General grants to municipalities

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report number 3 Expenditure Area 25 General grants to municipalities.

The basis for the part of the state budget that we are discussing today is the cooperation that takes place between the Sweden Democrats and the government within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. It is also the last budget proposal of the parliamentary term that concerns an entire year and which now lies on the Riksdag's table for a decision.

With just over nine months left until the election, it is reasonable to pause and reflect on what this mandate period has actually entailed, particularly within this specific expenditure area, and at the same time compare it with the situation before the change of power in 2022.

We inherited a Sweden characterized by extremely high inflation, an inflation that did not arise by chance but was a consequence of deliberate political choices from the previous Social Democratic government with the support of Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet. It was a policy that made it expensive to live in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! These parties shut down fully functioning nuclear power in southern Sweden. The consequences came quickly: electricity prices skyrocketed. It became expensive for people to heat their homes, expensive for companies to produce, expensive for sports life to keep ice rinks and other facilities running, and expensive for municipalities and regions to conduct their operations.

Money that instead could have gone to welfare, to better conditions in schools, to elderly care or to the staff's working environment went straight out into increased electricity costs.

As if this were not enough, one also significantly increased the reduction obligation. The prices of gasoline and diesel rose, and they rose sharply. It became more expensive for ordinary people to get to work, more expensive for the regions to operate public transport, and more expensive for companies across the country to transport goods. When the operation became more expensive, transport costs increased, and in the long run, food and other necessary goods also became more expensive. Sweden experienced a real cost crisis under the Social Democratic government.

These were not just unfortunate circumstances that happened to occur. It was the result of political decisions made in this chamber by the Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Left Party, and the Centre Party. Swedish households and our municipalities and regions were chosen out in favor of their own ideological ambitions.

Mr. Speaker! We are now approaching the year 2026. During this parliamentary term, the Sweden Democrats and the government have taken a number of measures to step by step repair the damage caused by the policies previously pursued by, among others, the Social Democrats.

Inflation has now been fought. The reduction obligation has been lowered, and Sweden today has among the lowest prices for gasoline and diesel in the entire Western world. The tax on gasoline and diesel has been lowered. The first steps towards new nuclear power have been taken to secure stable electricity production and reasonable electricity prices in the long term. Income taxes have been lowered, and from 2026, the tax on food will also be halved – something that also affects the costs for our municipalities and regions.

There are some clear examples of the policy that has been pursued since 2022. Taken together, this means that the conditions for Swedish households to function have improved, the conditions for municipalities and regions to carry out their activities have improved, and the stability in the public sector has been strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the fact that inflation has now been pushed back, we see that the rate of cost increases for municipalities and regions has been lowered. The sharply increased pension costs that previously drove up expenditures have begun to normalize. This provides better opportunities for balance and long-term planning.

To further support municipalities and regions, the increased general government grants remain next year as well. It is worth stating clearly that the general government grants have never been as large as they are now. This entire expenditure area amounts to nearly 181 billion kronor. These are funds that go directly to municipalities and regions to create the conditions for a strong and equal welfare throughout the country.

At the same time, municipalities and regions have their own responsibility. Continued adaptations, prioritizations, and a willingness to test new solutions are required. Taxpayers' money must be used where it does the most good.

One example could be to review support to various organizations and activities that are not part of the core operations. In Region Gävleborg, for example, they have reviewed the public support to study associations, among which the Social Democrats' campaign organization ABF has often been one of the largest recipients of support. More regions and municipalities should do this. These funds can then instead be used directly in welfare for staff, for children and young people, or for our elderly.

Mr. Speaker! During the parliamentary term, the Sweden Democrats and the government have delivered a large number of bills within migration and justice policy. These concern reforms that both affect work in the public sector and create conditions to reduce costs linked to the previously conducted migration policy.

The municipalities have, for example, received a clearer responsibility for crime prevention work. It is necessary. Crime prevention work is a chain that runs through the entire society and which requires coordination.

We have also made decisions on legislation that makes it significantly easier to install security cameras. This is something that municipalities, regions, and the Police Authority now have better conditions to use. Additionally, we have introduced the possibility of stay bans, something that creates conditions for safer urban environments and ensures that we get rid of problems from libraries and swimming pools. It also means that honest shop owners can conduct their business in peace and quiet and in that way also contribute to Swedish society.

Migration policy has been fundamentally restructured. The number of asylum seekers is at its lowest since the 1980s this year and is expected to continue decreasing as new laws come into force. The requirements have been tightened, and access to Swedish welfare is being restricted. It will no longer be possible to set foot in Sweden and immediately gain access to Swedish welfare and support financed by our taxpayers. One must qualify for the welfare. This reduces the incentives to seek out this country, it reduces the state's contribution costs, it relieves the healthcare system, and it gives the municipalities greater stability in their operations.

Mr. Speaker! This is also a crossroads. A red-green election victory in 2026 would mean a return to significantly increased migration, continued decommissioning of nuclear power, as well as an increased reduction obligation and higher taxes on gasoline and diesel. Added to this would be increased taxes on work, income, and properties. It would become more expensive to work in Sweden, more expensive to run businesses, and more expensive to provide welfare. It would simply become more expensive to be Swedish and to live in a red-green Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by touching upon the issue of Swedish healthcare and staffing. In the debate on this, the opposition often spreads a picture that does not correspond with reality.

I asked the Riksdag's investigation service to review the developments within Swedish healthcare between 2022 and 2025, and the result is clear. Within our regions, for example, the number of midwives has increased by 3.2 percent. The number of doctors without specialist competence has increased by 1 percent, and the number of doctors with specialist competence has increased by 6.1 percent. The number of nurses has increased by 3.7 percent, the number of dentists by 1.8 percent, and the number of assistant nurses and caregivers by 2 percent.

In total, the staff within these groups have increased by 2.4 percent during the parliamentary term. This is to be compared with the fact that Sweden's population during the same period has increased by approximately 0.6 percent. This means that the healthcare staff has increased significantly faster than the population. It is a very positive message.

At the same time, the appropriation within this expenditure area for support to regions and municipalities has increased by around 24 billion kronor since 2022.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I feel confident in moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish my fellow committee members, the committee secretariat, the Swedish Parliament Administration, and the Speaker's Presidium a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats often say that they stand on the side of the countryside and the small municipalities. That sounds good in election campaigns, but in practical politics, the Sweden Democrats do something completely different.

The Sweden Democrats are therefore standing behind a budget where the general state grants are eroded, where the equalization is worsened, and where small municipalities are left alone with increasing needs and increasing costs. Small municipalities do not have the same opportunities in the normal situation. They also do not have the same opportunities to address the difficulties they face. They cannot cut out what is not needed, because what remains is already core activity: school, elderly care, and social services.

When the state withdraws, it hits people's everyday lives directly. One cannot claim to protect the whole country and at the same time support a policy that causes welfare to deteriorate precisely where it is already most vulnerable. It is not to stand up for the countryside – it is to betray it.

I want to ask Mattias Eriksson Falk: What do you say to the small municipalities that are now struggling even harder to preserve a good welfare so that we get a good welfare in the whole country?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

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

I must say that it is quite ironic when the Social Democrats stand and worry about the countryside, given the migration policy that you stand behind and have led in this country for decades. It was primarily small municipalities that were affected by this when you rapidly increased immigration to our country and the small municipalities had to take the hit. It was something that led to the costs for social assistance skyrocketing, and it created problems for the smaller municipalities to quickly increase investments in preschools and schools, which they actually did not have the financial capacity to do. And now you are trying to blame the Sweden Democrats for it. It is ironic.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are trying to create better conditions for the municipalities all over Sweden, both in cities and in the countryside. This includes, among other things, lowering the costs for social assistance. We will introduce a cap, which will reduce the costs. This is therefore about reducing migration to Sweden, which we have succeeded in. It will also create a better balance for the municipalities and healthcare to plan their operations and not be left with the rapid expenditure increases that the Social Democrats contributed to.

The general state grants remain, and they have never been this large. Furthermore, they have increased significantly since 2022 when the Sweden Democrats and the government initiated the cooperation that we know as the Tidö Agreement. This has contributed to creating conditions for municipalities and regions to function.

I think that the voters should rather be more worried about the policy that the Social Democrats intend to pursue after the next election. They intend to create worse conditions for the electricity supply, increase migration, and transition society to once again open the taps of subsidies. It will create worse conditions for the municipalities to function.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must ask the Sweden Democrats to take responsibility for the policy they pursue, not constantly try to shift the blame or give a picture of what the Social Democratic policy will entail that is actually not true.

Today we are talking about welfare. I asked a question about welfare in the small municipalities, in the sparsely populated municipalities in the countryside, which have now been placed in a much tougher situation than before the Sweden Democrats gained the power to decide over the situation and the state of affairs in Sweden.

What has happened is that the special support which was directed at the small municipalities in rural areas and in the countryside that have it particularly tough was removed. What has also happened is that the proposal for an equalization system that has existed for quite some time, which would mean better conditions for the small municipalities in rural areas and in the countryside, has not been submitted. What is submitted instead is a proposal that involves taking from some small municipalities and giving to other small municipalities, which will result in major deteriorations for the small municipalities if it becomes a reality.

I hope that the Sweden Democrats, through Mattias Eriksson Falk, can provide an answer as to why one does not stand up for the people who live in the sparsely populated areas and in the countryside in Sweden. Why is one not standing up for all of Sweden today?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What I have already said remains, namely that it is stomach-turning to hear the Social Democrats standing here in the speaker's chair and saying that we would not care about the countryside. It is your migration policy and energy policy that have created worse conditions for the municipalities to function. It is you who have driven up the costs and created an imbalance in welfare, which the municipalities and regions have done their best to meet. It is your policy that has led there.

The problem is that the Social Democrats do not understand their own connection to the unsustainable policy they have pursued in many areas and how it has affected the welfare in Sweden. We are trying to clean up after the Social Democrats, and it is clear that it takes time. Therefore, we have increased the support to municipalities and regions, and we will introduce the subsidy cap which will reduce the costs for the municipalities when it comes to the social assistance.

Regarding the equalization system, at least I have seen that a government bill has been announced. I do not know what it contains, and I do not know if the Social Democrats perhaps know. They may have a better access to the Government Offices than my party does – it is completely impossible for me to know. We simply have to wait for the bill and see what it contains. More than that I cannot say regarding the equalization system – both the member and I participated in the committee that submitted a proposal.

The Sweden Democrats stand for a sustainable migration policy, and we stand for that one must qualify for the welfare state. The Social Democrats stand for the exact opposite, where the migration policy will increase with a shift where you get influence over the government policy in the country. The costs for benefits to those who have just arrived in Sweden will increase significantly. It worries me, and it should worry the Swedish people what a shift in power in 2026 would mean.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for a speech which, in any case, did not deal that much about welfare, which I thought was what we were debating today. It was mostly other things, but something small was still about the public sector and welfare.

It is positive that there are more employed doctors than before, but the member did not say very much about the nurses, the nursing assistants, and the specialist nurses. Here we know that there are large losses, and here we know that there are not enough people who want or can work in healthcare and take the positions that exist. We also know that underfunding leads to the fact that one cannot hire. That is why the enormously long healthcare queues exist today. We cannot open wards because there is no one who can take care of the patients who are to stay there.

Here I do not hear the Sweden Democrats giving any answer at all. What does one actually want to do to shorten the queues in healthcare? One does not add more money in general grants, and one does not support in other ways.

We need to attract people to healthcare, and we need to attract more who want to work in or return to the profession. Are there any proposals in the Sweden Democrats' thoughts for this budget, or does it all boil down to scaring everyone in the Swedish debate over a large migration danger that actually does not exist?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions. I do not share the image that I do not speak about welfare. In welfare, migration policy and crime policy are precisely linked. The migration policy that was pursued under the Social Democratic and Green Party government, and also by the Social Democrats alone in a government position, created precisely unsustainable conditions even for welfare. Costs were driven up due to large investments. There were no premises or staff to cover what your migration policy led to. It created problems for welfare, not least in smaller municipalities.

Criminal policy is also linked to the welfare state. We have seen how criminal organizations and associations exploit Swedish taxpayers through access to Swedish welfare, and we are trying to choke off those parts. There is a context that I think one must point out, and we have restructured the policy to create better conditions.

Regarding the staff within Swedish healthcare, I stated in my speech that the number of doctors, dentists, midwives, nurses, and nursing assistants has increased by a total of 2.4 percent since 2022, that is, up until now 2025. The staff has increased in number within Swedish welfare in terms of the regions, while the Swedish population has not increased to the same extent. This creates better conditions for providing care.

It is no secret that regarding migration policy, there is a greater care need that has affected Swedish healthcare and the regions for a long time. It has driven longer queues. When migration decreases, the healthcare queues will decrease. It will take time to catch up, and I want to extend a big thank you to our healthcare staff who have endured your migration policy for many years.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. Unfortunately, there were not particularly many solutions, but rather more of the same, as it concerns the migration policy.

I do not know if the member is unaware or if he is trying to pretend that it is not so, but how the demographic development looks in Sweden is not primarily due to us bringing in people with greater care needs into Sweden, but rather because the development is towards an aging population. It is a development that we share with the rest of Europe. It requires more care efforts.

At the same time, we have fewer people in our country who are prepared to take these jobs because they are too low-paid and the work is too hard. Here, it would have been welcome if the government and Sverigedemokraterna had delivered a bit on making it easier to get more employees and a better working environment.

When it comes to welfare crime, it is still somewhat interesting. Much of what causes welfare crime is precisely that we allow profits in welfare. That means that as a criminal, one has much better conditions to go in and submit tenders or take over operations to then conduct a completely unprofessional operation where one extracts money.

I actually intended to ask a different question, but I must still ask the members: What do you in the Sweden Democrats have as an answer to this? Can you imagine reducing or removing the profit incentive in welfare and thereby tackle the crime that we see is so widespread today?

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 there are municipalities today that are taking initiatives to retrain certain staff within welfare activities that are not conducted to the same extent so that they can take other jobs, for example as childcare workers and assistant nurses. These are welcome initiatives that the municipalities are taking, and it is good that they are taking them.

I must nevertheless return to the fact that Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna always try to question the link between an unsustainable migration policy and welfare activities. As I said, the migration policy that was previously conducted under the S-MP government and the S government created poor conditions for Swedish welfare to function, as they quickly ensured that costs were driven up and also ensured that there were no conditions to conduct a good school operation either in cities or in the countryside.

It is interesting to talk about the staff in the welfare sector in general and about the wages. If it is the case that the wages are low, then that is where the problem lies, but you do not solve that by letting new people come to Sweden and take these jobs or by ensuring that the wages in the operations are kept down, but instead by creating conditions for people to live on the wage they have.

Now we hear that the solution of the Green Party and the Social Democrats is to have a large migration policy so that one can ensure that welfare activities are pressured and people are forced to take low-wage jobs. That is their solution instead of ensuring that wages rise and conditions are created so that people actually want to have these jobs and educate themselves for them.

I think it is sad that this will be the future with a potential new red-green government after the 2026 election. It worries me. It should also worry Swedish voters, especially the healthcare staff who already exist today within welfare activities and who are working enormously hard to clean up after the politics that the red-greens previously pursued. We are now working to change that in order to create stable conditions for Swedish welfare and for Swedish society as a whole, so that it can start functioning again and so that Sweden becomes good.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! General grants to the municipalities, state subsidies and municipal finances may sound technical and bureaucratic, but behind these words lies something greater. There lies our children's security, there lies our elderly's care, and there lies every person's opportunity to live a good life. It is the very core of the Swedish welfare model.

It is no secret that the welfare state is under severe pressure. Regions and municipalities from north to south testify to the same thing: increasing needs and increasing costs, but not increasing resources.

Preschools have increasingly larger child groups, schools struggle with support needs that are growing but not being funded, social services are on their knees, young people's mental ill-health is increasing, healthcare staff are being pressured and running faster and faster, and elderly care is being pressured by increasingly tougher working conditions.

It is the reality that every elected official does what they can to patch and repair. In many places, they are really good at it. It is the reality that many teachers, nursing assistants, and social secretaries face every day. It is this reality that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna choose to do less about.

The government's policy means that the general state grants to municipalities and regions are not increased in line with the needs; instead, they remain practically stagnant while costs soar. This has consequences for welfare and thus for people's everyday lives. It is not only unfortunate, but it is a betrayal – a betrayal of the welfare staff, a betrayal of the elderly who need care, a betrayal of children who need security, and a betrayal of a society that wants to hold together.

Let us be clear: When the government and the Sweden Democrats talk about accountability, budget discipline, and difficult times, it is actually something else entirely they are saying. They are saying that tax cuts are more important than welfare. They are saying that profits in welfare are more important than security. They are saying that the nursing assistant, the teacher, and the social worker should fulfill their missions with less, because the state has chosen to give less. It is a political valuation, and it is wrong.

The Swedish welfare state is not a cost item among others. It is our society's infrastructure. It is the foundation for trust, security, development, and equality. It is part of our value base – the idea that all people have equal value and an equal right to succeed, regardless of where one lives or which parents one has.

Welfare is our collective security. It is the basis for economic equality but also for economic development. Welfare makes us free. That is why the general state grants are so important. They are the very tool to guarantee equal welfare.

Instead, one should strengthen elderly care when more and more people live longer and have extensive care and nursing needs. One should strengthen the school when the teacher shortage is increasing and more students need support. One should strengthen social services when the mental ill-health among children and young people reaches new levels. One should strengthen healthcare when the queues grow and the staff are on their knees.

This is not just a question of crowns and öre, but it is a question of who we want to be as a society. The welfare state shaped Sweden. It built our democracy, our trust, and our security. It made it possible for generations of children to grow up with faith in the future. It made people feel that society carried them when life became difficult.

To now let the welfare be weakened is to let social cohesion be weakened. It is to create a more unequal, more insecure and more divided Sweden. A country that does not invest in the welfare invests in inequality.

Mr. Speaker! The government is failing especially the small municipalities. To achieve a more equal welfare, there is an equalization system intended to level out differences in tax capacity and cost levels between municipalities and regions. Despite this, large differences remain.

Many smaller municipalities and many municipalities and regions in rural areas are struggling with growing economic deficits, difficulties in recruiting staff, and increasing demands within the welfare sector. They are now being pressed very hard. This also applies to municipalities that have extensive socio-economic challenges.

Smaller municipalities have higher costs per inhabitant. This is well known, and that is why the equalization system exists. The parliamentary committee's proposal was ready already at the beginning of this mandate period. The government could have presented a thoroughly worked-out comprehensive proposal to create a more equal welfare.

Instead, the choice was made to move forward with a small part that entails large negative effects for the small municipalities that will now be squeezed. The government now wants to implement a small part of that proposal for an equalization system that we put on the table. It hits very hard against the municipalities that one says one wants to help. It is unjust. If the proposal passes in the Riksdag, many municipalities will lose significant resources, despite the fact that their conditions are already tough.

This is not what Sweden needs. Sweden needs, instead, a more equal welfare across the whole country. We need a government that sees the whole country, not one that turns its back on the small municipalities.

Mr. Speaker! The consequences of years of privatizations and deregulation should be obvious by now. When tax money intended for school books, teachers' salaries, care places, and hospital beds is instead taken out as profits, it is not welfare that is prioritized. It is the pursuit of profit that is prioritized.

The results are clear. Inequality in healthcare has increased. Segregation in schools has deepened. Children's education has been turned into a market, where money needed in the classrooms instead ends up with international private equity firms. Sweden is today the only country in the world that allows unlimited profit extraction in a fully tax-funded school system. The same pattern is seen in elderly care and in healthcare. In many places, this means fewer resources for what the resources are intended for. It means less secure employment and poorer continuity.

The pursuit of profit does not belong in Swedish welfare. The resources that we collectively allocate should go towards better school results, secure elderly care, and equitable healthcare, not to large profit extractions or welfare crime. It is time to see reality clearly and act. Put a stop to profits in welfare, stop the opportunities for welfare crime, and let welfare resources go where they belong – to people, not to profits.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have always stood for something else. We have stood for the idea that welfare is our collective responsibility and our collective pride. We believe in a welfare that holds the country together. We believe that resources should be distributed according to need. We believe that equality does not come by itself but is built every day with political decisions.

Long-term perspective, stability, and real resources are needed. That is why we want to give welfare exactly that. A crucial part of this is to introduce a floor for welfare by having the general state grants adjusted for inflation. This gives municipalities and regions the opportunity to plan, employ their own staff, and reduce the dependence on temporary solutions.

We want to invest in staff, education, and working conditions. That is how we shorten queues, strengthen the school, and create security in elderly care. We want to invest in more teachers and smaller childcare groups, in language initiatives in preschool, and in better support for students who risk falling behind. We want to strengthen healthcare through staffing investments and say no to cuts in maternity care and women's healthcare. We want to improve the quality of life for the elderly through more colleagues in elderly care, language initiatives for staff, vaccines for the most vulnerable, and measures that break loneliness. We want to see a rural development that strengthens service, faith in the future, and the business sector across the entire country, not a society that withdraws.

This is ultimately about which direction Sweden should take. A country that allows welfare to be weakened invests in inequality. We choose a different path, with a strong common welfare, equal life chances, and a society that holds together.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude where I began: with the people. Behind every discussion about state subsidies, there is a real human being. It is the child who needs support in school but has to wait because resources are lacking. It is the nursing assistant who works a double shift because the staffing is insufficient. It is the elderly person who does not receive the same continuity in care as before. It is the family who waits anxiously for a BUP appointment that never comes. It is the social worker who feels that the mission is greater than the time, greater than the day, and greater than what is reasonable.

Welfare is not abstract. Welfare is people's lives. Therefore, it is our duty to ensure that the resources to be sent to municipalities and regions to manage the welfare are sufficient. We Social Democrats will always stand on that side. We will always defend the welfare. We will always fight for the resources that are required. That is how we build a stronger Sweden together.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to direct a question to the Social Democratic member about something that I believe both she and I consider very important, namely economic inequality. It is largely rooted in the wage formation itself, especially in female-dominated occupations in the public sector. It concerns exactly the welfare that the member held her speech about.

My colleague Minister for Equality Nina Larsson has been very clear during the autumn: When the state injects resources, municipalities and regions should use the space to strengthen core activities, not least by improving wages in female-dominated occupations in the public sector, for example teachers and preschool teachers. If wages do not keep up, the consequence is both poorer competence development and that women fall behind financially year after year.

The Liberals have for many years, together with other conservative parties, driven reforms that strengthen the work line and increase the incentives to work, for example through the job tax credit. A teacher can now receive 4,000 kronor more per month compared to how it was before all these tax cuts. But when the basic salary is too low and the working conditions are pressured, the profession does not become sufficiently attractive for either women or for men.

The Social Democrats are Sweden's largest party. They have governed for a long time and still govern, according to SKR, in 140 municipalities and 14 regions. Furthermore, the Social Democrats govern SKR. Therefore, I wonder: What responsibility do the Social Democrats take here and now to ensure that municipalities and regions actually prioritize wages and conditions in female-dominated welfare jobs, for example, the teaching profession? What clear expectations do you have for your own municipal and regional councilors ahead of 2026, Eva Lindh?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Cecilia Rönn for the question. I really appreciate that we are talking about the conditions for those who work in the welfare sector.

Just as the member says, there are very many women working in the welfare sector, and for many, the working conditions are tough. As the member highlights, it concerns both wages and working conditions. Often, one feels inadequate. One runs faster to do what one feels is needed for those one works with.

In elderly care, I have many times met desperate staff who feel that the conditions are so difficult that they cannot meet the needs of the elderly they work with. Many teachers feel that they cannot provide the support that is needed for the students they work with. One works with what one does because one is passionate about it. It is not the case that teachers go to work every day without hoping to be able to provide the support and the teaching that the students are worth. This is an important issue.

Should I, as a Member of Parliament, be involved in negotiating the wages? No, I do not intend to do that. What we are going to do is to give municipalities and regions the conditions to strengthen the activities they are responsible for – elderly care, school and other – but also to strengthen the working conditions. That provides the conditions for people to want to work there, not just today but also in the future. It is absolutely crucial for the welfare.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I might have hoped for a slightly more offensive answer. I understand very well that politicians should not negotiate wages. That was not what I asked about either.

When one governs municipalities and regions, one has an employer responsibility. As an employer, one is part of the wage formation. It is about talking about the injustice in that female-dominated occupations that uphold the entire Swedish society are systematically disadvantaged. It is an important political issue that we should talk about.

I think that it requires political responsibility. It is a matter of us being clear and brave and showing what is important. One cannot streamline within certain professions, just as the member says. Hands are needed in care, and enough teachers in the classrooms and in the preschool groups to see the children and be able to meet the needs they have. Then one must also dare to take responsibility and challenge parts within municipalities and regions.

We contribute from the state side to a certain extent through general government grants and also through targeted government grants. But the very largest part comes via tax revenues for municipalities and regions.

There are also opportunities for us as politicians to make clear priorities. How do we want it to be in our municipalities and regions? If we want the opportunity for more hands and better wages and working conditions, we must dare to look at the other things that can be improved in the municipalities.

Svenskt Näringsliv states, among other things, that the potential is approximately 90 billion if one had worked differently. All municipalities and regions naturally have different conditions. It is not possible to apply everything to everyone. But we have a very important responsibility here.

The Social Democrats are very dominant here. The Social Democrats rule in most regions and municipalities and also in SKR. I will ask the question again. Do you have anything concrete that you intend to work on to improve the conditions?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that our budgets and the budget proposals we make involve differences for people in their everyday lives. Nine out of ten people in Sweden would have fared better financially if a Social Democratic budget had instead become a reality.

The resources that we send to municipalities and regions matter for which ambitions that municipalities and regions can manage to have. The representatives who are local politicians in municipalities and regions will not find it easier to create better working conditions if the resources from the state are constantly decreasing.

It does not provide the conditions for the local politicians out there who truly want to provide better resources for both working conditions and the conditions for the operations, as they are receiving ever fewer resources in the budget that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government parties present and that one has voted through.

What is needed now is that we strengthen the working conditions. I have high expectations of the local politicians. I should not be the one sitting and negotiating. But it is, of course, absolutely crucial that people want to and are able to continue working in the welfare sector. Otherwise, we will have no welfare in the future.

It is also about us providing sufficient resources so that one can prioritize both strengthening the prerequisites and improving the working conditions. It is absolutely crucial. I believe it was also quite clear in my speech, but thank you very much for the question.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats want to increase migration to Sweden and introduce forced mixing of the population. In addition, they are already today bussing school children from well-functioning areas and well-functioning schools to segregated areas and segregated schools. The children are thus being sacrificed in the name of your migration policy.

When migration increases with the Social Democrats, and when forced mixing is introduced according to the model that you have adopted, which residential areas will then be sacrificed, and which municipalities will have to handle this forced mixing? What will it mean for the social workers and the welfare staff who are to handle it, which the member expressed a concern for in their speech?

It is your policy that will create the problem that you say you are worried about when you increase migration and when you introduce forced integration.

Lastly, I also want to ask why the member of Parliament is speaking with falsehoods when she talks about our regions. I stated in my speech the figures that I received from the Riksdag's investigation service. The number of staff regarding pediatric nurses, doctors, midwives, nursing assistants, and so on has increased by 2.4 percent from 2022 until now.

The number of healthcare staff has actually increased while the migration policy has been restructured and the number of people in Sweden is no longer increasing at such a high rate. This means that the conditions have improved for Swedish healthcare to catch up with the queues that were built up during the Social Democrats' time in government.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit ironic that Mattias Eriksson Falk stands here and says that I am lying and then spends two minutes of his speaking time doing so about Social Democratic policy.

We want a strict migration. The Sweden Democrats know that. That is what we stand for as well. We do not have proposals for forced mixing. It is the Sweden Democrats' fear propaganda about what our policy entails.

On the other hand, we want to do something to reduce segregation and increase equality in Sweden. That is exactly what we stand for. That is our policy.

Furthermore, I believe that Mattias Eriksson Falk should perhaps take a look at the figures he has received. Many of the regions, for example, have reduced their staffing personnel. They have moved to permanent staff. That can make some difference in the figures that Mattias Eriksson Falk has received.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question to the Sweden Democrats. It is rarely that one has the opportunity to do so. I think it is good to do it here.

A considerable amount of the resources that we allocate to welfare is lost as a result of the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties wanting to continue with the market logic that exists in welfare.

Why have the Sweden Democrats abandoned their previous old policy of wanting to limit profits in welfare? It would mean more resources for welfare instead of less.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Suppose there is a future where the Social Democrats stand for a strict migration policy, which neither the Sweden Democrats nor a large part of the Swedish voters believe in. You intend to cooperate with three parties – Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet – all three of which want to significantly increase migration to Sweden. By that, we mean significantly. We are talking, in practice, about open borders.

How will the Social Democrats handle it? That is a question you must consider. I do not believe the Social Democrats, as I said. It is pure fabrication that one stands for a strict migration policy. You will open the borders as soon as you get the chance.

It is also a way for you to press wages within the welfare activities by not having to handle wage increases, so that people can live off the jobs that exist.

When it comes to migration policy and forced mixing, one can simply look at SVT's 30 minutes from the past week. There, your migration policy spokesperson could not even answer what the proposal you adopted actually entails. It is a rather clear signal that what I am trying to tell you here about forced mixing is correct. We have seen examples of it already today with the forced bussing of school students from well-functioning areas to segregated areas. You have, therefore, already tested these things in practice.

Finally, I would like to turn slightly against what the member is trying to describe. It appears roughly as if it were a problem that the regions have reduced the proportion of agency staff in favor of permanent staff. If anything, it actually creates better conditions for continuity within health and medical care and leads to the fact that one can work through the queues that exist. I therefore think it is good that the regions have gone in that direction.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I object to this type of rhetoric here in the House. It should be more serious here than the Member of Parliament is when he stands and asserts things about our policy that are not true.

We have turned the migration policy. We did that when we were in government. We stand for a strict policy when it comes to migration because we think it is important to have a good integration policy. It also means that we do something for integration. We strengthen the welfare, and we mean something when we talk about stopping new recruitment to gangs and other things. We provide resources for that.

We do not stand for forced integration, but we stand for that we want a less segregated Sweden. We stand for a policy where we shall have more equality and better conditions for people to live a good life.

The Member of Parliament can stand here and shake his head as much as he likes, but I believe I know more about Social Democratic policy than the Sverigedemokraternas representative does.

When it comes to the staffing agencies, I also naturally think that it is much better with permanent staff. That is what many of the Social Democratic representatives out in the regions have been pushing for. One wants to reduce the dependence on agency staff, and that is very good.

I have not received an answer to my question, and since Mattias Eriksson Falk is not entitled to further remarks, it shall well remain outstanding. I still wonder why the Sweden Democrats think it is so very good with profits in welfare and continue to stand behind this, even though it means that money is taken from schools and people and given to venture capital companies.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are speaking about something that is completely central to the Swedish welfare state: the municipalities' finances and how the state contributes to the municipalities' ability to deliver services to our citizens.

We all know that the municipalities provide the basic services such as elderly care, school, childcare, social support, and local infrastructure. During the period, we have been able to see challenges within this sector. This is primarily due to inflation, something that our government has fought with great success. It is perhaps the greatest effort that can be made for the municipal sector. It affects not only purchase prices but also pension costs and financial costs.

The municipal sector's own resilience against harder times is also important. New accounting rules and the introduction of a result equalization reserve provide greater opportunities to plan and act long-term in order to be able to smooth out economic cycles.

Expenditure area 25 General grants to municipalities are proposed to be increased by 7.5 billion kronor for 2026. In total, this amounts to 180.7 billion kronor. The largest part of the increase consists of general state grants that compensate municipalities and regions for changes in the state budget.

We add, for example, 3.9 billion for reduced taxes on work and pensions. Simpler tax rules for small businesses provide 1.1 billion, but it is also about smaller parts, such as tax exemption for the benefit of charging electric cars with 70 million.

These are initiatives that strengthen household economies and which enable increased consumption and increased growth. At the same time, it is the municipalities' responsibility not to raise taxes but instead to use these grants to make concrete efficiencies.

Mr. Speaker! Money is just a tool. What is important is how the money is used. The Government continues the investment that was initiated in 2025 to long-term strengthen efficiency and capacity in the municipal sector. We see this, among other things, by the efficiency delegation being allocated 250 million kronor to projects that streamline health and medical care. We also strengthen the capacity for smaller municipalities to cooperate in larger geographical areas.

Above all, we are implementing regulatory simplifications. We are commissioning Statskontoret to remove obstacles to the streamlining of municipal operations. The state is one of the municipalities' largest cost drivers, with rules and laws that govern much of the activity. Regulatory simplification and operational development are crucial for all activities, so also for municipalities.

The Government has also tasked Statskontoret, Rådet för kommunal analys and Ekonomistyrningsverket to develop proposals on how processes can be simplified and changed to provide greater efficiency.

Mr. Speaker! The municipalities also receive new tasks from the state, and the state compensates them in accordance with the principle of financing. An example of this in this year's budget is the activity requirement, where we are adding 1.1 billion kronor. More tools for social services provide 470 million kronor from and including 2027.

We also strengthen safety and study environments with a mobile phone ban and counteracting crime in schools with just over 280 million kronor. For the implementation of the NIS 2 directive, a directive for increased cybersecurity, we are adding 250 million kronor to increase the municipal sector's resilience against cyber threats. These are investments that strengthen safety, quality, and security in the welfare system.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's municipalities have, over the last three years, experienced sharply increasing costs for wage and price inflation. More elderly people and more children in school have driven up the costs faster than the tax revenues and state grants cover.

We can see that it affects the results. In 2022, the municipalities reported a surplus of 34 billion kronor and in 2024 it was preliminarily only 15 billion kronor.

At the same time, there are great differences in how the municipalities are governed. What results they have and how much tax is collected unfortunately do not correlate with the quality of the service to our citizens. More resources do not automatically lead to higher quality. Many studies of school, elderly care, and social services show that the connection between costs per inhabitant, student, or user and measured quality is often weak.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates argue that we must use expenditure area 25 in a more results-oriented way. This means that the state prioritizes money where it makes the greatest difference, that the municipalities are given tools and incentives to use resources more effectively, and that the organization's willingness to change increases and promotes organizational development.

We want a state governance that sets requirements for efficient processes and a clear result. Examples of how this can work are digitalization and modern technology that provide more efficient school management and shorter processing times within social services. It is about prioritizing the core activities, which gives less money to bureaucracy and more money to pedagogy, care, and nursing. We also want to see a result-based follow-up. Municipalities that deliver good quality are rewarded, and inefficiency shall be reduced. The one who changes the fastest wins.

Mr. Speaker! Demography is one of our major challenges. More elderly people create increased needs and demand efficiency and cost control.

Expenditure area 25 is central to the welfare state. More money is not everything, but what provides the most benefit for the sector is sound public finances, low inflation and good growth. We see now that this government will deliver in all these three areas.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: The Moderates and the government want a state and a municipal sector that functions better and is not just larger. A state that delivers results and strengthens service creates security.

We want to develop a tax brake and a tax reduction premium to create incentives for responsibility. We want to see a municipal sector that stands on its own feet, that uses resources efficiently and that puts the citizens' needs at the center. That is how we build a stronger welfare, a safer everyday life, and a Sweden that can long-term and effectively deliver benefits to our citizens.

With this, I vote in favor of the Finance Committee's proposal for a decision in expenditure area 25. At the same time, I would like to take the opportunity to wish all my colleagues, the officials in the Finance Committee, and not least Mr. Speaker and the Presidium a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates continue to view welfare through the lens of the market. Welfare, however, is not just any market. It is society-sustaining infrastructure.

Schools, healthcare, and care are not intended to maximize profit. They are intended to provide people with security and equal life chances. When the pursuit of profit takes over too much, we see the result: increased inequalities, segregation, and reduced trust.

Here is one of the political dividing lines: We Social Democrats build society. The Moderates organize markets. The consequence is a Sweden that slides apart.

My question to the Member of Parliament is: Why do you prioritize profits in welfare over increased resources for welfare?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

More resources is not the answer to all questions. If it were, we would have a very large economic problem in Sweden to begin with.

Delivering quality is the most important thing. Delivering quality in the form of care to those who need it is the most important thing. Giving the staff the opportunity to deliver quality is what is important, not who does it.

It is significant how regions and municipalities handle the situation differently. The quality and delivery of benefit is not correlated with how many resources are provided.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats' answer to all questions is more resources for everyone, but that does not work in the long run. We cannot continue like that going forward. We must work on delivering more benefit with fewer resources continuously.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have quite often heard Adam Reuterskiöld say that more money is not everything and that we Social Democrats want more resources for everyone. Here, the politics between the Social Democrats and the Moderates also differ. More resources and money are not unimportant for the Moderates, except when we talk about certain people and certain activities. It seems to be very important to give more money to those who already have. It happens at the expense of resources for the welfare, for those who do not have.

If money and resources are not so incredibly important, then the Moderaterna could stop lowering the tax so incredibly much for those who already have. Then we would get a bit more resources for the welfare system to reduce inequality in Sweden instead of increasing it.

I have not received an answer to my question: Why is it so incredibly important to prioritize profits in welfare instead of more resources for welfare? It is still a choice. When the pursuit of profit is allowed to be what continues to be prioritized, it means lower grades and that many schools do not have, for example, the student health care they deserve. Reduced resources in elderly care means fewer employees.

In elderly care, this is extremely important. It simply cannot be solved with digitalization, as the Member of Parliament points out.

My question remains: Why prioritize profits in welfare over quality in welfare?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the questions. Here, we are talking about money in two ways: one is how our citizens should manage their money and the other is how we, within state and municipal administration, should manage our money.

I want to answer the first question. It is clear how our government has pursued a policy that puts more money in people's wallets. An ordinary family will get 5,000 kronor more per month with our tax cuts for ordinary workers. More money gives greater freedom to everyone in Sweden. It gives greater opportunity for increased consumption and thereby increased growth. It is through growth and efficiencies that we can deliver more benefit.

It now also costs 500 kronor less per tank to fuel one's car. It is crucial for many families in the countryside when it comes to how they can manage everyday life. Prices of 28, 30 or 35 kronor per liter create impossible situations for our citizens.

We have created opportunities by lowering taxes for everyone. It gives the individual greater freedom.

Then we come to the member's next question, namely the one regarding the delivery of quality in welfare. We stand for freedom of choice. We stand for that one should be able to choose different healthcare providers, different home services, and different schools. It is important that the individual's freedom is enabled.

Profits have nothing to do with the quality of welfare. The quality of welfare is equally important regardless of who is to deliver it, whether it is a municipal, regional or state activity. It is the quality of the delivery that is important, not what it costs to perform it.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Before the government's presentation of the budget, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner tallied up what they deemed important:

Halve the number of targeted government grants and finance them long-term! Secure the government grants! A lack of securing is an erosion.

Take hold of the investments in welfare and equip the country!

Listen to the municipalities and invest in reforms that create jobs! The focus in labor market policy needs to be on getting more people into work.

With the final results in hand, we can state that the budget does not prioritize municipalities and regions. The number of targeted state grants was not halved. On the contrary, it increased. The general state grants were not indexed, and no supplement was made. No resources were allocated to the municipalities' and regions' great need for investments.

Instead of presenting reforms that create jobs, the government lowered the activity support and the subsistence support in the belief that reduced benefits would create more jobs. Instead, it leads to increased poverty.

Before next year, there was room to invest in welfare and provide subsidies to municipalities and regions, but the government chose to lower taxes.

Since the government took office, we have seen constant cuts in municipalities and regions. It is a government that increases inequalities and has doubled the number of poor people. Now, approximately 700,000 adult Swedes live in material and relative poverty. That is as many as in all of Gothenburg and all of Sundsvall combined.

Furthermore, the government is pursuing a policy that increases child poverty. Save the Children's report shows that child poverty increased between 2022 and 2023 after having decreased in previous years. Today, it is estimated that 276,000 children live in economic vulnerability. An average family has received less in tax cuts this year than the Prime Minister himself has received in a single month.

During the right-wing government's time in power, the evictions have increased sharply. Since 2022, the number of evictions via the Enforcement Authority has increased by almost 50 percent. A total of 442 children were affected during the first half of this year. This indicates that over 800 children will have been evicted from their housing during 2025.

Madam Speaker! Research shows that there is a connection between socioeconomic background and participation in crime. Children of parents with poorer socioeconomic conditions run an increased risk of crime compared to individuals from a more affluent background. There is also a connection between a childhood without meaningful activities and the risks of children ending up in isolation or, in the worst case, being drawn into destructive environments and crime.

To reduce crime, we would need to reduce the gaps and ensure that every child receives an upbringing that reduces the risk of destructive behavior or crime. The right-wing government chooses a different path. More people live in poverty, yet the government has still presented proposals to increase poverty. This is done in the belief that those who receive reduced benefits or reduced compensation will instead choose to work, even though one pursues a policy that results in us having the EU's third highest unemployment. The jobs simply do not exist. With the government's policy, even more young people will grow up in poverty.

When Denmark lowered social benefits, it resulted in poorer school results and increased crime. A Danish researcher stated that when cuts are made, especially among young people, crime increases. When municipalities have been forced to make cuts in social services, leisure activities, schools, and support for non-profit organizations, children's vulnerability increases even further. Welfare is failing for all those who need it. The trend of deteriorating school results will continue with this government.

The cuts within elderly care continue, just like the savings within LSS and healthcare. The reductions within elderly care complicate the scheduling, and the staff are being pushed to their knees. In that case, the elderly are also affected by poorer care. It is unacceptable that the elderly suffer, says the Moderate Minister for Elderly Care. She urges the municipalities to make bold prioritizations in the budget. But where are the funds for elderly care to be taken from when it is prioritized? Should the cuts occur within the school, within preschool, or perhaps within LSS? Maybe it is the street maintenance and snow removal that should be prioritized down, or the last youth center that should be closed? Should they stop the maintenance of the sports facilities? What constitutes bold prioritizations, the government takes no responsibility for.

Madam Speaker! Region Skåne presented a savings package of 2.2 billion kronor for this year, where half consisted of personnel cuts. A large deficit rolls forward to 2026, when further cuts are planned. Skåne is not alone. Several regions have made large cuts in 2025, are expected to have large deficits, and need to continue cutting during 2026.

The government calls large, extensive cuts in healthcare as investments. But if you want the money to go to healthcare, you put it in healthcare, not on tax deductions for multi-millionaires. Everyone knows that Swedish healthcare is in crisis even if the government chooses to stick its head in the sand and call what they do priorities. It is possible to save Swedish healthcare, but the government prefers poster politics and pretends to invest when they in fact are cutting back.

I agree with the government on one thing: We can prioritize better, and we can stop wasting tax money. We do that by stopping the market experiment in healthcare and education. We cannot maintain a system that does not work so that large school corporations and healthcare companies can make a profit on Swedish welfare and criminals can run HVB homes and home care.

Madam Speaker! I mentioned initially the great investment need that exists in our municipalities. Water and sewage systems are the most acute to address, but investments are also needed to cope with climate change. Investments are required in socially important functions, not least against the background of the municipalities' responsibility for civil defense. Facilities such as swimming pools and sports halls have in many cases reached the limit of their lifespan.

Without surpluses in their economies, the municipalities are forced to borrow more. During this parliamentary term, the municipalities' debts have increased significantly. The government ignores the municipalities' cries for help. Vänsterpartiet has presented proposals that the state should cover half of the investment costs for planned projects in municipalities and regions. We have also proposed a state employment support. In this way, we support the municipalities and regions with upgrades and investments while simultaneously reducing unemployment.

Vänsterpartiet proposed in its budget motion that the general state grants should increase in line with inflation, wages, and population growth in the coming years, i.e., a value adjustment of the state grants. Increased general state grants to municipalities and regions are the platform required for the operations to have peace of work.

Vänsterpartiet also proposed an additional 8 billion kronor in general state grants for 2026 and that the sector grant be increased by 5 billion. Furthermore, we proposed, among other things, 1 billion kronor for a general state grant for rural supplements within healthcare.

It is my and the Left Party's absolute conviction that a strong, jointly funded and egalitarian welfare with well-functioning school, leisure activities, elderly care, healthcare and social services, low unemployment and a strong social insurance system is the best way to counteract the class society. Today's large gaps between people and between municipalities must be reduced. All of Sweden is needed, and all people are needed. With the Left Party's proposal for the budget, municipalities and regions could have continued to deliver a good welfare. But the Riksdag has established a framework budget that does not provide more resources to the welfare, and therefore the Left Party will abstain from participating in the decision today.

(Applause)

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 25 General grants to the municipal sector. It is one of the budget's most crucial expenditure areas because it ultimately concerns how welfare functions in people's everyday lives and regarding healthcare, school, and care. For the Christian Democrats, these are core issues. Already our first party leader Birger Ekstedt stated that it is in the municipalities that we build Sweden. This still applies today.

Municipalities and regions are the backbone of the welfare system. It is about the staff who take care of our children and elderly, about care when we are sick, and about support when life is at its most demanding. For 2026, it will involve just over 180 billion SEK in state grants to the municipal sector. In addition to this, many important investments are being made in the form of targeted state grants to strengthen healthcare, schools, and elderly care collectively by around 300 billion SEK.

In this context, healthcare and shortening the healthcare queues is one of our highest priority issues. A number of measures have been taken during the mandate period so that more people can receive care in a timely manner. Major investments have been made to shorten the healthcare queues. In the budget bill for 2026, an additional 6.6 billion are allocated for this. This includes, among other things, performance-based funds to shorten the healthcare queues and for further strengthening of the national healthcare referral system, increased resources for cancer care, etc.

Last week, we could hear Minister for Health Elisabet Lann tell us that the initiative is yielding results. More patients have received their surgery. The care queues have begun to decrease, but it is still too many people and patients who are waiting illegally long for care. We also see that the differences between the regions are too large. That is why the Christian Democrats have for many years driven the issue of nationalizing healthcare. We want to increase both accessibility and equality. We are convinced that the state needs to have the primary responsibility for healthcare so that high-quality, efficient, and equal care can be provided on equal terms regardless of where in the country one lives.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has undergone a difficult economic period in recent years. The high inflation that we inherited from the previous government hit both households and companies, but also the municipal sector. Costs spiraled and the room for welfare was heavily pressured.

In that situation, the government prioritized welfare and used large parts of the reform space to support the municipal sector. It was necessary, responsible, and right. Thanks to the government's determined work to combat inflation, we also see a clear improvement in the municipal economy. When inflation is pushed back, the cost pressure in welfare decreases, and the pension costs for municipalities and regions decrease significantly because these are largely inflation-dependent.

This is no small detail. It is about billions being freed up in the municipalities' and regions' budgets and resources that can be used for more accessible and equal healthcare, more hands in elderly care, a better working environment in schools and a stronger social work.

Madam Speaker! The budget that the government has presented is an offensive budget with reforms for approximately 80 billion. It is about more money in the pockets of hard-working people, about strengthening the work line and breaking exclusion, but also about investments in welfare and security. The budget is also an investment to break the recession and support the recovery. Through these reforms, virtually everyone gets it better. It also strengthens consumption and growth, which in turn leads to increased tax revenues for municipalities and regions and thus also more resources for welfare.

Accelerating growth and strengthening employment is also crucial for the municipal sector. That is how the municipalities' tax base grows and a long-term strong welfare can be secured, not always through increased state grants but by the cake to be distributed growing. We also see that tax revenues are expected to increase during 2026 and 2027 in line with a strengthened economy. In combination with lower pension costs, this further improves the conditions for the municipal sector.

Madam Speaker! The demographic development will affect the municipal sector's economy moving forward. It is about more elderly people in relation to the number of those in employment, but also about a decrease in childbearing. For many municipalities, this will mean challenges in that they are no longer managing a growing mandate, but also that they need to adapt operations to changed needs. Preschool and primary school are particularly affected where the student cohorts continue to decrease while the number of elderly people increases. The municipalities thus face difficult but necessary decisions. Priorities and efficiencies are crucial to secure the core activities.

At the same time, several studies show significant differences in productivity and efficiency between municipalities and regions. It is therefore important that tax revenues are used in an efficient manner and go to the welfare as intended.

Madam Speaker! With this budget, we Christian Democrats have a responsibility to support the country's municipalities and regions so that we have access to welfare when we need it most. It is intended to care for the most vulnerable in our society and to make life a little easier for those who are ill and for families who struggle in everyday life.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and wish the committee members, staff, and the Speaker's Presidium a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Aydin spoke about healthcare queues, and before the election, the Christian Democrats spoke about the illegally long healthcare queues. But except for a couple of, coincidentally S-led, regions, the healthcare queues have not been shortened but have become longer. I wonder therefore: Are the healthcare queues still illegally long?

I have another question. The Christian Democrats often speak about standing up for children and families. But given how reality looks, I wonder what the Christian Democrats say to the child who needs support in school but has to wait, or to the family struggling with a child with mental ill-health and is met with queues and cuts.

Family policy is not just about values. It is also about a functioning welfare state and about school, student health, child and adolescent psychiatry, and social services. When municipalities and regions lack resources, the responsibility falls back on the families. It is not family-friendly; it is leaving families alone.

So, what do the Christian Democrats say to the families who have had to wait a long time and who are resigned because they are not getting the support they need for their children?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! The care queues are still far too long. I also noted that we mean they are illegally long. Many regions are not fulfilling their commitments regarding delivered care. As I mentioned in my speech, clear and targeted measures have been taken. In the coming years, further measures will be made. Above all, it is about us now investing more money in performance-based measures. When one delivers – carries out – different operations and other healthcare interventions, one should also receive compensation.

Furthermore, much more has been invested in making care accessible through national healthcare coordination. Where there is capacity, one should also be able to receive care in another region.

The third point is that we are now beginning to review the follow-up and the requirements for the regions to comply with the healthcare guarantee. If one does not do that, one has not fulfilled the commitments one has made. In several ways, we are now tightening this work.

As I mentioned, we have seen in recent quarters that the trend has been broken. More care is starting to be delivered. The care queues are starting to decrease, and that is happening thanks to these efforts.

The big problem is about the system. 21 different regions and 21 different systems make it difficult to have clear state governance when the regions work in slightly different ways and prioritize differently.

We are also making very clear, strong investments in the family, in BUP, and in many other measures to create better conditions for families. I will return to that later.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! It is just a bit sad that one does not take the large and overall responsibility for, for example, healthcare but also the school in a holistic way. What the SD government does is that they scribble. They dabble a little money here, and then they cut back in other places. The overall result is still that there are fewer resources than there have been.

The Christian Democrats often speak about dignity in healthcare and elderly care. Those are big and important words. But dignity does not arise by itself. It requires time, staff, and resources. When elderly care lacks staffing, the staff runs between users and the continuity breaks, and dignity is eroded. That is exactly what happens when the resources for municipalities and regions are insufficient. One cannot speak of dignity in theory and simultaneously accept a policy that makes it impossible in practice. Dignity must be financed.

Right now, it is tough for many families out in Sweden, not just economically but also because one does not receive the welfare that would be needed for the children to get a good school, for the groups in preschool to become smaller, or for the queues to healthcare to decrease.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Again: The care queues and the issue of care belong to our heart issues and also those questions that we perhaps prioritize most, for patients, people, who have waited illegally long are affected in long care queues. I mentioned several of the measures that have been taken. In addition to various measures, we have also added more resources, both to different forms of care and to increase the incentives to increase production in care and shorten the queues.

But as I said before, it would have been desirable for, for example, the Social Democrats also to review the system issue. It is, in fact, an outdated system with 21 different regions which means that clear state governance is lacking today. One needs to work with many different regions and thus different systems, and it does not work.

Then there are regions such as the S-led Region Stockholm, for example. For ideological reasons, agreements with eating disorder care and other private actors have been terminated, due to principles. In those cases, it is the young people who are dependent on receiving support who are affected. We have instead tried to provide more resources to the care.

In area after area within healthcare, we have therefore made investments. What is also, as I said, positive is that the trend seems to be broken. We heard last week from the Minister for Health and Social Affairs that more operations are beginning to be carried out. Slowly but surely, we are working our way through the healthcare queue that has built up during previous years.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We are discussing today expenditure area 25, which concerns the municipalities' finances, and I want to begin with unemployment.

Madam Speaker! We have just over half a million unemployed in Sweden. The latest figure was 9 percent unemployed, among the highest in the entire Western world. We have 200,000 long-term unemployed.

Does this affect you? Do you feel affected by this mass unemployment? You might know someone who is unemployed, perhaps a young person in your vicinity. You might be affected by the fact that people are in social exclusion and do not get to go to work in the morning.

But I shall say that everyone in Sweden's land and realm is affected by unemployment. It costs us all, in fact. Just the difference of 3 percentage points between the EU's average unemployment – which has not increased as in Sweden, where it has increased sharply under this government, by 100,000 people – and Sweden's unemployment corresponds to 45 billion kronor to the municipalities' and regions' economies.

It means that billions are lost for healthcare, school, and elderly care. This corresponds to 80,000 nurses, 75,000 teachers, or 115,000 care assistants. It is a teacher, a doctor, a nurse, and a care assistant near you who do not receive the money because we have much higher unemployment than what is found in our surroundings and in Europe. It is therefore for the sake of healthcare, school, and elderly care that we must invest in that our companies, not least our small businesses, can hire more easily and hire more people, and that more people can receive education to get into jobs.

But I also want to speak about the gaps. We have large gaps when it comes to the conditions of municipalities and regions regarding healthcare, school, and care in Sweden. The mortality in treatable diseases is twice as high in sparsely populated rural municipalities as in urban municipalities. Small, sparsely populated municipalities in the countryside have 10 percent fewer qualified teachers than urban municipalities. The dropout rate, especially among young boys before upper secondary school, is much higher in the Swedish countryside and also in our disadvantaged suburbs than in urban municipalities. The figure is 13 percent in the cities compared to 20 percent in the countryside.

That is why we in Centerpartiet want to invest 3 billion kronor more in primary care, accessibility, and proximity for you when you seek care in the countryside and throughout the country. We want to invest 3 billion more than the government on qualified teachers and on reducing dropouts and inequalities in schools.

Then there are extreme examples. Here I take a break, Madam Speaker, to speak specifically about Region Gotland. I have visited their hospital chief and seen that they have done everything to streamline. But with the cost hit that they currently have in Tidösverige, they are over half a billion in the red. The situation is so acute that Moderater are but also Socialdemokrater are prepared to give the region to Stockholm. The question is what is worst and whether one will not regret becoming an island in the Stockholm archipelago. We in Centerpartiet want instead a proper island policy for Gotland, where these inequalities for our large, strategic island are leveled.

But I also want to talk about the gaps when it comes to the municipal tax equalization; we are talking today about the municipalities' finances. The Committee on Municipal Tax Equalization met and reached a result. We in Centerpartiet were not satisfied with the result. We believe that consideration must be taken of sparsity and demographic challenges and that all the gaps we see when it comes to healthcare, elderly care, and school must be equalized much more.

But then an addition came in the departmental series, a memorandum from the Ministry of Finance: Adjusted calculation of administration in the cost equalization for municipalities. It may not sound so exciting. But it becomes all too exciting for a number of municipalities. With a small stroke of a pen, it is decided, for example, that a small municipality is not a municipality with at most 8,000 inhabitants, but it can also be a municipality with at most 10,000 inhabitants. If you have slightly more than 10,000 inhabitants, you are suddenly no longer a favored, small municipality.

It is the small stroke of the pen, the small memorandum that no one from the government wants to be associated with, least of all the Sweden Democrats, that actually decides. It means that Högsby gets 9 million less after the change. Vansbro gets 12 million less, Orsa 12 million less, Ockelbo 10 million less, Nordmaling 12 million less and Robertsfors 12 million less. Do you understand what that means for a small municipality? Do you understand what it means for the school, the care, and everyday life in the public sector in such small municipalities? It is an enormous change.

It has been done in the most painful way, because one wants to use the money to benefit other municipalities that have not received enough tax equalization. You take from the poor to give to the poor. It is not a municipal tax equalization worth the name.

The government and the Sweden Democrats must stand up for the fact that they have proposed this and that they have sent it out for consultation. They must not pretend as if it is something that just happens or that some official is doing. It is a political decision. It affects a lot of municipalities. Do it again! Do the right thing! Say that this shall not happen!

One should not take from the poor to give to the poor. Now, of course, it is not about poor municipalities, because they work very hard with entrepreneurship. They are growing. But just when it comes to the public sector and the tax equalization, they are hit hard. They should not be hit any more.

I also want to talk about how the taxes to the municipalities are distributed today. There are municipalities that provide production. Take a municipality like Ragunda, which accounts for almost every tenth kilowatt-hour of electricity that Sweden produces from hydropower. What does the municipality get back for that? Nothing. What have the large hydropower and wind power municipalities received back? We also hope that the wind power municipalities will increase in the future, because Sweden can get back so many resources from building wind power. It is for Sweden's best.

Have these municipalities received anything from this government? After many years, the government has agreed that the municipalities might get back a portion of the tax they pay for wind power. They are to receive it back as a reward for providing Sweden's green electricity. It is a kind of subsidy that still has not been paid out properly.

How are you going to get municipalities to invest in new green power when they get nothing back? It is no wonder that they wait and that they hesitate.

In Finland, Denmark, Norway and Germany, municipal politicians can go into their municipality and point at individual wind turbines and say: That wind turbine there gives us half a million, and the power plant over there gives us a million! That can run the school and improve the service. The municipality has done it for its land and gets money back. The neighbors get money back, and the municipality also gets money back.

Even here we must show respect for the municipalities, not least the rural municipalities, which do so much for Sweden.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to praise some municipalities that stood up for the best of what Sweden is. The government called them to a meeting regarding the so-called return migration grant, which is based on people leaving our country. One is prepared to pay as much as 600,000 kronor per family so that people will leave Sweden. It is many billions in the coming year.

The municipalities received an invitation to come to the government to discuss how good this was. To date, 76 municipalities have responded: Thanks, but no thanks!

I say to them: Thank you, Borlänge and Leksand! Thank you, Heby and Haparanda! Thank you, Ovanåker and Orsa! Thank you, Grums and Göteborg, who said no to the return migration meeting! You, who believed that your municipalities should not shrink but grow and that your citizens and future citizens should not shrink and leave but grow, stood up for what truly are Swedish values: When one comes to Sweden, one shall contribute and not withdraw. You stood up for the values that have built our country and for your municipalities to move forward and not backward. You reminded us of what is the most important thing we have in our country.

Speaking of contributing instead of draining, it is easy to forget that one in six nurses, one in four doctors, and every second dentist is foreign-born. They are building up our country. Thank you for remembering that our fellow human beings are always an opportunity and a resource and not a burden! Thank you to all of you who stood up because you want to grow as a municipality and as people!

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! There are some things in the speech that need to be addressed. I would like to start with unemployment. I want to point out the differences that actually exist there and which largely depend on the policy that the Center Party has stood behind for many years. It is primarily linked to the unsustainable migration policy and also the integration policy.

The unemployment rate among those born in Sweden is just over 5.7 percent, while for those born abroad it is 16.2 percent, which means a little over three times higher. It is highest among immigrants from Asia, 21.9 percent, and for immigrants from Africa, where the figure is a full 28.7 percent.

It is the policy that you in the Centerpartiet, together with the other red-green parties, have pursued that has led us to where we are today when it comes to exactly unemployment. It is also why we see such crazy proposals as the Socialdemokraternas forced integration policy, which will be fully implemented after a potential red-green election victory in 2026, something that I absolutely do not hope will happen.

The Center Party itself naturally also wants to significantly increase migration to Sweden, which, in addition to exacerbating unemployment, will also exacerbate exclusion and other social problems in our society. The Center Party's policy regarding labor migration will also contribute to keeping wages down in the public sector, because they simply do not see the problems that exist with low wages but instead use labor migration to try to fill vacancies.

Finally, I want to say that the memorandum issued by the government regarding the equalization system is not something that the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind. To claim that in the rostrum is to spread inaccuracies.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Then I must ask: What do the Sweden Democrats actually stand behind? The whole point is that you cooperate with the government and thus are supposed to stand behind the policy. But now it seems like one picks and chooses as one likes. When one sees that it affects municipalities and that it is the result of what has been done, well, then one hides.

One hides behind a lot of nonsense about the Center Party's policy. It is claimed that we would stand for some kind of free immigration. We stand for a very strict immigration policy. And that we would accept a few more thousand refugees in this hard-hit world is not the reason why we have had 100,000 more unemployed during your time in power.

You claim that immigration has decreased during your period. Apparently, this has led to an increase in unemployment. I shall tell the members that there are a number of countries in Europe that have had an equally large influx of immigration but do not even have half as high unemployment as Sweden. I am speaking of Holland, Germany, and so on. It is because they manage their employment, business, and growth policy.

I hear no solutions from the member from Sverigedemokraterna. Unlike Centerpartiet, you have no investments in companies – for example, small businesses' opportunity to hire – or growth, and no major investments in opportunities for education. You just shift the blame.

We will get another four years of this if we do not stop it in the election next year. Stop! What kind of future vision is this? How are we going to be able to solve the mass unemployment? How are we going to be able to solve the problems with growth and companies in the country if one only devotes oneself to blaming others? They blame immigrants and hold them responsible without having any solutions whatsoever.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member says that we should put a stop to this. What the member then says he wants to put a stop to is a sustainable migration policy, a tightening regarding the maintenance support, and a sustainable energy policy where nuclear power has once again come into focus. It also means that they will put a stop to the lowered taxes on gasoline and diesel and the lowered reduction obligation, which the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have introduced during this mandate period and which have created significantly better conditions for Swedish households and for our Swedish municipalities and regions.

Yes, it is clear that I, as a Sverigedemokrater, am very worried that the Centerpartiet will put a stop to the good politics for Sweden and for our citizens.

It is no secret that the migration policy that the Center Party has stood behind for very many years – one still stands behind it, and furthermore wants to significantly increase migration during the coming mandate period if one gets the chance – has contributed to unemployment. And it will continue to contribute to unemployment being high.

It is clear that it takes time to address the structural problems. First, one must put a stop to the unsustainable migration policy. Then, one must create the conditions so that people can actually be gotten into work. It is about, for example, changing the system regarding the social assistance. It is a way forward when it comes to people actually choosing to work instead. I do not think that is strange at all.

When it comes to proposals coming from the government, the government is free to refer proposals that they want to look at. This does not automatically mean that the Sweden Democrats stand behind every single proposal that the government sends out to authorities. This stems from the fact that there is a preparation requirement in Swedish law which means that the government must look at what the proposals would entail. But, as said, it does not mean that the Sweden Democrats stand behind everything that is sent out from the Government Offices. I also believe that the member knows this, even if he tries to stick very much onto the Sweden Democrats.

We adhere to the Tidö Agreement, which has been negotiated.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is SD that has quite clearly hitched itself to Kristersson and to this government, but refuses to take responsibility for all the misery and all the failures that they have managed to create.

I believe that those listening to this debate – it is actually about the municipalities' finances – should think about it. Sweden has very high unemployment, a weak economy, soaring emissions, large disparities between municipalities, and many rural municipalities that are affected by weakened resources for welfare.

Do we want to continue with that policy? Is this to be the vision, which is about complaining and shifting blame and where there is not a single clear proposal on how we can achieve companies, growth, development, and education? Then it is just a lot of – excuse me, Madam Speaker – complaining. Is this what you want for the next four years, or do you want solutions, future orientation, and a belief that many small companies can hire more so that we can break the mass unemployment that only Tidösverige has? When other countries have falling unemployment, unemployment rises in this country.

Shall we break this? Do we think it is good that 6 percent of those born domestically are unemployed? No. What is the vision then? What is the direction then?

I believe that everyone should consider whether it is not time for a new alternative, for something other than this current state of resignation and blame-shifting. It is time for a period with a new vision for Sweden and a new direction for Sweden. It is about reducing unemployment with growth, with entrepreneurship, and with a green industrialization and with a green growth that reverses this development. Give resources to the welfare in the municipalities, and address the gaps for real in the Swedish countryside!

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve 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. But we must never forget where the tax money comes from and how it is created. It is through people working, running businesses, and ensuring that Sweden's economic growth increases.

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. We can then trust that we will get help if we become ill, that we will receive care if we need it when we become elderly, and that our children get the support they need in school. For me, this is what the state is for: to create a security and a safety net that catches but does not hold back, and so that people can feel a faith in the future and dare to try their wings.

For me as a liberal, the welfare system is incredibly important. It is important that there is a safety net without holes that catches you if you fall. But today we have several holes that challenge the welfare system. Therefore, it is important that the reforms that the government is working on are completed.

Now, our challenges affect welfare and all the people who work in it and who are dependent on it. They affect schools, healthcare, and elderly care. It can be about inefficient processes, poor management, and rules that one is not able to live up to. In some places, it is too much workload. Sometimes it is bad managers, and sometimes it is too few resources.

It is important to remember that the holes in the net do not have just one cause. Primarily the Social Democrats and the Left Party, who have spoken before me in the rostrum, have said that it is only a matter of resources. I think it is to diminish the debate to conduct the discussion at that level. Then there is a great risk that one misses several other important things that also need to be addressed.

Madam Speaker! School is and will always be the Liberals' top priority. We must realize that we have 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 fundamentals 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, listen, motivate, and explain – of course, that is so. But it does not only require resources in the school. It is also about the teacher's powers and documentation requirements, about peripheral tasks that lie outside of teaching, and about teaching materials to conduct the teaching with.

Yes, many things need to work for the school 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 all students' right to proper school books, staffed school libraries, and access to good student health. There have been announcements during the autumn regarding regulated teaching time and a completely renovated friskole system – these are important reforms. Reducing teachers' administrative burden and returning to a rule-governed school is also important. Teachers must have time to teach and be teachers.

In the budget for 2026, we are making a major investment in schools. It is the largest school budget in modern times. We are investing in a mandatory mobile phone ban to increase focus on studies and knowledge in the classroom. Mobiles shall no longer distract the children in the classroom. Additionally, we are strengthening student health, increasing safety and focus on studies, and strengthening security in schools. Funds are allocated to be able to implement a new grading system and improve teacher training. The knowledge grant is also strengthened.

School must return to the basics. That is how we build the future Sweden from the ground up. It is social liberalism when it is at its best.

Madam Speaker! This is an example of how we invest both through general government grants, which we are debating today, and through targeted government grants, earmarked for the school, while at the same time we address the fundamental problems that are not about money but about conditions and structure to rectify the school's problems.

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 side to provide both the conditions and the resources. But the truly large resources that are to go to the school come from the municipalities' budgets. We must not forget that when we here in the speaker's chair talk about this expenditure area, which concerns general grants to municipalities. In total, they will be approximately 180.7 billion kronor in 2026. A large part of these funds goes to the country's schools.

But for 2024, school and other pedagogical activities accounted for approximately 43 percent of the municipalities' joint costs, which corresponds to approximately 368 billion kronor. General government grants were approximately 17 percent, targeted government grants approximately 5 percent, and the remainder, barely 80 percent, comes from the municipality's own revenues.

The financing of the school system constitutes a major problem, for today there is a difference of as much as 70,000 kronor per pupil between the municipalities that invest the least and those that invest the most in the school. It is not sustainable that municipalities value the school so differently, because the quality that makes a real difference is when there are qualified teachers in the classroom who see and have the time to meet the students where they are. The state cannot fully compensate for this with today's system.

Madam Speaker! In our budget as a whole, we are making important investments in welfare while simultaneously enabling economic growth. That is what finances welfare and it is what we must always keep in mind when we set budgets. It shall be good for Sweden both here and now and for future growth.

When people have more money left in their wallets, they also get the opportunity to spend more in our economy. Many are now signaling that growth is heading upwards and in the right direction, and that gives hope that more will dare to invest in and create companies, transition their companies and hire more. More will also be able to become employable through the educational initiatives being made. What is important for a good welfare is that everyone who can work also works. Only if everyone who can contribute contributes can we create a sustainable welfare without holes.

A very big difference between a liberal bourgeois economic policy and a left-wing policy is that we know that resources are important – but not the whole truth. General state grants and a strong equalization system should provide stable conditions, but the money must also be followed by better governance, monitoring, and a clearer quality in the core activities. It is not just about the money, even though it is a very important factor, but that was the only thing the Social Democratic member addressed when I asked how we can improve for the professional groups in the public sector who work in the core of the welfare system.

I would like to assert that one must dare to leave the simple rhetoric behind and do the hard and difficult work. But I also challenge in terms of what we spend the tax money on. It is about the state needing to see its role and simplify and improve for municipalities and regions. The state currently bears many costs for municipalities and regions that one could question. Legislation should help, not hinder. But one must also dare to challenge the municipal bureaucracy and administration, which over many years has grown much more than the number of hands and services in the core of the welfare system has done.

As long as we politicians do not have the strength to tackle this, it will not get any better by us constantly extracting more money from all companies and hard-working people. In this budget, the Liberals and the government manage to do that job through what the state influences. However, we need to do this together even in municipalities and regions.

I am convinced that we can have both low tax levels and a good welfare. It is not about the tax levels in themselves, but about the total tax revenues that enable our welfare.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by wishing my colleagues in the Committee on Finance and the staff here in the Chamber a Merry Christmas!

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I just want to first comment on Member Rönn's speech, because I think it is very significant. It is often talked about that resources do not play such a big role, and money is not important. At the same time, one stands and says that one has the largest budget for the school in living memory, which, by the way, is not true, but anyway. Somewhere the Liberals must still decide.

It was not for that reason, however, that I requested the floor, but I want to talk about the gains in welfare and hopefully get an answer from the Liberals on where they stand on the issue.

Gains in welfare are what withdraw resources from welfare, which has major consequences. We have seen news that seven children have to share a banana and that the children are not allowed to eat until they are full. The examples are quite numerous.

Another example that the Christian Democrat MP raised was the eating disorder unit in Stockholm, which is very strange; it is namely difficult to see how one can defend an operation that has engaged in incorrect billing and which has not had licensed staff, despite having said that it would. And when this eating disorder unit is then replaced with another unit, the accessibility increases from 33 percent to almost 100 percent. The examples that are often given are therefore incorrect.

My point is that profits in welfare imply a focus on the pursuit of profit, not on achieving the quality that children, the elderly, and patients need. The question is therefore where the Liberal Party stands.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I just want to point out that I did not say that resources do not play such a big role; I said that it does not play all the role. Of course, the financing of the welfare state is also a very important factor.

I thank you for the question regarding profits in the welfare sector. It is perhaps not unknown that the Liberals are doing a great deal of work in the area of school policy. We recently had a national meeting where we established that we want to phase out profits from schools, because we do not think it has worked in the way it is now. Therefore, we must do something.

Freedom of choice in schools is very important so that one can actually choose which school suits one's child. But we have seen that the profits have resulted in many deviations that are not good. Therefore, we want to phase this out. The school also has a public authority mandate, which is a big difference, I think, compared to, for example, healthcare.

Private healthcare is replaced and paid for with a different logic. There are many incredibly good health centers out in the country and many good private healthcare providers that relieve the regions when they cannot offer care within a reasonable time. This occurs at the same cost that the regions have otherwise.

I live alone in Halland – one of Sweden's best regions, I want to point out. We have good healthcare, and it is clear there that the region takes its responsibility by offering care in other places when the region cannot offer care within a reasonable time. When it comes to healthcare, the private actors have a very important complementary mission.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I can then state that we agree on two things: it matters where the money goes, and we are apparently also in agreement that there is a problem with profits in schools. We are, however, not in agreement that there are deviations within other sectors.

It surprises me, because I believe that we are still quite many who are passionate about reducing welfare crime: the criminal exploitation that involves taking money from the welfare system that should actually have gone to patients and to the elderly. Here we differ. But we seem, in any case, to be in agreement that we see a problem in the school.

It is therefore surprising that every time the Social Democrats put a proposal on the table that involves an opportunity for the Liberals to vote against profits in welfare, you still do not do so. We are putting it out there for the Liberals to concretely demonstrate that one does not think that profits in schools should be permitted.

This affects the school incredibly much. In just the last few years, 19 billion kronor have rolled out of the classrooms and into the pockets of private school owners. Is that okay? Take the chance – vote with us Social Democrats and make sure to stop the profit-seeking at least in the school! It is about getting better results for the students and better working conditions for teachers and other staff in the school. Join us, the Liberals!

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member very much for the supplementary question.

Of course, there are also deviations within other sectors of the welfare system, and the government is working hard to curb them. Not a single criminal shall run any type of company in the public sector – and not in the private sector either, for that matter.

When it comes to the school, we absolutely see that profits in the school are a problem, and we want to address that. What we are doing during this mandate period is to implement many important reforms to address all problems in the school. There are, in fact, major problems even in the municipal schools; it is not just about the private ones. Freedom of choice is very important, and there are many teachers and principals who have fantastic results in private independent schools today. We shall not undermine them.

We must, however, ensure that we solve the literacy crisis we have in Sweden today. One in four ninth-graders cannot read properly, and those students attend both municipal schools and private schools. Therefore, the initiatives that we have announced, for example regarding regulated teaching time, are very important. It concerns many things that were actually torn apart in the wake of the municipalization of the school, for which the Social Democrats are responsible.

The things we implement during this mandate period are very important that we implement, because they will help all schools. Then we truly believe that we also need to phase out profits in schools in the long run. It needs to be done in a sustainable and good way, and we will try to do that starting next mandate period if we receive the confidence to continue leading Sweden and improving for all of Sweden's schools.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! "We live in a time of opportunity." So begins the Green Party's budget motion, and it is indeed true.

Sweden is one of the world's richest countries and has a great opportunity to make a just climate transition. We can make a transition where we lower emissions and at the same time make life and society better for people – for everyone who lives in our country, not just for the rich. It is possible if only the will exists, but unfortunately, the Tidöregeringen lacks that will.

Before the 2022 election, Ulf Kristersson promised that he and his government would get Sweden in order. He has failed completely at that. Today, unemployment is at a record high, welfare has been put on a starvation diet, and the policy has actively increased emissions. Furthermore, households are under severe pressure, and the money covers less and less. The healthcare queues are long, crime is creeping further down in age, and the school lacks the resources required to give all children a good and fair start in life.

It does not have to be like this. Sweden both can and deserves better.

During the mandate period, welfare has been eroded because the Tidö Government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has chosen to lower taxes for the rich instead of safeguarding welfare. Many municipalities and regions have therefore been forced into cuts and tax increases for ordinary people. It is serious, because it is welfare that carries people through life.

Welfare is the security when children grow up, through everything from maternal care and BVC to preschool and school. It is the security when illness strikes us and we need care and nursing – yes, when life tests us, quite simply. A strong welfare is the foundation for people to be able to feel security and trust in society and in each other, and the trust and security are in turn the foundation for a strong Sweden.

All those who work in municipalities and regions are the backbone of the welfare system, but they have been on their knees for a long time now. So we cannot have it that way. The welfare system must be reliable, no matter who you are and where you live, and those who work in the welfare system must have reasonable conditions.

Madam Speaker! What the municipalities and regions have gone through in recent years has resulted in the operations now being depleted. The healthcare queues are dragging on, the country's social services are overstretched, and children and young people are left without support and help in school while gang crime pushes further down into the younger ages. Healthcare has for a long time suffered from a lack of resources. Patients, relatives, and staff are hit hard when resources are small and the needs are constantly growing.

We have known for many years that one of the biggest problems within healthcare, besides the queues, is the great lack of accessibility. Far too many have difficulty getting in contact with their health center and a doctor in a reasonable time. Therefore, Miljöpartiet presents a primary care reform in this budget.

To strengthen the possibilities for municipalities and regions to invest in school, healthcare, and elderly care, we propose an additional 2.5 billion SEK in general government grants for next year. In addition to those billions, we want to see 1.5 billion to strengthen the accessibility of local healthcare and a sector grant of 3 billion just for healthcare. Furthermore, we reject the cut to women's healthcare that the government is making. We want the 600 million SEK that the government is removing to remain.

All children growing up in Sweden shall be given fair conditions to grow up and become secure adults. For that, large investments in an equal school with long-term financial conditions are required. Swedish school shall be a school that is good for everyone, and here the state needs to take a greater responsibility so that we get an equal school with a strong knowledge development. For that, targeted resources are required. We increase the appropriation for an equal school by 2 billion during next year.

All children and young people should be given the right conditions to not only take in the teaching but also to feel well. School health services need to be strengthened, and compared to the government's proposal, we want to see greater investments in counselors in schools.

The work to break both the development of violence and the new recruitment to gangs must also continue and be developed. A completed schooling and a good education are the primary vaccine against crime and social exclusion. Therefore, large investments in schools are completely central, but to break the development we see today, several broad investments in preventive work here and now are also needed. Here, however, the government has no answers.

Instead of tackling the problem, the government has over the past three years refused to both provide the money needed and make the systemic changes required. Changes are needed because: with the current system, inflation erodes the funding of the welfare state, and furthermore, the volatility in allocations that we have seen in recent years has made it very difficult for the municipalities to plan long-term. We in Miljöpartiet therefore want to see an automatic adjustment of the state grants to municipalities and regions. It is simply a matter of compensating for inflation and avoiding volatility.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about welfare, we are actually talking about people – about security, freedom, and opportunity. We are talking about the teacher who wants to have the strength to be there for their students, about the nurse who should have more colleagues, and about children who should feel safe in school. We are talking about elderly people who should receive dignified care.

Miljöpartiet wants to build a Sweden where welfare is strong and where help is available for those who need it. A strong and equal welfare also presupposes that the resources we collectively allocate actually also go to what they are intended for, that is, to the children in the classrooms, to the patients in healthcare, and to the elderly in elderly care. That is not the case today; instead, today we see how tax funds leak out as private profits while the staff are pressured and the quality is substandard.

Miljöpartiet argues that welfare should not be a market where return on investment takes precedence over care, but a common concern where every krona is used to strengthen quality, working conditions, and security. The money for welfare should stay in welfare – period. When we invest in school, healthcare, and care, it should be people's needs, not the profit interest, that guides. It is a matter of justice, quality, and respect for the taxpayers' money.

School is the clearest example of why the profit motive must be removed from welfare. Today, we have a system where tax funds that should go to teaching, student health, and safety can instead be distributed as profit, while schools cut back on special educators, school libraries, and support for the students who need it most. It is an enormous betrayal.

We in Miljöpartiet want the school to be governed by knowledge, equality, and care for the children's best interests – not by market logic. When competition and profit requirements are allowed to rule, we see time and again increased segregation and decreased quality.

School should be the place where gaps are reduced, not the place where they are cemented. Today we see how a profit-driven school system contributes to schools competing for the "right" students while the responsibility for the greatest needs is concentrated in certain schools. The result is increased differences in quality, work environment, and results.

We in Miljöpartiet want to see a stop to this. Children's right to an equal education must always weigh heavier than the owners' right to return. An equal school is not just an educational issue but also a democratic issue and a future investment for all of Sweden.

This government likes to talk about knowledge and order in schools. However, they turn a blind eye to the fundamental problem, namely that our school system allows for profit extraction with tax money while the teacher shortage grows and support for students is eroded. It is a political choice, and this government and Sverigedemokraterna are going the wrong way.

For us in Miljöpartiet, it is clear that the school's mission is to give children knowledge and faith in the future, not to deliver profits.

Madam Speaker! Since the parliamentary majority in the first step of the budget process has given the budget a different direction than the Miljöpartiet desires, I abstain from taking a position regarding the allocation of appropriations within expenditure area 25.

We in Miljöpartiet present a budget alternative that strengthens municipalities and regions, which prepares Sweden for the future and which puts people and social benefit before short-term politics that lower taxes for the rich. Sweden deserves better. Welfare deserves better. Above all, the people – you and I – who live in this country deserve better.

I would like to wish Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to my colleagues in the committee. I would also like to extend a special greeting to our colleagues in the Finance Committee, to the Speaker's Presidium, and to everyone else who works here in the Chamber. A big thank you to you!

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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