General grants to municipalities

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report number 3, which deals with a part of the state budget, in this case expenditure area 25 General grants to municipalities.

Through the cooperation agreement written between Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna, we have ensured a new political direction for Sweden. This is possible through the support the voters have given us in the election this year and thus the prerequisite to form a majority in Sweden's Riksdag.

Through the cooperation agreement referred to as the Tidö Agreement, areas are listed that are important for the political change in Sweden. Included therein is that the budget which the Riksdag decides upon is negotiated in two steps. We are now at the second step, which concerns the distribution of appropriations within the expenditure area. And today we shall, among other things, decide the question of general grants to the municipalities in Sweden, that is to say our primary and secondary municipalities – in everyday speech municipalities and regions.

In the committee's proposal, it is suggested that the Riksdag shall decide on appropriations amounting to approximately 157.5 billion kronor for the year 2023.

Madam Speaker! The basic principle of local self-government is that the municipalities themselves have the right to decide on taxes, the so-called right of taxation, and fees at the respective level to finance the operations. This is, therefore, about our common welfare in the form of school, elderly care, health and medical care, sports and culture - to name a few areas. Within this, there are tasks that fall upon both municipalities and regions through law, but also voluntary activities that one chooses to undertake.

Through the municipal equalization system, a number of Sweden's municipalities and a region contribute to leveling the conditions for equal welfare in Sweden. The State, through decisions in the Riksdag, contributes its part to the equalization system, and to that are then added various different targeted state grants.

General grants to municipalities

Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner face a tough situation ahead in the coming year as a result of the recession and a declining increase in tax revenues, while a large need for investments remains and high inflation is driving up costs. In that regard, the municipalities, just as the committee notes, have an important task in continuing to work with digitalization, efficiency, and other measures, for example changed ways of working, in order to reach a balanced budget. Even though it will in many cases be difficult to reach a balance during 2023, the goal of sound economic management appears to be reached at the end of the forecast period 2022-2025.

There is also a need to point out that the municipalities face continued large investments in welfare ahead of them, partly as a consequence of the previously conducted migration policy where the population in Sweden's municipalities increased. The need for welfare increased while unemployment remained stuck at a high level. Thus, the tough equation is created that more people must be supported per 100 people working.

For example, the proportion of foreign-born individuals who received financial assistance was 63 percent of the total expenditures for financial assistance, according to the Socialstyrelsen report for 2021. Long-term assistance to married or cohabiting individuals was paid in nine out of ten cases to foreign-born individuals. It is something that is obviously economically unsustainable.

But it is also important to speak plainly about the costs of the previously pursued migration policy and the failed integration into society. At the same time, just as SKR chooses to do in its December report, I want to point out the change within the migration area which, thanks to the Tidö Agreement, will in the long run result in a reduced demand for regular municipal activities, for example school and health and medical care. The right that exists today to financial assistance for those who are illegally in the country will be prohibited, and instead, a successive qualification for public welfare services will be introduced.

Madam Speaker! During 2021, the Sweden Democrats pushed through extra support for Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner during the ongoing pandemic. It was something that was much needed and which strengthened the municipal sector ahead of 2022. Only three of Sweden's 290 municipalities and one region ran with a deficit in 2021. It was a clear sign that the municipalities were better equipped after a much-needed supplement through the Sweden Democrats' position.

The Government notes in the budget proposal that the municipal sector reported a positive result of 67 billion in 2021, of which the municipalities accounted for 45 billion and the regions 22 billion. For the regions, it was also the highest result ever.

During 2023, with the help of the Sweden Democrats, we are pushing the state budget negotiated with the government by an additional over 13 billion to the municipalities, of which over 6 billion are in general state grants. It is a welcome addition to the municipal sector and a clear prioritization from, among others, the Sweden Democrats. In addition, an increase in targeted state grants occurs which, although they fall under other expenditure areas, are an actual addition to the municipal sector, for example 2 billion to healthcare and 200 million to maternity care. These are important investments for better health and safer births. Good conditions are also being created to run a good school, elderly care, and healthcare, and to support, for example, the local community life in its important work primarily aimed at children and young people. At the same time, we know that the municipalities have a never-before-seen task to do, primarily for safety in the coming years.

An explosion of serious crime, subsidy fraud, and continued segregation and exclusion negatively affects the municipalities and forces interventions, among other things, to break negative developments and restore safety in society. This is something that is also facilitated by other changes in connection with the negotiated Tidö Agreement.

I can only turn to my home municipality, Gävle, where during the last parliamentary term we saw a wave of robbery by humiliation against young people and where we have only during this year seen a number of shootings and outright executions in the open street in the center. This creates enormous consequences on many levels for a society, not least economically and above all in human suffering.

Madam Speaker! It is clear in the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget proposal that we are prioritizing increased support for the municipal sector in the coming years. During 2023, we are injecting approximately 13 billion in general and targeted state grants, while Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, estimates that the upcoming electricity support will generate an additional more than 5 billion kronor to the municipal sector during the same year. All in all, the municipal sector will be strengthened by nearly 18 billion kronor in 2023 when the upcoming electricity support is included during the next year.

I wish to move for approval of the Committee on Finance's proposal for a decision in Report 3.

Before I leave the rostrum, I would also like to wish the chair and all our colleagues a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Likewise, I would like to address our comrades in the committees and thank them for a well-executed job during the beginning of the new parliamentary term.

(Applause)

In this speech, Dennis Dioukarev, David Perez and Charlotte Quensel (all SD) concurred.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! During the pandemic, the cracks in the welfare system became clear, not least within elderly care. The working conditions for those who work there have been sidelined in many municipalities, and many people are worried about elderly care. The staff are rushing on minute-by-minute schedules. Many are worried that sufficient measures have not been taken to support the elderly who live in residential homes or have home care.

Therefore, the Social Democratic-led government added permanent state grants to elderly care to strengthen it in the needs that actually exist.

The Sweden Democrats have often claimed to be the defenders of the elderly. Now that the Sweden Democrats are governing together with the government, those words ring hollow. One thing was said before the election and another thing after the election. Now elderly care is not receiving the support and the resources to develop elderly care that are truly needed.

My question to the Sweden Democrats is: What do you say now to the elderly who are worried about what elderly care will look like in the future?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

To go back to the part concerning the pandemic, I believe it can be said to have affected the entire world in terms of how one could work with the welfare services that are offered – so also in Sweden. The staff had to struggle greatly for two years with the consequences of the pandemic within, among other things, elderly care but also health and medical care.

We are now adding an additional 6 billion in general government grants. Furthermore, we are increasing the targeted grants to, among other things, health and medical care.

When it comes to the money for elderly care, we see that it is part of the general state grants that increase the municipality's resources. But it is also about how the municipalities choose to use the targeted state grants that have existed previously. My home municipality, Gävle, had the opportunity to apply for a state grant to develop elderly care but chose not to do so, so those funds were lost. It is also part of the municipality's responsibility to actually apply for the state grants that are available.

From my side and the Sweden Democrats' side, we look at the report that came from SKR this December, where they point out what the situation looks like for the municipalities and regions. They do not see any large cuts ahead. I can quote from this report from December 2022, which says the following: "Since the large cost increases next year are of a temporary nature, such as inflation and pension costs, extensive short-term interventions in the operations are avoided." It is therefore SKR, the municipalities' umbrella organization, that states it in this way. SKR sees that this will not affect the operations that the municipalities carry out in the short term.

The money that we provide through the budget negotiated with the government will be a welcome supplement for the municipalities. Partially, they will also get the money back in the form of the electricity support that will come during next year. SKR itself estimates that the municipalities will receive just over 3 billion of the 5 billion.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! It is strange how one can read the same report in such different ways and hear what is said in such different ways.

Sveriges kommuner och regioner have said that they have great needs in the future, even during the coming years. They have expenses for high electricity bills but also for higher inflation and raised interest rates, so they are facing a cost crisis. This will not help elderly care.

I have also on several occasions heard government representatives and Sweden Democrats say that resources are not the only important thing, but that it is also a matter of having staff to hire.

It becomes a bit strange when one removes the elderly care lift that we Social Democrats have introduced and which has been and is an important measure to increase competence and get more permanent employees but also more employees in elderly care, because there is a labor shortage in elderly care and it is difficult to recruit staff. They are removing it. It remains in 2023 but is no longer in the budget for 2024 and onwards.

This is a long-term problem. It is not something that one solves just now. The lift needs to be extended, and we Social Democrats have included that in our budget, so I still do not understand. What will be done to strengthen elderly care, which the Sverigedemokrater often highlight as an important issue? The money is not enough generally. We are investing more in welfare in general - twice as much as the government and Sverigedemokrater do. You have no policy for the elderly, and you are not investing in getting more employees within elderly care. So, what is your message?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

Just as the member says, part of the Äldreomsorgslyftet introduced by the Social Democrats will be changed. However, the upcoming budget has not been negotiated between the Sweden Democrats and the government. Which measures we intend to take, we will naturally have to return to.

I must nevertheless refer again to SKR's economic report for December 2022, where they themselves state that the cost increases they foresee are of a temporary nature. This applies to inflation and pension costs, and when inflation is dampened, it will naturally affect the cost development within the municipalities. This applies to the costs for welfare services but also to the costs for pensions. That must not be forgotten.

Regarding the elderly care lift that the member describes, I can only look at my own municipality again. Gävle chose not to apply for this support. I wonder what the member's position is on this, given that it is her own party comrades who run that municipality. This assumes that the support provided by the state is also applied for by the municipalities. It doesn't matter what opportunities we provide from the state or the Riksdag if the municipalities do not utilize them fully. I believe that there are more municipalities that have refrained from applying for this support.

As we have said, we are strengthening the municipal sector with 6 billion SEK in general government grants. We are also providing targeted government grants so that it will amount to over 13 billion SEK for next year. To that comes the electricity support of 5 billion SEK, of which over 3 billion SEK will go to the municipalities. This will constitute a strong supplement for the municipalities.

At the same time, we must see that the negative result that some municipalities and regions are projected to make during the coming year is a consequence of increased costs for pensions, so what we are seeing is actually not large cuts in welfare. It is costs for pensions that are affecting it.

I feel confident that the municipalities will be able to use the support we provide to strengthen elderly care in the coming years.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are the champions of the welfare state. We built the Swedish welfare model, and we will continue to defend and develop it. A strong welfare state reduces inequalities and strengthens equality.

A functioning welfare state is the core of a strong society. It is about so many important things, things that are seriously significant for all of us and for our loved ones - the security of receiving good care in the autumn of life, that all children should receive a good education and start in life, and to receive care according to need.

Politics makes a difference. When we Social Democrats led the government, we prioritized welfare while simultaneously taking responsibility for the economy. It resulted in 100,000 more employees in welfare. During the pandemic, the S-led government allocated three times as much as the estimated tax loss to welfare.

In the budget that we presented a couple of weeks ago, we invested twice as much as the government and SD on welfare, and continued investments are needed. Municipalities and regions face a cost crisis due to increased interest rates, high inflation, and insufficient resources.

Despite this, the government and the Sweden Democrats are therefore choosing to deprioritize our municipalities and regions, which provide all our welfare. The investments they are making are insufficient in this difficult situation. And we all know what it will mean: a austerity measure that strikes directly at the core tasks of the welfare system. The welfare model that we have proudly built up risks being broken apart.

Unfortunately, this feels familiar. The last time Sweden was in a recession, I was a municipal council member in Linköping. The then conservative government chose, as usual, to lower taxes and not increase state grants to municipalities and regions. The employees paid the price; welfare crumbled. And now we see it again. Sverigedemokraterna and the government prioritize tax cuts for those with a salary over 50,000 and do not prioritize welfare.

Madam Speaker! Privatizations and deregulations have proven to cost money, increase inequality within healthcare, and increase segregation within schools. Companies have been able to make profits at the expense of good quality, and it has opened the door for welfare crime. It makes me both angry and upset when I hear about fraud and mismanagement within the welfare system.

Controls are absolutely important, and more shall be carried out. But if we have systems that open up and provide opportunities for exploitation, we will never be able to plug all the holes where resources leak out.

In the school area, the situation is extreme in international comparison. Sweden is the only country in the world that allows private profit extraction from the tax-funded school system. Independent schools can today take out as much profit as they want. Our children's education is being sidelined while the large surpluses are sent to tax havens and investment companies in Luxembourg. Foreign ownership in schools has increased by 70 percent since 2014.

I have seen this firsthand, when I worked as a school counselor for many years and met students who came from schools where student health barely existed and came with grades of joy but did not have the knowledge they needed.

Marketization has also meant that working conditions have deteriorated for those working within the welfare sector, that care has been fragmented, and that the wallet governs more and more – not the patients' needs. In the same way, privately run elderly care in many places has lower staffing and less secure employment for the staff. It affects the care of our elderly.

No, the pursuit of profit does not belong in Swedish welfare. Resources allocated for welfare should be used to improve school results and give our elderly and sick a secure care and treatment - not for large profit extractions. Welfare is for our children, students and elderly - not to enrich the owners. Taking back control over welfare will continue to be one of the Social Democrats' highest priorities.

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, the Riksdag decided on a new cost equalization, and now greater consideration is taken of the societal development that has occurred during recent years. The equalization takes greater consideration of sparse settlement and socioeconomic factors. But the differences are still all too great. It is toughest for the smallest municipalities in rural areas but also for those that have lower so-called tax capacity.

An investigation is currently underway of the entire so-called equalization system, that is, how we should distribute the resources to municipalities and regions. It is a very important and crucial investigation.

We must prioritize more equal conditions. All municipalities, from north to south, must be able to have a good welfare. Sweden does not benefit from us drifting apart. We must ensure an equal welfare in our entire elongated country. It is a matter of justice.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democratic-led government implemented major reforms to strengthen knowledge outcomes and increase equality in schools. The number of full-time positions in schools has increased by more than 35,000 since the 2014/15 school year. In 2020, the children's groups in preschool were the smallest since 1992. And after a period of weakened knowledge outcomes in schools, the results turned upwards. But the inequality in schools is still all too great. The equality grant is therefore crucial to strengthen equality in schools. Every child should receive the support he or she needs.

Madam Speaker! I am particularly concerned about the future of care for our elderly. I have long been involved in elderly care, partly through my own experiences as a care assistant in elderly care, and partly because it is so central that a society is able to take care of the people who have been part of building up the society that we are so proud of.

The S-led government invested in elderly care through a permanent annual grant of 4 billion kronor to the municipalities to strengthen elderly care. Assistant nurse became a protected professional title. The so-called Elderly Care Boost was introduced. The initiative means that new and existing staff are given the opportunity to educate themselves during paid working hours. It favors more permanent employment and higher competence among the staff.

During the pandemic, the cracks became so clear that no one could avoid seeing them. A continued investment in elderly care must be made, for more colleagues and better working conditions.

Of all the big words about elderly care from SD and the government parties before the election, hardly one came true. They said one thing before the election and another after the election. They appointed an elderly minister, but an elderly minister does not help when there is no elderly policy. It will not strengthen elderly care.

Madam Speaker! What Sweden needs are investments in welfare that create a more cohesive and equal society. All municipalities and regions shall be able to have a good welfare. Regardless of who you are and where you live, you shall receive good healthcare, a good education, and good care. The whole country shall live and grow. Sweden can truly do better than this!

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Member describes that a "steel bath" will occur within Sweden's municipalities in the coming years, contrary to what SKR describes in its December 2022 report. There, it is stated that the large cost increases are of a temporary nature and that extensive short-term interventions in operations will be able to be avoided.

I can also read a quote about the regions from the report: "According to survey responses from the CFOs, 10 regions will take targeted and 17 general efficiency measures in the budget for 2023. Examples of measures are postponing previously promised initiatives, merging of units, hiring freezes in the central administration and review of investments."

The SKR's report does not speak at all about the "steel bath" that the member from the Socialdemokraterna describes in their speech from the rostrum. It is also a fact that Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has a result equalization reserve that will be used during the coming year, among other things to cover the deficits that in some cases arise in the operations and to ensure that the economy is in balance, as far as is possible. To this are added the 6 billion that the government and Sverigedemokraterna are injecting in the budget that has been negotiated.

I would like to ask a question to the member. You talk about allocating an additional 6 billion. You do this, among other things, by going against your own aid policy, which you are cutting. You do it by lowering the threshold for state tax, which, among other things, will mean that there will be tax for specialists within ambulance care, principals, special educators in schools, and the midwives who take extra shifts in healthcare to support where there are shortages. How does the member view the fact that they will now have to pay more tax with your policy?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner do not say that everything is fine. They say that they need more resources and that all regions face deficits as early as next year. We Social Democrats stand up for and are proud of the investments we have made in welfare. We have compensated municipalities and regions three times over, and we have made large investments. But those days are over now.

What the government and the Sweden Democrats are doing is underfunding. The needs within the welfare sector are much greater. Then it is interesting that it is claimed that we would, for example, raise taxes. We do not do that. That is not what this is about at all.

What you are doing is that you are lowering the tax. It costs 10 billion kronor. It is an enormous sum, the largest investment in your budget, and it is about lowering taxes for those who earn 50,000 or more. I can say that there are quite a few who work within the welfare sector who do not reach those salaries.

I have myself been a school counselor and know many who work as social workers. They do not earn 50,000. They do not receive any tax cuts. The whole thing is incredibly unfair and is done at the expense of investments in welfare that are needed very much in the coming years.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have actually looked at what the lowered threshold you are proposing would entail. With your policy, we would land at a level where, for example, principals within the school system, who take the leading responsibility for such an important operation as the school, will receive higher taxes. Where then is the motivation for the principal to step in and take this responsibility? Where is the motivation to step in and pursue further education and specialize within, for example, healthcare? Where is the motivation for the midwives to step in and take extra shifts within an operation that is severely understaffed across the entire country? Then they will receive higher taxes. Where is the point for them to do this? Where are the incentives and the motivation in your policy?

It is these people who are affected by this. I know that you would like to focus on the wealthiest in society, but it affects those who work within health and medical care. It affects the principals in schools. It affects special educators in schools. It is about people who have chosen to further their education and take a special responsibility within our welfare activities. How does the member view this?

I also notice that the member does not want to answer how she stands on the question of reduced aid. That is partly how you finance your politics. You go against the politics you yourselves want and reduce the aid.

We in the Sweden Democrats were clear. We want to lower aid. We want to finance, among other things, the welfare and lowered fuel tax. But that is not your policy. You want to keep the aid.

You say in your budget that you will work your way back towards a one percent target. But the decision to lower this was first made here in the Riksdag. You could have kept the one percent target yourselves, but you have not. You are financing extra measures by going against your own policy.

It is also this that will affect precisely the principals in schools, the midwives in healthcare, and the special educators in schools. It is they who will receive higher taxes with your policy. It is a fact. One only has to look at what salary level they are at in the country, what extra jobs they do, and where the tax bracket threshold will land with your policy.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I have also seen the figures on how many people who work in welfare and with your policy get lower taxes. We are not raising the taxes for them, but they get lower taxes with you. Then there are some principals who get it, and I spoke with some principals this week. They said thank you but no thank you. They much prefer investments in welfare and in the school. They live in this activity and see what it will mean. They do not speak for all principals, of course, but it is not that we are raising the tax. You are lowering the tax. It means large costs at the expense of investments in welfare. Those investments were needed. I know how they seriously hit.

That is also what the principals say. They see what reduced resources for schools actually do to the students they work for and are committed to every day. They want resources for welfare. I believe that many more than those I have spoken with would rather say no to the tax cut than to money and resources for welfare.

You return to this issue regarding aid very many times. We had a debate about it yesterday. Then we Social Democrats clearly clarified what we think regarding the aid. We are reducing it. We are not reducing it as much as the government. We have a plan for how we will return to the one percent goal. I believe one can be confident about that.

But here we are talking about investments in welfare. We are doubling and providing more than twice as many resources to welfare. It was needed for the coming years and the difficulties that municipalities and regions face.

(Applause)

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Eva Lindh's speech. There were very many beautiful words. But one begins to wonder a bit how Eva Lindh is going to get through all the politics that she boasts about from the rostrum.

It is not just that there is a lot of difference between the four opposition parties when it comes to the investments in the municipalities. One can also look at some other things in the different budgets.

If we look, for example, at the funds for the judicial system, we can observe that parties want to both increase and decrease. When it comes to funds for defense, they want to both increase and decrease. And when it comes to the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan), they want to both increase and decrease. We can also observe that both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet budget for hundreds of billions in deficits in the coming years.

Then my question is how Eva Lindh is going to put all those beautiful words together into something that works. If one cannot gather a majority in the Riksdag to push through one's politics, it just becomes empty promises.

The only thing the four opposition parties seem to agree on is to increase aid compared to the government's policy, to increase the reception of refugees, and to raise fuel taxes. That is the only thing you agree on. In principle, everywhere else it diverges in every possible direction. How does Eva Lindh intend to solve this?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jan Ericson, for the question! It is interesting. We in the Social Democrats stand by our policy. The Moderates stand by their policy, and Member of Parliament Ericson also knows that one must cooperate and compromise. It was not quite as easy as was said before the election, was it? The formation of the government did drag on for some time, so I believe that the Moderates are well aware of how it can be when one is to compromise and cooperate.

We stand by our policy. It is quite clear that many in Sweden's population think the Social Democrats' policy is good. And the stronger we become, the more strongly we can also influence the policy moving forward. I hope that by the next election in 2026, we can also make our policy a reality.

We stand for investments in welfare. The member says that these are beautiful words, but they are words that are not only beautiful. They also imply a more beautiful future when it comes to, for example, welfare. We stand up for this and will do so. They are not just beautiful words.

Let me also comment on this with increased fuel taxes. We have a very good proposal regarding a tank discount. It would mean 2 kronor per kilometer during the first 2,000 kilometers. This means large differences for those who are now struggling with increased costs in so many different ways. They are still waiting for electricity price support. They are struggling with increased inflation. There are many who are vulnerable and are having a very tough time in Sweden now. They are waiting to receive support and help. Unfortunately, I believe they are waiting in vain.

(Applause)

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! Having high opinion figures nine weeks after the election is roughly like being rich in Monopoly.

When it comes to fuels and the fuel discount, we see in your figures that you have not taken into account the automatic indexation increase of the tax that occurs after the turn of the year. It eats up almost your entire fuel discount, so it is a pure bluff.

Then we have the breakpoint, which has been raised here. When the Social Democrats were involved in adopting the major tax reform in 1991, it meant that a principle was introduced that 20 percent of wage earners would pay state tax. That was what was agreed upon, and that is why the breakpoint is adjusted upwards every year in line with inflation and wage increases. If this had not been done annually since 1991, today 100 percent of wage earners and pensioners would be paying state tax. Does Eva Lindh think it would be reasonable that all people in Sweden have their tax increased by 20 percent, from 30 to over 50?

Taxes are not the only things that are indexed, but other things are as well. The social assistance is indexed, as are the guarantee pension, student grants, sickness benefit, activity compensation, care allowance, close relative compensation, care allowance, housing supplement, work injury compensation and a multitude of other compensations as well as parental leave and maternity benefit. All of this is indexed. Does Eva Lindh want to stop that too?

Don't you like your own tax reform, where you said from the beginning that 20 percent of wage earners should pay state tax? You want to hollow out the system, and then I wonder how you envision the future. Do you intend to continue to automatically sneak up the tax for wage earners? Eva Lindh says that it is not a tax increase. Is not 50 percent in tax more than 30 percent in tax on the same hundred kronor?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I can settle for saying that we do not prioritize a tax cut for those with salaries over 50,000 as the government and the Sweden Democrats do.

We prioritize other things, for example, welfare. The budget that the government and the Sweden Democrats have presented implies a cost crisis for welfare. Despite rising inflation and increased interest rates which pose difficult challenges for Sweden's municipalities and regions, the investments that are needed for welfare are not being made. We Social Democrats do things differently.

This is going to matter. That resources are not being added to the welfare system will mean that people will need to be laid off and that the welfare system will be cut. So my question, which I have been thinking about during the weeks that have passed since the budget was presented, is: Which welfare does the government not want?

(Applause)

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has received a new government. After eight years in opposition, the Moderaterna are again leading a government cooperation in collaboration with three other parties, and this cooperation is regulated in a joint agreement where we state which matters we think are most important to address in our country.

The government takes office in a very difficult time with war in our vicinity and a European energy crisis that is exacerbated in Sweden by reckless Swedish decisions regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power. On top of this, we are entering a recession with an unusually high unemployment rate and also have a historically high inflation.

The Moderates' election promises and the coalition partners' programs apply for four years forward. Not everything can be done in eight weeks in a government position, and the economic cycle and inflation slow down some reforms. But the budget bill we are now presenting takes the first important steps to solve Sweden's major problems. At the same time, the budget secures room for maneuver if the economic downturn becomes deeper. We also have a parliamentary majority that stands behind our budget, which means that our proposals will also become a reality. It is a big difference from how it has looked over the last eight years.

This year's state budget prioritizes the very most important. It is measures to handle high fuel costs and high electricity prices, increased support to municipalities and regions, a historic offensive against organized crime, upgrading the defense in a deteriorated security situation, as well as measures for increased stable electricity production in the short and long term.

The government wants to put Sweden on a new course, step by step. This year's budget is a first step, but we will be able to make the major changes in upcoming budgets when there has been time to prepare legislative proposals and measures and refer them in the manner that must be done according to the regulatory framework if it is to be good.

Madam Speaker! During the pandemic, the municipal sector received very large extra supplements, often following direct initiatives from us Moderates and other opposition parties. This was valuable and resulted in the municipal sector and not least the regions getting some financial breathing room and being able to focus on their core tasks in a strained situation. Thanks to these large supplements, the municipal sector's collective results have been at historically high levels over the last two years.

At the same time, these large surpluses were of a temporary nature, and the coming years will be more difficult in economic terms. Tax revenues are affected by both unemployment and demographics, and inflation, wage developments, interest rate hikes, and energy prices affect costs. At the same time, there are problems in the form of difficulty recruiting staff to important sectors.

In the budget proposal, the government therefore provides both general and targeted grants to municipalities and regions, totaling nearly 13 billion kronor, of which half are general state grants.

Initiatives are being made, among other things, to shorten healthcare queues, increase accessibility in healthcare, strengthen maternity care and additionally raise the quality of teaching in schools, reinforce the primary school, improve access to high-quality teaching materials and increase the number of special education teachers.

In addition to increased state grants, municipalities and regions also receive a share of the electricity price support. SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner) notes, just as we heard in a previous statement, that this adds an additional 5 billion to the municipal sector.

There are also other items and proposals in the budget that directly strengthen the municipal sector's economy. For example, we are abolishing the waste incineration tax and the penalty tax on district heating. In my own home municipality, Mark, they shut down electricity production in the combined heat and power plant when the penalty tax was introduced. Now there is the possibility to restart and expand the local electricity production. Instead of a penalty tax, the municipality can now receive revenue from sold electricity.

Overall, the government's policy means that the municipal sector is strengthened by approximately the 20 billion that the municipal sector themselves consider they need.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, it is the case that politics are interconnected. The major investments we are making in the police and the justice system are for the benefit of all residents and, of course, also for the municipalities. High crime, extensive vandalism, car fires, social disruption, and crime controlled by criminal gangs entail enormous costs for certain municipalities. If we can reverse this, it also has great economic significance for the municipalities. It is the same thing when we now tighten migration and reduce immigration. This will have a great significance in the long term for the economy of the municipal sector.

Another important item in the state budget is the measures to reduce the costs for transport by car. We are now taking the first steps, and more will follow. After the turn of the year, our tax cut will make fuel cost 1 krona less per liter than it otherwise would have. For a rural municipality with extensive driving with municipal vehicles, a 1 krona lower fuel cost means a lot. It is the same for the municipality's employees who have to take the car to work. A properly improved travel deduction is also introduced, which will make things easier for the municipality's employees. For a rural municipality, reduced travel costs will also have great significance for the possibility of recruiting staff.

Madam Speaker! One of the first issues I championed as a newly elected Member of Parliament in 2006 was that we should introduce some form of equalization system for municipalities and regions. This also became a reality during the Alliance's years in government. A large majority of the municipalities and regions have used this opportunity to save surpluses from good years to use when times get worse.

The equalization funds create a better balance between good and bad years, and there are relatively free rules for the municipalities on how to manage these.

In 2021, it was 203 of the country's 290 municipalities that had set aside a total of 30 billion kronor in this type of reserves during years with good surpluses. And SKR predicts that an additional number of municipalities will set aside money this year, as they have surpluses this year as well. It is also 13 of 21 regions that have saved a total of 10 billion kronor in such result equalization reserves. We can state that these reserves became exactly the success that I and others hoped they would become when they were introduced. And these generous 40 billion kronor in provisions will now come to the rescue when times worsen. It will, just as we heard earlier, be a cushion that protects the operations if one were to be hit by serious problems.

Madam Speaker! The State has an obvious task to support municipalities and regions in tough times. But at the same time, the municipalities bear their own great responsibility to streamline, develop, and prioritize in their operations. A municipality cannot complain about too few state grants or argue for an increased municipal tax if it has not first itself prioritized what is most important.

That municipalities voluntarily choose to pay out social assistance to persons staying illegally in the country is not only offensive but an example of poor prioritization. And there are a multitude of other examples of initiatives that hardly meet the requirement for reasonable prioritizations.

The taxpayers usually organize annual votes on the most disturbing examples, and they show a staggering ability from certain municipalities to waste the taxpayers' money, while the needs within school, elderly care, and infrastructure are increasing.

My own home municipality, Mark, has for example set aside money for a municipal dance teacher who is to stimulate the residents' interest in dance. Dance is very nice, but it is perhaps not the absolute most important thing to spend municipal or regional money on when there are deficiencies in healthcare, elderly care, and school. Another municipality in my constituency became nationally known for its state-funded municipal poet.

As long as the state, regions and municipalities do not manage to prioritize, we will have problems regardless of how much we raise the tax or how much funding we provide.

Madam Speaker! It is also absolutely crucial for the municipalities that our country has a strong business sector and that more people get into work in real jobs. This unfortunately often disappears in the public debate.

A strong business policy, reasonable taxes on entrepreneurship, work, and transport, good access to electricity, a secure welfare, an efficient police force, and a strong justice system are crucial issues for our business sector. The previous government has unfortunately failed in many of these matters. Here, the policy of the new, Moderate-led government means a lot to reverse the development. If we succeed with this, the municipalities will also benefit in the form of both increased tax revenues and lower costs.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet presents in its budget motion a completely different direction than that of the right-conservative government and their coalition partners. The economic policy in our proposal is directed towards full employment and economic equality. The burdens of the rapid price increases must be distributed fairly, with special consideration for households with small margins. At the same time, the climate transition must be accelerated significantly so that we can reach the climate goals. The welfare sector has for a long time been underfunded. Society needs to ensure a good working environment and good working conditions for those who seek employment in preschools, healthcare, schools, and elderly care, and for those who already work there. For Vänsterpartiet, it is a self-evident matter that the resources allocated to finance the common welfare should go to education, healthcare, and elderly care and not to commercial companies that have established themselves in the welfare sector.

In our joint budget proposal, we prioritize large resources for welfare initiatives. Together with our initiatives in the climate area, this practically affects all expenditure areas, either directly or indirectly.

Since the parliamentary majority has given the budget policy a different direction than the one the Left Party desires, we refrain from taking a position regarding the allocation of appropriations within expenditure area 25. The Left Party's proposal within the expenditure area is part of our budget alternative, which is a whole.

That the welfare system functions is a prerequisite for many people's freedom. General welfare shall apply to all who are in need of it. General welfare implies a solidary redistribution of economic resources between women and men, between low-paid and high-paid individuals, between different periods in our lives, and between the sick and the healthy. The welfare system faces many great challenges. Demographic development means that municipalities and regions will have large resource needs in the coming years.

The government's budget proposal is far from sufficient to cover the needs that exist and will in practice lead to cuts. Vänsterpartiet wants to instead raise the ambitions for welfare. With our initiative, we meet the needs resulting from the demographic development, and we simultaneously invest additional resources to increase the staffing density within welfare. Vänsterpartiet allocates 24 billion kronor more than the government in general government grants to municipalities and regions in 2023.

The Left Party's budget motion contains several other initiatives for the municipal sector. We want, among other things, to introduce an investment support for community properties, strengthen healthcare in rural areas, and allocate further resources to strengthen the social services' work regarding men's violence against women.

Households with the smallest economic margins are extra vulnerable as a result of the high inflation. Vänsterpartiet's budget motion contains several proposals that improve the situation for these households and help them through these difficult times. Among these proposals is a general increase of the social assistance by 1,000 kronor per month and household. We also want to see a special investment for families with children, which means that the social assistance is increased by an additional 500 kronor per month and child household, as well as by 200 kronor per month and child.

Of the richest municipalities in Sweden, eight are in Stockholm County. All of the ten poorest are located in rural areas. We cannot have a Sweden that is so divided. Therefore, the municipal sector must be strengthened, and it is the municipalities with the greatest challenges that need the most. We cannot continue to have tax differences of 6 kronor and 17 öre, which means a difference of 1,850 kronor in tax per month for those who earn 30,000 kronor depending on where they live. In order for smaller municipalities to be able to offer welfare on equal terms already today, Vänsterpartiet proposes additional support for smaller municipalities, a support that shall level out the regional differences in total municipal tax.

It is not only large differences between municipalities; there are also large gaps within municipalities. Within our large cities, for example, there are gigantic gaps, and between the terminal stations of the Stockholm metro, there is a difference of several years in average life expectancy. It is social gaps that contribute to dividing our society. It is my and the Vänsterpartiets absolute conviction that a strong, jointly funded and equal welfare with a well-functioning school, leisure activities, healthcare and social services, low unemployment and a strong social insurance system is the best way to counteract the class society and thus also prevent crime. Today's large gaps between people and between municipalities must be reduced.

With the Riksdag's decision on the budget for 2023, the gap widens even further as the state grants to municipalities and regions are not sufficient to cover the increased costs. Between 20 and 30 billion kronor would need to be added for 2023 for municipalities and regions to be able to maintain the service. The government injects 6 billion kronor in general state grants, and additionally some targeted initiatives, which the chief economist of Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner notes shall suffice for several things at the same time. She writes: I do not cease to be surprised by how great the inventiveness is for how the same money can cover different things several times, budget after budget. The problem is only that it does not add up in reality.

She also notes that a finance manager in a municipality commented on the government's budget with the words: Yes, it is a decision in any case. Then we can begin working with our savings based on that.

Last week, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner also released their assessment for 2023. 17 regions assess that they will run with a deficit, and the remaining 3 assess that they will have a zero result. For the municipalities, it is estimated that the result will be the lowest in almost 20 years. Nevertheless, planned cuts are included in that assessment. For 2024, SKR assesses that it is even more concerning; then a deficit of approximately 24 billion kronor is expected.

With the Left Party's proposal for the budget, municipalities and regions could have continued to deliver a good - and even better - welfare instead of having to adapt to the right-conservative austerity budget.

We can also observe that the extensive government tax cuts of recent decades have benefited high-income earners. From 2023, furthermore, those who earn over 70,000 receive a tax cut of 1,400 kronor per month, while those with lower incomes, and thus smaller or no margins, receive no tax cut at all – or a couple of hundred kronor.

The 13 billion that the tax cut for those with higher incomes would cost the state would do more good in healthcare, elderly care, and schools than in the wallets of those who already have enough to get by. Costs for rent, food, and electricity are rising even for those who already have small margins and for our municipalities and regions. Already now, reports are coming in, which Aftonbladet among others have written about, that students are eating more of the school meals - especially on Mondays and Fridays. This may indicate that the children are getting less food at home. Regardless of the reason, it increases the municipalities' costs for the food. Think what difference 13 billion - or, as Vänsterpartiet proposes, 20 billion - more to municipalities and regions would make!

Otherwise, I refer to the special statement, Madam Speaker.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! When I listen to the member's speech regarding the Left Party's budget proposal, I become a little worried about how the party has chosen to finance its budget. One can indeed observe that it is not financed.

When we talk about the work towards municipalities and sound economic management, we usually say that those who have a 1 percent surplus target have reached a good level of economic management. Preferably, it should be 2 percent. Vänsterpartiet chooses the same path but in reverse: During 2024, for example, one chooses to have a one percent target but on the minus side. The party's budget drives up the state's borrowing needs by just over 200 billion during the period 2023-2025. One is therefore actually delivering an unfunded budget to the Riksdag and increasing the state's borrowing needs.

The chairman spoke in the presentation about strengthened investments in welfare and rural areas. At the same time, I note that they are actually driving up the costs of commuting to work for the welfare workers who live in rural areas. The costs of commuting to work increase by them scrapping the tax reduction on the price of gasoline and diesel that the government and Sverigedemokraterna are implementing. They do not want to lower the reduction obligation but remain at the goal that implies an increased reduction obligation. If the planning period is followed, the reduction obligation will within a few years reach 50 percent for diesel and 19 percent for gasoline, which will drive up prices.

As late as yesterday, I went onto the Arbetsförmedlingen website and looked at what the situation is with vacant jobs within health and medical care in Jämtland, Västernorrland, Västerbotten and Norrbotten. There are 1,558 vacant jobs. Why does Vänsterpartiet want to make it more expensive for people to take those jobs if they need to commute to have the opportunity to have an income?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Many questions were submitted.

We in Vänsterpartiet are making quite large investments in public transport. We believe that people should be able to get to work with the help of cheap and good public transport. We also have another proposal regarding deductions for travel that will benefit significantly more people. Our investments in public transport and in achieving a better travel system overall - both when it comes to trains and when it comes to public transport - mean that a different financing of our budget is needed. However, it is something that does not affect the municipalities.

What we do is provide significantly more money to the municipalities so that they can manage. What the Sweden Democrats do, together with the government, is instead to ensure that they do not receive enough money to be able to maintain their operations. As that chief financial officer said: Now we have received notice regarding the budget, so now we can begin planning our cuts.

The government and its coalition partners are making targeted investments. But depending on whether it is a Sverigedemokrat, a Moderat, or a Kristdemokrat speaking, it is different things that the money is to be used for. Both in statements in the media and in the budget itself, the same money is used for different things. You get 2 billion that becomes 10 or 20 billion when everything is added up, and it is truly not responsible.

Municipalities and regions need to receive more resources, and they will get them in the Left Party's budget.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can nevertheless state that in the Left Party's budget proposal, one actually increases the state's borrowing needs by 200 billion over the next three years, in order to finance the expansive policy they want to implement in these times of inflation.

The member of parliament speaks about wanting lower ticket prices and an opportunity for people to travel by train, with the help of a changed travel deduction. I therefore ask the member of parliament: How does Vänsterpartiet view the fact that there are deficiencies in the expansion of public transport in rural areas and in our northernmost counties? There are deficiencies in public transport regardless of whether it concerns buses or trains. The lowered ticket prices do not help if there is no bus to travel on.

On the other hand, you want to make it more expensive for people to use the car, Ilona Szatmári Waldau. There are long distances in our four northernmost counties, and it costs to travel to work. Still, you want to make it more expensive for those people to take the car to their jobs. As I just mentioned, there are 1,558 vacant jobs within health and medical care in our four northernmost counties. Who will take those jobs when you make it more expensive for people to get to work? Who will be prepared to make that journey? Why would one not choose to work in some other part of the country, where it becomes cheaper either due to shorter distances or because public transport is expanded?

I want to return to SKR's December report 2022 regarding specifically municipalities and regions. There, they talk about changed working methods, hiring freezes within administrative units, and a review of investments. Vänsterpartiet tries to make it sound like we are facing a "steel bath" [drastic cuts], but at the same time, the government and Sverigedemokraterna are pushing out 13 billion, partly in general state grants and partly in targeted state grants. Municipalities and regions will also be provided with 5 billion through the electricity price support during next year. Welfare will therefore receive a substantial supplement.

I also want to say that the Left Party, in its budget proposal, cuts the justice system, which otherwise will help the municipalities. But at the same time, you increase the assistance, Ilona Szatmári Waldau. It is a very strange policy.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I must thank the member for a good summary of what I said from the rostrum, namely that municipalities and regions are facing a steel bath. That is indeed the case. There will be massive cuts in our municipalities and regions.

We have big problems in the northern parts of Sweden, and that is why Vänsterpartiet has pushed for a new system for cost and income equalization between municipalities. It is something we got through a couple of years ago, and it is something I am very happy and proud of. We must, in fact, ensure that there is not such a large difference as there is between the municipality that has the highest tax, which is Dorotea in northern Sweden, and the Stockholm municipality that has the lowest tax. In Dorotea, one has 6 kronor and 17 öre more in tax.

It is there that we need to make changes so that the municipalities in the north can hire. They need more resources to be able to raise wages and in that way become more attractive as employers. They need to ensure that people stay and do not move. That is where we need to apply the effort. It is not about our proposals regarding travel. Furthermore, our proposal implies an expansion of public transport even in northern Sweden. That is what we are investing in.

We can also observe that the deductions for travel that the right-wing government and the Sweden Democrats have now decided upon favor travel in the metropolitan area. The Sweden Democrats and the government are making major investments so that those who live in large cities and have high salaries shall receive lower taxes and furthermore be able to continue making deductions for their car journeys, despite the fact that they have very good access to public transport. We do the opposite.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but intervene even in this debate, because I think it is quite important that the Swedish people find out what basis the opposition actually has and how they view the responsibility for the Swedish economy.

In the party debate and in the budget debate, the Left Party's party leader stated that the Left Party presents a balanced budget. She actually said that. My question to Ilona Szatmári Waldau is, of course, whether she shares that view.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I share the view that the Left Party is presenting a balanced budget. We are making investments that will lower costs in the long run. That is having a balanced budget.

The Chairman spoke about how proud he was that the municipalities can now invest funds to use their surplus for any deficits. It is perhaps a shortcoming that the Riksdag or the government cannot do the same in the state budget. I mean that Vänsterpartiet has a balanced budget and that the investments we make will lead to reduced costs in the future. They will also ensure that we go further regarding the climate threat.

Climate is probably our greatest challenge ahead. Climate change will entail increased costs, among other things to secure coastal municipalities as the sea rises. We will have a different climate and a different way of growing crops. We will also have significantly more climate refugees in the world - we already have many, and we will get more.

Investments that save the climate are investments for the future and for reduced costs in the future. They are also absolutely necessary investments. I wish that the government prioritized the climate more. The deprioritization of the climate that has been made by the government will have very negative consequences in the future.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! We can therefore inform the Swedish people that Vänsterpartiet considers that they have a balanced budget.

I am now reading in the budget bill, the budget motions and the Riksdag's calculations of how it looks and note that Vänsterpartiet for 2023 budgets with a deficit of 25 billion kronor. The deficit in 2024 is 90 billion kronor, and in 2025 it is 135 billion kronor. Vänsterpartiet increases the national debt by a total of 251 billion kronor over three years - and this is what Ilona Szatmári Waldau calls presenting a balanced budget!

Ilona Szatmári Waldau stated in her speech that Vänsterpartiet wants to give budget policy a completely new direction. I can only state that they are succeeding in that.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I mean that the Left Party has a responsible budget - a budget for the future. We have a budget that, in the long run, gives Sweden an opportunity to be a good welfare country.

I also want to take the opportunity to mention something about the financing. Vänsterpartiet, for example, does not think that those who earn over 70,000 kronor a month should be able to receive a tax cut - an extra tax cut - of 1,400 kronor a month. I believe that I, member Ericson, and other members of the Swedish Riksdag can manage without that tax cut. In total, it would provide an additional 13 billion to municipalities, regions, and the state budget.

Vänsterpartiet proposes tax increases for those who earn the most in order to be able to make redistributions to those who earn less. We propose, for example, lowered tax for sick unemployed people. It is better than tax cuts for the rich. The tax cuts that the government proposes will increase the gaps even more in this country! And increased gaps in municipalities, regions, and the country as a whole will lead to our country being pulled apart even more. It will fuel crime and have very large consequences.

Our proposal means a redistribution and that those who have the highest incomes share with those who have the lowest incomes, both between municipalities and between people. It is to have a responsible budget.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposals in the committee's report.

Today, expenditure area 25 is being debated, which concerns general grants to municipalities and regions. They provide much of the welfare that we need when we are sick and vulnerable and which is extremely important. But I want to start by saying that Sweden is in a tough economic situation where many people are struggling with high electricity and food prices, high inflation, and high interest rates.

The budget that the government has presented therefore prioritizes the very most important: to support households in a difficult situation and to invest in the justice system, defense, and welfare. And it does so without fueling inflation. There is also room for maneuver ahead if the economic downturn becomes deeper than what we can see now.

I also want to emphasize the importance of, in the situation we have with high inflation, that the fiscal policy does not counteract the Riksbank's work to dampen inflation. Inflation makes people relatively poorer and is harmful to the economy. Therefore, the government's budget is responsible and somewhat restrained in a time characterized by war in Europe, unrest in the rest of the world, and great uncertainties ahead.

Madam Speaker! The tough economic situation will also mean a more difficult economic situation for municipalities and regions in the coming years. It is therefore good that the municipal sector's financial results have been at historically high levels over the last two years. The forecast for 2024 also points to a strong result. These positive surpluses create better conditions to continue providing high-quality welfare now as we enter more difficult times.

The demographic development will also continue to affect the municipal sector's economy. It is primarily about the number of elderly people increasing in relation to the number of people in the workforce. This development affects the municipal sector's income and expenditures.

There are also other areas of development within municipal activities, some of which have become particularly clear during the pandemic. This includes, among other things, the supply of competence within elderly care and the accessibility within health and medical care.

The Government wants to create good and equal economic conditions for municipalities and regions, as this is crucial for good municipal services throughout the country, and reduce the risk that high prices and inflation will affect municipal operations, particularly within healthcare, school, and elderly care.

Against this background, the government provides significant supplements to municipalities and regions, partly in the form of general state grants of 6 billion kronor to meet the cost increases resulting from inflation, and partly targeted grants to improve the quality of healthcare, school, and care. In total, municipalities and regions receive nearly 13 billion extra. Furthermore, municipalities and regions in electricity area 3 and 4 will receive a share of the high-cost protection for electricity; this corresponds to nearly 5 billion.

Madam Speaker! I will now account for some of the prioritized initiatives within the category of targeted government grants.

The Government is making an investment in expanded care capacity with more care beds across the country through a performance-based compensation to the regions in order to increase the number of care beds, as well as by mapping out and developing a national plan for how the shortage of care beds can be addressed. The Government is investing an additional 1 billion kronor on this during 2023 in addition to the previous billion, that is, a total of 2 billion next year.

The Government is introducing a national state healthcare coordination to increase accessibility to care and shorten healthcare queues. By making visible where in the country there is available and accessible capacity, waiting patients will be able to be offered care more quickly at another location where capacity exists. The Government allocates 100 million during the coming years.

The government strengthens, extends, and develops the initiative on maternity care and women's health. A national maternity plan shall also be developed to increase accessibility and reduce regional differences in maternity care. A total of 1.7 billion shall be allocated for this during 2023.

Finally, the government is making a community initiative to prevent and break involuntary loneliness and isolation. Involuntary loneliness is a societal problem with serious consequences. It can lead to both mental and physical illnesses and cost both human suffering and large healthcare resources. Involuntary loneliness also increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases, stroke, dementia, and mental ill-health. It brings about major negative consequences for society, especially among the elderly, which has been intensified during the covid-19 pandemic. To strengthen public health and reduce the consequences of involuntary loneliness, the government proposes a three-year community initiative which in 2023 amounts to 300 million kronor.

Madam Speaker! These important investments are some of the Christian Democrats' most prioritized issues. They are now becoming a reality and will contribute to making life a little easier for the sick and vulnerable in our society. It is with pleasure that I note that the Christian Democratic elements have gained such clear traction in the government's budget for 2023.

In conclusion, I would like to wish a very Merry Christmas to the committee members, the staff at the Chamber and Committee Offices, and the Speaker's Presidium.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I have two questions for Member Aydin.

Healthcare has great challenges after tough years. Even before the pandemic, there were needs and challenges, and after the pandemic, many municipalities are still struggling with the postponed care. During the pandemic, healthcare did an exceptional job for many of us.

In many places, people are struggling and find it difficult to recruit new employees. To this can be added the challenges regarding the resources that the regions need to strengthen health and medical care. I do not agree with the member that what is necessary is being done. We are reinforcing with twice as much.

I want to stay on this point regarding recruiting staff. In large parts of the health and medical care sector, there is a shortage of personnel with the right competence. Specialist doctors and specialist nurses are lacking in all 21 regions, and the list of shortage occupations can be made very long.

Regardless of the government and regardless of what happens in the future, the fact is that you cannot expand the number of healthcare beds or strengthen healthcare if you do not have staff. Therefore, we are investing in healthcare workers. We stick to the investment that the S-led government introduced. We are also strengthening it with 850 million kronor and extending the investment in a facility-based internship for nurses in order to reduce the shortage of nurses.

These investments are not in the government's budget. Without staff, it will be difficult – if not impossible – to cut queues and get more healthcare beds. Therefore, I want to ask the members: How is this going to happen?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats have, year after year, championed healthcare issues, both in opposition and now in the majority. We also see the elements that I just mentioned – clear investments are being made in healthcare, both to reduce healthcare queues and to create a better working environment.

I mentioned investments of 2 billion, and there are others as well. Creating new healthcare beds is partly about being able to hire staff. Our investments ensure that the regions receive more resources to improve the working environment and the conditions for the employees.

As mentioned earlier, the municipalities and regions will need to change their ways of working, work more with digitalization and use new tools to improve the situation for the healthcare employees. The Government is providing general grants so that municipalities and regions can make certain priorities themselves. But in some places, more state steering was needed in the form of, for example, a national healthcare brokerage and more performance-based grants that provide a clear incentive to produce more healthcare beds. It is about both more staff and the infrastructure needed to make healthcare accessible for more people who have stood in healthcare queues for a very long time.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not agree that sufficient investment is being made in the regions. Healthcare will face problems in offering the good care that we all demand and desire. Furthermore, there is a deferred debt after the pandemic, so there will be difficulties.

I also do not agree that what is necessary is being done to enable more people to take jobs in health and medical care. There is a staff shortage. I ask again how this is supposed to happen.

I also want to ask another question. Member Aydin pointed out that there will be cost compensation when it comes to the electricity bills and that it will not then become such large problems.

There is no electricity support for those parts of Sweden that lie north of the Dalälven. Does that mean that neither municipalities nor regions north of Dalälven will receive any compensation? I do not know; I have not heard anything about it. But that is what it should mean. If municipalities and regions, which have an important part in a strong health and medical care in the northern parts of Sweden, are not entitled to electricity support, they will find it even more difficult to offer the care that we all wish should exist. How do the government and Sverigedemokraterna think regarding the electricity price support to northern Sweden? I want to hear an answer to that question.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is true that following some of the investments made previously and with the large healthcare debt that the pandemic has led to, both large-scale investments and other ways of working will be needed.

I do not think it is unfamiliar to anyone here that the Christian Democrats have, in recent years, advocated that we need to have more national governance and national responsibility for healthcare. We see that there are regional differences. Not all regions are able to provide and offer highly specialized care and care in a timely manner to everyone who is waiting. Therefore, we have both previously and now advocated that the state should take a greater responsibility regarding governance.

We begin with the national healthcare coordination, and we hope that it will go even further by the state taking over the responsibility. There are regional conditions that mean that not everyone can quite manage this.

As I have already mentioned, we are increasing by an additional 1 billion to create more healthcare places, and this is happening across the entire country. If further resources are required, there will, as I mentioned, be an opportunity for room for action ahead. But in the situation we are in now with high inflation, one of the most important priorities is not to fuel it further. That would be to conduct an irresponsible policy which, in the end, would cause the costs for the regions to increase further. That is not something we want to contribute to.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time. After years of a corona pandemic that has caused disease, death, and economic crisis in the world, came Putin's war of invasion in Ukraine. This, and the pandemic's continued progress, mean that the global situation's impact on the economy continues to be great and the future is very uncertain.

In addition to war and the pandemic, we also have a climate crisis that is worsening day by day if we do not reduce emissions. This must be every government's highest priority to manage, but unfortunately, we watch with horror how this government throws climate and environmental policy into the wastebasket and destroys future generations' opportunities to live a good life on this planet.

But in order to be able to combat climate change, we must also invest in the welfare. A green social construction leaves no one behind. A just social construction is a prerequisite for a sustainable society.

We have for a long time been burdened by an underfunding of the welfare state, despite large supplements during the Green Party's time in government. The pandemic worsened the situation, and now it is unsustainable in many places. Healthcare personnel are fleeing poor working conditions and low wages. Getting more colleagues to reduce the workload on each individual is a completely decisive issue. Care departments that were truly needed stand empty due to a lack of staff.

We must get more people to want to work and then stay in welfare professions. It is crucial for strengthening healthcare and welfare, but it is also a matter of equality. Most of those who work in healthcare are women. It is high time that their wages and working conditions are improved.

Safety is crucial for being able to build a strong society and give the individual freedom. School is the most important tool we have to give everyone a good chance to succeed in life. A good school fosters dreams, hope, and faith in the future. School shall give all children the prerequisites to reach their full potential. When one in seven students does not complete primary school, a portion of the school's money cannot go towards profits in limited companies. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet do not want profit-distributing limited companies to be allowed to run schools. The money that goes to the school must also stay in the school.

When school and society fail, we lose people to crime. Those who could have become well-adjusted, creative citizens who contribute to society risk instead becoming perpetrators of violence in the illegal economy, where many die far too young. No one wants it to be so.

Yesterday, Johan Pehrson wrote on Twitter: "The gangs' worst enemy is a functioning school and a strong social service." This is true. Nevertheless, only such proposals were put forward that do not strengthen either the school or the social service. Instead, they were proposals for visitation zones and anonymous witnesses. Besides the fact that they do not strengthen welfare, they also clash poorly with the principles of the rule of law and create more contradictions, not fewer.

Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has stated that substantial supplements are needed for municipalities and regions during the coming years. Inflation and increased costs also have an effect on their budgets. SKR has been clear that anything under 20 billion implies cuts or tax increases.

Welfare needs significant supplements in the form of general grants that municipalities and regions can use where the needs are greatest. Therefore, we would like to see 14 billion in addition to what the government provides, so that the 20 billion that has been requested would also reach the operations that need them so much. For 14 billion, you get a great deal of welfare. Proper supplements to regions and municipalities mean that quality can increase, and that matters for people. It can mean that one quickly gets a healthcare appointment or gets help with what one needs from staff who are not always stressed. The supplements can mean that one can provide proper resources to children with greater needs in school. For 14 billion, one can, for example, hire around 20,000 teachers or 30,000 care assistants. When money is not now provided by the government, there is instead a risk of cuts.

In addition to this base level of general grants, which is what we are discussing here today, we in Miljöpartiet have also in our budget motion made significant targeted investments in schools and healthcare, so that teachers shall get more colleagues and students shall get help when they need it from school health services and counselors. We want to continue to strengthen the school, also through the teachers, and we want to see smaller groups of children in preschool.

But instead of providing the money needed for municipalities and regions, the government has prioritized an expensive and inefficient tax cut on gasoline and diesel. Those who drive cars receive a handful of hundreds of kronor per person. Most of it, moreover, goes to the large cities and adjacent municipalities. In addition to this, one chooses to lower the tax for those who earn the most. This does not contribute to greater security and equality either.

Welfare is what creates security in everyday life. Healthcare, care, and school must function in a strong welfare society like Sweden. We are one of the world's richest countries. We can afford to invest in the children, who are our future, while simultaneously giving the elderly a dignified life and a healthcare system that works.

The Green Party's budget alternative should be seen as a coherent package where no parts can be broken out and treated in isolation. Since the parliamentary majority in the first step of the budget process chose a different direction than the one we desire, we refrain from taking a position regarding the distribution of responsibility and refer to our special statement.

Madam Speaker! I wish the members and the Speaker's Presidium a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! When I listen to the Green Party's contribution in the debate, it sounds a bit like what has been said in the Social Democrats' and the Left Party's contributions. They would like to allocate extra funds to welfare. At the same time, I cannot help but observe that the Green Party's policy implies continued high migration to Sweden and perhaps even more migration than what we see today.

When it comes to the use of welfare services, such as health and medical care, we must remember that this is something that is generally higher among people who have come to Sweden through migration. It drives up the need for care within the public sector. It places significantly greater demands on having access to more care. If one looks at the calculations that the Government Offices have made, your tax policy reduces the number of full-time workforces by 10,000 in Sweden.

It means that those who work in, for example, healthcare - doctors, midwives and similar professions - will have fewer hours worked within the operation. At the same time, your policy drives up the need for welfare.

How will that policy hold together? Even if you throw money at it, someone has to perform the care. You will not get that with your policy. There will be fewer hours within those professions, and one cannot thereby provide the care that is expected.

In the SKR's December report, which I referred to earlier, it is assessed that the Sweden Democrats' and the government's policy will reduce migration and also the need for welfare services by the migration itself decreasing.

I would like to hear what the member says about the fact that the Green Party's policy will not work within this area.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! That the migration policies of the Sweden Democrats and the Green Party differ significantly is something that is well known. We stand up for the right of asylum and people's right to seek and receive asylum and receive protection from war, oppression, and persecution. I want to be very careful about that.

Then I do not know where the member has gotten the idea that our policy would reduce the number of employees in the welfare sector. I have not seen such a figure. Our calculations do not indicate that, but rather large additions. In addition to what we are discussing today regarding the general additions that we want to make so that people do not have to cut back, we have made large additions.

We want to see a very large healthcare investment so that the crisis that healthcare now has due to too few who want and are able to work in welfare professions can be tackled. I do not see that this is being done with the government's policy.

If we talk about people who want and can work in health and social care, it is there that we very often see people who come from other countries. The migration policy that the Sweden Democrats now stand for and are trying to push through in a government position will make it even more difficult for us to get people who work in healthcare.

How do the Sweden Democrats actually intend to solve the labor shortage in the Swedish welfare system? That is what I would like to have an answer to.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! Naturally, the member shall receive an answer to his question. It is exactly as I said. When migration to Sweden has occurred, one has also, for example, seen a generally greater need for healthcare and a greater utilization of the welfare services we offer.

It means that even if people come through migration who take employment within the welfare sector in Sweden, the need for care in that group will still be greater. The number of those who start working in relation to the number of those who utilize welfare services does not add up. There are more who utilize than those who work within the welfare sector. It still becomes a generally greater welfare need despite the employments that are made.

According to the Government Offices' calculations, the number of full-time equivalent workers will decrease by approximately 10,000 as a result of your tax policy. This will naturally also affect welfare. We are talking about doctors and midwives, for example. We will see increased queues in healthcare and problems being able to provide welfare in the municipalities, given that the number of hours people work in those sectors decreases.

I mentioned earlier in an exchange regarding the tax on fuel and the reduction obligation that it will cost more for people to get to their jobs. We have today 1,558 vacant positions in the four northernmost counties within health and medical care. Why would people choose to work in our northernmost counties with your fuel policy? They will choose to work somewhere else.

How are you going to maintain the welfare in northern Sweden when people will not be able to afford to travel to work? That is what your policy leads to. People choose to work in other parts of the country, and the northernmost part of Sweden will be completely depleted. That is what it will lead to.

Still, you come forward with proposals where you want to remove tax cuts on petrol and diesel. You want to maintain the reduction obligation and increase it, which, according to calculations, will drive up the price of petrol by at least 3 kronor in the coming years and on diesel by 4-5 kronor over the next three to four years.

You will make it more expensive for people to work. You will not have anyone who wants to work in the welfare that you intend to invest in.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! There were very many interesting conclusions here from the Sweden Democrat members that I must address point by point.

Whether there are more people utilizing welfare services than those working in them depends very much on the time horizon one looks at. Those who come here, receive protection, and choose to live their lives here will, of course, also have children and grandchildren.

It is people that we need in the Swedish economy so that it can continue to develop so that we can continue to strengthen the welfare. Countries that have not had as much migration have much larger problems with their demographic development.

One can see that there is a very large aging population and not enough incoming from below who can bear those costs. The Sweden Democrats do not answer that question. The Sweden Democrats always avoid it.

We need more people in this country and not fewer so that we can develop our economy and achieve a strong welfare where people want to work.

We know that it is expensive to drive a car. Most things have become more expensive due to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which has a huge effect on our economy.

But if we are just going to look at that, we wanted a changed travel deduction with an increase so that one wouldn't just be able to take the car, but that could also lead to expanded public transport and carpooling. With that, it is not only for petrol and diesel cars that one gets a deduction, but also for those that run on electricity.

When it comes to the policy for northern Sweden, we have significantly more than the government. In addition to the changed travel deduction, we also want to see an electricity support. We will take this up in the committee, and we support it.

We want to see lower taxes in rural areas and that municipalities should get better finances by producing more electricity. We have a lot of support for the northern parts of Sweden. There, the government lacks policy.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! In this budget debate, I want to make a point about something that is rarely spoken about from this rostrum. It has actually not been mentioned a single time during this item on the municipalities' finances and the general grants that we are to give them. But in reality, it plays a major role for the conditions of nursery school teachers, the staff's time with the elderly, and for the teacher's opportunity to follow the student.

I want to speak about the choice between providing targeted and general funds to the welfare in Sweden's municipalities and regions. According to the latest report from Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, there were over 180 targeted grants in Sweden before the pandemic. That was before the new government in Sweden added an additional number. I have counted ten new ones, but someone from the government side is welcome to correct me.

According to the National Audit Office, more than one-third of all grants to municipalities are earmarked. Each of these grants often has a legitimate purpose, but the cumulative result is not good. The National Audit Office's mapping shows that approximately every fourth state grant amounts to 30 million kronor or less.

Think then about how when a minister or one of you here in the Riksdag proudly presents their 30 million that is to go to some legitimate purpose, it can for a municipality of 7,000 inhabitants amount to perhaps 10,000 kronor or less. These are funds that cost more to invest and report than what they can be used for in actual operations.

In practice, this means that tax revenues that could have gone to small municipalities instead largely accrue to larger municipalities, which have the possibility to use them – even though small municipalities are so tightly squeezed today.

Billions of the grants go towards managing all the conditions for targeted grants. Over 70 percent of those who responded to SKR's survey regarding these grants said that they had refrained from applying for them because it was too complicated. Common answers were: "We have not been able to afford co-financing or counter-performance," "there are so many state grants that we have difficulty keeping track of them," or "we need to work with the operations in peace and quiet."

So when you hear that midwives have to rush from pregnant woman to pregnant woman or that home care staff do not have time for the elderly, I ask you, colleagues in the Riksdag, not to reflexively think that here it is time for a new and clever targeted grant. The conditions are different in every municipality and different in different parts of the country. You know very well, colleagues in the Riksdag, that we in regions and municipalities have elected representatives who are responsible for adapting the resources to these specific local and regional conditions. Give them a chance to do their job!

It is particularly serious - as several have mentioned in the debate - just now when the municipalities and regions must readjust operations to the situation after the pandemic. It is going down by tens of billions of kronor at the same time as revenues are declining because the economy is weakening and at the same time as costs are skyrocketing because inflation is so high. According to SKR's economic report, which has been mentioned a couple of times here, costs increase by 45 billion kronor in 2023 and 19 billion kronor in 2024. The tax base is decreasing in real inflation-adjusted terms.

Many municipalities and regions are in a predicament in order to maintain welfare. In that situation, they need room for maneuver and not more finger-wagging.

We in the Center Party have also sinned. We have also had a number of targeted contributions. That I can willingly admit. But let us try to live a bit more as we teach.

In our budget alternative, we want to consolidate the government's targeted grants to increase the general funds by 4 billion so that there is more room for maneuver for the municipalities.

Centerpartiet abstains as usual from taking a position regarding the appropriations within expenditure area 25 because the Tidö parties' budget alternative won in the previous vote. But let us give welfare more general resources and move the power closer to the people!

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the Center Party's budget proposal, I want to return to the issue of fuel. It is quite large, and it is quite interesting in this perspective, especially when we talk about northern Sweden, long distances, and the conditions for welfare to function. This presupposes that people can get to work, that one has a reasonable opportunity to do so.

When I read the Center Party's budget proposal, I see that they want to keep the reduction obligation; they support that it should continue to be increased during the coming years. This means that in 2026 we would have a reduction obligation level of 50 percent on diesel and 19 percent on gasoline, which would drive up the price of fuel by several kronor. It would make it more expensive for people generally to travel to work, but it would also mean that it would become more expensive to travel and shop and to drive children to extracurricular activities or school, to mention a few examples.

At the same time, one also wants to keep the indexing of the fuel tax, which naturally further drives up the price of petrol and diesel year after year. All in all, the Center Party's policy would make it more expensive to live in those areas in Sweden where there are actually long distances and where it is difficult to get to work in any other way than by car.

I would like to hear how the member reasons there. As you think, it is actually more expensive for people who live outside the city to travel to and from work or to drop off children at extracurricular activities, to mention a few examples.

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

TALMANNEN

This debate concerns general grants to municipalities.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can still give the member from the Sweden Democrats the credit that he has a certain courage when, here in the chamber in a debate on the municipalities' finances, he dares to raise the greatest betrayal against the Swedish countryside from the Sweden Democrats, despite campaign promise after campaign promise. He perhaps has not read the Center Party's motion, because it is stated there that we want a pause in the reduction obligation for the coming years, for which this budget applies.

But let us talk about the promise of a 10 kronor lower price on diesel. The member may be welcome to answer when exactly that will occur. The member may also be welcome to answer why one - when Sweden's countryside, just as the member says, is under heavy pressure from very high diesel prices - chooses to direct their reduction at the pump to people who live in the cities and who drive SUVs back and forth to Stockholm - yes, maybe Gothenburg and Malalmö too. Why is it not given instead to people in the countryside, who are in direct need of it, as the Centerpartiet does. It would be possible to lower at the pump by 3 kronor instead of coming up with all these 10 kronor that then became... Yes, what did it finally become of this thumb that the Sverigedemokraterna have sold time and again? Did it become 40 öre or 14 öre on the gasoline? Why not deliver? And when do you deliver? Why not lower just for those who are dependent on the car, those in the countryside, by 3 kronor?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It always becomes interesting when one is to discuss this type of policy.

Then I will still say that the Sweden Democrats have naturally given a sharp promise. Had we had our own majority, we could have pushed through significantly much more good politics for Sweden. Now we do not have our own majority, but we are cooperating with four other parties. Despite that, we have succeeded in pushing through major changes precisely when it comes to the price of gasoline and diesel in the coming years. We are introducing a tax reduction, we are stopping the indexing, and we ensure that the reduction obligation is lowered to a minimum. This is contrary to the Center Party's policy, where they instead want to raise the reduction obligation in the long run and furthermore drive up the tax on the prices.

Then I want to answer regarding the travel deduction that we are increasing it from 18.50 kronor per kilometer to 25. This will naturally have an effect on the possibilities of getting to and from work when we also lower the costs. At the same time, we have an opportunity to strengthen welfare generally with 6 billion kronor in general grants but also almost as much in targeted state grants, for example 2 billion to healthcare and 200 million to maternity care.

The Leader of the Opposition also wants to mention his special contribution of 3 kronor at the pump for the countryside. The Government Offices' calculations in that matter say that it will entail large administrative costs for the gas stations to handle this. How is this financed? Are you going to solve it with some kind of fuel check, as we have heard? How is this going to work when it is largely unmanned gas stations in the countryside? Will people then drive some miles to a manned gas station and refuel and then drive home again? The deduction you want to introduce will be eaten up at once because you will not be able to implement it in practice. How are you going to carry out your policy? Will people get a check in their mailbox and be able to drive into town to refuel and then home again, and so the contribution has been eaten up at once? Is that how your policy works in practice?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I suggest that the member from the Sweden Democrats – who now suddenly wants so much to implement the Centre Party's policy that he is already requesting investigations and so on – first thinks about it. The member lives, if I have understood correctly, in Gävle – has it never happened that he has received a discount voucher at a gas station, digitally or physically? Would it be so incredibly difficult that it has never ever happened? The petrol companies get a chance to lower the price for people in the countryside; would they then not contribute to making it easy for them to come just to their station and get a 3 kronor lower price on petrol, diesel, or biodiesel? I want to see that before I believe it, Mattias Eriksson Falk!

And again – do you think it is a good proposal to waste money to get 40 öre or 14 öre for people who live in large cities and who have a completely different alternative, when one can instead give 3 kronor to those who live in the countryside? I suggest that you come to Centerpartiet, then we will show you how we are going to do it! You obviously cannot handle it.

You promise 10 kronor, and it becomes nothing – it is supposed to come tomorrow or the day after. In your promises, this petty thief will give more and more, at some point in the future. People will not fall for that much longer. It will not work any more to come up with that. Now one must be concrete and straight. People have a crisis. They have high diesel prices. They have to manage it. Give them the opportunity to get something in their hands that they can use at the pump and not a lot of empty promises.

Then there was also actually an answer to a question that I had not asked, namely regarding the travel deduction. We are not directing it to those who commute in large cities with SUVs but directly to those in the countryside. Why not give them an extra 5 kronor per mile? It is also a question that you could have been answered on, but unfortunately, there was no more speaking time, so I must settle for stating that this is not happening.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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