Distribution of surplus in the income pension system

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! In 2001, the Riksdag decided to introduce the automatic balancing in the pension system, that is, what in everyday speech has come to be called the brake. The purpose was to secure the system's long-term sustainability when the economy develops more weakly than expected. It has been wise. But there is also a question that many pensioners have rightly asked: If there is a brake when times are worse, why is there no gas when times are better?

Madam Speaker! This question has been discussed for a long time. Today we vote in agreement to establish a buffer in the pension system. That is good. The people who have worked a whole life should be able to feel confidence that the pension system works in both directions. When the economy deteriorates, the system takes responsibility. When the economy strengthens, the pensioners should also notice it. It strengthens the legitimacy of the entire pension system.

Madam Speaker! Those who promise that the gas will provide a good supplement to the pension envelope are probably promising too much. It is a cautious gas. It is more tractor speed than Ferrari speed. According to the critics, the gas will not provide sufficiently noticeable supplements, and that is correct. Other measures must be taken to improve pensions in the long run.

Madam Speaker! For many elderly people, the pension is not a figure in the orange envelope. It is an opportunity to pay the rent, buy medicines, help the grandchildren, or make the finances work when prices rise.

I receive a lot of calls about the pensions. I particularly remember a woman who called a few weeks ago. She worked as a specialist nurse for 49 years and receives just over 40 percent of her final salary. It is not dignified, Madam Speaker. She ended the call in tears when she told me that the only thing she asks for is to be able to buy reasonable food for Midsummer.

Last week, I met Tantpatrullen here outside the Riksdag. They point out another major flaw with the pension system, namely that we have unequal pensions. Many female pensioners live below the poverty line. That is also not dignified, Madam Speaker.

Many people feel worried about their pension. Many in manual occupations do not have the possibility to work until the retirement age. The body cannot endure it when one has started working at a young age. Therefore, a long working life must be reflected more and more clearly in the wallet.

We Social Democrats therefore want to see a workers' pension for those who have worked for more than 40 years but still only receive marginally more than what is paid out to those who only have a guaranteed pension. It is about those who have labored the longest and hardest – in healthcare, in industry, in the transport sector. They have gotten up early, worked on weekends, and often carried very heavy work tasks throughout their lives. It is time that their work is also reflected in the pension.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish pension system can be improved. We in the Pensions Group are pleased that the Pensionsavgiftsutredningens report has finally been sent out for consultation. If we are to make the pension system more robust and raise the pensions, as has been said, it will not help the cause; instead, the pension contributions must also be raised to the level they were intended to be at from the beginning. This would create economic sustainability both for today's retirees and for tomorrow's retirees.

These are some of the issues that we Social Democrats will carry forward into the continued work in the Pensions Group. It is time to take Sweden's pensioners seriously.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for a constructive work during the short time I have been part of the Pensions Group and wish the Pensions Group, my colleagues in the Social Insurance Committee, the committee's secretariat, and all the members of the Riksdag a very pleasant Midsummer.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU25 Distribution of surplus in the income pension system. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

All proposals concerning the pension are based on the Pension Group, which is something unique. A predecessor to today's group was formed as early as December 1991, when they gathered for the first time to draft a proposal for a new pension system. Over the years, however, not all parties have been welcome in this group. It was only during the autumn of 2023 that the group was expanded to include all parties in the Swedish Riksdag. This is, in the opinion of the Sverigedemokraterna, a natural and welcome development. All parties should be able to take responsibility for the pensions.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have long directed criticism at the Pension Group. We have described it as a closed construction with a lack of insight and transparency. We have also argued that the group has, for a long period, not delivered sufficiently in pension issues. Over a longer period, the number of reforms has been few, and the most prominent change has been the adjustment of the target age.

But a long-awaited turnaround has now occurred. All parties in the Riksdag are now invited to the Pensions Group. We Sverigedemokrater are happy to participate in the Pensions Group after having been excluded from this forum since we were elected to the Swedish Riksdag. This has in practice meant that we have not been able to influence or have insight into the Pensions Group's work.

Since the reception in 2023, quite a lot has happened. The possibility to pause the occupational pension has been introduced. A review of both the basic protection and the fee levels in the public pension system has been decided.

An investigation into introducing a gas in the pension system has been conducted. Today, we make the decision to actually introduce this gas. It is only right that a gas is introduced in the system.

Already today, there is an automatic function, the so-called brake, in the income pension system. It ensures that the pensions do not exceed the system's economic sustainability. When the brake is activated, the pensions increase more slowly or even decrease.

The gas functions as its opposite. It makes it possible for pensions to increase faster when the system is strong and has a surplus. It creates a more balanced and fair development over time.

Madam Speaker! The finances of pensioners have also been strengthened through other reforms during this mandate period. The tax cuts that the Tidö parties have implemented have put more money in the wallet.

We also see that approximately half a million Swedes are so-called jobbers. They are those who choose to continue working while simultaneously drawing their pension. There are several positive effects of this.

It is an economic gain because they have an earned income. Research points to positive health effects of tapering off instead of quitting abruptly. Social contacts in the working life reduce loneliness and counteract mental ill-health. Furthermore, the workplaces gain access to valuable experience and competence.

Madam Speaker! There are several other reforms that the government and the Sweden Democrats have implemented that facilitate things for pensioners. It is the dental care reform, the so-called "tiotandvården," which came into effect on January 1 this year. It is lowered electricity tax and the introduction of a high-cost protection for electricity costs. It is lowered fuel prices and lowered food VAT. These are examples of measures that strengthen the pensioners' finances.

It is also worth mentioning that the so-called 57s have been compensated during this mandate period after being caught in the squeeze during the increase of the retirement age. The initiative amounted to just over 3.2 billion and was paid out automatically to those affected during the summer of 2024.

The compensation averaged around 30,000 kronor per person, depending on income and municipal tax. It was an error that arose when the decision on the adjusted target age was made during the previous mandate period, something that the Tidö parties have now corrected.

Madam Speaker! For us Sweden Democrats, it is gratifying to now take responsibility for real for the pensioners' finances. As part of the Pensions Group, we will continue to work constructively for more secure pensions.

Once again, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

In this speech, Caroline Högström and Viktor Wärnick (both M) agreed.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates believe that it should pay to work, and it should also pay to have worked. Therefore, the Moderate-led government has taken important steps during this parliamentary term to strengthen the pension system and the pensions. It is right and just that it is reflected in the wallet when one has worked and labored throughout a whole working life.

Madam Speaker! We began the parliamentary term by strengthening the Pensions Group. Previously, not all parties have been included there. Now, all parliamentary parties are included in the Pensions Group. I mean that this strengthens the legitimacy of the Pensions Group. It also ensures that the pensions stand firm over time. It requires both long-term thinking and cooperation.

Through Pensionsgruppen, we have implemented important reforms during this parliamentary term. One can, among other things, now pause the occupational pension. This is important and something that has been requested by all those who work longer. In that case, this possibility to pause is needed.

Furthermore, we are now linking all pension-related age limits to the target age. This creates a coherent system. Just a few days ago, the Pensions Group also announced that they are conducting the long-awaited review of the basic protection.

The basic protection is currently a patchwork. It is sometimes a bit difficult to understand, according to our own agency. Now the hope is that it will become more efficient, simpler and more accurate.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the gas in the pension system. It is the surplus in the pension system. If this is agreed upon in the Pensions Group, and it is important. It may take some time sometimes in the Pensions Group, but we think it is important. The pension system deserves it, and above all, the country's pensioners deserve it.

Madam Speaker! There are good reasons to strengthen pensioners' finances. Thanks to the Moderater-led government, an average pensioner's savings now has 2,200 kronor more in the wallet compared to 2022.

It is a result of many concrete measures. It is reduced tax on pensions, lower costs for electricity and fuels, strengthened high-cost protection in dental care and of course also halved food VAT. PRO came out the other day and said that the halving had had good and intended effects.

We have also made it more profitable to save. The first 300,000 kronor in an ISK are tax-free. For many, this is a part of the pension savings.

Madam Speaker! As I began by saying, work is the foundation for the entire pension system. If one wants a higher pension, it must always pay to work. Therefore, we Moderates want to continue on the path already taken.

We want to introduce a so-called new work deduction. Pension that is the result of a long working life should be taxed lower than pension that is not. It should always pay more to have worked than to not have done so.

Madam Speaker! In this final speech in the chamber, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for the 8 years in this house and for 16 years in the service of democracy.

Politics is very much about relationships. What I will carry with me for the rest of my life is all the relationships, good friendships, and pleasant conversations even across party lines. It will always be with me.

I want to remind everyone here in the chamber that we all hold our parliamentary mandate on loan. I am immensely happy and grateful that I have been given this fine democratic mandate on loan for just two terms.

After the summer, when the debates have died down and the election campaign is over, someone else will be sitting in the seat here in the chamber that I call mine. Someone else will be sitting around the table in the Committee on Social Insurance and the Committee on Education.

It is someone else who will be driving around in the constituency's eight municipalities both day and night. It is someone else who will be sitting and working on a speech, Madam Speaker, and it must be admitted that it sometimes was done the evening before a debate. And it is someone else who will have the evening shift here in the Riksdag.

In conclusion: A small theme in my speeches is that I often borrow the words of some wise person. So even this time. This is a very short stanza from Pär Lagerkvist's poem on the theme of having something on loan.

Everything is near, everything is far away. Everything is given to man as a loan.

With that I say thank you, Madam Speaker, and happy summer!

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not agree with the political conclusions presented by the previous speaker here, but since this is my final parliamentary year, I agree with the concluding remark. However, it is not my last debate, and I will return even in the next debate with the Committee on Finance.

All people shall be able to live on their pension and be able to look forward to a life of security after a long working life. One should have the means to buy that cup of coffee in town and perhaps a gift for the grandchildren. People shall feel security in being able to retire at a reasonable age.

If one has had a heavy job that takes a toll on the body, one should also be able to retire earlier than if one has had a job that is not as strenuous. That is not how it looks today. Far too many pensioners live with a low economic standard and in poverty, and many have such a low income-based pension that they are entitled to a guaranteed pension.

This was one of the reasons why Vänsterpartiet a few years ago saw to it that the guaranteed pension was increased by 1,000 kronor per month for those who needed it the most. It was enormously important and led to more pensioners having it a bit better.

When the pensioners who are worst off get better incomes, it creates pressure for improvements even for other pensioners. When the pension system was launched in the 90s, it was promised that the pensioners in the new system would receive 60 percent of their salary. That has not happened in the general pension system, and pensioners need various forms of supplementary pensions to reach more than half of their salary. That is not how it should be. Vänsterpartiet has therefore, among other things, demanded that the income pensions be raised.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet is now part of the Pensions Group, which decides on changes to the pension system. There, we have pushed for the income pensions to be raised so that the pensions reach the level that was promised when the system was introduced. We have said that a substantial boost needs to be introduced into the pension system so that the pensioners get to take a larger share of the money that exists in the system. The contributions to the pension as a share of the wage contributions also need to increase. Now we are finally going to introduce the boost that we in Vänsterpartiet have long proposed.

I also want to take the opportunity to say a few words about the retirement age. Vänsterpartiet was against the increase of the retirement age. We were fundamentally against the increase because work environment measures that enable people to manage to work longer were not introduced at the same time.

Even before the increase of the retirement age, there were many in strenuous occupations who could not manage to work until retirement. For those who have a job with a low salary, the extra years of professional activity do not provide much more in the wallet at retirement either.

The raised retirement age may indeed be reasonable based on the assumption that we live longer and can therefore work longer, but the reality looks very different on the labor market. Most commonly, women in education, health, and social services do not have the strength to work until the target age for retirement.

Among all those employed in the age group 50–64, 12 percent judge that they will not be able to manage. Among Kommunals members, seven out of ten are worried that they will not be able to manage to work all the way through. Far too many start and end the workday with painkillers already today. Sweden would therefore also need a pension where occupational groups with particularly strenuous work simply retire earlier and do not lose money on it.

Madam Speaker! We need a pension that provides redress for all those who have carried children in preschool, poured concrete, driven buses, and scanned goods at the checkout. They have carried and carry the welfare on their shoulders and have kept the wheels turning in this country. They, like all other elderly people, deserve a secure and reasonable pension. They should not be forced to live as impoverished pensioners just because they have not been able to work until the retirement age.

We also need to ensure that the conditions in the labor market are improved. Constant cuts, so-called efficiencies, and a high pace cause many to become exhausted at work far too early. The working environment in the labor market needs to be improved.

I am glad that we now have a gas in place, but it is, despite everything, a cautious compromise. Vänsterpartiet will continue to work for increased pensions for everyone.

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

Madeleine Atlas (C)

Madam Speaker! Man is a strange creature. Once upon a time, every individual lived as they chose to live. One had the freedom to steer one's own life. Of course, the focus was on obtaining food, a place to sleep, and social contacts. But how, when, and where – that was the freedom one had.

Today we have not only enslaved the animals we claim to love, but we have also enslaved ourselves. Today, it is the system that rules from birth to death. Everything is calculated. It is norms and expectations, and it is consumption pressure and money.

Madam Speaker! Let us, for once in our lives, be allowed to experience the freedom we once had! Let the retirement years be that freedom! Unfortunately, not everyone has the privilege of becoming a retiree. Unfortunately, not everyone has good enough health to be able to enjoy the time as a retiree. But healthy seniors, as many still are, should with all right be allowed to feel freedom. If the gas can provide a little jingle in the cash register, then let it happen!

I can certainly understand the critics who are hesitant to use gas as we face an uncertain future. It is an uncertainty that is greater than ever. It is war and climate catastrophes that are creating a great turbulence, but it is also about demographics. There are fewer and fewer who will pay into the pension system, and there are more and more who are getting older.

That we are becoming fewer is due to the fact that we are having fewer children, that we deport people of working age, and that we have a high unemployment rate. We can make it easy for ourselves and simply raise the retirement age significantly. Ask the hard-working craftsman, the nursing assistant, or the industrial worker about it! I do not think that will turn out so well. We can also see to it that we have more children. But since we are already overpopulating our planet, I do not think that will turn out so well either.

What we can do is reduce unemployment and keep people employed in our country. This applies not only to those who earn over 35,000 a month but also to those who earn 23,000, 32,000 or 26,000.

Right now, however, I mean that the span that exists between gas and brake is sufficient to smooth out ups and downs. It might not be enough for those who want both a life jacket and suspenders. But for me, a wide and strong belt is enough.

We are all aware that seniors as a group have it better, and many actually have it quite well. And they deserve it. I would have, however, wished that the freedom could be spread out over more occasions in life – a revolt against our rutted and controlled lives!

There is a great deal left to do for a better old age that the gas cannot solve. But a governing Centre Party can solve it. I am talking about more sustainable and climate-smart housing and more secure housing. I am talking about better care and nursing and a safer existence. I am talking about counteracting the widespread age discrimination that exists in our society.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

I also thank you for my short time here in the Riksdag. You speak of four, eight, and twelve years. I myself have now almost completed seven months. Thank you for that!

(Applause)

In this speech, Anders W Jonsson (C) agreed.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! "Finally" is perhaps the word that elegantly describes how I feel today. I have persistently pushed for this proposal to become a reality, and now a unanimous Riksdag is to decide that there shall be a distributable surplus in the pension system. This means that we are introducing a gas into a pension system that already has a brake. There is some kind of logic in also having a gas when there is a brake.

I am, therefore, a senior member of the Pensions Group, but I have only sat in the Riksdag since 2018. I joined the Pensions Group in December 2018 and have since seen ministers and members come and go.

The first thing I did when I joined the Pensions Group – because I sat in the Social Insurance Committee, people thought it was logical that I should step into the Pensions Group – was to order everything that had been written about the pensions and try to read as much as possible as quickly as possible. I already knew when I joined the Pensions Group that this probably wouldn't be entirely easy, but the more I read, the more I realized that this really is not easy in any way.

I came across an old investigation from 2004, the UTÖ investigation, which I sat down and read because I thought it was interesting. The investigation forms the basis for what we are debating today, namely how one can distribute a surplus. It was quite interesting to read the UTÖ investigation, because it was a highly theoretical reasoning that was presented. At that time, it was not actually on the map that the pension system would generate a surplus that is simply added on, but we have now reached that point.

I stepped in directly and said: This would be a clever idea, wouldn't it? I know that the Deputy Speaker and I discussed this when she sat as a member of the Social Insurance Committee during the previous parliamentary term. One could say that all the other parties were fairly lukewarm when it comes to the interest in introducing a gas.

Then the surpluses began to come, and the Pensions Agency also made a rather significant analysis of how the surplus could be expected to develop. It was only in the Pensions Agency's negative scenario that we would be around balance figure 1, i.e., where the assets cover the expenses. If one falls below 1, that is, if the debts are greater than what exists in the system, the brake kicks in. The brake has kicked in three times since it was introduced.

The Pensions Agency showed that the surpluses in the realistic alternative, as they called it, and in the positive alternative had a fantastically fine curve, but it was realized that it was not the pension system's idea to generate a lot of surpluses.

I would like to say that one point with what we are doing today is that everyone's pension rights should be able to become more valuable. The second point, I think, is a bit moral. If there is too much money in the system, one should also help those who have actually built up the surplus, that is to say those who pay pension contributions. Parallel to this, we also have funds that are doing fantastically well – much better than what we could have expected.

This is truly timely, and it is wonderfully pleasant that we can not only work well in the Pensions Group but also ensure that the Riksdag says in a very clear way that we are to build a pension system in the long term.

I agree with the member from SD, I believe it was, that the Pension Group is important. That is exactly what this is about. We make decisions, and we adjust a system, but we must do it in a long-term, sustainable way.

I might think that the balance figure of 1.15 is a bit high. I would probably like to have it a bit lower, but I also see points to having a balance figure that ensures there is a very clear difference before the system no longer has enough money. There is a safety margin, as it is called. We must be careful with that, because even if things are going well now, we could head towards completely different times. In that case, it is naturally important that we do not waste money unnecessarily.

The decision that we will make today will strengthen the economy for pensioners and those with pension rights. I truly say: Finally! How nice it is sometimes to be a member of Parliament and get to go up to a rostrum and say: This is good for real!

(Applause)

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

Mohamed Yassin (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are considering the report on the distribution of surpluses in the income pension system. The proposal means that rules are introduced for how surpluses in the income pension system shall be handled. If the system develops more strongly than what is required to secure future pensions, a part of the surplus can be shared with the pensioners. This is usually described as a gas in the pension system. Miljöpartiet stands behind the proposal.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish pension system is based on a simple but important principle: it must be long-term, stable, and reliable. People should be able to work a whole professional life and feel security that there is a pension system that holds up over time. Therefore, the Pensions Group is important.

In a time when much in politics is characterized by short-sightedness, it is valuable that the parties in the Riksdag can unite around long-term rules for pensions. It creates predictability for today's pensioners and for everyone who works and earns toward their future pension. All parties with different ideological starting points can agree on the basic construction of the pension system. This is a strength, not a weakness.

Madam Speaker! It is also reasonable that there is a balance in the system. When the economy develops poorly, there are mechanisms that protect the system's long-term sustainability. When the development, on the other hand, is strong and significant surpluses are built up, it is also reasonable that the pensioners receive a share of this. It is the principle that this proposal is based on.

At the same time, I want to emphasize that this does not solve all the challenges that exist in the pension area. Many pensioners still live with small economic margins. Women still have lower pensions than men. We see how inequalities during working life follow into the pension years. We still see that many elderly people have small economic margins after a long working life.

Miljöpartiet wants to continue the work for pensions that can be lived on. Therefore, we need to continue the work for more equal pensions and stronger economic security for the elderly. For us, pension policy is not just about the system's economy but also about people's everyday lives. The pension shall provide security, freedom, and the opportunity to live a dignified life.

Madam Speaker! Today's proposal is a step towards making the pension system more complete and more equitable when surpluses arise. It is based on a broad political consensus and strengthens confidence in the system. With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the officials in the Committee on Social Insurance who have been helpful, professional, and contributed with good underlying material during the short time I have served in the Riksdag. I thank the speakers and the Chamber Office as well as my colleagues in the Riksdag and the Committee on Social Insurance for the fine and warm welcome during the short period I have been here. That being said, I wish everyone a happy Midsummer and a fine summer.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden fundamentally has a good pension system. While it has provided good pensions for most, it has also had a positive impact on the economy of society by simply encouraging work. That more people work and that more people work longer is the basis for pensions to be able to be high in the long term.

No one should have to worry about their finances when they get older. That is why the Liberals once were involved in pushing for the establishment of today's Swedish pension system. It is a stable system built on long-term agreements, but well, in reality, no one claims that the system itself is perfect. It is quite difficult to achieve perfection in fact, but that does not mean one should stop striving for it.

Today, all parties in the Swedish Riksdag are taking at least a small step towards this with a joint proposal that I believe improves the Swedish pension system and moves towards securing more money for today's and tomorrow's pensioners. I say as Hans Eklind said earlier: "Finally!" This is something I am happy about.

Pensions are a matter of freedom, dignity, and justice. Those who have worked a whole life, taken responsibility, paid taxes, and built our country should be able to look forward to old age with security in sight.

Madam Speaker! We need a system that is economically sustainable over time. But we also need a system that is perceived as fair by those who live with and in it. If people do not understand the system, do not trust it, or do not feel that it rewards work, trust is weakened. It is against that background, Madam Speaker, that we today consider the proposal on the distribution of surpluses in the income pension system.

It is, as said, about a very simple principle of fairness: If there is a brake in bad times, there must also be an accelerator in good times. That is something we all agree on here today.

Until now, the pension system has had a clear mechanism for deficits. When the economy in the system deteriorates, there are rules for how the indexation of pensions and pension rights is held back. They exist to ensure the system's stability, and that is fundamentally correct. But when the system performs well, assets grow and a significant surplus is built up, there should also be a gas pedal, something that has been missing until now. We are now correcting that imbalance. As they say: Finally!

We are introducing a balance figure of 1.15. I also think that is fundamentally good. Then we can follow it over time and see how it develops, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

For the Liberals, the link between work and pension is central. We believe in the work principle, in the principle of life income, and that it should pay to work. Those who have participated in financing the system and borne the risks in worse times should also receive a share of the upside in better times. It is sensible.

In this matter, we also make the assessment that the remaining debt that the income pension system had to the state, according to a previous agreement, shall be written off and thus be finally settled. I also think it is important to mention that. A system should, as said, enjoy people's trust. We need to have clarity, order, and tidiness in that.

With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank Madam Speaker and all others who work not only here in the chamber but in the entire building for your work, and perhaps above all for your patience with us members. It is important to emphasize. Thank you for your professionalism in your work! One must still give you some credit. Without you, this place actually would not function. Just think if 349 members were to do this themselves. I don't think that would have been optimal.

I also want to turn to all of you in the Pensions Group and in the Committee on Social Insurance. What a year we have had! It has been full speed ahead. Some in the Committee on Justice might want to object, but I want to assert that our incredibly high pace is unbeatable. We have had many proposals to thresh through and debate. I also think we have done it in a very respectful manner towards one another, regardless of which starting point one had in each issue. We have also always done it with a twinkle in the eye. Quite sincerely, I wish for no better colleagues in the committee, regardless of party.

It has also been fantastically fun to get to know you as people. I wish you all a fantastic summer. Now make sure to take it easy at Midsummer, and then we will see each other in Almedalen. Then take a few weeks to recover and enjoy yourselves before we see each other in the election campaign!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 18.)

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