The Prime Minister's Question Time

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats have made it more expensive to collect medicine. It is a decision that has serious consequences. More patients are forced today to forgo medicine. It concerns people with chronic diseases, the elderly and persons with disabilities who cannot afford necessary medicines, people who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Today, Stadsmissionen launched its poverty report. Over 700,000 people in Sweden live in poverty. It is a figure that should make every government react and act with force. We know that the economy is already today a barrier for many. Doctors testify, for example, about patients who cannot afford to pick up their prescriptions and how they are therefore forced to prescribe cheaper alternatives even if these are not as good.

When patients refuse their medication, there is a risk that their medical condition will worsen, and healthcare services will be burdened even further. A chronic disease that could have been stabilized leads to recurring healthcare visits, admissions, and suffering. Healthcare is burdened, queues grow, and costs skyrocket, both humanly and in terms of the economy of society.

Mr. Speaker! This is not necessary, but the government and the Sweden Democrats are, in this way, abandoning sick people. They prioritize tax cuts for high-income earners over life-saving medicine for those who can barely afford food. Given that we see more people abstaining from medicine, that healthcare is being pressured harder, and that the most vulnerable are being left behind, I wonder if the Prime Minister is satisfied with the decision to raise the high-cost protection so that people now cannot afford to pick up medicine.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! What we are doing is taking responsibility for the long-term financing of the pharmaceutical benefit system. Many governments in many times have also done this before us. We therefore have a system that is to be long-term sustainable. New medicines will gradually arrive, which naturally cost money, and new diseases will partially arrive that need medicines that cost money.

This is simply a way to keep up with that development. We still have one of the most generous pharmaceutical benefit systems. It is not unique that fees are raised in different systems, and even after a certain increase in the co-payment, we maintain our position in the Nordic region. The fee levels vary slightly, but we are second lowest in the entire Nordic region when it comes to the patient's co-payments.

Therefore, I think it is a completely reasonable change that we are making precisely to ensure that, in the long term, we can afford to provide pharmaceutical benefits to people who need them.

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Prime Minister! New medicines in all their glory, we are all interested in that, but we also want patients to be able to afford the new medicines. It is still somewhat incomprehensible that the Prime Minister defends the fact that we now see how the elderly, the chronically ill, and persons with disabilities are actually affected and cannot afford to pick up their medicines, while at the same time we know that the priority has been that the government, together with many other high-income earners, receives large tax cuts.

Expensive medicines are just one example of the political priorities. It is a symbol of a policy that increases poverty in Sweden, and I return to the fact that it is 700,000 people – adults and children – who live below the threshold of economic vulnerability. These are people who are forced to skip meals, who cannot afford winter clothes, and who avoid seeking care because they cannot afford the medicine that might be prescribed. That is the reality.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Will the Prime Minister now take the initiative to appoint an inquiry into the growing poverty?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not new that we as a government take responsibility for ensuring that an important benefit is funded. Social Democrats have even done so in a majority position over the years. They never talk about it in hindsight, but that is actually how it is.

The new thing is your turn to the left. The new thing is that the Social Democrats in opposition are populists. Suddenly, one can afford everything for everyone. They want to tear up the pension system and decouple it from how much one works. It is a turn to the left in tax policy and in benefit policy, a turn to the left that is basically intended to give everything to everyone. Who is going to pay? Yes, as usual, hard-working people who get higher taxes. That is the new thing.

There was a time when you, for example, stood for half remaining. You no longer do that. We take responsibility for the state's finances, but we also take responsibility for completely ordinary working people.

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We serve Sweden well, and we have truly begun the paradigm shift – or the Sweden journey, if you will. Our government has given Sweden a significantly more restrictive and strict migration policy with tougher requirements for citizenship, family immigration, and residence permits. We are also deporting more and more people.

We have received a sensible crime policy, where more criminals are imprisoned for a longer period and where police and prosecutors have received more tools to be able to do the job on streets and squares so that honest people can live well.

With our government, we get a secured energy supply with a focus on nuclear power, and we nuance the climate ambitions to become more reasonable. Sweden's students are given a school with discipline and order, where we move from "flumskola" to a knowledge school, and we have high ambitions to improve healthcare, not least by increasing state governance and setting requirements that carry consequences if the regions do not deliver on the lowest set goals.

Our government also places requirements on the individual to learn Swedish, to become a part of Swedish society and to manage to stand on their own feet.

With our policy, Sweden will become safer, wealthier and more cohesive. We have a genuine belief in the future and the will to make tough decisions that make a real difference.

But it is also problematic, Mr. Speaker, when one speaks with falsehoods about things and matters. The opposition speaks loudly about increased inequalities, poorer household finances, a country in chaos, and that the government is not acting. But that is their work, Mr. Speaker. It is the Social Democrats' lax and irresponsible policy that has led Sweden here. That deserves to be reminded of in every debate.

My view is that we are working very hard. What does the Prime Minister say? How does the Prime Minister view the question of Sweden and the Swedish people's future prospects in the short and long term with our ambitions and our way of governing Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a modest little question – the future prospects for Sweden and the Swedish people in two minutes!

Jokes aside: There is a lot in this. If I am to start somewhere, I share the view that we inherited many very serious problems. When I say "inherited," it is not a way of saying it was someone else's fault, but it is to say that there were major problems that we were given a mandate to do something about.

Major problems that emerge over a long period normally take a long time to solve. The memory-retaining remembers that I received criticism before the last election because I said that it will take the entire 20s to solve the serious problems with segregation, integration, serious organized crime, and energy systems that do not work. If they were easy to solve, even the previous gang could have managed it.

These are difficult things, but we are on the right track. We are in the process of changing course, and we see a number of results. But we are far from finished. It takes significantly more than one parliamentary term to do what we have set out to do.

I was in Gävle together with Gunnar Strömmer last Monday after the terrible shooting where a perpetrator fired at six people. The suspect is 13 years old. It is a miracle that no one was killed. There, one could see what a number of things could do, for example, extensive camera surveillance. It would have been even better if one had known in advance that the perpetrator would not be there. Now, one could see directly in hindsight what had happened. Cameras create safety, they are not an infringement of privacy. Such a change may sound simple, but such a thing was impossible previously.

I was in Borås the day before yesterday and accompanied the police and looked at preventive stay bans. They remove those who should not be there from the street and thereby cool down conflicts.

Those were only two small examples of what has been started. Much remains to be done.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the analysis! I certainly share it.

An alternative to the government that is in power today is the opposition. With them, we will instead see increased taxes, increased immigration, lower requirements, forced integration, a bit more "juice-and-bun" politics, and made-up jobs to bring down the unemployment statistics.

We have a high unemployment today. That is a fact. But Sweden has also, for a very long time, received people who are not employable.

What we are doing now is to turn off the tap, that is to say, to severely limit low-skilled labor immigration. The benefit reform with activity requirements and benefit ceilings chokes off access to the welfare system. We also have the return grant and many initiatives in the field of education.

The Social Democrats say that we are not succeeding particularly well. Nor have the Social Democrats done so historically. Their "turn-the-stones-over" method has not been revolutionary for Sweden in any way. I want to believe that only the things we are now doing to influence the unemployment figure will yield results. How does the Prime Minister view unemployment and people's freedom from benefit dependency moving forward?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As has been said, these are major issues. One can summarize this and describe many of our reforms as practical solutions to practical problems. This includes, among other things, a subsidy reform that means that, in practical terms, one cannot stack subsidies on top of each other and reach excessively high levels, and to imagine penal reforms that ensure we rent prison places abroad if they are insufficient in Sweden. It is a rather pragmatic approach.

One can also see this as justice reforms. We take the side of those who behave, for those who work, for those who get up early in the morning and for those who fulfill their part of the social contract and expect the state to fulfill its part. To put the social contract back together and stand on the side of responsible, hard-working people is a more principled way of looking at the matter.

These perspectives can be reconciled. But I think one should keep in mind that what we are doing now is truly standing up for the people who make our country stronger.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Hello! Is the microphone working? Yes. What luck, Ulf!

(Prime Minister ULF KRISTERSSON (M): It was a great stroke of luck.)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to focus on substantive politics. We have mass unemployment, and we have the lowest growth in a decade. Closer to half a million people do not have a job to go to. They do not get to feel the satisfaction of being part of a work team. The feeling of being able to contribute is being deprived from people today. At the same time, there is much we would need to get done in Sweden. We need to build housing. We need to upgrade the railway. We need to shorten the waiting times in healthcare.

Healthcare does not get better by politicians standing at press conferences. The transition will not happen just with the help of talkers. It is people who must work so that waiting times become shorter, and to carry out the transition, electrical installers and railway workers need to be hired.

My question to Ulf is: Is it not time for the government to do its part, to take responsibility and do what only politics can provide so that there will be more jobs and prioritize investments and create jobs instead of introducing expensive tax reliefs for those with the most capital or with incomes over 100,000 kronor a month? That is what the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have prioritized.

In hindsight: Would it not have been better for Sweden and for the jobs to instead budget for what a dignified healthcare actually costs, to invest in railways and to invest in stimulating housing construction? Is it not better, Ulf Kristersson, to invest in creating new jobs when there is such a shortage of them?

(TALMANNEN: In the chamber, we address each other by first and last name, as we have said.)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One good thing today is that the microphones are working. Another good thing is that I promise not to interrupt the Left Party's party leader even once and not to speak over her even once.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! We have a problem with unemployment that is actually two problems. One is what we call cyclical unemployment. It is not better for it, but it goes up and down with the economic cycle. In a boom, fewer people are unemployed; in a recession, more people are unemployed. Right now, there is a significant recession – the longest and most protracted in a very long time. Therefore, cyclical unemployment is rising. It does so even when the left is in power, even if we do not usually talk so much about it then. They had their project on Europe's lowest unemployment. That went so-so. We have, therefore, tried that medicine. We do not intend to try it once again.

Mr. Speaker! A much larger problem is the unemployment resulting from the fact that people have come to Sweden and cannot do the things that the Swedish labor market demands. They do not speak Swedish and have no experience of the Swedish labor market. They may not have worked at all before and live in places in Sweden where very few jobs exist. This is due, not least, to the fact that when the other side governed, Sweden took in 300,000 asylum seekers over eight years without any thought for what consequences it would have for integration and segregation.

We have changed that policy while you remain on the other side. Three out of four parties want increased asylum migration now. Four out of four parties have proposed increased asylum migration during this mandate period. Take in the scope of this! If we continue to admit more asylum seekers, the problems will increase.

Now we are changing the policy. That also creates conditions. If one learns Swedish and obtains the education that the professions require, there are good opportunities for more children to see their parents go to work.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! How pleasant it is to talk about substantive politics! Probably no one believes that the government and the Sweden Democrats are aiming for Europe's lowest unemployment. There is nothing that suggests that. Sweden is almost the worst in the class – in third place – when it comes to unemployment and has very low growth levels. The Fiscal Policy Council has said that adjustments of the current type of security insurance or benefits do not create a single new job.

I note that the Prime Minister continues to blame others regarding unemployment. It is always someone else's fault. What is Ulf Kristersson's responsibility? What can he do? He himself has spent time going onto Platsbanken and noticed that there are 17,000 jobs there. But there are half a million unemployed. How are we going to reach half a million jobs? How is the government going to ensure that investments are made so that there are more jobs?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, there were 72,000 vacancies right there the last time I looked. Furthermore, everyone who has ever tried to apply for a job in Sweden knows that many jobs are mediated in completely different ways. It is good for many companies. They find other ways to hire.

I was in Vagnhärad the other day and met a trucking company. They are having difficulty finding employees for relatively simple jobs, such as a tire fitter. For one job, the only requirements were that one spoke intelligible Swedish and had a driver's license. These are not unreasonable requirements to place on a person who has come to Sweden.

I am the first to think that we should provide good educational opportunities in a country like Sweden. Here we have practically free education for everyone, from the very youngest to the very oldest. One has a responsibility themselves to make oneself employable, to learn Swedish, to do everything one can to get a job and to move to where the jobs are. That responsibility lies with each individual.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! In politics, just as in the business world, we know that without clear goals, one loses direction. It is a bit like trying to build a factory without a blueprint. It can absolutely become a construction, but some products or profits will not be delivered. The companies that invest in green technology, electrification, and climate-smart solutions do so because the world needs the products, and they need to know that Sweden is serious. They must be able to rely on the fact that the goals stand firm and that hard work is being done to achieve them.

In December 2023, the Prime Minister said that from then on they would fundamentally restructure Swedish climate policy with a focus on the electrification of industry and transport, international cooperation, and economic growth. The climate action plan was said to be an important part of this and would point out a clear path to net-zero emissions by 2045.

It is easy, safe, clear and almost visionary. But in the government's budget, it now states that the national 2045 goal is not reached in the scenario with decided policy measures and that the gap to the goal is approximately 19.6 million tons. That is, almost 20 million tons. It is not a rounding in the margin but a climatic Grand Canyon to reach the goals.

When the Prime Minister says that we are to reach net zero but the government's own budget and policy say that we are not doing so, it does not only imply a communicative problem or a climate failure. It is also a credibility problem towards the companies. Future export companies need to know that they have a strong home market.

My question to the Prime Minister is: How can Swedish companies, investors and talents plan long-term when the Prime Minister says one thing but the government's budget indicates something completely different?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think there is a big difference between realistic goals, visions that have a connection to what one does and realistic, long-term ambitions on one hand and general fluff-fluff on the other. Sometimes I think that C is experts on fluff-fluff. One promises the moon to everyone with high-set ambitions that one has no idea how to implement.

It is roughly like the energy agreement we had for a while. It was to be 100 percent renewable – but it would perhaps still not exclude nuclear power. No one understood anything. It also meant nothing. It meant that a lot of parties who thought completely differently would pretend to be in agreement so that one could say: Now we have a major parliamentary agreement. That is what C is an expert at.

I am happy to reach an agreement with C when we think roughly the same, and I am happy to stand for the fact that we think differently when we think differently. I have no need for fake visions of fluff-fluff.

If we are to manage the climate transition in a country that has already invested an enormous amount of effort into hydropower, nuclear power, district heating, and renewables, and which is among the absolute best in all of Europe, we must manage the electrification. Then all processes, industry, and transport must be electrified. That requires a massive amount of new fossil-free, stable electricity. This December, we will vote next time on whether we will launch a nuclear power program or not. At that point, the Center Party will also be put to the test.

Then Rickard Nordin is wrong. The difference is approximately 4 million tons when it comes to 2030, which is one of the national goals. We believe that we will be able to achieve it. The forecast currently shows that we miss it because we were not prepared to raise the fuel prices to 28 kronor per liter. We do, however, have good chances of achieving it. What you in C never manage to achieve is the LULUCF goal, that is, the forest. Tell us how the forest goal is to be reached with C's policy!

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! For me and the Centre Party, the climate goal is not something that is merely visionary or fluff. The Centre Party has presented a fully funded and fully investigated plan for how we reach the climate goal by 2030. The Prime Minister says he can do it, but he has not presented the policy. We have delivered the policy and a budget for it.

The CEO of a company that so grossly misses the set goals would not be allowed to keep the job for long. There is no board of directors in the world that would accept such missteps.

The climate does not care about party boundaries. Companies do not care about changes in government. They plan in decades. When the government itself fails to present policies to ensure that the goals are met, it sends signals to the engineers in Boston, the investors in Frankfurt, and the Swedish entrepreneurs that it is not worth investing in Sweden. Missed climate goals are a bad pitch for a country that wants green growth.

I ask again: When will the government close the gap to the Swedish climate goals – 20 million tonnes by 2045 and 4.6 million by 2030?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I answer that the Centre is speaking with a divided tongue. The Centre is now pretending to be enormously concerned about a very small difference in the goal concerning road traffic until 2030. They are not pretending about the fact that it requires a substantial increase in the reduction obligation. They have made-up proposals in their budget that are not even feasible. And they are silent about the forest.

Today, the EU has a regulatory framework that establishes that Swedish forests and Swedish forestry shall be a buffer zone for all other European countries' emissions. They are to have Swedish forests as a carbon sink so that they can avoid reducing their emissions. The difference is 70 million tons.

C is not saying a word about this. They have no proposals on this because they would not dare to say what is required, namely a halving of Swedish forestry. A large part of Swedish forestry must be shut down to meet other countries' climate commitments. C speaks with a divided tongue.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates and Ulf Kristersson went to the election with the poster "Now we can get the climate in order." Three years into the mandate period, we have only in Sweden had an abnormally dry spring followed by heat, heavy rainfall, landslides and melting glaciers. At the same time, Sweden's climate emissions have increased record-breakingly under the Tidö government and are today higher than when the government took power.

Emissions need to decrease now and not later. But for emissions to decrease at the rate required until 2030, several new policy instruments are needed – such as those that can lower emissions now and not later.

I would therefore like to know which measures the Prime Minister considers most urgent to take so that Sweden's emissions begin to decrease at the rate required for Sweden to do its part within the Paris Agreement and to meet Europe's climate goals until 2030.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I genuinely appreciate the question. My answer in substance is approximately the same as to the Center Party, but the big difference is that you in the Green Party do not speak with a divided tongue. You stand by your politics. I do not share it, but you stand by it. I think it is honorable of you.

You want to drive up fuel prices to very high levels to meet what is called the ESR target and the road transport target. You have no problem letting Swedish forestry become a resource primarily for other countries so that they can avoid cutting back on theirs. You have, overall, a climate policy that runs completely contrary to what I believe would be good for Swedish competitiveness. You also stand for the fact that you do not want any nuclear power. You stand for all of this.

I do not share the opinion, but that is how it is sometimes in politics. We can still have good discussions where we disagree, and we do not even have to be unpleasant to each other. That is good.

My view is the opposite. We need to have a different kind of energy policy. If one wants to meet our time's challenges, it is fossil-free energy that is required, and we vote next time in December.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that electrification will be absolutely crucial for the green transition, but the government's policy has, at the current moment, laid a dead hand over the renewable energy system. With the government's focus on nuclear power in the future, initiatives for new renewable power in the present are being stopped. Now, Sweden is also being brought before the EU Court because sufficient action has not been taken to simplify for renewable electricity. How does the Prime Minister intend to act so that we can meet the requirements and so that we can increase the production of renewable energy in the near term?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The irony is that the more stable base power we have, the more weather-dependent, renewable power we can have. They do not, therefore, stand against each other but rather build on each other.

During our first eight months in power, we decided on as many offshore wind farms as the previous government decided on in eight years because we dared to make decisions where different interests stood against each other – local environmental considerations versus energy. We chose energy then. We have done our part. You did not do yours.

(Applause)

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats want to raise taxes by 27 billion to increase benefits for groups who do not work. This is quite provocative, especially for us people from Småland, who know that Småland was built by hard work and not benefits. The government, instead, focuses on the work principle and strong incentives for work for those who are far from the labor market.

How shall we break the development that risks tearing Sweden apart and instead create increased freedom for everyone through self-sufficiency and the feeling that comes from the knowledge that one also contributes to the welfare? I would also like to have the Prime Minister's view on the concepts of justice and security in all of this.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is unfortunately not a philosophy seminar, so we may not have time for all the things.

The Social Democrats are raising taxes by 27 billion kronor. If you add up the figures for the left-wing alternative, it becomes 80 billion kronor in raised taxes. That is as much as the entire budget we have laid out.

Now I shall be fair. C wants to do the opposite: lower the taxes. I think that fundamentally is good, but it suggests something about the difficulties of bringing C and the left together in one and the same government option.

If one summarizes the opposition's budgets, it is fundamentally about increased taxes, increased subsidies, increased asylum migration, and increased aid. This is the quartet of common denominators, again with C as an exception regarding the taxes.

Our path is not this one but the other: ensure that hard-working people want to do their part, want to pay tax, because they get something back. It is the social contract – it is justice.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In our country, women should never have to live under oppression, threats, or violence, but unfortunately, reality looks different. Just recently, we could read about an imam in Sweden who preached about how one should beat his wives. It is unacceptable. These are radical values within Islam that are allowed to be practiced and reinforced in our society.

The niqab and burka are expressions of a poor view of women that aims to make women invisible and goes against everything our country stands for: freedom, equality, and the equal, unique value of all people. The Christian Democrats have recently proposed that burka and niqab should be banned in public environments. My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Does the Prime Minister consider it compatible with Swedish values for women to wear a burka or niqab in public environments, and is the government prepared to act to ban these garments in Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have, as I believe almost all Swedes – both Swedes who have a faith and people who do not – an enormous respect for freedom of religion. It is a fundamental part of our freedoms. We respect people of different faiths, and we respect people who have no faith. This is important. I just want to mention this, because it will always be an aspect when one then discusses practical problems.

When one has said this, one must also say that coercion must never be permitted in Sweden. Honor-related oppression is not permitted. Then one comes to the interesting question: Which people wear the niqab and burka voluntarily, and which do so in practice due to coercion? I have heard a few too many stories about people who live in clan structures and in practice are forced to live a life that no other people in Sweden would accept. We shall stand on their side while at the same time respecting freedom of religion.

These are difficult trade-offs. We will absolutely look into the issue.

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! My question concerns honor-related violence and oppression, which is widespread and strikes people in the depths of who they actually are. It can be about not being allowed to move freely – that one is not even allowed to leave the home, in the worst cases. One is not allowed to choose one's friends. One cannot be open about whom one loves. One is not allowed to control one's own future.

With the collective expressions that honor-related violence takes on, it differs very much from other forms of violence. It is not one perpetrator and neither is it two, but it can be all the people around one who together ensure that one's freedom is circumscribed.

I know that the government has decided to intensify the fight for every person's freedom to govern their own life and their own future. My question is: What is the government doing to counter honor-related violence and oppression?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to first make a very brief historical exposé. I worked on these issues for the first time as a social welfare councillor in Stockholm 2006–2009. It is hard to grasp, but back then it was controversial to talk about honor oppression – racism, they often said on the left. Even discussing the matters was wrong. It was difficult. We conducted the country's first mapping of the extent of honor-related oppression and violence among young people in Stockholm. That was also controversial. Today, no one would think it was controversial to want to know how it is.

A lot has happened since then. We have a completely different awareness – that is just good. But much remains.

We are doing quite a lot now. One thing is fundamental matters that should have been done a long time ago: banning cousin marriages and banning virginity checks and virginity interventions – all such things that in practice force young women and girls to live the life that their fathers or brothers want. And we are adding new money in this year's budget.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I had hoped that this question would never have to be posed to a Swedish Prime Minister. Yesterday, we could take note of Sveriges Television's news that the Prime Minister has used incorrect data regarding the number of vacant jobs, furthermore for the purpose of downplaying the problem of unemployment in our country – this in a situation where the number of unemployed has increased by 100,000 since the Prime Minister took over this assignment and where Sweden now has the third highest unemployment in the European Union and unemployment is affecting new groups. Academics, construction workers, and young people graduating from vocational training are affected by unemployment.

My question is: Does the Prime Minister intend to act to ensure that incorrect information is not used in the assignment in the future? Or has the Prime Minister also, in this area, abandoned the traditional bourgeois view for a right-wing populist perspective?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I went onto Arbetsförmedlingen's site Platsbanken and looked: 72,000 vacancies right there. There are many more in other places. There are vacancies in Sweden. If you click on the jobs that do not require any extensive education, you get 17,000 jobs. That was what I mentioned.

If one then looks at each job, there can still be some requirements that are quite reasonable to set on the Swedish labor market. Being able to speak Swedish is often a fundamental requirement. Quite a few jobs require a driver's license. It does not require an unreasonable effort to get a driver's license. There may be other things as well, but Arbetsförmedlingen still makes the note that no special educational requirements are set.

The truth is that there are jobs to apply for in Sweden. Every week I meet employers who have difficulty finding the competence. We have had labor immigration and brought in people from other parts of the world who do not speak Swedish and do not have education, because they cannot find others to take the jobs. Come on!

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Throughout the entire parliamentary term, and in particular in the budget bill being prepared by the Committee on Finance right now, we in the Tidö parties have presented measures to strengthen household finances. We have lowered income taxes for wage earners and pensioners three times. We will halve the VAT on food and groceries. We have lowered taxes on fuels and lowered the reduction obligation, which has led to cheaper fuel by 10 kronor per liter, and we have strengthened the maximum fee so that the preschool fee becomes cheaper.

We are also lowering the electricity tax by 10 öre per kilowatt-hour. That is good, but there is still a kind of penalty taxation on electricity consumption in the magnitude of 43–44 öre per kilowatt-hour.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Will the Prime Minister also in the future be prepared to, together with the Sweden Democrats of course, move forward with further reductions of specifically the electricity tax? And above all: Will the Prime Minister be prepared to remove the hopeless automatic indexing of the electricity tax, which hits just when it is coldest and people need electricity the most for their heating?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have all respect for the question, but I believe the questioner also understands that when one has just presented a budget, one does not primarily think about which budget to present next year. Quite a lot can happen before then.

One way to compensate for the high inflation that we inherited from the old government is to lower taxes on things that make it easier for households to manage, for example, a tough winter. We also have an overall electricity problem in Sweden where the supply of electricity is too small. It is a bit ironic, one might think – we are a country that has been known for good access to affordable and clean electricity and attracted investments because of this. Now, instead, it is investments that are not coming to Sweden because we cannot guarantee the supply of electricity. We have quite extensive energy problems. We are now doing something about that through a new nuclear power program and also a lot of renewables. There are many things here.

I do not exclude at all that which is raised in the question. But right now, I am not sitting and thinking about how it will be with the electricity tax in the bill that comes in a year.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday we unfortunately received the news that Anna-Karin Hatt, the leader of the Center Party, has chosen not to continue her assignment due to hate and threats. It is a condemnation of the political climate of conversation. Unfortunately, this is not an exception, but it is something that affects many more.

This past week, the hatred against my party leader Nooshi Dadgostar has completely exploded on social media such as X and also on other platforms. She is portrayed by outspoken and well-known sympathizers of the Moderaterna, among other things, as a screaming monkey. Demonizing words such as "gaphals" are used by both cabinet ministers and the rabble moving in the comment sections. People also go even further with directly racist and hateful comments such as "go home!" and "babbejävel".

What responsibility does the Prime Minister have for his tail? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about this problem? I also want to remind the Speaker that the Prime Minister is here to answer questions from the Riksdag and not the other way around.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I did not quite understand the last part. I am answering questions from the Riksdag. That is exactly what I am standing here doing.

When it comes to Anna-Karin Hatt, we are probably in complete agreement. I truly regret that she drew that conclusion, even though I have all respect for her decision. Each person must decide for themselves under what conditions they want to act. But the reason she describes is really unfortunate.

I have known her for ten years or even longer. We have sat in the same government and have cooperated well. We disagree on a number of issues, but I have great respect for her as a person.

It is a warning signal when she describes that the tone of the debate makes her feel that she cannot act. I believe that many of us take this seriously. We have seen it for a long time. I have long called for a mature conversation in Sweden, even regarding difficult and sensitive issues.

Regarding Sveriges Television's debate this evening, I pointed out, along with quite a few others, that it is a bad idea to shout in people's faces, to not wait for one's turn, and to disrupt the debate time and again. I stand by that.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has recently presented a raised wage floor for labor migrants of just over 33,000 kronor per month. It is a hard blow to the country's entrepreneurs but also against us as a country.

Foreign competence is necessary for the business sector but also important for our growth. It contributes 52 billion annually to Swedish GDP and 17 billion in tax revenues. Above all, companies within agriculture, the tourism industry, and local care are threatened. This is also a clear interference in the Swedish model's wage formation, where the state and the government should not intervene.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister believe that the country's entrepreneurs are wrong in their serious concern over the new regulation and the raised wage floor?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not at all share the view that this is a hard blow to the country's entrepreneurs. I am of the opinion that in the long run we cannot have labor immigration to Sweden when it comes to wage levels and jobs where there are already people in Sweden who live on benefits and should take those jobs. That is my opinion. One should not have to go outside Europe and ask people to come to Sweden – people who do not speak Swedish, have not worked on the Swedish labor market and very often do not have any significant education – to take relatively low-paid jobs, when there are very many people who are fully capable of working and live on benefits in Sweden. It is an absurd situation. So we cannot have that.

In the regulatory framework that we have introduced, there are a number of exceptions for situations where it is difficult to find the required competence on good grounds. This also applies to, for example, short-term jobs, plantings and such things. There are therefore a number of reasonable exceptions from the rule. I think we are doing what is absolutely necessary right now.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have been able to read in Aftonbladet about Greta Thunberg's testimony from the time in an Israeli prison after she, together with other Swedes, had attempted to bring in humanitarian aid to a starving population in Gaza. It concerns Swedes who, according to reports, have been tortured, while UD has called it harsh treatment.

The UD has travel warnings for both Ukraine and Gaza. Still, the government praises those who travel to Ukraine but says that those who have been imprisoned and tortured by Israel have to blame themselves.

Therefore, my question is: What difference does the Prime Minister see between going to Ukraine and traveling to Gaza? Does the Prime Minister only care about Swedish citizens who think the same as the government?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting with the slippage that is taking place here, I think. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs has had a firm travel advisory regarding Gaza for ten years now. Regarding Ukraine, one has not had it for as long for obvious reasons, and one has it for other reasons. But the meaning is the same: Do not go there! Above all, do not go there if you expect Swedish help if you happen to get into trouble!

But there are no prohibitions. Go to Gaza if you want to, and take all the risks that exist! Go to Ukraine and fight for their cause if you are prepared to take the risks that it entails!

These are important matters. We are not responsible for people who choose to actively defy very clear rules. UD answered yesterday regarding what has been done to assist with the consular, despite the travel advice. But it is a strange rhetoric that you are carrying.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister! This year we celebrate 250 years of Jewish life in Sweden. In Malmö, a Jewish film festival was supposed to take place in November. But that will not happen. There is no cinema that wants to participate. The commercial cinemas say no for security reasons, and the municipally-owned Folkets hus has withdrawn. It is incredibly sad and incredibly serious that not a single cinema in Malmö dares to have anything to do with Jewish culture.

My question is therefore: What is the government doing to protect the right to Jewish life and Jewish culture and to combat this horrific antisemitism that is eating away at democracy in Sweden like a cancerous tumor?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me say two things in brief.

We are doing very much to protect Jewish institutions with pure security. That it is needed is very sad, but it is absolutely necessary.

We also do, and not least, a lot to highlight 250 years of Jewish life in Sweden. It is an important part of Swedish cultural history. We do very much in that area. It is a fine collaboration with the cultural actors who are involved.

I did not know about this in Malmö, but I can mention something that is all the more pleasing: Folkoperan is staging Stulen musik right now. I will see it myself soon. I was at the anniversary concert in Gothenburg just a few weeks ago, a fantastic concert. So perhaps there are those who shrink from it, but there are others who stand up for what is right.

(Applause)

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to highlight tragedies that are occurring in silence and that few speak about.

Dozens of people were killed in a terrorist attack against a church in Syria last summer.

In the Congo, hundreds of people have been murdered in various attacks against churches, most recently against a funeral service where more than 70 Christians were killed.

In Nigeria, perhaps the world's most underreported persecution is taking place. Up to 100,000 Christians have been murdered, and no fewer than 18,000 churches have been burned down and totally destroyed in recent years.

According to Open Doors, a total of 380 million Christians around the world are persecuted. Nevertheless, this is met with silence both in the media and in international politics.

In view of this, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: What does the government intend to do to give the world's Christians a voice in the EU, in the UN, and in our international work, and to show that Sweden clearly stands up for all people's right to freedom of religion?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I truly agree with the description.

This is one of the world's many paradoxes. In our part of the world, we often describe the incredible importance of religious tolerance. Our part of the world is dominated by Christian values among both believers and non-believers, and we think they are important. In other parts of the world dominated by other religions, that tolerance is very often lacking. It is a big problem, and sometimes we are not good at highlighting this ourselves.

Then there are many exceptions. Many of us point to what is happening in Syria, for example. We had a very fine week here in Stockholm in memory of Nathan Söderblom's ecumenical meeting in Stockholm exactly 100 years ago. There were many church leaders who spoke about the importance of respecting Christians also in other parts of the world.

I think a lot is being done, but much more must be done.

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! I come directly from the Swedish City Mission's seminar here in the Riksdag, where they released this year's poverty report. It shows that nearly 700,000 people live in material and social vulnerability, an almost doubling in just a few years.

It means that people are forced to choose between food and medicine – something that has increased as the government and Sverigedemokraterna have worsened the high-cost protection. It means that children carry their parents' vulnerability and choose not to ask for basic necessities, long before they should have to take that responsibility. It is not worthy of a welfare country like Sweden.

The Prime Minister usually says that people should work. I agree with that. But the government does not create the jobs. It does not create the opportunity for people to take those jobs. Now it is also weakening the safety net.

Prime Minister! You say that child poverty shall not increase. My question is: How do you intend to reach that goal with the policy being pursued?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In recent months, there has been a lot of flip-flopping within the Social Democrats. One changes opinion almost with a wet finger in the air and feels where the wind is blowing. But on one point, you Social Democrats are reliable: in the choice between benefits and jobs, you always choose benefits.

(Applause)

It is an important consumer information. Above all, you do it in opposition. In that case, there is furthermore no limit. In that case, there is always the possibility to increase the grants.

One must reflect. What creates poor families in the long run? Yes, a lack of earned income. What creates socially vulnerable children in the long run? Yes, parents who do not get up in the morning, do not go to work, are not self-sufficient and are not independent. That is our truly big problem.

If one does not see that problem, one can increase the benefits as much as one wants for those who do not work and increase the tax as much as one wants for those who work. It will never heal Sweden again. I simply think the exact opposite.

(Applause)

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today, many women in Sweden live under threat, control, and economic dependence. Leaving a violent relationship is often a life-threatening process, and society's protection is not always sufficient. Sheltered housing is full. Support is uneven, and the justice system often lacks follow-up.

It is a failure for the state when women seeking protection do not receive the support they actually need. I would like to ask the Prime Minister: How does the government view the need to strengthen the state's responsibility for the protection of women exposed to violence, and what concrete measures will the Prime Minister take so that no woman in Sweden is forced to stay with her perpetrator due to fear or economic dependence?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that we are essentially in complete agreement on the description of the problem itself.

There was a reason why I said in the government statement, approximately – it is not the exact wording – that we shall combat men's violence against women with the same determination and the same force as we combat serious organized crime with.

This violence is just as deadly and just as horrific, but it is not as organized. Therefore, it does not receive the same attention – unfortunately, I would like to say. It gets attention when a number of men murder their partner in a short period of time. Then things happen.

We do things, really – perhaps not exactly the things mentioned here but other things. We ensure that more people are fitted with ankle bracelets so that they do not come near the partner they are threatening. We expand the restraining orders so that one knows from further away where a person is located. We do tangible, concrete things that ensure more women who have good reason to be afraid of their former partner do not have to be afraid.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson! Healthcare is the voters' most important issue, and the SD-dependent government has, for three years, drained healthcare by failing to take inflation and the pension crisis in the regions into account.

The healthcare queues are not decreasing; they are increasing. In January 2021, there were 100,000 people who had been waiting in queue for more than 90 days. In July this year, there were over 180,000 people. The intensive care beds are fewer than before the pandemic.

The government proposes no increase in the general state grants for next year. At the same time, the sector grant is being abolished. The government is allocating nearly 2 billion less to health and medical care in 2026, next year, compared to 2025.

I must say that the accountability for healthcare is extremely substandard from the government and SD. You blame the entire crisis on the regions. Why?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The last part is directly incorrect. It is an entirely obvious error.

I stood here in the speaker's chair last year, when we had large inflation effects for the regions, and promised – and then also gave – more money so that we would help each other cope with the cost increases that inflation created, especially in the country's regions.

It is not entirely intuitive for all Swedes that high inflation drives up pension costs in the regions and thus crowds out other expenditures. But that was the case, and we helped each other. It also worked well. It is clear that we have not solved all problems, but we really helped each other when it was needed.

Furthermore, it is incorrect that the queues are increasing. Here is how it is: One chooses to take the figure from just before the pandemic, when few people even wanted to go to the hospital. It is an obviously meaningless comparison. If we compare the figures since then, we see that the queues have, on the contrary, decreased – not enough, we are not satisfied, but it is moving in the right direction.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Economic independence is fundamental for all people to be able to stand on their own feet and be secure. Therefore, it is extremely frustrating that women's lifetime income is still several million kronor lower than men's. For the first time in decades, the wage gap between women and men is also increasing, after having slowly but surely decreased for many years.

I have had two 15-year-old interns during the week. We have talked, among other things, about how the same work can lead to different salaries, solely depending on gender.

This is what Elsa and Greta want to ask the Prime Minister: Today we can invent cars and mobiles but not give women and men the same salary for the same job. It is tragic that a woman can perform a better job than a man but still earn several million less in total after adding up all income from the years one has worked.

The Swedish government must therefore perhaps place a bit more focus on better legislation or take other measures regarding women's work to ensure that the difference in wages between men and women disappears.

Why does the Prime Minister believe that equality is moving backwards in several ways – for example, by differences in wages between men and women increasing?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I really appreciate the question. I am thinking a lot about the same thing.

I have three daughters who are about to enter the workforce. We talk a lot about this at home. We talk about why it is so. We talk about things that are directly influenceable, such as which educations one completes and which jobs one applies for. We talk about how equality should be in families, where one distributes the responsibility for home, family, work, and children. Today, women take a crushing share of the part-time work when one has small children. Does it have to be that way? No, I do not believe it has to be.

There are also things that concern career choices. We have very male-dominated sectors that sometimes, but not always, tend to be higher paid. We have female-dominated sectors that are often lower paid. Why is it that way? We do not forbid anyone from applying for the job they want, but much of this lies in traditions. We have a collective responsibility to change those traditions and achieve an equal professional life also in terms of income.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have an overarching question that began with a newspaper notice this week about a meeting between the Prime Minister and Peter Thiel last summer. The Prime Minister obviously has the right to meet anyone he wants, but this is a conversation where the notes have been classified as confidential.

One should also know that Peter Thiel and his company Palantir are among the leaders in the USA in driving the development towards moving large amounts of data – often surveillance data – and information and other missions to private large companies.

My question concerns this. Is the government's and the Prime Minister's opinion, in a broader perspective, that this is a good path for Sweden to take?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must thank you for ensuring that I am not prevented by the Member of Parliament from meeting whomever I wish. It is appreciated. If I had not been free to meet whomever I wish, I might not have followed it.

If we are to be a bit serious, this is therefore a major international conference that takes place once a year. This time it was in Stockholm. It mixes a number of prime ministers – whom I also happen to meet at the same place – and a number of corporate leaders from Sweden and many other countries. A number of CEOs in Swedish and foreign technology companies were also there.

I think that technology issues are important. We have a large tech sector in Sweden that is also incredibly successful. There is an enormous cooperation, especially with the USA, both financially and technologically. Understanding what is happening in the tech sector, how we maintain our position, and how we can become good despite being in Europe and not in either the USA or China has a central value for Sweden. Therefore, I met a number of leading tech entrepreneurs in Stockholm.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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