The Prime Minister's Question Time

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister has repeated throughout the autumn that things are brightening on the horizon. It is a provocative description of reality when gang violence is simultaneously creeping further down into the age groups. This year alone, the number of children under 15 who are involved in murder cases has increased by 200 percent. The municipalities' costs for the placement of children and young people are skyrocketing and are now pushing out important early crime-fighting interventions as well as other important welfare activities.

In this situation, the government should be allocating resources, but instead, they are lowering taxes for the richest and urging the municipalities to prioritize. Furthermore, the police are warning that these increasingly expensive placements are being made in HVB homes run by gang criminals. We Social Democrats want to stop this by letting the municipalities take over, but the Prime Minister has said that is a completely unthinkable alternative. How can the Prime Minister defend today's HVB home market?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Those who listened to my government statement quite exactly two months ago I believe understood the nuances. I described that at important points we inherited problems that now look a bit better. It was quite cautious. We inherited a 10 percent inflation. It has now fallen and lies clearly below the inflation target, and thus interest rates are also falling. More people see that a little more money remains in the wallet. It was an important example of a small brightening.

I was careful to point out that migration to Sweden has fallen from very high levels and is now at the lowest since 1997. It is not something one should pledge for the future, but it is a brightening. I was also very careful to describe all the major problems that still lie ahead of us, which it will take the entire 2020s to solve. I do not believe that anyone other than possibly the questioner could have misinterpreted those nuances.

The Prime Minister's Question Time

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister unfortunately displays a lack of crisis awareness when it comes to the HVB homes.

Sweden is in a national crisis where children murder and are murdered, children who have often been cared for in HVB homes. That even gang criminals can run HVB homes and buy and sell them on Blocket like used cars is a failure. The government must act immediately to stop this if the new recruitment is to be broken. Does the Prime Minister not see this?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit touching that the Social Democrats are suddenly in such a hurry. During eight years in government, nothing was urgent, but now it is extremely urgent. Come on, this doesn't impress anyone!

You achieved nothing during eight years, and now you are angry that we are solving a number of problems. The criminal economy is one of the really big problems. We are doing many things to ensure that criminals cannot infiltrate real estate companies, dental clinics, HVB homes - all possible places that you did nothing about for eight years.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister! Yesterday, we were reached by media reports that the so-called Nytorgsman is again suspected of rape, after he earlier this year was released on parole from the five-year prison sentence he was sentenced to just a couple of years ago, following a long series of rapes, assaults, and ruined lives for innocent crime victims.

Notorious rapists belong in prison. I know that the Prime Minister and I agree on that. The consequences for those who commit violence and sexual crimes should not be milder than for the victims of those crimes whose lives are shattered. That serial rapists are released early and can commit new crimes is scandalous. It is a mockery of both previous and new victims.

With the Tidö Agreement, we settle the score with this old, weak Swedish criminal policy. The report "A strengthened social protection and a reduced risk of recidivism" contains, among other things, proposals to abolish two-thirds release. Furthermore, there is a presumption for serving the entire prison sentence, meaning that the starting point is that one serves the entire prison sentence and is not, as today, released on parole more or less automatically. Additionally, there are proposals to introduce an indefinite detention sentence, intended to be usable for precisely notorious, socially dangerous repeat offenders.

The referral period for the report expired on Tuesday, and it is now up to the government to produce a referral to the Council on Legislation and eventually a government bill.

Then my question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister share my assessment that it is of crucial importance that these proposals are implemented as soon as possible, and when does the Prime Minister believe we can have a government bill on the floor of the Riksdag?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer is yes. I completely share that assessment. If the media reports are correct – we must be careful with that – that it concerns the same person who has now been released after two-thirds and that the Prison and Probation Service, despite insights and warnings that there were great risks of recidivism, still could not prevent this, and then crimes were committed again, it is absolutely appalling. I feel deeply for the women who are now once again subjected to his crimes. It is completely horrific.

I think this underlines the need for legislative changes. I believe that we will have enormous broad support when we present the proposals.

It is about punishments that in practice do not become time-limited. That is to say that public safety must take precedence over the time limit. It is about removing the two-thirds rule and about convicted persons having to serve the entire sentence. It is about more life sentences for serious sexual offenses. All of this, I believe, is completely necessary.

I believe that we are fundamentally in complete agreement, which perhaps is not entirely surprising either.

I cannot say the time aspect exactly. We usually have a very high tempo, sometimes so high that we receive criticism for it. Of course, one must wait for the referrals. That has just happened now as well. We will have a very high priority on this, and I expect that we will be able to present a proposition within just a few months. We maintain a high tempo in crime-fighting issues.

Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer has almost a press conference every week, and unfortunately, there are good reasons for that.

I believe there is a very high expectation for high delivery after these issues have not been taken seriously enough for a long time. I share the description of reality and I share the urgency.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I am well aware of the reform burden that lies on, not least, the Ministry of Justice.

The government's mandate is based on the Tidö Agreement being implemented during this mandate period. For the Sweden Democrats, the reorganization of, above all, the criminal justice policy has been a completely decisive priority. This was absolutely fundamental to putting forward the government that the Prime Minister leads.

Yes, very much is happening very quickly. But many would probably wish that it could go even faster. A follow-up question is then: Is there anything else the government can do to further accelerate the progress in these important reforms? We must, after all, get this in place during this mandate period. This applies in particular to the absolutely crucial and important sentencing increases for dangerous criminals.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first just confirm that agreements apply. We are, therefore, in agreement on these matters, and we uphold agreements. Both the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties uphold agreements. There is no doubt about that. It is not particularly difficult, because we are fundamentally in complete agreement on this.

There are questions where we have compromised and landed on middle grounds. Here, we are in complete agreement on what should be done. I am the first to also emphasize the Sweden Democrats' importance for these reforms. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. It is also this that makes us know that we have a majority in the chamber, unlike previous governments. Not even if they had wanted to do things could they have done things, because they could not even write a bill. I think this is important.

There was a year, 2023, when one teased a little bit about this: Oh, you have appointed yet another inquiry - oh, how impressive! Not everyone is a political scientist by profession, and not everyone knows exactly how Swedish legislation works. Then I could say: No, an inquiry does not do the job, but without an inquiry, there is no job to do. It is that simple. Now we have inquiries. We have legislative proposals, and we push them through in the Riksdag. That is how it should be.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! For two years, this government has held power under Ulf Kristersson's so-called leadership. When it took office, Sweden was in an extensive inflation crisis which meant that the people in Sweden were under very hard pressure. During these years, the Riksbank has fiddled with the interest rate weapon to try to curb inflation, which was mainly due to high energy prices as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and to the fact that the food companies and the banks took the opportunity to maximize their profits. The wage earners have foregone real wage increases and taken responsibility for a crisis that was not caused by them.

The costs of this failure have landed on the households and the companies, where the bankruptcies now stand as spikes in the ground and unemployment is skyrocketing, and on the municipalities and the regions, where the school is on its knees and healthcare is in a nationwide crisis.

In this situation, after having rolled up their sleeves for two years, the government and Ulf Kristersson choose to lower taxes. The motive is that it should entice people to work more. It should pay to work. The reasoning is based on the idea that the more money one gets to keep, the more motivation one gets to work.

In my regular job as a mail carrier, I received a tax cut of 175 kronor per month following the government's tax cuts after the turn of the year. The Prime Minister himself receives more than 26 times that much. He can count on receiving over 55,000 kronor more in reduced tax next year.

Is the Prime Minister dissatisfied with the other ministers' willingness to work given how enormous tax cuts he thinks they need, or are these tax cuts the Finance Minister's way of telling the Prime Minister that it is time to stop being lazy at work?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! On some things, one can simply disagree. We disagree. I know that Vänsterpartiet wants really high taxes, if not 100 percent, but in any case as high as possible. It is about really high marginal taxes and about the money being fundamentally owned by the state and that individuals can keep a little bit if they behave. I know that view exists.

I have a different view. The money is fundamentally the individuals'. Then we have taxes in order to be able to finance the common good. People work more and exert themselves more if they get to keep at least half of what they earn when they work extra.

But we disagree. Let us stand by that. Let us vote on that matter. Let the voters decide. Do you want higher taxes in Sweden, or do you want taxes as low as possible? I fight that battle every day.

One cannot think very differently about this. From a left-wing government, we inherited an inflation that was at 10 percent. I am not saying it was the left-wing government's fault. If we are to be completely honest, there were many reasons for this. Some was imported from abroad. Some was about pandemic effects. Some was about broken value chains. Some was about the effects of the war. Nevertheless, it was very high inflation.

We made the assessment, unlike the Left Party, that high inflation is bad for households. You wanted an expansive policy and to fuel the inflation. I asked the Finance Minister: Hold the budget firmly now, so that we win over inflation and so that we can then begin to use the strength of Swedish public finances! That is where we differ. We are right, and you are wrong.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is certainly strange that we have a Prime Minister whose primary strength consists of him tilting his head and looking concerned while the people he is set to lead are weighed down by high food prices, interest rates, and rents.

The only effort that has been made so far from the government's side was, in fact, that they invited the food giants to a coffee break.

He did indeed sit in the TV studio this spring and promised that no staff would lose their jobs in healthcare with his budget. But in line with the economic development, wages and costs in welfare are increasing. Still, welfare resources are not being increased in line with the economy's development. The result is the cuts that we are now seeing.

The government speaks of the reform space as if it were resources that arise on their own without any connection to reduced ambitions for welfare and security systems. Can the Prime Minister describe the government's view on how the reform space arises?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am concerned about quite a few things. I am very concerned about the war in Ukraine and what consequences it will have if the entire Western world does not consistently stand up for Ukraine. I am concerned about the tendencies that existed. They existed, for example, in Vänsterpartiet, which voted no to the first arms delivery to Ukraine. I hope that you are still ashamed. I am concerned about the effects of inflation on households. I am concerned about the security situation in many places in Sweden where there is still shooting.

All of this worries me. The difference is that I do something about these matters. I do not wallow in the problems but do something about them.

This government gets things done. We tackle the problems, get things done, and will meet the Swedish people again. Do you want the same government that created the problems back, or do you want to continue getting Sweden in order? That is where I stand in my leadership.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Security and energy supply are two things that go hand in hand. Two years ago, an agreement was signed regarding the Baltic Sea after Putin's bloody war of invasion started. It was an agreement on closer cooperation regarding renewable energy to move away from Russian oil and gas but also to strengthen the common resilience.

It was decided to expand the offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea by nearly 20 terawatt-hours - seven times as much as today's capacity. This strengthened our common security. But it also met the demand from companies - both small businesses and the large base industry. This is something that Svenskt Näringsliv has also witnessed.

Ulf Kristersson's government, however, chose a slightly different path. They have now stopped 13 offshore wind farms and thereby placed a wet blanket over renewable energy, not only here in Sweden but, by extension, also along all the coasts of the Baltic Sea. They have done so based on the Armed Forces' "no" and with security policy arguments—arguments that were the exact opposite just two years ago and which are now also clearly and distinctly questioned, among other things by the Total Defense Research Institute and by Saab, which is also the manufacturer of the sensors that the Prime Minister now claims would be hindered by expanded wind power.

For someone who, like the Prime Minister, safeguards Swedish security, this undeniably raises questions. I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister: How is it that, so shortly after the decision was made, both expert agencies and the Swedish defense industry are now questioning the Prime Minister's and the government's decision and furthermore claiming the opposite, namely that it would strengthen Swedish security rather than weaken it?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The question is two-fold. One part concerns security and energy supply. In that regard, I share the view that we need a secure energy supply that is not dependent on powers that we should not be dependent on. I fundamentally share Emmanuel Macron's description: We cannot outsource all security to the USA, all trade to China, and all energy to Russia, to put it in his words.

We need to be independent when it comes to our energy supply. This is one of the reasons why we think it is so important to have stable base energy in the form of fossil-free nuclear power, something that you, for various reasons, are usually opposed to.

The second part is the very concrete question regarding offshore wind power. Firstly, I would like to recommend a conversation with Saab's CEO; I have had such a conversation myself. He will then describe in detail what he and Saab believe and think about this. Not everything that is in the newspaper is accurately perceived.

Secondly, I am completely stunned that so many self-appointed experts are now over-reviewing the Armed Forces' detailed account of what 13 offshore wind farms would mean for the defense's ability to protect the Swedish east coast against Russia, from Kaliningrad. You should all change jobs! You obviously know more about this than all the country's military experts!

The Armed Forces are now pointing out that the warning time goes from 2 minutes to 60 seconds. I would not dare to take that chance. I would not dare to gamble on that Muharrem Demirok's guess saves the Swedish defense.

One last thing worth mentioning is that many are now eager to point out these thirteen noes, which I fully stand by for security reasons, but forget to point out the three yeses that we have decided on during the last two years. The previous government, Muharrem Demirok's government, decided on only one during an eight-year period.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! In the Prime Minister's response, I hear a questioning of my and others' respect for Sweden's defense capability, simply because we raise this question. I must say that it is ugly of the Prime Minister. It is directly disrespectful and lacking in judgment, and now enough is quite enough!

The experts the Prime Minister calls self-appointed are in fact the Prime Minister's own expert agency, the Total Defence Research Institute. They are not laypeople; they have this as their task. Saab's CEO, Saab, which delivers these products, says that it is possible to find solutions.

Does the Prime Minister not understand the seriousness of the fact that, so shortly after the decision has been made, mistrust is created toward the decision when expert agencies within the defense industry question it? Does the Prime Minister not understand that this also raises questions?

Our respect for Swedish defense capability is something we agree on in here. It should not be questioned. It is ugly! Our defense capability is priority one, but somewhere we must also get clarity on what applies moving forward.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are fundamentally two different attitudes towards risks. One is the Finnish one: Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

The second thing is what we see here: We hope that it works out and that it works anyway. We are taking a chance!

For me, it is utterly irresponsible and astonishing that one does not take those kinds of arguments to heart. If the Armed Forces had said "for reasons we do not intend to disclose, we do not like wind power. Therefore, we say no, and you shall trust us," then I would have understood that a certain question mark would have arisen.

Now the Armed Forces have described in detail how they view a scenario above and below the water where 13 offshore wind farms are located between Russia and the Swedish mainland, and they issue a firm warning regarding them.

I am not going to jeopardize Swedish security because Muharrem Demirok wants it.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! All around the world, women's rights and lives are being restricted. Access to safe abortions is decreasing, legislation intended to prevent violence against women by men is being loosened, and access to safe contraceptives is still reaching far too few.

The government has on several occasions emphasized that both equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights are central values in the foreign policy being pursued. Unfortunately, the words are not followed by action, rather the opposite. Support for several UN bodies working with these issues is decreasing, aid is shrinking, and our international engagement, our voice that was once so strong, is becoming increasingly silent.

Now we have once again elected Donald Trump to the White House, and that means that the EU's global work for both women's rights and sexual and reproductive health becomes all the more important.

How does the government intend to act so that both Sweden's and the EU's international work in the area can be strengthened and secured? We have seen before that with Trump in the White House, it is not only the rights of American women that are at risk, but it will also have a global impact.

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 fundamentally share the description of the importance of these issues. Sexual and reproductive health is a completely fundamental issue when it comes to health, human rights, equality and education. I therefore completely share that description and think that these are extremely important issues.

Sweden is quite well known around the world for the fact that we often make our voices heard in these issues and continue to do so. It is an event that looks like a thought that Benjamin Dousa and I as recently as today at the government meeting discussed precisely these issues with everyone else present. It is incredibly important.

Since the amount of misery in the world is quite large, all countries must often focus: Where can we do the greatest good? It is no secret that we have focused very heavily on where we can do the greatest good with our aid funds, and that is Ukraine. I am not ashamed of that for one moment.

We, like all other countries, have an extra large responsibility when things happen in our immediate vicinity. That means we have allocated very many resources exactly there. But it does not mean that we do not continue to make major efforts, not least in UN bodies, when it comes to specifically sexual and reproductive health. There we shall remain.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If there is any area where Sweden's efforts have historically been particularly significant, it is regarding SRHR. It is therefore worrying that the government has reduced the aid to the UN agencies that work with that issue.

The last time Donald Trump entered the White House and introduced a global gag rule that withdrew funding for SRHR, we were prepared with a plan. Miljöpartiet was responsible for the aid policy. We increased the funds to relevant UN agencies, we mobilized political and financial support globally, and we also pushed for Sida to focus on SRHR because so many other countries, not least the USA, were withdrawing.

I therefore want to ask if the government has a corresponding plan. Will the government step up?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us first agree that one can disagree on how much money in total should go to aid. That can be discussed. We have our budget, and you surely have another budget. Then the one who has the most mandates in the Riksdag must win.

Then one can discuss, within the framework of the money that exists, how it should best be used. That plan is very clear. One only has to read in the budget and in all the material where the Minister for Foreign Aid describes how Swedish work functions.

Sweden is one of the world's absolute largest contributors to the UN system and various UN bodies, including this issue. We should be proud of that. Let us not wallow in self-reproach over this. We are making very large contributions. Nevertheless, we have an extra large responsibility for major conflicts that exist in our immediate vicinity, and the government will stand up for that.

(Applause)

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Since this government took office, we in the Riksdag have, in principle every week, made decisions on more and sharper tools for the police. In just two years, it is a matter of more than double what the previous government managed to do during eight years, and even more are furthermore on the way.

One of these sharp new tools is the new forfeiture legislation which now makes it possible to seize assets of criminal origin from criminals regardless of whether the crime has been proven or not.

This law entered into force last week. Can any effects be seen, Prime Minister, already now? What does the government intend and calculate for the future?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is a very important issue. I was there and met the police commissioner and the staff who have worked on the preparations before the law was introduced a few days ago. Since then, I have followed the issue on a daily basis because I find it so incredibly interesting.

That we haven't had this before! How is it possible that people who obviously commit crimes and drive million-dollar cars haven't been stripped of their belongings? And now we have this law, and we want to know if it works. Therefore, I have almost daily contact regarding how this has gone. It has been partly about being prepared to do things immediately, which one was, and partly about being prepared for the risk of threats. You can imagine what happens when you take cars and watches from people—vulnerable people, moreover.

The answer is that 44 cases have been initiated. It concerns gold bars, Rolex watches, Mercedes, Porsche and Audi - at least 10 million kronor, so far.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In September, the government decided on a strategy for Sweden's development cooperation with civil society. Sida has selected 24 organizations that are eligible to apply for larger grants. Another nine organizations may apply, but only for up to 5 million kronor. Among them is PMU, which in this way loses 40 million a year.

When Sida was asked why, the answer was that there were too many Christian organizations in the first group. It was therefore not the quality that was decisive, but it was a question of an organization on a Christian basis.

What does the Prime Minister and the government consider to weigh most? Is it an organization that performs high-quality work to create better living conditions for people in poverty and oppression, and to strengthen the rights and opportunities of children, girls, and women? Or is it whether a successful organization happens to be Christian?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can neither nor should comment on how Sida has made decisions in individual cases. That question must be asked of Sida and followed up in the traditional manner.

However, I both can and want to say a few words about the strategy that we established. It was to get more focus on efficiency in aid, more transparency and evaluability. Several newspapers have shown with devastating clarity that there has been a complete lack of control over what the money has been used for. It is about quality and results.

It is now Sida's task to make decisions and assess which civil society organizations should receive support and how to follow up and evaluate that work. It is their task.

Then the government will follow up on how they perform their task, and there we ask to be allowed to return at our annual follow-ups.

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! My question, Mr. Prime Minister, concerns the fight against intolerance and racism.

We see today how people of African origin are subjected to hate crimes and threatened, how Jews are hit hard by attacks and by synagogues and Jewish institutions being subjected to threats. We know that Roma are targets for discrimination and intolerance. Mosques are attacked, and Muslims endure severe prejudices.

For us liberals and for the bourgeois government, the fight against all forms of racism is completely fundamental. This applies both for individual individuals and for a free and open society. I know that the government has previously signaled a reinforcement of the work. Therefore, I wonder what the government is doing to work against racism and intolerance.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The formal and somewhat bureaucratic but nevertheless important answer is that we are working on a new action plan against racism and hate crimes. It sounds as dry as it perhaps is when one writes a paper. But therein lies, and will lie, a number of strategies gathered for how we work with this. That work is ongoing at this very moment, for precisely the reasons stated. These are extremely important issues.

Let me broaden the question a little bit. I still dare to assert that Sweden is fundamentally a tolerant society. It is important to say that because it is a self-image that we want to have. If one says that, one must also say that there are many problems. The fundamental liberal paradox is that we want to be truly tolerant and always find the limit of tolerance at intolerance. There we must be crystal clear and put a stop.

I think we have these instincts, but the problems undoubtedly remain.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces a number of societal problems today. Unemployment is high; the highest in ten years. We see record-breaking layoffs within the health and medical care sector. The Swedish growth figures are among the lowest in the EU, while the gang shootings just continue and are creeping down in age.

In this difficult situation for the country, the government chooses, therefore, to move forward with a targeted tax cut for the very wealthiest. The Prime Minister can, for his part, look forward to a tax cut of over 3,000 kronor a month next year.

How does the Prime Minister mean that it is a well-considered prioritization to spend several billion on a small group of well-off individuals instead of directing the resources toward the many and large societal problems that we face today?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I still appreciate that there is some consistency in Swedish politics. For the Social Democrats, there is no problem that cannot be solved with a tax increase. Imagine how simple the world must be. All problems can be solved as long as ordinary wage earners are left with a little less for themselves.

It is easy to get a problem-free world. A tax hike of 100 percent has solved all problems. This is not what we believe. I do not think you believe it either, but it is the best conflict you find.

We inherited some really big problems. We inherited 10 percent inflation that had been created before us and which we have fought down. We inherited really high unemployment, especially among foreign-born people who do not speak Swedish. We are now doing something about too much immigration and for poor integration.

Since then, we have inherited difficult growth problems in Sweden and in the entire EU, which we are working intensively on right now – most recently at the European Council meeting on Thursday.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the Riksdag, we are currently preparing both the government's communication on a national security strategy and the total defense bill. We identify external and internal threats, as well as actor-driven and non-actor-driven threat landscapes.

The authoritarian axis powers - Russia, China, Iran and several others - have for years shown themselves to be successful in eating their way into civil infrastructure and the Swedish body of society from local to national level.

Preparedness at a national level is one thing. Preparedness at a local level can be something completely different. We, as elected representatives for the people of Sweden, often face questions about a lack of preparedness and a hunger for action in our vast country.

Therefore, I want to ask the Prime Minister how he and the government intend to balance the complex threat pictures that exist when it comes to strengthening the resilience in municipalities and regions and ensuring that autonomy, freedom of action, and not least competitiveness are not undermined by these authoritarian actors at different levels of society.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! National security issues are, I would say, the government's absolute epicenter. That does not mean that many other things are not also important, but I believe everyone who has followed the government's work on internal and external security and on protecting us from war, from hybrid threats, and from gang crime knows this. It is quite high up in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it must be admitted, but it is absolutely necessary if one is to be able to have a society that functions otherwise.

The war in our vicinity, the strong defense, the NATO membership, the hybrid threats where actors act with disinformation, influence operations and many other things, and the cross-pollination between terrorism in other countries and armed, risk-taking gang criminals in Sweden is something relatively new that also interests other parts of the world. We take all of this very seriously.

To this is added the entire civil defense initiative, a massive investment in that which was previously almost forgotten in Sweden.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has stopped 13 large wind power projects in the Baltic Sea, and that at a time when we need to increase Swedish electricity production significantly to be able to carry out the green transition. Offshore wind power also has great potential to achieve a necessary increased electricity production in southern Sweden within a reasonable timeframe.

The government has an overall role with both the responsibility and the opportunity to ensure that national security interests do not clash more than necessary with energy interests. But here, it seems a head-on collision has occurred.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Why is the government so slow and insufficient when it comes to the establishment of offshore wind power?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! My astonishment does not diminish. I agree on one thing here: We must ensure that national security interests do not clash with the energy supply. That was exactly what we did when we said no to 13 projects that the Armed Forces describe in detail as clashing with vital national security interests. One can have different opinions on this as well. I am convinced that Swedish security must come first when we are given such well-documented reasons for this.

I find it equally astonishing that it is never said that we achieve the other. We have made decisions to say yes to three different offshore wind farms in two years. The previous government, which said it was for offshore wind power, made a decision on a project in eight years. How slow can one be?

What we have done now is to speed up the decisions so that one knows in good time whether one is allowed to build or not. It is to not drag one's feet and jeopardize Swedish security.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I know that the Prime Minister and I share an interest in hunting and forestry. We also seem to share an interest in property rights, given the letter that Ulf Kristersson sent out to the country's forest owners before the election, where he promised that only those affected by forestry measures should be able to influence them.

However, it clashes quite badly with the stories I receive from Jämtland Härjedalen, where half of all the forest reported for logging is not allowed to be touched. It becomes purely comical when you have black grouse in the forest – you are allowed to shoot black grouse but not log the forest.

I will not bring up the constitutional law investigation or the species protection investigation, as the Prime Minister cannot comment on those. However, I want to bring up the question of who is allowed to have an opinion on the forest, as it is not being addressed anywhere today. The Center Party believes that the Swedish interpretation of what is considered the affected public, who thereby have the right to appeal environmental decisions, must be revised.

My question is what initiatives the Prime Minister intends to take to ensure that it is truly those who are affected who get to have their say and not just anyone who happens to be in a forest, all in order to secure property rights.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must admit that I cannot answer in detail every part of this. However, I know very firmly what I think on issues of property rights - very firmly. Property rights are completely fundamental. Property rights, not least in forest and land, have been neglected in Sweden, probably with a purpose, for a long time.

Therefore, I believe we had a similar understanding before the election, and it is my conviction that we have good opportunities to reach an agreement on these matters.

Then we both know that this is now being investigated in at least one major investigation. I really hope that they will come to a result that also strengthens the ownership rights to forest and land in Sweden.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish animal husbandry and animal welfare act is something that the vast majority of Swedes are very proud of. Some would even call it a Swedish value.

There is now, however, a strong and justified concern that this could deteriorate, as an investigation has proposed that the grazing requirement for cattle should be scrapped. Instead, animal welfare in Sweden should naturally be further strengthened.

My question is: Can Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson guarantee that Sweden's cows will have the right to graze outdoors even in the future?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the questioner knows and respects that I do not comment on matters that are currently under investigation and which the government is to take a position on. We will return with our collective proposal.

However, I completely share the view that good animal welfare, not least compared to many other countries, is a Swedish core value. There is very broad support in Sweden for having very high requirements and very great care for animals. Then, I am not expert enough to assess exactly in what ways this should be done, but a fundamental value is to take good care of animals and have care for animals – this naturally also applies to where they are during the day and how they receive their food. I believe that the vast majority think this is a very important matter.

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

Emma Ahlström Köster (M)

Mr. Speaker! Exercise, movement, and creativity have a significant effect on health, and no large amount is required for it to have positive effects on mental well-being. Unfortunately, we see a declining mental well-being, especially among young people and girls, a trend that is worrying and must, of course, be broken.

Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister visited Perstorp in my home region of Skåne to take part in a project called Häng med oss ut. It is a method for creating opportunities for people with mental ill-health to get out into nature and experience these positive health effects.

I wonder what the Prime Minister takes away from the meeting with Friluftsfrämjandet into the political work ahead.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, fundamentally exactly what is implied – how incredibly important the connection between head and body is. We know that. It has been researched in many different ways that movement promotes many other things.

That is also why we are concerned about children's sedentary behavior, the link to overweight and outright obesity, inactivity, and a lack of social interaction.

I think we should think like this. For a very long time in Sweden, there was an almost self-evident tradition that children and young people were schooled in physical activity. It could be sports. It could be Skogsmulle and hiking in Skogssverige. That is not as self-evident for everyone anymore. Not everyone has to do the same thing, but all children and young people need to move - as far as is possible, naturally. We as parents have a great responsibility for that. Civil society has a responsibility, but politics also has a responsibility for this.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Recently, football supporters in Amsterdam were attacked simply because they were Jews. This evening, we had a situation in Antwerp where a train carriage was kicked while "judecancer" was shouted. A few blocks from here, on Sveavägen, a demonstration was held some time ago where "No Zionists on our streets" was chanted. They also shouted "From the river to the sea", meaning that there should be no Israel.

This has created concern among Swedish Jews for their own safety. They no longer dare to wear a kippah and show their identity.

How does the Prime Minister view this? What do we need to do to get rid of the terrible poison that antisemitism constitutes in our country?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with the description. This is truly appalling. Unfortunately, we have seen it in many places, even if not exactly in this way.

I was at the European Council meeting on Thursday and Friday and spoke with the Netherlands' rather new Prime Minister, who left the meeting to be involved and take care of the consequences of this together with the mayor of Amsterdam. They took it extremely seriously, which everyone else naturally appreciates. They were completely horrified by this.

We have seen a dramatic increase in the wake of October 7. We may differ between countries and within countries regarding the conflict in the Middle East, but we have full responsibility for how things go here at home.

I think that we in this government have been extremely clear about where we stand and what we think about this and with our expectations of how people should behave in Sweden. Everything that is legal is not really appropriate, and one can also wonder if some things are even legal at all. We take this very seriously.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Unemployment is at its highest in ten years and continues to increase. Nursing assistants and construction workers are losing their jobs, their livelihood, and an important social context. Losing one's job is a major crisis. Many feel anxiety and stress about how they will be able to pay the bills and whether they will be able to find a new job.

In light of the job crisis we are actually facing, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: Why does the government continue with its massive cuts to the job policy while unemployment is at its highest in ten years?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We inherited a really high unemployment rate from the previous government. There were many reasons for this. One important reason was, of course, that the economy and the high inflation did not create new jobs. Another important reason was the consequences of both the pandemic and the war. This applied to many countries.

A third reason was that long-term high immigration and completely ill-considered integration has created what economists call structural unemployment, with people who do not enter the labor market at all. These people do not speak Swedish and have never worked, least of all in Sweden. They do not have any of the skills that the Swedish business sector demands. This unemployment is due to systematic failures in Sweden over a very long period.

Now we are changing all of this. If we are to achieve this, however, in the long run we cannot have very many people in Sweden living on benefits despite being fully capable of working, while at the same time we need to bring in labor immigrants even for low-skilled jobs. Therefore, we are also shifting that policy.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Last week, four men were sentenced for a brutal gang rape of a 15-year-old. The sentences for two of the men were five years of imprisonment, which clearly exceeds what is normally required for deportation due to a crime. The prosecutor, however, chose not to demand deportation with reference to personal circumstances of the defendants. These circumstances were furthermore secret. When the media asked questions about this, the Prosecution Authority refused to answer.

On Tuesday, the same authority announced that they had now changed their position. Now, there were suddenly no personal circumstances – instead, the prosecutor had forgotten to demand deportation, which they will now rectify in an appeal.

This story does not exactly inspire confidence. Without going into the individual case, which we naturally cannot do in this chamber, I want to ask the Prime Minister if there are reasons to generally review how the Prosecution Authority works with the issue of deportation due to crime.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Above all, there are reasons to revise the law, and that is what we are doing. Our task is to write and make decisions on laws which independent authorities then execute and work according to.

I completely agree that today far too few are deported after having committed serious crimes. Sometimes it is laughably few who are deported, despite repeated and serious crime. It is completely unacceptable.

Sometimes it is because the law is not fully utilized, and then we rewrite the law so that it is used. Sometimes it is because Sweden has special rules that cause more consideration to be given to the convicted persons than to the crime victims - that the person to be deported remains so that he can have contact with his loved ones, instead of the crime victim being safe.

In some cases, it is sufficient for the person sentenced to deportation to refuse to be deported themselves - then the country the person comes from will not accept him. We are now reversing all of this.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! Despite the fact that all children have a right to a school free from discrimination, we see recurring reports of extensive problems with, among other things, racism. For several years, Rädda Barnen and the Friends Foundation have pointed out the problem of racism in schools. Now, the Equality Ombudsman has also stated in a recent report that racism is a major societal problem which, not least in schools, primarily affects Afro-Swedish children and students.

It is certainly not surprising that racism is growing in a country where a party with roots in the white power movement and Nazism is involved and gets to govern large parts of the government's policy. We also have a Prime Minister who makes a distinction between racism and racism, which is completely absurd and unprecedented.

I still wonder if Ulf Kristersson and his right-wing nationalist government have a plan to ensure that Sweden follows international laws regarding discrimination and thereby also ensuring that all children – Afro-Swedish, Jewish, and Muslim – who are subjected to racism in school will never have to be subjected to it in the future.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are times when I seriously question the left's honest motives in its anti-racism rhetoric.

Last year, some people did everything they could to humiliate and mock Muslims by burning Qurans. Even though it is legal, I said time and again: Don't do it! Then no one asked if I didn't view antisemitism with equal seriousness.

Now I say: Stop showing your antisemitic faces! Stop saying that the state of Israel has no right to exist and that Jews are responsible for all the world's misery! Now, instead, I am repeatedly asked if I am not equally concerned about Islamophobia. It is such hypocrisy!

The answer to the member's question is that every school has the responsibility to ensure that this does not occur. But in a Swedish school that has problems with rowdiness, brawls, violence and threats, there are of course also such problems. All of this must out of Swedish school.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! For many years, crime and gross violence were allowed to grow to system-threatening levels. The previous government began, after a long time, to increase the penalties somewhat. This was naturally good, but at the same time, the pattern-breaking reforms were completely absent.

The government has launched a broad offensive to push back the gangs and the violence. One of the important reforms that has been implemented began to apply last week, namely that of independent forfeiture. The Prime Minister has previously during the question period accounted for the effects it has had already during the first week.

What additional signals has the Prime Minister received regarding what the effects will be moving forward concerning independent forfeiture?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, it is worth pointing out that some in the previous government constellation are very keen to point out that it was they who commissioned the investigation. That was very good, but they could never have written a law, because they were not in agreement on the substance. The benefit that those on the left can now provide is to get the credit for voting yes to the legislative proposals that only we can submit. That is good enough! Then they are doing some good, and that is good.

I believe that the forfeiture legislation will have far-reaching consequences because it will also send crystal-clear signals to children and young people that this is not how you are allowed to get nice things or status items. It is almost the opposite, that you will be deprived of them if you cannot show that you have acquired them in an honest way.

I believe that this will reduce the recruitment power of gangs, who cannot offer such things. It will also reduce the attractiveness of the sordid lifestyle that exists there. I believe therefore that this will, in the long run, have far-reaching consequences that are good.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates are now shifting the focus from perpetrators to victims of crime. We are the first government to truly show through action that we stand on the side of the vulnerable. Honor violence and oppression is one of the absolutely gravest forms of violence and oppression, and the vulnerable person is often subjected not only by one person but by an entire family and surroundings. There is therefore a big difference compared to violence in close relationships. The culture of honor must therefore be recognized and fought as its own area.

There are, however, clear links between honor violence and gang crime. Not least, both the police and the Swedish Crime Prevention Council have stated that these often work together.

How does the Prime Minister view this connection and the work ahead?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that it is an underestimated issue being raised here. When I worked with the issue of honor violence here in Stockholm in the early 2000s, one could hardly talk about it. Honor violence was hardly recognized, and it was almost racism to imply that it existed. Today it is completely obvious that it exists and is a major problem, and the social services work extensively with this issue.

The Prime Minister's Question Time

I was in Hässelby yesterday, and then we discussed exactly this in light of the LVU campaign. This is interesting. Part of the LVU campaign is just total misunderstandings, ignorance and so on, but part of it is about intentional disinformation because people do not want Swedish legislation to cover children who today are subjected to honor crimes. Then this is extra important.

I am filled with admiration for the social services' incredibly difficult work with these issues. The law must unequivocally stand on their side, the police must be able to investigate this type of crime, and we in politics must systematically say that in Sweden, children's rights apply to all children, not just some.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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