General grants to municipalities

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report number 3, which deals with the state budget's expenditure area 25 General grants to municipalities, and I move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

Sweden's political governance is divided into three different levels: the Riksdag, regions, and municipalities. For all three, the people elect representatives in general elections, and it is there that different political governments are formed to represent the will of the people. Common to all three levels is, among other things, the right to tax, which exists to be able to finance public activities. The State has, through the Local Government Act, granted this right to regions and municipalities. The basic idea with the Local Government Act and the right to tax in municipalities and regions is that they should ultimately be able to govern their own operations, make the priorities they desire, and at the same time take the political responsibility that comes with this. This responsibility will then be tested by the citizens in the upcoming election.

Mr. Speaker! Through expenditure area 25, the state contributes funds to the municipal equalization system. It is a way to create good conditions for municipalities and regions, where, among other things, differences in population base, geography, and demography affect the possibility of delivering welfare to the citizens. This does not, however, exempt the municipalities from the responsibility to prioritize in an economically sustainable way based on the economic means they receive through tax revenues and state grants.

Historically, municipalities and regions have shown strong results. The path to the results has looked somewhat different, but generally, municipalities and regions have a strong economic position where assets amount to large sums. This is pleasing as it also increases the possibility of countering temporary economic downturns due to, among other things, recession and inflation. In order to further be able to counter cyclical fluctuations and improve planning, the Riksdag recently voted to change the result equalization reserves to result reserves.

I also want to point out in this budget context that many municipalities and regions have carried out large investments in, among other things, preschools, schools and healthcare, with increasing interest costs as a result. However, many of these investments are linked to the previously pursued mass immigration policy, as the municipal organization needed to grow to handle the consequences of immigration without a corresponding expansion of tax revenues occurring - hence increased debt burdens and now also increased interest costs.

Through an extra state grant during 2022, the municipalities showed strong results that year, and among other things thanks to the Sverigedemokraterna, the municipalities received additional large support in 2023. The municipalities that report a negative result do so because of weak development for shares and funds on the stock exchange. In a similar way, it looked in our regions.

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that inflation and the recession still have a grip on our country and the rest of the world. This unfortunately affects the entire society in different ways. For example, the costs for various services that municipalities and regions purchase are increasing, wages are rising, and inflation is driving up the costs of loans. Inflation also has an impact by increasing the pensions that are to be paid out. That wages and pensions are increasing is not negative, but it affects the municipal economy. Now, however, the figures indicate that inflation is falling, which is pleasing for citizens, companies, municipalities, and regions.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have negotiated and agreed on a state budget that avoids driving up inflation. At the same time, support is provided to municipalities and regions in this special economic situation. As I mentioned earlier, the Sweden Democrats and the government already this year allocated extra funds to the municipalities and regions to compensate for increased costs, while certain targeted investments through state support could continue to contribute further to welfare.

Mr. Speaker! I began my speech by talking about the municipalities' and regions' opportunity to, through local self-government, manage their own operations, make their own priorities, and take the political responsibility. Citizens vote differently across the country, which means that political governance and priorities look different.

We must remember that the recession is temporary. In 2026, the economic situation is judged to look significantly better, not only in Sweden but also in the rest of the world. To facilitate the path there, Sverigedemokraterna and the government have strengthened the appropriation to municipalities and regions for 2024 by a total of 16 billion kronor, of which 10 billion are in general state grants, where 7 billion go to the municipalities and 3 billion to the regions.

In addition to this, the Sweden Democrats and the government further strengthen health and medical care in the budget for 2024. A specific sector grant of 3 billion is given to health and medical care. The support to shorten the care queues in healthcare amounts to 2 billion for 2024 and 3.5 billion for 2025. It will be a total of 5.5 billion to shorten the queues in care. We also inject 740 million into primary care, cancer care, and women's health.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government are presenting a strong budget for 2024. It is based on a desire to support municipalities and regions while important targeted investments in healthcare, schools, students in schools, and digital support continue. These are important reforms and priorities to strengthen Swedish society.

With the right priorities from municipalities and regions, Swedish society will manage through the recession.

I also want to say something about the previous mass immigration policy, which has had an enormous negative impact on Swedish society with consequences such as exclusion, segregation, crime, gang crime, organized crime, unemployment, housing shortages, and division. It is something that has cost Swedish society enormous sums.

Finally, I want to say that the Sweden Democrats' election victory in 2022 with strong support from the citizens now means that we are reforming the migration policy and the crime policy - reforms that will reduce immigration and, in the long run, also reduce the costs for welfare used linked to immigration. It is an assessment that SKR also makes.

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

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Eriksson Falk, for the speech! My question to the member actually concerns how the budget in this area meets the promises the Sverigedemokraterna gave during the election campaign.

We know that our elderly are an important group. The Sweden Democrats also often claim that. They shall get what they need when they have been part of building the country. There we are in complete agreement. It is about getting the care one needs. It is about getting the healthcare one is entitled to in a welfare state.

This was also something the Sweden Democrats campaigned very strongly on, and they went into polemics with that we then need to cut back on other things. But now it turns out, then, that they stand behind a budget that promises something completely different. Instead of investing in welfare and instead of ensuring that the elderly who need care and nursing receive it, one lowers the tax for the rich. One cuts back on this area, where one had promised that one would prioritize.

I would like to ask the member: How is it that instead of ensuring there are enough funds for the welfare system, you are reducing and eroding it?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Janine Alm Ericson, for the questions!

I can begin by stating, as I did in my speech, that the Sweden Democrats and the government in the budget that we are now placing on the table of the Riksdag have also allocated funds to welfare. I mentioned that it is 16 billion that is allocated, of which 10 billion constitute general increases. Of these 10 billion, 7 billion go to the municipalities. This is a planning that remains for the entire budget period, that is, until 2026.

I also said that we see certain improvements in the economy ahead, which will press down the costs for municipalities and regions, while the support in the state budget remains with an expansion throughout the entire period. Even if the costs decrease, the extra support will therefore still remain. It shows that we are presenting a strong budget that will provide municipalities with the extra support that is needed, among other things.

Elderly care is important, just like all Swedish welfare. That is why we are injecting money. But much also depends on which priorities municipalities and regions themselves choose to make and how the political governments there choose to prioritize.

Then one has to ask the question back to Miljöpartiet: In the political governments you are part of, how do you choose to prioritize? I can just look at my home municipality Gävle. It is the closest example I have where I can see that one chooses to prioritize cuts in elderly care while at the same time still being in favor of accepting more immigration to the municipality and paying out more subsidies. How does that prioritization go together?

We are injecting money into welfare. Then the municipalities must also prioritize correctly. They can do that with general grants. It is an opportunity for them. They get to control the extra supplement they receive themselves.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, you are allocating money, absolutely, but it is far from enough. This is the problem. You are prioritizing lower taxes for Ica over providing municipalities and regions with the resources they need.

I do not know if the member has missed all that we are now seeing in the media regarding layoffs and large gaps in care and, above all, in healthcare. We are facing enormous cuts. The queues will grow as more people need access to care and nursing. It is your politics that is the fundamental flaw here.

It is clear that one must prioritize in a municipal economy. That is why we have municipal self-government. Therefore, I should not stand here and say how the municipalities should prioritize when it comes to these funds. But it is perfectly clear that it is not enough. They do not have large enough budget spaces to be able to handle the gaps that are now emerging. They are forced to cut back in the schools and have larger groups, even though we know what, for example, the Pisamätningarna look like. We should prioritize the school children and the elderly, but the Sverigedemokraterna fail to do that. They have obviously not prioritized this sufficiently in their budget negotiations.

But money is not everything either. In the welfare system, there must also be people who want to and can work. In care, very many of our fellow human beings who have come from other countries are working. They do their part and do all that which the Sverigedemokraterna demand. But the Sverigedemokraterna make it sound as if no one does, which is a problem in itself.

We see now that the wage demands being made will make it incredibly difficult for healthcare, elderly care, and other municipal activities to even get people to work there. How do the Sweden Democrats intend to solve the staffing situation when they don't even chip in any money?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think the member from Miljöpartiet is trying to confuse those who might be listening to this debate. It is easy to say that there is a connection between immigration and jobs in the public sector. But one must also remember that the mass immigration to Sweden – it is actually millions of people who have come to our country – concerns people who generally have a greater need for care and a greater need for the welfare system's resources, and for that reason, a large proportion of them take [those jobs].

At the same time, we are naturally grateful for the people who work in the welfare activities, but that does not meet the needs that immigration has brought to Swedish society. That is a fact. It does not correspond to the need. It is a problem in itself.

The Chairman mentions the PISA measurement. I do not believe that result is a result of the state budget for 2023, but rather it is about how the school has been managed in the long term, including during S-MP governments in previous years.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are providing funds. We are providing 7 billion to the municipalities during the next year. We are providing 7 billion to the municipalities in general grants during 2025, and we are providing 7 billion to the municipalities in general grants during 2026. At the same time, the cost pressure will decrease with inflation. Through that, the municipalities will also be able to retain the support that exists to create a better economy.

As I mentioned in my speech, the municipal sector, both municipalities and regions, generally has a strong economic position. They have resources to draw upon. The equalization reserves were introduced with the intention that they should be used precisely when the economy is weaker, in order to smooth out the situation over several years.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now the cuts are standing like poles in the ground across the entire country. We see region after region announcing that they will be making cuts. In Region Sörmland, it was announced early on that over 700 people risk being laid off. Sahlgrenska, Sweden's largest hospital, announces that 2,000 employees will be laid off. Region Värmland announced last week that they will need to lay off 750 employees. So that is how it looks in region after region and municipality after municipality.

In Gävleborg, which both I and Mattias Eriksson Falk come from, the region has not yet announced cuts, but on the other hand, they have announced fee increases which effectively eat up the tax cuts that the government is now implementing for a normal income earner.

In this situation, one can look at different municipalities and say that they have their own responsibility to ensure that welfare and schools function and that elderly care has sufficient resources. But one can also look at my municipality, Hofors, which is one of the municipalities in the country with the highest tax rate and where the population is decreasing year after year. How do Mattias Eriksson Falk and the Sverigedemokraterna intend to be able to handle this situation when they do not receive enough money from the state to cover what has been eaten up by inflation?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! The Member and I have had the opportunity to debate with each other on many occasions, even if it is the first time we are doing so in this chamber. In the regional council back home in Gävleborg, we have had many productive debates, even though we have disagreed greatly.

The member of the board mentioned many different things in her reply that spanned different parts of the welfare system. As a municipality and region, one has the opportunity to prioritize in its operations and take a stand on what needs to be done to, for example, bring an economy into balance. In Gävle municipality, the chairman of the municipal executive board, who is a Social Democrat, has pointed out that the state actually compensates for increased costs resulting from inflation. She has thus confirmed that we are injecting funds to the municipalities and regions that compensate for the increased costs.

At the same time, I believe one must reflect on what changes should be made. Just as the member mentioned, our home region has chosen not to proceed with layoffs precisely because it is a short-term solution where the staff will likely disappear and perhaps not return. In that case, one has to consider what is best in that situation. It is up to the regions to prioritize. We provide funds, but then they manage their own operations.

The municipalities and regions have a strong financial position generally in the country. This must be said. They have the opportunity to present a budget that may not balance but that they can even out over several years. We provide support over several years, and then they will eventually achieve a balanced economy. This actually gives the Local Government Act the possibility, and that is also how Region Gävleborg has chosen to handle the issue.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat confused by this answer. I asked a specific question about a smaller municipality, not about a larger municipality like Gävle. It is one of the larger municipalities in the country, and large municipalities have greater opportunities to handle fluctuations than the smaller municipalities do. In fact, more than half of the country's municipalities have fewer than 20,000 inhabitants. Over 2 million people live in these municipalities, and they are having an extremely tough time in this situation.

We also have municipalities around the country where the population is actually decreasing. There, one cannot speak of any kind of mass immigration as the major problem. Hofors municipality has fewer foreign-born residents than the rest of the country. What is the problem is that a steadily declining population development has been observed, and the money that is supposed to come from the state, which is intended for equalization so that the wealthier municipalities can compensate the poorer municipalities, does not come. That is how the development has looked year after year over the last 30 years, and what the Sweden Democrat puppet government is doing does not facilitate it.

Now that the municipalities are going through a financial crisis as a result of inflation, the government chooses not to provide the funds that are needed. It is said that taxes shall be lowered by over 20 billion instead of giving these funds to the municipalities and regions, which are in great need of them.

Can Mattias Eriksson Falk explain why one chooses to prioritize tax cuts which one then takes back from the region through fee increases? In what way does that help people in Sweden?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It was interesting to hear the member describe how it has looked year after year for up to 30 years. In that case, I must pose the question back to the member, who unfortunately does not have the opportunity to answer now. The member's party had a decisive influence on the state budget during the years 2014-2018, so it obviously looked that way then as well.

Now we choose to provide support to the municipalities and regions, and we do so throughout the entire period. We provide money to the municipal equalization system: 10 billion in generally increased support during 2024, 2025 and 2026. We are therefore providing an extra 30 billion to the municipalities and regions during these three years.

The member also mentioned a specific smaller municipality. It is interesting. The municipality is located in Gävleborgs län, which is the county we come from. I can state that the Sweden Democrats and the government are injecting money into the state budget through the support that goes to demographically smaller municipalities. Now, I do not have it in my head whether Hofors receives this support, but there is such support in the state budget precisely to handle effects where smaller municipalities need extra support. There is, therefore, in the state budget, which the member requested.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have worked as a social secretary and school counselor for many years, so I know how incredibly much politics affects how people are doing. If the parents have a job to go to and if there is a welfare system that works, it affects children and young people.

I would like to ask a question to Mattias Eriksson Falk: What responsibility do you in the Sverigedemokraterna believe you have for the way the welfare system looks today?

Mattias Eriksson Falk has explained several times how you have influenced, and now reality looks the way it does. Several have described here that cuts are being made in healthcare and that municipalities cannot manage and must prioritize away important activities. This affects people here and now. So: What responsibility do the Sverigedemokraterna have for how the welfare looks today? And what do the Sverigedemokraterna answer to everyone who feels anxiety because they are not getting the care or the welfare they need?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! I can state that the Sweden Democrats and the government have now negotiated their second joint state budget. The previous one concerned the current year, i.e., now. We allocated extra funds already this year to municipalities and regions, and we will allocate extra funds over the next three years to municipalities and regions. We are therefore providing strong financial support to the welfare system across the country.

The Chairman tries to turn the question toward me and asks what responsibility the Sweden Democrats have. In my speech, I described how the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are now restructuring the migration policy and the crime policy, which is a policy area that has had a major effect on the work of the municipalities and regions, whether it concerns healthcare or schools and the problems that have arisen. The problems within the heavily burdened social services in the country are very closely linked to precisely the immigration policy.

The question may therefore be directed back to the member: What responsibility do the member and the Social Democrats have for the fact that society became as it did, with the social problems we see with exclusion and segregation, which now create economic consequences out in municipalities and regions, where we see a pressure in healthcare, in the municipalities' schools, and in social services? Are you yourselves prepared to take responsibility for this?

I and the Sweden Democrats are accused, but we are providing the funds to try to fix a situation that the Social Democrats have created. It is strange that the question is directed at me.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not so strange. We have the right of reply so that questions can be asked of those who have delivered their speeches. We, as politicians in the Swedish Riksdag, shall ask the questions that I know many are demanding answers to.

Now, several speakers in replies have tried to get answers from the Sweden Democrats, and I must ask the question again. We see, after all, how things look now. Inflation, interest rates, and the current situation have made the situation very difficult for municipalities and regions. They are now in a situation that implies a starvation diet for welfare. In this situation, people pat themselves on the chest and say that they are injecting money. Yes, but not enough. We see it in region after region.

In my own home region, cuts equivalent to 600 people must be made. That is not what healthcare needs today. Healthcare needs more resources, not fewer.

So, what do the Sweden Democrats answer when it comes to the fact that there will be cuts in welfare?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting how the Social Democrats choose to formulate their questions. One can then ask which priorities are actually being made out in the country. I can only look at a compilation of Sweden's municipalities and regions. The Social Democrats govern in 13 of 21 regions in the country, and they govern in 162 of 290 municipalities. They thus govern in 175 of a total of 311 different municipalities and regions in the country – that is, in more than half.

I have made a small compilation covering 15.4 percent of the municipalities and regions in the country where I can see how the Social Democrats choose to prioritize. The Social Democrats describe these cuts in welfare, in municipalities and regions. At the same time, I see how they give campaign contributions to their own organizations such as ABF. And in these 15.4 percent of the municipalities and regions in the country that I have checked, a total of 105 million kronor is given to have election workers in upcoming elections. It is only 15.4 percent of the municipalities and regions, which means that I have not checked 84.6 percent of the remaining.

We are providing funds from the state. But the priorities that you Social Democrats make in regions and municipalities correspond to 327 childcare workers who, if they take care of four children, could take care of 1,308 children during a year. That corresponds to 324 teaching assistants, 313 nursing assistants, or 359 care assistants. Those are the priorities that you choose to make. If you stop giving campaign contributions to your own organizations, you will get more money for welfare. But it is also about priorities. And now we have seen yours.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden stands out with the worst growth prospects in Europe. We are now in a recession with an expected increase in unemployment. Prices in Sweden have increased more than in our Nordic neighboring countries. Almost half of the single parents borrow money to afford food. The construction industry is in crisis, and the wave of violence continues. There is a crisis in large parts of the welfare system. We have a healthcare crisis.

That is how it looks in Sweden one year after the election. In this situation, high-income earners have received tax reliefs, and the banks are making large profits.

In our Social Democratic budget, we have shown that it is possible to invest in housing construction and tackle crime by being tough on the crimes and stopping new recruitment, as well as providing support to people who are currently struggling financially. Above all, we have shown that it is possible to do more to strengthen the welfare.

Madam Speaker! Welfare has not been this tough since the 90s crisis. The deficits and the cuts are reaching record levels. There are warnings, layoffs, and hiring freezes in region after region. The SD government is pushing away the responsibility for the funding of schools and healthcare.

The situation in healthcare is at its worst. All regions except Gotland are expected to run with a deficit in 2023, and during 2024 it will become even tougher.

Healthcare is threatened in many places. I want to give some examples of how it looks around Sweden. In Örebro, it is about 600 fewer employees. In Östergötland, personnel costs are to be reduced by a corresponding 600 million kronor, which corresponds to 600 people. In Sörmland, the staff is reduced by 700. This is serious. This implies risks for patients and the staff's working environment.

In addition to these cuts, there is a shift of resources from low- and middle-income earners to high-income earners because the SD government's policy means that municipalities and regions are forced into tax increases. Not all, but some, are forced into tax increases. And it particularly affects low- and middle-income earners, that is, precisely those groups who are now having it particularly tough. They must now pay more tax, while those who have the highest incomes pay less. It is another effect of the policy that is now being pursued.

Madam Speaker! What should be done instead?

We Social Democrats have proposed that the supplements to healthcare be doubled. We want to invest 6 billion kronor more than the government. We also want to see a new principle for how welfare is financed. We want resources to automatically increase in line with inflation, so that we do not end up in a situation where welfare is forced to be reduced every year. This would also provide long-term stability for the municipal sector. We want to increase the supplements to the municipal sector by a total of 26 billion kronor next year.

Madam Speaker! The gang-related shootings continue. Children are murdered and are being murdered. Innocents are affected by the ongoing gang wars. The situation in our country is very serious. This actually threatens our entire society. According to the police commissioner, three new members are recruited into gang crime every day.

This brutal and ruthless violence must, of course, be stopped. We must do more to toughen the sentences and strengthen and equip the police. But we must also work preventatively with early interventions in preschool and school. Here, the municipalities are so incredibly important, because it is they who also work with the preventative interventions.

The government has, in this situation, when resources for welfare are being reduced, also proposed cuts to the targeted investments that go towards breaking the new recruitment in the vulnerable areas.

Once again, we show that it is possible to do things differently. We are injecting more money. But we also propose a billion-kronor investment in local measures to stop gang violence. When a gang-related violent crime has occurred, or when anxiety increases in an area, the municipalities shall have resources to be able to do what is required to stop gang crime and to break the new recruitment.

Madam Speaker! We have a good way of making decisions in our country, where decisions are made as close to the people as possible. That is important. And it is a good tradition with local influence and self-government. It is important that municipalities and regions have the opportunity to decide close to the people. They know what it looks like in their own municipalities and regions.

But the differences between the municipalities and the regions 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 of the equalization system is currently underway, and that is good. It is about how we should distribute the resources - not just how much money should go to municipalities and regions, but also how they should be distributed.

We in Sweden do not benefit from the country drifting apart. We need to increase equality in Sweden and provide the opportunity to create more equal conditions in the municipalities. All municipalities, from north to south, should be able to have a good welfare. It is actually a matter of justice.

Madam Speaker! We need to continue to increase the general government grants. The general government grant shall be the starting point in the economic management of the municipal sector. It enables an adaptation to local and regional needs. This is particularly important as the challenges are great, while simultaneously differing between municipalities and between regions.

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. We have seen many headlines about this in recent weeks. It makes me both angry and upset – here we must take decisive action. Marketization has also meant that working conditions have worsened for those who work within the welfare sector, that care is being fragmented, and that the wallet governs more and more – not the patients' needs.

The pursuit of profit does not belong in Swedish welfare. Resources allocated for welfare should be used to improve school results and provide our elderly and sick with secure care and treatment, not for large profit extractions. Therefore, we will continue to work to take back democratic control over welfare.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats would have liked to see a different budget for 2024 – a budget so that our elderly receive a dignified elderly care, to prevent the healthcare crisis we are currently in, to ensure an equal school for all children and young people in Sweden, and so that we have resources to stop the new recruitment. We want to see a new principle for how the welfare should be financed and propose a doubling of the investments in Swedish healthcare. We propose urgent measures to stop gang violence and break the new recruitment.

All of this fits within the same budget space that exists in the government's budget. It is about priorities. We prioritize welfare. We continue to be the champions of welfare. We stand up for the Swedish welfare model.

What Sweden needs are investments in welfare that create a more cohesive and just society, where municipalities and regions can provide a good welfare for everyone, regardless of who you are or where you live. It is about the whole country living and growing. 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! It is important to read all budget proposals to gain an understanding of what different parties wish to do and prioritize in their budgets. At the same time, budgets can also provide an understanding of the policy a party pursues.

A budget proposal can also lack self-reflection. Choosing new priorities may require that one first reflects on oneself - as a party and as an individual member of the Riksdag or, for that matter, in a municipality - and sees the responsibility one bears for the fact that an unsustainable policy has previously been allowed to become the norm in this country.

It is no secret that I think about the lack of self-reflection in the Social Democrats' policy. No one has heard the Social Democrats apologize for the poor policy they pursued, for example, in the area of migration, which creates enormous problems for our municipalities and regions.

The population has been significantly increased without a corresponding increase in the number of employees in the welfare sector to cover, for example, the greater healthcare needs of immigrants and to manage the social problems that have arisen in schools and subsequently within, for example, social services. Certain groups are now conducting an outright deceitful campaign directed against Swedish social services.

The Social Democrats' policy has created a scarred Sweden, a divided Sweden with exclusion and segregation, where people have seen one of the world's best countries transformed into a country where gang crime and shootings are everyday occurrences. It is a policy that SD and the government are now changing.

Are Eva Lindh and the Social Democrats now prepared to admit to the Swedish people that the policy they pursued for years has had an enormously negative impact on our country in areas such as healthcare and school and created division in society, which has led to enormous problems for our municipalities and regions?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have always – and I am very proud of this – stood up for the welfare state and strengthened it. I think Mattias Eriksson Falk should look at how many more were employed within the welfare state during the time the Social Democrats governed Sweden and led the government that made these investments.

We will continue to do this. We will always stand up for the welfare, because we know that it is so incredibly important for people and also has a good distributive effect. It benefits all people, regardless of their wallet. I am proud of the priorities we have made.

But we will need to continue prioritizing the welfare. That is exactly why we in our budget have more money to strengthen it, because it is needed.

This is becoming so strange, I think. I must once again pose the question to the Sweden Democrats: If one is so dissatisfied with how the welfare looks today, why do you then provide fewer resources to the welfare and not more? What is happening now is that there are cuts in the welfare all around Sweden. Is this what was needed, if one now says that the welfare needs to be strengthened? Is it less money that is needed instead of more? I do not understand how the logic hangs together.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I note that the member from the Socialdemokraterna is not prepared to apologize for the unsustainable migration policy that they have pursued over all the years. It is, after all, as I also mentioned in my speech, that the need for care is greater among people who have immigrated to Sweden. Even if the employment in the welfare sector may have generally increased slightly, it has therefore not corresponded to the increased need for welfare services.

I see that no answer is coming from the Social Democrats there. I note that the member also does not mention anything about the migration policy in their answer to me, even though that was what I asked about. It is this that has created the social problems we have in Sweden today, with exclusion and division. It is your policy that has led to the migration policy we previously had in the country, which the Sverigedemokraterna and the government are now changing.

But I noticed another thing that the member said in their speech; the member spoke about tax increases and that this is something that is now happening in the country's municipalities and regions. I checked with SKR and saw that during 2024, there are 13 municipalities choosing to raise the tax. What the specific reason for this is, I cannot say. But I can state that during 2016, when the Social Democrats were in government together with the Green Party, there were 15 municipalities in the country that raised the tax. Is this to be interpreted as that the Sweden Democrats and the government are now conducting a better welfare policy, which creates better conditions for the municipalities? During these three years, we are injecting 30 billion in generally increased support to the municipalities.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Mattias Eriksson Falk can ask the municipalities out there if they think they have it easier today than they did a few years ago. I believe he will receive a clear and unambiguous answer: It is much harder today.

I will answer the migration question, even though it is not actually what we are discussing today. Now, it is about resources for municipalities and regions.

We did change the migration policy. The policy that applies today is the one that we changed. It means that fewer people are coming to Sweden today than was the case during several previous years.

It becomes hopeless to always have this discussion. Welcome to the reality we find ourselves in! If you, Mattias Eriksson Falk, were to tell one of the people who contacted me yesterday why she is not receiving the healthcare she needs, I think you would say it is because the migration policy looked different previously.

It is about priorities! It is about what we want to spend the money on in the reality we live in! Cuts in the regions - that is to say in healthcare - affect people.

We still have not received any answer on whether you in the Sweden Democrats think that this is good. Are you satisfied with this policy and what it means for Swedes here in Sweden today?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Eva Lindh for the presentation of the Social Democrats' proposal for the budget.

It becomes a bit strange when one sees that more resources is always the answer to the questions and that higher taxes is always the answer to how it should be done. It is, of course, a matter of an ideological boundary when it comes to how we choose to view reality.

In these debates, there is a lot of talk about more resources; it is always the answer to the questions. I would like to ask how we are to finance these parts. It is also an important part of the budget debate, which often comes into the shadows. It is always easy for the opposition to propose more resources.

It can be stated that much of the problems we have in Sweden today, which we need to solve, are based on a number of different decisions made by the previous government. It is quite large and drastic decisions - and also a lack of decisions - that make us find ourselves in this situation.

I would like to ask the member both how the Social Democrats intend to secure a majority for a budget, and how one will finance the increased resources to municipalities and regions.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! There, the question of the future government came up. I cannot speculate on that. I believe it is about how the voters vote in the next election. We will have to see how it looks ahead. I do not think that so many right now are so satisfied with the situation in the country.

We have the same budget space as the SD-led government, so we finance our budget alternative. One difference is that the tax cut we have is aimed at low- and middle-income earners and not so much at high-income earners. This is one part.

The second part is that we want to levy a tax on the banks' excess profits. When the banks make such large excess profits as they actually do now, it is completely reasonable that they participate and contribute. We have a different policy. We differ from the government. We want to strengthen the welfare. It is important that Sweden has a continued good elderly care and a good school for all children.

It is clear that we must safeguard every tax krona; it is incredibly important. A good deal disappears in marketization and through welfare crimes. Money goes to something other than what it is supposed to go to. I think it is very important that we really tackle this. We must, of course, ensure that the money that is supposed to go to welfare also does so.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Eva Lindh for the answer.

I choose to hear that many of the parts that the Social Democrats are financing are not included in the member's answer. I still wonder how these parts are actually going to be financed.

The answer is naturally higher taxes. This is an answer that one can always give in opposition and as a socialist party. I do not believe, however, that the problem lies there.

None of our parties want poor welfare. The question is only how good welfare shall be achieved. Is it by limiting people's opportunities to get through this difficult economic situation by raising taxes on, for example, fuels, which hits all citizens in Sweden hard, not least those who live in smaller municipalities far out in the countryside? Or is it by introducing a tax that one knows cannot be introduced during the next year? You will have problems with the fact that you do not have financial coverage for the expenditure increases that you are handling.

I believe that what is missing is a responsible management of the fiscal policy to combat inflation in combination with an increase in the priorities and efficiencies in the operations of the state, region, and municipality. I believe that the answers to the questions can lie in that direction. I did, however, hear in the answer that priorities and efficiencies are not in the vocabulary.

I believe that we have different views on how the conflicts should be resolved. I do not believe, however, that any of our parties want a worse welfare.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to be clear.

I also think it is important to streamline where it is possible to streamline. I mentioned that I think tax money disappears out through, for example, welfare crime or profits that go into the pockets of people who run the operations. I think that is unreasonable. There we should be able to agree on streamlining and using the money for welfare.

When it comes to the second one, I raised an eyebrow a bit. I think it is strange. The Social Democrats have a proposal to lower the tax. Then it becomes strange to say that we would raise the tax.

We actually have measures for those people who are truly struggling financially now that the toughest month - January - is coming. There are families with children who need to borrow money to buy food for the children. It is not worthy of Sweden to have it that way. I believe that we should have measures there, and we Social Democrats do.

It is clear that the tax on the banks' excess profits could have been introduced. We have a proposal to take a part of the enormous excess profits that the banks make to finance a part of the budget that we have.

Regarding inflation, I have listened carefully to the Minister for Finance. I assume that Adam Reuterskiöld and the Minister for Finance share the same view. The Minister for Finance also says that we Social Democrats take inflation into account and have a budget that does not increase inflation.

We take responsibility for inflation, and we think this is an important issue. Investing in welfare is not inflation-inducing, and I think we need to continue to invest in it.

(Applause)

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces many problems in the future. We are now in a recession at the same time as we continue to have to contend with high inflation and sharply increased interest rates. This pressures both the individual citizen and the business community as well as the state, the municipalities and the regions.

With anxiety and war all around the world and with an uncertain global economic situation, it is necessary to conduct a sensible and wise fiscal policy. We can see how a number of major decisions - and a lack of decisions - have placed Sweden in a situation with many difficult problems to solve. A lack of fossil-free energy, insufficient expansion of the power grids, neglected maintenance, insufficient investments in infrastructure, and the need for investments in the justice system make it increasingly important to prioritize in the finances of the municipalities and regions.

Thanks to our moderately-led government, which has a majority behind its budget and stands for a responsible economic policy, we can now see that certain effects can be discerned. We can see how inflation tends to slow down. We can also see how market interest rates are falling. But we must hold out and hold on to fight inflation and the recession we are in.

It is stability and long-term perspective that is needed in exactly this situation. The government continues to work to provide Sweden and our municipalities with the best possible conditions to deliver welfare. Much of the government's policy will have positive effects for the municipal sector even outside of this budget area.

It is about investments in combating crime and combating welfare crime. But also lowering fuel costs will provide increased opportunities for the municipal sector to provide welfare. Also, lowered taxes on savings and work, increased rotavdrag, and lowered taxes for retirees will make it easier for the citizens and thus also easier for the municipalities.

A large part of the welfare is produced within the framework of regions and municipalities. This corresponds to approximately 22 percent of the GDP of the previous year. Actually, the municipal sector, with its right of taxation, should be able to take responsibility for its own finances. It must however be said that the state is the single largest cost driver for the sector. The state should, as the government is now also doing, ensure that the municipalities are given opportunities for immediate support while simultaneously improving the long-term conditions.

It is important that state governance does not create obstacles but instead supports the municipalities and regions in adapting to new conditions, increasing efficiency, and utilizing new ways of working. This is primarily done through general grants, which give the municipalities the opportunity to take responsibility themselves for where and how the money should be used. Different municipalities and regions have different conditions and make different prioritizations.

Mr. Speaker! In these debates, there is often an expression of a bidding process regarding how much more money one wants to put into their budgets. It is as if one can measure the benefit for the citizens solely in money, kronor and öre. More money in the debate is always the answer to all questions.

It can, on the contrary, lead to unwanted and unforeseen consequences with spiraling inflation and increased living costs for ordinary people. More money does not automatically provide more benefit. It is a matter of focusing on maximizing marginal utility.

There is no immediate correlation between money and quality. Further analysis of quality must be initiated where benchmarking can be a good tool. There is a great potential for efficiency within the sector. Many studies show this.

Efficiency is also a way to create benefit. Prioritization is another. Skateboard coordinators, dance teachers, municipal poets or hundreds of information officers may not be what creates the greatest possible benefit for the citizens, and neither is building swimming pools for billions.

How each municipality manages its funds are tasks that are crucial for what level of resilience one has in leaner times. It is also important that the municipal sector takes responsibility for the individual's economic situation and does not raise taxes. It will hit ordinary citizens hard, and not least those who are less well-off.

The expenditure area amounts to approximately 174 billion kronor, and the increase in the appropriation covers almost 40 percent of the available reform space. It is divided into five different appropriations: municipal economic equalization, equalization grants for LSS costs, grants to municipal economic organizations, temporary support to individual municipalities and regions, and funds for demographically smaller municipalities.

The total appropriation is an increase of a total of 16.7 billion compared to the budget submitted for 2023. That increase consists primarily of the general state grants. Through the municipal equalization, quite exactly 16 billion goes to the area. Of these, 10 billion constitute a special initiative to the municipalities at 7 billion, and the regions receive 3 billion.

Many municipalities face a step up regarding investments in increased welfare, largely because the investments have been neglected. This is something we can see not only in the municipal sector but also among state agencies and authorities. It is due to both a population increase and a lack of long-term planning.

Mr. Speaker! It has also gone very well for the municipalities in recent years. Large surpluses have been made in recent years which have been set aside in result equalization reserves. This has, however, highlighted the problem of how to manage the fluctuations. The allocation to the result equalization reserve has increased. Today, there are approximately 53 billion kronor in the equalization reserve in the municipal sector. During the pandemic, the sector was provided with more grants than it could many times utilize.

There is, however, a problem with how these funds are to be released. Therefore, the government has submitted proposals for a new way to handle this. The government will give municipalities better opportunities in the new proposal regarding a so-called results reserve. It will simplify for the municipalities to draw up and follow a long-term economic plan.

General state grants that are prioritized in this year's budget are preferable so that they can be used for individual municipal needs. However, there is a need for targeted state grants. To streamline this and to simplify the management, which in many respects can be very costly and problematic for many municipalities, the government proposes a digital information portal where one can have centralized information about the targeted state grants. Cooperation and coordination between different levels in the public administration can be developed.

Mr. Speaker! Much can and needs to be done to give Sweden a better position. Much may also be needed to give us the opportunity to hand over the country to our children in a better position than it was when we took over. I therefore wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask a question that is truly seriously intended, which concerns the gang crime we have in Sweden today.

The wave of violence is escalating. Neither we nor this government have been able to stop it. One of the issues that is important is what we are not talking about today, that is to say the punishments and all of this. But what we are addressing here today is how we can be able to stop the new recruitment.

For every person we now catch and put in prison, new people come in. The money is not there in the municipalities, which are the ones responsible for the preventive measures. Many municipalities that I speak with do not have the possibility to carry out the measures they would like to do in order to be able to work preventively to stop it early so that more do not enter into crime.

I just want to ask Adam Reuterskiöld: What do you think about that? How is it going to work when now municipalities and regions do not get, as we say, sufficient resources to stop the new recruitment?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question! In my experience of municipalities as the chairman of the municipal executive board, I have had great opportunities to reflect on precisely those questions. I agree that it is extremely important. The school, for example, has a decisive impact on how we handle the situation. But it is not only that.

Much is being done in the area that has to do with cooperation between different parts. We have in Sweden generally been bad at cooperating across the different boundaries. We tried very much to cooperate between the police, social services, and the school. We ensured that they cooperated at a fairly early level among schools so that the development that a student may already have in the age of ten to twelve or perhaps even younger can be handled at once.

That is why concessions are also made to be able to share information. I do not believe that resources are decisive here. It is rather about cooperation and how one can effectively handle the situation at an early stage, and in that case, it is cooperation that matters. It naturally requires more resources at certain times as well, and we have added those to the municipal sector.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the part that I truly agree with. I also think it is incredibly important that we and the municipalities get better conditions to cooperate. I believe it is an important contribution to make.

But we differ when it comes to the resources. Even if we can talk to each other and identify the youth or children we are to help, there is nothing to be done if there are no resources to deploy to support those children and youth who are heading into crime. I assert that resources actually play a role.

One must be careful with resources – I absolutely agree with that. It is about what one should prioritize. As I have said before, it is very crucial to prioritize in politics.

But when one still discovers the children and young people who need this support and there are no resources – what is then Adam Reuterskiöld's answer to the municipalities that now really want to do things to prevent and support children and young people and stop them from entering crime?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by saying that in a number of areas in our budget, we have allocated resources to both the municipal sector and areas related to law and order, which is also crucial. It is about being able to handle the individuals in a good way after they have entered the correctional area.

It is a problem that your answer to the questions is always more money. I do not actually believe that more money is always the answer to all questions. We can, for example, see that the municipal tax has been constantly increased since 1980. When will we reach a point where the resources run out? The resources the member speaks about are actually tax – we must be clear about that. One must be able to balance this against how efficiently we use the resources. The answer to the question cannot always be more resources. The answer must also be how we can better manage the resources we already have.

I believe that cooperation between school, social services, and the police is the absolutely most effective way to handle the new recruitment. Being able to share information - I believe that is the primary thing in Kommunsverige. That is what you hear when you ask them.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Households are being pressured by falling real incomes, high food prices, and sharply rising mortgage interest rates, while banking and food giants are making record profits at the consumers' expense. Monday's report from the National Institute of Economic Research states that food prices have been raised unjustifiably much in recent years.

A government's responsibility is to ensure that we as a society together get through the crisis and to distribute the burdens of the crisis fairly. But instead, the government, through its shocking passivity, contributes to households being brought to their knees. It is not enough to have coffee with the large food chains and believe that they will subsequently lower their prices.

We are facing a welfare collapse when the bills are pouring in over the hospitals, elderly care is always understaffed, and teachers do not get the resources needed to do a good job in the classrooms. Instead of ensuring that welfare receives resources, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna prioritize tax cuts primarily for the wealthy. Once again, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna show who is to take the hit in the crisis.

When gang violence terrorizes our society with bombings and shootings, a government is needed that rolls up its sleeves and invests what is required to put a stop to the gangs. A government was needed that allocates resources to social services to ensure that youth on the slide end up in the right place. A government was needed that invests in schools. Unlike the government, Vänsterpartiet invests in preventive work with children and young people in risk groups and provides funds for the crime-preventive work against gang crime.

The welfare sector has for a long time been underfunded and is now crumbling away completely. In order for welfare to be able to continue to be one of the foundations of society, resources are needed so that those who need care receive it in time, those who are on their way into gang crime can be stopped, and those who are older can receive the support they need in everyday life.

Everyone who seeks employment in preschools, healthcare, schools, and elderly care needs a good working environment and good working conditions. This is created through investments, not through cuts.

We in Vänsterpartiet prioritize significant resources for welfare initiatives through general state grants in our budget motion. We prioritize a climate transition work that can take us toward the goal of net-zero emissions, not in the opposite direction.

The municipalities, and above all the regions, expect a budget deficit of over 30 billion during 2024. SKR expects deficits in almost all regions and in most municipalities next year. A deficit - despite all the cuts being made in 2023 and all the cuts planned for 2024! Still, the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna claim that they are investing in the municipalities. We have heard it before, and we hear it in this debate.

Mr. Speaker! Five trade unions, writing via their chairpersons, state what they foresee: "When we read the state budget, it becomes apparent that the government's budget priorities risk leading to a poorer welfare for the country's inhabitants. It will affect the working environment for the welfare staff and make more people sick, while at the same time it will worsen the opportunities for them to do a good job."

At the same time, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner notes that sick leaves are increasing. It is tragic for those affected by burnout or a broken body, but it also increases the municipalities' costs for sick pay and substitutes. In the worst case, it is a substitute freeze, and the few who remain have to push themselves a little more and risk becoming sick-listed in turn. Many municipalities and regions have already introduced both substitute and hiring freezes while substitutes are being laid off, staff are being downsized, and certain personnel categories are more or less disappearing entirely.

This year, for example, Malmö has cut the school budget by 200 million. Teaching assistants and other support staff have been let go, and some classes have more than 32 pupils. In Gothenburg, there is a substitute teacher ban in schools, as well as in Hudiksvall, Tranås, Ludvika, Sundsvall and several other municipalities. In Stockholm, Gagnef, Motala and several other municipalities, there is a substitute teacher ban in preschools, and in Borlänge, there is a substitute teacher ban at the elderly care homes. Ronneby is one of many municipalities that have both substitute teacher and purchase bans in schools, while Norrköping has a substitute teacher ban at the libraries. This is just a selection of the substitute teacher and purchase bans that the municipalities have introduced. As we have already heard in the debate, the regions plan to reduce their staff, and that in a situation where healthcare is already on its knees.

But this is what the government and the Sweden Democrats seem to think is good. It is just a matter of priorities, they argue. The government believes that municipalities and regions can streamline and cut back. In practice, it means longer queues to healthcare, worse schools, and discontinued bus lines. Most often, it is also the preventive work that gets cut. At the same time as young people are drawn into gang crime, the municipalities are forced to save on schools and activities for young people.

Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to increase resources to enable maintained staffing levels in welfare. In total, we proposed 20 billion kronor more than the government in general state grants plus 1 billion kronor in the form of a general state grant for a rural supplement within healthcare. But we have also proposed additional funds in the Committee on Finance after SKR's worsened forecast arrived.

Mr. Speaker! Preschool and school have an important mission to be compensatory. All children should be given the same conditions to play, learn, and develop. A good operation counteracts segregation and contributes to a more equal society. But then all children must also have equal conditions to participate in the activities of the school and preschool. Today, the fee for preschool and after-school care can be a barrier for children in families with small resources. Therefore, we want to carry out a targeted reduction of the fees and introduce a free limit so that all children have the opportunity to participate in the activities.

Mr. Speaker! We find the ten municipalities with the lowest tax in Region Skåne and in Stockholm County. It is Stockholm and the localities where the residents commute to high-income jobs in Malmö and Stockholm. The ten with the highest tax are small municipalities in the countryside, and eight of them are in northern Sweden. Next year, the tax difference between the municipality with the lowest total tax and the one with the highest will increase to 6 kronor and 32 öre.

We cannot have a Sweden that is so divided. Therefore, we must strengthen the municipal sector, and it is the municipalities that have the greatest challenges that need the most. In order for smaller municipalities to be able to offer welfare on equal terms, Vänsterpartiet proposes an indexing of the state grants so that they can follow both the demographics and the price developments.

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, it differs by several years in average life expectancy. People who have post-secondary education are expected to live five and a half years longer than people who have not finished high school.

It is social inequalities that contribute to dividing our society. It is my and the Vänsterpartiets absolute conviction that a strong, jointly funded and equal welfare with 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. Today's large gaps between people and between municipalities must be reduced. All of Sweden is needed, and all people are needed.

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

With that, Mr. Speaker, I otherwise refer to our special statement.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is an exciting debate we have here regarding the state grants to the municipalities and what support and resources the Sweden Democrats and the government are actually providing. We are providing 16 billion extra to municipalities and regions, of which 10 billion are in generally increased grants. These will apply not only during this year but also during the next two years, i.e., 30 billion extra in general support to municipalities and regions.

To mention some other initiatives, we are allocating 850 million to improve knowledge results in schools, extending the supplementary grant for economically disadvantaged families with children in the housing allowance, lowering the tax on gasoline and diesel, lowering the reduction obligation, and making a special investment in skills enhancement within elderly care. All of this means good opportunities to help the welfare.

We are also making an investment in the justice system and an investment in strengthening the defense.

All of this is intended to build a stronger society. It creates jobs, and it creates conditions for a stronger economy for, among others, families with children, as I mentioned. Naturally, it also has an impact out in the municipalities and regions.

Vänsterpartiet, the member's party, had a decisive influence on the state budgets during the years 2015-2018 based on the cooperation they had then with the S-MP government. I mentioned earlier that despite this cooperation, more municipalities raised taxes in 2016 than it is for the coming years. Then I wonder: What is the reason that more municipalities raised taxes in 2016 than now, given that Vänsterpartiet then had a decisive influence over the supplements to welfare resources?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Mattias Eriksson Falk!

I can state that most municipalities and regions choose not to raise the tax. They also say that they do not do so because there is no room left. That is the big difference: There is no room left in people's wallets to pay increased municipal tax.

We must be clear that in municipalities and regions, the tax is flat. Everyone pays an equally large percentage of their income in tax. The state tax is differentiated: the higher the salary one has, the more one pays in tax.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is important that those who have the highest salary also pay the most in tax. Then we can also invest in the municipalities, so that it does not affect those with the lowest incomes by having to pay more tax.

It is interesting that in Mattias Eriksson Falk's question and contribution we hear about all these investments that the government and the Sweden Democrats are making in their budget. It is very good! They are fine investments. But the municipalities and regions are missing 30 billion. That is what they must cut.

I counted it up, and we have heard it in other contributions, what the municipalities and regions are saving on. They are saving on staff. What role do the small amounts that the government and the Sweden Democrats are putting into various initiatives play when the general saving is so large that the municipalities will need to make cuts that completely offset these initiatives?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer to the question - if it was an answer or not!

One thing becomes a bit strange. Municipalities and regions are dependent on staff with high and varying competence. It has been particularly difficult in recent years to educate people with higher competence. It is, for example, difficult to get enough doctors within the regions. It is difficult to get operating room nurses. These are people who have higher education.

What surprises me is that the member, in their speech, speaks so warmly about those people who choose to take on this responsibility and educate themselves to contribute to the welfare having to pay more in tax. Why should they do that because they take on a responsibility and are a resource for the welfare? That is what you are saying.

I do not understand why the doctor, the principal, the special education teacher in the school, and the operating room nurse should pay more in tax because they choose to further their education to be a resource in the welfare system. That is what we are talking about here. If you constantly only want to raise the tax for those who further their education and, over many years, create this competence, how are we then even going to have people who perform the work in our Swedish welfare?

What you will be hindering are these professional groups – principals, special educators in schools and operating room nurses. It is them you want to raise taxes for. Why should they educate themselves if they are still not going to have anything because they actually take responsibility for society?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is an interesting picture that the member here paints of higher education - as if one educated oneself to, for example, become a doctor only because the salary was so high or chose to become the principal of their school just to get a slightly higher salary. And then one would supposedly think: "Really? Do I get a tax increase if I choose to become a principal? No, then I don't want to."

I believe more about people. I believe that one educates oneself and chooses a profession that is interesting for the sake of one's own personal development. The salary is of course not a disadvantage, but the tax policy probably does not have as great an importance as the member paints it.

We can look at all the people who do not receive the large deductions - nursing assistants, local cleaners, leisure educators, preschool teachers and everyone else in the welfare sector. These are needed but are now being laid off because there is too little money in the welfare sector just because the Sverigedemokraterna protect them with the highest salary. Taste that!

The Sweden Democrats protect those who are paid the best in society. Those who have million-dollar incomes every year—the Sweden Democrats protect them above the welfare in municipalities and regions. This concerns the welfare, which people talk incredibly warmly about here in the rostrum and in other debates. I think it is stomach-turning.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the proposals in the committee's report.

We find ourselves in a continued very tough economic situation where many households are struggling with rising prices due to the high inflation and the high interest rates which mean significantly increased housing costs. At the same time, it is a recession, and unemployment is beginning to increase.

In this difficult situation, the budget needs to be well-balanced. The budget that the government has presented prioritizes the most important things, which are to support households in a difficult situation with a special focus on economically vulnerable families with children, continue the support to safeguard the core of the welfare system, and combat inflation. At the same time, we continue the historic expansion of the justice system and the defense to handle the internal and external forces that threaten our society.

The government has since taking office powerfully combated inflation and its damaging effects on the Swedish economy. If we do not gain control over the skyrocketing price increases, distribution policy and growth policy play a smaller role. Thank goodness, in the recent inflation figures and forecasts, we can see that the struggle is beginning to bear fruit and that the worst is behind us. But for us to make it through the economic winter, it is required that we have the strength to hold on and endure.

Mr. Speaker! The tough economic situation also entails difficult economic pressures for municipalities and regions. It is therefore good that the municipal sector's financial results have been at high levels over the last three years. Many municipalities and regions have, as a result of this, strengthened their financial position and transferred funds to a result equalization reserve. These saved surpluses can now be partially used to manage the tough situation and continue to provide high-quality welfare.

The demographic development will also affect the municipal sector's economy. It is primarily the number of elderly people in relation to those in employment that is increasing. The demographic development is naturally positive, but it nevertheless entails economic pressures for the municipalities. Therefore, prioritizations and efficiencies moving forward are absolutely necessary to ensure the core operations.

It is also good to emphasize that Sweden's municipalities and regions, through local self-government, are responsible for a number of tasks within welfare and, through the right of taxation, also the economy. They have a large scope for action but are, of course, governed by certain national mandates and state regulations. But the state cannot compensate the municipal sector for all cost increases. Therefore, priorities are necessary, even in the form of efficiencies – for example, new ways of working, digitalization and automation – which can free up more resources.

Mr. Speaker! The Government wants to create good and equal economic conditions in the municipal and regional sectors. This is important to maintain a good municipal service throughout the country. Municipalities and regions are also supported to manage the temporary effects of inflation. Against this background, the Government provides significant supplements to municipalities and regions in the form of increased general government grants of 10 billion kronor to meet the temporary cost increases resulting from inflation and, not least, the pension costs which are calculated based on KPI. It is also about targeted grants of 6 billion to improve the quality of healthcare, school, and care. This will result in a total supplement of 16 billion, which is a full 40 percent of the total reform space.

I also want to mention some of the prioritized targeted initiatives that are in the budget. One of them is a special sector grant for health and medical care of 3 billion to meet the severe economic situation in the regions. The government is providing an additional supplement totaling 5 billion during 2024 to shorten the long care queues that the Social Democratic government left behind and to increase the number of care beds. The government also supports and strengthens health and medical care in the form of initiatives for expanded primary care and cancer care.

These are some of the reforms the government is making to make healthcare more accessible and increase equality. Had the Christian Democrats had a majority on their own in the Swedish Riksdag, we would have proceeded with our proposal to nationalize healthcare in order to increase just accessibility and equality. But we have had a major investigation passed that looks at the pros and cons of state ownership within healthcare. We look forward to that investigation being completed because we are convinced that the state needs to have the primary responsibility for healthcare so that high-quality, efficient, and equal care can be provided on equal terms to the entire population.

In the school area, important initiatives are being made, among others, on strengthening the work environment and working conditions for teachers in schools with socioeconomic challenges and on staffed school libraries, as well as targeted initiatives to promote children's reading.

Mr. Speaker! Several of these initiatives are some of the Christian Democrats' most prioritized issues, which are now also becoming the government's policy and will contribute to making life a little easier for the sick and vulnerable in our society. It is important that we continue in that direction and strengthen and equip the welfare system.

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

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! My contribution in this debate on the general grants to the municipalities could be summarized with a single word: prioritize. It is about prioritizing the school over cheap snus, however much one might want it, and about prioritizing healthcare over cheap plastic bags, however much one might want such things. Prioritize now the welfare over all short-sighted, populist promises that one tries to fulfill half-heartedly after the election even though it is not possible!

There are few areas where it is so clearly visible that the Tidö project lacks direction and meaning as this welfare crisis. Before the election, the Tidö parties promised to prioritize this, but all failed attempts to fulfill various promises have stood in the way.

Mr. Speaker! The municipalities and regions are facing perhaps the worst economic crisis since the great crisis in the early 1990s. Together, the regions and municipalities are expected to run a deficit of 31 billion in 2024. Half of the municipalities are expected to have a deficit. Almost all regions are expected to have a deficit. Furthermore, it is not evenly distributed. Many smaller municipalities and many rural municipalities have been hit particularly hard by the inflation crisis.

But the Tidö government prioritizes other things. Not even half of the municipalities' and regions' deficits are covered. This now affects, as has been mentioned in this debate, patients, vulnerable students, and elderly people who are dependent on a home care service that must now be reduced to a minimum level.

Not least, the welfare crisis hits the school. This has also been mentioned in this debate. It is already in crisis, with results plummeting in the latest PISA study. Crime threatens young people at far too many schools. Now, if ever, is it a situation where the school must stand strong, Mr. Speaker, then we should invest heavily in the school and recruit many more qualified teachers. No more young people shall be recruited into the gangs. Now, if ever, should we increase the support aimed at students with severe challenges and strengthen student health.

Instead, a wave of layoffs is now sweeping across the entire country. It is school closure after school closure. I believe that many parents feel anxiety today about a notice that just that teaching position or that extra resource they are dependent on now is going to disappear. The latest news is that 500 positions in primary school in Göteborg are to be cut and 122 childcare workers in preschool in Eskilstuna are to be removed.

It is one thing to talk about the fact that the fight against exclusion and crime begins as early as preschool. It is another thing to conduct the fight. Currently, thousands of teachers and educators are being laid off. Classes are growing. More and more classes' number of students rises to the so-called maximum limit of 32 students, but there are also more and more examples of it exceeding 40 students. The municipalities warn that they do not have the resources that the police are asking them for to combat gang crime. Hundreds of millions of kronor are missing that the Tidöregeringen is spending on other things.

In the normal case, the Tidöregeringen would now have been able to point a bit at the municipalities and say: Why haven't you allocated resources and prioritized the school? But this is not a crisis that hit the municipalities because they mismanaged and overspent. The crisis is instead due to the fact that the suddenly skyrocketing inflation has dug a huge hole. Pension payments have increased by almost 30 billion kronor for the municipalities in recent years, which practically corresponds to the sudden deficit they have received. It is a textbook example of a situation where it is the state that must prioritize welfare.

Of course, not everyone can have everything when inflation is high. Obviously, one must be economical with resources. But precisely because of that, one must prioritize welfare and the school system. I began by mentioning the snus. Just that initiative from the government costs 800 teachers – speaking of prioritizing. It has been decided to lower the gas price not only for people in the countryside but also in the cities. That corresponds to thousands of teachers that rural municipalities out in the country need. Not even half of the deficits are covered.

Furthermore – and the Center Party will be the only party to say in this debate, Mr. Speaker – the tax burden on the regions and municipalities has been increased by over 2 billion kronor by raising the tax on employing young people. It is a godsend that many municipalities and regions employ very many young people. But they are now being punished by the Tidö Government's shock tax increase on young people. In this budget, the Tidö Government also wants to go one step further and shock-increase the tax on employing 15-18-year-olds. They too are actually employed in some cases by municipalities and regions for various things, but primarily by small businesses. The municipalities and regions want these young people, when they have summer holidays, to get off the streets and into productive and good activities. The big problem is that you are shock-tax-increasing for just this.

I will not only devote myself to criticizing the government. The Centre Party wants to go a different way. We want to prioritize welfare and not least the school. We are allocating 5 billion - a very strong prioritization in our budget - to a special sector grant for the school in order to be able to stop the cuts and strengthen the school in these difficult times. The classes shall become smaller and not record-sized. The quality shall be raised and not lowered. Education shall be celebrated, not skimped on to afford SD's little shopping list.

In total, the Center Party invests 21 billion in the municipalities and regions in general state grants and sector grants. The Center Party also stops the tax increases on the municipalities' and regions' young employees. Hiring young people should be rewarded, not punished. Furthermore: If we are to be able to make the cake grow and not tax away that which drives growth, we must invest in the work principle, in incentives to work, and in education. That is the conclusion of the large hearing that the Center Party organized last week here in the Riksdag with, among others, the parties and the forecasters. Education, education, education, I will say here today.

Furthermore, the municipalities and regions – this is a small parenthesis – have particularly pleaded with us politicians in the Riksdag to stop engaging in our small short-term press conferences where we make various targeted investments of 1 million here and 1 million there, which are then to be distributed among 290 municipalities. It sounds so good when the minister presents them, but then they are almost impossible for the municipalities to manage.

According to the latest report from Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, there were 180 targeted grants in Sweden before the pandemic. It has now most likely risen to over 200 targeted grants. According to Statskontoret, one-third of all grants to the municipalities are targeted, with a mass of requirements that have been sent by us in the Riksdag and, above all, by the government.

Each of these targeted grants has good purposes. But the cumulative result is a situation that small municipalities cannot handle. Every fourth state grant is 30 million or less. As a small municipality, one literally receives a few thousand kronor. It often costs small municipalities more to manage the grant itself and all the requirements that come with it than what the money provides. Therefore, the Centerpartiet wants to make an exceptional investment in consolidating the targeted grants into general grants of 11 billion. We thus get a much more unified picture than the government has.

Mr. Speaker! There is, even for the municipalities, an alternative in Swedish politics. It is an alternative where one prioritizes education, incentives to work and welfare, and where one reduces the tax on work, even for the municipalities and regions, and does not raise it as the Tidö parties do.

Soon this budget will be adopted. Soon the bill will fall for the regions. Soon they will know that they will not get more money. Soon they will know that all the promises made before the election will not be fulfilled. Soon the incredibly tough year 2024 will come. But soon a better time will also come, when the Tidö project falls and there are right priorities in Swedish politics again.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Welfare in Sweden is incredibly important. It levels out differences, ensures that those who fall can land softly, and gives people the opportunity to try their wings. For example, one dares to start a company because one knows that if one were to fall, one falls softly.

For me as a liberal, the welfare state is incredibly important; there is a safety net without holes that catches you if you fall. But today we have several holes in the net that challenge the welfare state. Therefore, it is important that the reforms that the government is now working on are resolved. Currently, our challenges are affecting the welfare state and all the people who work in it and who are dependent on it. It affects the school, the healthcare, and the care. It can be about inefficient processes, poor governance, rules that one does not have the possibility to live up to, too great a workload in some places, sometimes bad managers and sometimes too few resources.

It is important to remember that the holes in the net do not have just one cause. Several parties in the opposition have spoken here in the rostrum and said that it is only about resources. It is really bad to conduct the discussion at that level. Then there is a great risk that one misses several other important things that need to be addressed.

It is, for example, fascinating that the Social Democrats' representative just stood here in the speaker's chair and spoke about how bad it is, but still took no responsibility for how it has become so. They have governed in over 70 of the last 90 years. They should perhaps have had time to do what they want.

We will, in any case, do what we can to improve the situation during the time we have the Swedish people's trust, a bit longer than I think Martin Ådahl is hoping for.

Mr. Speaker! School is and will always be the Liberals' top priority. That is where we want to direct resources, because there is indeed a correlation between the number of teachers in the classroom and study results. One must have time to see the student, listen, motivate, and explain. Of course, that is the case.

Still, it is not just resources in the school that are required. It is also about the teacher's powers, the teacher's documentation requirements, peripheral tasks that lie outside of teaching, and teaching materials to conduct the teaching with. Yes, many things need to function for the school to be able to be compensatory and give every child a chance. It is not just about money. So do not fall for the left-wing rhetoric!

Another liberal heart issue is LSS, which is one of our time's greatest freedom reforms. It is an important reform so that all people shall have the opportunity to live their best life. Even those with extensive functional impairments shall be able to have power over their lives, work, move out of home, visit friends or have a hobby. One should not have to rely on loved ones to be able to dress or brush one's teeth.

Many assistance users have testified that assistance is the most decisive measure for being able to live an independent life. They have often described it as a major freedom reform. When it has been eroded, we have been driving behind new legislation that ensures that people actually receive help with breathing and tube feeding. We are also raising the compensation from 1 ½ to 2 ½ percent. We are proud but not satisfied.

Mr. Speaker! How do we then go about improving the situation within the welfare system? The responsibility is shared, and therefore it is important to work on all fronts simultaneously. We shall safeguard and preserve what is good and spread good examples to others. Measuring and comparing is good. It gives a clear indication of where improvement is needed. There are plenty of good examples all over the country of major improvements in home care and on how work has been done in schools to raise knowledge results.

There must be the right resources in the right place. Welfare has faced great challenges in recent years. During the pandemic, operations suffered, but the economic results were good in many places. Now, however, we see a debt on things that could not be done during the pandemic and a much more strained economic situation for many municipalities and regions. This is largely driven by inflation and increased interest rates. But it is important to emphasize that the differences are large and that not everyone has problems with the same things.

Mr. Speaker! By 2024, we have invested 40 percent of the reform space in welfare. We are expanding the expenditure area by 16 billion. This will now total 174 billion kronor to municipalities and regions. In addition to providing these significant resources, we are doing much more to give municipalities and regions the right conditions to fulfill their mandates.

The government now has a large number of investigations underway in several different areas. They will contribute. Let me give some examples. Within the school system, several investigations are ongoing that will improve and facilitate. It concerns the national school funding norm, the development of teacher and preschool teacher education, and reduced administrative burden for teachers, to name a few.

Mr. Speaker! I still want to point out that it is important not to do as in the Left Party's and the Green Party's budget proposals. To loan-finance the welfare in these times with too high inflation is to fuel the inflation fire. It is nothing other than very reckless. It would erode the value of the money that is deposited. We simply must not be tempted to borrow for running costs that are not financed. Running costs shall be financed with tax revenues, not with borrowed money.

In conclusion: With the conditions we have had in this budget work and the situation with high inflation and increased interest rates, I am pleased with the investments we are making in welfare and in the school. We will be able to continue to have a good welfare. Then we need to get to grips with crime and invest in the climate transition and in school and education. It is those types of investments that will increase our competitiveness and growth in the long run.

It will give people the opportunity to create companies, transition their companies and hire more. More people will also become employable. It is no harder than that everyone who can work should work. Only if everyone who can contribute contributes can we create a sustainable welfare, a net without holes. A very big difference between a liberal bourgeois economic policy and a left-wing policy is that we know that resources must first come in and then they can be distributed.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by wishing my colleagues in the chamber and in the Committee on Finance a Merry Christmas and a well-deserved time at home with family and friends.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I will try to keep it brief. I have previously pointed out that I come from Hofors municipality. There, the Liberals rule. Over the last year, cuts of 4 ½ percent have been made on staff. I do not know exactly how it will look next year, but the probability is quite high that there will be cuts during 2024 as well. I have also mentioned that Hofors municipality has had a declining population trend over the last 40 years. It has been a municipality nearly twice as large as it is today.

Cecilia Rönn seems to think that it is just a matter of prioritizing, that the municipality should choose the right things to do. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to ask Cecilia Rönn if she can tell Hofors municipality what it is one should do in this situation. It is easy to stand in this chamber and say: You just have to choose to do the right things. But it is a bit harder when you are down on the ground and have to do it. I would like to ask for a little humility.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

With all due respect - I do not have detailed knowledge of Sweden's 290 municipalities. I believe the member misinterpreted my speech if he perceived it as only being about prioritizing. I have myself been a municipal politician. And I have myself grown up in a family where it really wasn't just about prioritizing, but where the money simply did not suffice. I know very well what humility in the face of difficult situations is about.

I do not believe it would become better in either the member's municipality or any other municipality if Vänsterpartiet were involved in governing. You want to debt-finance with hundreds of billions in borrowing in the coming years. You want to completely remove the opportunities for companies to grow. You want to remove the growth support. You want to abolish the rutavdrag, but not the rotavdrag. That in itself one can reflect on. You want to remove the job tax deduction for ordinary earners. You want to raise the tax for all our nation-builders who earn over 45,000 kronor, and you want to reintroduce the wealth tax.

I wonder, then, how the member believes things will improve in his own municipality or in any other municipality that is struggling when one completely turns away from financing the welfare in the long term.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party is indeed part of the government in Hofors municipality together with the Liberals. But we can go back to the time when the Left Party and the Social Democrats governed the municipality themselves. At that time, Hofors municipality was among the 100 best municipalities in Svenskt Näringsliv's ranking. So it cannot be that bad when the Left Party is part of the government.

Then I also believe that Cecilia Rönn should read the Left Party's budget a bit more carefully. We are not debt-financing welfare; we are financing infrastructure investments. We do that because Sweden's infrastructure needs to be expanded if we are to manage the climate transition - which we know we must do because otherwise we will not have a planet to live on.

There are also resources that can be used from the state's side to prioritize. The Liberals do not do that when they choose to make tax cuts. They implement tax cuts of over 20 billion instead of giving the resources to municipalities and regions so that they can provide a good welfare - good schools and good healthcare.

For a normal income earner, the tax cuts being implemented correspond to the magnitude of two bags of chips a week, at most. The Sweden Democrats also choose to raise the fees in public transport and patient fees by the corresponding amount, so that the entire tax cut disappears. This is what they choose to do.

I think one should be a bit humble when standing here in the Swedish Riksdag and saying that the municipalities only need to prioritize a bit better to be able to ensure that the welfare system functions. It is not that simple. I am still waiting to hear some concrete proposals on what the municipalities should do, given that they have already made staff cuts in the magnitude of 4 ½ percent.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I leave it to our colleagues within the Liberals and the Left Party to find the concrete proposals that suit that specific municipality.

I wonder again how the member can interpret my speech as only being about prioritizing. That was not at all what I said. We are adding money to the welfare sector, and we are commissioning a number of large inquiries to improve the conditions for those who work in the welfare sector. A new Social Services Act will come next year. Many improvements will come in schools so that teachers can be teachers and be able to focus on their educational mission.

Even these things are important, but it always seems difficult to understand. For the Left Party, there is in fact only one big hammer in the toolbox, regardless of what kind of problem one is dealing with, and that is to raise taxes and borrow for things.

I have several times here in the chamber heard the Left Party complain about the "chip bags" in tax cuts. I think it is good to lower income taxes when we can, because the people who work deserve to have enough left in their pockets to be able to have a good life and a bearable everyday life - just as we are to have a good welfare.

I wonder how many bags of chips and what portion of the grocery bag it will involve if the Left Party's budget were to gain traction, considering all the tax increases you want to make for ordinary people, Samuel Gonzalez Westling. It concerns everyone who earns over 45,000 because you do not want to implement the job tax credit that we want to implement, and about reintroducing the wealth tax. How would that hit ordinary people who are struggling in these times?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to request a reply to Cecilia Rönn, but when one sat and listened to the speech, several questions were raised that one would nevertheless like to have answers to.

Cecilia Rönn says that the Social Democrats bear the responsibility for 70 of 90 years and for the welfare that exists. I thank Cecilia Rönn for that. I am, in fact, very proud of the welfare model that we have built up in Sweden.

I am proud of a welfare model that gives those who need care the opportunity to receive it and where the school - until now, perhaps - has given many children and young people the opportunity for a good education. It is a welfare model that has ensured that we have an elderly care that not only maintains good quality but also makes it possible for people to go to work instead of needing to stay at home and take care of their elderly, as well as a preschool that has been good.

This is what I am proud of, and I wonder what is derogatory about this. That is what I am actually curious about.

Then Cecilia Rönn says that it is not about money, but at the same time she is happy about the investments being made in the school. What welfare is it then that Cecilia Rönn does not want, if it is good with resources for the school but not for the rest of the welfare?

I would be grateful if the member could give me some clarity on the questions raised by the speech.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Eva Lindh for the questions.

I think that Eva should be proud of much that is good in Sweden. The Liberals have cooperated with the Social Democrats for many years, and we have implemented good and important reforms together for a strong welfare and so that people can live a free life regardless of what circumstances they have.

At the same time, it would be tasteful to take responsibility for what is not working and not blame the failed policies of recent years on this year's government tenure. I think that would have been tasteful, and that was what I pointed out from the rostrum.

I also did not say that it is not just about money. Of course, money is important, which I exemplified with, for example, resources for the school and time for teachers to be teachers. But when one talks about it being only about money for welfare, one diminishes a problem that is much larger than that.

It is also about the conditions for everyone who works in the welfare sector. That, of course, includes both the school, elderly care, and healthcare. Most people who work there are passionate about it and truly want to make a big change and improvement, but it is also about their conditions – for example, their administrative burden, which has increased year after year. In the speaker's chair, I exemplified this with teachers' peripheral tasks.

We also need to see these problems and address them, because they do not disappear no matter how much money we add to the welfare. One must, therefore, be able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time. That was what I wanted to exemplify in my speech.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is very good to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time, and it is the case that welfare does not only have problems with resources. Just as Cecilia Rönn mentions, it is about being able to get staff in the future and so on - but it is also about resources, because if we do not have resources to strengthen the working conditions and train people to work within welfare, there will not be people to hire in welfare in the future. We need to be able to do that, but it also requires resources.

That is why this seems so strange, and that is why I requested the floor. I want to understand and be able to interpret this. Resources are naturally important; that is what the people who are now going to be laid off say. It is about people who make an important contribution to the welfare system and who will no longer have their jobs. For them, I believe it is quite important whether there are or are not resources in the welfare system. One cannot therefore talk this away.

Of course, there are other important things that we also need to give the welfare the conditions to do, but resources are important. Therefore, it is a bit surprising that it is said to be only left-wing rhetoric when it comes to resources. I hope, however, that it is an important issue for the Liberals as well.

I agree that the Social Democrats and the Liberals have historically agreed on very important reforms that have strengthened society. It has been about introducing democracy in Sweden - yes, actually, through the right to vote for men and women. It has also been about many equality issues that have been important. It is of course also important for the welfare.

I hope that we can also agree in the future that money matters.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions and the comment.

Exactly as I mentioned in my speech, resources are obviously an important part of this. It is for that reason that the government, in its budget proposal, uses over 40 percent of the reform space for precisely state grants to municipalities and regions. Furthermore, extra sector grants are given to the regions because they currently have a large cost due to the pension costs, which have increased because of inflation and interest rates. It is precisely for that reason that it is so important to push back on it.

I would still like to give the Social Democrats a compliment for the fact that their budget proposal is financed within the existing framework. How one then chooses to distribute that space is, of course, what shows the difference between our different parties.

What I think is important and want to highlight is something that will help the welfare, namely the investments being made in education, vocational training, and lifelong learning. This will help in the paradoxical situation we have with over 300,000 unemployed but 100,000 vacant jobs. That matching must become better. If these more than 100,000 can be employed and the jobs where companies are crying out for competence can be filled, it also means more tax revenues for the state, but above all to the municipalities and regions, where most of the tax revenues go. It is also a very important parameter. We must work on these things simultaneously.

That is why we are making investments in welfare with a large part of the space, but we are also looking forward to meet the competence needs that will exist.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is important what we say from the rostrum in the Swedish Riksdag. I think it is important that we can debate and that we can put forward our different positions, which are precisely different. We have gone to elections on different issues and have promised the voters different things. I believe, however, that it is incredibly important that we stick to the truth.

When Cecilia Rönn stands up and says that Miljöpartiet wants to borrow for current expenditures and for costs in welfare, I hope it is because she has not read our budget proposal well enough and not because she wants to portray something as something it is not.

The Green Party has presented a budget that, in addition to large climate investments – which are necessary for us to manage the transition within the time we have – is a balanced budget for current expenditures. I just want this to be completely clear in this chamber.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that this time budget issues are being discussed in the speaker's chair when we have an exchange of remarks here in the speaker's chairs.

I agree with the member that it is very important that we stick to the truth. I have read the Green Party's budget proposal. Both your budget proposal and the Left Party's budget proposal are outside the fiscal framework that we have all agreed upon, and that is what I criticize.

I agree with the member that investments for the climate need to be made. This is included in the budget proposal that we have submitted for 2024. But it is also, just as the member says, incredibly important to highlight the differences between the various budget proposals. It is de facto the case that the budget proposal that Miljöpartiet submits in its budget motion does not adhere to the framework but is loan-financed.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Exactly, it is loan-financed. We have not said anything else. But the loan financing applies to investments that are necessary for the climate transition. It does not apply to current expenditures. That is a very big difference. One will help Sweden become strong moving forward; the other would hollow us out and make us weaker.

Sweden is one of the world's wealthiest countries thanks to the fact that we have a well-managed budget process - that we hold it together.

We have been very clear that we want to change to a balance target. We will enter that now in the review, because large investments that have been missing need to be made.

If this loan investment is not made, if the transition is not made, it will be incredibly dangerous ahead. The government that Cecilia Rönn supports and which has presented the budget proposal being debated here today itself speaks of that one does not lower climate emissions but increases them. Yesterday, Miljöpartiet also presented a calculation showing that what has previously emerged regarding emission increases was only what applied exactly in the year 2030. The accumulated effects are therefore much worse.

I can present this budget proposal with pride. It is a proposal that makes Sweden stronger. I want to be clear that it is not a proposal where we borrow for current expenditures.

With that, I hope that this is clear and that we can discuss what the different parts look like moving forward. If these investments are not made, it is dangerous for the climate and Sweden's future strength, but it is also the case that the government next year must go to the Riksdag and speak about why one has an inadequate budget with too little borrowing room. One is underfunding Sweden's development.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the clarifications. I completely agree with the member that the climate transition is critical and that we need to do everything we can to manage it. I am also very pleased that for the first time we actually have a plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 - five years earlier than we have committed to do at the EU level. I completely agree with the member that that is where we are headed, but the member and I see very different paths to get there.

I am also pleased that all eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag are now in agreement on the climate goals. Furthermore, the Liberals, together with the government and the coalition parties, have ensured that it is now up to each department to take responsibility for the climate impact they have. This is something that I am quite sure the Miljöpartiet would have gladly wanted to have passed when they sat in government together with the Socialdemokraterna. This is good and important, because it means that even our department, the Ministry of Finance, and our committee need to take responsibility for and ensure that we actually reach the climate goals.

I also agree that we have a large investment need. Even the Liberals have been clear that we probably need to move towards a balance target. We might even need to use debt financing to make certain critical investments for a time ahead, but it is important that we do so within the fiscal framework that we have all agreed upon. This has, just as the member says, been a strength for Sweden and has ensured that Sweden currently stands strong to meet the challenges we have. It is also important to have a generational justice in this, so that we give our young people good conditions for a good life ahead.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It has been a tough autumn for many. Soaring prices have forced many families to cut back even on the most essential things, and now massive cuts in school, healthcare, and elderly care are also at the door.

Sweden is one of the world's wealthiest countries. Yet, in many ways, we find ourselves in an economically difficult time. The cost increases have hit both individuals and society very hard. This can be managed in different ways. One can use the space to support those who are the most vulnerable in the cost crisis - or one can prioritize something else. The Government and the Sweden Democrats clearly prioritize something else and thus send the bill to the students in school, the patients in healthcare, and our elderly in elderly care. It is an incomprehensible betrayal of the Swedish people, and it will cost us dearly for a long time to come.

The Tidö parties promised not to abandon welfare. But that is precisely what is being done with the budget being debated here today. It is a budget for cuts in municipalities and regions. It will affect school, healthcare, and elderly care. It will affect students, teachers, patients, nurses, the elderly, and healthcare assistants. They are the ones who will have to take the hit for the government's economic policy.

Much is being done with inflation as a pretext. But it cannot be that we are to fight inflation through cuts within the welfare system, because the needs there do not decrease. Children must learn to read regardless of whether inflation is low or high. Patients must receive care regardless of the economic climate. The elderly need care regardless of the latest KPI figure. It must not be that a temporarily high inflation, which is also now on its way down, leads to fewer resources in our common welfare. But unfortunately, this is precisely what is happening.

We are already seeing the results of the government's welfare betrayal. It is not just the budget for next year that is insufficient. The budget that the government presented for 2023 and which we have now, therefore, lived with was no better. Even that was a budget of cuts for municipalities and regions. And instead of compensating those who were affected, the government chose to compensate high-income earners for inflation by lowering the tax.

The result of this is what we are seeing now. It is a wave of warnings rolling over Sweden, and it is toughest in the regions. We are heading towards a healthcare crisis. According to a compilation from Ekot, several regions are now planning even more cuts. Taxes and patient fees are being raised. Public transport is becoming more expensive. But it does not stop there.

This autumn, we have witnessed a brutal wave of violence in Sweden that has cost many human lives and left entire residential areas in terror. Children have been murdered, and children have murdered. This cannot only be met with increased sentences and more repressive measures. By then, the crimes have already been committed. By then, it is far too late.

Sweden's municipalities have a very great responsibility for crime prevention work, and the social services are the very foundation for it. But if the social services are to be able to take that responsibility, there needs to be funding. There need to be social workers. There need to be safe adults. There need to be sufficiently good and sufficiently many educators in school and preschool. And this is something we will not see with the government's policy.

One can say that the government and the Sweden Democrats, with bold courage, let the preventive work in schools and in social services take a backseat. And one lets the most vulnerable children and young people pay the price for the economic crisis. It will cost Sweden and the children incredibly dearly. It will become harder to tackle gang crime. This is a policy that is both hostile to the present and hostile to the future.

It simply requires reprioritizations. That is why we in Miljöpartiet propose 14 billion more than the government in general state grants for 2024. It would give the municipalities and regions significantly better conditions to fulfill the welfare mandates in the coming year. But more than that is required. Structural changes are needed which mean that we do not automatically cut back on welfare unless an active decision is made. Because that is the case today. The grants from the state to the regions do not increase with the cost developments. We believe that is a systemic error that needs to be changed.

If one wants to make cuts in welfare, we think that one should stand before the voters and speak about that it is what one is doing and explain why one is making such a prioritization. Now it sounds instead like that one is making an investment.

When it comes to this budget, Miljöpartiet is putting up money. But moving forward, we want the state grants to be adjusted for inflation. We believe that should be the starting point in economic policy, and we will work for such a change. It would give the municipalities better long-term planning conditions. It is incredibly tough for all municipalities and regions to plan when they do not know what will apply for coming years until the Finance Minister calls a press conference and presents a so-called investment in welfare – an investment that, in practice, can mean large cuts.

It is time for a reorganization, and Sweden can choose a different path. We can invest in what is our common ground and build a strong society. It is a society with a welfare system that works, a school that gives every child an honest chance to succeed, a healthcare system that does not force people into long care queues, and a care sector where everyone who works there receives a higher salary, more colleagues, and better working conditions instead of applause. It is possible, but it requires a politics of faith in the future and nation-building, and not the opposite.

With this, I would like to thank the Speaker, the Speaker's Office, the Presidium, the Finance Committee's Office and all members for a good job during the autumn. I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! For the year 2024, SD and the government are injecting a total of 16 billion to our municipalities and regions. And in 2025 and 2026, the important investment of 10 billion in general support remains, which means over these three years we are injecting 30 billion in general support. It is an important investment for Sweden.

I am also thinking about this: Our municipalities and regions have different tools to carry out their missions, for example, vehicles. Our municipalities and regions have cars to be able to carry out their missions. One has public transport. We have buses that run on, among other things, diesel. And the welfare sector has employees and potential future employees who are dependent on their gasoline or diesel car.

I am thinking about the initiative regarding the reduction obligation. We are lowering it. We are lowering the tax on gasoline and diesel. This will make it cheaper for our municipalities to conduct their operations, for public transport to carry out its mission, and for a person who needs to commute to their job within the welfare sector, for example far up in the north of our country, where there are long distances.

What I just mentioned is something that Miljöpartiet does not want to do. For example, they do not want to lower the reduction obligation. Because of that, I feel a strong concern for our municipal operations. Does Miljöpartiet also feel that against the background I just mentioned, nothing else? Does one have the same concern as I do when it comes to the costs of our municipal operations and the costs for our employees?

Even though the reduction of the reduction obligation and the reduction of the diesel tax and the petrol tax do not fall directly under this expenditure area, Mr. Speaker, they are priorities that affect the area we are now debating.

We have home care that has cars, social services that have cars, and public transport that has buses in order to carry out their operations. We are now making it cheaper for them to do this. What does Miljöpartiet think about that?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think we naturally share the concern that the member expresses. We compensate for the cost increases in our budget, just as I said. We believe, in fact, that this transition must be made. All research says so. Everything points to the fact that the sooner we do it, the better and cheaper it will be in the long run.

Now the Sweden Democrats are contributing to us being kept in a fossil dependency that will continue for a long time to come. We see fluctuations in the world market price. We are exposed to the whims of oil sheiks. Putin delivers fossil fuels to Sweden. We sit in these people's laps. We do that instead of investing in expanding our own renewable electricity production, which we see meets very much resistance, not least from Sweden Democrat politicians. You are simply slowing down the pace when it comes to what we all know must be done.

We believe in lowering costs. A transition must take place in the long run. With the climate investments we now want to make, we see that it will result in clearly lowered costs and less dependence in the future.

If we are not only to stick to this budget item, I also intended to make a small observation, Mr. Speaker. We have had a great deal of policy that is intended to contribute to this, in addition to the state subsidies. I am thinking, for example, of the urban environment agreements and Klimatklivet. It is also such things that the Sweden Democrats have now removed from the budget. In doing so, one nullifies such opportunities for investments for municipalities and regions.

How do the Sweden Democrats imagine Sweden's transition should look when one only subsidizes petrol and diesel?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are talking about our public activities and about the home care and social services that are dependent on cars in order to be able to meet our elderly and to be able to meet children in need of support who do not live in, for example, central parts of our cities. And we are talking about public transport, for that part, and creating conditions for it.

Miljöpartiet often speaks about the green transition and that changes should be made. At the same time, I see that our municipalities and especially our regions are tied to long contracts for public transport with a certain type of vehicle powered by diesel, and have cars within the municipalities that are leased and are powered, for example, by gasoline. It was unfortunately unsustainable with biogas. They tried for a while, but because they had to refuel fifty times a day, they chose to run on gasoline instead. It was complicated.

Not all private individuals can afford to make the transition that Miljöpartiet is talking about. People simply want the opportunity to get to their work and to have money left in their wallet when the work is done and they have paid their bills.

The transition that the Green Party wants to make, regardless of whether one is for or against it, takes time to implement, and now we are talking about lowering the costs for municipalities and regions immediately. In public transport, for example, one could run trains and electric buses on fossil-free electricity instead of on renewable, which lowers the cost.

In addition to what we inject directly in state grants in the general support to our municipalities and regions, other things also contribute, for example, the reduction of the reduction obligation and the reduction of the petrol and diesel tax, to lowering the costs directly in the municipalities' and regions' operations. One must see this as a whole. It is several parts that together make it cheaper for our municipalities and regions to carry out their operations, and other parts that we compensate for, we provide instead as extra support.

This is a stable state budget that targets several different parts of our municipalities' and regions' operations, also by supporting our citizens.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats seem to think that the only way to support this country is to subsidize gasoline and diesel. It is fascinating. But it is a short-sighted policy that will put Sweden in a much more difficult position in the future.

We must all reduce our emissions. The fossil must be removed. The faster we do it, the better. Of course, every individual should not have to take it upon themselves and think about it, because that is really far from everyone who has the means or opportunity to do so.

Therefore, we propose, for example, a changed travel deduction. It would have given much more to those who live in the countryside and need to drive long distances. It was also travel-neutral and fuel-neutral and would have ensured that even those who have made the transition would not be affected.

This is not an easy transition. It is not happening quickly. It will be felt in many areas. Therefore, politics must step in and do its part. But here we see absolutely no responsibility whatsoever from the Sverigedemokraterna. Instead of coming up with proposals that help both the operations and individuals to actually do their jobs, they are pulling the rug out from under them.

People cannot be expected to make the transition themselves if society and we from politics do not help. And the Sweden Democrats are not helping. Fossil subsidies hinder both now and in the future.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's welfare is built in municipalities and regions. That is also why the government is now making one of the largest increases of the general government grant that has been made in this chamber, precisely so that municipalities and regions can continue to offer a good, high-quality welfare. At the same time, I want to emphasize that it is not a sustainable solution that municipalities and regions should be compensated through increased government grants every time the economy turns downward.

The government's ambition is to make the municipalities more robust and less vulnerable. The goal must be that the municipalities should have such economic conditions that they can manage temporary downturns in the economy without being dependent on an increase in state grants every time.

As we have heard in the debate, the municipalities can today transfer money to a so-called results equalization reserve. In good economic times, one can therefore transfer money that can then be used in poorer economic times. In this way, one can better counter booms and recessions. A large majority of the municipalities have taken advantage of this opportunity and can now use the money in a significantly more difficult economic time.

From and with the turn of the year, a new law will enter into force that makes it easier to transfer money to a results reserve and also makes it easier to use this reserve. I really want to take the opportunity to emphasize the importance of municipalities and regions making use of the opportunity that the equalization reserve creates.

The municipalities have for many years had good economic times and good economic results. Some of this has been transferred into equalization reserves, but not at all at the level that it is possible to do. Had the municipalities transferred money to an equalization reserve to a greater extent, the municipalities and the regions would be even stronger economically today. I really want to emphasize the importance of this opportunity being used. The government's hope is that the legislative change increases the incentives.

Creating robust and more resilient municipalities is, of course, not just about money. Another measure to strengthen the municipalities' robustness is the Municipal Perspective Inquiry, which is now reviewing the possibility of probing the interest in voluntary municipal mergers. By having municipalities join together, one could achieve various so-called economies of scale and thus be better equipped when future challenges regarding competence supply, digitalization, and climate adaptations only become larger and larger.

Another investigation that was recently presented was the so-called Kommunförsöksutredningen (Municipal Trial Investigation). Here, greater opportunities were given for municipalities to operate different types of activities in project form. These may not always be regulated by law today, but if one can do this in project form in order to be more innovative and think outside the box, it is also a way to make municipalities more resilient.

The goal must be that municipalities should not be completely dependent on individual increases in state grants in individual years to manage their core mandate. The municipalities must be robust enough to handle even temporary cyclical fluctuations. A single municipality's entire operation and economy can also not stand or fall with individual placements within social services. Our municipalities must become more robust and more resilient when it comes to handling economic ups and downs. That is what we are laying a foundation for.

With this said, and as has also emerged during this debate, the government is now making a major investment in the municipal sector next year. No less than 40 percent of the total reform space next year goes specifically to the municipal sector - 10 billion kronor in a general increase of the state grant, which are permanent, and 6 billion kronor in additional targeted state grants. When we add together the increases in the state grants that were made in this year's budget for 2023 with those that are made next year, the increase totals 28 billion kronor. The state is therefore taking its responsibility in a tough economic time for everyone, including for municipalities and regions.

Mr. Speaker! We also cannot just focus on state grants. There will obviously be a lot of focus on that in this debate, as the debate is primarily about the general state grants. But I think it is worth pointing out that of the municipalities' total revenues, approximately 20 percent consist of state grants. The absolute largest source of income for the municipalities is tax revenues through municipal taxes. And how do we keep them up? Yes, by keeping the work line up, by keeping the number of hours worked up, and by investing in growth-promoting measures. This has much, much greater significance for the municipal sector's economy than a few billion in increased state grants. It is a debate that we have far too rarely here in this chamber, I think.

Therefore, it is an important focus for the government, in addition to raising state grants, to also strengthen the work principle in order to maintain the number of hours worked. It is a priority to also support, not least, the households that are most vulnerable from an economic perspective in order to thereby keep consumption up – but naturally without fueling inflation.

Inflation is the absolute greatest threat to the finances of municipalities and regions as well as to household finances and for the business climate. Therefore, the government's overriding ambition is to keep the inflationary pressure down so that inflation is lowered as quickly as possible. We are beginning to see signs that inflation is decreasing significantly, and it is important that we hold out and hold on so that the inflationary pressure can cease and leave the Swedish economy; so that interest rates can be lowered. This is of the utmost importance for our municipalities and regions.

I do not want to give any illusion in this debate that the state, through the increase in state grants, compensates for everything and for the entire economic downturn occurring in municipalities and regions. The year 2024 will be a tough year for municipalities and regions as well as for the state budget, for individual households and for the business sector.

The municipalities must also do their homework. Among other things, leadership is required that dares to prioritize the municipal core activities. We must also have leadership that takes advantage of the possibilities of digitalization. Several municipalities are actively working to improve the quality of goods, service, and services through increased digitalization and to cut costs.

An investigation shows that only by fully utilizing the potential of AI can public administration save as much as 180 billion kronor. This is an old figure, it should also be said.

Before I conclude, it is important to point out that municipalities also perform differently. Structurally equivalent municipalities can deliver different results in school, elderly care, and social services with the same means. It is important to also keep an eye on this. What do we do with the money? What quality do we get for every tax krona? Here, municipalities must learn to compare themselves with one another and take lessons from good examples so that we extract as much quality as is possible from every tax krona. But the state is now doing its part to contribute by supporting municipalities and regions with one of the absolutely largest general increases of the state grant that any government has made in this chamber.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the speech and actually also for a substantial investment. It is a large sum for municipalities and regions, even if it is far too small and would need to be raised significantly more than that.

We know that healthcare in Sweden has major problems. There are long queues, closed departments and full emergency rooms. The list can be made long.

One of the things we must do if we are not just to talk about money per se is to make healthcare professions more attractive. We need to get back the nurses who have not been able to cope and instead have started working with something else. More must be enticed to undergo training and want to work in healthcare. We simply must make the healthcare professions more attractive.

How should the de facto reduction in healthcare be carried out so that it becomes more attractive to work in healthcare? How can we hire more and develop healthcare so that it becomes more equitable and accessible throughout the country?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

The year 2024 will, as I said in my speech, be a tough year. It will be a year when municipalities and regions will really have to struggle to keep operations running. I am convinced that municipalities and regions will manage this task, partly thanks to the good years they have had behind them, which they can use if they have built up a result equalization reserve.

The government is making a special investment in healthcare. In addition to the general increases in state grants, there is a special sector grant to healthcare because we know that the regions are more affected by the economic downturn than the municipalities are. It is one thing that the government is doing.

The Minister for Health and Care has called a press conference this afternoon where she will present measures concerning the regions' finances. I hope that news will be delivered there that will be positive for the regions. In addition to the sector grant, there are a number of targeted state grants to shorten healthcare queues and strengthen primary care, strengthen women's health, and to combat cancer diseases. Many measures are being taken within healthcare so that we can continue to develop healthcare within Sweden.

If it is to be a question of a purely healthcare policy debate, I believe the Minister for Health is even better suited to conduct it, but we are creating the best possible economic conditions during the next year to maintain good healthcare.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

It is good that areas where more investments need to be made are pointed out, and that there is a will regarding women's healthcare, cancer, and increased equality.

What we see is that there will still be major cuts. One gives with one hand and perhaps does not take with the other, but one does not live up to the level that is needed for the distribution to work. I would like to ask a question about the equalization reserve. Yes, there is a lot of money in reserves in some places after an offensive and often joint effort during the pandemic, and that means there are large surpluses. But as I have understood it, it is difficult to know how one can use the reserve. There is no set of rules that says one can take the money for the challenges that one is now facing. Will there be any clarifications so that a municipality or region can feel secure when using the money so that it does not become a difficult setback later?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It has been said several times from the rostrum that there will be large cuts and layoffs in the regions, but I think one is a bit too gloomy in their future predictions regarding this. We have indeed seen some signs, but there is a difference between signs and layoffs. A very large part of this will be resolved through natural attrition. It is not the case that SKR makes a forecast that there will be mass layoffs, as is said in the chamber. These are home-grown and jerry-rigged theories from the opposition that have no basis in reality.

Then there was the question about the equalization reserves. The answer is yes to the question, in the sense that what begins to apply from the turn of the year is that the equalization reserve becomes a result reserve. Withdrawals from the result reserve will be more or less unregulated. It does not have to be a recession by definition in order to be able to use the money. The municipalities will get much greater freedom of action to use their result reserves than today. The Government hopes that this will contribute to the willingness to transfer money to the reserves increasing with the greater flexibility and the greater freedom.

I am fully aware that there are municipalities that argue that during 2023 it was difficult to utilize the reserves, and that they have not made the assessment that they have met the requirements to use them. For 2024, I would be surprised if there are still municipalities that argue that the requirements are not met. 2024 is a year in which we are in a recession, which was not the case for the entirety of 2023. I hope that that hesitation will be cleared away.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the Committee on Finance, to the Minister's eminent office, and also to the Speaker's Presidium so that it is not forgotten.

I can, as a previous speaker, say that some wise things have been said here by the Minister. But one thing I do not think was as wise. It was the claim that mass layoffs are, as the Minister himself expressed it, some home-made fantasy.

Is it home-made with the hundreds of services being cut in Gothenburg and Malmö? I can quote Sara Wettergren from the Liberals, who admittedly does not sit in the government but says that everything is being done to prioritize the school but that the situation is extremely tough: "We hope for increased state grants." That is what she said after you had presented your budget, Erik Slottner.

They are saving 200 million in the school. For all those parents who see that services are being cut, is it a home-made fantasy for them? Then the Minister must answer them why one chooses to prioritize so much else that one might want in a crisis but which is not prioritized in a crisis - snus, plastic bags, gasoline in large cities and many other initiatives - over that which is their children's and our children's future and the strength that the school needs to have in the difficult crisis that the school actually stands in now.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! No, I never said that they were fantasies. I said that they were theories, home-made theories. There is some difference, I think. If one makes the assessment or the forecast that all warnings will lead to layoffs, yes, then I think that is home-made. So we know that it does not work generally speaking.

I am not saying that no layoffs occur at all. It is very possible that they will happen. But according to the contacts we have had, as we are of course following this, many of the layoffs being made are more by temporary employees and not by permanent employees. It can be probationary periods, for example. It can be natural departures, where one does not always fill new positions when someone retires or changes workplace.

It is clear that this gives a different picture. The situation is still serious, but it gives a different picture than the one presented here in the chamber of mass resignations that will lead to amounts of unemployed trained nurses, doctors, and nursing assistants. We do not see that, at least, in the forecasts that we have been made aware of. But we shall see what the future reveals.

I understand that there is a hope that more money will come. Everyone wants that, more money all the time. I understand that municipal and regional politicians want more money. But in a situation where the state allocates an incredible amount of resources to the justice system and to defense because we have promised to upgrade it, and allocates a lot of money to maintain the work line and to strengthen households, not least the most economically vulnerable, I still think it is a sign of strength that the government can allocate 40 percent of its reform space to the municipal sector to maintain the welfare.

Then everyone will think that the room for reform is limited. It has a lot to do with the high inflation. If we pursue an overly expansive fiscal policy, we fuel the inflation, which would be the absolute greatest threat to, among other things, the municipal sector.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now the problem is that one spends much more on all these other things - not on defense, the police and all that, but on these other things that reasonably are not a priority in a crisis - than on schools, especially on small schools in the Swedish countryside.

When the Minister now raises the question of the work line, which he rightly spoke warmly about in his speech, I would like to take the opportunity to ask why it is good "bourgeois" policy – I do not know if one can call the Tidö government bourgeois – to increase the tax burden of the municipalities and regions by 2 billion SEK so that they can employ young people. It is also likely much more; this is an old calculation. Furthermore, they continue to raise [the taxes] on those who are to have summer jobs, which is what the municipalities work so hard to ensure they can do. In what way does that strengthen the work line? And why have you not compensated the municipalities for this rather substantial tax increase, which has almost completely disappeared from the debate, as you have done since you took office?

You speak about how it is important to strengthen the resources for the municipalities and the regions. Then you raise the tax on labor more than you lower it. You raise it quite significantly by many billions. You raise the tax on labor more, and furthermore, you spend significantly more on raising the unemployment insurance than on lowering the tax on labor. In what way is that the work line for a bourgeois government?

The Minister is also welcome to answer these parents who actually notice that resources are disappearing from the school. It is no less obvious than the fact that it is their everyday life for their children in their school, who are not receiving those resources. They see that the students in their children's class are not receiving the resources they need when they are vulnerable and need help.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I never said that the latter was a home-made theory. It was something else – that Kommunsverige faces enormous mass layoffs ahead. I think that is drawing a conclusion too far with the information we have today. It was not that individual schools face cuts. One must still understand and interpret me correctly, I think.

Then it is strange that regardless of what we do, we receive criticism. If we do not fulfill election promises after some months, in the first budget, it is taken as a huge breach of promise. "Look, the government is not fulfilling all the election promises they gave!" When we now begin to fulfill election promises in the budget, we receive criticism for fulfilling the election promises.

I understand that Martin Ådahl does not like all the election promises that we gave the voters before the election. It is fully understandable. But I do not intend to take the criticism to heart because we are now fulfilling election promises, among other things by lowering the fuel tax and removing the plastic bag tax. And I think it is interesting that it is precisely a Center Party member who is so indignant about us lowering the tax on fuels; I must say that.

Regarding the employer contributions for young people, it is a measure that has been condemned by very many economists, who have said that this has not given the effect that one has desired or wanted when it comes to specifically the participation of young people in the labor market.

Then there are other measures, which have also emerged here in the debate, which also ease the pressure on the municipalities' finances. Both the substantial reduction of the fuel tax and the reduction of the reduction obligation will create lower pressure on, among other things, public transport. By supporting vulnerable households, including through an increased housing allowance for families with children, we ease the pressure on social services through lower social assistance.

There are, therefore, other parts of the government's policy that ease the pressure on municipalities and regions without them needing to compensate the state for it.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for giving us the opportunity to have a debate here as well and for his participation in this budget debate!

It does, however, leave me a bit confounded, the speech that the Minister for Civil Affairs gave here. It was very much about what the municipalities do and do not. One gets the feeling that it is solely the responsibility of the municipalities and the regions, what is happening right now.

The Minister for Civil Affairs also says that it is only 20 percent of the municipalities' income, what they have to work with, that comes from the state. I think most people probably think that 20 percent is quite a lot. Regardless of what we are talking about, 20 percent is quite a lot. For some municipalities, it also amounts to more, depending on what the conditions are for municipalities and regions.

Then I want to come to my question. We see in healthcare that there are large cuts regardless of how one looks at it – whether it is notices of termination or layoffs. During the visits I make to healthcare, I hear that it is quite a lot about, for example, that people are not replaced when they leave. It is also a reduction of staff even if it is not a concrete layoff.

The Minister talks about natural departures, but that does not provide more resources in healthcare. It is both about services not being filled and that concrete cuts are being made, and it affects healthcare through reduced staffing. At the same time, healthcare faces enormous challenges, and the needs for healthcare have not decreased. But now one receives fewer resources, and inflation is high. Does the Minister see this reality?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh seems to have listened rather poorly to my speech because she believes I gave the impression that everything lies with the municipalities. A large part of my speech was about precisely that record-breaking increase in state grants that the government is making. If we add this year's increase to next year's, it becomes 28 billion. It does not compensate for everything, but it is a large increase.

Let me nuance the picture with a fact. The state grant accounts for one-fifth of the revenue. The municipalities' largest source of revenue is the municipal tax, and it is sustained by the fact that people have jobs and that the number of hours worked is increasing. I also want to emphasize the importance of the fact that we have municipal self-government, that the municipalities are responsible for making the finances balance and that they focus on core activities, are as efficient as possible, and squeeze as much quality as possible out of every tax krona.

Of course, I see the reality. We all do who follow the news. I know that healthcare faces incredibly tough challenges and that the economy is more strained in the regions than in the municipalities. It is also for this reason that the government is making a special investment in precisely healthcare through a sector grant. It is a bit of a shame that the Minister for Health's press conference is this afternoon, as it would have been good to know the content before this debate. But more news that has significance for the regions' economy will come, and it will be exciting to hear them. The government, therefore, sees and acts. For us, high-quality healthcare is very important.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have a short comment on income from work. We are in a construction crisis and a healthcare crisis. This means that fewer people will work, which affects more than just quality.

I hear the Minister say that it is a crisis and that there are great needs within healthcare. We agree on that. The healthcare crisis affects care here and now. What is it that makes the Christian Democrats, who so often say they want to protect healthcare, agree to a policy and a budget that leads to cuts in healthcare, which mean lower quality, likely longer care queues, and harder to get care based on need? How can the Minister stand up for a budget that does not do what is required for healthcare?

My interpretation of the posts is that it is more important to protect high-income earners through expensive tax cuts than to protect welfare in these difficult times. You compensate high-income earners for the high inflation but not welfare, which affects the quality.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! All of us who follow the news know that healthcare faces tough challenges, not just financially. The supply of competence is many times a greater problem than the economy.

I see very good healthcare when I travel around the country. Healthcare is constantly developing and can today cure more rare and serious diseases, better alleviate suffering and give longer lives to people who previously would have died. I think it is important to emphasize this.

The government is making a major special investment in healthcare in next year's budget through the sector contribution, the general increases to regions and municipalities, and a number of targeted state grants in agreement with Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner to shorten healthcare queues, improve cancer care, and improve women's health.

The Social Democrats paint a picture of giving municipalities and regions a huge supplement. The supplement they propose in addition to the government's budget corresponds to half a per mille of the municipalities' total revenue. I think it may be worth reminding. Half a per mille does not decide whether welfare is ruined or developed, which is sometimes the impression given in the chamber.

I am a bit tired of hearing that we are prioritizing high-income earners. Eva Lindh knows very well that we are freezing the increase of the threshold next year precisely because we have chosen to prioritize other measures. I note that the increase of the threshold that was made last year is not being restored by the Social Democrats, so we seem to agree on this issue.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I had intended to ask a question about Hofors. But I realized something, and therefore would rather have an answer to a question regarding something Erik Slottner said in his speech. The Minister may correct me if I heard incorrectly, but I thought the Minister said that the municipalities should not have to rely on annual increases of the state grants. This is something the Left Party agrees with. We want the state grants to be indexed annually so that they are increased automatically.

I heard the Minister say that one is providing historically large amounts of money to municipalities and regions, more than has ever been done before. But shouldn't the state grants be in relation to the cost increases for municipalities and regions? If one does not increase them, one is in practice imposing a cut requirement on municipalities and regions.

Is the government's ambition to index the state grants to municipalities and regions, as the Left Party wants? Or is the government's intention that the state grants shall no longer be increased?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Government will have to return to this in the upcoming budgets. We have not indicated whether we will continue to increase the state grants or not. The increases we have made this year and will make next year are permanent increases that remain in the upcoming budgets. How we then choose to proceed in the budgets for 2025 and 2026, we will have to return to.

The point of my speech was that I want more resilient and less vulnerable municipalities that can manage to counter ups and downs in the economy, just as the state does with its framework where one can run a deficit in a recession and then recover it in a boom. This has been difficult for the municipalities. Especially if they set aside funds in so-called equity, it becomes very locked so that a surplus one year cannot finance a deficit the next year.

This flexibility will now increase through result reserves, and I mean that if more municipalities had used the opportunity to set aside money in these reserves, they would have managed the task better now and in the future. We see that the municipalities that have used this opportunity have managed the recession better, so it is a good model. This should, however, not be any guarantee or any recipe for avoiding raising the state grants, but I believe it would create stronger municipalities, which would be very desirable.

Regarding the indexing of state grants, I do not really know how Vänsterpartiet has acted on that issue previously, but it is a sudden insight from Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. They have sat in government for eight years and have not indexed the state grants. But now, suddenly, they want this to happen. I do not know what Vänsterpartiet's starting point was in those discussions when budget negotiations were held with the previous government. But it is, therefore, a sudden insight here and now that the state grants should be indexed. We do do indexations sometimes, but one must remember that it locks the reform space and reduces the government's possibility to prioritize.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! It is precisely this that is the point. If one does an indexing, it means that one compensates the municipalities for the cost increases that they de facto have. One makes the municipalities more resilient, that is, exactly what the Minister said that one wants to achieve.

If we ensure that municipalities and regions have a stable income base, they can also plan long-term to make different types of changes. But if every year you are to take away the money that the municipalities should be able to count on, it is clear that there will be cuts in the end. It is as if one says: No, you only get 40 percent of the money you should have to maintain the quality of welfare and service, and then you have to solve this however you want! It results in cuts. That is why we have pushed this issue year after year. We must index the state grants to the municipalities. I am very happy that more parties are joining that line.

The Minister also speaks about the result equalization reserves. That is probably interesting for those municipalities that have such reserves. Now, unfortunately, it is the case that not everyone has that possibility. Then I have to go back to speaking about my own municipality. In Hofors, there have never been any conditions to set aside money for any result equalization reserve. Everything is used to be able to provide the citizens with the welfare they deserve. That is what one does. It is a municipality that has already had incredibly high taxes for some time, but the income levels are so low in relation to the rest of the kingdom that one is forced to use all the money for the actual operations.

One cannot say that the municipalities should solve this with their saved money when there is no saved money. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that the welfare functions in Sweden.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The stable income base for the municipalities does not consist of the general state grants but of the municipal tax. Again, it is important to emphasize how crucial it is for the municipalities that we maintain good growth and the number of hours worked, as that also increases the revenues to the municipalities. During the alliance government's years between 2006 and 2014, the municipalities' finances were strengthened very significantly precisely because the number of hours worked increased so much.

Vänsterpartiet increases the state grant very significantly in its budget, but not even this increases the revenues by more than 2 per mille for the municipalities. What happens in the economy is much more decisive than the general state grants. This is what I intend to continue to assert.

It is true that not all municipalities have any result equalization reserve. But approximately three-quarters of them do and can use it now. It is also not the case that it is only the most economically vulnerable municipalities that do not have any result equalization reserve. Two municipalities that, for example, do not have it are the City of Stockholm, a very economically robust municipality, and the City of Helsingborg. They lack a result equalization reserve.

Now Samuel Gonzalez Westling wants to bring the debate down to Hofors municipality. It is difficult for me as a minister to do this. I do not know exactly what economic conditions Hofors has had in order to transfer funds to a result equalization reserve. But many municipalities that have had the opportunity to do so have chosen not to do so. Many municipalities have chosen to build up their own capital, which also has its advantages. But I believe it would have been good if some money had also been used to set aside a reserve to better handle downturns in the economy.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! What awaits Sweden with the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget is unparalleled. Hardly a day goes by without us being reached by new reports of planned cuts in schools or in healthcare. What we see happening before us right now cannot be described in any terms other than as a pure welfare collapse - a welfare collapse that the government and the Sweden Democrats have put Sweden into with their eyes wide open.

Region after region announces that there will be mass layoffs. For example, Region Sörmland and Region Värmland have laid off over 700 people each. Sweden's largest hospital, Sahlgrenska in Gothenburg, is laying off over 2,000 employees because the finances do not add up. The municipalities are now planning for large cuts in both school and elderly care, and this occurs after a year when large cuts have already characterized the operations to a very high extent. Swedish welfare is in crisis today.

But, Mr. Speaker, when one sees the representatives for the government parties in the speaker's chair here in the Swedish Riksdag, it is easy to get a feeling that this is not such a big problem. I have tried to ask both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister what they think, and their answers actually make me very concerned. I am concerned about whether they are even capable of understanding the consequences of their led policy in the long term, and concerned because I wonder if they are even fit to govern the country if they do not understand this.

Their answer is, in short and good terms – and we have heard that here before as well – that it is a bit tough now. So that is the answer we get from the country's leaders: They certainly do not intend to do anything!

Instead, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner describes the situation as follows: "The challenges are many and large. In addition to a lack of both economic resources and personnel, a number of municipalities have been affected in recent years, and more will be affected, by climate change. They are thus forced to manage effects of, among other things, floods, landslides, heat, and fires. Investments to manage upcoming climate adaptations in the municipalities are estimated to amount to hundreds of billions of kronor. The municipalities are also expected to make much larger efforts to prevent crime as well as gang violence. Together with the regions, they shall scale up the crisis preparedness and the civil defense." It is a bit tough now, Mr. Speaker.

It did not have to be like this. A government that had been more favorably disposed towards the Swedish people - Sweden-lovers, if one wants to use that expression - would have chosen to do differently. A government that had looked out for the people's best interests would have ensured that when times are difficult, we could at least trust that the school, healthcare, and care of our children and elderly had been strong and reliable.

General grants to municipalities

Vänsterpartiet proposes significantly more in appropriations to the municipalities and regions. It is something that would have been much needed. Then one could have felt secure that when there are difficult times, at least society is there.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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