Response to interpellation 2022/23:92 on high fuel prices

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! How nice to see you here again!

Patrik Björck has asked the Minister for Finance if she intends to take any measures within her area of responsibility to fulfill the promise to lower the price of gasoline and diesel to the level that was promised during the election campaign.

The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.

In order to lower the price of gasoline and diesel to the level promised in the election campaign, the government has, in a first step, proposed a reduction in the tax on gasoline and diesel of a total of 6 billion kronor for 2023. The Riksdag has subsequently decided in accordance with the government's proposal, and the new rules have been in force since 1 January 2023.

In addition, the government proposes that the temporary tax reduction on agricultural diesel be extended. This means a tax relief of approximately 380 million kronor for the around 25,000 Swedish companies affected by the proposal.

The government has finally announced that the reduction obligation will be lowered to the EU's minimum level on 1 January 2024, which shall apply during the mandate period.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Laugh or cry? That has been a question that has been asked in this chamber at times. When one hears the answer from the Minister for Energy, it is actually a question one can ask oneself.

Then I begin to wonder what the voters in my constituency are thinking. I can inform the Minister for Energy that in my constituency, there is no one laughing at the Minister for Energy's betrayal. I do not think people are crying either, but they are sincerely outraged, angry, disappointed and sad that one cannot trust politicians.

During the election campaign, I met many people with whom I discussed politics and who returned to these promises from Ebba Busch and Ulf Kristersson about lowering the price by 9 kronor and 10 kronor and so on. Very many voters in my constituency - Skaraborg is my constituency, for the record; it is located somewhere between Vänern and Vättern, I can inform Ebba Busch so that she knows roughly where in the geography it is - are today very upset about this betrayal.

When one asks the question as I do, there is not even an attempt from the government to answer how these promises are to be fulfilled. That it has not been done this far has been noticed by everyone. I filled up the car yesterday, Madam Speaker, and could observe that the gasoline was a bit more expensive than when the government took office. It is interesting to think about. Then I wonder like this, and it could be a question for the Minister for Energy: If the gasoline price has risen since the government took office, is it a gasoline price that the voters in my constituency Skaraborg have to pay a Putin price or possibly an Ebb price?

That is where reality lies - it is at the pump. And there is no one who is going to refuel who recognizes that the price has been lowered by these 9 or 10 kronor that was talked about.

Then there is another detail that is somewhat interesting, and that is that the Minister for Finance does not want to take responsibility and answer this interpellation but instead refers it to the Minister for Energy. One can always reflect on that. "The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who should answer the interpellation," says the Minister for Energy. We have, after all, been established in the chamber many times that the government makes collective decisions, so the Minister for Finance could naturally answer. One could also imagine that the Minister for Finance has a certain responsibility for the budget and taxes, but that is another matter.

In the answer, there is also a discussion about a tax reduction for agricultural diesel, and that is good. But it was not this that the voters primarily voted for.

It is said that the reduction obligation might be lowered to the EU's minimum level on 1 January 2024. But that was not what the voters voted for – that one might, uncertainly when and by how much, lower the reduction obligation.

You promised the voters prices up to 10 kronor lower at the pump. There, you have betrayed your voters; it is inevitably so.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is elongated and looks very different depending on where in the country one is located. I live, despite my Scanian roots, in the northernmost parts of the country, in the northernmost county - in Älvsbyn in Norrbotten County. There, it is sparse between the houses, one could say.

I have almost said that in all of Norrbotten, the car is not just important for convenience but a necessity for life. It is not possible to get from home in one locality to work in another without the car. It is not possible to drop the children off at practice in the evening without the car. It is not possible to shop for groceries, clothes, or anything else without the car when you live in those parts of the country where it is sparse between the houses.

When fuel prices rise in the way they have over the past year, this obviously hits hardest those who are dependent on the car for life to function and who have no alternatives to the car. We Social Democrats have since the outbreak of the war shown with great clarity that we understand this. Those who need the support most should get the most. The crisis support we proposed last spring, when we presented a proposal for a changed travel deduction, and the rural discount we proposed in our budget motion have ensured that there has been a rural profile. We have given the most to those who need the car the most.

All these proposals are flatly rejected by the government and the government base. Instead, the government says: We shall lower the tax directly on petrol and diesel. From 1 krona, it became 14 öre. On January 1, the price of petrol was lowered by 14 öre. The day after, the large fuel companies raised the price by 30 öre. The entire tax cut was thus eaten up one day later. It cost almost 7 billion to do this.

My question is: When will the government come back with proposals that can truly make a difference for those who have no alternatives to the car? The Social Democrats have presented many ideas for proposals that would make a greater difference for those who are dependent on the car than for those who have the car for convenience. When will the government come back with proposals that will make a real difference for those who are dependent on the car?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for letting me participate in this interpellation debate! Fuel prices are an important issue that we have debated here in the chamber very many times. As part of the then opposition, I had many opinions on what the previous government should have done. Now it is interesting to hear what attacks we in the current government are subjected to by the previous government. A lot has actually happened. We have lowered the tax on fuels, and more is on the way.

It is incredibly important to take an issue such as fuel prices very seriously. I do not know how many people told me when I traveled around Sweden that the tax is far too high on just diesel and gasoline.

We previously discussed different parts of Sweden. I myself come from Ödeshög, a place where many travel to different locations. A person said to me: Magnus, I can't travel any further; it's too expensive. It was exactly this that this government heard.

Some member asked whether one should laugh or cry. If it was something many said before, then it was that they cried – the prices were far too high. That is why I am so glad that this government has now promised to address the reduction obligation. The fact is that I fueled my diesel car for over 28 kronor per liter when it was at its worst. With a tax reduction now and a reduction of the reduction obligation from 1 January 2024, things will happen – that matter is settled.

When the opposition now comes with criticism of this, I think we should make it clear for ourselves what happened before. We had, for example, a reduction obligation. It is today at approximately 30.5 percent. But the goal for the previous government was that it should go up to 66 percent. Every person in this country can understand that the price would have gone up with such an increase in the reduction obligation. Now people come and say: Oh oh oh, how high the price is! Then one should know how it could have turned out if the previous government had continued. Then the plan was that the reduction obligation would go up to 66 percent, with a much higher price at refueling.

A member said that the Social Democrats have many proposals. That sounds very good. He mentioned that one would get a tank for free, in principle - a tank discount, I believe that is what he spoke about. A tank discount sounds fantastically good, but what about all the other tanks then? If the price is up to 28 kronor, what are we talking about then?

I think one must realize that this government will do and already has done everything it can and will, of course, ensure that the reduction obligation is lowered. And then we know that the price will go down.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It is actually quite entertaining to hear, on a Tuesday afternoon like this, Social Democratic Members of Parliament who are now free from the Green Party's shackles. It must be so, Madam Speaker. It cannot be that these Members of Parliament from Norrbotten and Västerbotten have sat silent for eight years, in their own parliamentary groups, for example.

What was the diesel price in 2014, when you took power? I heard someone mention the price just now in the debate. There is very good information about this on the internet. It was 14 kronor and 94 öre. That was the case, Madam Speaker, before Miljöpartiet took power in Sweden and decided that diesel and petrol prices should be shock-increased.

We heard a heated debate here earlier today. Miljöpartiet has caused a lot of damage in Sweden with its policy. It has been extremely hostile towards the countryside. But it is the Socialdemokraterna who have allowed this.

All the arguments that have been put forward here regarding why one should be able to live in all of Norrland and all of Sweden are completely correct. We must safeguard competitiveness. One must be able to operate a manufacturing company in Ljusdal and transport its products down to Mjölby overnight. That is obvious.

How have you Social Democrats been able to allow the diesel price to rise by practically 10 kronor per liter over eight years? It rose from 14.94 the day you took power to 24.36 on September 9 last year. Yesterday, the diesel cost 23.61 according to the listing available online. It is a bit cheaper, then. But the relevant question is: What would the diesel price have been today if the accident had not occurred and Miljöpartiet had been allowed to continue governing Sweden? We have to believe what Miljöpartiet itself says, namely approximately 2 kronor more expensive per liter. That is a lot of money for everyone, but it is especially much for trucking companies, naturally.

We have a government that is sometimes mocked by the Stockholm media, not least the editorial pages, who think it is bad that the government is now lowering the costs for car owners, strengthening competitiveness and improving the purchasing power for households, but I believe that the government will manage that.

I was myself born and raised in Norrbotten, even though I moved from Boden to Gävle. I believe that in Norrbotten, people understand that one has a government that sees the whole of Sweden and understands that we must lower the costs for motoring. We must improve the road network. We must make it possible to live, reside, and run businesses in all of Sweden. Even in Norrbotten, one must be able to afford to fuel one's car.

Imagine if, during eight years, one had heard a single Social Democratic Member of Parliament say that we should actually lower the costs of petrol and diesel! But you were silent then. You were completely silent.

I think it is liberating to hear what you actually think, now that you are free from the Green Party's shackles. It is good that you praise the government for lowering the costs for fuels. That is positive. But it would have been honest if you also had had your own government and your own finance minister who had gone in that direction instead of constantly shock-raising the costs for motorists.

The government is on the right track. I truly look forward to January 1st next year, when the reduction obligation changes to the EU's minimum level. We will see what it is then, but it is a step in the right direction. Sweden has eight lost years behind it, but now the course has finally been turned.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! To Magnus Oscarsson and Lars Beckman, who may have followed the debate from a distance, I want to say that we have previously had a debate on biodrivmedel here. We have had a debate on support and high energy costs.

Miljöpartiet can be blamed for many things, but they can hardly be blamed for the world market price of oil. They can also hardly be blamed for Russia's utterly horrific war of invasion in Ukraine. These are things that affect us very much.

I have a diesel car. Lars Beckman might also have one. When I fueled up with diesel yesterday, it cost 24.30, and at that time, the majority of the diesel was Russian. So that will not be the case going forward. The EU's member states are essentially in agreement that the proportion of Russian diesel should essentially go down to zero. This will also strongly affect the world market price. That should also be taken into account.

For us Social Democrats, it is crucial to support the most vulnerable. It is about us compensating pensioners for high electricity bills and us compensating rural areas for expensive transport costs. In that case, it is important that the support can also be distributed on time.

We submitted a proposal of 2,000 kronor in support per car so that also pensioners, who are not going to work, can receive a reduction and a support. They need the car when they go shopping, drop off the grandchildren, and so on. This is what Social Democratic policy is built on: to support the most vulnerable.

Magnus Oscarsson, I can also remind you that we have stood in this chamber for a number of years and had different debates. From the beginning, the Christian Democrats were very clear that the Social Democrats were doing too little and that it was going too slowly. They wanted to use more of the forest for biofuels, and therefore wanted to increase the reduction obligation faster. In that perspective, it really is not just the Green Party's fault.

But this is about here and now. It is about those who are going to get to work and about the pensioners who should be able to go and shop, and it must be perceived as fair. What has not been perceived as fair is the governing parties' and the government basis' promise to the voters. One thing was promised before the election, and then - just as Johan Pehrson has honestly said - something else is said after the election. That is why we are here now.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes one mispronounces things. One does not perhaps need to misinterpret each other. Just because Gustav Fridolin, the then spokesperson, had difficulty pronouncing "Schweiz" – you can Google and watch on YouTube afterwards – I do not need to claim that he in all seriousness does not know how it is to be pronounced.

The same applies to my dear party leadership colleague Johan Pehrsons statement. One says one thing during the election campaign. Then one succeeds in winning the election and gains the voters' trust and is to carry out what one has promised. Should everything then happen overnight? No, we have an established order of things for how matters shall proceed.

How far into the mandate period we have reached now can be compared to a football match. In that case, it corresponds to five minutes into a 90-minute match. Do you know at that stage how it will go at the end? No. Will we deliver on everything or will we take responsibility if it doesn't work? The answer is yes, just as we have taken responsibility for having made adjustments in the model for the electricity support and held firm to the answers we gave regarding the fact that it is not possible to state an exact date for when the money will be in the accounts. We have held that line.

It is the same thing with the reduction obligation. The short answer to the interpellation is actually:

If we had not lowered the tax on fuels in the way we did, they would have been 1 krona more expensive. It doesn't matter how much one says that it was only 14 öre or that the reduction was offset by something else – the fuels would still have been 1 krona more expensive if we had not done this. One is welcome to explain to all the citizens whose costs you are so worried about why it would have been so good if the price was 1 krona higher!

We will be down to the EU's minimum level for the reduction obligation on 1 January 2024. Here, I think one can be honest: the Social Democrats are still pursuing a line that means we should have up to 66 percent inclusion of biofuel!

I think the interpellor can answer the people of Västgötaland at home - I personally have my own roots in Skaraborg and have spent my summers in Blixtorp, where my grandmother lived - in Hjo municipality, Skövde or Mariestad - that with the Social Democrats' policy, the person who has a diesel car will get a diesel price that increases by 5 kronor by 2026 and 9 kronor by 2030. As recently as just a few days ago, Mikael Damberg was out and defended the reduction obligation level and said that line remains firm.

In the same way, the line from Sweden's new political leadership is fixed: It is unsustainably expensive. We would like to see a strong future for the green industries and also for biofuels in Sweden, but not at the expense of us knocking out our Swedish agriculture. It must not happen at the expense of us completely knocking out the household budget for far too many families with children. We must not make it even harder to live and reside outside of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö.

Therefore, we lay out the policy regarding the reduction obligation, and the answer is very clear: Had we not made the reduction at the turn of the year, it would have been 1 krona more expensive. We will fulfill our promise to the voters to reduce the reduction obligation to the EU's minimum level by January 1, 2024.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Oscarsson previously said, from the podium of the Riksdag, that the government is doing and has done all it can. That is what scares the voters so much. It is precisely that betrayal that makes the voters angry. It is, as I said, not fun to be deceived.

Madam Speaker! That the government is doing everything it can we knew before Magnus Oscarsson confirmed it from the rostrum, as it is also in the Energy Minister's response to this interpellation. I believe that this is one of the absolutely emptiest responses to an interpellation that I have ever, during all my years in this chamber, read. There is no attempt whatsoever here even to answer the question.

The Minister for Energy says that we are only at the beginning of the match. But the fact is that the Minister for Energy covers half the mandate period in his answer. It is roughly like saying: Admittedly, the match has just started, but we'll have to see in the second half if we perhaps start playing ball.

We do not know. This is what I am asking about, Madam Speaker. What thoughts and ideas does the government have regarding being able to fulfill its election promises? That is what it is about. The price at the pump has not been lowered by up to 10 kronor. It varied slightly between the parties. Someone said 9 kronor. Someone said 10 kronor. But this has not been done. It is not 9-10 kronor cheaper at the pump. This is, therefore, not true. We must nevertheless adhere to that.

Madam Speaker! I still have not received an answer to the question I asked in my first speech. Ebba Busch, Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson had a narrative for the voters during the election campaign: The war in Ukraine and the world market price had no impact whatsoever on what the motorist paid at the pump. The high fuel prices were the fault of the Social Democratic government. It was about Social Democratic policy. That was the narrative they went to the election with.

Then they continued with that narrative to convince the voters: Because it is Social Democratic policy that makes fuel prices so high at the pump, a right-wing government in power will quickly and easily lower the price by up to 10 kronor.

It is there that the Minister for Energy and her weapons-wielders become completely speechless.

Madam Speaker! I am unfortunately worried that Magnus Oscarsson is right. The Government has done and is doing what it can. This makes the voters - you have been able to hear that it is not just the voters in my constituency but voters from large parts of the country - very disappointed and angry, because no one likes to be deceived.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Oscarsson began his speech by saying that when one was in opposition, one had many opinions. It was easy to have it then. Then reality came and haunted.

And suddenly Lars Beckman came and said that he believes this government knows a lot about life in northern Sweden. I am sorry, but I honestly do not believe that is the picture the residents in northern Sweden have. It is possibly one or another Moderate or Christian Democrat who can believe that, but the general picture is not that this government has cared particularly much about my region: northern Sweden.

No minister comes from northern Sweden. No electricity price support reaches northern Sweden, or perhaps it does – we shall have to see. And there is no understanding for the need for the car in northern Sweden.

Lars Beckman boasts about how low the gasoline price was when they left government power. I want to remind that the gasoline price has been lower during our government's period - Lars Beckman sits here and shakes his head. For several years, during the pandemic, the price was under 14 kronor per liter for diesel, with Miljöpartiet in the Government Offices. I firmly believe that Lars Beckman needs to consider: How could that be?

No, we Social Democrats have submitted proposals for a travel deduction aimed at those who need it most and at those who are dependent on the car. This government rejects them. We have submitted proposals for a fuel discount with a rural profile. This government rejects them.

I think it would be appropriate for the government's representative in the chamber today to answer my question, which she categorically avoided in her previous contribution: When will the proposal come that shows the government understands that some are dependent on the car for life to function? When will we get a proposal that solves this for those who are dependent on the car?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to hear, I think, what the current opposition says. It is said that we are completely powerless and that some voters are becoming frightened.

The voters I speak with say: It is good that you have a plan. It is good that you show that you want to achieve something.

They are, of course, waiting for results and for it to be finished. Now we have lowered the price by 1 krona. That was important, but it is not finished. The important thing is actually what happens on January 1, 2024, when we lower the reduction obligation.

The reduction obligation is interesting. The previous government did not want to lower it. Instead, it was to be raised. It is 30.5 percent now, and it was to rise to 66 percent by 2030. We heard from the minister how much money it would be.

We actually buy a very large amount of the fuel from other countries. Most of it, about 80 percent, is bought from Indonesia or Brazil. I also think that we should talk about that, because it is not particularly environmentally friendly that we do it in that way.

What is important now is that we have a government that has said: We will lower the reduction obligation. It is important. It is also important that we have started to act and that people, our voters and Swedes living all around Sweden, should know that this government has a plan. We will lower the price at the pump from 1 January 2024.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! In September 2014, it cost for someone who had a diesel car that held 70 liters and who drove to OK in Råneå to refuel 1,045 kronor - according to the statistics online. On September 9th this autumn, after eight years with Miljöpartiet, who set the prices on fuels in Sweden, it cost for the same driver with the same car 1,700 kronor to refuel at OK in Råneå.

We do not know how much it would have cost to refuel today if the Green Party had been allowed to decide, but it would probably have been 2 kronor more. The Minister stated 1 krona. Yes, that is the positive interpretation of the Social Democrats' policy. Probably, they would have blamed some crisis and slapped on 2 kronor.

But what will it cost for the same car if the Social Democrats get to decide and one follows the curve with the reduction obligation? Then it will cost 2,300 kronor. That is the difference.

I do not think it is negative that there are now four or five Social Democratic members of Parliament getting involved in petrol and diesel prices. I think that is very good. The question is where you have been for eight years. Why have you allowed the government to raise the price by 700 kronor per tank over eight years? Was it so simple that the Green Party decided for each one of you and that was how the Social Democrats bought power? For the same reason, the person who received an electricity bill this autumn knows what it costs with red-green energy policy.

As chairman of the Car Network in the Riksdag, I thank you for your commitment to motoring. I think it is very good, even though I regret that you have not shown it during the previous eight years. Now, take your stand on the barricades together with the bourgeois government and fight for better conditions for motoring! That I welcome.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker and Minister for Enterprise! It is obvious that Lars Beckman lacks the opportunity to interpellate Environment Party ministers. They are, as is known, not here at the moment, but it is the Social Democrats who have submitted these interpellations to the sitting government.

How can we, given the circumstances that prevail right now, ensure that we compensate those who have high travel costs? How can we point out that this government, with the government base, promised something that they are actually not implementing? It is still the case that a broad political majority with both the Christian Democrats and the Moderates stood behind the reduction obligation. One stood here in the chamber and said that the government is doing too little and should increase the reduction obligation more. Then it has changed.

Now, this is not a debate on the reduction obligation, but the fact remains: We have very much Russian diesel in the tank today. The question to the government base is, Lars Beckman and others, which oil is it that we should have in the tank? Is it the one that comes from Iran? Or from Qatar? From Saudi Arabia or from somewhere else?

It is clear that when the USA eased the taps and released its oil reserve, it lowered the world market price somewhat. When China now gears up after the pandemic and starts up, the demand for oil will increase sharply and with it the world market price. These are parts that one should keep in the equation: The world market price will probably continue to increase.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! The answer is short, Patrik Björck, because it is so simple to answer. It would have been 1 krona more expensive if we had not lowered the tax by over 6 billion in January 2023, and we will lower the reduction obligation and thus the price at the pump significantly by moving down to the EU's minimum level for the reduction obligation on January 1, 2024.

Straight question - straight answer. I hope that will be appreciated.

It is also the answer to what we do for all those who are dependent on the car. Unlike the Social Democrats, we are now putting a stop to the policy that has caused us to have, in addition to things we cannot influence, such as Putin's war of invasion in Ukraine, domestic political decisions that have driven up prices even further.

It may be that there are two truths. We have been affected by Putin's war of invasion in Ukraine. We cannot influence that. But it is possible to influence how high our involvement of biofuels is. There, the Social Democrats, with a fool's persistence, insist that we should go up to 66 percent involvement. They defend the high levels that we have now.

It therefore sounds very strange that one criticizes that it is not moving faster with this. While one tries to make it appear as if one is concerned about the high prices that affect so many Swedes, one continues to pursue a policy that will make it even more expensive in the future - 5 kronor until 2026 for diesel, 9 kronor more until 2030.

Speaking of being straightforward and not misinterpreting each other, I want to say that it is true that we voted for the reduction obligation when it was introduced. At that time, the prices for biofuels also looked different. Since then, it has changed. When we saw that the prices have become much, much higher and are not sustainable for households or for companies, then we changed them. If the prices change again, perhaps we can see a different development in this, but that type of honesty I think we can have, and I am happy to be transparent and straightforward about this.

In addition to that, I want to add that we are making changes to the travel deduction which means that those who have more than four miles to commute, for example to work, will receive 4,700 kronor more in compensation in travel deduction with the four partners. If I am to try to understand the question, I wonder if the disappointment lies in that we are now pursuing a policy that will significantly reduce the price, even though S insists that the price should increase significantly in the future. So I understand it as: You cannot say exactly when it will become 9 kronor more for the diesel.

During the election campaign, voters and journalists asked if one could get an exact date for when the money will be in the account. I answered that no, it is not possible. I have also answered in that way when we have talked about figures, namely that when we have calculated 9 kronor at the pump, it is based on today's prices. If that changes and it worsens further in the world, yes, then it will still be a lower price than if we had continued to push on with the Socialdemokraterna. But an exact figure we will see in a year.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Energy and I will probably not have the same opinion on this issue or other issues no matter how long we deliberate. But it is clear that with the Minister for Energy's slightly more deliberative manner now after the election, when she acknowledges that there is a world market price and a war that has had an impact, the debate would have been more interesting for the voters to listen to. Then, Madam Speaker, one could have understood what it is that sets us apart.

But since one did not have the reasoning style in the election, one actually went to the election with a real commitment to lower the price at the pump by up to 10 kronor. Now they say that they have lowered the price at the pump by 1 krona, but that is not true, Madam Speaker.

If we had been able to discuss fuel prices and electricity subsidies in such a reasoning way as the Minister for Energy now concludes with, we actually could have had a really good debate. Then one could have seen what it is that differs, and the voters could have been given a reasonable and realistic choice to take a stand on. But Ebba Busch, Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson denied the voters that.

Of course, one does not want to commit to how much the price will be lowered. One cannot answer how much a potential reduction of the reduction obligation will mean at the pump. One cannot even really answer whether it will occur and what it will look like. One has no idea about the minimum level in the EU on January 1, 2024. One cannot give any answers at all, at all.

That is what is so important for the voters to take part in, Madam Speaker, and I hope that those listening to this debate have understood that Energy Minister Ebba Busch has not answered a single question today.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Everything I have said in the chamber today, I have also said in the election campaign – exactly everything, every single nuance. One can look at the entire press conference and the interviews when we presented the proposal for a substantial reduction of the reduction obligation. We explained how we had calculated the price example with a reduction of 5 kronor for petrol and 9 kronor for diesel. Every single nuance was included.

Was every single nuance included in a 30-second clip on TV? No. I stand by and have repeatedly pointed out that Sweden has been affected by both external factors and global world market prices. That was the very justification for why we changed our minds regarding the reduction obligation, and it was the very basis for the press conference.

Yes, I maintain that truth is important to me and that I do not think we should misinterpret each other. We have had a spirited debate during the afternoon. It has been tart, ironic and humorous, and there has been finesse. I appreciate all of this. I appreciate a truly tough political debate. But to claim that I have not answered clearly and straight up and down is unfair.

I assume that we will have more interpellation debates with each other in the chamber. Let them be tough. Proceed with the criticism, and let it be objective. But here I have answered directly. Not liking the answer is one thing, but the most important thing for those who are listening is that we are changing course and will lower the price. One has to calculate from the situation how much it will be at the pump.

The truth remains: With us, prices will be lower. With the Social Democrats, they continue to defend the line that prices should continue to increase. That is where we differ.

(Applause)

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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