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.

When I now, for the third time in this chamber, debate this expenditure area, I am simultaneously thinking back on all the good investments that we in the Sverigedemokraterna have made together with the government during the years 2023 and 2024. It would take a very long time to list them all, but I still think it is important to mention a few areas.

We have together strengthened the general government grants to record levels. We have implemented a number of targeted initiatives in areas such as school, health care and elderly care. I can mention examples such as an initiative to shorten care queues, a sector grant to health care, work to promote mental health and an initiative for strengthened school libraries.

These were some of the things we highlighted ahead of 2024, and it pleases me that we have been able to direct many good and important supports to municipalities and regions. To this shall be added many other good reforms that the Sverigedemokraterna have negotiated with the government, which will create better conditions for our municipalities and regions. One example I want to mention here is the municipalities' strengthened role for crime prevention work, which has been law since 2023 and is an important part when it comes to creating a safer society.

From and including July 2025, it will become easier for municipalities and regions to decide on camera surveillance in public places. It will make the processes for safety work shorter, and it will also reduce the costs of camera surveillance as municipalities and regions no longer need to devote the same amount of administration to fighting for the right to strengthen safety for their citizens locally. Permit processes that previously have taken months are now most likely a thing of the past, and this is not one day too early.

General grants to municipalities

With more cameras in both public transport, around hospitals, and in other public places, there is also a need to more extensively streamline the utility of cameras and other measures in cooperation between municipalities, regions, and the police. Legislation is then needed that strengthens the municipalities' requirements for crime prevention work and also support to simplify the work of establishing various aids for this. Through these efforts, we can also strengthen the perceived safety in society and in that way also get more people to move in public spaces.

Mr. Speaker! The previously conducted migration policy, unsustainable and destructive for Swedish society, has been overhauled. Now, immigration is at record-low levels that we have not seen in 30 years. For next year, the forecast is that immigration to Sweden will decrease further. With that said, we have also created better conditions for those with the right skills to be able to work in Sweden.

The previously pursued unsustainable migration policy has affected Swedish society enormously, not least through the emergence of areas of exclusion, gang crime, and welfare dependency. It has also created the breeding ground for children as young as eight, nine, and ten years old to be lured into gangs with promises of money, things, and status. We have seen young people murder other young people, and we have seen completely innocent people die in explosions, shootings, and other violent crimes. To turn a blind eye to the fact that immigration was and is the main cause of this is to refuse to see the truth for what it is.

Mr. Speaker! When the previously conducted migration policy has been debated, it has always evoked strong emotions, whether it is in the Riksdag, in regions or in municipalities. In some cases, people have not wanted to engage in the debate, in other cases, the individuals who have tried to point out the problems have been ridiculed, singled out and mocked.

But does criticism of the previously conducted migration policy mean that one is suggesting that all immigrants in Sweden are criminals? Of course not. But the policy that was conducted previously has created problems when people who came to Sweden never had any requirements on them to learn the language, obtain an education or a job, and become a part of Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The now rearranged migration policy also changes the conditions for our municipalities and regions. It is difficult to plan for housing, school, healthcare, etc., when people in numbers that are difficult to estimate in an early planning process come to Sweden. In previous years, 80,000-100,000 people immigrated annually, and during the peak year 2015, the figure was over 150,000. It is obvious that it creates problems for a society to plan and function. Despite that, certain parties stubbornly claimed that there was no limit to how many could come to Sweden.

It required large investments from municipalities and regions in preschools, schools, elderly care, etc., with an increased loan debt as a consequence - loans for which interest must be paid and which also must be repaid by future generations. But the increased investment burden was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in tax revenues. Some smaller municipalities also hit the loan ceiling. One simply could not borrow more money for investments.

Municipalities and regions will now have better conditions moving forward to plan for tomorrow's society. Sweden needed a better migration policy, and even though there is more to do, we have made large and noticeable changes for Swedish society. With a new migration policy, we also create conditions for people who wish to become a part of Sweden to get that chance. But with that chance also follow clear requirements on what is expected in return, which is right and proper.

The shift that is now taking place strengthens not only the safety of society but also the opportunities for those who want to contribute and become a part of our country.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government have negotiated and presented a state budget for the Riksdag to consider. It is a good budget, with many good reforms aimed at municipalities and regions. Among other things, the increased general state grants of 10 extra billion per year remain in the state budget for the period 2024-2026, while for example the costs for pensions, which have been a major burden for municipalities and regions during the current year, are estimated to decrease by approximately 50 billion for 2025.

But I also want to list some new reforms in the state budget for the coming years. We are implementing a reinforcement of quality-enhancing measures within preschools, which will receive 900 million kronor next year. For the entire period 2025-2027, the support is estimated to amount to 2.1 billion kronor. We are reinforcing the knowledge grant with 700 million for 2025. Health and medical care will receive a new sector grant of 2 billion kronor for 2025. We are reinforcing an initiative on psychiatry with 1,370 million next year. In total during the period 2025-2027, the initiative amounts to 4,470 million kronor.

As I mentioned, the previous increase of the general government grants by 10 billion per year remains in place also in 2025 and 2026.

I am pleased that we can present a budget that targets investments in many areas of society and especially that we can so clearly direct support to, among other things, preschool and school in order to raise the quality and strengthen knowledge development.

But it is not only through investments in, for example, crime prevention and crime-fighting work together with investments in welfare that we create the conditions for a functioning society. I also want to highlight examples that show how the budget safeguards the local needs that are so important and decisive for people, for example, to be able to live in the countryside in a smaller municipality.

One such example is the increased support for mosquito control in the area around lower Dalälven which the Sverigedemokraterna pushed through in the budget negotiations, a support that will be increased by approximately 200 percent in the coming year. I am extremely pleased and proud of this investment in the countryside and the people who live there.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by highlighting the municipal self-government decided by the Swedish Riksdag. This right and possibility means that Sweden's municipalities and regions have the right to govern their own activities, their structure, and their taxation. In addition to the right of taxation, it means a right to decide on fees for services and service that municipalities and regions deliver to, for example, citizens.

The state has, through the increased state grants at both the general and targeted levels, taken its responsibility to contribute to municipal financing. The state has done a lot, and the state will also continue to support municipalities and regions in the coming years. But the state cannot do everything. If we get municipalities and regions that become increasingly dependent on the state, the long-established municipal autonomy is also eroded. Autonomy is a right, but it is also an obligation to take responsibility for. The general supports are provided by the state, but it is also the municipalities' responsibility that the resources are used effectively and in line with local needs. This is crucial for autonomy to function in practice.

With this budget from Sverigedemokraterna and the government, we take responsibility for Sweden's municipalities and regions, create security, and strengthen our common welfare.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision in this report.

Finally, I would also like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the Speaker's Office, the Swedish Parliament Administration, and all my colleagues in the committee.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are halfway through the parliamentary term, and now we see what the Sweden Democrats' policy leads to: reduced growth, increased unemployment, and worsened welfare. The SD-led government's best branch is to give more to those who already have.

When school, elderly care and healthcare deteriorate, ordinary people are affected, but also the sense of community in Sweden is torn apart.

When the Member of Parliament, in his speech, wants to mention the positive things that have been done in the area, he says that many resources have been directed towards welfare. I believe that quite few out there agree with that picture. In any case, those within healthcare in my own home county do not. One sees how reduced state grants to healthcare mean that staff are laid off, that queues increase, and that those who need care have to wait longer for it. I also do not believe that those who now see that the resources for school and elderly care are not sufficient agree with that.

I want to ask the Member of Parliament: What kind of welfare do the Sweden Democrats not want?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

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

In my speech, I mentioned the importance of local self-government and the importance of municipalities and regions being able to make their own priorities with the state grants that we provide. It is also important to say that municipalities and regions do much that does not actually fall within the general welfare. That is where one must choose to make priorities. One might not be able to provide grants to social democratic campaign workers through ABF and instead choose to cut back on the school, but that is a priority that the municipalities must then make.

There are regions that have chosen to cut back on the support for the Social Democrats' campaign workers. It is the same support that you want to safeguard.

Regarding the alleged cuts and how one should view that situation, I have looked at the figures available from Arbetsförmedlingen. In 14 of the country's 21 regions, no notices at all have been issued. In 5 regions, notices have been issued concerning between 5 and 75 people, including within administrative parts, for example in a regional board administration. This is a prioritization they must make, just as Region Östergötland must make prioritizations in its operations.

I note that we are injecting money into welfare. We injected money in the previous state budget and also in the supplementary budget, precisely so that resources would be available for, among other things, health and medical care and for the municipalities' funding of schools. But ultimately, it is about a prioritization that must be made.

In last year's debate, I mentioned, for example, that Region Värmland, at the same time as they wanted to issue layoff notices, invested millions of kronor in new art. Is this a reasonable prioritization, and is it the right prioritization to secure welfare? I do not think so, but it is a prioritization that the Socialdemokraterna in Värmland chose to make.

We obviously disagree. But it is you who must change your policy. We provide the resources – you must use them effectively.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I knew this enumeration of examples would come from the Member of Parliament; it usually does. I think that the Sweden Democrats should take responsibility for the policy they pursue and see reality.

In Region Östergötland, for example, 900 fewer people will be working next year than last year. Does the Member of Parliament believe that this will not be noticed? If he makes a visit out to the healthcare sector, I think he will see something else and get a different impression.

I ask again which welfare the Sweden Democrats do not want. What distinguishes [this] is that in this budget, there is not a single krona more in general state grants. In total, we give the Social Democrats 15 billion for the entire sector – it is clear that it would make a difference. Resources matter. The member has also given examples of this; he himself counts up a number of resources that he seems to be very proud of. We must, therefore, agree that money matters. Which resources the welfare has matters.

Furthermore, they are precisely targeting smaller municipalities in the countryside. In addition to making these cuts and not making investments in welfare, they are reducing the specific resources to just smaller municipalities in the countryside. Why do the Sweden Democrats not think those municipalities are worth a better welfare?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I clearly do not agree with Member Eva Lindh regarding her claims. We have strengthened the resources, partly on a general level, and partly through targeted state grants to municipalities and regions.

During this year, a large proportion of the cost development that has placed a burden on the Municipalities and Regions is linked to pension costs. They will decrease by 50 billion during the next year, 2025. It is clear that this will have a positive impact. Consequently, the state support intended to cover a part of the pension cost will, naturally, not be needed to the same extent.

We can also look at the budgets that, for example, the regions have presented for the coming years, that is for 2025 with plans for 2026-2027. During 2025, three regions assess that they will run a deficit, but in total, the region sector will make a surplus of 2.6 billion kronor. When it comes to 2026, one region assesses that it will run a deficit of 15 million, but the region sector as a whole assesses that it will make a surplus of 11.4 billion. And in 2027, no region will run a deficit, and the region sector will make a total surplus of 10.2 billion.

I see, therefore, that our regions stand strong, as does Kommunsverige. It has been a strain – that is what I am prepared to say. We have pushed out funds. But ultimately, municipalities and regions also have a responsibility to use these funds in an efficient way and to use them correctly in welfare. Then one cannot do such things as I listed; they are relevant examples. One cannot invest in art at the same time as one lays off staff. One must make the right and true priorities.

We have made the right priorities when we have provided additional funds, but then the municipalities and regions must also take responsibility for this. Many municipalities and regions have done so, but there are examples where one must think twice when it comes to how one prioritizes.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Our Swedish welfare model has been a cornerstone of our society. It has given us something unique - a more equal society with high employment and security for all. This has not only strengthened our society but also contributed to a strong and stable economic development.

Welfare should be for all of us, regardless of background and income. It should not matter if you have money in the bank or if you have an illness that requires treatment. Care should be need-based, not wallet-based. All children should have the right to a good school, regardless of the parents' income. And we shall give our elderly a dignified and secure care, regardless of where they come from.

But we know that the welfare state is not a given. The welfare state is not something we can take for granted, and we must constantly fight for it to work for us all.

Now we face a serious challenge. Here and now, the ongoing cost crisis in many places is leading to cuts – fewer colleagues on the night shifts, fewer nurses and nursing assistants, larger groups of children in school and longer queues at the health centers. We see how socially important activities risk deteriorating when there are not enough resources. We have a healthcare crisis and the worst cuts in schools in 30 years. And the SD-led government is putting exactly zero kronor into general state grants.

Mr. Speaker! The SD-led government has not prioritized welfare. Despite tough times, the government chooses not to provide sufficient resources. Alleged investments in welfare have, in real terms, not even compensated for the cost increases that municipalities and regions have had.

The government's best branch is instead to give more to those who already have: tax cuts for the richest and deduction for those who already have. The differences between us Swedes are increasing. Inequality and segregation are increasing in step with the SD-led government's unwillingness to see reality. That is not how we build a strong society.

We Social Democrats want something else. We are allocating 6 billion more in general state grants and a total of 15 billion more than the government to municipalities and regions - for schools, healthcare, and all other important activities. We know that a strong welfare reduces inequalities, increases security, strengthens equality, and creates hope. It is about creating a more cohesive and equal society, where welfare works for everyone and not only for those who have the means to pay their way through the system.

We know that more staff and better working conditions are required to ensure good welfare. And we know that the Swedish welfare can and must become better.

That is why we Social Democrats also want to introduce a new principle for the state budget: an automatic indexing of the general state grants. This would mean a floor and provide a more secure basic funding of our welfare. It would not only give municipalities and regions more secure funding but also better conditions to plan their operations.

Mr. Speaker! All municipalities and regions are now receiving insufficient resources to manage healthcare, elderly care, and schools. Small municipalities in rural areas face the toughest challenges and are particularly affected. And at that very moment, the SD-led government chooses to remove the special resources for sparsely populated and rural municipalities.

The S-led government introduced a special state grant in 2022 to municipalities with structural challenges. The support is distributed to the 70 municipalities that have the toughest challenges and to the smallest municipalities. Now this support is being removed. It is crazy, and it is bad for those who live and work in these municipalities, especially since we might in a year get a new equalization system that can equalize more.

This will affect the lives of all those who live and work in the countryside. In my home region of Östergötland, it means that Boxholm gets 2.7 million less, Vadstena 3 million less, Valdemarsvik also 3 million less, Ydre 2.5 million less and Ödeshög 2.7 million less. These are large resources, and it really means a lot for these small municipalities. And this is in addition to the fact that the government is not providing the support needed to maintain the welfare.

The priorities of the SD-led government are crystal clear. They prioritize tax cuts for the very richest in urban areas over improved welfare and services for people in the countryside. Before the election, there was talk about the heartland and that it would be possible to live both in and outside the large cities. Now we see how that went.

We Social Democrats want to take a different path. We propose a powerful rural and countryside package in our budget motion. It is about support for development, more jobs, better service, and increased growth. We prioritize investments in a good welfare for all people and not solely for well-off people in the big city.

Sweden does not benefit from us drifting apart. All of Sweden must be given equal conditions so that all of Sweden can live and grow. It is a matter of justice and cohesion.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we know that the welfare sector faces an enormous competence challenge. Finding the right competence is judged to be one of the greatest challenges that municipalities and regions face. By 2030, hundreds of thousands of new employees will be needed. Our population is aging, and more will need care and healthcare. This requires both resources, reasonable working conditions, and investments in education and competence supply.

That the government and the Sweden Democrats in this situation choose to reduce educational places and labor market policy interventions is simply strange. I often wonder if they do not see the reality that we have in this country.

Mr. Speaker! The consequences of years of privatizations and deregulation should be obvious to everyone. When tax revenues that should go to school books, teachers' salaries, care places, and hospital beds are instead taken out as profits and end up in private pockets, we all pay the price. Privatizations and deregulation have proven to cost large amounts of money, increase inequality, and fuel segregation.

Children's education has become a commodity, and money needed in our classrooms is instead taken out as profit by international venture capitalists. Sweden is the only country in the world that allows private profit extraction from the tax-funded school system. In the same way, privately run elderly care in many places has lower staffing and insecure forms of employment for the staff.

The pursuit of profit does not belong in Swedish welfare. Resources allocated for welfare should be used to improve school results and give our elderly and sick a secure care and treatment - not for large profit extractions or welfare crime. Let us see the truth with our own eyes and do something about this. Put a stop to the pursuit of profit and to the opportunities for welfare crime!

Mr. Speaker! Shootings, threats, and explosions continue to spread fear, anxiety, and insecurity in our country. It will require perseverance and investments to review punishments, give the police expanded tools, and strengthen the justice system. But it must also mean resources to strengthen the preventive work and stop new recruitment. Substantial investments are required. For every krona invested in the police, an equal amount must be invested in crime prevention work to stop new recruitment.

It is completely out of touch with reality that this is not being done now. When we talk about investments in welfare, we are also talking about resources for crime prevention work. So that people can get better opportunities to instead get a job and be able to contribute to society.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden can do better than historical cuts and short-sighted tax cuts for the wealthiest. It is about elderly care. We must invest in the people who take care of our elderly – those who have contributed to our society – and ensure that they have the right competence and good working conditions.

The differences between student groups and schools are increasing, and we must do something about it. Sweden has the world's best doctors, nurses, and nursing assistants. At the same time, we have a healthcare crisis with lacking resources that leads to healthcare becoming increasingly inaccessible and the queues increasing. The SD-led government's budget does not take into account at all the reality we face.

We Social Democrats, however, will continue to fight for a welfare system that works for everyone. That is how we build a society where the human being, not the market, stands at the center. That is how we strengthen trust, cohesion, and faith in the future throughout Sweden. That is how we defend and develop the Swedish welfare model.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats repeat the word healthcare crisis as something of a mantra.

In a previous exchange with Member of Parliament Eva Lindh, I mentioned the conditions in the regions' budgets for the coming years. 18 of 21 regions are expected to make a surplus or be completely balanced, that is, achieve a zero result. This spans a wide range. Västra Götalandsregionen is expected to make over 1 billion in surplus, so obviously there is money in the regions. In 2027, all regions are expected to make a surplus. In total, the regional sector will then make 10.2 billion in surplus.

It should also be said that not all regions have raised the tax, but it is 2 of 21 that have chosen to do so. The others nevertheless have a surplus to look forward to in the finances. The term healthcare crisis therefore does not match the plan that the regions themselves put forward. 14 of 21 regions have not issued any warnings at all in the operations and have not made any layoffs either.

Member of the Board Eva Lindh spoke in her address about competence supply within public activities. At the same time, the Social Democrats have behaved poorly regarding the upward adjustments of the state threshold, that is, the limit for when one pays state tax. I can recall how it looked, for example, in 2001. Then the threshold for state tax was 21,000 kronor per month. If that limit were to remain without it having been adjusted upwards, almost all employees within public activities today would pay state tax with the Social Democrats' policy.

How would the competence supply then fare? Why would these people choose to work in public activities when the Social Democrats intend to punish-tax them all the way into their own bank accounts?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Most of those I speak with say that they find it difficult to go home after the workday. They have to run faster, have fewer colleagues, and feel that they are not doing what was the reason they chose the profession. For example, I spoke with a doctor in Östergötland who said: I chose to become a doctor because I wanted to help and support. Now I have so few colleagues that it no longer feels like I am doing that. Therefore, I am wondering if I really want to continue with this.

I believe that this is a bigger problem for all those who work in the welfare sector. They actually feel great concern that they cannot provide the welfare, care, and support that they truly want to give.

If one is to believe the Member of Parliament, it almost seems to be peace and quiet out in the regions. Does the Member of Parliament not see the reality out there? We have a healthcare crisis in all of Sweden. It is particularly obvious in some counties, but it is a healthcare crisis in the entire country.

It is not that everything will become better next year. This government chooses not to give a single krona more in general state grants despite that one should see what reality looks like. Why is this being done? Why do the Sverigedemokraterna not push to strengthen a welfare that I know the vast majority in Sweden want? They want to continue to have a development of the Swedish welfare model. Why do the Sverigedemokraterna not do this?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I noted that the member did not at all address the fact that the regions' own view is that they will achieve strong results in the coming years and throughout the entire planning period.

But what is most distressing is that the member did not mention anything about what I said regarding competence supply and the Social Democrats' desire to introduce state tax on almost all welfare workers in Sweden. That is what you say when you do not want to increase the threshold for state tax. More people will have to pay more tax on their wages with your policy.

I understand then that you mention the word care crisis, because that is what it will become with your politics. Who would want to train to become a nursing assistant? Who wants to train to become a nurse? Who wants to train to become a doctor? Who wants to be a healthcare assistant? Who wants to strengthen the welfare when you will, solely with your politics, ensure that these people are punitively taxed with as much municipal tax as possible and with state tax? That is what you are saying when you do not want to increase the threshold for the state tax.

It would affect significantly more people in society in general. But almost all welfare workers would be fully affected by your policy when it comes to state tax. That is a fact. You only have to look at the old tables. There you can see quite quickly what this would mean.

The member speaks about more colleagues. I can look at my home municipality Gävle. I understand that the member may not have all the prerequisites for what is happening in my municipality clear for them, but I will give an example. From the Social Democrats, one has promised for 30 years to reduce the children's groups. Now that there is the chance, when the number of children in preschool decreases, you lay off preschool staff instead of fulfilling your election promise. That is your reality. That is how you make your priorities.

It is easy to stand here in the Riksdag and say that it is here that the responsibility lies. But it is the municipalities and regions that must make their prioritizations, and we provide state grants to enable that.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I hope the Member of Parliament was a bit loose with his words. He listed nursing assistants and healthcare assistants as if they would be affected by the threshold. Does the Member of Parliament know what nursing assistants and healthcare assistants earn?

The healthcare crisis and the lack of resources for welfare hit just nursing assistants and healthcare assistants very hard. They do not get thousands of kronor in tax cuts next year. They do not get the resources that this SD government has prioritized to give to those who have the most. What they get next year is fewer colleagues. They must run faster. And they can see that there are some who continue to take profits from welfare - resources that could have gone to strengthening welfare. This is what they get as a gift from the Sweden Democrats. It is not worthy.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I hadn't actually intended to request the floor, but in the end, I felt that I simply had to do so.

Member Eva Lindh has previously said in an exchange of remarks that we are reducing the state grants, and now she says that we are not adding a single krona more. In that case, I think this: Is the member playing with words?

The fact is that we have increased the state grants. It is 16 billion in general state grants. They remain permanently as an increase. Furthermore, we are adding funds next year to health and medical care. So, an investment is indeed being made. Then perhaps it is not as large as the member wants. We know from previous debate, a year ago, that it is never enough. But the member must surely correct herself when she says that we have not added a single extra krona.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to repeat what concerns the reality that the SD-led government's budget actually entails. It entails zero kronor in increased general state grants.

What the member is referring to are the previous calculations, that they remain. Thank you very much for not removing them!

The increased state grants that have been added are not, in real terms, even a compensation for the cost increases that municipalities and regions have had these years. It therefore becomes, in real terms, actually less money. And when one now does not add more resources in general state grants, it will naturally affect the operations.

I appreciate the member's commitment regarding children's and youth's mental health. But when one does not add more resources to the care, it will mean negative conditions for the care of children and youth with mental health issues. Does that not concern the Member of Parliament, given the member's commitment, which I perceive to be sincere?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for the counter-question!

I am happy to talk about mental health. It should be a priority issue for everyone. It is one of the absolutely most important political problems that we have to deal with. This government is now carrying out a historic investment in child and adolescent psychiatry. I am immensely proud of that, because I know that we Christian Democrats largely stand behind that prioritization.

But let me state for those listening to this debate and for Eva Lindh that we are providing additional funding. There are therefore now 16 billion SEK in permanently increased state grants. Next year, 2025, 18 billion kronor will be added to health and medical care.

It is about the sector contribution of 2 billion. It is about shortening healthcare queues. It is about investing 1 billion for better cancer care and so on. I also think there is a small jewel in the middle of this, namely that we are now investing 250 million kronor to get the national healthcare brokerage established as quickly as possible. People can live in a region where they cannot get an operation performed in time, and there may be places in another region. The national healthcare brokerage shall ensure that it is not entirely dependent on where you live in Sweden when it comes to being able to get an operation or care in time. I believe this is extremely important.

An efficiency delegation is also appointed to help those regions that need help to achieve a better structure in their operations. A number of both short-term and long-term measures are included in the budget.

We are investing 6 billion more than in the supplementary budget. Now we are adding an additional 2 billion in sector grants for 2025. We will continue to push so that we get a better functioning health and medical care.

We have that ambition, and we also provide the means to be able to realize it.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now the debate concerns the budget that is currently before us. It is good that the general state grants that were added previously are not being removed. But my and our Social Democratic point is that more resources are required to protect and save the welfare.

It does not add to the SD-led government. It is zero kronor in general state grants. We add 6 billion more. If one counts all the resources that we provide to shorten the queues in healthcare, for staffing initiatives, for the school, and for everything else that we do, it is about 15 billion more than in the SD-led government's budget. That is what we are talking about, and that is what I said would make a difference.

What is problematic is that even if the member highlights that one has some specifically targeted investments in things in healthcare, it means that when one does not provide those investments, there is a difference. One gives a little only to certain things.

The general state grants provide opportunities to work with what is important in the specific region one has. I have had debates with, for example, Member Jan Ericson, who has been very upset when we have added large targeted state grants. That is why it is so surprising that no investments are being made in the general state grants.

I am actually seriously concerned about, among other things, all the children and young people who have problems with their mental health and who need help. I am worried that this budget will mean that the investments that are needed will not be available.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

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

The member has almost been a member of the Riksdag for ten years. I think it is perhaps better when one stands in the rostrum to speak about one's own proposals and why one possibly does not like the government's proposals. But to spread falsehoods by throwing around words like historical cuts is actually just to mislead all the people who are now listening to the debate.

The Social Democrats governed for several years before. I wonder why none of the things that one now says needs to be done, and which the school in particular needs, were done. Now the Liberals are taking on many of the school's problems. We are now conducting many different inquiries within the school that are needed to address the major problems that exist within the school.

Investigations are underway to improve student health and more mandatory teaching time for those students who need it. There is a curriculum investigation and an investigation that strengthens safety and study environment in schools. We are also reviewing the national school funding norm for increased equality.

We are developing the teacher and preschool teacher education, we are looking at equivalent grades and merit values, and reduced administration and regulation of preschool teachers' and teachers' time. These are just a few examples. At the same time, we are also injecting targeted funds into the school system.

Even though the grants are not in the general state grants, there are, as we have both heard here earlier, investments in healthcare and schools in this. To speak of historical cuts is not quite true when we are actually now presenting a school budget that is the second largest in 20 years, together with the reforms being made.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Cecilia Rönn, for the question!

Let us talk about the school. It is something I am also very passionate about. It is not I who is saying that these are the largest cuts in the school in 30 years. It is the teachers' union itself that says that these are the largest cuts in 30 years.

Let us look at how it actually looks in school. If one does not provide more resources to a school that really needs it, it will affect the quality of the education, and it affects working conditions and other things.

I want to raise a question, now that I have the opportunity to raise it with the Liberal member. It concerns this issue of privatizations and marketization. It also affects the school very much. It means that the resources that we have jointly decided on, regardless of which budget we now stand behind, and which were intended to go to the school, do not do so.

We have seen examples of examples where profits are taken out and put in the pockets of individuals instead of going to the important teaching. I am completely convinced that we both want a good school. Why then is nothing being done about this situation?

There is a shortage of resources. In real terms, it is not an increase. There is a shortage because the tax money that has been allocated anyway does not go to what those funds were intended to go to.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for the question!

We do not have any blinders within the Liberals regarding the failures that exist within the marketization of the school system. But I do not buy that all private schools are bad.

There are very many well-functioning schools. I think it is good that parents and students have a choice so that they can have exactly the school that their child needs. It is also good for the teachers that there is a diversity to choose from.

We must look at the whole when it comes to the problems. There have been some problems within the independent school sector. We are now addressing those together with the other parts that I just mentioned.

A huge problem for which the Social Democrats are extremely responsible is the municipalization of the school that was carried out. It is the main reason why we today do not have an equal and compensatory school that we should have precisely so that every child can manage school.

Today, there is a difference of up to 70,000 kronor between the municipalities in Sweden that invest the most and those that invest the least per pupil. This means that there is a huge difference depending on which municipality you live in if you are to receive the education you want.

If both I and the member want us to have a good school for all children and students, we should ensure that the compensation and the conditions are the same regardless of where in the country one lives.

The Social Democrats have a history of actually being able to change their minds, which I think is good. One has, for example, changed their mind on both Nato and nuclear power.

Now it is perhaps time to change one's mind and realize that we need to nationalize the school again and that the municipalization has only been bad. Can the Social Democrats imagine changing their minds on this issue?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! No. What we need to change, and what we need to do to strengthen the school and the conditions for all children to receive a good school, is first and foremost to provide more resources. We see that the differences between different schools, but also the differences between different children's school results, are now increasing. It is not reasonable. We need to have an equal school that is good for everyone.

Number two is to remove the profit-seeking. The member says that there are certain schools that are good. Yes, but there are also many schools that take out far too much profit that should actually go towards the teaching that is good for the children. If you take away resources, it means that the school becomes worse.

I have worked in schools myself, and I know how much the size of the classes and the scope of the surrounding resources matter. School is important for all children, and school must be good for all children. More resources are required, better conditions are required, and it is required that the money that has been allocated for school also goes to the school, not to profits.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! Expenditure area 25 General grants to municipalities is fundamentally about how the state can best provide the conditions for municipalities and regions to provide as much benefit as possible to our citizens.

Our government has done a lot in this area in the short time it has had. First and foremost, it has done the most important thing for the finances of municipalities and regions, namely to fight inflation. With the high inflation of over 10 percent that prevailed when the government took office, not only did the operating costs for many municipalities and regions rise, but also the pension costs weighed heavily on the economy. After having pursued an effective and successful fiscal policy, we can now present a budget that supports the economy and provides increased growth. We have now brought down inflation to below 2 percent.

The basis for all welfare and security lies in growth and entrepreneurship. It is of the utmost importance that the inhabitants of the municipalities and regions get into work and contribute to the common good. The work principle is the basis for ensuring the finances of municipalities and regions.

The economic outlook for municipalities and regions looks better during 2025 and even better during 2026. Since a number of temporary investments will cease, the total room will decrease slightly during the period, but one of the goals of the expenditure area is that the funds should be used as efficiently as possible, to create maximum marginal utility. The provision of resources is not always the only answer to all questions.

Economy is the management of scarce resources in the long term. Municipal economy is part of the fiscal framework, which means that it is not only important for individual municipalities and regions to have a good economy, but also for the entire nation.

Mr. Speaker! Today we see great differences in how the economy is managed between municipalities, and for a long time, it has gone worse for the regions than for the municipalities. The municipal equalization system aims to level out differences in conditions between different municipalities and regions. It is something that must constantly be adjusted to create incentives for efficient use of resources, promote growth, and at the same time level out cost differences. That is why the budget contains a supplement of just over 166 billion in the municipal equalization system and more than 6 billion in the equalization grant for LSS.

Mr. Speaker! Something that affects the economic management in municipalities and regions is the large flora of targeted grants, which we have discussed previously. We have worked long-term to reduce the targeted grants, and they have decreased by 6 billion in this budget and are fewer than they have been in a very long time. They will reduce the administrative burden for many municipalities in the application process and in the follow-up. During 2023 and 2024, the general grant was increased by 16 billion, which remains in 2025.

In order to simplify and streamline the processing of the remaining targeted grants, the government will establish a portal with information on the management of the targeted grants. This is something that has been requested by municipalities, not least the smaller municipalities.

It is important that municipalities and regions use the general grants to increase the rate of change, not just for general operations. Unfortunately, we now see that the cost of employees within administration and staff functions has increased. There are large differences in how the economy is managed in different municipalities, which the Council for the Promotion of Municipal Analyses, RKA, has studied. They have published key figures for productivity and efficiency in municipalities. It has been observed that it is not possible to see any connection between quality and costs, that is to say, the municipalities that have the highest resource consumption are not necessarily those that have the best quality in care.

We have therefore introduced various solutions to simplify and improve for the municipalities to increase efficiency. We have, among other things, established a pilot project committee which has the mandate to promote pilot projects in the municipalities. Measure, compare and improve, steal with pride - everyone will benefit from it.

The Government intends to proceed with other initiatives, for example, an efficiency delegation for health and medical care with the task of examining issues regarding grants and strengthening efficiency in health and medical care as well as spreading good examples. A special audit function will also be established with the mandate to evaluate and audit the regions' finances. Money has been allocated in the budget for the proposal for the years 2025 to 2028.

Mr. Speaker! Something that affects social development in general and, in particular, the economy for many municipalities is, of course, the demographic challenge. Natality is not increasing while life expectancy is. This means that we already now must ensure that we increase efficiency and the willingness to change in order to compensate.

At the beginning of the parliamentary term, certain municipal accounting rules were changed, which I think is good. It may seem like a small part, but it is important for creating long-term perspective for the municipalities. The so-called RUR has been converted into a result reserve. This means that funds set aside during good times can be used during times of greater investment needs or during poorer times. It is, of course, one of the main tasks of politics to create good conditions for the next generation.

Mr. Speaker! A task that permeates the entire budget, not just this area, is welfare crime. The systematic work with controls and follow-ups of subsidy recipients, but also of providers, in the welfare systems is of the utmost importance. It is completely unacceptable that money goes to organized crime instead of those who need it.

In summary, I can state that the proposal in the budget makes it possible to fulfill the goal for the budget, namely to create good and equal conditions for municipalities and regions to contribute to effective municipal operations of high quality.

With this, I move for the proposal in the report to be approved, and I would like to wish the Speaker's Presidium, my colleagues and the officials in the Riksdag a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I missed answers to some of the questions I am considering regarding the Moderates' position on issues concerning money for welfare. Therefore, I intended to ask a few questions.

Does the member believe that there is a healthcare crisis? Does the member think it is reasonable that, in addition to the insufficient resources allocated to municipalities and regions, one also removes specifically targeted support to rural municipalities and small municipalities?

My third question concerns something that we do not usually talk about in these debates but which is nevertheless a challenge for many municipalities, namely the waste issue. One of the Moderaternas ministers, namely the Minister for Civil Defence, said earlier this autumn that he does not perceive that municipalities are calling for the state to take over the responsibility. One can interpret quotes in different ways, but does the member believe that there is a challenge in the issue? It is not just about what we usually talk about when we talk about welfare or money for municipalities and regions, but it is about an important challenge for the municipalities in the future.

I wish for the member to answer my three questions.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

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

As previous members have mentioned, we have therefore added a number of different things, and we also maintain initiatives that we made during the years when inflation was higher. Looking ahead, we see that the economic result for both municipalities and regions looks much better, for a number of different reasons. The main one is that inflation has gone from 10 percent to under 2 percent, which naturally creates room for regions and municipalities to invest money because they avoid high costs for pension contributions, high operating costs, and above all, high financial costs. It creates room to prioritize differently.

It is precisely prioritizing differently that I believe was the most important message in the speech I gave. It is important that we look at how we are to create the best possible utility. We cannot continue to do things as we have always done them, and we also cannot always do exactly as we have done but cheaper. We must instead find new ways to create utility.

In the Social Democrats' world, all utility is created with higher taxes and more resources. One believes that nothing can be arranged without more money for the welfare system. I actually do not believe in that theory at all, but I believe that much of what we need to do now is to review how we can increase efficiency. How can we do more with the money? There is, after all, a limit to how much one can extract in taxes - even in a social democratic world, I believe.

When it comes to the water and sewage question, it is very interesting. It is not actually a municipal activity, but the water and sewage question is actually the water and sewage collective that is responsible for. The municipality is responsible for the function, but it is the water and sewage collective that handles this. That is probably a good example of that for a very long time – several decades – we have not followed up on the investments in water and sewage initiatives in the way that was needed. There I believe we can do a lot, precisely regarding prioritizing.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall begin by answering some of the things that the member raised and where I do not actually share the view.

The Leader of the Opposition said that we always raise taxes. We do not do that in this budget proposal, instead, we lower taxes for ordinary people. However, we do not lower taxes with precision for those who already have, but our tax cuts go to ordinary people. What we oppose are the enormous tax cuts that now go to those who are the richest. We would rather prioritize those funds for something else, for example, a better school, better elderly care, and better healthcare. That is our priority, and I am proud of it and stand up for it. I think it is good Social Democratic policy.

The Speaker mentions the best possible benefit. Yes, the best possible benefit would indeed be to achieve a better welfare. That is exactly what we are talking about. I still interpret it as the Moderaterna not believing that resources matter, but I believe I know that they actually do. Resources matter in welfare. Resources and politics matter when one, for example, as in my home district, is to have 900 fewer people working in healthcare next year. It matters. We want to prioritize in a different way. We want to prioritize welfare.

I ask again, because I do not think I received an answer: Does the member of Parliament think that we have a healthcare crisis in Sweden?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the comments.

When it comes to tax cuts for those with the highest incomes, it is a bit strange, because apparently there are very many of those with the highest incomes. I think, in itself, that it is good that the member thinks many are rich, but it is, therefore, approximately 1 million people who receive tax cuts. Had we not made the adjustment, it would have been 1.5 million, and had we not had an adjustment of the breakpoint at all, everyone would have been a high-income earner. That would be fantastically good; the problem is only that everyone would also be very highly taxed.

I believe there is an ideological difference here. I believe that citizens should be able to dispose of their own money as much as possible, and for you, it is the opposite, Eva Lindh. When you want to raise taxes, you want to do it for everyone across the board. This does not only apply to high-income earners, as we heard earlier, but it concerns people within, for example, healthcare, the police, or the defense. There is therefore an ideological difference in how we handle tax increases and in who should have money and who should not.

When it comes to providing resources, we have done so. As mentioned earlier, we have added 16 billion in general grants. We are therefore adding a lot in this budget. I can of course go into details, but I still believe that the member can see that the economic conditions for the municipalities over the next two years will be very good.

I also think it is pleasant and good to see the local self-government provide some evidence for the thesis I have, that is to say that there are municipalities that manage their operations perfectly well and at the same time have very low taxes. It is not always the resources that make the difference when it comes to quality. But to say that everything can be calculated in money is, of course, a very simple policy to pursue. Efficiency and ensuring the benefit of the municipal residents is a matter of prioritization, and that is exactly what politics is.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! When I was about to sit down in a chair here in the chamber just a moment ago, I caught myself with my hands, whereupon the armrest broke off. It was not good, but I think that it actually symbolizes what is happening in Sweden right now. It is something that is in the process of breaking down.

The debate on this expenditure area is one of the last debates we will have in the Riksdag during the year. Expenditure area 25 might have a somewhat boring name - General grants to municipalities - but I would say that this is the absolutely most important part of the entire budget bill and the most important debate we have to handle. Here, we are dealing with what the Swedish people consider to be most, most important: our welfare.

If you ask the Swedish people which issue they think is the most important, the vast majority answer healthcare. And if it is not healthcare, it is the school, or possibly elderly care and preschool. It is precisely what we are discussing here today: the money for municipalities and regions, which have to manage healthcare, school, elderly care and preschool, that is to say social services in general.

This is something that I believe – and I believe that most who sit in this chamber agree with me – that the Swedish people want us to prioritize. They want us to allocate more resources to it, because they see how it is not working in Sweden today. They see that things are not working. It is something that is broken.

What is it then that the government and the Sweden Democrats are giving us - the Swedish people? Well, it is cuts in the form of not allocating enough money so that the welfare can be financed. What happens if you don't get money to finance the school is that you have to do something else, and what is the biggest cost in the school? The textbooks have already been removed, as well as the pens. Some computer support and so on has indeed been introduced, but the biggest cost is still the staff. It is the teachers.

In my own municipality, after two years of cuts, it has been concluded that even more must be cut in the school. The number of groups in the upper secondary school must be reduced, and classes are therefore being merged. The number of students in each class will increase – it will be closer to 30 students per class.

Someone might say that it is due to the municipal government and so on, but that is not how it works. Everything in Sweden is connected. Each individual municipality is not a separate, isolated island. We in Sweden live in a country where we expect to receive a welfare system that works and that is good and secure, regardless of where in the country one lives.

What else do we get from this government and the Sweden Democrats? We get more welfare crime. We get reports that gang criminals – criminal networks – are running publicly funded welfare activities. The only message the municipalities receive from the government is that they probably need to work a bit on this.

They are also experts at pointing out scapegoats to the right and left. We do not even need to mention names or which groups they are talking about. This always appears, in every speech.

Finally, they prioritize something else entirely, namely tax cuts for themselves. My regular job is being a mail carrier. There, I have about 25,000 kronor a month. With this government, I would get just over 175 kronor extra in tax cuts next year. Now, I am not a mail carrier today, but I am a member of parliament. In that case, I get ten times as much in tax cuts, because the government and the Sweden Democrats think it is fair. I am to have ten times more a month because I stand here in the chamber and speak instead of sorting and delivering letters. Is that reasonable?

The Prime Minister gets almost 5,000 kronor more every month in tax cuts. That is the priority.

It is said that we have local self-government. Municipalities and regions have the right to make decisions on different tax rates, and that is good. It is reasonable that they can do so, because it should matter who governs the municipality or region one lives in. But then the conditions must be equal from the start.

Today we have tax differences between municipalities of over 6 kronor per paid hundred kronor; that is how much it differs between the municipality that has the lowest tax rate and the municipality that has the highest tax rate. As has already been said here, it is not the case that one gets better quality just because one lives in a municipality that has a higher tax rate. That is because the conditions are not fair from the very beginning.

The basic conditions should be the same for everyone. Everyone should know that if they pay a certain amount in tax per month, they receive a certain type of school, a certain type of healthcare, and a certain type of elderly care or other social services. What is happening in Sweden today, however, is that the municipalities that have not received sufficient compensation from the state must raise their taxes in order to be able to meet the residents' needs for school, elderly care, and healthcare.

We know that the municipalities that are primarily affected by this are not the large municipalities, such as Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and Uppsala. Those that are primarily affected are the small municipalities - for example my own municipality, Hofors, which is located in Gävleborg - with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Is it fair that it is in that way?

The government itself notes that the reason the larger municipalities fare better is that they sell land. It is somewhat difficult to sell land if one lives far out in the forest or somewhere where there are not particularly many interested parties who want to build housing, or whatever they might consider doing within the municipality, because then there is no one who wants to buy. But if one is located in a large city, one can do such things. Then one can sell land. Then one can also counteract the deficits that exist in the municipalities.

How then has the government intended for the municipalities to manage this? The municipalities are to receive a lifestyle coach, so that they can reflect a bit better on how they can, as it is called, streamline and what they should cut. One should not be afraid to cut, we heard here.

The other day I met a person who was previously employed as a municipal economist in Hofors. She no longer works there. She told me that she thought it was hopeless to work in Hofors municipality. It was not because of the people who ruled or worked there – she thought that everyone in the municipality was fantastic – but the hopelessness consisted in that there was nothing left to streamline. The only thing remaining was to cut back. Therefore, she could not manage any more, so she got a new job.

When it goes that far, there is something wrong in society. It is something that I think the members in this chamber must take to heart at some point. This is nothing new, but it has been going on for over 30 years. It is a policy that consists of cutting and streamlining until we have no welfare left.

There is a solution to this. One could, for example, index the state grants. We heard here that it is said that 16 billion was transferred to welfare last year. However, cost increases occur during the year, for everyone, so these 16 billion are part of the so-called income that already exists. Someone who works at a normal workplace is used to receiving a salary increase from one year to the next.

It could be good to index this. Then we could also have a serious debate in this chamber for once. It is actually okay to think differently. It is completely okay to think that one should cut back and that one should not have a sufficiently large welfare state. We live in a free country. We have freedom of opinion. But I also think that in that case, one should be honest that this is what one intends to do. Isn't that so?

We in Vänsterpartiet want to begin restoring the welfare state. We start by giving an additional 20 billion to municipalities and regions for next year. This is, however, not enough to repair the damage that has already been inflicted on the Swedish welfare society.

In addition to this, we reject the deteriorations that the government wants to implement in dental care for young people. There is a party in the Riksdag that is not part of the government but which supports it. That party went to the election on the basis that they would make dental care free of charge, but what is happening now is that free dental care for young people is being removed. We in Vänsterpartiet do not think that is good. We think that young people should get dental care - it is reasonable.

I would wish that we in this chamber, out of respect for the Swedish people, would actually conduct a serious debate about what kind of welfare society we want to see. We have heard here today that one is gladly looking across the Atlantic. If one is looking for an American type of healthcare, where everyone is to pay for themselves through insurance solutions, I think one should be honest and say so. Then it will also be possible for the Swedes to say what they want and what they do not want.

I do not think it is particularly respectful towards the Swedish people to sneak through a privatization of the welfare system and to sneak through that the welfare should be worsened to the extent that people choose to get insurance because the welfare does not work and because the governing majority does not have the ability to speak plainly and say what it actually is that one wants to do. I do not think it is particularly respectful towards the Swedish people.

I wish that we can have serious debates in the future about what we want from the welfare system and how it should be financed. Then the Swedish people can seriously take a stand on what type of society they want.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying that I usually appreciate the exchanges with the member from Vänsterpartiet. We have had the opportunity to debate both in the region and now in Sweden's Riksdag. It is a bit extra fun that we are both from Gävleborg, which means we can dig a little deeper into our home county.

The chairman spoke in his address about cuts. I wonder how one is actually supposed to define that, because if I look at the statistics for 2024, I can see that all municipalities in Gävleborg except one, as well as the region, are increasing the number of employees they have. Then there is the question of where one is increasing the number of employees. Do the municipalities, for example, choose to cut back on welfare but increase other staff, yes, what is the prioritization that they then choose to make? One is making a prioritization, but is one making it right or wrong? But the number of employees is increasing, thus, in nine out of ten of the county's municipalities and in Region Gävleborg.

The member also mentioned the issue of cuts within the welfare sector. We know that many municipalities are now making adjustments, for example within preschools. The number of children in preschool is decreasing, and therefore they choose to make changes. Personally, I feel that it would have been better if the municipalities had taken the chance to reduce the children's groups, but it is their prioritization that they must make. But is it then a cut, or have the municipalities adjusted according to the need? It is a question of definition, but it would be interesting to hear what the member says about that.

Finally, regarding the threshold: If Vänsterpartiet were to govern together with Socialdemokraterna, the threshold would be rolled back to the 2001 level, which would mean that everyone with a monthly salary over 21,000 kronor would have to pay state tax. Everyone within the welfare sector would therefore pay more in state tax with your policy. That is what you yourselves say.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! One becomes a bit drunk with laughter when one hears the arguments sometimes.

When it comes to this matter of freezing the state threshold, we can start with a statement: Freezing something does not mean that one lowers something. It also does not mean that one goes back to something, but it means precisely that one freezes it. It remains at the figure where it is.

One can have different opinions on where this limit should be. We think that what is reasonable regarding the threshold is to have it at a level such that the right proportion of the population falls above the limit and is to pay.

There are preparatory works regarding the threshold that one can go back and look at. What was it that was intended when it was introduced? One can also see that approximately this proportion of the population should reasonably fall above the threshold and should therefore pay.

Right now, the threshold is probably 49,000 something, I would guess. I find it very difficult to see that there are particularly many nursing assistants who earn 49,000 kronor a month and who in that way would be affected by what the Sverigedemokraterna claim is a threat. I also find it very difficult to see that there are particularly many police officers who would be affected by it. I don't think it does, because the average income is around 40,000-44,000, I think. It is a bit difficult.

I think it is important to explain this, because I have heard the member assert the same thing several times here. It was good that I got the opportunity to clarify it. I will return to the other point.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The reason I mentioned 2001 specifically was to provide a description of what it would look like if one does not make an adjustment of the threshold. As the member himself says, there is a thought that it should hit a certain proportion of the population at all times. Whether the right proportion is hit or not is a question of definition. But it becomes the case that if one moves it from year to year in line with increasing incomes, well, then the right proportion is hit based on what the current conditions are.

If you do not make that adjustment, more people in society will be affected, and if you do not make this adjustment of the threshold over a period of 15 years, the welfare workers we are talking about will surpass it. It will affect police officers and employees within elderly care and healthcare, because when you freeze the threshold for state tax, the consequence will be that more people will pay state tax in Swedish society. It says itself. Wages are increasing, and if you do not raise the threshold, they will, as the years go by, catch up to where the ceiling is. With your policy, then more will pay state tax.

That is why I made a description of how it would look. If we were to remain at the 2001 level for the threshold for state tax, almost all welfare workers would have to pay state tax today. That is what will be the consequence of your policy in the future if the threshold is not adjusted.

I understand that you do not want to take responsibility for it. You and the Social Democrats did not think it through before saying that, among other things. But that is what will be the consequence, and I think you should be honest with the welfare workers that with your policy, more people will have to pay state tax in the future. That is your ambition, and I do not think it is a good policy.

As the member himself said, there was once a thought that a part of society would be affected by the state tax. The idea was not that everyone would be affected, but that is what will happen with your policy. Now the member will get a chance to say things that I will not be able to answer, but it is the consequence of your policy.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! This is somewhat related to the state grants to municipalities given that it is also financing the municipalities.

If one is to follow the member's logic, one freezes the breaking point, and then says that one shall freeze it permanently. Then one could arrive at this, but that is not what is proposed.

The proposal is to freeze it that year because the threshold is something that is indexed every year. It happens automatically - unlike the state grants to municipalities, which are not indexed. If one does not make any specific decision to freeze the threshold, it means that it is raised automatically. If we, as the Sweden Democrats and the government, do not make a specific decision to increase the grants to the municipalities, it means that they will receive relatively less money than they had previously. That is how it works.

This is something one takes a position on year by year. If one wants to freeze the breaking point for a year because one thinks that this proportion should pay tax on 50 percent of all incomes above a certain amount, then that is something one has to do every year. It is not a permanent decision, and I believe it is quite important to keep that in mind.

One should not try to mislead and make the debate about something completely different.

Back to the municipalities! I think it is incredibly regrettable that from the Sverigedemokraterna side, one chooses to impoverish the welfare. One speaks very much about safeguarding Sweden and the Swedish people, but what one actually does with this budget is that one gives the Swedish people a worse school, worse healthcare, worse elderly care, and worse social services. It is something that one should be ashamed of.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! 60 years ago, the Christian Democrats formed the party. Our first party leader, the priest Birger Ekstedt, then established a truth that also applies today: In the municipalities, we build Sweden.

I carry Ekstedt's words with me daily as I now lead the Christian Democrats' social construction project, where we formulate a number of proposals within various sectors such as housing, infrastructure, skills supply, welfare and energy. The Christian Democrats will make decisions on those proposals next year. With this budget, I mean that we Christian Democrats take responsibility for supporting the country's municipalities and regions.

Mr. Speaker! We sometimes talk about municipalities and regions as if they were all the same. It is just as incorrect as grouping people based on gender, age, skin color, or nationality. It is not particularly wise, whether it concerns people or municipalities.

If we look closer, we see that some municipalities are struggling with real problems regarding high housing costs and a shortage of housing and labor. At the same time, we see, not least in rural areas, that many Swedes living there are struggling with opposite problems. This suggests that we continue to act wisely by listening to what Ekstedt said about it being in the municipalities that we build Sweden. If this building is to be achieved, we must make room for creative solutions - not more detailed regulations. We must reduce lead times. We must remove bottlenecks and implement regulatory simplifications. Companies, organizations, and the public sector must be able to and dare to take initiatives that accelerate the building of Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We have experienced a most pressured time over the last five years with a pandemic, high energy costs, war in the surrounding area, a high level of terror threat, and high prices. It has pressured Sweden and many other countries. Above all, the high costs have pressured households – but naturally also welfare. Therefore, I am pleased that municipalities and regions will have 50 billion kronor lower pension costs next year thanks to the fact that we together – within fiscal and monetary policy and with the labor market partners – have ensured that we have successfully combated inflation.

The budgets that have been presented by this government can rightly be called restrained, and they have been so in order for fiscal policy to join forces with monetary policy to bring down inflation. Despite this, we have prioritized welfare. This was done, for example, in the budget applicable for this year, where 40 percent of the reform space went to municipalities and regions. Additionally, we provided extra money in connection with the autumn budget. Since this government took office, we have invested 43 billion kronor in municipalities and regions. In 2025, the state grants will be 288 billion kronor, of which 167 billion are general. I know that municipal politicians do not like targeted state grants, and therefore it may be appropriate to point out that the proportion of targeted state grants to the municipalities is now the lowest since 2018.

Mr. Speaker! These supplements have been very significant. They have been wise priorities by the government and the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna. Let me, however, conclude by stating that what truly threatens the welfare is if we do not achieve sustainable growth. I have said it before and say it again: That cake that we politicians like to debate and discuss how it should be distributed – it must be baked first! It will be easier to find resources for everything we want to do if the cake grows in size.

I am very pleased that we Christian Democrats pushed for the budget to be a growth budget for 2025. We strengthen purchasing power, get more people into work, make it more profitable to run companies, and invest in research and infrastructure. If we do not get growth moving, it will ultimately affect welfare. It therefore feels hopeful that the IMF predicts that Sweden will have the highest growth of the countries we normally compare ourselves with.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Hans Eklind, for the speech!

I want to talk about what Ebba Busch spoke about in the election campaign as the heartland. I have understood that by that, the countryside is meant and that the conditions for the countryside should be strengthened. Therefore, I want to raise the question of the conditions for the small municipalities and the municipalities in the countryside.

We have already spoken about what at least we Social Democrats consider to be insufficient resources for the welfare system in this budget, but I want to speak specifically about the resources that previously went particularly to small municipalities in the countryside. The government has chosen to remove those resources. This is happening one year before a planned introduction of a new system that is hopefully to become more equalizing.

The 300 million that have gone to what the Christian Democrats called the heartland play a very large role for these municipalities. The Christian Democrats are responsible for precisely this issue because they hold the post of Civil Minister. I therefore wonder why the Christian Democrats do not want to strengthen the conditions for an equal welfare throughout Sweden.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh is talking about the time-limited support that has been given to 39 municipalities. It is not being removed. It is being concluded according to the plan that Eva Lindh herself was involved in deciding. We perhaps should be a bit more careful with how we formulate ourselves.

When it comes to the countryside, I want to assert that we have done a number of different things. We have succeeded in ensuring that what we promised in the election campaign now becomes a reality. I have relatives who live far out in the countryside where no county bus runs at all, and the children have to walk several kilometers down to the main road if mom cannot drive them. We have brought down fuel prices in precisely the way we promised in the election campaign. That naturally makes an enormous difference for those who live in the countryside. It also makes a difference for the entire municipal sector.

I have thought that we should let RUT investigate what the lowered fuel prices have entailed, primarily for municipalities but also for regions, in the form of reduced costs. Now, no one else is allowed to steal that idea! I have really tried to find out, but I believe we should produce that figure, because this is naturally important. It has also been important for bringing down inflation. It has been absolutely crucial for small, medium-sized, and large municipalities alike.

We have finished what was to be finished. It is true. I believe that Eva Lindh was part of the equalization committee. The consultation period has just expired. We will see where we land. It is important that we adjust the parameters in a correct way so that the small municipalities that are having a hard time can receive the support they need through the municipal tax equalization system. Over 300 consultation responses have been received, and work is currently ongoing within the government.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! If the small municipalities in the countryside are having a tough time, why is it then made even tougher for them? That is what I do not understand. I am not getting an answer from Member Hans Eklind. I ask again, therefore: Why are those funds being removed? Every time I ask, I get the answer that it was time-limited and that the Social Democrats did not want to keep it either. That is not true.

Hans Eklind also knows that when these funds were invested, it was intended that they should be followed up and lead to a new equalization system. That investment can be extended. It is like with Äldreomsorgslyftet - which this government extended, which was very good. The idea was that it should be extended, even if we had continued in government. There is therefore no reason not to extend it.

The government is removing the money for smaller municipalities in the countryside. It is not possible to refer to or blame anyone else. It is now you who have the responsibility. The effects of this policy are that there will be fewer resources for welfare in all municipalities, and even more resources are being taken away from the smaller municipalities in the countryside. I think it is unworthy, and I wonder what lies behind the decision to remove those resources. It is clear that it affects the countryside and those who live there.

We want to do things differently. We want to take a different path. We have developed a special, powerful, and good rural package in our budget motion. It is not just about these resources but also about support for development, more jobs, better service, and increased growth. We also have a thought discount that would increase the opportunities for those who have a car, which many are dependent on, in the countryside. I therefore wonder why one is making it worse for smaller municipalities in the countryside.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The claims that we are betraying our election promises are now obsolete. They can no longer be used now that we have delivered exactly what we promised during the election campaign, namely lower fuel prices.

I hope that we can stick to the fact that we should have low fuel prices for the reason that Sweden is a large country where many are dependent on cars. That is how one can make the life puzzle work when one lives out in the countryside. Not everyone has the possibility to live in central Stockholm with the subway and all possible modes of collective transport.

If one is to talk about how one wants to invest in the countryside, it is not possible to bypass fuel prices. They are extremely important. Then we can add what concerns agriculture and so on.

We have, according to plan, concluded the government grant that was to apply for seven years. We have, therefore, not removed it, but it is being concluded now according to plan. Then, of course, it can be renewed, if Eva Lindh wishes it. But this government did not consider that we should renew it, instead, it is concluded according to plan.

Sweden can do better, said Magdalena Andersson. The voters felt the same and voted in a new government.

This government has now taken Sweden through an inflation that has been extremely difficult, naturally not only for Sweden but also for many other countries. We have ensured that the funds needed for the welfare system to cope have been allocated.

Municipalities and regions cannot, however, receive full compensation. I do not think Eva Lindh thinks so either. There is reason for them to consider how they should prioritize resources. We have heard previously about some different investments that have been made. When wind turbines were purchased in Gävleborg, it cost the taxpayers 100 million kronor, which was not so smooth. It is therefore possible to do quite a lot of things out in the municipalities and regions.

We are therefore allocating resources, not least in healthcare. Next year, 18 billion kronor will go to healthcare, and additionally, 1 billion will go to ensuring a good child and adolescent psychiatry. Much is being done here, and more needs to be done.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to say something to everyone who is struggling in the welfare system in the countryside in Sweden - to you who are a nurse in a smaller municipality in Sweden, who have lost colleagues and who are running on fumes, and to you who are a rural development worker, who have worked to create jobs in growing companies but who have just been laid off. Today you have received the news: the Sweden Democrats are satisfied, and they are not just satisfied but very satisfied. It is not a crisis. You just haven't understood how good it is and how nicely the Sweden Democrats have prepared for you since they came to power.

The inflation shock that has hit Sweden is also a welfare shock. When, among other things, the pension costs in the municipalities and regions suddenly spiraled with inflation, it was a massive blow of almost 80 billion kronor, which also reinforced a dramatic shift where the state reduces its debt - the national debt - while the indebtedness of the municipalities and regions increases.

Behind these large macroeconomic figures, unacceptable gaps between city and country are hidden. Listen to this! According to the National Board of Health and Welfare, the number of deaths under the age of 80 from diseases considered treatable is twice as high in rural municipalities – according to the definition of so-called remote or very remote located – as in large city municipalities. In the countryside, it is just over 50 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 25 per 100,000 inhabitants in large cities. The gaps in welfare in Sweden are literally a matter of life and death.

Of course, some of this can be remedied with smarter planning, savings, efficiencies and digitalization and with the new result reserves, but not everything can be solved that way. There are many small regions that are now being fully affected by underinvestment in rural welfare, communications and civil society.

Let me take up one of the most extreme examples, namely Region Gotland. When one visits them, one sees that they have truly done everything, Mr. Speaker, to streamline everywhere, but in SD's Sweden, the cost hit for transport and input goods has dug a hole of half a billion in the budget for this small region in Sweden. It is so acute that Moderates and Social Democrats are now prepared to give the region away to the state or to Stockholm. The question is, Mr. Speaker, which is worse.

The depletion of rural welfare is not worthy and is not right. Therefore, in the Center Party, within our fully funded budget, we prioritize at least an additional 1 billion specifically targeted at our smallest regions and rural regions. We also have a special island supplement for Gotland.

Mr. Speaker! The municipalities' economic crisis is also the schools' economic crisis. I know that Johan Pehrson, in his new post, has now begun to speak about the problems in schools as some kind of natural phenomenon, just as he, in his old post, spoke about unemployment as some kind of natural phenomenon.

The fact is that this government promises to get the school in order, but instead, it is going completely in the wrong direction. The dropouts continue. Every year, there are 20,000 students who never achieve upper secondary school competence, neither theoretical nor practical. That is 16 percent of the total. It is many times more than in our Nordic neighboring countries.

So it is precisely when crime among young people reaches new record levels. Furthermore, the dropout rate is particularly large where society is most vulnerable - in the most vulnerable suburbs and in vulnerable industrial towns in the countryside. While it is 13 percent in the city who drop out before upper secondary school, it is 20 percent in the countryside.

There are many reasons for this, but few of them, if any, are properly addressed by the government. One can ask a question: How is the government supposed to get the school in order when thousands of teachers, educators, counselors, and study counselors have been laid off in recent years because the government, in inflation-adjusted terms, has cut so much from the money for the school?

The top three regarding dismissed occupational categories within welfare are, according to the Transition Barometer, one: childcare workers, two: student assistants and three: teachers. How can we then stop the elimination? How can the school then stand strong in times of growing youth crime and an increased number of children with diagnoses and special needs?

Centerpartiet is the party in the Riksdag that is fully committed to the school system. We are allocating 5 billion in a sector grant to the municipalities for the school.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we are actually going to talk a bit about taxes. We have already done that a bit, but now we are going to talk about the taxes that directly affect the municipalities. The Centre Party is today Sweden's only rural-liberal party. Here is an example. In this debate, we have heard a government that is very satisfied with the situation in welfare, despite the crisis rolling on. We have also heard an opposition that to a large extent blames the crisis on lower taxes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear an opposition party - the Center Party - which dares to point out how the government has made things more difficult for municipalities and regions by raising taxes. Yes, you heard correctly. The "Right-wing government" has raised the tax on employment by 12 billion kronor. This has contributed to unemployment under the government's watch rising to one of the worst in Europe - the third highest in Europe.

This affects many vulnerable municipalities that need jobs in growing small businesses, but there is an even more direct effect. While the government with one hand has increased the grants to regions and municipalities - a little, not so much this time - the government with the other hand has taken 2 billion in increased tax on hiring, as a punishment for municipalities and regions hiring young people.

I shall tell the Tidöregeringen a piece of news: Municipalities and regions are employers. In addition to small businesses, it is often they who give young people their first jobs and a way into the labor market. When you raise the employer contribution, you are therefore also directly reducing the money for welfare.

If Sweden is to become a country where the core of the welfare state stands strong, where the school stands strong and where the countryside stands strong, you must prioritize that over populist purchasing. Then you must invest in the jobs. And then we must replace this Tidö debacle.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have heard the word cuts repeated many times in the speaker's chair in this debate on the committee report. The member also mentioned cuts in preschool now.

We can look at, for example, my home municipality, Gävle. There, it has been said: Now we are removing a portion of childcare workers and reducing the number of preschool teachers linked to the fact that the proportion of children in our operations is decreasing. They say that they are making an adjustment based on the conditions of reality. As I said, one could have made a different prioritization and instead reduced the children's groups, in order to retain the competence and have it remain when the proportion of children subsequently increases again.

The members were also upset by the fact that many leave school without passing grades. I agree that it is a major problem. But what Martin Ådahl did not mention in his speech is the background as to why it looks that way today.

Centerpartiet is one of the parties that has pushed for an extremely large immigration to Sweden. What consequences does that have for Swedish society?

I mentioned in my speech that it is a problem for the municipalities when they cannot plan for the functions of society; this also applies to the school. When the municipalities are constantly having to do what they can to increase the number of places in preschool, primary school, and upper secondary school, the consequence is that they never catch up. They do not manage to ensure that they get in the competence needed to educate the students. It takes several years to train new teachers.

But the Centre Party is pushing for an immigration that cannot be met given the requirements for competence in our welfare activities. I mentioned the school. There are naturally more examples. Healthcare and elderly care are two other examples.

The policy that the Center Party wants to push for, with more immigration to Sweden, will increase the gaps further. It will contribute to more people leaving school without passing grades. Now we are shifting the migration policy. It will make it possible for society to catch up. It will take time, but we will catch up.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is still a bit fantastic to hear what a representative of this government says. They have reduced the resources to schools and preschools to such an extent that the categories teacher, student assistants, and preschool educators now top the list of resignations in the welfare sector.

You have been so stingy with the money, Mattias Eriksson Falk. Yet you come up with local examples of municipalities or governments that have been affected by it and think that maybe they should prioritize a bit better, so that they get slightly fewer children's groups and keep slightly more teachers. But do something about it then! Invest in it fully!

When that argument is not enough, we are also back to the usual again. But now it is not only immigrants who are the problem. Now it is also immigrant children who are the problem. It is always that which is the problem.

Now I have something to say to the member from Sverigedemokraterna: You do not listen to what people are saying out in the municipalities. It is small rural municipalities, where the classes are not actually dominated by children and people who have come from other countries, that have the greatest impact in Sweden. And you are doing nothing about it. We have a large and extensive problem all around the country. And now you are going to blame it on immigration as well.

Do your homework instead, the Sweden Democrats! Prioritize what is important for people in the Swedish countryside: their safety, their children, their school and their welfare.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That the Center Party does not want to declare its colors and admit that mass immigration has been a problem for Sweden and for our municipalities and regions when they plan their operations and the effects it has had in Swedish society is perhaps not surprising. To admit anything is also to admit one's guilt and share in it. I therefore expect nothing else from the Center Party. But it is perhaps also why the Center Party soon will not have voter support corresponding to more than a light beer.

Regarding the state grants, which the member would like to discuss, it is the case that the pension costs, the large share that has affected the costs of the municipalities and regions this year, decrease by 50 billion next year. But we let the state grants, for example the general ones, remain at the same level. This means that one will have better conditions in the coming years, and one will have even better conditions in 2026.

No one is saying that it is not a tough situation. But we are providing funds that enable municipalities and regions to prioritize. But then one must also prioritize those resources in the right way, for example by investing in schools, preschools, and elderly care. Then one cannot give campaign contributions to ABF and the Socialdemokraterna. Then one cannot invest in fine art in Värmland, and one cannot build bathhouses for billions or culture houses in Gävle while welfare is being cut. That is the reality today. That is how it looks.

The examples from reality are relevant, regardless of whether they come from the member's municipality, my municipality, or any other municipality or region around the country. All these misprioritizations erode the money that is supposed to go to the core activities of the welfare system. And much of it is backed by the Center Party. I really cannot understand that they do it. But it is they who contribute to eroding the welfare activities.

Now we come to this situation again where the member can say a lot of things that I do not get the opportunity to respond to. But I think I have expressed the Sweden Democrats' view on how the Centre Party acts in municipalities and regions.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I must still be able to answer when the member from the Sweden Democrats invents both one thing and the other about what we do. If there is anything people know about the Center Party, it is that when we manage the municipalities, we hold onto the money, invest in what is important and is close to people and their needs. I seriously do not believe that anyone has missed this.

I want to go back to the situation of the municipalities. Now we have heard it said many times: We have given back 50 billion. Mattias Eriksson Falk is apparently also the head of the Riksbank now. But that is because inflation has gone down. You have not given anything. We have had a Riksbank that has done its job – and we really thank them for that; we will talk more about that later today. But it is not you who have given the municipalities reduced pension costs of 50 billion. We have done that by bringing down inflation in this country.

We may share the desire to avoid waste and not invest in the wrong things. But I don't know; it is not always that one is so careful about that in SD municipalities. But thousands of teachers have been laid off all around Sweden, which has affected many small municipalities where there is already a large exodus from upper secondary school. It is your doing because you have not prioritized the welfare of the countryside and the countryside's schools.

Now that you are in power, you must take responsibility for it and cannot blame a swimming pool here or something else there. We need to get the teachers back to strengthen the school and reduce the decline in the Swedish countryside.

(Applause)

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. However, we must never forget where the tax money comes from and how it is created. It happens by people working and running businesses, which causes Sweden's economic growth to increase.

With growth, we can have a safety net without holes for those who fall. With growth, we get a Sweden that we can rely on - rely on that we get help if we become ill, that we get care if we need it when we become elderly and that our children get the support they need in school.

For me, that is what the state is for. It should create security and a safety net that catches but does not hold back. People should be able to feel faith in the future and dare to try their wings.

For me as a liberal, as I have said, it is very important that there is a safety net without holes that catches you if you fall. But today we have several holes in the net, which challenges the welfare. Therefore, it is important that the reforms that the government is now working on are resolved. Now, our challenges affect the welfare and all those 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 much workload in some places, and too few resources.

It is important to remember that the holes in the net do not have just one cause. Members from several parties in the opposition who have spoken before me have said that it is only a matter of more 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.

Mr. Speaker! School is and will always be the Liberals' top priority. We must realize that there is a knowledge crisis in Swedish schools. Today, every fourth student in upper secondary school cannot read properly. The number of reports of threats and violence has doubled, and it is clear that the basics are not functioning in Swedish schools today. It is to the school that we want to direct resources, because there is certainly a correlation between the number of teachers in the classroom and study results. One must have time to see the student and listen, motivate and explain. Of course, that is so.

Still, it is not just resources in the school that are required. It is also about the teacher's powers, 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. Do not fall for the left-wing rhetoric!

The Liberals have begun work on rebuilding the foundations of the school again. It is about students' right to proper school books, staffed school libraries, and access to good student health. Also, the introduction of a national school funding norm and a fully renovated friskole system are important reforms. Teachers' administrative burden needs to decrease, and we must get back a rule-governed school.

In the budget for 2025, we are investing heavily in schools. It is the second-largest school budget in 20 years. We ensure that half a million real textbooks replace the students' distracting screens. We give the municipalities the opportunity to create smaller teaching groups, and we double the support for emergency schools. The noise and the harmful zeal for digitalization must be cleared away. School must return to the basics.

So we build the future Sweden from the ground up. It is social liberalism when it is at its best.

Mr. Speaker! These are examples of how we are investing to address the school's problems. We do this through general government grants but also through targeted government grants earmarked for the school, while simultaneously addressing the fundamental problems that are not about money but about conditions and structure. We liberals would have preferred that the school be state-run again. But now it is not, and then we must do what we can from the state's side to provide both the right conditions and resources.

The truly large resources for the school come from the municipalities' budgets. We must not forget that when we talk about investments here in the rostrum. In 2022, the school's costs in Sweden were approximately 43 percent of the municipalities' total costs. This corresponded to approximately 332 billion. The general state grants were approximately 16 percent of this and the targeted grants approximately 5 percent. The rest, approximately 79 percent, came from the municipalities' own revenues.

But there are major problems with how the school is financed today and that there is too much difference between the municipalities. It can differ by as much as 70,000 kronor per pupil between the municipalities that invest the least and those that invest the most in the school. This cannot be compensated for by any general state grants. This is not sustainable. Therefore, the Liberals in the government have commissioned an inquiry to calculate a minimum level for the financing of the school.

Mr. Speaker! You have heard that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have much more money. I must point out that it is important not to do as they do in their budget proposals. To debt-finance welfare when we have a fiscal framework to adhere to is simply unserious. It is nothing other than reckless. Now, it is in and of itself mostly just made-up budgets; they know that they will not pass. It is easy to believe in the debate that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have serious alternative proposals, but that is not the case.

In conclusion: With our budget in its entirety, we are making important investments in welfare while simultaneously enabling economic growth. That is what finances welfare, and that is why we must always keep this in mind when we present budgets. They must be good for Sweden both here and now and for future economic growth.

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 large difference between a liberal bourgeois economic policy and a left-wing policy is that we know that resources must first come in. Only then can they be distributed.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by wishing my colleagues in the chamber and in the Committee on Finance a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Resources matter, says Cecilia Rönn. But that it is only about money is apparently left-wing rhetoric. I believe that quite a few still think that money is important and that it matters. That is perhaps what separates our different views of politics. It matters how many teachers there are in the classroom, how much staff there is at the school, and how many resources there are for elderly care and healthcare. Through the Social Democratic budget, there would be one additional teacher in the classroom in an entire grade. That would make a difference for the school.

However, it was not this that I intended to take up with Member Cecilia Rönn. I want to take up how things look in Sweden today. Within adult education, false grades occur for students who have never attended the courses they were passed in. There are schools that issue "joy grades" to attract students. There are schools run by violence-oriented Islamists. There is home care within LOV that has opened up for welfare crime. We have large increases in costs for interventions that are not carried out. There are youth homes that take out million-dollar profits when they run residences for children and young people who need special support or that are run by gang criminals.

This is an important issue for trust in the welfare system, but also because it removes the important resources needed in the welfare system. What does Cecilia Rönn want to do about the profit-seeking and the increasing welfare crime?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I want to eliminate all such activity. Of course, a parent should not have to risk that their child falls even deeper into crime, is raped, or is subjected to violence and oppression when the state has taken the child into care because the child has major problems. Of course, all children should be able to manage in school. One must be able to send one's children to school and be secure that they receive the very best education they need. Of course, my, your, and everyone's parents who need care and treatment should receive it in a dignified and fine way with time and opportunities in the activity.

There are many big problems that we need to address and solve. One of them is definitely that resources must end up in the right place, where they belong. A lot of work is ongoing to make this visible, address it, and rectify it. It requires a government that does not have blinkers for the big, serious problems that over decades have eaten their way into the Swedish body of society.

Here I hope that we can set aside political conflicts and dividing lines and not blame each other. I could stand here in the speaker's chair and ask what the Social Democrats have done to address these serious problems, which have persisted for decades. But this is so serious and important for all of Sweden and all its population that I hope we can truly ensure that when really good proposals reach the Riksdag, we can stand united to stop this unacceptable behavior, which should not be allowed to exist in the Swedish welfare state at all.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are discussing the budget for the coming year. The member says that we should not bring up what has been seen historically. No, that usually becomes argumentative. I could bring up the proposals that we have put forward in the Riksdag but that have been voted down. I could bring up the proposals that are in our budget but that people say no to. I do not do that, because we have already discussed that. Instead, I bring up the question of what this government will do about the profit-seeking that occurs in Swedish schools but which also affects the entire welfare system. The money that is taken out would be needed for the welfare system. Above all, it is a welfare crime that is outrageous.

I am somewhat astonished when Member Cecilia Rönn says that we should have "shame tags." We raise these problems time and again. But the government does nothing. When it comes to the HVB homes, it is still the case that two-thirds of those the police have alerted about continue their operations. The pursuit of profit in schools also continues. It depletes the school of resources that would be needed for more teachers and better teaching. LOV, the Act on Choice System, opens up the possibility of exploiting this for welfare crime with the money that was so needed in the operations. We Social Democrats safeguard welfare, and we believe that the pursuit of profit does not belong in Swedish welfare. It must be stopped. Is the Member prepared to work for that?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Eva Lindh for the question.

Just as I said in my main speech, we are now reviewing the independent school system in order to completely renovate it. Of course, it is not the case that one should have as a driving force to make a lot of money at the expense of the school's quality and the students' education. We will address that. There are also very many other investigations currently underway aimed at cleaning up in the school, so that it returns to the basics and receives the mandate it is supposed to have.

But one must be able to hold two thoughts in mind at the same time in this issue. The problem is not automatically all independent schools. There are today masses of independent schools that do a fantastic job, that see the students and that create fantastic results for both teachers and students. There are a lot of municipal schools that are good, but there are also very many municipal schools that fall short in their quality mandate. We must address the deficiencies in quality, study results, and work environment. It is not about what form the activity is conducted in, but about what quality it becomes.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that it is quality that is the driving force in the school system. That does not mean that we should eliminate all independent schools. It is important, I think, that we distinguish in that way in this debate in order to address the real problems and talk about them. Just as I said in my main speech and in the previous exchange of remarks, it is a huge problem that there is a difference of 70,000 per pupil between the municipalities that invest the most and those that invest the least. That leads to differences in quality. Therefore, we need the national school funding norm. Therefore, we also need to nationalize the school in the long run, so that we get equal opportunities for all children, regardless of where in the country they live.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has a serious budget proposal; we were told that we did not have one. We have an ordinary reform space as large as the government's. However, we also propose an investment budget that is very clearly intended for the green transition.

A strong welfare state is the foundation for a society where everyone has the opportunity to live a dignified and good life regardless of background and economic circumstances. By guaranteeing access to education, healthcare, and social security, we do not only create justice for people but also build a society for both now and the future. By investing in what is our common, we create a society that holds together and that is good for everyone and not just for a few. It is through the welfare state that Sweden has been able to grow into a country that today is one of the world's richest countries. We must neither forget nor take this for granted. Historically, it has required large investments in education, healthcare, and social security.

A functioning welfare state ensures that no one is left behind, regardless of life situation. Without the welfare state, we risk creating deep divides where some live in abundance while others are forced to struggle to get by. Access to healthcare and education should not be a matter of the size of one's wallet but a fundamental right. A strong welfare provides people with the security to dare to educate themselves, change jobs, or start companies without risking their economic future. This is a welfare that we only build together and which in itself lays the foundation for a future that is both economically and socially sustainable. When we take care of one another, both humanity and society's development grow.

With this in mind, one might think it was a self-evident matter for a government to invest money in welfare, to ensure that the municipalities received enough to be able to have an equivalent school, whether one grows up in the city, the suburbs, or the countryside, and to ensure that the regions received enough resources to hire nurses instead of being forced to dismiss them due to a too narrow budget. But no – this government does not invest in regions and municipalities in its economic policy. They did not do it before, do not do it now, and will probably not do it in the future either.

Mr. Speaker! The government has promised to present a budget that does not abandon welfare. Yet, they are now doing the opposite. Ulf Kristersson promised already early this year that the government would take its responsibility and that no healthcare workers would need to be laid off. Despite that, they are again presenting a budget that leads to cuts for municipalities and regions. It is precisely there that the responsibility for welfare lies.

The regions and municipalities are expected to run a deficit of 24 billion during 2024. Instead of investments in welfare for next year, the government prioritizes tax cuts for the very wealthiest. It is nothing less than a mockery of everyone who struggles every day to make the welfare system work.

This year has been a real ordeal for healthcare. Inflation affected the budget enormously. But even though inflation has now gone down, the situation in healthcare is remarkable. Hospitals and health centers are sounding the alarm that state subsidies must increase if the cuts are not to continue and become as serious as during the worst period of the 90s crisis.

Even though the Tidö government is well aware of this, the government ensures that the regions lose 1 billion in general state grants and an additional 7 billion when the sector grant shrinks to 2 billion next year. This year, the forecast is a total minus of 20 billion in the regions. In addition to the fact that they are constantly underfunded and the queues for healthcare are growing, the volatility in the funding is a major problem. Therefore, we want to inflation-proof the money for welfare. Next year alone, it would mean 4.5 billion more for the whole country to use for preschool teachers, teachers, and assistant nurses.

It is obvious that the welfare sector needs competent staff in both periods of low and high economic activity. When the general state grants are not indexed, the support is eroded over time, and municipalities and regions find it more difficult to plan their operations. We cannot have that.

Mr. Speaker! Are these funds needed then? Or is it as the government wants it to sound, that everything is fine now, despite alarms about dismissed teachers, too large children's groups, and growing queues in healthcare with great suffering as a result? Of course, the money is needed.

In Umeå, where seven out of ten children's groups are too large, the municipality could have hired 23 new preschool teachers with the Miljöpartiets budget proposal to relieve the employees.

In the city of Stockholm, over 160 high school teachers could have been employed to meet the need for more subject teachers in upper secondary school over the next ten years.

Region Västra Götaland's largest hospital, Sahlgrenska, needs to cut its costs by 1.7 billion with the Tidö government's budget. This does not result in shorter queues, nor does it result in more healthy cancer patients.

So it shouldn't have been that way. It is all about political priorities, and here it is unfortunately all too clear what the government prioritizes. Tax cuts for the rich come once again before better care for more people.

Even though welfare is the core task for municipalities and regions, there is also responsibility here for a multitude of other important and prioritized issues, such as measures and increased resources for climate adaptation, public transport, crime prevention work, and civil defense, to name just a few. Obtaining increased resources for those as well would have increased our residents' safety and convenience. Furthermore, it would have been a good economic policy now that we see the recession and unemployment becoming entrenched.

Unfortunately, the Tidö parties do not see that connection either, but instead present a budget that contains cuts and numerical trickery.

The Minister for Finance has said that more than money is needed to fix the welfare system. I and the Green Party agree with that. We also need a stop to profits in the welfare system and that the money intended for the welfare system also stays there. The money must really go to the patients and the students so that our residents can feel that it is the needs that govern, not the shareholders' demands for dividends.

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag has, through its decision on 27 November 2024, established that the total expenditures for expenditure area 25 may not exceed what the government has proposed. The Green Party's budget is above that level, and we therefore cannot reserve ourselves in favor of our proposal. The Green Party's budget alternative should be seen as a whole, so I abstain from taking a position.

It is, however, obvious that Sweden needs a new government - a government that sees the societal needs and the problems for what they are, a government that meets the crisis in welfare with more money for healthcare and school, a government that meets the insecurity and the violence with long-term investments in preventive work and on the entire justice chain, a government that meets the climate crisis with policies that reduce emissions, accelerate the transition, and protect more nature.

Sweden simply needs a government that solves real societal problems instead of creating more.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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