The Prime Minister's Question Time

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker and listeners! Nazis spread fear on Swedish streets, and the activity clubs are a new and frightening part of right-wing extremist violence. The activity clubs are not a gang of exercise-interested youths who have ended up in bad company, on the contrary. According to Säpo, they have a clear connection to violence-oriented right-wing extremism. The activity clubs are characterized by racial ideological ideas, and they focus on physical training to strengthen their violence capital.

We have seen how members have been linked to assault violence and humiliating violence spread online. For example, four young men with links to Aktivklubb Sverige have now been convicted of, in a group, jumping on and assaulting three lone men on August 27 this year. These are serious violent crimes with hate crime motives, and there are more similar cases.

Over the weekend, about seventy masked individuals, primarily younger men, walked around in Stockholm and shouted Nazi slogans among families with children and people on evening walks. It was Aktivklubb Sverige that was behind this demonstration.

This has caused many to raise their voices, and I have looked but have not been able to see that the Prime Minister has commented on this, which actually worries me. I therefore take the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister: What initiatives is the government taking to counter the far-right extremism and the rise of activist clubs?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That Sweden has and shall have a far-reaching freedom of expression is something most are in agreement on in this chamber. The Government has, however, been very clear about what we think about violence-seeking extremism, from right to left, regardless of what kind of attire and message it carries with it. There is, therefore, no doubt whatsoever about what we think about this.

What the law allows, there is also no greater doubt about. But here we are concerned, because we have long wanted to move forward with legislation that criminalizes participation in criminal networks. But the Social Democrats have stood in the way. Now we move forward anyway, but the legislation could have already been in place if the Social Democrats had not hindered it.

It is always a difficult balance between freedom of speech and what is so violence-promoting that it should not be tolerated in Swedish society. We believe that when criminal networks clearly have the purpose of exercising violence, intimidation, and threats against others, a tolerant democracy must have limits to its tolerance. Now we move forward with our proposals, and we will see what the Social Democrats say. But it is not us, but the Social Democrats, who have delayed the possibility of stopping this kind of organized activity.

(Applause)

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! On Saturday, the far-right Salem march will reappear in one of Stockholm's surrounding municipalities. The terror-classified Nordic Resistance Movement will march at the same time as a Christmas market is being organized.

Magdalena Andersson has clearly signaled against violence and against this way of spreading unrest and fear, and the Social Democrats want to ban violence-promoting activist clubs. I was not aware that it is also the government's view, so we await such a proposal.

However, little is heard from the Prime Minister when it comes to distancing oneself from this loathsome phenomenon. I miss a government that sets limits, that clearly marks its stance against right-wing extremism and unprovoked violence, that calls for cohesion, that stands up for the equal value of all people and that, in the long run, stands up for Swedish democracy.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would have expected a clarification of where the Social Democrats stand on the issue of banning participation in criminal networks. It would have been appropriate.

The Social Democrats stalled the task and said no to the necessary constitutional amendment. Now we are moving forward anyway and are actually just waiting for the Social Democrats' answer. Do you just want to talk, or do you also want to do things? You are incredibly good at worrying about phenomena that you are then equally incapable of doing anything about. That applied in a government position, and it seems to apply even in an opposition position. Now you have the chance. Prove it!

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Right now we are seeing an alarming development of electricity prices in large parts of Sweden, especially in the southern and central parts. According to recent reporting, the price in southern Sweden reaches up to almost 5 kronor per kilowatt-hour during certain hours. At the same time, households are also burdened with electricity tax, VAT, and grid fees, which makes the final price even higher.

In southern Sweden, electricity prices have on certain days reached levels that mean a regular family's electricity consumption during a single cold winter day can cost several hundred kronor more than normal. For many, it then becomes a question of choosing between being reasonably warm, showering as usual, or starting the dishwasher, the coffee maker, or whatever it may be. This is not just figures and nor are they just made-up examples, but it is to the highest degree a reality for likely thousands of Swedish families, who are also soon to celebrate Christmas.

In a country like ours with dark, cold winter months, it should be a matter of course that every home can have the light on, that children can play in a warm living room, and that the Christmas star, which is a symbol of security and home, can shine without one needing to worry about expensive electricity bills. When the price of electricity skyrockets, those with small margins are hit the hardest – pensioners, single parents, and so on. Ahead of Christmas, community, security, and warmth should be at the center, but instead, we risk creating more cold and anxiety.

Decisions are needed that guarantee that electricity does not become a luxury but a right for everyone. My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: How will the government ensure that every Swede can celebrate Christmas without freezing or feeling worried about being able to afford to keep the light on or let the Christmas star shine?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I fundamentally disagree with that description. As Jimmie Åkesson knows, we are working together on all the changes that will ensure we address the problems we have seen for a long time. They were at extreme levels in 2022–2023.

We have problems with the constant ups and downs – the volatility, as those who speak the language of electricity prices call it. It is largely due to the fact that we have weather-dependent power in our systems, which creates extreme pressures on our grids and also very varying prices.

People naturally become much more concerned when prices soar upwards than when they plummet downwards. Companies sometimes become more concerned when prices plummet downwards, for equally natural reasons. The overall picture is that we have significantly lowered electricity prices since the worst times in 2022 and 2023. These are significant differences. I understand that it is not the issue being raised, but prices are overall much lower now. We are talking about thousands of kronor for an apartment and tens of thousands of kronor for villas that are electrically heated. These are major changes. But the underlying problem remains. That is why we are proceeding with everything we are doing now. It was an event that looked like a thought that Ebba Busch today had summoned the electricity market companies.

We are also looking at the reasonableness regarding the fees. We are working on a comprehensive restructuring of the entire energy policy, which primarily is based on more base load in the system. In just a few weeks or two, we will make the decisive decision to build new nuclear power in Sweden.

We are all doing these things, but of course it takes time. Everyone knows that it is easy to make decisions to shut down energy production. It takes a long time to build up new energy production. I think we are doing what is required, but it is an enormous task that lies ahead of us. If we continue on this line, Sweden will get stable and low electricity prices in the future – that which was once the great strength, not least for Swedish export industry and Swedish households.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is absolutely correct as the Prime Minister says. It takes time to build things up. It took time to build up perhaps the world's best-planned energy system. It did not take long to demolish the same. We suffer from this today, hence this question.

The electricity tax for companies has been reduced, for good reasons – not least to create predictability and stability in the system and to encourage establishments and investments. We are lowering the electricity tax slightly now in the budget that we have presented together.

A follow-up question is whether the Prime Minister sees any opportunities to perhaps continue to lower the electricity tax in the future in order to create stability and lower prices for ordinary people with completely ordinary lives in completely ordinary households.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As has been pointed out, we are lowering the electricity tax from January 1st. It is an important part of the whole. I appreciate the invitation to a public budget debate or budget negotiation before upcoming budgets. It is, as we both know, a constant discussion about how to handle the total space that exists in a budget.

Of course, we are not unfamiliar with reductions, especially not in a transition period before electricity production in Sweden becomes more stable and creates stable prices. We will certainly have to return to that in constructive budget negotiations in the next round.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! During the time that Ulf Kristersson's government has ruled together with the Sweden Democrats, households have been burdened by increased costs. There have been high food prices, high interest rates, and high rents. Now, high electricity prices are added, and above all, as we have seen in recent weeks, high grid fees – and the grid companies want to raise them even further.

What is the background to this, really? Well, that Ulf Kristersson's government, together with the Sweden Democrats, already several years ago allowed the large electricity grid companies to collect 100 billion kronor more in fees during the period 2024–2027. It is the so-called revenue framework that the government and the Sweden Democrats have given to the electricity grid companies.

It is with the government's and the Sweden Democrats' good memory that Vattenfall, among others, is now raising its grid fees by 14 percent. These are dramatic increases, which therefore only follow the regulatory framework that the government and the Sweden Democrats themselves have hammered out.

The authority itself, Energiinspektionen, says that the electricity grid companies are clearly overcompensated. The money does not go to investments, but it is overprices. Now, the Sweden Democrats and the government are lowering the tax a little bit for ordinary households but take it back in higher fees through the state-owned company Vattenfall – which, moreover, made a profit of 33 billion kronor last time. Obviously, they do not need to raise the fees.

Does the Prime Minister understand that many find this offensive?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was a review of your own time as the de facto person responsible for economic policy that the Left Party first gave here. High inflation, high interest rates, and extreme electricity prices were what we inherited from you. One has such a short memory sometimes. I heard very little whining at that time about just those things.

Now inflation is low, now mortgage rates are falling and now electricity prices are overall significantly lower than when they were at their highest. That is the truth. Then there is no reason to be satisfied with that. Today's meeting between the Minister for Enterprise and the electricity companies was a good example of this. There is a justified concern because they have signaled sharply increased prices for the electricity grids. The prices should be reasonable. Many probably understand the need for investments and that they cost money, but the prices must be reasonable.

There was a meeting today. I did not perceive the Minister for Enterprise as being entirely satisfied with the result in every detail. Therefore, the Energy Markets Inspectorate will receive a special assignment to review whether the increases are reasonable or not.

I believe that Nooshi Dadgostar knows that it is not the government that sets the prices, but the government has a responsibility to follow up and check that what is being done is reasonable and, if it is not, propose measures. Precisely that is happening right now.

We are concerned about these increases. We are long-term concerned about the electricity system you left behind, which does not meet the standard. Electricity production is far too weather-dependent, and the system provides far too little base load. We are doing something about that. The other thing must also be addressed, and that was done by the Minister for Enterprise today.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The problem is, therefore, that the Minister for Enterprise himself gave the electricity grid companies permission to raise their fees by 100 billion SEK several years ago. One cannot be surprised that they are following that instruction and raising their prices today. It is something that the Sweden Democrats and the government themselves have allowed by means of the revenue framework you decided on several years ago. That is the problem.

Pretending, due to the media debate, as if one is going to seek more transparency does not help. Now, prices must be lowered and new decisions must be made regarding the revenue frameworks. This is not sustainable. We cannot have higher grid fees again. Tell Vattenfall that they must lower their return requirements and that one does not need a CEO who has 1.5 million in monthly salary!

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No one is pretending. The law is clear. The pricing shall be reasonable. If it is not, or if it can be questioned, there is an inspection that looks into that matter. Today, Ebba Busch has done exactly what should be done in such a situation. One calls in the companies and asks for explanations on how they view the situation, checks whether one is completely satisfied with the answers or not, and furthermore asks the authority to conduct a review. That is how it normally works in Sweden.

We do not merely note that someone is dissatisfied, but we examine the matter carefully, check what the law says, follow the law, and ensure that those who act are also forced to accept and follow the law. That is exactly what we have done, and that is what I believe every serious government would have done in the same situation.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden stands united in defense policy. Sweden stands united in its unwavering support for Ukraine. It is an enormous strength in Swedish politics that we, from left to right, stand united, because it is about our common Sweden.

Centerpartiet wants to see that we also stand united in energy policy and that we in Sweden's Riksdag can take a shared responsibility for the development in the energy area. We want to see long-term stable rules of the game for the market actors – rules of the game that survive mandate periods. We want to see that entrepreneurs, innovators, investors and energy companies are reactivated.

Now, instead, there is total paralysis. No investments are being made in new electricity production. The electricity price areas, which were supposed to drive investments, are now instead functioning as effective electricity price increasers for southern Sweden, and now we are also getting acutely rising grid fees. The government's own company Vattenfall Eldistribution is raising by 14 percent. It is not wise! Naturally, it is the people in the countryside who are hit hardest.

Historical graphs of electricity production investments in Sweden show a dramatic fall now and moving forward. Nothing is being built, and for example, no orders are being placed for wind turbines. When a colleague visited an energy company in Örebro this week, the headline was "The Swedish electricity market's crisis." Unfortunately, it is not unexpected. Without an energy policy that one can rely on, there will be no investments.

Mr. Speaker! I have understood that Ulf Kristersson rejects a broad agreement on energy policy. I wonder: If that is true, how has the Prime Minister arrived at that?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first agree that it is a significant strength when we think alike and can therefore reach an agreement. Eight out of eight parties think alike when it comes to defense policy and support for Ukraine. It wavered at the beginning, but since then we have thought alike. Six of eight parties think alike about Nato and have therefore been able to reach an agreement. But that is based on the fact that we think alike. It is not a fabricated agreement that is not also backed by serious content. I am for that kind of serious unity where one thinks alike and therefore acts together from right to left, as in the Nato issue from Sverigedemokraterna to Socialdemokraterna. It is a unique strength from an international perspective.

In the energy issues, it has unfortunately been exactly the opposite. For 45 years we have argued about nuclear power. Now, finally, a unity in substance is beginning to be noticed. Now in December, the Riksdag will make a decision with, as it looks right now, 80 percent support to invest in new Swedish nuclear power. If the Center Party wants to be part of this substantively broad unity, you are welcome. To generally talk about the need for unity but hide disagreement has not impressed anyone for 45 years.

We need more fossil-free energy in Sweden and more fossil-free baseload power that is not weather-dependent. In addition, we need wind, sun, and perhaps more water, if that is even possible at all. All of this is needed. If the Center Party wants to be part of creating unity also regarding nuclear power, you are welcome to the broad consensus.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the open attack!

Yes, we in the Center Party look forward. Sweden is an innovative country with strong research and a strong business sector. What we want is to set all this power into motion. We do not embrace any single technology. The most important thing is not whether it is pumped storage, offshore wind power, AI-based controls of local power grids, solar cells on residential roofs, small modular nuclear reactors, or new combined heat and power plants. The role of politics for us is to create stable rules of the game and conditions for all market actors, but it is urgent.

Now there is total inactivity, and the increases in grid fees can be seen as an early signal that the energy market is very shaky. What is the government's recipe for breaking the deadlock and getting investments in the energy sector started again?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is an incorrect description. The increase in problems in the power grid is not in any way due to too much weather-dependent power. It creates problems, which is quite obvious. We have too little base load and too much weather-dependent power. It creates problems in the Swedish power grid, which is otherwise world-leading.

Inactivity? I do not know if C has missed the string of decisions we have made to both be able to decide on new offshore wind power, which the previous government failed to do, and make all the decisions that pave the way for new nuclear power. And now in December, further decisions are being made. We do not embrace individual power sources. We make decisions that ensure that new nuclear power is also built now. If C wants to be part of that journey, you are welcome.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Earlier this year, the Tidö parties abolished the possibility for people who have sought asylum to change tracks and instead apply for a work permit to live and work in Sweden. The government did not only close the door for new such track changes, but it also decided that those who have already lived and worked in Sweden, perhaps for many years, shall leave the country. Thousands of individuals who live, work, and pay tax in Sweden are now forced out. Possibly they can apply for a new permit from their home country instead. This is happening despite the fact that they have done right by themselves. They have integrated, learned Swedish, worked, and paid tax from the start. The children have established themselves in Swedish school classes. They are thus forced to leave Sweden and sell their houses and homes. Concretely, for some, this may mean a concern for their own safety.

The Christian family Sara Ghorbani, Farhood Masoudi and their 14-year-old son arrived in Norsjö in 2018. They have converted to Christianity and are worried about being forced back to Iran, where conversion is not permitted. And Fereshte Javani, a woman who has worked in health and social care in Sweden and who has engaged for the rights and freedom of Iranian women, asks herself: What should I do now? I do not dare to return to Iran.

In addition to the devastating consequences for individuals, there are many municipalities that need these people. Could the government consider putting a stop to the deportation of those persons who are already established in our country?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are working on a long-term and absolutely necessary reorganization of the entire migration policy. I know that we differ on the substance. You want increased asylum migration, while we want reduced asylum migration. But let me set that aside for the time being.

We are now changing the policy, because it was completely unmanageable. It does not work to have it in the way we had for many years. Several hundred thousand asylum seekers came to Sweden during a short period without anyone having the slightest thought about the integration problems. Furthermore, we had a system where the person who was denied their asylum application and should therefore go home could convert it into something else. And the system was such that many who were denied could still stay in the country. Furthermore, it was a system that accommodated recurring amnesties or amnesty requirements that created uncertainty about whether Swedish asylum and immigration policy had any common thread at all.

All this was unsustainable. It created uncertainty both for individuals and for the collective Sweden: What is our responsibility? How are the people who have been rejected supposed to leave the country? How are the people who are granted approval supposed to enter Swedish society? We are now working to establish a legally secure immigration policy that is at a lower level.

To broaden the scope of the problem slightly: In Europe, it is currently an average of 80 percent of those who have been denied an asylum application to one of the EU's countries who nevertheless remain. In Sweden, that figure is now down to 20 percent. What I want to say is that the entire idea of an orderly and regulated asylum policy and immigration policy fails if one does not make a difference between a denial and an approval. It is the one who receives an approval on their application who should stay – and the one who receives a denial should leave.

Furthermore, we have a labor immigration policy that allows those who meet certain requirements to apply to come to Sweden to work. We intend to keep the two tracks separate.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The fact is that we disagree on which rules should apply to people who want to come here, but now we are talking about people who have lived here for many years.

They have lived here based on the rules that the Moderaterna and Miljöpartiet actually developed together – as we agreed upon at the time – and which these people believed were to apply to them. It is not legally secure when, eight years later, you come and pull the rug out from under people who have done right by themselves – who work here, who pay tax, and who literally contribute to the welfare in every possible way.

Many municipalities, not least in northern Sweden, are crying out for people who want to work in healthcare and elderly care. There, the problem is not unemployment but a shortage of these people. I would therefore like to conclude by thanking Roland Boman, municipal councilor in Jokkmokk, who wrote to the government with the words: Thank you, but no thank you – here we are one, not a we and a they!

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is not a question of us and them, but it is about Sweden having an immigration and asylum policy that is coherent, credible, and long-term – not one that is constantly changing and creates different spaces for different people with the same basic reasons to apply for asylum.

It is much better to have a basic rule that says: Your asylum application is examined, and if it is granted, you shall quickly enter Sweden, learn the Swedish language, and enter the labor market. If it is rejected, you shall leave. Furthermore, there is a space for people to seek to come to Sweden as labor migrants if they reach certain wage levels. Then one knows what applies.

I am extremely concerned that we will return to a policy where these things are mixed up again and where we do not have control over immigration. When that policy is also combined with demands for increased asylum immigration to Sweden, we lose our grip once again.

(Applause)

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! Recently, TV4 revealed how the Social Democrats' wholly-owned company AIP Media engages in political influence online. As an obscure sender, they have, without consent, carried out a systematic mapping of young people's sensitive personal data.

It is not the first time the Social Democrats have engaged in subjecting vulnerable groups to this type of questionable methods. With Kombilotteriet, aggressive sales were directed at elderly people. That ended with elderly people ending up with the enforcement authority (Kronofogden) and the Social Democrats being convicted of crimes against the gambling act. Now, instead, they are targeting young people via social media.

Against this background, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: What are the Prime Minister's reflections regarding this type of fraudulent behavior, and what principles should actually apply for the parties' transparency?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It has been difficult to avoid this question over the past few weeks – even if I perhaps think that the Social Democrats this time have not been as loud, maybe one could call it, as when others previously have been caught doing things that are not appropriate.

I have some reflections, and the first concerns the hypocrisy in this. To loudly and in a tone that no one could misunderstand attack others and then do roughly the same thing yourself is weak leadership.

The second reflection concerns something that is perhaps more serious in substance, namely that the Social Democrats have moved from, in practice, letting elderly people be deceived by people in the Social Democrats' service into buying lottery tickets – and furthermore with the help of methods that were quite obviously not okay legally – to using some kind of youth variant. Young people perhaps do not buy lottery tickets to the same extent, but there the Social Democrats use accounts that are specially adapted for young people.

No, this is hypocrisy and bad style!

(Applause)

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! A home is not a share. The tax on the sale of housing is today designed in a way that locks the elderly in their homes and keeps young families away from houses they desperately need.

The Christian Democrats' proposal to abolish the tax on the sale of housing does not solve the housing crisis, but our proposal ensures that people both want to and can move and relocate to a new home. It is not the villa owners' fault that the Swedish housing market does not function. A home that one has owned for generations – which one has renovated and fixed and where one's children have grown up – is not a share. Therefore, a phasing out of the capital gains tax after a period of ownership is morally right.

My question is: Does the Prime Minister and the government see the problems that I describe?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that mobility itself is limited by capital gains taxation – there is no doubt about that – so if one only had mobility in mind, one would naturally do so.

As I said earlier, I am somewhat reluctant to stand here and engage in budget negotiations in the Riksdag's rostrum, because it does not work in practice. It is about constant trade-offs between different things, for example, which taxes are most important to lower and what different distribution effects various tax cuts have. Here, one can certainly properly analyze what a capital gains tax reduction would mean for the fairly large group of people who would then be prepared to sell their property. All of this must be examined very carefully.

I am not closing any doors, but I am not here and now prepared to promise that just this will be included in the next budget. Let the discussion continue!

(Applause)

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! In a restless time, defense capability is important, and historically large investments are also being made in defense in Sweden and in the rest of Europe.

A current example is Saab Kockums, which is now located in Landskrona. They are expanding significantly, and recently it was announced that they have received a large order to deliver submarines to Poland. This means that the company will significantly increase its production capacity in Landskrona and in Skåne. This is, of course, a very welcome announcement, especially for Landskrona, where it will have great significance for jobs, industry, and continued development, but also for Swedish and European defense capability.

My question to the Prime Minister is how the government views the need for labor in the defense industry as the industry now expands and what educational initiatives are thought to be needed in the future.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to start by agreeing that this is a fantastically exciting deal in a dull time. That Swedish engineering expertise, our unique experience of submarine construction and the unique experience of the Baltic Sea that we share with Poland led to this deal, I think is an enormous success. The Baltic Sea will become safer, and the cooperation between our two countries will improve. It also means a lot for the economy, because submarines, as is well known, are not free.

It also requires extreme engineering knowledge, and I am well aware that the defense industry companies are now searching with a lantern. It is binding for people who are now obtaining new educations and seeking themselves into these sectors, where one marries old, traditional defense technology with the absolute latest – not least the computer science knowledge. Furthermore, further education of people who already exist in these companies is, of course, taking place.

I am meeting companies with great hope for the future right now, albeit for very boring reasons. But the supply of skills is absolutely an important issue for them.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! We were eight parties who made a settlement on defense. That is something I think was very important, and I also see that we from my party largely influenced the content of the settlement.

It concerns very large amounts that are to be distributed within the total defense. We have asked when the new negotiations will take place. When do the new negotiations, which were promised already in the basic agreement, start?

We have submitted proposals for two additional new brigades within the army after 2030 and to increase the number of conscripts to 12,000 already in 2030 instead of 10,000 as was agreed. We have raised the question of organizing the territorial defense units that are important for transports from the Norwegian coast to the Swedish east coast and also to be able to defend the transports that are to proceed further. We have raised the question of obtaining a new submarine.

My question to the Prime Minister is: When will the invitation for defense consultations arrive? Why is it not happening, and is there any problem preventing this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I see no problems at all in this. On the contrary, I just underlined the value of eight out of eight parties standing behind the defense policy. It is completely unique.

When the Left Party was asked about the government's budget and, of course, mostly gave criticism, they were asked: Is there not something you think is good in the budget? Yes, they answered: The defense buildup is good. I think this is a sign of the times nonetheless.

Defense Minister Pål Jonson has signaled that we will, of course, continue to cooperate on the actual content of this. Exactly in what form he invites those talks, I believe one can most easily ask the Defense Minister about.

(Applause)

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

Clara Aranda (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A new report from Försäkringskassan shows that around 4,000 people who are assessed as active gang criminals or have clear links to criminal networks receive their basic livelihood through benefits. In total, these payments have amounted to approximately 3.6 billion kronor over recent years.

This means that a significant number of people who, according to the police's definition, are part of gang criminal environments are living on tax-funded benefits. This risks undermining the legitimacy of our social security systems and simultaneously contributes to strengthening the economic base for organized crime.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are now breaking the secrecy and making it possible to share information between authorities. It is an important step, but we obviously need to do more. I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister if the government intends to take further measures so that we can better detect, prevent, and prosecute such exploitation.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer is yes. But it is exactly as the questioner also said: We have made enormous efforts to address this. For many years, people have only talked about this being a problem. People have been horrified and shuddered. We are doing things about it.

But sometimes a bit of practical implementation is also required. It is about the ability to build majorities and make decisions. Sometimes it is the uncomfortable decisions. We have now made decisions that entered into force on Monday, which mean that Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten will be able to collect many more pieces of information from banks, insurance companies, and employers to ensure correct underlying data for decisions. It sounds like it should have been that way all along, but that is how it has never been.

This is just a small example of a lot of different system failures in the Swedish systems that gang criminals abuse. It doesn't just cost ordinary taxpayers large amounts of money, but the money is also used in criminal activity. It is a double failure. Now we are finally doing something about those things.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Over the past few days, we have been able to hear testimonies from many people who, from one day to the next, have lost thousands of kronor in activity support. All these people testify to an ambiguity, both regarding the reduction in the unemployment insurance fund and, above all, regarding the heavily reduced activity support.

The current government claims that the changes in the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) would be an improvement. But for the 86,000 people who have lost their jobs and now receive a significantly lower compensation, it has only resulted in more control and a much greater insecurity. To me, the whole thing appears as a strategy: to press people deeper into poverty. Under Ulf Kristersson's leadership, Sweden unfortunately becomes a country where the working class pays the price and the government pretends that reforms are improvements.

That is why I ask the Prime Minister: Why is a policy being pursued that deliberately makes Sweden's unemployed even poorer?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There was a time when those who represented the interests of the working class were the ones who were most careful that the system would never be abused, that one would never be able to live on benefits longer than absolutely necessary, and that the compensation was for the short period between two jobs, for those who can work. For those who cannot work at all, there are other systems. "The work principle" is what we call that attitude today.

Then there are others who always want higher benefits for longer periods. This government does not hold that view. It is incredibly important that unemployment insurance and activity support are for the time one is unemployed, while one finds a new job.

The experience is unambiguous: If these benefits can be received for a very long time, they become permanent. And long-term unemployment is the most dangerous. We do everything we can so that people, with education and with the support of correctly designed benefit systems, shall return to work as soon as it is at all possible.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has recently referred its own proposal for municipal tax equalization, which means that small municipalities in our country shall give even smaller municipalities money so that they, in turn, can manage the welfare mandate that we in the Riksdag have given them. This means that Orsa loses 12 million and Vansbro loses 12 million. Robertsfors and Nordmaling lose as well. These are small municipalities with 6,000–7,000 inhabitants, but it is they who are to save the economy in municipalities that are even smaller.

It is about the countryside where life expectancy is shorter, school results lower, and dental health worse than in the cities. It comes from a government that claims to protect precisely the countryside and those of us who live there.

My question is whether the Prime Minister considers this to be the right way to go to reduce the injustices between city and country.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall be humble and say that we are sending the proposal for consultation because it is intended to be discussed. Everyone who has followed the tax equalization over the years knows that these are incredibly difficult matters. During my time in politics, I do not believe I have heard of any tax equalization system that has been considered good.

The tax equalization system has always received harsh criticism. It is supposed to balance rather incompatible interests. It is supposed to create reasonably equal conditions in different parts of the country. Not least, small municipalities should have a reasonable basis to conduct their activities. It should provide good incentives for each municipality to do good things and receive a share of what they themselves do – not just become a victim of what happens in other parts of the country.

These are difficult matters. We are sending this out for consultation, not with any high-flown idea that it is a perfect solution, but to discuss the matter before the next decision. I am quite humble regarding the fact that even this system will be criticized by those who think the old system was partly better. But let that discussion have its course for a while.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In October, Save the Children presented this year's report on child poverty, where it was stated that child poverty in Sweden is increasing and that 13 percent, i.e., one in eight children in Sweden, live in poverty. This means that approximately three students in a normal-sized Swedish school class grow up in poverty and economic vulnerability. Poverty is greatest among children of single mothers.

The government chose in its budget not to increase the child allowance or the maintenance support. The so-called historical increase of the housing allowance for families with children corresponds to less than half of the sum that the government reduced the housing allowance by just this year, when the government removed the supplement to the housing allowance. Many experts also warn that several of the government's reforms of the safety nets will increase child poverty.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: How does the government intend to act to reduce child poverty in Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that when our budget and our proposals were analyzed, it was a study where it was pointed out that the unique increase that we are making means that precisely single parents, who are the most disadvantaged, receive a relatively large part of the increase. It was an important thing for us to do this.

Then there is no doubt that in a recession it will always be tougher. In an economic boom, it becomes easier. That is how it has always been. But what worries me most is the long-term poverty based on parents never going to work. That child poverty is doubly dangerous. It is economically problematic – that is also why we, for example, introduce the leisure card, which ensures that even those children can have leisure activities without that money having to compete with, for example, the rent. But it is also dangerous because children who never see their parents go to work are exposed to completely different long-term risks.

The work line is the absolutely most important preventive measure against poverty. Families who work, families who have a wage, fare much better than those who never work.

(Applause)

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! Gang crime has spread over many years and is creeping further down into the ages. It is a result of eight years of Social Democratic failures, but it is also a development that I know the Prime Minister and the government take seriously and are acting against with more resources but also more tools for, among other things, the police.

Today, the government announced that it will very soon present a proposal to the Riksdag that makes it possible to revoke the citizenship of those who hold dual citizenship and commit crimes that seriously damage the state's vital interests, even in cases of serious gang-related crime.

My question is: How does the Prime Minister view the possibility of obtaining support in the Riksdag for this constitutional amendment?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share the view that it is an exciting question. If the Riksdag stands behind this, only the Riksdag's parties can answer.

This is an incredibly important change. Other countries have such regulations. It is not reasonable that one should be able to violate everything that Sweden stands for and enjoy the benefits of dual citizenship without risking their Swedish citizenship.

We will move forward with this. The big question is rather how other parties will take a stand on it, since a constitutional amendment requires a broad majority.

I believe there is massive popular respect and understanding that Sweden should not be a haven for grossly criminal, organized criminals, who use Swedish citizenship as a shield for themselves but as a threat to many others. It is only if the Swedish state speaks plainly in these matters that they will understand what we are saying. We stand up for the interests of ordinary honest citizens, not for the organized criminals who have been allowed to become Swedish citizens even though they should not be.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Five years ago, Adriana, twelve years old, was out with her dog. She was shot by mistake by someone who was intended to shoot a gang criminal.

A year and a half ago, Mikael was out with his son. He was shot right in front of his twelve-year-old son's eyes.

Since then, unfortunately, there have been 1,700 shootings, and the recruitment is going lower and lower in age. They are decreasing now, but it is far too many.

Here in the gallery sit now Adriana's mother and Adriana's little sister, Mikael's son and Mikael's sister and Sebastian Stakset. They are now taking an important initiative at 3 Arena on January 31. What it is about is to show that the adult world stands on the children's side.

My question concerns the Adrian laws, which are still not fulfilled. Some progress has been made there, but when can they be fulfilled? And above all, what can the Prime Minister and the government do to show that we stand on their side, on the side of civil society, on the side of the parishes and the sports movement, to stop this wave of violence?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first say to you who are sitting in the gallery that I really appreciate it. We met earlier as well. I appreciate it. A warm welcome here! I appreciate the commitment but also the testimonies that are given about completely horrific events. It is incredibly important.

I believe that the vast majority know that we have done an enormous amount of things since then. We have tightened a number of laws that should have been tightened many years ago. We make it much harder to be a gang criminal in Sweden today. We carry out long-term preventive measures with confidentiality legislation that ensures fewer children and young people are drawn into that path. We ensure that those who are convicted are both imprisoned for longer and deported from Sweden if they are not Swedish citizens.

We have halved the lethal gun violence so far. We have doubled the number of clearances when it comes to the most serious violence. Much more remains to be done, but we are on the right track. Do not change course once again!

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the EU Commission presented a new plan to secure support for Ukraine by using the frozen Russian assets as collateral.

According to information, the proposal has already met with harsh criticism from Belgium's Prime Minister. It was actually rejected by Belgium even before it was presented. Ukraine's assets will be exhausted at the beginning of next year, and the Belgian right-wing nationalist Bart De Wever has so far opposed all proposals from the commission in order to reach a solution.

The last time I asked how the Prime Minister viewed Belgium's actions, the Prime Minister said that my question was at a "student council level." How does the Prime Minister today view that more and more people are now openly speaking out about the fact that Belgium's Prime Minister actually does not seem to want to find a solution to be able to provide the important support to Ukraine by using the frozen Russian assets as collateral?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Commission's proposal arrived yesterday. We are looking at it extremely closely and maintaining close contact with all our like-minded countries. There are many of them right now – the Nordic-Baltic states, Germany, Poland and many more. That Germany and France changed their minds was completely decisive. It means that, fundamentally, there is a large majority in favor of using frozen Russian assets.

But Belgium is still skeptical. We do not know yet – it will become clear in the coming weeks – whether the Belgians' skepticism is a negotiation tactic to change details or if they are truly going in to try to stop these proposals. I am quite sure that they are also being subjected to very hard pressure from Russia, which in different ways threatens the countries that want to cooperate in using frozen Russian assets.

We will do everything we can to get this decision through, but as always in the EU, I do not dare promise success until we are seated in the actual meeting. These are very difficult questions for a few countries, but they can block the whole. Sweden is acting powerfully to reach a good decision.

(Applause)

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the police's recently published situation report on vulnerable areas 2025, one can read that the development in vulnerable and particularly vulnerable areas shows a stability, albeit with local improvements. Serious violent crimes are, however, still strongly linked to these areas. Drug trafficking has moved indoors. The recruitment of very young perpetrators continues, often online and from smaller towns without previous criminal networks.

In light of this, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: Does the government now, with all the new legislation that is underway, have the tools needed to be able to restore order to a greater extent in these areas so that law-abiding citizens living there can as soon as possible get back their basic security in everyday life?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are not there yet, but we are on our way there. Do not change course! Those who now threaten to return to the old crime policy risk vital Swedish interests.

We have come a long way. We have halved the fatal gun violence. We have doubled the clearance of the most serious crimes. The police have completely different tools today than before. We have many more cameras, mobile in drones and in fixed locations, which follow people who threaten to commit crimes. Today, we stop crimes before they are committed. Stay-away orders, preventive wiretapping, anonymous witnesses, increased deportation of people who commit crimes in Sweden, all of this is what allows us today to strike much harder – all of this is in the right direction.

Are we there yet? Absolutely not! Hold the course! Stick to the policy that has begun new results!

(Applause)

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

Elsa Widding (-)

Mr. Speaker! I understand what the Prime Minister thinks about the frozen Russian assets.

The problem is that a joint and several liability means that if the creditors – in practice Euroclear Belgium – are forced to pay back to Russia after a legal process, they can demand full compensation from any of the guaranteeing countries, i.e., not just their proportional share. This is the problem. If Euroclear were to point to Sweden, we would become liable for all of it. Then we are talking, in rough terms, 2,000 billion Swedish kronor, i.e., 140 billion euro, plus interest plus damages. Then, in turn, we will have to demand this from the other countries.

How does the Prime Minister view this risk? Can we even manage that risk within the state budget?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, it must be remembered that this is fundamentally a political and moral decision – not a legal one – if the aggressor, the one who attacks an entire country and commits brutal atrocities against Ukraine, were to threaten us with legal retaliatory measures if we do the only right thing and help Ukraine with the attacker's own resources.

There are reasons why very careful countries like Germany wholeheartedly stand behind this. It does not prevent Belgium from having reasons to ask a number of follow-up questions, which they are now getting answers to, regarding how other countries will ensure that Belgium does not stand alone responsible towards Russia. We have all respect for that.

These questions must now be clarified before the meeting of the European Council on December 18, and then I hope – but can still absolutely not promise – that we can reach a decision on using Russia's assets against Russia.

(Applause)

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Mr. Speaker! From SCB's latest statistics regarding the situation on the labor market, it can be stated that almost every fourth young person in this country lacks a job to go to. It is a development that has worsened during this parliamentary term.

That young people lose their jobs or do not enter the labor market in the first instance risks having major consequences both for the individuals and for society as a whole. We Social Democrats have presented several proposals that we are actively pushing for here in the Riksdag. This concerns, in particular, investments in summer jobs, SAO jobs for young people, and other important initiatives to get more young people into work.

Despite the fact that we are in the final year of the parliamentary term and the term's third Minister for Employment, in practice, no bills are being presented from the Ministry of Employment to handle this crisis.

I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister: When will the government realize the seriousness of the situation and actually come forward with political proposals to solve this crisis?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is always a bit funny with the Social Democrats: If one does not present specifically social democratic proposals, one presents no proposals at all. So that is not correct. The vocational college, which is probably the single most important opportunity for young people who do not primarily attend traditional academic educations to get jobs where there is growth, is being expanded with 12,000 places from 2024 to 2028.

I also note another thing, and that is that the Social Democrats are always very upset about high youth unemployment when they are in opposition – but never when they are in government. Then it is never a matter of "very high youth unemployment." The statistics are important, but the statistics also hide some things. If you remove the full-time studying youth, the proportion decreases from 25 percent to 11.5 percent.

In the group that I am most concerned about, i.e., those who do not work, do not study, and do not participate in any kind of education, the proportion is 4.8 percent. It is not an insignificant group, because they face long-term risks. But to say that every fourth person faces acute unemployment is simply not true, and it has never concerned the Social Democrats in government.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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