The Prime Minister's Question Time

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Landerholm case is not about a single mistake. It is about repeated security incidents at Sweden's highest security policy level. This is something that has led to several reports to the Committee on the Constitution.

In the Landerholm affair, there are several issues that do not concern the legal review. They are questions about the government's responsibility and the Prime Minister's handling. Why, for example, did it take 673 days before a damage assessment was registered? Why did the Prime Minister's press chief intervene with misleading information?

Mr. Speaker! This does not concern the question of guilt in court but the responsibility of the government and the Prime Minister. It is therefore questions that should be able to be scrutinized by the Committee on the Constitution. Despite this, the Tidö parties have used their majority in the Committee on the Constitution to block not only the scrutiny but also the opposition's request to let the committee's non-political officials analyze which parts can be scrutinized without affecting the legal process. The Tidö parties have thus not only said no to scrutiny. They have also said no to preparing the basis to clarify what can actually be scrutinized.

This leads to a simple conclusion: Either the Tidö parties consider that the Prime Minister cannot withstand a scrutiny, or they have received instructions to stop it. My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Which questions about his own actions is it that the Prime Minister cannot answer?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly: This is a matter for the Riksdag to decide, not for the government.

Secondly: This case has already been examined once in the Committee on the Constitution, without any significant remarks, if I remember correctly.

For the third: It is now the subject of a court review.

One is acquitted in the first instance. It has been appealed in the second instance. As far as I understand, there is a tradition of not examining issues that are the subject of a criminal investigation in court. That practice has, as far as I understand, been followed here – nothing more and nothing less.

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! The questions I have asked concern the Prime Minister's responsibility and actions. They are therefore not being handled in the ongoing legal process against the former national security advisor. Despite this, the review in the Committee on the Constitution is being blocked.

It is serious when a government, with its majority, is allowed to block the scrutiny of itself in this way. Then the Riksdag's power of oversight risks being undermined. When the government deliberately obstructs transparency in this manner, it approaches something that could be described as a political cover-up.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Does the Prime Minister consider that the Riksdag's power of oversight functions as intended when the Tidö parties block the scrutiny of the Prime Minister's own actions on the grounds of the Landerholm affair?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe there are probably good reasons for the Riksdag to have had a practice since some time ago: that when a legal review is ongoing, one does not simultaneously conduct a KU review of the same matter.

I suspect that it is because it is quite difficult to discern what is subject to judicial review and what is subject to purely administrative matters in the Government Offices. It sounds like a reasonable practice to me, and I respect that the Riksdag has maintained that practice.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are proud of all the necessary reforms that we have implemented during this parliamentary term. We have maintained a high pace, been capable of delivery, and done what we have promised the voters. Together, we have changed course for Sweden.

Our parties have defeated inflation. We have created better conditions for both households and companies. We have lowered fuel taxes, income taxes, and electricity tax. Halved food VAT will arrive in less than three weeks.

Now, however, energy and oil prices risk jeopardizing this positive economic development and growth. The situation in the world is extremely worrying. The risk is that we are heading towards an energy crisis which, in the worst-case scenario, could be worse than the one we had at the beginning of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.

Sweden must be on its toes. If the oil price rises sharply, the consequences will quickly be felt throughout the entire economy. There are measures that can be taken. Some of those measures may not be particularly popular in the EU. My question is: How creative can the Prime Minister imagine being to take measures and mitigate bad effects, and can the Prime Minister imagine measures even if they are disliked by the EU?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is now an unpredictable development of, above all, oil and gas prices in the wake of the war. Then there are many other aspects to this war. There are some that are encouraging, not least for all Iranians who now hope for a more peaceful and freer future. There are also significant risks of unrest in the entire region with quite difficult-to-describe consequences.

But we can stick to what the question revolved around. Right now, oil prices are rising quite significantly. They naturally vary a bit from day to day. Gas prices are also affected. In Europe, there is often talk about gas prices, perhaps a bit to Swedish surprise. In Europe, they talk about gas. We do not do that in Sweden, because we have better electricity systems, even better, so we are not as dependent on gas prices.

As Elisabeth Svantesson has said several times, we are open to both adjusting fuel prices and adjusting electricity prices through support. We will return to both before the spring budget.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we need to look at everything that can be done to alleviate the anxiety among both households and companies.

We have had a number of difficult years in the economy, particularly during the last parliamentary term. We inherited high inflation and growth at the absolute bottom of the EU. We have now turned this around. We have defeated inflation and strengthened households' wallets and purchasing power.

But again: How far is the Prime Minister prepared to go to secure prices on energy and fuels? Is the Prime Minister prepared to prioritize Swedish interests over the EU's and Swedish households before more or less vague climate agreements at the EU level?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The government's and my task is always to promote Swedish interests. Often we do this through cooperation in the EU.

We must be precise here: Sweden benefits from our EU membership. We follow the rules of the game, but we also influence the rules of the game. Then, I am the first to say that we, unlike other countries, sometimes follow the rules of the game a little too strictly.

We will demand exemptions from the EU's energy tax directive. In order to be able to benefit Swedish electricity consumers, we will also demand that Swedish bottleneck charges are not seized.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Some things you just have to do, Skorpan. Otherwise, you're just a little dirt.

So said Jonatan the Lionheart when he was to explain why he had to fight against Tengil, even though he was afraid. That is what courage means. You cannot be brave if you are not simultaneously afraid.

Daily we hear about brave young people who dare to speak openly about the terrible fate that awaits them now that they stand before the fact that they will be forced to leave what they see as their country, their home, in everything except on paper.

It is this policy that Ulf Kristersson has personally pushed through. It is he who is ultimately responsible for what is now happening. It became clear when the decision was made that this would be the result. Perhaps Ulf Kristersson did not think it would do so much. Perhaps he hoped that the affected youths would leave Sweden in silence. Perhaps he did not account for the popular outrage that this would result in.

On Friday, the government announced that they would stop the deportations. Since then, it has turned out to be empty promises. The deportations continue. The government's and the Sverigedemokraternas words were merely a sham maneuver to silence the debate.

We in Vänsterpartiet, together with Miljöpartiet, submitted a proposal to stop the deportations immediately, and yesterday the government parties voted down that proposal by a one-vote majority, following a request from Speaker Ulf Kristersson.

I believe that Ulf Kristersson is afraid. I understand that Jimmie Åkesson can appear threatening and powerful, especially considering the party's roots in Nazism. It was, after all, the party that Åkesson joined at one point in time. But Prime Minister, isn't it time to do the moral and courageous thing?

Stand up against Jimmie Åkesson! Keep your promise and stop the teenage deportations now!

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the first thing, I note that Samuel Gonzalez Westling more and more often has a tone and a pitch that reminds me of Viktor Orbán – condescending, sarcastic, mocking. I do not intend to respond in that way. It was the same last time. I did not respond in that way then either.

Secondly, I note that the Left Party is not at all seeking to change legislation where some have been caught in a bind because, according to the law, one is considered an adult when one is 18. You want to tear up the entire migration policy that we have now embarked upon. But you do not dare to say it.

You should stand for your position, which is essentially free immigration. No one should be screened. No one should be deported. Yes or no has no significance. You have been for every amnesty, every safety valve, every direction that results in more people coming to Sweden, and you are against every change that involves us tightening immigration policy.

We simply think differently.

Thirdly, the government has therefore announced new legislation so that fewer will be caught out by that law from 2016 – during the time when you unfortunately had influence over the politics in Sweden – which makes young adults have to leave Sweden because they do not have their own grounds for protection.

Now we are trying to solve that question. The Swedish Migration Agency has announced that they will pause decisions pending new legislation. That is how you do it in a serious manner.

We safeguard a strict migration policy. We shall not go back to 2015. We shall not become the place that more and more people seek out with ever greater integration problems as a consequence – such things that you do not care about.

We stand for a strict immigration policy that nevertheless takes into account that individuals can also get caught in the crossfire due to old legislation. That is what we are doing right now, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Prime Minister does not seem to want to answer the question. We know at this moment that young people are about to be deported at this moment. Aftonbladet reported on this as recently as yesterday, and it is happening because of this government's legislation.

The government itself warned against this. When this was voted through here in the chamber just a few years ago, the government's own basis warned that these would be the consequences. It was pointed out here in the chamber that this would be the effect. Nevertheless, the government parties pushed the proposal through.

I think it is a bit petty of the Prime Minister to stand here in the chamber and refer to legislation that was adopted ten years ago when it is this government's policies and decisions that lead to teenagers being deported from Sweden – their home in everything except on paper.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a completely incorrect description. The law is literally from 2016, confirmed in 2021.

What we have done, which you were unable to do, is to appoint an inquiry to see if these problems can be solved in a better way within the framework of a strict immigration policy. I understand that that thought does not occur to you at all.

To still have legislation within the framework of a strict immigration policy over many years that ensures young people do not get caught in the crossfire is precisely what we have signaled. It is precisely that which is now being elaborated. It is precisely that which is the basis for the Swedish Migration Agency having communicated that they intend to pause the decisions that would otherwise be based on the old legislation. Precisely so it is.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Approximately 100,000 academics are unemployed in Sweden. In just two years, the number has increased by approximately 20,000 people. These are people who have studied for at least three years but who still do not have a job.

The escalation in the conflict in Iran is dramatically increasing uncertainty in the economy. It is wise not to be alarmist, but the government has consistently been a bit too optimistic in its forecasts. No other assessor believed in 3 percent growth in Sweden. The Riksbank's forecast was 2.2 percent for this year. When the forecast is now revised downwards, the government does so by 0.2 percentage points, even though other assessors are at double that.

The thing that companies like least of all is uncertainty. Large companies postpone investments. Small businesses face increased costs and the risk of higher interest rates. In such a situation, fewer and fewer even consider the thought of hiring another academic.

The government's 18-month measures with reduced employer contributions are a good step. However, we have discussed that before, so let me take another proposal: student employees. The Prime Minister is gladly inspired by Denmark, not least within crime policy, but when it comes to getting young academics into jobs, the telescope over the Öresund seems to have dimmed again. In Denmark, actually 90 percent of those who have worked more than 15 hours have a relevant job three months after their graduation.

Centerpartiet therefore wants to introduce a special time-limited student employment under LAS, linked to the period of study. The purpose is to get students into relevant work. It would give more entrepreneurs a flexibility to hire.

I wonder therefore: What concrete measures does the Prime Minister want to take to counter the incredibly high unemployment that students face in these turbulent times?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to acknowledge: I think it is genuinely pleasing that the Centre Party is now advocating for more liberal and more flexible labor market legislation in Sweden. The Centre Party also wants lower taxes in many areas.

One just wonders: With whom do you intend to implement that policy? Is it with Vänsterpartiet? Is it with Miljöpartiet? Or is it with Socialdemokraterna?

I do not reject the idea at all, and I would gladly talk about such things. But it becomes a bit academic, so to speak, when one expresses things and matters that go directly against one's own intended partners. But I am also happy to learn from Denmark in this area.

I believe that the vast majority know that we have now created better economic conditions for the part of the labor market that concerns the business cycle. Sweden has moved from the bottom of growth to the top of growth. We can argue over individual decimals, but there is no doubt that Sweden has moved from the absolute bottom layer to having one of Europe's highest growths.

Then everyone understands that what is happening in Iran right now is risky. How much it will hit, no one knows. But Sweden has, unlike many other countries, public finances that mean we will be able to withstand even serious disruptions.

I think the recurring attempts to paint a black picture of the Swedish economy and to never see the strengths we have, which allow one to use the strength and water where it grows, is a bad tradition on the left in Swedish politics.

The second part, which I know you do not want to talk about, is the part of unemployment that concerns immigration. It is the long, structural, as they say, unemployment that is not significantly affected by the economic cycle. It is the one I am most concerned about.

I myself have three future academics at home, or almost at home. One is soon a finished engineer, one is in the middle of an economics education and one has just started a medical education. We talk a lot about the future labor market. I am not at all unconcerned about it, but I am more concerned about those who have no education at all.

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! This is the third debate exchange where the Prime Minister begins by speaking about who we shall implement the policy with.

I think the issue at hand in this case is more important. It is more important to talk about how there have been 20,000 more unemployed academics during this government's time. I am not painting a bleak picture of Sweden. Sweden has fantastic opportunities, but the government has not seized all of these.

There was an AI commission that submitted a number of different proposals, most of which seem to be lying in a filing cabinet. There are a number of different proposals to ensure that Sweden is at the forefront when it comes to the climate transition, which will create jobs.

Right now, the climate transition is a bit out of fashion on the global stage, but we know that within a few years, demand will increase for fossil-free steel and fossil-free cement, which requires investments and makes companies want to grow and be in Sweden.

I therefore wonder: What does the Prime Minister intend to do for those students who do not have a job today?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Fossil-free steel, emission-free cement and all this requires massive investments in fossil-free energy in Sweden. That is exactly what we are doing – admittedly without you so far, but perhaps you will also join in eventually. We are, therefore, building massive amounts of new nuclear power in Sweden, and that will guarantee these opportunities.

I will return to the question of with whom. It is not unimportant. To have opinions that one knows one can never implement is possibly fun at a political science seminar, but it has nothing to do with serious politics.

You must still reasonably ask yourselves: If we think we should loosen the Swedish labor market legislation and have more flexible rules or lower taxes to the right of the Moderaterna – with whom do we intend to do this?

If you do not have an answer to that question, your politics will not even be a tip, but a viewpoint that you know will never be realized. You must at some point be able to answer the question of how the politics of reality shall be changed and not just the politics of imagination.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The clock continues to tick for those young people who, due to the government's policy, are to be deported from their home country, from Sweden.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Migration are happy to say in interviews that this is happening because of the changes from 2016, but we have not heard of any deportation of teenagers that far back in time. It is only in recent years that they have started to appear.

Yesterday, the motion from Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet to introduce a stop law fell by the smallest possible margin here in the Riksdag. At the same time, we are receiving no clear answers from the government regarding when their valve can be in place or even what it should look like.

This is about young people's lives and future. It is about whether they should be placed on a plane to the war in the Middle East or not. They do not have time to wait.

I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister: When will the solution for the deportations of teenagers arrive? And will the young people who have already received deportation decisions be allowed to stay?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The first question is easy to answer. We will submit a proposition during the spring, and if the Riksdag decides not to take a summer break, you will also have time to process the proposition.

I hand over that question with a warm hand to the Riksdag. We will do our part, and as everyone knows, the Swedish Migration Agency has said that they intend to pause the decisions in those types of cases pending a new law because they know that a new bill will be coming. No one managed to complete that task earlier.

I still take the criticism quite lightly, because I know that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, and perhaps also Centerpartiet, are fundamentally opposed to the entire strict immigration policy. You have been against every decision we have made. You want to go back to 2015, and you are a small minority of the Swedish people.

We take these questions seriously. We ensure that those who could end up being squeezed get a new chance not to be squeezed, but within the framework of a very strict immigration policy for a long period ahead. There we differ. That is why it is so fundamentally unclear what a left-wing government would do in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, I hear nothing about what is to happen to those who have already received their decisions. It is not enough to say that teenage deportations shall be stopped; they must also be stopped.

Young people are held in prison-like detention awaiting a decision. Families, friends, neighbors, classmates and colleagues live in total uncertainty. Demonstrations across the country show that there is no support for this government's deportation policy right now.

I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister again: Will the young people who have already received deportation decisions be allowed to stay?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government can and may not interfere in individual cases. I am only stating that the Swedish Migration Agency has said that they are pausing their decisions pending a new law. They are not doing this lightly, but they are doing it because they know that a new law has been announced.

In other respects, the authorities must make decisions. Of course, the old law applies until the new law is in place. That is the case with all legislation. I believe that not even Miljöpartiet could claim that a law that exists should not be applied at all, but Migrationsverket has thus said that they will pause the decisions pending the new law.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! When this government took over after the Social Democrats, inflation was 10 percent. Mortgage interest rates skyrocketed. Food prices rose sharply. A liter of diesel cost just under 30 kronor. It was not fair to all those people who set their alarms and go to work every day. Most curves pointed downwards, except for the shootings, which reached record levels.

Now inflation has been fought. It is now below 2 percent. Mortgage rates have fallen, and food prices are stable and will furthermore fall from April 1st when the food VAT is lowered.

A question that I believe has received far too little space is a growing Swedish economy, that is to say growth. It is what is absolutely necessary for us to have something to distribute.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: How is the Swedish economy doing – is it growing? And how do we stand internationally?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that when we took over, the curves that should have gone down went up and those that should have gone up went down. It is a rather simple but correct summary of the situation.

It was not only due to the old government. There was a pandemic, and the war against Ukraine had started. There were also many other things. But the government had no economic policy. If you lose three out of eight budgets, you have no economic policy; then you have, in practice, no finance minister. So you cannot manage a country in tough times.

Now it is exactly the opposite. The things that should go down, such as shootings and immigration, are going down. The things that should go up, such as growth rate, are going up. Inflation is going down as it should, and interest rates are going down as they should. All of this is a bit uncertain because of Iran right now, but fundamentally, that is how it is.

Growth is extremely important. If we are to manage the large investments we are making in defense, to help Ukraine, in Swedish welfare and in infrastructure, we must have growth. I am so happy about the broad consensus on large investments. It would be good to have broad consensus also on growth policy.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are few whose thoughts and hearts are not with the Iranian people. I am sure that this is also the Prime Minister's view. On Swedish streets and squares, from north to south and from west to east, tens of thousands of people have gathered to express their support for a free Iran and their disgust for the Islamic regime. Among these demonstrations in Sweden and around the world, the name of one man in particular is shouted out as an alternative who could lead a secular and democratic transitional government: Reza Pahlavi.

The uncertainty is great and the questions many. In this regard, I wonder how Sweden can best assist the Iranian opposition in its struggle for freedom and how the Prime Minister views the risks that this conflict may have spillover effects to Sweden linked to Islamism and antisemitism.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The honest answer is that no one knows right now. It is incredibly easy to feel enormous sympathy for those who harbor optimism that it could become freer and more democratic in Iran after 47 years of terrible oppression. It is easy to feel enormous sympathy with all the Iranians in Sweden who hope for the best. But we must also realize that there are significant risks.

We will do what we can to express our position on this in the margins, and we will do that. But we also have a responsibility to ensure that the dangers that exist do not spread to Sweden. We are therefore very preoccupied right now by the security threats against Sweden and the risks that exist. We have already seen tendencies, and they must not gain a foothold here. Sweden has since before terrible experiences of what Iran is capable of doing. We are also keeping an eye on the price developments here in Sweden because of what is happening there.

But now the jury is out, as they say.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! This weekend, International Women's Day was observed. In Sweden, we have come a long way regarding equality, but we are far from finished. There is still much to be done. This applies in particular to the difference between women's and men's entrepreneurship, financial savings, and ownership. We know that significantly fewer women than men start and run companies, and even on the ownership side, we see great inequalities, where women generally own about half as much as men, which obviously has major consequences in, for example, a divorce. According to studies, we also see how gender is a much more important factor than education for perceived financial capacity.

How is the government working to reduce the differences we see between women and men regarding specifically entrepreneurship, ownership, and financial saving?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the description in all essential respects, and as I believe everyone understands, this is about a mixture between regulations and politics and choices that people make themselves. Whether they are then made actively or by tradition can be discussed, but it is a complex situation.

We are doing quite a lot now to change the formal rules. We are increasing the possibilities for private savings, and we ensure that education will always pay off and that more people will move from benefits to work and thereby receive more equal pensions and so on.

People should of course also be encouraged to live a life where they share responsibility in such a way that the outcome becomes more equal. Politics can do a part, but families must also do a part themselves. We have seen a good development in some areas, while it has stood still in other areas.

Politics must lead by example, but people also have a responsibility themselves for how they live their lives.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister previously showed a great lack of resolve in his answers to Lena Hallengren regarding important security issues.

My question concerns the Prime Minister's exercise of duties and nothing else. According to the Government Offices' regulations on security, the Prime Minister's office shall report security incidents, and they shall be investigated and assessed. Several incidents occurred when Henrik Landerholm worked at the Government Offices. Landerholm served in the Prime Minister's office, and the Prime Minister was Landerholm's highest superior. They are also friends privately.

Ulf Kristersson and his chancellery waited for 673 days before they established a document in accordance with the security regulations. What was the reason for this?

Mr. Speaker! My question concerns the performance of duties and has nothing to do with the legal process.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats would like to speak about a matter that is subject to legal review. I will not do so out of respect for the fact that a legal review is ongoing. It is that simple.

I can, however, say that an outside expert is now conducting an analysis of how the Government Offices' security work functions more principally. Are there deficiencies and things that need to be adjusted? This has nothing to do with the assessment of whether individual persons have potentially committed errors, but it is about whether the Government Offices have a sufficiently good routine for those types of issues. This analysis will also be presented.

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

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! After horrific cases of rape and abuse have been highlighted within home care and elderly care, the Government has announced an investigation into granting the elderly the right to choose whether they want male or female staff for showering and personal hygiene. We welcome this, as it is about the elderly's right to safety, security, and dignity, and about the right to be able to set boundaries. This has also been raised by the Sweden Democrats previously.

At the same time, the Riksdag has decided on a new gender identity law that makes it significantly easier to change legal gender, without requirements for a diagnosis and without the review that previously existed. SD and KD were the only ones who voted no, partly because we assessed that this opens the door for abuse and creates ambiguity in protection rules that are intended to provide just that, security.

My question to the Prime Minister is: When the government says that the elderly shall be given the right to choose the gender of the staff, does it refer to biological or legal gender? How will the government ensure that the reform provides the security that is intended?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat surprised by the debate that has arisen regarding the proposal that as an elderly person, one should be able to choose the biological sex of the person who performs very intimate tasks. It is quite remarkable that this has caused criticism. Is it not quite obvious that one can be in a situation where one feels quite vulnerable – long before any abuse is committed? Are the abuses that have been committed not because this is a real problem? I am genuinely surprised by the municipalities that are said not to have wanted to report incidents to the police. All of this is truly serious, and therefore we have proposed an amendment that allows an elderly person to be able to choose which biological sex the person who is to do the most private things for them in their home should have.

Mr. Speaker! I find it very difficult to see that this has anything to do with the question of being able to report a change of legal gender after an assessment and that it should be approved a bit more easily.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Further ahead, we are holding the review conference for the Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT, which aims to stop the global buildup and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a weapon of mass destruction which, if used, always result in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they also cause long-lasting consequences for both humans and nature.

Sweden has for a long time stood up for international conventions on nuclear weapons. The same cannot be said about the nuclear powers, who have expanded their arsenals. Russia has placed nuclear weapons in Belarus, and Trump has raised the idea of new test explosions.

The Prime Minister has now decided that Sweden shall have a dialogue with the nuclear-armed state France regarding its nuclear weapons. When this dialogue is to be held and what it is to lead to is very unclear, as is the French president's motives. It is, however, a clear breach of Sweden's previous nuclear weapons policy.

Does the Prime Minister want French nuclear weapons on Swedish territory, or what does the Prime Minister actually want?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I and the member agree on one point and disagree on one point.

We agree when it comes to the obvious position that a world without nuclear weapons would be better than a world with nuclear weapons. It is that simple. But we disagree when it comes to whether democracies should also have nuclear weapons as long as dictatorships have nuclear weapons. I am happy to stand for that difference. Unilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons in the free world, while other countries retain theirs, would mean a more dangerous world.

What we are doing now is, within the framework of the Swedish doctrine of not having nuclear weapons on Swedish soil in peacetime – do not pretend you don't know about this, Håkan Svenneling! – enter into a cooperation with France to see if our conventional forces can cooperate more closely with France's and perhaps the United Kingdom's nuclear forces, in order to secure Europe better than Europe has done so far. If it leads to results, Sweden shall, of course, be part of such a journey.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I know that the Prime Minister will surely resort to falsehoods and claim that the Center Party wants to return to the 2015 migration policy or that we have voted against all of the government's proposals, as he claimed earlier. That is not true. We do not want to return to the migration policy that Ulf Kristersson himself was involved in driving as minister, and we have voted for most of the proposals.

What the Center Party actually wants is a migration system that is legally secure and reasonable, where a no is a no but where a yes is also actually a yes, and where people are treated as human beings even if they are immigrants.

Centerpartiet wants people who come here, work and contribute to be able to continue doing just that: contribute to the Swedish economy and to our society. We also want young people who come here and who are born and raised here to be able to see a future here, but instead we see how these people are deported.

Therefore, I want to ask the Prime Minister – I hope that I will receive a serious answer: When will the Prime Minister actually – for real – stop the teenage deportations and the deportation of skilled workers, which results in people who work, contribute, and have built their lives here in Sweden being deported right now?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One must be careful with words. I said that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet essentially want to return to the old migration policy. It is a bit unclear with Centern. I think I hear different voices from Centerpartiet when it comes to the immigration policy. If it is confirmed that Centerpartiet stands firmly behind a restrictive immigration policy, no one is happier than I am. Welcome in that case!

Regarding the second question, I have said several times now that we have announced new legislation that will be presented during the spring and which can be decided upon during the summer, and thereby solve the problem of individual young people getting caught because they are to have their own grounds for asylum even though they can continue to be perceived as very dependent on their parents.

That is how you do serious legislation. The old law from 2016 has not fulfilled that purpose. Now we are solving the problem, which I believe the Centerpartiet was involved in creating at one time.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we now risk losing 11 percent of perhaps Swedes' most beloved animal: the lynx. It is a species that is red-listed as vulnerable and which is hunted because of its fur.

Over the last five years, 134 lynx cubs have been killed in this hunt in a single year. It is therefore not about lynxes that are shot because they have caused problems for livestock, but 100 percent of the lynxes shot in Sweden are killed because people want their beautiful fur.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister think it is good that we have trophy hunting of endangered animals in Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am a hunter myself, but I do not have time to hunt very often. I would, however, never hunt wolverines.

I will honestly say that I do not know the Swedish regulations regarding this, but I assume that the regulations that exist are followed. That is how we do it: We build a country with law. We have rules, and they shall be applied. If people break the rules, it must be stopped. If one wishes to change the rules, it can be done in an orderly manner.

I cannot [comment on/speak to] the Swedish Hunting Ordinance in that respect.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! Before and after this question period, a debate on education is taking place. My question concerns that area.

This week, some of us have internship students. With me is Alice Åkesson, who comes from Billesholm in Skåne. She is sitting in the gallery and following the question period. The question she wants to ask the Prime Minister is: How does the Prime Minister see that the proposed grading system can strengthen the quality in schools and give students better conditions compared to today's system?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! How great – not all students have their own questioner in the Swedish Parliament.

We are creating a new grading system for many different reasons.

The first reason, which is obvious and which not all students perhaps think about, is that parents must be able to understand the grading system. Far too many parents feel that it has been too complicated to understand what their children are expected to know in order to receive a certain grade. Then it becomes difficult to help. Students and parents must be able to understand.

The second reason is that an unreasonable number of people fail and are thus stopped at the next step. That needs to be addressed.

The third point is about ensuring that we have a grading system that makes it impossible to cheat or create "joy grades" and which is therefore more linked to actual results, so that schools do not take it upon themselves to give individual students higher grades than their knowledge corresponds to.

There are quite a few different purposes that coincide in a new grading system. I hear that there is a large demand among Sweden's parents for a new grading system.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Every morning, 10,000 children take their parents' hands and go to a Christian preschool. There are 10,000–11,000 pupils who do the same and go to a Christian school.

Generally speaking, it is an activity that has high safety and good study results and which is actually better than many others at integration. At the same time, we see in the general debate how Social Democrats and Liberals come out and demand that all confessional schools should be closed, so even the Christian ones.

Then my question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister and the government consider that confessional schools should be phased out, despite the fact that they generally have higher quality and good results and are appreciated by parents? The debate that is currently ongoing is, in fact, creating great concern among children, students, parents, and school administrators. I would be pleased with a clear statement on how the government views this issue.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is interesting. This debate has long surprised me, in two ways.

To be honest: If one means that the Jewish school in Stockholm is a major problem, then speak plainly and say that one wants to close that school! If one actually means that a number of Muslim schools have abused the Swedish school system for a long time, then have the courage to say that too! The noise about confessional schools in general conceals much more than it reveals. It is the first thing that has surprised me in a long time.

The second thing that has surprised me is: Why is it only now that bad schools are being closed? It concerns those schools that preach values and positions that are almost illegal in Sweden and that lie far beyond the curriculum, the schools that abuse the Swedish independent school system and the schools that stand for completely different views than what Swedish school should stand for. Why is it only now that they are being closed for real?

(Applause)

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister is misleading us. He is certainly not reported to the police. He is not the subject of a legal process. Of course, the Riksdag must be able to get answers from the Prime Minister regarding his exercise of office. Just now, he admitted that the government appointed an investigation because of the errors committed at his office regarding Landerholm.

The question arises whether the Prime Minister's press secretary is included in that investigation. The Prime Minister's press secretary is one of the Prime Minister's closest associates and works on direct orders from him.

When Henrik Landerholm wrote posts on social media about one of the security incidents, which the media had revealed, it was the press secretary who helped him write the posts. What was written contained several inaccuracies and was misleading regarding Landerholm's actions.

Mr. Speaker! My question to Ulf Kristersson concerns his performance of his duties, not something that is the subject of a legal process. The question is: Did the press secretary act on their own initiative? And did it, if so, prompt any actions from the Prime Minister?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! You are quite funny, you Social Democrats. You get a note from the group leadership: This is what you should ask about this time. And then you ask about things that you know are subjects of a legal process and which you know that I cannot answer. It is charming, really. Did you have nothing else to ask about today?

The answer the member receives is the same. I therefore do not intend to answer questions revolving around a person who in turn is the subject of a legal review. He is admittedly acquitted, but it has been appealed and is therefore still a legal process. After that, I will answer all questions regarding that matter.

The review of the Government Offices' security work had a much broader basis. It is quite wise in these times to review whether the Government Offices have a sufficiently strong security work in all conceivable aspects. That review is ongoing.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The implementation of the pay transparency directive does not only involve new obligations. It also involves a whole battery of rules that risk hitting Swedish employers disproportionately hard. The criticism is strong from all sides, from the parties in the labor market but also broadly from politics.

At the same time, it is evident that Sweden, as so often in previous years, goes significantly further than what the EU actually requires and thus severely exacerbates the consequences. This time, the target is our companies, especially the small and medium-sized ones.

The government has been clear and stated that one should work towards a minimum when it comes to the implementation of EU directives linked to our labor market model. Now, in some parts, they are deviating from the investigation and doing the opposite, so my question to the Prime Minister is quite simple: Why does one want to make it harder than necessary for Sweden's entrepreneurs through a clear over-implementation of the pay transparency directive?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! My view is exactly the opposite. We inherited this bad problem because the Social Democrats wanted a social EU summit in Sweden, if you remember, which was to center around an issue that no sensible Swede wants to be an EU issue. They actively created a problem that we are now trying to minimize the consequences of.

The EU has nothing to do with the Swedish labor market model. They do not understand it. They would prefer to legislate it. We have said no, and the Social Democrats invited the EU to have an active influence on the Swedish labor market. It was a bad decision.

Instead of it being stopped, we got an EU legislation that Sweden is now doing everything to implement with as small consequences as possible at all. Talk about inheriting a self-goal! But the government will agree on a minimalist implementation of that legislation.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! The following are comments on my posts on social media:

I hope a 13-year-old shoots someone in your family!

You are a deluxe batik witch who loves blattekuk!

Hate and threats affect all politicians, from right to left. But today I focus on hate and threats in social media directed at women and girls, for this is urgent. Women in politics, in the business world and in the cultural life and young girls encounter hate and threats that are largely inspired and driven by men in their upper middle age. This must come to an end.

My question to the Prime Minister is: When will the government present a realistic and action-oriented plan to put an end to the hate and threats against women and girls on social media?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I just want to agree unreservedly. This is absolutely terrible. I also share the view that it affects young women and girls even worse than many young men and boys – and then they probably think that they often are also hit hard.

This is absolutely appalling. We have seen it for quite a long time, deep into politics. I myself had a long conversation with Anna-Karin Hatt in the days after she chose to leave the role she held at that time.

This is a poison that destroys the climate of conversation in Swedish and international politics. Sweden is probably not more affected than other countries, but there is no doubt that we are not spared in any way either.

I think we should have legislation that stops this as far as it is possible at all, with respect for the fact that freedom of speech in Sweden is very extensive, and that we should have very high requirements for social media platforms to quickly remove such things that may be illegal. We are not there yet, but that is where we should get to.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Many of us have reacted to the reports about major cuts to maternity care in Malmö over the past few weeks.

Healthcare in Region Skåne has run a multi-billion kronor deficit every year for several years. The reason is that the government has not wanted to provide sufficient state grants to the regions and that the local Tidö government has refused to raise the regional tax to compensate for the deficit. The consequences we have now been able to see are large cuts at the hospitals, including at BB in Malmö.

At the same time, the government has now announced that they want to penalize municipalities and regions that raise taxes in the future. My question to the Prime Minister therefore becomes: How does the Prime Minister intend for regions to be able to provide a functioning healthcare system for the citizens if they are not to receive sufficient funding from the state or from tax revenues?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It would have been pleasant if the left side of Swedish politics had shown as much interest in all the problems in healthcare in the Stockholm region. It would have been pleasant.

There, you could change everything with a single phone call. But there, you are shutting down the eating disorder care. There, the BUP queues are increasing. It is the only region where the queues are not decreasing right now. If you took care of those concerns with a little more interest, we might have had a little more respect for your views on the situation in Skåne. Just a tip.

The fact is that resources have not decreased in healthcare in Skåne. The fact is that what we have allocated in total to women's healthcare is more than for the previous parliamentary term. The fact is that very much is being done to solve the problems.

Why don't you instead say that you are out to raise the tax? Sometimes you are very reliable. Raise the tax! That is always your answer, and now you are calling for a raised tax in Skåne. I do not think you will get it.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister! At the beginning of last week, the French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a keynote speech regarding France's nuclear deterrence capability. Macron spoke about how the French capability should be strengthened due to the threats and challenges seen for France but also for Europe. These threats, which mainly come from Russia, we must face together. Macron opened in his speech for an expanded cooperation with a number of European countries, including Sweden.

It has only been a little over a week, but I would still like to take the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister how the dialogue with France will continue and what this may come to mean for Sweden.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that late last year we received a question from France as to whether we, together with a number of countries, for example Denmark, were interested in starting a dialogue on cooperation between Swedish conventional capabilities and France's nuclear capabilities.

I realized quite quickly that it is a big thing to say yes. It is an equally big thing to say no. Sometimes there is a habit in Sweden where one wants to avoid answering questions and hopes to get away with it. That is not how this government works. That is, we had a very careful process before we gave an answer to France.

That process included careful consultations also with the opposition in Sweden. That is now precariously wavering. I honestly can no longer say what the opposition, especially the Social Democrats, think on this issue.

In this meeting, we are now preparing the team from UD, the Ministry of Defence, and the National Security Council that will create the conditions for the talks to create a framework and see where there is potential for good cooperation.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it has been an exciting question period. The Hungarian Prime Minister has been involved in this room, whatever he was doing here, and notes have been sent to different people.

One who may also have received a note is the Moderate Minister of Justice, Gunnar Strömmer, who has stood here in the chamber and criticized Ulf Kristersson for the handling of the Landerholm affair and how it could have been handled significantly differently.

It is therefore about what the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, JO, have criticized the Prime Minister's Office for, namely the media's opportunities to scrutinize the situation that has arisen. Fundamentally, this is about the Prime Minister's Office not having followed the constitution, namely the Freedom of the Press Act. It honors Gunnar Strömmer in many ways that he takes a stand on the side of the constitution.

Our question is: Does the Prime Minister share the Minister for Justice's assessment?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It may have already been stated, but I say it once more: I will respect the Riksdag's practice of not discussing ongoing court cases either in the KU or here.

I know that you want it to be the opposite, and you are welcome to want that, but I will stand by my conviction. We can subsequently discuss this as much as we want.

The Prime Minister's question time is hereby concluded.

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