The Prime Minister's Question Time

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! In his government statement in September 2024, the Prime Minister spoke of a criminal policy offensive without equal. But reality speaks for itself. According to the police's statistics, Sweden was hit between September 2024 and May 2025 by 161 shootings, in which 39 people were killed and 36 were injured, and 142 explosions, of which a full 33 were in January alone. Organized crime shows no signs of retreat despite the promised offensive.

At the same time as this violence is occurring on our streets, gang criminals have been able to establish themselves within the welfare sector. They operate, among other things, HVB homes—meaning facilities intended to protect children in vulnerable situations but which instead have become bases for crime and recruitment. The police have warned that certain HVB homes are used as warehouses for weapons and drugs and that children in the care of the community risk being sucked into the gangs' inner circles. This is not just about a lack of supervision; it is a systemic failure.

We know that almost 75 percent of all HVB homes in Sweden are run by private actors. This means that our common tax funds intended for care and safety in some cases finance serious crime, in a system where permits can even be sold on Blocket. It can be called nothing other than weak and sometimes perhaps even non-existent control.

I therefore ask the Prime Minister: When will this come to an end? When does the government intend to regain control over the HVB operations and ensure that the children are protected and not placed in the hands of criminals?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first of all convey Sweden's condolences on the occasion of the terrible accident that occurred with a more or less full commercial aircraft on its way from India to Great Britain. It concerns a terribly large number of fatalities from India and Great Britain. Such things happen very rarely. But it is terrible every time it occurs, and Sweden offers its condolences.

Mr. Speaker! It is absolutely correct that we are making a very major reorganization of the criminal policy. I know that you could not or would not have done it, but we are doing it. Yesterday or possibly the day before, we presented a practically new penal code. It is about a shift in perspective in the view of crime victims and societal protection – everything that Sweden has lacked for such a long time. This reorganization we are doing now.

Quite often the Social Democrats vote yes to our changes, which is late but welcome. You yourselves could not have put the proposals on the table because you could not have obtained a majority for them even within your own government. But you are welcome to do the good you can do by voting yes to a number of our proposals. What is sad is only that the Left Party and the Green Party often vote no to the changes we put on the table, which suggests what a Social Democratic, Left Party, and Green Party government could have done about these things, that is to say, nothing.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to say that the results are obvious. The police are unequivocal. More crimes are being prevented and stopped before they are committed. More crimes are being solved, especially in gang criminal environments, and we are locking up many more. I pointed out yesterday that we have 19,000 sentenced prison years, primarily because dangerous people are locked up for much longer. You were not able to do such a thing, but that is what we do.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to be precise, I said one other thing before the election for which I received criticism: that it will take a full 20 years to overhaul the policy. So great are the Swedish problems with gang crime and integration-related failures that also lead to crime. It will take time to overhaul this policy and make it effective, and precisely for that reason we have drive in our steps and are in a hurry – so much of a hurry that we receive criticism, sometimes from you, because we are in too much of a hurry and go too hard and too far. We can live with that criticism.

We see good results, but the work is far from finished.

(Applause)

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me remind the Prime Minister that we increased eighty penalties and opened police training programs that previous conservative governments had shut down.

What the Prime Minister possibly missed was the answer to my question: When will we get an end to HVB homes run by gang criminals who recruit young people who are in need of society's care? Or was the answer perhaps that it will take the 20s or twenty years? It was not entirely obvious to me.

I ask the Prime Minister again: When can we expect to have HVB homes and an operation that society has control over, where the young are not recruited into criminal gangs and where HVB homes are not used as warehouses for weapons and drugs? When, Prime Minister?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I said that it will take many years to seriously solve the major problems linked to excessive immigration, poor integration, and poor crime policy. We have significantly changed course – otherwise, you could not have voted yes to these proposals – but it will take time before all of this has an effect. It is quite obvious. Anyone who pretends that one quickly breaks down social exclusion, gang culture, honor culture, and lawlessness does not know what they are talking about. But we see good results.

Let me point out that the Health and Social Services Inspectorate placed 40 proposals on the previous government's table which you ignored. You possibly did something about one or two things while we are working on 19 of their remedial changes. This includes, among other things, better control to be able to stop them with incorrect purposes for their activities and to be able to remove poor providers.

But it is an interesting sign. Gang crime exists everywhere, including in the Social Democrats' own lotteries. You also have problems to handle.

(Applause)

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Over the last decade, a phenomenon has become increasingly serious, namely telephone scammers who deceive the elderly and those with dementia in various ways. This became particularly relevant when it turned out that the Social Democrats had a lottery where gang criminals, even Adriana's murderer, sold lottery tickets from Solkusten.

Like icing on the mashed potatoes, it turned out that they used their own membership registers as a customer base for those companies when they were to sell lottery tickets to the elderly, i.e., the Social Democrats' own members here in Sweden. It is shameful.

Now, the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are limiting these behaviors through the regulations we are moving forward with. But I want to ask the Prime Minister how other companies that conduct that type of activity, i.e., telephone scams, can be stopped on a more general and broad level.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is a highly topical issue, for several reasons. One is broader, that we are now seriously tackling those who attempt to deceive the elderly. The banks are an incredibly important part of this. I have had meetings with all the bank managers to discuss how they themselves can access, for example, the abuse of digital credentials, which many use.

The second thing is that the police are on the issue of fraud against the elderly. I was myself with the police when an 85-year-old woman on Lidingö had just been deceived and saw what it does to people who have been brutally deceived out of a lot of money.

The third is the special lotteries. It must be divided into two parts. One is that the Social Democrats had rigged a regulatory framework that would benefit precisely their lotteries. We are now removing that. There should not be special regulatory frameworks that are generous towards specific political parties, regardless of whether they abuse it or not. We are removing that.

Then there is the special question, how one can even have gang criminal connections to their lotteries. But that is probably more of a broad example of how gang criminals are getting into everything. That is the problem.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Prime Minister!

My follow-up question is linked to the Prime Minister's answer at the end. Regarding that activity, the Social Democrats operate another company called Svenska Lotterier och Insamlingar AB. There, they use the trademarks of charitable organizations to sell lotteries, and a portion of the profit goes to the Social Democrats' party fund. This means that people who buy a lottery ticket in the belief that they are supporting research and charity are, in fact, supporting the Social Democrats.

The Prime Minister often says: Not everything that is legal is appropriate. I wonder how the Prime Minister views this phenomenon.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the bill we have submitted, there are three central changes. One is that it shall no longer be possible to sell party-political lotteries on credit. People who should not be buying lotteries must not be deceived. The second is that even political lotteries shall pay gambling tax. We are removing an exemption that was intended to benefit the Social Democrats. The third is that if one now sells lotteries, it must be clear, crystal clear, which party is behind it.

If this is not enough, we will consider a ban. But I have good hopes that this will reduce the abuse.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! The humanitarian situation in Gaza is devastating. The entire population is facing famine and suffering in a totally bombed-out Gaza. The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel's occupation is illegal and must end. The Court has also ruled that no other state may support Israel's occupation of Palestine.

The Swedish company Aimpoint delivers red dot sights to Israel through a cooperation agreement with the Israeli company Emtan. They have later been discovered on weapons distributed to Israeli settlers and in the possession of the Israeli military by the Minister of Security Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Itamar Ben-Gvir has now been sanctioned by the United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Swedish government considers that he should also be covered by EU sanctions. Should the government then also stop arms trade with Israel and introduce an arms embargo against Israel?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will start from the end. When it comes to the sale of weapons and defense materiel, Sweden, as everyone knows, has had very restrictive legislation for many years. It is an independent authority, ISP, that makes decisions on to what extent it may be sold at all and to which countries. It is not the government that makes these decisions. I have no knowledge of this specific case, but the decisions must have passed through ISP. Otherwise, one is not allowed to sell. I feel secure with that handling.

When it comes to the much broader question of Gaza, we agree on one thing; it is a terrible situation in Gaza. Israel deserves criticism. And they are receiving criticism, increasingly and also from other EU countries. That is good, but it is not yet enough.

However, I think many incorrect images are being spread of what Sweden is doing now. Active disinformation is being spread that Sweden does not support Gaza's civilian population. That is completely incorrect. We are second largest in the EU and fifth largest in the world in terms of humanitarian aid to the civilian population in Gaza. To deny this is to whip up the atmosphere in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Even though the government is doing some things, it is obvious that the government could do much more to put pressure on Israel's government. It is a marginally tougher tone from the government towards Israel that we have seen during the late spring, but it is far from sufficient.

Now, among other things, a review is taking place of the favorable association agreement between the EU and Israel. It is evident that Israel, through the genocide it is carrying out in Gaza, is violating human rights and thereby violating the agreement with the EU.

Will Sweden push for the association agreement with Israel to be suspended?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true. We are pushing for a review of that agreement. And we are pushing for sanctions against individuals who we believe act in an extremist manner. All of this pushes Sweden within the framework of the EU – and we are also making really large efforts. We have doubled the support to the civilian population in Gaza.

All this should be said in plain terms by those who instead spread terror romance and pretend that Sweden is doing nothing to stop the threat and the hatred that is being spread in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! These weeks are, amidst everything else happening, student celebrations. It signifies big steps in life, not least for the young people. But we can see that there is great uncertainty about what awaits in working life and the conditions for finding the paths forward.

We have a major unemployment crisis in Sweden. Over 500,000 are unemployed. Half a million corresponds to 8.6 percent. Aside from the pandemic, unemployment is now the highest since 2010. We have the third highest unemployment in the EU, higher than in, for example, Greece.

We can also see that 100,000 have lost their jobs in recent years, under the Tidö government's responsibility. And this spring, we have received news of further layoffs, closures, and bankruptcies. It hits people and regions all over our country very hard.

One of many examples is from my home in Värmland. In northern Torsby, Moelven has made a decision to close a sawmill. It affects 38 people: 24 employees and 14 suppliers. It will have extra large consequences in a region where there are few alternatives on the labor market.

Furthermore, 28 percent of young people under 25 are unemployed.

We have an enormous amount to think about. How are jobs created? The opportunities lie in that small companies, which are the job creators, should be given opportunities to actually create jobs.

My question to the Prime Minister is: What concrete measures does the government intend to take this summer so that more people are employed and more jobs are created in our country?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me divide the answer into two parts, both of which are important. I believe we will be able to agree on one part and disagree on one part.

One part is that, fundamentally, Swedish unemployment is divided into two parts. We have very high unemployment among people who have come to Sweden, who do not speak Swedish, who have low education, and who perhaps have no experience at all of the Swedish labor market. It is an immigration-related unemployment that is structural, long-term, and independent of economic cycles. Not least, Centerpartiet bears a significant responsibility for the unsustainable immigration policy that was conducted for a long time. Now we are changing that policy.

The second part is cyclical. We all know that unemployment rises in a recession and falls in an economic boom. It is nothing dramatic, as long as people have a chance to get a new job. Often it has worked well in Sweden. We are good at retraining, at upskilling as they say in English, and at acquiring new skills. We have extensive programs and systems for this that often work very well. It is also important that one really learns the things that are needed in the labor market that is now emerging.

Much is also about the high inflation. The high inflation made it difficult for many companies to manage the competition. We have now brought down the inflation. Last year, we reinforced the public interventions by 70 billion kronor to get the wheels moving again. It is normal for what we do in Sweden to counter temporary unemployment.

I am much more concerned about the immigration-related unemployment than about that which is mostly due to the economic cycle. But one must also keep an eye on the latter.

The second thing the member points out is the business climate. There, we agree on almost everything: a better business climate in Sweden, lower taxes for those who make great contributions and take great risks, rural entrepreneurship and forestry entrepreneurship.

Then one wonders a bit curiously: With whom are you going to get that policy through as long as you have your friends to the left?

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! I interpret the Prime Minister's answer as that this is a normal situation, which is accepted.

Instead of coming up with concrete measures this spring that meet the challenges of the labor market, the government chooses to increase costs for companies by 11 billion. It becomes more expensive to hire and harder to hire. You are making it more difficult to secure skills, and you are creating a great deal of additional red tape for the companies.

Instead of actively meeting the difficult challenge that Sweden now faces with the large unemployment crisis, the government chooses to wait or to not return with anything more than very marginal measures that coordinate efforts. It does not create new jobs. It also does not create opportunities for people, especially young people, to take the step into employment or occupation.

The question remains: How does the government, with the Prime Minister at the helm, intend to reduce red tape, lower costs for companies and meet the skills shortage this very summer, when it is so acute?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was good that this came up, because we are making great efforts.

Vocational training is probably one of the most important measures that can be taken so that people who do not have very good Swedish or a traditional Swedish educational background can learn specific professions where there are shortages today.

One can demand that people move – move to those parts of Sweden where there are more jobs to apply for. There are 150,000 vacant jobs, many of which do not require extensive education. How is it possible while we have many people living on benefits in completely other parts of Sweden?

One can demand full-time efforts to receive benefits at all, so that people do something that increases the chance of being employed. On P1 Morgon yesterday, they had a segment about a guy who has been in Sweden for 16 years, has hardly learned any Swedish at all, and has dropped out of internships seven times. That is not okay in Sweden. If you have such systems, you encourage long-term benefit dependency. It is bad for the individual and bad for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a country with thousands of lakes and mile after mile of coast. Our untouched shores are a fantastic resource, and the shore protection is perhaps the most Swedish thing we have. It ensures that nature is open and not enclosed, that all children can swim in the lake even if no one in the village owns the shore land, and that fishermen, hikers, and berry pickers have the same right regardless of income.

The government has already abolished the coastal protection rules at the smallest lakes and watercourses in all of Sweden. Now, they are moving forward and threatening to abolish the entire regulatory framework. Yesterday, it was established that the government is now taking the next step to reform the coastal protection and create relaxations in the regulatory framework.

That one speaks of relaxations is both misleading and deceptive, because what the government is actually doing is opening up for the abolition of the entire existing legislation. It is therefore not about a minor adjustment of the legislation, but about the legislation being completely removed.

I am reading from the government's own website: "The investigator shall also propose a completely new model which means that the municipality, in the case of coastal stretches, lakes and watercourses, may decide to what extent shore protection shall apply."

Instead of a general coastal protection, it is therefore the municipality that shall decide if there should perhaps be coastal protection, if there are resources at all to make that assessment, and where the protection should be established.

This is described as a reform for the countryside, but in reality, it risks benefiting a few landowners at the expense of everyone else.

The government is happy to say that it stands up for the shore protection. At the same time, it presents an investigation with directives that mean it opens up for tearing up and completely dismantling the existing protection.

My questions to the Prime Minister are: Does the Prime Minister want to erode the right of public access, which for so many years has made Sweden's shores accessible to its population? And does the Prime Minister still want a general shore protection in Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Sweden's lakes and the Swedish right of public access are the most Swedish things that exist. The shoreline protection rules are probably the most bureaucratically Swedish things that exist. Very few people think that today's rules are good. But here we genuinely disagree, and it is good to have a discussion about that matter.

We think today's rules work poorly. Government after government has made attempts to, as it is called, adjust the shore protection – liberalize it a little bit. It usually ends up every time in the rules becoming even stricter.

We stand on the side of the country's municipalities. They are better positioned to decide which shores at which lakes should be subject to more construction so that more people can get close to those lakes, and which are already so heavily exploited that no more should be done. This is what the country's municipal councilors want to do, almost independently of party affiliation, because they know their own region. They know where development potential could be achieved in their own municipality.

The Swedish coastal protection rules are, in practice, intended to lay a wet blanket over everything and stop everything. Almost all municipal politicians and others who try to do something really good for their own locality but are stopped by a county administrative board that blames a piece of legislation know this.

Everyone knows that it is in this way. That you think otherwise, I find honorable. One can think so. We do not think so. Therefore, yesterday we appointed a proper investigation that seriously shifts the burden of proof.

Beach protection shall exist where it is called for. Beach protection shall not be used to stop all development everywhere in all of Sweden as soon as one is near a watercourse or a lake.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds good that the Prime Minister wants to stand on the side of the municipal council. The Swedish people safeguard a strong coastal protection. I stand on the side of the Swedish people.

I noted that the Prime Minister did not answer my question about whether we will continue to have a general shore protection in Sweden. Yes, we can review rules. We can make them clearer and more accurate. But adjusting the legislation is not the same as opening up to completely removing it.

If the government chooses to move forward with that type of proposal, it would be a death blow both to the right of public access (allemansrätten) and to the flora and fauna of the beaches. I assume that the Prime Minister knows how important it is as a hub for the entire ecosystems along our coasts and along our lakes.

We must remember that when beaches are privatized, something we can never get back disappears: the common right to nature. Then more places become forbidden areas, and then the opportunity for recreation, outdoor life, and tourism decreases.

I ask again: Does the Prime Minister still want a general coastal protection in Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government's view is, of course, the one we gave as a mandate to the inquiry that is now commencing: There shall be coastal protection where it is needed and demanded.

Beach protection should not be used to stop all development as soon as one is near water. That stops development in many places in Sweden that no one will access under any circumstances. There can be no point with beach protection.

If we can make larger parts of attractive areas of Sweden accessible so that more people get the opportunity to experience this, it is an advantage. Then there are, without doubt, places that are already so exploited that further exploitation should not occur. There is nothing strange in that.

I am convinced that very many municipalities in Sweden believe in their own ability to make the assessment of which parts should remain completely unexploited and which parts, conversely, can be opened up for more construction so that more people get access to Swedish waters. One should not just use water as a constant obstacle for absolutely everything.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Göthberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Half of the ten primary schools in Sweden with the worst results are located in Social Democrat-led Gothenburg. In my hometown, we have Sweden's longest queues for municipal family counseling, and the tax burden is high. The city's political leadership performs ideological somersaults and excels in the categories of mismanagement and leftward shifts, and has politicians who are served with suspicions of official misconduct for committee decisions and illegal procurements.

Some time ago, the Social Democrats gathered for a congress in Gothenburg. It became clear that the turn to the left continues in the form of reduced working hours, fewer jobs, increased benefits, and tax hits against ordinary people. Billions roll in when growth and security are put on hold.

This is dangerous politics. It risks necessary defense investments and necessary reinforcements of the justice system and fossil-free electricity production – which we need to expand.

Mr. Speaker! I therefore ask: What would this dangerous turn to the left mean for Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To avoid misunderstandings, I want to first say that I like Swedish cities, regardless of whether they are governed by majorities that I do not currently like. My criticism yesterday regarding Stockholm concerned the governance in Stockholm, not Stockholm. I like Stockholm, and I like Gothenburg. I believe that Gothenburg could be governed better than it is governed today.

I think the left-turn comparison is relevant. The left-turn that is now occurring in Stockholm, Gothenburg and in other places foreshadows a bit of what could happen if we had corresponding parties and corresponding politics also at a national level. Otherwise, there is a lot of talk from the opposition. It is quite easy to talk, because one is never scrutinized. But the politics in Stockholm and Gothenburg are visible for real. Therefore, it is relevant to highlight this.

I believe it would be dangerous. We would get higher taxes for those who work. We would get higher benefits for those who do not work. We would get worse development power in Sweden now when such large investments are required in such large areas.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have a healthcare system from the 1800s that is more unequal than ever. With 21 authorities and 21 regions, there are at least 21 different systems for treatment. It is neither right nor reasonable.

This government is working to improve and strengthen healthcare. With Minister for Health Acko Ankarberg Johansson at the helm, much has already been done. However, the biggest problem remains: the design of the healthcare system. The healthcare system needs to be redesigned fundamentally. We Christian Democrats have long pushed for increased state responsibility.

The parliamentary Health Responsibility Committee presented its report on June 2. It concluded that there is a need for increased state responsibility within six different areas. We welcome this shift but wish to expand it further.

Does the Prime Minister also see this as positive? How far is the Prime Minister prepared to go for greater state responsibility for health and medical care?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In this issue, there are well-known differences of opinion between the parties in Sweden. This also appeared in the investigation. But there are also agreements that are now quite well known.

We begin with the differences. Some parties want to nationalize completely. I am the Prime Minister. I represent the government's common view, and that was that the question should be investigated. We were aware that there are different views on this in Sweden's Riksdag. The question has now been investigated, and it did not land in agreement. No one perhaps thought it would either, when it comes to just this question.

There is, however, a significant consensus on increasing the state's responsibility within a number of healthcare-related issues. This concerns screening, vaccinations, and forensic psychiatric care. I take note of that.

We will probably remain in disagreement on the question of whether the state should take over all responsibility from all the country's regions or not. We will probably have to live with the fact that we disagree on that issue. I will focus on the things we can agree on.

(Applause)

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Allan Widman, County Governor of Kalmar and former Member of Parliament from Malmö, has received a very fine assignment from the government. He is to prepare a proposal for a terms of reference for the upcoming Swedish-Danish inquiry on transport across the Öresund. This is, of course, incredibly welcome. Southern Sweden is in a very expansive phase. It will only intensify. This applies especially since the Fehmarn Bält connection between Denmark and Sweden will soon be completed.

From the Danish side, they have methodically expanded their infrastructure through the state-owned company Sund & Bælt. The company is state-owned, but it is also business-driven. This ensures that large infrastructural investments never burden the Danish state budget. This type of arrangement is increasingly being noted even from the Swedish side.

My question to the Prime Minister is whether Widman's assignment, against this background, could include the possibility of also looking at a similar corporate solution for the Swedish side, regarding large infrastructure projects.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first admit my lack of knowledge in these matters. I cannot do this in detail. I would gladly see a phone call from the member to Andreas Carlson, who can sort out things that I cannot sort out in this question.

When one speaks about the fundamental, that is, the importance of the Öresund region, it is incredibly important. This is shown especially this year, when we celebrate 25 years with the Öresund Bridge, which, inexplicably enough, was controversial in its time. One wishes that those who were against it then would today demand a demolition of the bridge. No one is doing that, as far as I know. But how it could be controversial is incomprehensible today.

I wanted to run the Broloppet with my Danish colleague. She didn't have time that day, so I have to run it myself some other time instead. This is very important.

More infrastructure would also be needed, but that is not a question for the investigation right now, as it actually lies separately. I do not believe that this investigation will solve that question, but there is much else that speaks for more infrastructure between our two countries.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The UN agency for assistance to Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, has for 75 years been active in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan with, among other things, healthcare, schools and other community services for millions of Palestinian refugees. Sweden has for many years been a stable partner to UNRWA.

From this year onwards, Sweden has withdrawn all support. The EU and countries such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Japan and so on have not only maintained the support to UNRWA but in many cases also increased it.

Now I have heard both the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Minister for Development Cooperation say that this withdrawal is due to the fact that UNRWA can no longer operate in Palestine and that other organizations shall step in instead. But that perception is, in practice, something Sweden alone holds. The same assessment is made by the expert agency Sida, whose assessment I have in front of me. The assessment from Sida is that in the short and medium term, there is no other humanitarian actor that has the possibility to save lives and alleviate distress to the extent that UNRWA does.

My question to the Prime Minister is: When he says that someone else can step in instead of UNRWA and that UNRWA cannot operate, where did he get that from?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have very little trust in the grounds for movement in this issue. If you had honest intentions in this issue, you would not have said that we are withdrawing all support. You would have then said that the government has indeed doubled the support to the civilian population in Gaza but that the government is not giving the money to exactly that organization that you want to have the money, but rather the government has chosen other UN organizations. That is what you could have said. You do not say that.

Instead of, you are fueling the wave of disinformation that is now washing over Sweden, creating contradictions between Swedes and bringing the Middle East's conflicts here to Sweden. You should be ashamed of this.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are pursuing an integration policy where the goal seems to be that the population shall be forcibly mixed both socially, geographically and ethnically. Representatives for the party have expressed that the party means business with their intention to forcibly mix the population, which clearly shows that this is not some bizarre political slogan but a deliberate political goal.

This type of policy reduces people and societies to integration projects. I want to ask the Prime Minister the following: Does the Prime Minister share the Social Democratic idea that the state should forcibly mix the population based on ethnicity? Does he believe that the state should have an active role in shaping people's residential areas and everyday lives in order to achieve a politically defined diversity?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we can all agree that Sweden has very serious integration problems. It is visible in many different ways. They must be solved, but if they are to be solved in a serious way, one cannot simply administratively move the problems around between different places.

I read those formulations, and I also recoiled quite significantly at them. They do bring to mind the "cushion girls" who were to be integration tools to handle unruly boys, for example. They also bring to mind the social engineering during the Myrdals' time and such things. I am very skeptical of that kind of reasoning. In one document, it was mentioned that 42 percent of all people with a certain income should move so that there would be an even distribution. One should stay well away from that.

Let us instead solve the problems through better language skills, by ensuring that the culture of honor disappears out of Sweden, and by ensuring that people who are to become Swedish citizens also embrace the Swedish. I believe that is a much better way to solve the integration problems than using well-functioning residential areas as integration tools.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the government is prepared to go far to stop disaster relief to Gaza through the UN agency UNRWA, and that in a situation where the support was needed more than ever. The government's own agency Sida wanted in May to send disaster relief to UNRWA after a careful analysis, but after discussions with UD the support was stopped – something that can be likened to ministerial rule.

Sida assesses that in the short and medium term there is no other humanitarian organization that has the possibility to save lives and alleviate distress to the extent that UNRWA does or that has the capacity, mandate and will to take over the central parts of UNRWA's work. Despite this, the government is preventing Sida from sending disaster relief to Gaza.

Already today, a large number of children die daily in Gaza due to war and famine. We must do what we can to save lives. Why does the government not trust its own expert agency and ensure that disaster relief is sent to UNRWA?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I have said many times now, we are critical of Israel's decision not to allow UNRWA's activities on site. We have also said it very clearly. We are critical of it.

For us, however, the most important thing is that aid reaches the civilian population in Gaza. That is the most important thing of all. Why don't you say we have doubled the Swedish support, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve? Why don't you say that we are the second largest donor in the entire EU? Why don't you say that we are the fifth largest donor in the world and likely the largest per capita? Instead, you spread disinformation about what Sweden is doing. One wonders with what purposes.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has today presented a reform agenda for jobs and entrepreneurship across the entire country, and it is needed. Sweden is one of the countries in the EU with the highest unemployment, and we are one of the countries with the lowest growth – while the number of business bankruptcies is hitting records.

Despite this, the government has pursued a policy towards companies with increased employer contributions, expanded sick pay liability, and a complicating of the skill supply. The government's simplification council and implementation council have so far issued their respective recommendations while the mountain of regulations continues to grow. Unfortunately, the legislation on farm sales also became a telling example of how one can complicate things for companies.

The Center Party, in dialogue with the companies, has identified over a hundred obstacles that need to be addressed. My question is: When will the government start taking the companies' questions seriously by lowering taxes, reducing red tape, and favoring growth?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost a bit comical to see how the Centre Party members are now tying themselves in knots to succeed in finding something to object to in what the government is doing to improve for the country's companies, entrepreneurs, and business climate.

I would be completely open to discussing what we can do further in 3:12 matters, what we can do further to facilitate for agricultural companies and what we can do further for forestry companies. But I am most curious about which of those on the other side you are going to get help from, Christofer Bergenblock. Is it the Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet or Vänsterpartiet that is the salvation for the Swedish business climate?

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In December last year, the government stopped the support to UNRWA with the justification that it will still be difficult for the organization to act in Gaza after Israel's new legislation. Now we know that UNRWA is still functioning and, according to Sida, it is the organization that has the best infrastructure to handle food distribution and the like.

Speaking of disinformation, the government raised old accusations against UNRWA at a press conference today, regarding Hamas links and involvement in the attack on October 7. These accusations have been reviewed in international, independent investigations in which, among others, the Swedish Raoul Wallenberg Institute has participated. It has been established that the links do not exist and that UNRWA can continue to act as an independent actor.

The Minister also raised allegations of antisemitism in UNRWA's textbooks, where one of the two examples that have existed is a book that has long since ceased to be printed and the other is a book that has been revised for several years.

The government says that the aid should be as effective as possible, and Sida says that the humanitarian support reaches most effectively through UNRWA. My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: What does the government actually have against UNRWA?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have said many times that the Swedish government is critical of Israel's decision to stop UNRWA's ability to operate. But the war in Gaza is what we have before our eyes. How do we do the greatest possible good for the civilian population, who are now suffering in a horrific way, in Gaza?

We have our eyes on that, and that is why we are the EU's second-largest donor. That is why we are the world's fifth-largest donor. That is why we are doubling the emergency aid to the civilian population in Gaza and channeling it through the organizations that we currently assess have the greatest opportunity to ensure that the money is put to real use. We have that in mind. What you others have your eyes on, Jacob Risberg, I think one can really question.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish prisons and detention centers are overcrowded. As we heard the Prime Minister state earlier during the question period, the government has significantly shifted the crime policy. More are convicted, more are imprisoned, and more serve longer prison sentences.

The government has also decided that more prison places shall be built, but it takes time. More prisons are needed if we are to expand as much as is required. But last week we received word that we could rent prison places in Estonia – up to 600 of them, I heard.

My question to the Prime Minister is whether this will become a reality and if, in that case, it will happen in the near future.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is correct that today we are locking up dangerous people for significantly longer in Sweden. This has the consequence that the prisons are starting to become overcrowded. In the short term, it is unfortunately good that it is that way, because it proves that people are sitting where they must sit until we get the crime in Sweden under control.

We have therefore reached an agreement with Estonia, which on the contrary has excess capacity, to rent 600 prison places for people who, instead of serving their sentences in Sweden, shall serve their sentences there. It is the government's firm opinion that this, in parallel with our construction of four corresponding new Kumlaanstalter in Sweden, shall ensure that we manage to protect honest Swedes.

Is this becoming a reality now? Yes, strangely enough, it depends on the Social Democrats. This is, in fact, the exercise of authority abroad, and it requires a three-quarters majority in Sweden's Riksdag. The Social Democrats must soon decide. Does one want to contribute to more dangerous people being locked up, or does one not want to?

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a restless time, and in such a time, it is important to hold fast to the democratic principles that exist. An important part is the right to demonstrate.

A principle is that one seeks a demonstration permit to enjoy the possibility of safely carrying out a demonstration. We have, however, seen an increased frequency of people who simply ignore seeking a permit and carry out the demonstration anyway. This results in it becoming more aggressive and that people around feel unsafe. The police have far too few tools at these unauthorized demonstrations to end or dissolve the demonstration, which means that in practice it becomes an advantage not to seek a permit but instead just carry out the demonstration in the way one deems appropriate.

My question is whether the Prime Minister considers there to be grounds to review the legislation in order to be able to prosecute those who actually do not follow our legislation and dissolve their demonstrations to a greater extent.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The technical part of the answer is that the government has commissioned an inquiry into precisely this question and received a report which, among other things, contains proposals that would give the police expanded possibilities to decide on other time and place for demonstrations. These proposals exist now. They are being referred in the traditional manner, and the Ministry of Justice will analyze them. That was the technical part.

The second part is that the freedom of demonstration is important in Sweden. It has a very strong protection, and that is how it should be. I am nevertheless concerned about the tendency we see right now. It is quite obvious that things are getting out of control, that it is becoming threatening, that hateful expressions occur, and that people are acting in a way that we normally have not had to see in Swedish democracy, where we can conduct sensible conversations in sensible forms even on difficult issues. We saw it outside the Riksdag just the other day in a way that is completely unacceptable.

I do not think we should whip up those kinds of sentiments in Sweden. As for whether there will be legislative changes, I ask to return to that later.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thousands of young people are graduating in these days. Far too many, however, will run into unemployment in Kristersson's Sweden, where almost every fourth young person on the labor market lacks a job.

People in Sweden should not be left without jobs and without the dream of a future, especially not young people. Young people who become unemployed immediately after upper secondary school risk being unemployed to a significantly greater extent than others during the coming ten years.

Young people in Sweden deserve hope for their future and opportunities to realize their dreams. What is the Prime Minister doing so that young people do not have to start their adult lives in long-term unemployment?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The vast majority of young people in Sweden who obtain an education also get a job. Then it is more difficult in a recession and easier in a boom; that is obvious. We all have a responsibility to help as much as we can – with internships or with political decisions – to make that time as short as possible.

Everyone knows what the big problem is, but you Social Democrats do not want to talk about it. The big problem is the unemployment that is based on people not being able to speak Swedish and not having experience from the Swedish labor market. That unemployment is based on too much immigration over too long a period. You never bring up that question. Unemployment is three times as high among immigrants. Above all, unemployment is high among non-European immigrants, and this applies particularly to non-European immigrants who are women and who have not worked. You never bring up that question. Isn't that a bit strange?

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, a letter circulated which was signed by nine of the Union's member states, represented by governments from both the right and the left. This letter has a fairly simple message: We need to update the European Convention's rules on deportation to prevent these rules from practically becoming a tool for crime.

As the rules work today, a foreigner who commits a serious crime in Sweden can, namely, avoid deportation because the person has committed an even more serious crime in their home country if the European Court of Human Rights were to perceive the criminal process in the home country as a violation of the person's human rights. This is unfortunately often the case regarding persons who have participated in, for example, terrorist crimes or genocide.

My question regarding this is quite simple: Why does Ulf Kristersson's government not want to do anything about this completely absurd situation?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think this is a fair description of what the government is doing in this area. On the contrary, we are making extensive changes so that people who come to Sweden and commit crimes do not remain here. They shall be deported from the country. We are making extensive changes so that people who come to Sweden and commit crimes cannot become Swedish citizens and thus enjoy all the rights one has as a Swedish citizen.

These changes are probably the largest ever in this area. They include that one shall be able to take away Swedish citizenship from people who have cheated their way into it or who have committed system-threatening crime. All of this constitutes major changes.

In addition to this, I want to say that we are participating very actively in the work that Denmark, Italy and some other countries are now doing to review the overall European asylum and immigration policy and to ensure that people do not come to Europe with bad intentions and then stay in Europe. Sweden is deeply engaged in all of this work.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! The Adoption Commission's report shows that for decades the Swedish state has failed in its responsibility to protect children from illegal adoptions. Children have been stolen, sold, and abducted without the parents' consent, often with the knowledge of the state and the adoption organizations. Kristersson himself has been chairman of an adoption organization.

In yesterday's party leadership debate, the Prime Minister claimed that he contributed to the appointment of the investigation, even though the decision was made by another government. He claimed that the information about stolen children in China came via rumors, despite alarms from authorities, the media, and the Chinese government. Despite this, the choice was made to let the adoptions from China double.

How can Ulf Kristersson now claim that he takes this seriously while simultaneously relativizing, shifting blame, and denying facts? Should a Prime Minister not take responsibility and apologize?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said yesterday, serious findings have emerged from the Adoption Commission, and as I also said yesterday, I was largely instrumental in its appointment. If one reads the newspapers from 2021, one can see that. I requested a white paper that reviews backwards. What did we know when? What do we know today that we did not know then? It also concerned policy recommendations for the future. Should we in Sweden change our legislation regarding international adoptions given the knowledge that exists now but did not exist 20 years ago? Exactly that is what I said yesterday, and that is what I say today as well.

Something else that I said yesterday and which also applies today is that Sweden has a legislation and an authority. Sweden also had, 20 years ago, when I was chairman of one of these organizations, a legislation and an authority that gave authorization for every country that Sweden worked with. It is no obstacle to have different legislation today, but it is an explanation for what we had just then.

Let's take these questions seriously instead!

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note the enormous interest in us Social Democrats and our Social Democratic policies, even during the Prime Minister's question time. It is interesting but a bit strange.

I want to ask a question in connection with the Prime Minister's responsibility, that is, the economic policy being pursued in Sweden right now. I want to give the Prime Minister a chance to explain here and now to many of them who are wondering and who are having it extremely tough economically.

In three weeks, the costs for medicines for those who are chronically ill, for those with disabilities, and for pensioners who are struggling financially will increase. The housing supplement for families with children, who are really struggling with their finances, is also being removed. At the same time, the real high-income earners have received large tax cuts.

How does the Prime Minister explain this?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive the question as two-fold.

Why are we interested in the Social Democrats right now? Because the Social Democrats are finally being forced to stand to account for something. This is the biggest turn to the left in Swedish politics since the wage-earner funds in the 70s and 80s. It is simply astounding. It is the greatest social engineering since the time of the Myrdal couple. It is also astounding.

You thought you would fly under the radar at a congress! The time when Sweden's future was decided at Social Democratic congresses is over, and that is good.

The Prime Minister's Question Time

If you were to govern, this policy would then be compromised with Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet and be pulled further to the left. One can hope that Centern would have some successes and save some companies in the process.

This is the alternative that Sweden faces. The Swedish people have the right to know.

When it comes to economic policy, we have lowered the tax for ordinary households by 23,000 kronor over two years. We have also lowered fuel prices by 600–700 per tank. It helps ordinary families.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question period was hereby concluded.

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