN (S): I do not have the opportunity to answer the question, as I do not have the right to further posts.)

You do not need to answer any questions either.

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A war is being waged against the Western social order. In Ukraine, the front stands against Russia's warfare. In Israel, the front stands against the terror of Islamism.

The coalition parties are now strengthening the support for Ukraine with a three-year framework for the military support totaling 75 billion kronor for the years 2024-2026. Together with civilian support and already decided support packages, the Tidö parties have thus decided on over 100 billion kronor. In the week, we also announced special support via Unicef and Sida of 135 million targeted at children and young people for increased access to basic needs such as housing, heat and water but also, among other things, medical and psychosocial support. This is important and good.

The Sweden Democrats consider it extremely important that Sweden continues to support Ukraine's ability to arm itself and increase resistance against the war of aggression that Russia is waging, but also to support the population humanitarily. We also have our sights set on future support in the post-war period. We need to be prepared to go very far to prevent Putin from achieving success in the war of aggression against Ukraine.

The so-called DAC framework contains provisions that today prevent aid funds from being directed towards military assistance. By allowing greater deviations from the DAC framework, significant parts of Sweden's aid framework could be released to further strengthen the fronts where people are currently paying with their lives to protect not only their own country and their freedom but the entire social order that characterizes Europe. The aid framework contains 56 billion up to and including 2025 but can therefore not be used where the needs currently are of an existential nature.

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Prime Minister is: Can the Prime Minister imagine reaching an agreement on a more flexible view of the DAC framework to also be able to finance military aid to Western frontlines, not least in Ukraine, within the framework of development aid?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the purely technical question, Sweden works according to the international agreements that exist on how aid funds are assessed. I think Sweden has good reasons to do so. Then, one can have different opinions on how much money should be allocated to aid. There, we have agreements in our government cooperation.

When it comes to the bigger question, I think it is important to emphasize that it is a completely unique decision that we are now making regarding the long-term framework. We are not alone. Other countries have done corresponding things. That it is long-term means that both we and Ukraine get a planning horizon. It means that they can use money that they do not have yet but know they will receive. We know today that the competition for war materiel and defense materiel is very intense around the world. It requires long lead times, and that is time that Ukraine does not have right now.

It is also an important political signal. When we say that we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes, we also show that we have the economic muscles to meet that commitment. That too is important.

Since then, this is important so that Sweden can now take on the great responsibility we have in light of the security commitments and promises from us and other NATO countries at the Vilnius Summit last year. That process is ongoing right now and will be completed before the next NATO summit in Washington D.C.

This is incredibly important in order to both symbolically and substantively give Ukraine an experience that we literally stand there, not just at Norrmalmstorg with words, which is important enough, but also with tangible economic resources.

It is purely economically an unusual decision. We have a framework for budgets that is important and which we adhere to strictly. But this is an extraordinary event, and these are resources that otherwise, in more ad hoc decisions, would have been taken outside the ordinary framework.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Our own defense capability is in some way central to ensuring that Putin does not succeed. That NATO and Europe have a long-term deterrent capacity is just as important as our support for Ukraine at the front.

The road to rebuilding the defense will be long and costly after extensive savings made by previous governments of different colors.

We also know that politics is about priorities. If the defense investments are not to be weighed against welfare, the funding must simply be found elsewhere.

My follow-up question to the Prime Minister is whether, after 2025, he is prepared to review the aid framework in order to generally free up funds for the needs that exist within both the Swedish preparedness and the Swedish welfare.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have the utmost respect for the fact that different parties have different views on the aid framework. I have one view, and that is the government's view. We have established the government's view in an agreement, and I stand by it. What happens after the next election we will surely have to return to and discuss. I do not intend to do that right now.

I still want to join the question regarding Sweden's defense capability. It is a neighboring task that we constantly have to weigh Ukraine's needs against what Sweden can forgo without risking our defense capability. It is about what other countries are doing and what we can contribute to those efforts in a coordinated manner.

There is literally a situation ongoing regarding air defense and aviation capacity where we are facing exactly those trade-offs. They are incredibly important to make. But our focus is to stand up for Ukraine in the long term.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now Vårdförbundet - which organizes nurses, biomedical analysts, X-ray nurses and others - has an overtime blockade. It has a conflict because it is fighting for its members.

The reason, according to Vårdförbund, is that there is a systemic error in healthcare for which the members are paying the price. The effect is that they must stay at work after regular working hours to perform the work that is required.

They are forced to give up holidays. They work six days a week. It is unsustainable. We humans need rest and recovery, and we need to sleep. This applies especially because otherwise it becomes a patient risk if the healthcare staff is not properly rested. Many nurses even reduce their working hours in order to manage.

Hundreds of operations have now been cancelled simply because the healthcare staff do not stay after regular working hours. It is naturally not sustainable for a welfare country like Sweden to build its healthcare in that way, namely that there is a fundamental lack of staff.

Does the Prime Minister understand that the system error that the healthcare staff are talking about is the government's responsibility? The Prime Minister promised on TV4 - I was there - that no one would have to be laid off in Swedish healthcare.

The only ones who can solve the systemic error and remedy an inflation shock are the government and the Sweden Democrats. The entire country is now in a national healthcare crisis. There is a shortage of resources, resources that the government should have provided.

The deficit has been deliberately driven forward. Does the Prime Minister understand that the problem belongs to the government? What does the Prime Minister have to say to the nurses who are now asking why the Prime Minister is not doing anything about the situation?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me be a bit precise here. It is actually two different issues, one of which I intend to be formal about. I will not comment and much less interfere in an ongoing conflict on the Swedish labor market. That is for many reasons. It would have applied in broad terms to any Prime Minister who had stood in the same situation.

We have a good system for difficult situations in the Swedish labor market. Employers and unions negotiate with each other. This can lead to disputes and conflicts. But normally, we then manage to solve the problems. They are not served by politics stepping in and starting to lecture or having opinions on what they should do. On that, I do not intend to say anything at all.

When it comes to the second question, however, it is absolutely correct. We have a major problem in Sweden with attracting employees to the many different and important professions in healthcare, and perhaps an even greater problem with retaining employees in the professions they were once trained for. Many leave the profession prematurely. Many choose to work part-time. It is quite obvious that there are concerns in the labor market that cause many people not to continue.

We often talk about care beds. For the uninitiated, this leads to the thought that it is about a physical place where one can care for a person. But it almost always ends with a lack of staff for the care bed that is needed. I think it is a very great concern.

We are now doing a lot to try to encourage people to seek out the professions where we know there is a good labor market. Healthcare professions are not the only ones. There are many other craft professions and technical professions where we know there is a very good labor market where many young people would need to seek out.

But then employers and workplaces must also be able to meet high expectations regarding what it is like to work at those jobs.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Everyone noticed that the Prime Minister is not taking responsibility for the situation that prevails. It is only words that Ulf Kristersson has to offer the healthcare staff.

Now hundreds of operations are being cancelled because the government betrayed its promise. Ulf Kristersson sat in TV4's studio and promised that no one would be laid off. Now there is a wave of layoffs across all of Sweden.

The staff are on their knees. Are we not worthy of better healthcare in Sweden? Should the healthcare staff work overtime? Is that how it is to be maintained? Is that Ulf Kristersson's preparedness? It is an unreasonable approach.

In an inflation shock, the government must step in. It is not individual regions that have mismanaged details. All of Sweden is now under a wave of warnings. It can no longer continue.

Is it the case that Ulf Kristersson intends for us to simply continue to witness this and offer words? When will there be clear action with more resources?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I find it a bit difficult to understand the agitated tone in a serious matter. I just said that I will not interfere in an ongoing conflict in the Swedish labor market. I will stand by that. It may be that the Left Party thinks that one should interfere, step in and legislate and take over the power. We do not think so. I will therefore not do that either.

On the other hand, it is absolutely correct that the government has a responsibility. We have taken the responsibility that falls upon us. It was I who, in the speaker's chair earlier than anyone else in this chamber, said that I was worried about what will happen when the high inflation hits healthcare and, above all, linked to the pension agreements.

The government did as it had promised. We returned with an additional 6 billion kronor. Then everyone knows that it is ultimately the regions that make decisions for each individual region. A government or a prime minister can neither or is not allowed to take over that responsibility. They fight hard with their task. We have given them better conditions to solve that task.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! The motivation for asking the question I am asking is to safeguard liberal democracy.

TV4's revelation that a parliamentary party, the largest in the Prime Minister's government base, systematically organized and financed campaigns with anonymous accounts leads to a number of questions.

It is accounts that have spread both fake and offensive material against other parties and against individual members in this chamber. As the Prime Minister himself has noted, these are very serious offenses.

Today it is reported that TV4 has been forced to warn its employees to show that they work at the channel. It is reported that employees have received threats and that measures have had to be taken to increase security. It is, of course, very serious that free and independent media are threatened for doing their jobs and for exposing and scrutinizing things that those in power in a party with decisive influence over the government are trying to hide.

In connection with the revelation, the leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, called this review a gigantic influence operation controlled by the left-liberal establishment. It is obvious that there is a strong connection between this type of statement and what is now unfolding. There are only 17 days left until the European Parliament election. It is serious that Sweden's second-largest party contributes to undermining trust in free media and that threats and hate against these media outlets are now occurring. In an election campaign, independent, free, and fearless media are more important than ever.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Does the Prime Minister intend to take any measures to ensure that these threats against the free media do not affect the ongoing election campaign?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to repeat what I said yesterday and earlier today: Questions to the Sweden Democrats are appropriately and on good grounds posed to the Sweden Democrats. If one is curious or critical and has questions about what they have done and what they are responsible for, these questions are appropriately posed to the Sweden Democrats. I am happy to answer for the government's policy and the government's work.

All threats against those of us who work in democracy – the person who holds the last deputy position in a small municipal council, the person who sits in a government, those who work in free media, and everyone in between – are very serious. Swedish legislation also takes these threats very seriously.

I believe we are in agreement among eight parties that this is serious. Many of us have been very concerned when we have seen people – not least in local politics, far from national attention and even further from bodyguards – who have felt so threatened that they have not wanted to remain in politics. All of this is truly serious, and the government takes it very seriously.

If a crime has been committed, or if there are grounds to suspect a crime, we have independent - nota bene: independent - law enforcement authorities that handle these matters. If it is the case that some party wants to change that and let the government intervene and judge what is criminal and what is not, one cannot say that. I have, however, not perceived until now that the Centerpartiet also thinks in that way.

My final point is that not everything that is legal is appropriate. Many legal follies are being committed in Swedish politics right now. I wish that more people would choose a slightly more mature attitude towards the political debate, not least two and a half weeks before an EU election. I also believe that many citizens would appreciate that attitude.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite know what kind of attitude the Prime Minister is referring to, but for me, it is extremely important to take every piece of the puzzle that threatens to weaken liberal democracy seriously.

I am worried about what the government is now doing in a number of parts to, in the worst case, dismantle liberal democracy. I see reduced support for folkbildningen. I see reduced support for public service. I see a whole number of different proposals - each individual part might not be perceived as so serious, but when the pieces are put together, I become very worried.

I am becoming concerned if the Prime Minister does not take my question seriously. What measures does the Prime Minister intend to take to ensure that threats against the free media do not affect the current election campaign? There are only 17 days left. I take it very seriously that these threats exist in today's political environment. What does the Prime Minister intend to do?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We all work under applicable law - this also applies to prime ministers.

I take every part of the threats that we are now seeing very seriously, whether it concerns someone threatening journalists, someone trampling in and stopping a meeting with pro-Palestinian positions, or someone threatening others on streets and squares. Some of this is illegal, and in those cases, it is the law enforcement authorities that should intervene. Other parts are actually legal.

Some follies must probably be legal. We have a very extensive freedom of speech in Sweden - even the freedom to say that a government is cutting funding for public service when it is actually increasing it by 3 percent. That is also a legal standpoint. It is incorrect, but it is legal.

We probably have to live with the laws we have. If we all stood up against abusing freedom of speech, Swedish democracy would be better off.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot help but bring up SD's troll account and TV4. The reactions have been strong. All parties except the Sweden Democrats have, of course, distanced themselves from this. At the same time, the Sweden Democrats' party leader has been clear that he does not take Kalla fakta's revelation seriously.

That a parliamentary party uses taxpayers' money in the form of party funding to conduct anonymous smear campaigns and spread disinformation risks seriously damaging the public's trust in all parties and, in the long run, for our entire democracy.

I believe that many of us consider that political parties should not engage in anonymous smear campaigns or disinformation. The Prime Minister must, I think, take responsibility for his own government base and also for his coalition partners, who also have keys – or pass cards – to Rosenbad.

In yesterday's party debate, the Prime Minister answered that it is an excellent proposal to discuss the issue of banning anonymous accounts for political parties in the ongoing investigation on party financing. I therefore wonder if the Moderaterna will stand behind our committee's initiative specifically regarding banning anonymous accounts for political parties.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I have now said a number of times, there are many legitimate questions being asked of the Sweden Democrats. These questions must be answered by the Sweden Democrats. I take responsibility for the government's policy. The policy that exists in the government statement, which occurs continuously and which we have in our agreement, I take very great responsibility for. I do not take responsibility for what happens in individual parties' communication departments, nor for those of the Green Party.

I think that mudslinging is an increasing problem in Swedish politics. It is an undignified Americanization of the entire debate climate that we have seen for a fairly long time. It happens from right to left. This time it is the Sverigedemokraterna who are in the spotlight - on good grounds. Other parties also have reasons to look at themselves critically in the mirror and wonder if they contribute to a mature conversation or if they themselves contribute to pie-throwing.

I think these are serious matters. No one would be happier than I if we could agree on a kind of code of conduct in Swedish politics and reintroduce a tone of dialogue where we can disagree and debate vigorously - even harshly - and still respect the integrity of Swedish democracy.

I expressed yesterday – and several others have expressed the same thing – that it is probably a good idea if the current investigation also chooses to look at the forms of party funding. I dislike mudslinging regardless of how it is funded – whether it is funded with private or state money – but one could argue that it is extra offensive if it is funded with tax money. I think it is an excellent idea.

The investigation has received its directives, but it is entirely up to the investigation to choose to take on that task itself. I trust that the parties in the investigation will be able to agree to conduct a serious discussion on this issue.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Prime Minister is happy to send the question to us other parties, as if it were we who have an anonymous troll factory ravaging the internet. We know that is not the case. It is clear that there are things on the internet that are not good and that there are parties that sometimes say things, but we have never seen anything resembling what SD is doing.

I find it surprising that the Prime Minister is trying to describe this as a general problem in this way. We have never seen anything like this before. Every time someone has pointed out that this is likely occurring, it has been vehemently denied, I was about to say, by the Sverigedemokraterna and by others. And so we see that this exists in the middle of the political world and the political landscape. I find it difficult to understand how the Prime Minister can speak in this way.

My question concerned whether the issue of banning anonymous accounts can be included in the investigation that is part of our committee's initiative.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If one can ban anonymity online, I believe it is a much larger issue, which I would say is also very close to the constitution – I am no legal expert. Then one can certainly discuss where the limit for legislation in freedom of speech should be drawn. It actually lies beyond my specific competence.

However, to let an investigation look more closely at under what conditions one should be allowed to use public grants, party financing, I think is very legitimate to do.

I believe one should be a bit careful in these matters. I think that generally starting to discuss banning people from being anonymous would go very far. There are probably very many people who think that anonymity is a prerequisite for being able to say things that must be brought out into the public sphere.

I said that this time it is the Sweden Democrats who have good reason to answer questions. But I also said yesterday that other parties have done essentially the same thing. The Social Democrats did it as recently as 2018 and had to apologize for that matter.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! A little over a week ago, I led a delegation from the Committee on Finance to Ukraine. It was horrific to see on-site the Russian terror that the Ukrainian population is being subjected to. But it was also hopeful to see both the courage and the will to resist in the eyes of the people who are fighting against the Russian superpower. They are prepared for a long war. They are also prepared to win the war.

Two things I took home with me – first, that the Swedish support is already making a very big difference on the ground on the battlefield, and second, the importance of the support becoming more long-term, partly to show Russia that we mean business with our intention to stand by Ukraine, and partly for long-term planning.

Given yesterday's positive announcement from the government, Mr. Speaker, regarding a three-year framework for the support to Ukraine, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: What would you say is the biggest difference in the Swedish support to Ukraine with the good decision that the government has now made?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I truly agree: It is incredibly eye-opening to see with one's own eyes what is happening, the devastation and the courage in equal parts. It may sound obvious, but when you are there, you feel this in your very bones.

When President Zelenskyy visited Sweden last year and we had an informal dinner at Harpsund in the evening, I had invited a number of people, among them the head of Hägglunds, who manufactures the CV90 combat vehicle. It was then that the evening's only spontaneous hug occurred, from Zelenskyy to the head of Hägglunds. That says something about the value of what we are now giving to Ukraine.

The big change is actually that it increases predictability and stability for Ukraine's part. They know that we do not just say that we stand by them long-term, but also in our Excel sheets prove that we do. Norway does the same thing, Denmark does the same thing, and several other countries do it with slightly different methods. We also get the conditions to live up to the long-term security commitments.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! On October 7th last autumn, the terrible happened. The Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas carried out a large-scale attack against Israel. Hamas's terrorist attacks against Israel included murders, kidnappings, and systematic sexual violence against women in an attempt to commit genocide.

Right now we see that antisemitism is spreading like never before across the world and, above all, in Sweden. From October 7 to the turn of the year, hate crimes against Sweden's Jews have quintupled.

Last week, my party colleague Alice Teodorescu Måwe visited the Jewish community in Gothenburg. The Jewish community expressed: If the development continues like this, this synagogue will be a museum in 30 years. It will only show that Jews once lived in this place, because some Jews will not be able to stay in Sweden.

It is clearly a completely appalling development we are seeing. My question to the Prime Minister is: What strategy does the government have to handle this hateful development that we see spreading across Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I believe we are all deeply moved by what is happening on the ground in Gaza right now, rooted in what happened on October 7. Terrible scenes are unfolding. Whatever one thinks about the conflict in the Middle East, I believe we are all deeply moved by children who are starving and families who are not receiving medical care and water.

We do what we can in this situation to help with humanitarian support. We take our share of responsibility together with other countries in a completely appalling situation. Then we have the full responsibility for what happens in Sweden. In that case, I am very concerned about what is described here. The crimes with antisemitic motives have increased fivefold since the autumn. The treatment of the Israeli artist in Sweden during Eurovision was completely unworthy. We see very much in the wake of this.

We cannot have all the world's conflicts in Sweden either, and we cannot bring antisemitism here because of disagreements about the Middle East.

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! My question concerns violence – violence against women, domestic violence in a broader sense, as well as honor-related violence and oppression. This violence must be combated just as forcefully as the organized criminals' violent activities, gang violence, and street violence.

I know that the government is working on an action program against violence. But when will this action program be presented, and what will the program contain?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that what should not have to be said is said: that we take this with the same great seriousness as the brutal gang crime. This violence is often less visible, in any case before things happen, but it must be taken with exactly the same seriousness. So does the government.

The program will come in the near future, as it is called. It is a way of saying that it is soon. I do not, however, have an exact date. Above all, it is a paradigm shift from a very one-sided focus on the perpetrator to a much stronger focus on those who are subjected to violence in close relationships or men's violence against women. The victim's need for protection is one example. It is also about changes in the legislation – stricter penalties, being able to keep people in custody for a long time, and that those who risk recidivism should not be released, as in the appalling situation that was pointed out by many after Nytorgsmannen's rampages.

In all of this, we will propose a unified change - finally! We should be able to agree that this has taken far too long over far too many years.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister forgot to mention that the 3 percent increase for public service only applies for one year. After that, the funding model looks somewhat different.

He was also a bit too pointed, even misleading, when he claimed that we Social Democrats compared public service with Russian state television. We pointed to countries where the government wants to control and cut back on public service and that we do not want to let Sweden become one of those countries.

We need independent journalism perhaps more than ever. We need journalists who dare to scrutinize all parties, including the Sweden Democrats, even though hate and threats follow like a letter in the mail - which is what has happened now as well. As recently as this morning, the news came that TV4 received threats after Kalla fakta's investigation.

My question to the Prime Minister is: What is the government doing to ensure that journalists will also in the future be able to and dare to scrutinize politicians from all camps?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We stand up for Swedish legislation, freedom of speech, and that all crimes, threats, and threats of crimes against people working in the service of democracy are taken extremely seriously. I believe there is very broad support in this chamber for that position; do not create disagreement where it fundamentally does not exist. What I said initially is what we do.

I still have to say something about publishing advertisements with a Russian flag, a Hungarian flag, a Slovakian flag, and then a Swedish flag, explicitly referring to the public service investigation and suggesting that we in Sweden are heading towards a Russian development when it comes to information and free media. It is certainly legal. But I think it is unworthy.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! According to the Riksdag's investigation service, 1.9 billion SEK have been paid out during the period 2004-2023 from state agencies and regions to Muslim organizations in Sweden which, according to several researchers, have clear ideological links to the Muslim Brotherhood. There may be more funds that have been paid out. Not all regions and state agencies have responded, and the municipalities have not been included in the investigation.

It is a self-evident matter for the majority of the public that tax funds should not be paid out to organizations that have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

My question to the Prime Minister is: How does the Prime Minister intend to act to stop the outflow of tax funds to Islamist organizations?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to return to previous questions and say that it is a testament to Sweden's strength that free media scrutinize such things and bring them to light. Time and again, there are organizations that claim to stand for fundamental democratic freedoms and rights but which in practice act differently. It often requires quite a lot of work to uncover such things. It is very good that it is being uncovered.

I cannot know the regulations in detail. But of course, basic democratic conditions must be met for the disbursement of public funds. We shall not, with state funds, subsidize and finance organizations that strive against all the basic freedoms and rights that we ourselves safeguard by all conceivable means.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have understood that the Prime Minister's point of view regarding troll factories is that he cannot step in and control either legal processes or the various parties' communications departments. We understand that. It has also never been the Left Party's position. It is not the Prime Minister's role or responsibility.

What is, however, the Prime Minister's responsibility is which parties he chooses to cooperate with. Now it is clear to everyone that the Sweden Democrats are running a troll factory that operates within the framework of what the EU considers to be prohibited when it comes to political communication and influence, because it risks affecting free and democratic elections. But through the Prime Minister's continued cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, this is legitimized.

In what way is the Prime Minister now prepared to act to ensure that there is no doubt that the government is not dependent on unauthorized methods of influence?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not a point of debate. It is a fact. I do not interfere in legal processes in Sweden. I do not issue preliminary investigations or suspicions. In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, such things occur through the authorities we have.

Then one is welcome to think different things. That is a completely different matter.

And if one has questions for the Sweden Democrats, they are preferably addressed to the Sweden Democrats.

What I am responsible for is the government's policy. I hear an undertone that says: Why doesn't the government finish by reducing immigration, restructuring the energy policy, combating serious crime, strengthening the defense, and joining Nato? It is the biggest security policy change in modern times, which six of the eight parties have done, all except just Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. Why don't I finish with this?

Because I believe it is my duty to get something done in Swedish politics, for once. We are not just going to talk, but deliver results in the areas where we have received a mandate from the voters. That is what I will do.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! After TV4's revelation about the Sweden Democrats' troll factory, Jimmie Åkesson gave a speech on YouTube where he explained his view on the matter. In the speech, he asserted that the investigation of SD was not merely an editorial decision by Kalla fakta but part of a gigantic influence operation from the left-liberal establishment. It is classic for those types of conspiracy theories that aim to undermine trust in the media, for the authorities, and for the political parties.

In the end, this is about the country's security. We see that conspiracy theories are often used to destabilize societies. In Sweden, the LVU campaign in particular has been a clear example of this, and the government has made efforts to counteract it.

My question is: What is the Prime Minister and the government doing to counter the spread of the types of conspiracy theories that the Sweden Democrats have now expressed in connection with the revelation of their troll factory?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I and the government believe in free media, we believe in independent courts and we believe in an open and honest debate. That is our position. It also happens to be well-anchored in the Swedish constitution.

I do not believe in mudslinging. I do not believe in conspiracy theories, neither those concerning vaccinations nor those concerning some liberal establishment doing something. They are certainly legal positions, but they are still, in my opinion, incorrect.

Stupidity must be combated with enlightenment. It is legal to say many different stupid things in Sweden. It is legal to say that Swedish television is drifting towards a Russian orientation. It is a false perception, but it is perfectly legal.

We will probably have to live with it. And the more of us there are who respect an adult conversation in Swedish politics, the less space the nonsense will be given.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the Riksdag decided to adopt a bill from Ulf Kristersson's government which aims to make it easier to evict families from their homes. The purpose is to remove those involved in crime from the residential areas.

The effect will also be that younger siblings in families where the older brother is involved in gang crime will become homeless. This has drawn criticism from Bris, the Children's Ombudsman, and others. The risk is tangible that the alternatives available are municipal shelters or black contracts. One might wonder what will improve because of that.

I have two questions. In what way do innocent younger siblings in such families benefit from becoming homeless? And where are these children supposed to go?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have great respect for the question.

We have different perspectives. I and the government are very concerned about the system-threatening crime and that nothing has been done year after year, despite completely obvious problems. If we continue to do as has been done for the last ten years, the crimes will continue to develop as they have done for the last ten years. The government will put a stop to that.

Then it is difficult trade-offs. I am the first to agree on that. It is a difficult trade-off between privacy and crime fighting. When criminals acquire new technology, we give the police the right to use new technology, even though one could argue that they can thereby also listen to things that are not actually criminal.

When we give the police the right to designate areas as security zones, we do so to increase the efficiency of crime fighting, even though it could be perceived as a place where the police are given very large powers.

It is difficult trade-offs. We stand on the side of law enforcement.

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that there are so many young listeners in the gallery today.

It feels constantly relevant to draw attention to all the children and young people who are waiting to receive help for mental ill-health. I noted that the government today presented a committee directive; a special investigator shall analyze and propose a new strengthened care guarantee with significantly shorter time limits than today. A part of it concerns child and adolescent psychiatry, BUP. It is an issue that the Moderaterna have pushed for a long time.

I want to ask the Prime Minister: What else is the government doing for the mental health of children and young people?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, it is a question large enough for an entire seminar, and I have exactly 56 seconds. This will therefore be a bit rhapsodic.

We take the issue very seriously. Jakob Forssmed has given a presentation to the entire government regarding mental health and existential health. These are incredibly important and long underestimated issues that range from "just" feeling unwell, which we all do at some point in life, to that which is life-threatening. The strategy is largely about increasing accessibility to child and adolescent psychiatry in order to also know what does not require specialist care. It is also about school health, which is deeply underestimated, and about establishing an accident investigation board for every suicide so that something is learned before the next time. A new coordinator for suicide prevention is being appointed.

We are now taking a holistic approach to everything from what will affect all children and young people at some point in life to what are fatal risks. I believe that very many Swedish families unfortunately recognize themselves in precisely these problems.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Free movement is one of the fundamental freedoms in the EU. In a Nordic context, we have had freedom of movement since 1958. In November 2015, Sweden reintroduced border controls to gain control over the massive immigration. The border controls have since been successively extended and are now in their ninth year.

The continued border control has a major negative impact on regional development in southern Sweden. We are in a serious security situation, but we have also enacted new laws that give the police increased powers in border areas. The laws provide increased flexibility at the internal border with great opportunities for person and vehicle checks without a concrete suspicion of a crime.

The border controls, particularly in the rail traffic, have for a long time been sporadic and are judged to be inefficient and time-consuming. My question to the Prime Minister is whether we can possibly see an end to the border controls, to the joy of especially the commuters between Skåne and Själland.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would also wish that we were there. Speaking of the question of difficult trade-offs, this is a good example. There are very many of us, not least Scanians or former Scanians like myself, who value the borderlessness there enormously. At the same time, we see the great risks that exist in a security policy situation that is serious. It is at level four out of five when it comes to the threat situation in Sweden. It is, therefore, difficult trade-offs.

I think the government is doing completely right right now in continuing to prioritize security first. We shall make it as simple as possible but still keep security in focus. The day we perceive that we have such a good grip on the security-threatening issues that we can remove this without any problems, we will do so as soon as we possibly can.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! SD's Kent Ekeroth had a great involvement in Paludan's Quran-burning tour. After the election, he wrote proudly: The Quran riots did their job - dream team. It is an example of a political method to provoke dangerous situations.

Some time ago, we noticed a campaign against Swedish social services from foreign powers with Islamist interests. It was claimed that Swedish authorities kidnapped children from Muslim families.

After Kalla f aktas reportage, we know that SD has registered website addresses aimed at people of Arabic origin. These were mentioned when the LVU campaign came up.

Can the Prime Minister vouch for the fact that SD has not actively participated in the LVU campaign, and has the Prime Minister inquired about what has happened with these website addresses?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Questions concerning the Sweden Democrats are preferably posed to the Sweden Democrats. They can certainly answer what they have done and what they have meant. I have no idea. But I did not perceive it as the questioner wanting to pose their questions to the Sweden Democrats. There are completely different purposes.

I say it again: If people can be suspected of committing crimes in Sweden, there are law enforcement authorities that take responsibility for this. It is not I who is accusing anyone of a crime.

Saying serious nonsense is perfectly legal. There are many examples from many parties of someone having said legal nonsense. It can only be combated by us others saying wiser things.

The Quran burnings, which were primarily highlighted last summer, were by all accounts completely legal but nonetheless deeply inappropriate. I said time and again that it was a matter of who was behind or encouraged those specific acts.

(Applause)

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Russia commits heinous crimes against Ukraine more or less daily. The kidnapping of Ukrainian children is among the most horrific crimes. It is estimated that it concerns over 19,000 children who have been taken away from Ukraine since the outbreak of the war.

When I visited Kyiv two weeks ago, I spoke with a member who pleaded for help in putting pressure on Russia in this matter. The kidnappings are an inhuman crime. Both the children and the relatives are suffering terribly. If the rest of the world does not react resolutely, there is a great risk that the children will be swallowed by Russia forever.

Losing one's child is every parent's worst nightmare, and in these cases, there are tens of thousands of children and parents who constantly live in that nightmare. What is the government doing to put real pressure on Russia to return the children?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first just say that I agree with every word in the description. It is appalling.

When I was in Kyiv last year, I discussed a broad palette of different war crimes with the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, where those here are among the most evil to see. It is absolutely appalling. They have horrific purposes. They break down families and create terrible prospects for the future for very many children, in every way.

I perceive that the collective, civilized world has reacted in the same way. This is one of the things that Russia must be held accountable for when we eventually gather all the consequences of the war.

Right now, there is no possibility of going in and taking the children back, and everyone knows that. That is also a horrific realization, but Russia will be held accountable after the war.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! In Kallinge in Ronneby municipality, 5,000 people have been poisoned by PFAS released into the drinking water by the Swedish Armed Forces. A small group of residents has pursued the issue of compensation, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they are entitled to it. This legal process did not, however, address the main problem, namely that all 5,000 affected individuals face an increased risk of a range of diseases such as cancer and impaired immune systems. What they need most of all is regular health check-ups. So far, however, they have not been offered anything other than a blood test to measure the PFAS levels.

The local health center lacks knowledge about the health effects of PFAS, and it is unreasonable to expect region Blekinge to manage such a large group of patients with complex health problems on its own. Furthermore, it is the state that bears the responsibility for the fact that they have been poisoned. My question to the Prime Minister is whether the government will do something so that those affected in Kallinge receive the care they need.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not wish to diminish the importance of the question in any way, for it sounds very serious, but I must admit that I do not know that matter. I do not know what has happened in Blekinge and cannot provide the legal case. I will gladly take the question with me and ensure that it reaches the right place in the Government Offices.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Everyone who in different ways has been subjected to the Sweden Democrats' smear campaigns - be they journalists, politicians, association members or agency officials - can attest that SD's troll factories should not be compared with the Americanized measures that occasionally occur from several parties.

This is about systematic harassment, polarization, and the splitting of society. It is a threat not only to individuals but to our democracy and our position in the world.

It is not about laws and rules. It is absolutely not about interfering in how other parties act. But it is about courage and leadership.

The Prime Minister speaks about results. The result of SD's troll factories is exactly what we see: division, polarization, harassment, and so on.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: When does the Prime Minister intend to stand firm in the role of Prime Minister and say that this is not an acceptable way to work if one is to sit in a government basis?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have said many times, not least during the last ten days or so, what I think about mud-slinging, what I think about anonymous accusations and what I think about this whole way of conducting political activity or what one shall call it. I have said it many times.

I have also said that every party must take responsibility for what it does. I do not take responsibility for what the Sverigedemokraternas communications department is engaged in. That question is preferably posed to Sverigedemokraterna.

However, I want to say, without for a second diminishing what SD is now accused of, that it is very many Swedes from right to left who in recent years have experienced themselves being severely persecuted and harassed with various accusations on the internet. It should cease, and all eight parties should agree to condemn it.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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