The Prime Minister's Question Time

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! I assume that the Prime Minister has taken note of Ekots review of digital healthcare providers and more specifically of Kry.

The review shows what Kry's business model looks like. It is doctors who are pressured and ranked based on speed, and patients who end up caught in the middle. Furthermore, the cost to society is enormous, and the only ones profiting from this are Kry.

Yet another industry with greedy actors who put profit interests first – whatever the cost – has thus been exposed. During this parliamentary term, billions have been able to be taken out of welfare while the basic missions of healthcare and school have been eroded.

Mr. Speaker! This is something that evokes strong reactions in many people – with all the right, I want to say. Despite clear warning signs and several previous reviews, the government has not taken any measures at all to stop unserious actors such as Kry or to improve the health centers and build up serious digital alternatives.

Mr. Speaker! Instead, the government appointed Krys as a member of the so-called efficiency delegation for health and medical care as late as last year. There, he is to participate in distributing a quarter of a billion to transition or efficiency measures. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that it is precisely Krys's methods that the government wants to reward and that it is this so-called care that the government considers to be efficient.

My questions to the Prime Minister are therefore: Does he think it was a good appointment to place Krys vd in the government's delegation? Will the government separate Krys vd from the assignment given that it is now crystal clear what the company engages in?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have some reflections.

First and foremost, it is good that Ekot is conducting such a review. All serious operations that use taxpayers' money need to be audited, and it is good that this is being done.

Then I believe I speak for a very large majority of the Swedish people when I say that the digital possibilities for healthcare have come to stay. They shorten waiting times, and they increase accessibility. Very many families with children think it is incredibly good not to have to physically go to a health center or a medical center if it is not absolutely necessary.

I believe I speak for many when I say that all rules must, of course, be followed. This shall, of course, be scrutinized, and if something goes wrong, it shall be pointed out. Then it can have consequences.

Finally: As everyone knows, it is of course the regions that have a responsibility for which agreements are entered into at all with different private actors, regardless of whether they are physical or digital.

I am very much in favor of using technology so that patients get shorter waiting times and accessibility increases. The old days, when everything was to take place completely physically, will not come back. But it shall take place in very careful and organized forms.

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister's term is coming to an end, and I can state that it has been four lost years in many ways.

We have an economy where unemployment has become entrenched, a growth that has not gained momentum, and a cost situation that has made everyday life not add up for hard-working people.

It is also four years that have resulted in billions leaking out of welfare to unserious companies. In light of the investigation of Kry, the government faces a choice today: Either one clearly stands against methods of working that erode welfare, or the government lets the assignment remain and then signals that this is acceptable, and even desirable, and something that Kry's CEO can continue to boast about in the company's channels.

My question was not about whether digital healthcare is good, but my question was whether the Prime Minister considers it reasonable that the appointment of Krys's CEO remains unchanged despite the criticism that is now known.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is now being scrutinized thoroughly. It is good that Ekot has conducted a review, and the government will, of course, follow up on this.

But we are not against digital healthcare contacts. You have been fundamentally skeptical the whole time, because you want a shopping society – everyone knows that. Fundamentally, we are for the digital contacts, and we are for simplifying for people – but under very orderly forms.

It is good that we can discuss what has happened during the mandate period. Healthcare queues in Sweden have decreased by 28 percent during the mandate period in all regions except – surprise! – the Stockholm region, which the Social Democrats rule. Sweden has gone from the bottom to the top in the growth league and from 10 percent to 2 percent inflation, and this morning we heard that unemployment is falling for the ninth month in a row.

We want to keep the course. You want to change direction. One wonders which of these things you want to reverse and go in the opposite direction with. Maybe it is the death sentences you want back or the immigration that is to increase again. Good luck!

(Applause)

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, we have done a lot to strengthen the household economy for ordinary working people and families, haven't we?

We believe in the human ability and drive to want to be independent, and we have encouraged this. It should pay to work, and one should be able to live on one's wages. We are talking about thousands of kronor more per month for an average family. It is good for our families, and it is good for Sweden.

By cleaning up the swamp of subsidies through subsidy ceilings and qualification for welfare, and by increasing control to stop criminal organizations' draining of the welfare system, we ensure that tax funds end up where they should be. In the long run, we can then also strengthen the support.

I am thinking, among other things, of for example sickness insurance, akassa, LSS and accompaniment, that is to say, insurance and support that apply for a limited period, when the needs truly exist for the individual. The purpose is not, and has never been, that one should be able to live on benefits year after year, as it has functioned in Sweden for a long time. It is also not fair.

The opposition, on the other hand, is obviously talking about increased grants. Now there is to be a broad quarantine deduction and so on in order to, in some sense, legitimize grant dependency and low requirements for the individual. It is bad for Sweden, and as usual, it is always someone else who is supposed to pay. It is clear that the Social Democrats are no longer the workers' party but the grant party.

It is also clear that there are great differences. Our line is built on a strong and robust society through demanding requirements and faith in the individual's capacity for independence and thus freedom, and the Social Democrats' line is built on low requirements for the individual by providing for an increased dependency on benefits and in this way tying the citizens to the party itself and the dependency on the state.

I have a quick question for the Prime Minister. We agree that work should pay off. The Moderates usually call it the work line. Parallel to this, we also need to ensure that there is a strong safety net. Do we also share that picture?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We usually say – everyone probably has variations of this – that effort should pay off and crime should be punished. That says quite a lot about a fundamental ethic. Effort, whether it is at work, in the family, in association life, or when helping a neighbor, should be encouraged and rewarded. Crime, abuse, and cheating, on the other hand, should always be punished. I think that is a good basis for a good society.

Linda Lindberg raised an important point, namely the connection between legitimate contribution systems and the welfare state. That is exactly it. It is only when people work honestly and honorably and pay taxes that go to the common good that we can afford various welfare measures for those who – permanently or just temporarily – cannot work. This logic is incredibly important.

I want to safeguard the legitimacy of the welfare society. Those who receive benefits should also be those who need benefits. There are always people who need benefits for a long period because they cannot work for various reasons. There is a strong consensus in Sweden that we should help them. There is also a very strong legitimacy in that the person who can work can possibly receive benefits for a short period between two jobs or if one falls into difficulties, but then one should return to work again.

It is also this that has built equality in Sweden. It is wage labor and own incomes that have created equality – not benefit incomes. On the contrary, it is the case that the children who are now growing up in the worst poverty are the children whose parents do not go to work at all. Some will always think that one should increase the benefits so that they get a little better right now, but we know that it is a guarantee for long-term poverty and eventually poor pensions.

The work line and the welfare line are actually two sides of the same coin. I want to stand guard over both.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the clarification! Sometimes the narrative is heard that we only safeguard one system, which is, of course, completely incorrect.

During the next parliamentary term, we will continue to make it a little easier and a little better to live and reside in Sweden for those who behave and do the right thing, or who temporarily need society's support through some form of welfare system. I usually call it justice and common sense, quite simply.

We have come a bit of the way, but we are not at the finish line. This work needs to continue. I know that we are also in agreement here. We are the guarantors that this work shall continue.

I also have a somewhat overarching question: How does the Prime Minister intend for us to continue working moving forward to make it a bit better to live here and a bit easier to live safely here in Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Some of it concerns the work we are doing to reduce serious crime. We have more than halved the deadly gang violence. That is a fantastic success, but it is also as Gunnar Strömmer says: Half remains.

January was the first month completely without deadly gang violence; in all other months, there has been something. So there is a lot of work left, but the more control we get over the heavy organized crime, the more time the police get for everyday crime. I am thinking of all the cellar burglaries and all the harassment – things that are not deadly but which are terrible in a rule-of-law society.

I said that there are two sides to the same coin. We just said in another discussion that companies that cheat and abuse should face very harsh consequences. People who cheat and abuse should also face harsh consequences. There is a great deal of cheating in the Swedish welfare system. We must address this so that the money can go to those who need it.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister said on March 22 that we cannot have electricity prices that are dependent on Russia and the Middle East. What the Prime Minister spoke about is that gas prices are becoming incredibly high. They skyrocketed when Russia entered Ukraine, and we have seen the same thing now that the Middle East has been attacked. Unfortunately, gas prices affect Swedish electricity prices very significantly. They drive the electricity prices in Europe, and we are infected by it via the electricity export that we have.

What we would need to do to lower electricity prices is to decouple gas prices from Swedish electricity prices. It was precisely this that the European Commission was suggesting – von der Leyen was out and said that the very high gas prices must be decoupled from electricity prices, including the Swedish ones.

But listen and be amazed – the Prime Minister and the Minister for Energy want to stop this. They sent letters and pressured the EU Commission not to decouple the high gas prices from the Swedish electricity prices, which was also a lobbying effort that worked. The EU Commission had to back down and was prevented from decoupling the gas prices from the Swedish electricity prices. It is very doubtful whether this was in line with what Ulf Kristersson said on March 22. It has meant that we have had incredibly high electricity prices in Sweden during the last months.

Does the Prime Minister understand that it appears as hypocrisy to first say that one wants low electricity prices but then do everything in the meeting rooms to ensure that gas prices are not decoupled from Swedish electricity prices?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One must see what has actually happened. The last time we had truly serious oil price disruptions and energy disruptions was in the 70s. Then Sweden concluded that unreasonably high oil prices are harmful to Swedish industry. Thus, we complemented our robust hydropower with a massive investment in Swedish nuclear power. At that time, it was primarily about price; since then, climate arguments and security policy arguments have been added.

Is it not an irony of fate that we, many decades later, have decommissioned so much Swedish nuclear power that we are once again dependent on the oil prices in the Middle East, which in turn affect gas prices, which in turn affect electricity prices in Europe? This is an irony of fate. We could have continued to be completely independent of that pricing for our electricity. We had the world's best electricity system thanks to hydropower, nuclear power, and renewables.

I cannot understand it, Nooshi Dadgostar – you are more responsible than some others for the policy that has failed. Electrification is the way forward. Then we must have the ability to produce fossil-free electricity in our own country so that southern Sweden, where nuclear power has been decommissioned, does not become dependent on German energy supply. Germany has decommissioned its nuclear power, is betting everything on wind power and is getting high prices. One does not have to be a physicist to understand that this is a problem. I believe that you have created this problem.

Then it is a total misunderstanding. What we said to the EU Commission was something completely different: Do not put rhubarb on Swedish bottleneck revenues! Those funds have been paid by Swedish electricity consumers – do not take them away from us! Give us, on the contrary, increased freedom when it comes to how we want to use them! Do not bet everything on connecting countries, but also create production capacity – otherwise, there will be no electricity!

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! With all due respect: It is incomprehensible what Ulf Kristersson is talking about. We are talking about gas prices, which were to be decoupled from Swedish electricity prices, and that Ulf Kristersson in his own person has approached the EU Commission to pressure the Commission not to decouple gas prices from Swedish electricity prices. If we had made that decoupling, the Swedish electricity prices would have been significantly lower.

It is not about nuclear power or about new electricity production – leave that out now! Answer the question! Why has the Swedish government with all its might opposed what the EU Commission and von der Leyen were suggesting, namely to remove the high gas price as that which defines the Swedish electricity prices and other electricity prices? This is what is called marginal pricing.

Why did the Swedish government fight for this? Swedish consumers have had to pay for it. Answer that question now!

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that it is indeed about electricity production. If one has no electricity production, one cannot distribute electricity either – it is not more complicated than that.

We have laid down half the capacity for fossil-free baseload power in southern Sweden because of your energy policy, Nooshi Dadgostar. When Germany has the same bad energy policy, the consequences for our part of the world become devastating.

Mr. Speaker! The second is a total misunderstanding. What we said to the EU Commission was: Do not let Europe take care of Swedish bottleneck revenues! We told them that if one wants to subsidize the gas in different countries, then feel free. That was also exactly the decision that was made. In Italy, which is 90 percent dependent on gas prices, it is completely legal after the EU decision to subsidize gas prices so that they do not hit electricity prices to the extent they otherwise would. Sweden has not been against this in any way, but we do not want to be dependent on gas prices. No Swedish consumers, except for a number on the west coast, are dependent on gas, and Sweden shall also not be dependent on gas.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a very restless time. The security situation is tense in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine continues, and the US President acts unpredictably with his statements and actions. This has consequences for our security of supply. The prices of important input factors for agriculture, including diesel and fertilizers, have increased sharply recently. It is also becoming increasingly uncertain how to obtain these input factors in the future and at what price. This affects the next growing season but also the season we are now entering.

That Sweden lives with a large import dependency to meet the food supply is in itself a major vulnerability and affects our security situation and the safety of our population. At the same time, Swedish food producers are struggling with increasing bureaucracy, high costs, and pressured profitability. Therefore, large investments are needed that strengthen the conditions to both produce more food and achieve production at home of these input goods, for example fertilizers and fuels, partly to strengthen security, and partly to ensure that these are available in these times of uncertainty.

Then concrete, quantified and measurable goals are needed in the government's food strategy. This autumn, the Swedish Board of Agriculture returned with proposals for new targets, but the government has not yet moved forward in the matter. Time is short, and it is important to act.

My question to the Prime Minister is: How will the government proceed with the Swedish Board of Agriculture's proposal on goals for Swedish food production so that Swedish food security can be strengthened in a time of unrest?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to agree that the global situation is serious and difficult to assess in many different ways. We have had the war in Ukraine for more than four years now, the USA's new, unpredictable actions in not least trade issues and economic issues, and now also all the consequences of the war in the Middle East. To state the obvious: There is very little Sweden can do regarding the question of war or peace in the Middle East, but this has major consequences here at home.

I usually conclude that in such a situation, the first lesson for the government is to do everything right here at home. Do not gamble, do not just hope for the best and do not be careless, but safeguard Swedish interests in terms of security and economy! This is our absolute most important task. This is what we are doing now in many different ways when it comes to the economic consequences for households and companies.

An important signal regarding food production, which the question concerned, is to lower the diesel price. Primarily, we are lowering the tax to the EU's minimum level, and we have applied to the EU to be able to go below that by a corresponding 3 SEK per liter if necessary. It is no small matter, either for households under pressure or for food producers under pressure. It is precisely these kinds of efforts we are making in this crisis situation.

The government is currently working on the food strategy, and I do not intend to preempt that work. But we are looking at a large number of proposals and will get back to you.

However, it is not possible to avoid one important point: I respect the Center Party's view on these issues, but with which parties on the left wing could you get a price reduction on diesel through? I do not see any such possibility.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Just as when it comes to the total defense in its entirety, we need broad agreements and a unified, long-term policy that strengthens Sweden's food production. But right now, many of the government's presented proposals are short-term and the measures are temporary. One example is the temporarily reduced food VAT. A farmer gets 10 öre on every food krona while the state takes out a little more. It shows the imbalance and that the system is poorly designed.

We see that profitability affects the future. If profitability is absent, more farms disappear, which affects the conditions moving forward. We therefore need to take measures that strengthen production.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Will other concrete measures be taken to strengthen food production in Sweden in the short term?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Doing things in the short term is the most important task. First, it was a matter of fighting inflation, and we have succeeded with that. Now it is about ensuring that the consequences of economic turmoil elsewhere do not propagate into the Swedish economy. It is also about restoring the real incomes of very many families, where ten years were lost during the years of high inflation. All these things are absolutely crucial to get the wheels of the Swedish economy moving again.

I am very much in favor of broad agreements if there is agreement on the direction of the agreements. But it is difficult to make broad agreements with parties that think exactly the opposite on central issues. What would a broad agreement on security policy look like with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, who are against the decisive step? Today we submitted the forest bill. What would a broad agreement with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet look like when they want to go in exactly the opposite direction to the one we have mapped out?

But you are welcome in our direction on a large number of issues.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that things would be put in order in Sweden, but the government has failed to do so. The gaps are widening, and the healthcare queues are long. Furthermore, climate emissions are increasing, and Sweden is on track to miss all climate goals.

At the EU level, the development is also extremely worrying, because while companies are crying themselves hoarse for long-termism in politics in order to dare to make investments in new technology and transition, the Moderaterna party group is participating in tearing just this apart.

Even here in Sweden, the government's climate failure is clear. The Climate Policy Council states in its latest report that the government's policy has been insufficient to reduce emissions and to achieve the climate transition that Sweden so much needs and also has everything to gain from. Large emitters are now pausing their planned climate investments, and this has much to do with extremely unclear political messages.

Last Saturday, the Prime Minister wavered concerning the so important 2030 target for transport, a target that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag as recently as this autumn had agreed should remain firm.

My questions to the Prime Minister are: Now that the Prime Minister can summarize the mandate period, is the Prime Minister satisfied with how the government's policy has slowed down the industry's opportunities and conditions for transition? What happens with the 2030 goal? Will the government stick to the climate goals? Now we want a statement.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is a rather peculiar description of reality. We have brought down inflation from 10 to 2 percent, Sweden has gone from the bottom to the top in the growth league, we have halved the deadly gang violence, and we have brought down immigration to 1985 levels so that Sweden gets a chance to manage the integration. After we have done all this that takes Sweden in the right direction, you stand there and make up that Sweden is going in the wrong direction. I would have respect for this if by a new course you mean that you want to go back to the former and that you really think so. But I do not believe that is what you think.

Let us instead be honest. We differ radically on at least two areas. One is energy policy. You are against nuclear power, while I am for nuclear power.

The second is the reduction obligation. When it comes to having a reduction obligation in Sweden that drives up diesel prices to the highest in Europe by far, in order to meet a self-invented goal solely in Sweden, at the cost of families not being able to afford to use their car, we differ significantly.

In an interview the other day, I therefore agreed with what Romina Pourmokhtari said about that goal, that it should fundamentally be about an electrification goal instead. It is about electrifying the vehicle fleet, both private cars and heavy transport, in parallel with the industries. One can look at the large investment that is now being made in, for example, Stegra and the steel industry. It is those kinds of investments we want to see. That requires massive amounts of fossil-free electricity, but there you in the opposition have no answers.

The description is completely incorrect. At the EU level, we were afraid that the ETS, that is, the emissions trading system, was threatened, but we recently saved it at an EU summit. There are countries that are worried that it prices out their industry, but we said on the contrary that the industry has now made large investments in the green transition and that we must stand up for it. We did that, and the system remains.

We have different views on nuclear power, and we have different views on the reduction obligation. Let us settle for that.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The gaps have increased during Ulf Kristersson's government, the healthcare queues remain long and emissions are increasing. We are on track to miss all climate goals, and we are in a worse position today than at the beginning of the mandate period. This is not coming from Ulf Kristersson.

The Climate Policy Council is clear: the policy during this parliamentary term has been insufficient. It is written that the room to postpone decisions to the future is exhausted. The government's strategy to postpone important political decisions to the future is therefore condemned by the experts.

The autumn budget was the government's absolute last chance to deliver something on the climate area, but not even there do we see the government doing what the industry has been shouting for for several years, namely delivering the clarity that is required.

Can we now get a straight answer from the Prime Minister: Will the government stick to the climate goals, including the transport goal for 2030, which we agreed upon in the autumn?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One is tempted to ask the question back: Will the Green Party stick to the position that Sweden should live up to the so-called LULUCF target and dismantle a large part of the Swedish forest industry and let other countries benefit from Swedish forests to meet their goals? There are no parties that have policies that are even close to reaching that goal. I very rarely hear you talk about exactly this. Stand up for the consequences of the policy that you say you are proposing! That does not hold up.

According to the forecast, emissions will be lower in 2026 than they were in 2022. We have managed a truly serious crisis internationally. We have saved Swedish households from a one-sided climate policy that put all eggs in one basket and called it the reduction obligation.

We stand for electrification. This requires fossil-free energy, and it requires nuclear power. It is also exactly what the industry is demanding and is now participating in investing in.

(Applause)

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! One in six Swedish couples is affected by involuntary infertility. For many, it means a terrible sorrow and longing – to never experience the first kicks in the stomach, to never follow the little life through all the great changes, and to never be able to create the wholeness that a family represents. To also fight through the few opportunities offered in Sweden and be told that one's chances are over – I believe it is difficult to describe what it does to a woman, to a couple, both emotionally and mentally.

Now the government is doubling the number of IVF attempts. I wonder if the Prime Minister can describe what effects this is expected to have.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, it must be said that involuntary childlessness is the private dimension of a broad societal problem, namely low birth rates. We now have the lowest birth rates since the measurements began sometime in the 1700s. For those who are slightly nerdily interested, I can say that the number is 1.42. We had 1.9 as recently as 2010. This means that the Swedish population would be halved in approximately one hundred years. Everyone understands that it is a societal problem, but it is also a major individual problem.

I am the first to say that politics – the government and the Riksdag – should not have any opinions on how many children each family should have; it is a private matter. But I would like to see a society where one can get an honest chance to have the children one would like to have, and in that, IVF is a small but important part.

We think that it has been too stingy with only three attempts. Now we are doubling it to six attempts so that more people get a chance to have a child in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has made a decision to expand offshore hydropower. The Government has made a decision on new nuclear power, and the Government is working to facilitate small-scale hydropower. This hydropower corresponds to approximately one reactor, and if it were to be allowed to develop freely, it would in a short time correspond to approximately two reactors.

The government introduced a moratorium on the review of hydropower early on because we saw the immense consequences that the previous rules had for small-scale hydropower. However, there is a concern among hydropower owners that the government's changes will not be sufficiently clear towards authorities and courts.

How does the government ensure that the new directives are followed so that small-scale hydropower can continue to produce fossil-free energy, especially in southern Sweden?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is an important issue. As we, and not least Ebba Busch, often emphasize, we are for all fossil-free energy. We need more of all fossil-free energy, not less, and we need a combination of stable baseload power, such as hydropower and nuclear power, and weather-dependent power. It is strange that we have bickered about this in Swedish politics for 45 years. Now we have to get things done.

Small-scale hydropower has been threatened by a number of environmental regulations that have not been well-adapted, but now we have changed them. We are increasing the chance of retaining small-scale hydropower, and we are pausing the reassessment of it.

We have also tasked Svenska kraftnät with developing a guidance that shall clarify exactly how one should view the trade-off between environmental considerations and electricity production. Everyone understands that there are trade-offs to be made, and it must occur in a way that ensures one retains important small-scale hydropower.

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister! Compared to before, more young people today report that they are doing very well, but more also report that they are doing poorly.

According to research, the risk is significantly greater for young people who move less. They get stuck in front of screens that keep them awake at night, they sleep too little, and they do not manage in school. When they lie awake with their screens, they also encounter ugly body ideals and people who do not wish them well and who, in the worst cases, drag them into truly miserable situations.

I know that the government takes this very seriously. Can the Prime Minister describe what is being done in practice to reverse this development?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is one of our truly major public health risks. Many families already see it, and many fear what might come. There is not a single family that does not talk a lot about this. I am very committed to this issue. In the worst case, these are life-threatening risks. We are talking about everything from mental ill-health, which in the best case one can solve oneself or with help, to things that are literally life-threatening.

It is about a few things. Lina Nordquist mentioned movement. We know that it is good to move, and therefore we do a lot to activate just movement, compared to the association life, with leisure cards and such things.

Then, of course, there are the risks with the screens. It is about the school being far too screen-fixed. From screen to binder in school, we usually say, and it is a good way to express it. But it is also about placing restrictions on social media. We are now investigating the age limit issue, for example, which I believe is a central part of helping parents to do what many parents would actually like to do themselves.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! In the exercise of its power, the Government shall adhere to objectivity and impartiality and not give a misleading picture of reality. Put more simply: One shall not lie.

Despite this, the Prime Minister and the government have in several debates here in the chamber asserted that Region Stockholm has, for ideological reasons, shut down a private healthcare company in eating disorder care.

This has been tested legally, and the District Court grants Region Stockholm right on all points in the case regarding the healthcare company's systematic incorrect billing and lack of quality of care.

At the same time, the accessibility in eating disorder care and the fulfillment of the care guarantee in Stockholm have increased significantly. We are approaching 100 percent.

27 minutes ago, the Prime Minister himself said here in the chamber that companies that cheat should face very harsh penalties. Against this background, I want to ask the Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister today regret that he and his government defended the now-convicted healthcare company?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the first thing, I never defend any individual companies, but I discuss it in these terms: Do we want independent actors in Swedish healthcare, or do we not want it? It is a fairly well-known conflict from a long time ago. You Social Democrats are almost always negative, and we on the bourgeois side are very positive. Let us stand for that!

Therefore, perhaps it was not entirely shocking that some private independent clinics began to be closed down in Stockholm. I do not, of course, know the individual reasons for individual decisions, and I do not involve myself in that either. Region Stockholm can manage that itself. But it was not so surprising, I believe, that just Stockholm turned out to be skeptical towards private actors.

Secondly, the queues are an important part. Everyone knows that Swedish healthcare is really good when serious things happen. Everyone knows that, and we are incredibly grateful for it. Everyone also knows that in many parts of the country, there are long queues.

Now, the queues have been reduced by 28 percent in Sweden – but not in the Social Democrat-governed Region Stockholm.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister! Sweden is a strong democracy, and in several measurements we are increasing in the index. We are becoming ever stronger as a democracy.

Despite this, Sweden's largest party, the Social Democrats, choose to paint us and this government as a brown, fascist, and Nazi government, which is unpleasant. It is a dishonest and deceitful way of arguing.

The researcher Johan Wennström at the Ministry of Defence recently wrote a text in 100% where he argued that it can now be seen that the Kremlin and Putin are using the Social Democrats' narrative about Sweden to spread propaganda and disinformation to undermine our democracy when we support what they call a Nazi Ukraine.

This is serious and something that must be taken seriously. We cannot spread disinformation in the way the Social Democrats do. How does the Prime Minister view this? And what does the government want to do to combat this form of security-threatening behavior in this country?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I think that we, not least in this chamber, have a common responsibility to stand up for and nurture our democracy, especially in a world where democracy is truly not a given. We have a well-functioning democracy in Sweden, but it is not guaranteed that it will remain that way. How we act in this chamber affects people's trust in Swedish democracy.

That is why I am a bit concerned about this tendency where, when one disagrees on substantive issues, it should be described as a threat to democracy. It is nonsense, with all due respect. The Social Democrats wrote articles after the change of power three and a half years ago that were startlingly close to that kind of rhetoric.

I gathered all the party leaders just a few weeks ago, together with our security authorities, to review the risk of foreign disinformation and improper election interference in Sweden. I perceived then that we were all in general agreement that those kinds of things do not belong in the Swedish election campaign.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that the Prime Minister has established a council to combat violence against women. Prostitution is included in that concept. Women who are involved in prostitution are crime victims.

It is also the case that the Prime Minister leads a government that wants to drive through a paradigm shift to strengthen support for crime victims.

Now I am outraged by several over that women in prostitution are taxed for this. I have a limited but symbolically very important question: Can we assume that the Prime Minister, in his eagerness to lower taxes for some, will also include and dismiss such tax?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Nordborg, I appreciate it! I believe that the Council for Women's Peace that we have appointed, with all the ministers who have different areas of responsibility, together with a clear zero vision when it comes to lethal violence against women, is incredibly important. It is possible with the same force to do what we are now doing against the gross organized gang crime when it comes to violence against women, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

The first meeting was about crimes of insanity. The second was about violence in close relationships. The third will be about sexual violence and sexualized violence. There is also a close connection to prostitution issues. The fourth will be about honor violence. I really take this to heart.

In the concrete case, I believe that the Swedish Tax Agency has made some assessments that lie beyond the government's control but which I understand raise some questions about taxation. I ask to be allowed to bring up that question. It is the Swedish Tax Agency itself that has made those types of assessments and made such decisions, not the government, but I understand that it raises some questions.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the Prime Minister remembers that in the previous election campaign he appeared on a poster where he said: "Europe's fourth highest unemployment should make the government unemployed."

Now Sweden has Europe's third highest unemployment and 100,000 more unemployed. At the same time, there are few forecasters today who believe in the government's forecast that growth will be 2.8 percent this year. The IMF recently came with 2 percent growth as a forecast.

Given that Sweden has Europe's third highest unemployment, is it not time for the government to invest more than the 65 kronor per unemployed person that was presented in the autumn budget on Monday? At the very least, it is time to lower the costs for small companies that want to grow and hire, and to invest in education in shortage occupations.

What is it that one is waiting for? Is the situation not serious enough? One might be waiting to become unemployed?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Clearly, we are getting results from what we do. For the ninth month in a row, unemployment is decreasing – now even the structural one, this political term for unemployment that is not about how the economy develops but about people who are long-term excluded. It is to a much greater extent immigrants who do not speak Swedish or have any education. Even that unemployment is decreasing right now. The policy for the work line that we systematically pursue – to reduce benefit dependency, equip people with Swedish and set requirements for Swedish citizenship, benefit reforms, all of this – is clearly having an effect.

Fundamentally, we have two unemployment problems in Sweden.

One is the structural unemployment, people who have not worked for a long time in Sweden. They must enter the labor market. That is where we have the reforms. The left side has not.

The second is cyclical unemployment. A recession increases unemployment. It has always done so. Now we get the wheels moving again – not without problems, given what is happening in the Middle East, but that unemployment is also decreasing. We are kickstarting growth in Sweden and have moved from the bottom to the top of the growth league. We are on the right track, but much remains.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Since the Prime Minister said at a press conference that he is now stopping the teenage deportations, several young people have been forced to leave Sweden. Those who had already received their rejection decisions were not affected by the halt at Migrationsverket that was decided after that press conference.

The youths Darya and Donya, who managed to be deported to Iran before Sweden stopped sending people there, have had their requests to come home rejected, appealed, and had them rejected again.

It has become clear that young people who have many reasons to want to come home to Sweden have a harder time getting a "yes" when they apply for residence permits for work or studies, because then one can suspect that it is not just for that reason that they want to come here.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to change the rules so that the young people can come home again and to stop all deportations?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us be honest even in this matter. I know that we disagree completely on immigration policy. You are against a strict migration policy, you want amnesties, and you basically do not want yes or no to have any significance, but rather you want people to be allowed to stay in Sweden regardless of the decision. We disagree on that point, and then the voters must decide who is right and who is wrong.

Regarding the specific cases, we have announced a bill that corrects a number of problems with young adults who do not have their own grounds for asylum but who are still dependent on their parents, and the Swedish Migration Agency has announced that they will not make any new decisions until the bill can be decided in this chamber this summer – if the Riksdag manages to convene during the summer and make these decisions.

Of course, the old law applies until the new law takes effect, but while awaiting the new bill, no new decisions are being made by the Swedish Migration Agency. This is very good, and thus we can solve a problem.

Our difference of opinion is that you do not want a strict immigration policy, while we want a continued strict immigration policy.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! A lot of positive things have happened within the education area during this parliamentary term, and that is good. But even more needs to be done.

This week I have with me a student intern, Leia Skarin, who is sitting in the gallery up here. She likes school policy very much and thinks that politics is very interesting, but she is a bit worried when it comes to school absence – that is, the problematic school absence with stay-at-home students. When she and I did a search together, we saw that it sometimes says that up to 19,000 have problematic school absence.

Our common question to the Prime Minister is: What is the Moderate-led government doing, and what more can we do? These students are suffering very badly.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to first say that I share the commitment for this, and I have encountered this myself over the years with three of my own children in school. This is a big problem for schools but above all for families who have this problem. Many must do the right thing at the same time for it to work.

It can be problems that are very much about the school – such as bullying, to mention the obvious – but often there is a broader social issue where more competencies must be involved. I believe very much in the school social teams, where school and social services work together. Healthcare and psychiatry may also be needed in this as well – I think that is excellently good.

I believe it is good that we now lift much of the secrecy, that is, that secrecy problems between school, social services and sometimes also the police are removed. There may also be many other unknown reasons for home-sitters.

We are truly doing things so that people receive the right support intervention at the right time and thereby reduce the risk of more people staying at home.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! Swedish healthcare is one of our most important welfare institutions. During this parliamentary term, the government has done a lot for Swedish healthcare, but it remains all too unequal. The differences between the regions are large regarding waiting times, access to care, and quality.

The current regional structure constitutes an inefficient use of resources with double work, administration, and a lack of overall responsibility. Taxpayers' money is therefore not used as effectively as Sweden's health and medical care needs for increased equality, better governance, and more efficient use of resources.

We Christian Democrats therefore believe that the time is ripe to take the next step towards a more cohesive and state-controlled healthcare system where the patient's needs are put at the center and resources are used better.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister see a need to take the next step towards increased state control of health and medical care?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are right in the middle of a process where we have agreed on the fairly exact wording increased state control – increased state accountability – regarding a number of things.

I think Lili André points out several things very well, such as the problem with the "kö" (queue). The patient must be able to choose other regions if they cannot get through at home. There are unreasonable quality differences between different regions and different healthcare that cannot be explained by anything other than a lack of governance and competence. It is about quality follow-up and medical record systems, for example.

Incredible amounts are being done here to increase state governance so that there will be a more just healthcare of equal and high quality.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister says here that the government cannot rule over war and peace but that he can do everything right here at home, so let us talk about how it is here at home.

Here, the government has presented a budget that hits hard against those who live in rented apartments and travel by public transport. Not infrequently, these are hard-working women in elderly care, in healthcare, or in preschools. They are now left without electricity support, they get more expensive bus tickets, and they have to struggle harder to make the money last.

Working women are losers in Kristersson's and Åkesson's budget. Is it doing everything right here at home? Is it not the case that precisely these women, who work the hardest, deserve more and that it is actually they who would need these supports the most?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that the electricity support, the retroactive electricity support for these cold and expensive winters, goes to everyone who has their own electricity bill – for quite obvious reasons – so that it hits fairly.

I think that one must broaden the question. To do everything right here at home in incredibly restless and uncertain times internationally is about safeguarding the Swedish economy and about bringing down inflation so that not everything becomes 10 percent more expensive every year.

We are lowering the food VAT and restoring some of the purchasing power. We are lowering employer contributions so that more can hire younger people. An average family with two children has received 5,000 kronor more in their wallet every month under this government. We are increasing the freedom of movement for ordinary, hard-working Swedes.

I see the questioner shaking their head, but I know that it is in this way. And you would not even have been able to place these bills on the Riksdag's table, because you would not have been in agreement on your side.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Despite the fact that we are still in a recession and that there is a very restless world around us, we can see in the latest report from Arbetsförmedlingen that unemployment is falling and is the lowest in two years. It is a clear sign that the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas work line is yielding results, in contrast to the Socialdemokraternas previous, dysfunctional, benefit line.

It was a line that was pursued for eight years and which left behind one of Europe's highest unemployment figures and placed thousands of people in involuntary long-term unemployment. It should be added that a large part of this occurred during an economic boom.

Mr. Speaker! It is too early to call it a day, and much can still happen even if we see that it is heading in the right direction. My question to the Prime Minister is: Which measures will be most important moving forward to continue fighting unemployment and get people into jobs and employment?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are in agreement on our side that we need a robust safety net that helps people when they lose a job on the way to the next job. The safety net is incredibly important, because without it, people will not dare to take chances and take risks and take a new job and move. It is however equally important that the safety net does not become a long-term livelihood without one returning to work. In that regard, the old benefit policy has been completely devastating.

As long as there are jobs to apply for in the country – and there are many rural areas that daily testify to the need for labor in their localities – one cannot remain unemployed for a long time in another part of Sweden. It is part of the structural unemployment that particularly affects many who have come to Sweden and do not speak good Swedish or have higher education. It is a waste of the taxpayers' money and of their abilities.

The major issues for the future are subsidy reforms that make this impossible and an economic policy that gets the wheels turning and growth in Sweden on a permanently higher level.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is not only Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson who should be able to take a walk in the woods, cook a home-cooked meal, go on vacation with his family, take a slightly too long shower sometimes, or something else as natural as having an income to live on and a meaningful job to go to or getting good care.

Even people with disabilities should be able to live in this freedom and independence, but they do not today. Fewer receive personal assistance and companionship, and they are denied transport services. Deaf people can wake up from an operation and not have an interpreter by their side, and students with NPF diagnoses such as autism and ADHD do not receive support in time.

Many live in poverty and are long-term unemployed, and the assistance allowance is too low. Personal assistants are among the poorest workers in Sweden.

My question is: Does the Prime Minister think that he has done everything in his power to improve the living conditions for these people so that they too can live a life in freedom and independence?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to agree unreservedly that it is equally important for all people to be able to live their lives to the fullest, as far as it is possible. If one has disabilities, we have an extra large responsibility for this. Let me acknowledge that view.

Many things must be done, for example, getting a diagnosis in time and getting healthcare interventions in time. One example is that we have invested a lot of effort in child and adolescent psychiatry.

It is also about having robust and respected systems, meaning that there must be assistance for those who truly need it. It also means that we must be careful that it is not abused or cheated. Even here, we have seen significant cheating and significant abuse of compensations that are vital for other people. Therefore, we have been tough against those who abuse the systems.

All this is the core of the Swedish welfare society: why we must work and generate tax revenues. That is why the work principle is so important.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Government, together with the Social Democrats, saw to it that many teenagers were deported. These were teenagers who had had their upbringing and background here in Sweden.

Now they are not allowed to come back. The government says that they just have to apply, but they are not allowed to come back. They are not allowed to study here if they have too strong a connection to Sweden. Connection is an obstacle to coming back. I want an answer to this question.

The question is not about the alleged pause, but the question is about a necessary legislative change. Is the Prime Minister ready to change the migration legislation so that teenagers will no longer be punished when they seek to return to Sweden because they have ties and family here in Sweden?

This is a yes-or-no question. It is not a question about the old legislation or the alleged pause, but it is a question of whether you are ready to change the legislation so that teenagers are no longer punished for their affiliation when they apply to come back to Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This question reminds me of a previous question.

We are fundamentally in disagreement on the immigration policy itself. You appear, just like the Green Party and the Left Party, to want to return to an old and unsustainable immigration policy. That is not what we want.

With this said, we have announced that we will submit a proposition, which shall be dealt with in this chamber this summer – if the Riksdag wishes to return earlier from its summer break. So that decisions can be made regarding a better arrangement which ensures that a number of young adults will not be affected in the way they are today. Pending this, the Swedish Migration Agency has decided that no new deportation decisions shall be made.

If one wants to come to Sweden as a labor immigrant, which is possible and legal, one must meet a number of requirements to do so. There, we should primarily focus on people who contribute skills that we otherwise do not have in Sweden.

(Applause)

The Prime Minister's question time was hereby concluded.

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