The Prime Minister's Question Time

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! To first promise, then not deliver, and finally shift the blame is a refrain that we hear all too often from Ulf Kristersson. It does not sound very good.

Before the last election, Ulf Kristersson promised to get the Swedish economy in order, but instead, he has lost control. Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna have finished off the Swedish people's money. Ordinary hard-working families wonder what they have received for it.

The Moderates and the Sweden Democrats have failed with growth. They have failed with the jobs. They have indebted every Swede to lower the taxes for themselves and others among the very richest. Nurses, police officers, and bus drivers will for decades need to pay interest and amortizations on Ulf Kristersson's policy.

The least one can demand now, Mr. Speaker, is that the government puts an end to the destructive policy. Already, the money has been exhausted – not just for this year, not for next year and not for the year after that, but for the entire next mandate period, just as was actually done the last time Ulf Kristersson sat in the government and I had to take over and clean up.

The least we can demand now is that the Moderates realize the gravity of the situation and promise right here and now that there are no unfunded reforms in this year's spring budget amendment. I believe that would be a welcome message for the Swedish people.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! So speaks the Minister for Finance in the government that did not even manage to pass its own budgets. Do not come and lecture me on economic policy, Magdalena Andersson! If you cannot pass your own budget, you have no economic policy at all. Imagine if we had not had it during the tough years that we are now soon leaving behind.

My second reflection is that the Social Democrats continue to speak poorly about Sweden. It is a party that left behind 10 percent inflation. Now it is 2 percent. It is a party that left behind a period with tripled mortgage interest rates. Now they have been halved. It is a party that left behind a Sweden that was at the bottom of the EU in terms of growth. Now we have one of the top positions in the forecasts. You speak poorly about the things that are going well in Sweden. Do not do that! It harms Sweden and Swedish interests.

We can go into more detail on your concern about waste, and in that case, I just want to ask the question: Which things is it that you want to stop? Is it the defense buildup that you no longer want to stand by? Is it the support for Ukraine that you think costs too much money? Is it the justice system that is no longer to be upgraded? Or is it possibly that you promise to raise taxes significantly, now that we have an upturn and are leaving the recession behind, in order to break this upturn properly – is that what you promise? Speak in plain language instead!

You have made a lot of agreements with us that we appreciate. We have an agreement on the defense buildup, and we have an agreement on borrowing money for the defense so that we do not have to raise taxes now to finance a dramatic buildup of the defense. You have been part of all of this.

You have a few billion less in your budget than we do. What is it that you have regretted? Speak plainly!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Please speak plainly, Ulf Kristersson! How many more unemployed people have there become during your time as Prime Minister? How large has the budget deficit become during your time as Prime Minister? How many more bankruptcies have there been? How many more entrepreneurs with dreams and will have had to close their companies during your time as Prime Minister? How many more families with children have been evicted because of your economic policy? How many more families have ended up with the Enforcement Authority?

Ulf Kristersson is immensely proud and satisfied. That is not the Swedish people. It is time for a new government.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I am proud that Sweden is a country where we have such good order in our economy that we can afford to carry out the largest upgrade in modern history and where eight parties can even agree on how it should be done. This is what I am proud of – there are few countries that manage that.

I am proud that Sweden is at the top among the countries that support Ukraine for their sake and for our sake. And I am proud that we have now given completely ordinary families with children 5,000 kronor more per month to live on compared to when we took over in 2022. But as much as I am proud, I am concerned that we have a number of major problems that we still must solve. We have halved the deadly violence in gang crime. That is very good, but half remains.

The Social Democrats are now saying that we should change direction, Mr. Speaker. It would be exciting to find out which direction. Is it the Left Party's direction? Is it the Green Party's direction? Change direction, they say, but I say: Hold the course!

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now I am going to raise a painful issue, where it certainly would not have looked the same in society if the Social Democrats had not been so afraid of being called xenophobic or hostile in some way.

On Monday, it was reported that the city of Västerås, through questions during school health visits, had identified 87 girls who themselves stated that they had been subjected to female genital mutilation. It is an alarm regarding systematic, severe violence against girls' bodies that is also occurring here in Sweden. It is not only a tragedy for each individual girl, Mr. Speaker, but it is a failure for our nation.

Whoever subjects a child to female genital mutilation commits one of the most heinous crimes that exist. Whoever enables, organizes, or participates in it shall be punished severely. Female genital mutilation is one of the greatest and most heinous abuses that can be committed against a child. It is an intervention whose sole purpose is to control girls' bodies and limit their freedom. It lacks medical basis, it lacks moral justification, and it has no place in any society built on equality and the inviolable value of the individual.

Mr. Speaker! Female genital mutilation has been prohibited since 1982, that is, for over 40 years now. But what role does legislation play when the occurrence is not confronted sufficiently? This is a real issue of justice and equality. Despite the legislation, we see year after year how girls are left with lifelong physical and mental injuries. Society's response to this is weak. It should not be luck or an individual school nurse's courage that determines whether a girl is to be protected. We need to clearly mark our opposition to this.

Does the Prime Minister consider that support for female genital mutilation constitutes such a lack of integrity as should lead to deportation? What other concrete measures does he want to take to stop female genital mutilation here and now?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I was at Fadimedagen, a Sunday a few weeks ago, and then we talked a lot about honor crimes in general but also about this specific issue. Just as Linda Lindberg says, this has been illegal for a long time. It is also part of the nature of the matter that it is often difficult to detect unless the girls themselves tell about this. This is nothing that parents or relatives want to tell about, because they know it is illegal but do it anyway.

The investigation that was conducted in Västerås, where a large number of cases were discovered, was therefore extremely valuable. As far as I understand, the investigation was quite simple; they simply asked. Then it became clear that the girls were exposed to perhaps the crudest form of purely physical honor-related interventions. I completely agree with the description.

Some things must be done. I am convinced that we are doing the right thing now by criminalizing innocence checks and cousin marriages. In every way, we are signaling that the network of people who collaborate so that honor crimes are committed – something that is unique compared to much other crime – will truly be criminalized.

It will not be enough, however. I believe that the threat of deportation is ultimately the most potent tool. People must know that if they participate in these explicit crimes or through an action that can absolutely be linked to misconduct, which encourages something that is fundamentally criminal and dishonorable, they can be deported from the country. I believe that ultimately it is one of the few tools that could bite on those people who know what they are doing, who know that this is illegal but who do it anyway.

I think there is now a healthy attention on all of this. There is a very strong culture of consensus in Sweden that this is heinous and must be stopped.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a very good answer to a problematic and difficult question! It is very difficult to detect, but in the cases where this has been detected, there has also been a certain fear of confrontation. We should also address that. We need to increase the flow of information so that people understand that this is genuinely illegal.

For me and the Sweden Democrats, it is completely reprehensible that this is still ongoing in Sweden and that new girls are appearing with this problem. As has been said, there is not a single upside to this, but rather it is about man's cynical grip on femininity and woman's freedom. It is good that we are, therefore, in agreement that those who lack Swedish citizenship should not have a future in Sweden. This absolutely must not be a norm in certain parts of Sweden or anything that we turn a blind eye to.

I perceive that the Prime Minister is prepared to take such measures that not a single person in the future will dare to think of sanctioning or performing female genital mutilation here in Sweden.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, nothing else can be the objective in this. I completely agree.

May I just make a small clarification? Many years ago, I was a social welfare councillor in Stockholm and was responsible for all social services in Stockholm. At that time, I heard from experienced social secretaries that there were problems that we didn't talk about at all and which were called "honor problems" (hedersproblem). The term is, of course, a bit absurd, because it is anything but honorable.

They described in quite some detail things that were not in the toolbox at all. I then took the initiative for the country's first, as far as I know, real mapping of how extensive the problem was and how many children and young people were subjected to illegal honor-related life restrictions. In extreme cases, it was about female genital mutilation, and in many cases, it was about less extreme but nonetheless illegal restrictions. It was a shockingly large group.

Then it was considered racism to talk about this. Today, all of Sweden would acknowledge that the problem exists. It is, after all, a small step in the right direction.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The price of electricity today has been up to 5 kronor per kilowatt-hour. For several weeks, we have had very high electricity prices. Many have had to pay 12,000–14,000 kronor for an electricity bill.

A number of years ago, we had a major debate, initiated by Vänsterpartiet, concerning the electricity price contagion that comes from the outside when export cables are built and a lot of electricity is exported. The risk is, in fact, that prices from Germany, Poland, and the continent will come in. The debate led to the fact that Ulf Kristersson's government actually decided that the cable to the south, Hansa Powerbridge, should not be built. Furthermore, it states very clearly in the Tidö Agreement that "the expansion of exporting power cables, for example Hansa Powerbridge, should be paused until the price differences between the price areas have decreased significantly."

But to my surprise, the government has almost secretly granted permission for and built a new cable between northern Sweden and Finland. We see now that it leads to prices skyrocketing even in the northern parts of Sweden.

We have never had a government and a supporting party that have shown such indifference toward the suffering of families and companies during the government's electricity price-shuffling. My question to the Prime Minister therefore becomes: Did the government and the Sweden Democrats learn nothing from the reason why we said no to Hansa Powerbridge? We wanted to gain control over the electricity price contagion, because this affects the Swedish prices enormously.

We produce a lot of electricity. But when the electricity companies decide to export electricity to make money, very high prices from outside come into Sweden. Has the Prime Minister not learned anything from the "no" to Hansa Powerbridge?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, it is exactly as is said. We have high electricity prices, and very many families are suffering severely from high electricity prices, and in that regard also many companies do.

This was a central topic at the extra EU summit held last week. Many countries are just as concerned about the situation as we are. It is a small consolation for Sweden that we are in the best part of the European league when it comes to electricity prices. Others have it even worse, but that does not help Swedish electricity consumers for natural reasons.

We cannot control the weather. We have a very cold winter, and there is very little wind. That in itself is a problem built into the Swedish energy system right now by the fact that we have far too much wind power. On the other hand, we can build a sustainable electricity system.

It is no coincidence that it was in southern Sweden that this broke through for the first time, because we have shut down half of the nuclear power production in southern Sweden. Everyone knows that. Ask the people of Skåne in particular! That is just how it is. It also doesn't help to have a very large amount of installed wind power when it is not blowing. Everyone knows that too, even if some people at all do not seem to have learned any lesson from it.

For this reason, we are changing the energy policy. It would have been good if the Left Party had also drawn real conclusions from this, instead of believing that we can suddenly shield all of Sweden from the rest of Europe.

The big problem is that there is too little stable electricity production in Sweden, but also in other countries. Take Germany as an example! It is an impressive country in many ways, but we do not want German energy policy in Sweden. There, they are phasing out nuclear power. They have built a lot of wind power but have too little stability and export their high prices to southern Sweden. This is an international problem, but it requires national decisions. Now we are making these decisions.

We have planned for an electricity subsidy. It is included in our budget and is very clear and distinct. If it is high for a longer period – over 1.50 on average over a month – it will come into effect. We have not changed our position on that point. We will introduce it when it is needed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, it has been acknowledged that the high prices are due to the fact that we are forced to export when we build new cables, and therefore the government refrained from building Hansa Powerbridge. But despite this, a cable was built to Finland. Now prices are being driven up because of that. It is very simple. It is in the agreement. But the Prime Minister does not want to answer this.

A price of 1.5 kronor per kilowatt-hour is far too high. It means astronomical bills. The electricity price cap needs to be lowered. We proposed in the autumn that it should be halved. We realized already then that 1.5 is far too high.

We are therefore proposing a halved electricity price cap and that it be applied retroactively, so that one will also receive support from the state for the January bill.

Does the Prime Minister not think it is time for the government and the Sweden Democrats to admit their mistake and introduce our electricity price cap, even retroactively, and pay out support to compensate for the electricity price robbery?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One can, of course, discuss exactly when a price cap or a support system should come into force. I assume that Vänsterpartiet has budgeted for much higher costs since one now suddenly wants to promise this. I note that the Socialdemokraterna, who are also complaining, have not themselves accounted for a single extra krona in this context. It is easy to be in opposition and avoid taking responsibility.

But the big question is what long-term conclusion one draws from this. The big problem is not that countries cooperate on energy. The big problem is that there is too little fixed, predictable and reliable electricity production in Sweden and in other countries. That is the big problem. One cannot go around this and pretend that one can just cut the cables and stop producing electricity. Then we will all have to light the tile stove instead. It doesn't work.

We are now building new nuclear power. You are, as usual, against it, because you have not learned any lesson from history. We have.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! People who work, pay taxes, and behave correctly are now forced to leave Sweden despite wages in accordance with collective agreements. From June 1, the wage floor will be raised further and land at 33,390 kronor. This means that one must earn more than most actually do in large parts of the country.

This does not only hit people who do everything right. It hits companies that are crying out for competence and it hits welfare, which in many parts of the country is sustained by people with work permits. In Jämtland, in Örebro and on Gotland, the median wages are furthermore much lower than the average in Sweden.

What the government is doing is sorting out competence that is completely crucial for everyday life to function around the country from a desk in Stockholm. It could be a nursing assistant in Jämtland, a mechanic in Örebro, or a cook on Gotland. Their wages follow the collective agreements and are completely reasonable on the local labor market.

In practice, the government is telling large parts of Sweden: You can manage without this competence, which you need, and solve the issue yourselves regarding how elderly care should function, how the industry should grow, and how restaurants, hotels, and small businesses should find staff. It is obvious that in the pursuit of rapid deportations, no further analysis has been made of what effects it will have.

This is not unique, however. It is a pattern: first the deportation of asylum seekers, then the deportation of children and teenagers, and now a wage floor that makes it really difficult in many municipalities. Everything has the same common denominator, namely: The Government has not thought it through.

I wonder: How does the Prime Minister mean that smaller municipalities and companies should find people who can work here and now, when the government is actively kicking out people who have a job?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One must see this in context. Sweden received 320,000 asylum seekers over eight years. Almost everyone, except for the Centre Party, realizes that it was not sustainable. It did not work. It has led to enormous segregation problems, major problems with social exclusion, and extreme unemployment. A part of the organized crime also has to do with this, for that part.

It is about very large problems due to a completely ill-considered immigration policy over many years. We are now changing that. We experience very broad support for that change, but not from the Center Party. I can live with that.

Labor migration had similar problems. We had labor migration from third countries, as it is called. These are countries outside of Europe – remember that – and the wage requirement was 13,000 kronor per month. The police warned time and again about abuse and exploitation and for the risk that people are drawn into crime or themselves become criminals. They said it is an unsustainable system: People come here, pretend to be asylum seekers, are denied their asylum application, want to change tracks, become labor migrants and end up in exclusion.

We are now changing this system. One must remember that it is people who are coming from countries outside of Europe. The vast majority who come from countries outside of Europe – we are removing researchers and many others who are far above the salary requirements – have some common characteristics: They do not speak Swedish, because most do not outside of Europe. They often have low education and no experience of the Swedish labor market.

We already have tens of thousands of people in Sweden with those characteristics, who live here legally but have never entered the labor market. They speak poor Swedish but could learn Swedish. They have little experience of the labor market but could get it.

Why should we ask people to come from the other side of the globe to be dishwashers in Swedish restaurants when there are tens of thousands of people in the country who could take those jobs?

I think you are complaining about something else entirely: You want to go back to the old immigration policy. That is not something we intend to do.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the clarity! It is not that the Center Party wants to open floodgates in migration policy. We stand behind a strict migration policy, but "strict" must not mean "thoughtless."

I understand that the Moderates shrug their shoulders at some aspects of humanity, but I do not understand that they shrug their shoulders when it comes to growth. Growth has always been central to the Moderates' policy.

You see that companies cannot recruit here and now. You see that welfare services out in the country lack staff here and now. You see that people who work and pay tax are being sorted out here and now. This is not an insignificant side effect – it is a political choice. The Prime Minister may call it order and tidiness, but I call it a leadership problem. A country that so desperately needs growth right now cannot choose to exclude people who are here and working already.

I wonder: What does the Prime Minister intend to do for those companies that now see their workforce disappearing because their wages are considered too low in light of the new rules?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite obvious that the large group that has come here and lived on extremely low wages and whom we will no longer accept as labor migrants have not worked in the public welfare at all, but in completely different sectors. Investigations have been made on this. For example, very few have worked as nurses.

I think the Center Party is missing the basic point. Order and regularity means that people in Sweden should live on earned income and not on benefits. They should expect to have to move to where those jobs are and learn Swedish, instead of us having a strange system where we ask people to come from Asia and Africa, often completely without the qualifications we most demand in Sweden, to take jobs that others who are already here could get.

A more important effort would be to attract more highly qualified labor immigrants to Sweden – more data engineers, more people who can do natural sciences and more people who can do what we need most. It would be good for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, I met Jomana, 18 years old, here in the Riksdag together with several parliamentary colleagues. Jomana told me that she had just ordered her graduation cap when the letter arrived from the Swedish Migration Agency. After having lived in Sweden for 14 years, she had four weeks to pack up her entire life. At 18 years old, she lost the right to live with her family, to finish her upper secondary education, and to dream of becoming a social worker in Sweden and contributing to a stronger society.

Jomanas friends, teachers, principals and other citizens all over the country have spoken out, just as they have done regarding Ayla from Sigtuna, who is to be deported alone, without her family, to Iran. We have read about Batis, who received his Swedish driver's license on the same day the notice arrived: You are no longer welcome.

These young people are losing the right to their future, to their lives, and to Sweden, which is now their homeland – because they have turned 18. The government has removed the possibility that existed for established people, who had residence permits and who have a strong connection to Sweden, to continue building their lives.

Many parties have said: There must be a stop. And a common denominator for all of us would be to now legislate a moratorium that stops these deportations until a solution is in place.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I take these questions very seriously. I take the entire immigration policy very seriously. It is therefore a matter of reforming the immigration policy – from the one that the Green Party wanted and still seem to want, to one that is strict and long-term sustainable.

This is no small matter. That is why we are now closing the rules that have not worked at all. The track-switching was a catastrophe. It lured people with very minor asylum grounds to seek out Sweden. They were rejected, stayed behind, and then sought low-paid jobs in Sweden. The family reunification – perhaps the world's most generous – lured people to come to Sweden and to bring large families, with a large sense of exclusion as a consequence.

Almost all Swedes have concluded that the migration policy you wanted was unsustainable. Therefore, we are changing it. 320,000 asylum seekers over eight years was largely the Miljöpartiets recipe. It was not sustainable.

We are now turning all of this over.

Some of these decisions were also made during your time. One of the laws in question is from 2016. You were involved in enacting that law. It was confirmed in 2021. This is nothing new. We have inherited the problems from you. You have wanted to push them forward all the time, with new exceptions and new amnesties.

At some point, Sweden must get a sustainable system. I think we must stand firm on all of this. Do not change course now! Do not backslide to the old immigration policy and create more of the problems we had during your time!

With that said, one must be very observant of individual cases. Now, I believe that Annika Hirvonen knows that I, unlike her, cannot go into individual cases and try to judge from them. So that is not how it works. That would be ministerial rule. Therefore, I will refrain from doing that. But we are looking very closely at: Are there things that have gone wrong, especially when it concerns the 18-year-olds who in a formal sense are adults and need their own grounds for protection but who in practice live with their families? There is an investigation, and we are looking closely at that question.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The clock is ticking for these young people. It is about Swedish parents' adopted children and bonus children. It is about the children of labor migrants. It is about the children of refugees who have come here at a very young age. We must now take our political responsibility, we from all parties who say: No, this is not right. We shall stop deporting teenagers.

Then we cannot wait for a solution that is to come in 2027. We must act now. Let us therefore jointly legislate for a moratorium, a temporary stop for teenage deportations, so that we can then ensure that we get a new valve in place. You may not want the one we introduced in 2021, but something was needed to stop the unreasonable teenage deportations. People feel cheated. No crime becomes better by deporting well-integrated youths. No integration is strengthened by sending children away from their Swedish families.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, we are looking closely at the investigation on family immigration where, among other things, they have studied precisely this question, together with other tightenings of family immigration to Sweden. We are looking closely at this.

There is something that still makes me a bit wonder. These individual cases are sometimes – now I am speaking generally, Mr. Speaker – quite misleading. If one looks at them in detail, it turns out quite often that it is people who have had an asylum application rejected, who have a decision to leave the country, and who have refused to leave the country. That is an example, which exists quite often.

It is therefore sometimes a bit misleading to only look at individual cases as they are described in the media. That is also why we have courts that look at the cases and make decisions on them – not politicians in either Miljöpartiet or the government.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I note that it is you in Miljöpartiet who have always wanted to see exceptions and amnesties and who have voted against all tightenings of the immigration policy, which most of all also address the in and of themselves important questions of whether anything has gone wrong. I fundamentally distrust your grounds for agitation. You simply do not like a strict immigration policy.

(Applause)

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Mr. Speaker! In recent weeks, we have been reminded of how terrible people can be and how inadequate our protection against them is. Uppdrag granskning has, among other things, been able to follow the police's work against large pedophile networks. I think this is difficult to take in, because it concerns seemingly ordinary people, even parents, who plan assaults against very small children.

Thankfully, the government has already begun important work here. I look forward to voting through the new law on security storage in a month. But when we see how networks organize themselves and work in digital environments, the question still arises: Is there more we can do? I wonder if the Prime Minister sees what more we can do to stop the pedophiles.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that everyone who has seen all or parts of the series that was released yesterday is incredibly taken by what they have seen. It is truly difficult to process. We have all known that such things exist. But it is difficult to process the extent and that it is seemingly completely ordinary people who are engaged in the most repulsive things one can imagine.

There are many things. Some things that we do now will probably have significance. This with security detention is a way of saying that people who have a high risk of reoffending in serious crime should not be released. Several may have perhaps thought of the Nytorg man as an example rather than this, but it is exactly the same thing when it comes to people who continue to commit grave crimes against children. It is precisely in such situations that security detention should be able to be considered.

One can do more things, I believe. We will review what constitutes defamation and what does not. Having the right to warn about actual problems should be one example.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish small businesses constitute approximately 90 percent of all companies in the country. It is in these companies that much of the Swedish growth occurs. It is here that most jobs are created. And the tax payments made form the basis for and finance our common welfare.

At the same time, quite a few small businesses are facing unnecessary obstacles. Now, we in the Christian Democrats have done solid work with a small business report. I will give some concrete proposals contained in it to tear down many of these obstacles. It is about making the reduced employer contributions for young people permanent, raising the threshold for the audit requirement, making it mandatory to offer entrepreneurship in the curriculum, and reducing the regulatory burden with a principle – one rule in, two rules out – linked to administrative costs.

How does the Prime Minister view the role of small businesses in Sweden, and what is the government doing collectively to improve their conditions?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe few have missed that this government has been incredibly busy getting basic matters in order. It is about the serious crime, the energy policy, immigration, the high inflation – all the completely fundamental things. That was also why we, at a meeting at my home in Strängnäs, said: During the next mandate period, growth reforms are one of the things that stand at the center.

Just getting Sweden in order is necessary but far from sufficient. Sweden shall be a dynamically growing society. I completely share the view that small businesses are a fundamental cornerstone in all of this. The employer contributions are a good start, and I also believe that the lowered food VAT will have some significance. I believe, however, that we need to do much more.

Permit processes are almost always at the top of the wish list when I meet small business owners. Everything is too complicated and takes too long. It is also a matter of having the right competence in the right place. One receives applications from people who don't actually want the jobs, because they prefer to live on benefits. All those things are really important reforms for the next mandate period.

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Prime Minister concerns violence against women and, ultimately, femicide, i.e., when women are murdered because they are women. We must have a zero vision for this deadly violence and, of course, a children's rights perspective.

I know that the Council for Women's Peace has been established by the Liberals and the rest of the government. I also know that the Prime Minister leads this council, that you have already had a meeting regarding acts of madness, and that a further two meetings are planned during the spring.

I have a question for the Prime Minister. This must not become some garden magazine. These women and their children cannot afford any beautiful pictures, while their entire lives are withering and falling apart. Will the government's work really save women's lives and make a difference for the women who are being subjected to this today?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, this is my absolute opinion and true ambition.

Creating a council might sound a bit Swedish, but we have created a council with all the ministers and authorities that bear responsibility for different aspects – from social services to justice issues, equality and honor issues – to see if we have the laws that are needed and if we use all the laws and methods that actually exist. That was the entire ambition when we gathered.

The first meeting revolved around acts of madness. We have seen several such quite recently. The next meeting will revolve around violence in close relationships, which is perhaps the single most serious form of lethal violence against women, the third around honor violence, and the fourth around serious sexual offenses.

We therefore have a holistic approach to this. We have already developed two proposals, I believe: to improve the risk assessments within psychiatry and to review how these are currently conducted to achieve better uniformity so that dangerous people are not simply released into the wild.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I understand why the Prime Minister has made his way forward in political life. He has a rather lovely housing cooperative chairman aura that inspires a certain confidence. No housing cooperative chairman, however, would get away with borrowing in the way that this government has done.

Magdalena Andersson asked a clear and simple question: Will we continue to see unfunded proposals in the spring budget? And now, do not come forward with Ukraine and say that it is about that, because this government has borrowed for large tax cuts for those who earn the most.

It has been the case over the years that right-wing governments have left large deficits behind but very little of what is permanent: good railways, good infrastructure and things that build Sweden strong in the long term.

I want to get an answer to the question Magdalena Andersson asked: Will we see more of this loan carousel of unfunded proposals in the spring budget?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will reflect a bit on the question of the housing cooperative chairman aura and whether it was praise or criticism – I will think about it! We may all have different experiences regarding housing cooperative chairman issues.

I gave an answer, and you will receive the same answer. What you are criticizing is therefore either the large defense expenditures to now build up the defense, the large support for Ukraine, or the massive expansion of the justice system – or else you promise but do not want to concede large tax increases for completely ordinary working Swedes at the beginning of an economic upturn. Whichever it is, all of this would be imprudent.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden today has a large number of foreign nationals who are in prison but who will retain their residence permits despite having committed very serious crimes. This is because prosecutors tend not to submit deportation requests in court, and this also applies to those cases where deportation is warranted due to the severity of the crime.

A completed investigation proposes that the Swedish Migration Agency, instead of the court, should be able to revoke residence permits retroactively if the issue has not been reviewed in court. It is therefore not a question of reviewing the court's decision. According to the Ministry, there are also no legal or practical obstacles to implementing this, but the Moderaterna hesitate.

Without being too critical – for I think the Prime Minister has given quite excellent answers to other questions here today – I still experience that there is a difference in how the Moderates talk about deportation due to crime and what one is actually willing to implement in practice.

Why is there this hesitation regarding just this proposal?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is admittedly not a parliamentary matter. I do not know what tradition Ludvig Aspling was raised in, but I am shaped in a tradition where one handles these matters between themselves during ongoing discussions and negotiations and not here. One can do different things.

However, the fact is that we are now dramatically increasing the number of people who are not Swedish citizens and who commit crimes and will be deported from Sweden. It is right and it is reasonable, and I believe that many thought it was already so.

We are also forcing other countries to take back their own citizens, which they have previously refused to do. Furthermore, we are reviewing the entire issue of what connection to Sweden one has. We are even going to look at conventions that make it difficult today to deport serious criminals from Sweden. We are therefore doing all of this, and I believe the questioner actually knows that.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The recent weeks, due to this government's policy, have been characterized by the conditions of children. We know that the government is now focusing on that one should put children – 13-year-olds – in prison.

We also know that the government splits families by deporting newly turned 18-year-olds, because they have simply changed policy and removed a safety valve. They do not even hesitate to send out eight-month-old babies to totalitarian Islamist states. That is what this government engages in.

The Moderates' moral compass wavers in a way that brings to mind the days of the apartheid regime, when the Moderates had difficulty taking a stand.

Sweden has a tradition of having prime ministers who are moral giants: Olof Palme is one, and Carl Bildt could also do his part when needed. The Prime Minister appears rather as a moral pygmy.

Is it not time to develop a backbone and put an end to this misery now?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know how meaningful it is to stand in the Riksdag's rostrum and hurl coarse accusations, insults, and offensive words at one another. The Left Party members might like such things. I do not intend to counter with the member's responsibility for communism's crimes in world history.

That is not how one behaves in the Swedish Riksdag. Here, we maintain a decent tone towards one another. We can have different opinions, and we can discuss them, but I do not intend to answer questions that are only intended to express contempt and offense.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish healthcare today is completely dependent on foreign-born staff. One in three doctors, one in three nursing assistants, and every second dentist is born abroad. Without these people, Swedish healthcare would collapse.

Nevertheless, we now see day by day how healthcare staff and healthcare students are being deported from the country and how parents leave the country when their children have received deportation decisions. This is both unreasonable and shameful.

The Prime Minister has previously said this to our foreign-born Swedes: We see you, appreciate you and want you and your children to succeed in Sweden.

Unfortunately, the truth is the opposite, because in the Tidö parties' Sweden, effort, integration, and work are rewarded with mistrust, ingratitude, and deportation.

My question to the Prime Minister is: How does the Prime Minister view the fact that healthcare personnel are now being forced to leave the country despite the great need we have for them within Swedish health and medical care?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I truly mean what I say: We greatly appreciate all the people who have come to our country, live here legally, strive every day and go to work – for example in healthcare – and pay taxes, support themselves and help society in every conceivable way. I completely share the view that Swedish healthcare would have a much, much harder time managing without all these fantastic colleagues.

With that said, I stand for an orderly, regulated immigration policy which means that those who do not have the right to be in our country shall leave our country – not this hodgepodge of constant amnesties, constant exceptions, and constantly new attempts to let people who have had their applications rejected stay anyway. So we cannot have that. I know that C is against the current, stricter immigration policy, but we stand by it.

I will nevertheless say that we are still looking at whether there are certain things in the legislation that have not turned out as they should have. Therefore, we are reviewing precisely that issue.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Recently, the question of land use in Sápmi and northern Sweden – it is often the same area – has become increasingly relevant. We have large industrial projects and infrastructure projects, and we have mines with large land requirements. The number of potential areas of conflict is increasing, and so are the tensions, which I believe can only be reduced through dialogue.

I think that the dialogue should be conducted with the means we have, that is to say in investigations, committees and conversations between Sami representatives and groups – not least the Sami Parliament has opened for this – and the government and the Riksdag, researchers, civil society and others. The Renmark Committee has unfortunately been disbanded, but a new one of that kind could also be something.

My question to the Prime Minister is how the government intends to initiate and support a development that prioritizes dialogue moving forward.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first say that I am not an expert on these issues. That must be said honestly. I therefore have no detailed answers to this, but I naturally share the ambition that it should take place in dialogue under orderly forms and that completely legitimate conflicts of interest must be judged with good laws as a basis.

My more overarching reflection is that Sweden has sometimes been poor at acknowledging that there are legitimate trade-offs of interest. Should one build new energy production, which is good for the country, in a certain location despite the fact that it creates local environmental problems right there? Should one exploit mineral deposits that increase our independence despite the fact that it affects those who live right there?

These are legitimate balancing of interests, and I want to say that today we are quite good at judging them in concrete terms. The old government often let them lie year after year, but we judge them. It does not mean that the one who loses is wrong, only that one got it wrong in that specific concrete case. The northern areas must also be able to handle those kinds of wise, judgment-based balancing of interests.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! The gross organized crime in Sweden is largely driven by money, consumption, and the opportunity for attraction.

It is not just about drug trafficking or other traditionally illegal markets, but it is also largely about legal markets where criminals exploit, abuse, and cheat the systems. It is about the welfare systems and the benefit systems, that people evade VAT payments, that they use companies for undeclared work and money laundering, and that they choose to bypass rules on the legal market rather than operating solely on the illegal markets.

Since money is a major driver behind crime, we need to strike at it to tackle organized crime. What does the Prime Minister intend to do further to get at the money – to preempt the society being cheated of it, that is, to take it before it disappears?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is a very big issue. I think we have done quite a lot. We have, among other things, done things that are spectacular, such as taking their luxury items. The other day we passed 100 million kronor in value.

There is a rather funny incident there: I receive ongoing reports on what value the police have taken items for, and one day the value had dropped slightly. It was a bit odd. But the police said: Yes, it turned out that we had taken a counterfeit copy that did not have the value we thought from the beginning! It was some expensive car that was not what it was supposed to be.

It is thus interesting, and it has really had an effect to take luxury items and status items that would lure others into crime.

The second thing, which was mentioned, is the organized – corporatized – crime. I met a police officer who told me: I take things from organized gangs, but my wife who works at Försäkringskassan encounters much larger amounts.

That is why we are now increasing the cross-referencing of registers and removing a lot of secrecy restrictions. We are forcing authorities that do not have crime fighting as their main task to participate in crime fighting – and they really want to be involved.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Equality is ultimately about every woman's right to freedom, visibility, and full participation in society. Garments such as the niqab and burka limit this visibility and are expressions of norms that stand in conflict with the values that Sweden stands for.

This is about what kind of society we want to be. A society characterized by openness and trust presupposes that people can meet as equals, face to face, without barriers that hinder contact, communication, and integration. A new opinion poll shows that as many as 50 percent of Swedish voters support a ban on niqab and burka in the public space. In several European countries, such bans have already been introduced.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: When will a ban on niqab and burka in the public space in Sweden come?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Earlier we were discussing the issue of honor and everything we do on that point. When we criminalize psychological violence, it can, for example, mean that the person who forces someone to wear a veil or niqab could very well be affected by the legislation. We also do many other things, as I said, for example, we prohibit cousin marriage and virginity tests. There is therefore a very clear direction in these issues.

The government currently has no concrete proposals that we have put forward, but on the other hand, we are looking very closely at what other countries are doing. I also note an increasing desire in many European countries to protect those who are more or less involuntarily expected to cover – hide – themselves and live a life that in every conceivable way is the opposite of the equality, independence, and freedom we consider to be self-evident in our country.

We are looking at the issue, but the government has no concrete proposals at this moment.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The government has lost control over the economic policy. Last week, the Minister for Finance said that the money is now gone. Regardless of which government comes after the election this autumn, there is no room for reform.

It is not as the Prime Minister claims, that is to say that it is only we in the opposition who are presenting criticism of this. The National Audit Office and now also the Fiscal Policy Council do so as well. Their criticism is that one is not taking responsibility for the state finances and that the measures one borrows for are, moreover, ineffective.

I have two questions for the Prime Minister. The first is whether the Prime Minister is satisfied with the result of the economic policy. The second question is a repetition because the Prime Minister has not answered it. Will the Prime Minister also present policy that is underfunded in the spring budget?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! You Social Democrats are quite funny, Eva Lindh. When you finally get a speaking point in your hands, you really hold onto it! Has everyone been instructed on exactly how it should sound – "The government has lost control" and so on? It is almost a bit funny.

Honestly: This is being said by a party that lost three out of eight budgets. Do you not understand the magnitude of this? One cannot even get a budget through the Swedish Riksdag and does not even have a majority for its policies, and yet one tries to lecture our government because we are making efforts and investments that we believe in – and furthermore, support ordinary families with children with tax cuts of several thousand a month.

Why don't you say it as it is? You don't want the tax cuts, you want to raise taxes instead. Otherwise, the question is why you don't resist when we agree to make defense investments and finance Ukraine support outside the regular budget. You could have said no, but you didn't. Instead, you come here and complain in hindsight. It is not impressive.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In exactly one month, the Muslim holiday Eid will occur in connection with the end of Ramadan. Schools will then be forced not only to grapple with students who have not been able to manage their schoolwork because they have been forced to fast, but all over Skolsverige, principals will now have to deal with applications for leave from school. The number of granted days also varies from school to school and from municipality to municipality.

That one is granted leave for religious holidays is extremely concerning if we truly want to safeguard a common school, a common school obligation, and common holidays. Neither Ramadan nor Eid are of that kind.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister consider it reasonable that religious holidays such as Eid should be grounds for being granted leave in Swedish school? If the answer is no, what measures does the government intend to take to ensure the maintenance of compulsory school attendance and guaranteed teaching time?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I and the government will always have great respect for people of different faiths but also for people who lack religious faith. It is fundamentally important. Therefore, I will always wish that people who want to celebrate their holiday should be allowed to do so in peace and in freedom in a good way in our country.

It does not mean that one has a right to leave for just anything. A principal in a school, for example, may approve but also deny leave for an individual matter outside of the usual leaves. We see, however, that in practice it differs quite a bit, and therefore the government has appointed an inquiry that shall submit proposals on how the regulations regarding shorter leave can be made clear and similar across the country.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Next week the government will present the bill on qualification for social insurance, which means that immigrants shall not have the right to important parts of the welfare system such as sickness and activity compensation, child allowance, parental leave, and elderly support, among others, until they have lived in Sweden for five years or have obtained a well-paid job.

We see today that poverty in Sweden is increasing sharply, not least among families with children and people with some form of chronic illness or disability. At the same time, both the investigator themselves and in large part all referral bodies, from the Children's Ombudsman and Save the Children to Företagarna and the Swedish Bar Association, have warned that the government's qualification requirements risk leading to increased child poverty, increased mental ill-health, and increased social vulnerability. The Gender Equality Authority also warned that the proposal risks leading to women being forced to stay in violent relationships.

I therefore wonder: Does the Prime Minister still consider that the proposals should be implemented despite the serious risks highlighted in the investigation and by the referral bodies?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a welfare system that is, in many respects, very fine and well-functioning, which we guard. But on a few points, it has not turned out as I believe was intended when it was built up.

One of the points is that, to a much greater extent than in other countries, one gets access to everything at once, which is strange. That was not the intention. The intention was that one should work, support oneself, pay tax and receive a share of welfare benefits. Instead, we have what is called settlement-based benefits, which means that one gets everything at once in a way that one does not get in other countries.

We think that is bad. It is much better that one is systematically encouraged to work one's way into benefits, which is also normal in Sweden. We have, for example, the sickness benefit and the unemployment insurance that one must work one's way into. It is nothing unnatural in Sweden.

It is bad if it is too easy to get benefits when the actual poverty problem is that there are too many who do not work. They should work instead of living on benefits.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister! Economic crime and misuse of public funds is unfortunately widespread in Sweden. One of many examples is the association Flamman in Malmö, which over several years has received more than 100 million kronor from among others the General Inheritance Fund and the City of Malmö. The taxpayers' money has gone straight into the criminals' pockets, despite the purpose of Flamman having been to help young people away from crime and Islamism.

My question to the Prime Minister is: What is the government doing to ensure that associations are not used as criminal tools and that public funds do not go to grant contractors, criminals and Islamists?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must admit that I do not know exactly what has happened just regarding that association in Malmö, so I shall leave that unsaid.

On a slightly more overarching level, I can say that we are doing very much to sharpen the conditions, the transparency, and the scrutiny of what is happening and what criteria must apply in order to receive grants at all. All of this is being tightened quite significantly, which is notably reflected in the anger from some associations that no longer live up to those conditions. We must be economical with the taxpayers' money. They must not be misused – that is important. Money must also not be used for destructive purposes such as creating separatism and contributing to segregation and extremism. It is incredibly important.

We are doing quite a lot, but I cannot say anything about just this association in Malmö.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I want to say that the Prime Minister's tone towards the opposition regarding legitimate issues is both unprofessional and irresponsible – almost as irresponsible as the fact that the government and the Sverigedemokrater do not seem to have had the means to reduce unemployment, build housing, or invest in welfare, while they seem to have had the means to borrow for tax cuts for those with the highest incomes. Now you state that the money is gone and seem proud of it.

Therefore, I think it would be reasonable, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister gave a clear answer to the question we have asked in the chamber today: Will the government's spring budget contain any unfunded reforms? Is it a yes or a no?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We must be able to discuss what we disagree on. I only asked a self-evident counter-question. You have been involved in every step of the things we have done outside the regular budget. You have not protested against a single one. You want to raise taxes while we want to lower them – there we disagree, but not in the other issues.

Now you come along in hindsight and suddenly seem very concerned about this. Why is that? That is why I asked the quite reasonable question of whether you have had second thoughts regarding Ukraine and the defense investments. Or is it just that, which I actually believe, that you do not like that we have lowered the tax for hard-working people so that they have a chance to manage after many years of recession and high inflation? Now you actually want to raise the tax, but you do not want to say that.

Otherwise, we simply disagree on the direction of politics. I can live with that, and I respect that you think differently. But now, in hindsight, you are coming with completely different views than you have had previously. I just do not understand why.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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