A law on public service and guidelines for the operations 2026-2033

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! From the review of the referendum, we now move on to public service. There are two important issues.

We have worked with the issue of public services' upcoming broadcasting license for a couple of years, and now we are going to debate it. Then we will vote and decide on the matter.

It has been a long journey, one could say. The proposal includes a new public service act that is technology-neutral and covers the guidelines that the three companies Sveriges Television, Sveriges Radio and Utbildningsradion shall adhere to during the coming eight years. It is extensive and complex.

The report on the table has been prompted by a parliamentary committee working for a year to thoroughly review the conditions that public service needs during the coming eight years, and not least for the time we live in now.

Eight years is a very long time for a broadcasting license, especially when digitalization and development are moving at a breakneck pace. The fundamental aspect of our work has been an independent public service that is part of the emergency planning. That is why the name of the parliamentary committee's report was also Responsibility and Independence – public service in turbulent times. On that point, all parties agree, which is good.

We live in a restless time, and it is important that public service constitutes a part of the total defense, which is something that, among other things, the Defence Preparedness Board and the Swedish Armed Forces establish. At the same time as public service finds that role, it is central that the owners, i.e., the taxpayers, also have confidence in that role, which I will return to shortly.

Madam Speaker! I would first like to explain the Sverigedemokraternas most important changes and positions regarding the new broadcasting license and how we have thought regarding the mandate. I actually want to start with the Swedish language. Public service plays a very important role for the Swedish language because it functions as a common linguistic foundation for the entire population. In the mandate, it is therefore clarified that the companies shall, through news, social programs, and cultural and educational content, and in correct and clear Swedish, contribute to the language being preserved, strengthened, and developed.

In a time when English dominates in digital media and on streaming platforms, public service is a counterweight that ensures that qualified content continues to be produced in Swedish. Furthermore, we have seen through mass immigration that sociolects with elements of Arabic and other languages in marginalized areas have emerged in a way that in the long run threatens the Swedish language. Public service should therefore promote language development for children and young people as well as offer easy Swedish for immigrants, which makes it an important democratic resource for the future of the language.

Then we have the cultural heritage, where public service plays a major role, not least by preserving and conveying Sweden's cultural heritage. By producing and making available programs about Swedish history, traditions, music, art, and literature, SVT, SR, and UR shall contribute to strengthening the common Swedish culture and our cultural identity. They also document what is happening in our contemporary time, which will become the cultural heritage of the future.

Public service functions as an archive of important events and societal developments while simultaneously highlighting both established and new cultural expressions from across the country. Public service's role is to be a complement to cover precisely those cultural interests that private actors do not find profitable to cover.

For a long time, we have seen how tax-funded culture has generally been subject to political micro-management by left-liberals, not least when it comes to the reflection mandate and the content mandate in public service. We are changing this now, which is good. Previously, value words such as diversity and equality have been guiding for the review board's follow-up of content and also for the organization. This has been problematic, because these are goals that have been difficult to follow up on. This is confirmed by both the review board and the companies themselves. This has led to quotas based on people's external attributes, such as gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc., and not based on competence and merit, which should be obvious in a country that wants to create world-class innovation and development.

We mean that all people are reflected in a variation of the population, which is now the formulation of the reflection mission. The variation of thoughts, ideas, and opinions is more relevant for us Sverigedemokrater than external attributes. We are simply cleaning up after the Miljöpartiet's and Socialdemokraternas governance of culture and what is called "woke" in English.

Public service enjoys a high level of trust among the population, which is good. However, the problem has long been that we have been able to see a growing difference between left-wing and right-wing voters in the trust for public service. Citizens who tend to vote left have an exceptionally high level of trust, while voters to the right have a lower level of trust. They show disputes regarding the reason for this, but in the spirit of pragmatism, I choose to express myself as follows: If there are slantings and steering of the content to favor a certain ideological direction, it is a serious problem for democracy. It is of the utmost importance that the companies themselves realize that this is an important issue, not least when polarization increases in our society.

One can also see that the differences between the groups regarding trust in public service are growing, according to the SOM Institute. It is simply no longer possible to sweep this issue under the carpet. Therefore, it is important that impartiality, or bias according to some, is followed up and reviewed on a broader level, which is part of the new broadcasting license. Therefore, an external research study highlighting the condition of impartiality shall be conducted. It is good for transparency and, in the long run, for democracy, which all good democrats naturally should be for.

Madam Speaker! Within the framework of public service's core mission, public service shall be available to the entire population and safeguard the Swedish language for children and young people, persons with disabilities, the national minorities, and groups that commercial actors do not reach. It is also fundamental that public service shall devote itself to independent and impartial news reporting. This is the supporting pillar for public service and its raison d'être.

Public service should therefore not see itself as part of a free market or as part of the commercial media market. This is extremely important because the diversity of media is the very oxygen for democracy. That the Social Democrats since the 1970s have made cultural creation dependent on the state and public funds is deeply problematic, not least for democratic development. It takes time to change this, but the Sweden Democrats together with the government have begun a journey of change that we intend to continue during the coming parliamentary terms, which is of course very good for the entire culture.

Therefore, there is also a danger in public service continuing to grow outside its core mandate. In that case, one competes for programs that the commercial side can do much better. That is not how it should be.

Nothing grows under a large oak. And there are tendencies that public service has become just a large oak. That is not good. Therefore, we clarify that part in the new broadcasting license. Public service shall take greater consideration of commercial actors in a clearer way.

Every taxpayer who finances public service pays around 1,300 kronor per year – approximately 105 kronor per month – whether they want to or not. That is an important part of this. Our job as politicians is to ensure that every tax krona is used in a responsible manner. Waste must be countered at all levels. That is obvious. Therefore, streamlining and austerity measures are important. That is known by at least all entrepreneurs who have ever endured a recession. I have myself been an entrepreneur. It is in a recession that one reviews one's core mission and one's costs, which is necessary and sensible for all organizations.

In many comparable countries, public service companies are streamlined. In Sweden, the funding for the new license period will initially be generous because we see the need for public service to adapt to the preparedness mandate and the increased costs that it entails. However, we will scale down the appropriations over time, which creates time for streamlining and cuts to things that, for example, do not belong to the core mandate. To assist in that work, an external analysis of the companies' work and a reporting of productivity and efficiency shall be carried out. That is good.

For example, perhaps three separate companies – a house that does audio, a house that does video, and a house that does education – was reasonable in the 70s, because then we only had state television and radio. But in 2025 we live in the age of digitalization, and we have access to all the world's media in our phone, in our pocket, around the clock, all the time. I actually don't think there is any other country in the whole world that still has three separate companies, but I might be wrong.

It should in any case not be a controversial thought that one should modernize and merge the companies, which we in the Sverigedemokraterna have pushed for since we entered the Riksdag. It is obviously very inefficient and outdated as it functions today. The committee's recommendation is that this shall be investigated before the next broadcasting license, as we did not have permission to investigate just that part of the report, the merger, during this process.

To start reviewing collaborations between the companies already now, not least at the local level, is fully feasible. This is something that the companies should review.

Madam Speaker! A strong, transparent, impartial and independent public service that is part of the total defense and which all taxpayers have confidence in has been the goal for us Sverigedemokrater in the work with public service ahead of the upcoming broadcasting license.

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

In this speech, Jonas Andersson, Runar Filper, Björn Söder and Markus Wiechel (all SD) concurred.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Warm thanks, Alexander Christiansson, for your speech!

When I listen to Alexander Christiansson, it becomes very clear that the parties have very different views on public service. I must begin by saying that I think it is good that our differences of opinion come forward clearly. They do so quite often in our debates, I think. The culture cut carries with it discussions about ideology and our fundamental values, and that should come forward in the debates.

Miljöpartiet wants to see a strong public service with strong funding, a strong allocation of resources, because we believe that public service is a very important protection against, for example, polarization in society, division and influence from antagonists, regardless of whether they come from here in Sweden or from states that we do not like and that perhaps do not like us.

One might think that what I intend to bring up and ask Alexander about is a detail. It concerns what Alexander raised regarding the analyses and research studies that are to be conducted.

I brought with me some referral responses regarding the investigation. It is naturally the educational institutions that should primarily be considered to carry out these analyses, especially regarding impartiality. Mittuniversitetet is clear that they believe these studies are redundant. They risk becoming a burden that adds very little, and so on. University of Gothenburg argues that there are strong reasons to question this. There is no support for the claim that the news coverage in public service would be politically biased in any way.

Why should one conduct these cost-driving studies, Alexander?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have had many exchanges of remarks, you and I, Mats Berglund. We probably begin almost all of them by stating that we do not quite agree with each other when it comes to cultural policy. So that should naturally be the case in a healthy democracy.

I thought that in my speech I fairly clarified why I believe we need to conduct these studies. It is a number of different studies.

A move towards streamlining the companies. The appropriations for public service will be scaled back, and it will involve a certain reduction of the companies. As a help there, we argue that it is a good idea to review the companies and how they can be streamlined. When it comes to the studies regarding impartiality, I read yesterday in the SOM Institute's statement – the SOM Institute at the University of Gothenburg – that it is a very good idea.

There are, therefore, some different voices here, and I belong to those voices who believe that transparency is very good. It is super good, especially when I, as a taxpayer, cannot choose whether I should participate in financing a large public service.

Then I am also for a strong public service. Sometimes I think it becomes high-pitched tones. We can look at the average allocations. It is no huge cut of public service. The CEOs of the companies will scream, but it is not any huge cut. There are those who even would have wanted to see even larger cuts of public service. But now one gets even more money, very much money. If one cannot manage to perform its core mission with those resources, we have another problem, I believe.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would argue that it is large cuts that need to be made. We have already seen – now that inflation is eroding the average calculation of 2 percent that occurs today – that for example SR has had to shut down parts of the editorial staff. It concerns important news segments. Kinapodden has been shut down, for example, which I regret. It is just one example. It is an incredibly important voice in order to understand what is happening in that part of the world.

But back to these studies. I am thinking primarily of the study on impartiality which, according to the bill, is to be conducted by established researchers, probably precisely at the universities. That type of study is already being conducted. We have quite many different types of reviews. And as I mentioned earlier, the University of Gothenburg argues that there is no greater impartiality.

I am now reading what the Swedish Union of Journalists is writing. It is written: There is nothing to indicate that impartiality and objectivity have decreased at public service. According to the Swedish Union of Journalists, there may, however, be a connection between the political debate surrounding public service and public trust. One must not confuse trust and impartiality here.

The Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Sweden Democrats have in recent years openly questioned the activities of the public service companies. It is believed that there may be a connection precisely between this questioning and the political debate surrounding it. But that impartiality is being questioned, it is argued, is wrong.

Finally, it is claimed that it would contravene the constitution if the state commissions external researchers to conduct studies of public service. It should be the review board that conducts them – assignments should not be given to external researchers.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have different ideological starting points, and that is why it sounds like this. It is now the Sweden Democrats and the bourgeois parties in the Tidö cooperation that have set the framework for this broadcasting license. It would be strange if it looked exactly as Mats Berglund had wanted to see it. It would have been very peculiar.

We have landed on this form for the upcoming broadcasting license. I am satisfied with it. There are additional things I would have liked to do. But I am satisfied with what we have gotten through, as I also explained in my speech.

When it comes to impartiality specifically, I understand what Mats Berglund means by the correlation. Yes, it is clear that it can be so. But we have received this criticism from the left-wing parties along the way. It is clear that I have at some point thought: How would it be if the opposite condition had been met?

Let us say that there had been very high confidence in public service among the right-wing parties and very low confidence among Miljöpartiet, and that Mats Berglund had then said: I propose a neutral review of this, because I want facts on the table regardless of what the result becomes. Maybe there is no bias. Maybe there is no impartiality. But I want to know, because there are people who pay for this. And the part of the population that, according to the SOM Institute, is growing will become a democratic problem in the long run.

Then I would have said: Yes, it is probably good that we do a review of that, because we cannot have it this way. It is a democratic problem.

But I receive criticism when I come forward with a proposal that we should find transparency for a more stable democratic order for public service. I find that a bit strange.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the members for the debate. The funding that the SD government has put forward – in opposition to the other parties, it should be said – implies a cut and a dismantling of public service. In addition, they make it more difficult for public service to carry out its mission by circumventing how public service is allowed to reach out and work. The consequences of this will be greater difficulties in meeting the readiness, shorter reach, that less of Sweden is covered and that fewer new people get to access the content.

This occurs in competition with global tech giants and in competition with politically and economically driven international propaganda. It does not only push out our independent media, but it also pushes out the Swedish language from Swedes' media everyday life.

My question is: Why do the Sweden Democrats choose not to actively safeguard the Swedish language?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Björn Wiechel, and welcome to the committee! It is the member's debut debate today.

How should I respond to the part about this being cuts? It is not cuts. Public service receives more money. On the bottom line, public service has received more money after this broadcasting license than they would have received with a 2 percent increase. Therefore, Björn Wiechel needs to read up a bit so as not to use such strong expressions as the Socialdemokrater often do.

I remember when, at the beginning of the parliamentary term, I sat in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the aid debate came up. Then, they were going to slaughter the aid. Then the Social Democrats themselves came forward with exactly the same appropriation in their shadow budget. It is very high tail-following and strong rhetoric when one comes forward like this.

It is not a cut in public service. We may not want to increase the appropriations as much as the Social Democrats want, but throwing around such words and concepts becomes a bit unserious – I have to say that.

The Swedish language is very important, and in my speech, I clearly accounted for the importance of the Swedish language and for why public service has a central role for the Swedish language.

That there are opportunities for efficiency within public service has been witnessed by many. It is not something only I am saying, but I absolutely believe that such opportunities exist. In these times, when all agencies and most institutions are required to move forward with austerity measures and so on, public service is also included in that part. I see nothing strange about this. I think the debate becomes a bit strange when one throws around strange concepts.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the concluding answer as to why public service should not also cut back when cuts are being made throughout society. Yes, it is a cutback.

It is a cutback due to the cost increases, and it is a cutback due to the increased requirements for, among other things, readiness. It is also a limitation of what public service is allowed to do in order to be able to reach out and be able to fulfill its mandate.

We return to language, which is an important cultural community. Public service has a central role as a meeting place for precisely the Swedish language when it comes to producing in Swedish and developing and nurturing the Swedish language. For many, public service is a gateway into the Swedish language. This contributes to integration, and for the country, it is a way for us Swedes to meet. This is, however, sacrificed when the Sverigedemokraterna initiate a dismantling of public service.

What is Alexander Christiansson thinking? What is the best way for us to maintain the status of the Swedish language? Is it that we strengthen the Swedes' own independent public service that produces in Swedish, for Sweden? Or is it that we dismantle this and instead submit to tech giants and international propaganda?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! There it comes again – dismantling. How can more money be a dismantling? It would be okay if one said that, against the background of cost increases, it will become a tough situation for public service despite the Tidö parties providing more money. That would have been a correct assessment, but one uses the word dismantling and all these concepts.

Regardless of this, the Swedish language is part of the core mandate. Public service shall devote itself to the core mandate; it is that simple. Then there are other things that public service perhaps does not have to devote itself to. It is not up to me as a politician to judge that. It is up to the companies themselves. The core mandates – preparedness, functional groups, national minorities, children and young people, the Swedish language et cetera – are however central parts for public service, and they shall continue to devote themselves to them in relation to just independent and impartial news reporting.

This is becoming a pseudo-debate in some way. I do not share the member's view that we should scale back, slaughter, dismantle and destroy public service. I do not agree.

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alexander Christiansson, for the speech! I would also like to hear a bit more about what concerns follow-up and review.

There are already a number of tools today for monitoring and auditing public service. We have the National Audit Office, the Media Authority, the review board, as well as the companies' own auditors and annual reports that are very extensive. I would like to ask Alexander Christiansson what more is to be shown. What is it that is missing – if it is transparency – and what is it that one should look for when making further follow-ups of public service? I believe that public service always has very open reports of its activities for us taxpayers in this country.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I actually do not think I fully understand what the concern is regarding scrutinizing and creating transparency in state-owned companies. Then I can understand the question of what it is we want to achieve, but not the criticism of carrying out scrutinies or research studies of these issues, which are completely central to the reporting towards the taxpayers.

No, it is not always as clear as Catarina Deremar actually expresses here. There are amounts of things that would need to be scrutinized when it comes to the companies. I have myself tried to obtain information about parts of the companies that are under secrecy. There are also secret things.

What is covered by secrecy will not be revealed by an investigation either, but the point is that if the companies can be streamlined – we are talking about merger, for example, which we have also proposed should be investigated under the broadcasting license – then it is quite self-evident to me. It is about quite natural things to run organizations that are to be profitable or in different ways achieve their goals. That one scrutinizes, reviews, and tries to find things that can be improved in that operation is actually nothing strange.

But some may think that this is already being done, but we believe that additional additions of this kind of audits, reviews, and research reports are needed to address the problems that many taxpayers in our country experience. It is, after all, they who pay for the operations. That one must not forget, for if it were not so, then no one would have cared.

If it had been the Centerpartiet that paid for all of this, I wouldn't have cared for a second, but now it is my voters who are paying for it. They want to know, and therefore I am putting forward this.

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Madam Speaker! I feel no anxiety myself, I can assure the member.

We do, however, know that personnel resources are required to produce the underlying data if more research is to be conducted and more follow-ups and investigations are to be carried out. One should not believe that the underlying data appear by themselves; they cannot be made up here in the chamber, but personnel resources from the companies are needed. I think it is wrong to allocate personnel and financial resources to extract underlying data so that someone can conduct research and carry out follow-ups because I believe that we already have sufficient follow-up of the companies.

Therefore, I am still a bit curious to hear what else it is that needs to come out. It is quite clear that there are different levels of trust, even though public service has a high level of trust among the general public. Public service has very high trust figures, so one can wonder how high the figures must be for us to be satisfied.

I think, therefore, that one has gone a bit too far and is using the resources incorrectly when one is to have additional follow-ups conducted of this activity.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not agree with the member. That is actually the simple answer. I think it is good with further follow-up and scrutiny, especially when it comes to impartiality. I think it is very important.

As a Sweden Democrat, I want a strong public service. The Sweden Democrats are for a strong public service, especially considering the situation in our global environment. In the rhetoric from the outside, that is, when people talk about what I think, it does not always sound like this, but when I get to speak myself, I can say that we believe a strong public service has an absolutely central role in our democracy.

Then there is the issue surrounding public service, and we as decision-makers must be able to discuss that. As politicians at this level, we must be able to have that discussion. I do not think the debate on impartiality has been sufficiently advanced, and that becomes a problem. Had it been the Center Party's voters who had very low confidence in public service, it would have been an equally large problem for me, but I do not think it sounds that way in the opposition. It sounds like I think this is a problem because reality looks the way it does now and that we therefore do not need to address the issues.

For me, it is a problem. If I am to stand upright and defend that we give a certain amount of money to a state-owned company that produces media in Sweden – and which also crowds out quite a lot of the commercial market – I must be able to say that we will get to the bottom of this issue. It is because it is important for a large part of Sweden's population, and I think we should take that seriously.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall continue on the track of audits.

The reason I requested a reply is that I feel there is something that grates when I listen to Alexander Christiansson. I do not quite feel that he takes responsibility for how he can contribute to increased confidence in public service in these types of debates.

Given that it is Alexander Christiansson's voters who are the most skeptical, it is unfortunate that in his speech here he insinuates that it could be connected to the fact that it concerns companies that are not impartial and objective in their programs and news. So that is how I perceived his speech, and I perceived that it is that which is the argument for why a special investigation was now needed to shed light on these issues.

This is what I believe: It would have a much greater significance for the Sverigedemokraternas voters to hear from their representatives that they can be assured that there is an audit – that there is an audit committee and a scrutiny, and that there are auditors and annual reports showing that the companies follow their guidelines regarding objectivity and impartiality. I believe that would have a very great significance. People simply trust you, Alexander Christiansson. The voters we are talking about now have low trust in authorities overall, but they trust Sverigedemokraterna.

I requested the floor because I would like to hear Alexander Christiansson express his opinion. Does Alexander Christiansson rely on the review board and on the materials that we have received during a year of committee work on this issue? Are there otherwise perhaps things to take up regarding the review board, or where does the problem lie? Is it just a matter of Alexander Christiansson needing more material to convince his voters, or where is the problem? This is bothering me, Madam Speaker.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can put it this way, for it is actually very simple: The Review Board reviews reports of individual programs. In those reviews, I trust the Review Board. However, the Review Board does not review public service over time. One does not review trends and news reporting over time. One did it before, but one does not do it anymore.

I think this is a problem, because it means that one does not see the whole. Instead, one is constantly examining individual instances. There, I would like to see an overall research study over time. Vasiliki Tsouplaki and I sat in the committee together, and I pleaded for this several times.

Out of respect, I do not want to take a stand, but I have a constituency and you have a constituency, Vasiliki Tsouplaki. It might not even be the case, but if there is an overall tendency toward one side or the other, it is our responsibility as politicians to get to the bottom of it. It is not enough to just say: "Sweden Democrat voters are from the countryside and don't understand as much, I've heard." Some have that rhetoric sometimes. Some use a different rhetoric: "You have such low trust in everyone, so it doesn't matter – you will never be able to save it anyway." That is roughly how it sounds.

I do not like that rhetoric in a democratic debate where we are actually going to make decisions about public service's coming eight years. Public service constitutes the core of democracy. It is that which is to convey information to us, especially during war and crisis. We must hope that there will not be war or crisis, but if it were to occur, the trust must be high from all voter groups. I think this is a good step in that direction.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Alexander Christiansson for the answer.

I think we share the view that it is very important that trust is high and that all voter groups receive news and programs from our public service companies. The question is simply how to increase the trust and create the confidence, and I do not quite agree with the Sverigedemokraterna and the government on that question.

I am concerned that the type of argumentation we have heard over the years in this chamber, where the Tidö parties send signals that they do not trust the public service companies and the scrutiny functions, in itself increases mistrust and increases uncertainty in this group. That is why I think it is important what signals one sends out.

I agree with the criticism that the Center Party has put forward regarding how we should use the resources, but if I were convinced that it was more reports that this group of voters needed, I would say: Yes, go for it – more research for the people! I would absolutely do that. I believe, however, that it is much more significant which signals one sends from this rostrum through one's rhetoric and argumentation.

I would like to once again give Alexander Christiansson the opportunity to tell the chamber from here how he views the activities that the companies carry out today. Is it impartial, neutral and objective? Or how does the Sverigedemokraterna representative perceive the activities today?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Vasiliki Tsouplaki, for the follow-up question!

If we are to enter into a discussion about journalism, consequence neutrality, independence and impartiality, we will probably have to book an evening of conversation, perhaps somewhere here in Stockholm, and have a longer, more philosophical and deeper conversation about these questions. In that case, we would need to go into much deeper matters than what I can do in one and a half minutes when I stand here to explain how I think people function, regardless of whether one is a journalist or not, how one makes decisions and so on.

It is completely obvious that there are individual journalists who commit transgressions, for example when it comes to consequence neutrality; there are as many examples as one can count of this. What public service's fundamental ambition is regarding this is something else.

Speaking of filter bubbles, journalists working within public service also live in filter bubbles where they have their own reality and their own truth to adhere to. This is a problem that is large in society today, not least considering social media.

I can list numerous examples. In my computer, I have a list of examples where public service, in my opinion and my subjective perception, has fallen short in these matters. It would therefore become a philosophical conversation.

As far as we can go in the question of impartiality, however, it is needed, just as Vasiliki Tsouplaki said, more research for the people, more surveys and more reviews – everything that can contribute to preventing the image that was mentioned earlier. Conspiracy theories can easily arise in social media and spiral off in all possible directions. If we can prevent them and, for example, scrutinize the facts, it is very important that we do so. When it comes to the broadcasting license, I think it is a good proposal to carry out these reviews as part of that development.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! On January 1, 1925, Sveriges Radio – or Radiotjänst, as it was called then – made its first broadcast. It was Sven Jerring who began with the words "Hallå, hallå". Then it took 30 years before we got moving images and television. Not here in this house, but well on the other side of the street, the Riksdag decided in the autumn of 1956 to introduce television in Sweden. The Members of Parliament then gave the Swedish people two years to acquire TV sets and pay the TV license – it was there from the very start – so that the football World Cup at home could be followed properly, as it should be, on TV. The star Pelé nodded in the 5–2 goal in the final against Sweden in the match's very last minute.

Utbildningsradion was established, at the same time as SVT, as an independent company in 1978 when Sveriges Radio was split into four public service companies. However, both in television and in radio, school broadcasts and similar broadcasts had been ongoing for a long time, in fact, almost since the start.

Madam Speaker! Today we have a major decision before us. It concerns a new law on public service as well as an eight-year broadcasting license and guidelines for the operations 2026–2033. The bill was preceded, as is customary, by a parliamentary inquiry which unfortunately did not land particularly well. The parties did not reach an agreement.

It was primarily the allocation of funds – the financing of the public service companies and the mandate presented in the investigation and carried forward into the bill – that caused this unfortunate split. It has resulted in the work becoming unfinished and the bill we are to decide on today being flawed. The balance that needs to exist between the mandate and the mandate's financing is missing, which the government's own expert agency, the Swedish Agency for Public Management, has pointed out in its referral response. The Green Party therefore has reservations in the report concerning the parts regarding the financing.

Here we also need to stop and consider what concerns the extraordinary costs that have arisen for the terrestrial network. The public service companies shall continue to broadcast through the terrestrial network during the upcoming permit period, even though commercial actors are leaving the terrestrial network for new technologies. As stated in the bill, it is the importance of reaching the entire population that is the reason for this – 99.8 percent of the permanent resident population shall continue to be able to receive the broadcasts.

Even though many households have acquired internet-based solutions for television, the terrestrial network is still the most important distribution form for, for example, radio listeners. The terrestrial network also has great importance for preparedness and the country's security. The terrestrial network is robust, and ownership is under state control. Reception also does not require any particularly advanced equipment, especially not for radio broadcasts. The terrestrial network is also well-suited for Important Public Announcements, VMA, and other society-critical information.

TV4 recently announced that they too will leave the terrestrial network at the turn of the year. Thus, all – at least all known – commercial actors have disappeared, and the bill is then left entirely to the public service companies. This development was predicted in the investigation, and there is therefore a text in the bill that enables increased funding for the new extraordinary costs.

I mean that the text is crystal clear. It says as follows: ”If other media companies leave the market network during the license period and this results in significantly increased costs for the public service companies, this should be seen as an extraordinary cost which therefore should not be included in the funding decision concerning the license period.”

The strange thing now is that the ministry cannot give SVT, SR and UR notice as to whether these extra funds will come. The Minister for Culture was called to the committee in September, but she only gave the notice that the text can be interpreted in different ways. A "should" is included in the formulation, but for me, the text is crystal clear. It is incomprehensible that the Minister for Culture cannot interpret such a decisive text in her own proposition.

I therefore expect a statement from the members of the government basis during this debate. Before we proceed to a decision on such an important and long-term legislative change, we need to know what the situation is. SVT, SR and UR also expect a statement. The bills will start arriving after New Year; that is quite soon.

With or without cost coverage for the terrestrial network, the bill will entail extensive cuts in personnel, operations, and program offerings, for example in news journalism. The chairman of the Union of Swedish Journalists, Ulrika Hyllert, wrote as recently as yesterday in a debate article in Expressen that this will result in "fewer journalism jobs, painful redundancy negotiations, and impoverished reporting." She also wrote that it is not only bad for the industry but will also, in the long run, harm our democracy.

The background to this debate article is that freedom of the press, just like democracy, is strongly threatened in our global environment right now. Sweden is no exception. The current government's policy is driving Sweden away from strong democracy, and it is happening in area after area. These debates can and should we have. We have also had them in many contexts, both here in the chamber and outside.

It is, naturally, about funding, as in this case. However, it is also about the constant suspicion and questioning from the government's supporting parties towards culture, popular education, aid, aid organizations, and civil society. Of course, this is also directed towards the media and towards public service. In the bill, this manifests as a request for audits and external analyses. We recognize the pattern from other sectors that are to be cast into suspicion. Appoint an audit and another one in the row of revisions, and ignore the outcome! Claim no smoke without fire and so on! Furthermore, revisions and audits cost money, draw resources from the operations, and create disorder.

In the proposition from the Tidö parties, we read that a number of reviews shall be conducted, including a research study by established researchers in the field, to investigate whether public service is impartial in its activities. It states in the proposition that certain groups in society perceive that the program offering is biased in favor of certain interests or political opinions.

The referral bodies were obviously negative already in the investigation and agreed on how bizarre this will become. Reviews have been made and are being made. The University of Gothenburg writes in its referral response that there is no evidence that the news coverage in public service would be politically biased in any systematic way. The Journalists' Association argues instead that the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Sverigedemokraterna have in recent years questioned the activities of the public service companies and that there is a connection between the political debate and the trust in public service.

The purpose is to question public service. We can also add that this may be unconstitutional and that such studies are extremely complex, take a long time – we will not get any answers in the near future – and cost a lot of money.

But the government stands its ground nonetheless. Therefore, the Green Party, together with the entire opposition, reserves its position in reservation 2 in the committee report, and I move for approval of this reservation.

I have primarily lingered on the external conditions: the financing, the readiness mission, the land network, and the audits. It was unfortunate that the investigation did not reach a conclusion, and it was equally unfortunate that the opposition parties did not receive an invitation to participate in the discussion during the drafting of the bill after the investigation had been completed – as they have received previously.

In large parts, the parties are in agreement on the mission description for the public service companies, but in some parts, Miljöpartiet has reserved its position. This concerns, for example, the possibility of presence on external platforms. We consider the "restrained strategy," as expressed in the bill, to be both unnecessary and harmful. Sweden is exposed to influence campaigns, influence operations, and disinformation from both domestic troll factories and antagonistic states that undermine our country's security and threaten Sweden's interests. In this situation, social media are important channels for reaching out with correct information to both children and young people as well as adults.

The Green Party also argues that public service has a great responsibility for both the Swedish language as well as the minority languages and sign language. Today, the supply for several of the minority languages is too small. This applies not least to Romani chib, meänkieli, and the Sami languages. Here, the committee and the bill should have landed on higher ambitions in the assignment. We also receive support for this, among other things in the recommendations given in the ongoing truth commissions. I think the government should have taken this to heart. There is a growing interest, especially among young people in these groups, to reclaim their language and preserve their culture.

Madam Speaker! I have already moved for approval of reservation 2, which concerns the financing, and in connection with what I mentioned regarding minority and sign languages, I also move for approval of reservation 7.

(Applause)

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that when it comes to the minority languages, the majority parties have proposed that broadcasts in all minority languages shall increase and that first broadcasts, i.e., not repeats, shall increase. This is included in today's proposition, so in this regard, Mats Berglund is heard.

Mats Berglund was indeed in the Culture Committee when Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand answered the question regarding the ground network. Is Mats Berglund not aware of what the Minister for Culture then said about that the Distribution Investigation 2024 will provide its analysis on the ground network issue no later than December 15?

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! The distribution investigation has been extended. It may provide an answer, but it will be very late. I had expected that we would receive an answer in good time. This also leaves no room for discussions in this part.

As I said, the bills will arrive after the turn of the year, and I believe that both we who are to make decisions on the bill tomorrow and, obviously, to an even greater extent the public service companies need to know how the planning should be laid out. Do the public service companies need to cut back? It involves quite a lot of money. SVT has demanded just over 190 million kronor per year, 1.5 billion in total, and for UR it involves about 50 million on a budget of 500 million, i.e., 10 percent. It is a lot of money, where one still does not know.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me repeat that the public service companies, with the government's proposal, receive almost 84 billion, which is an increase of 166 million compared to if one had a calculation with 2 percent, which previous governments have always proposed. The government's proposal therefore means more money.

Mats Berglund obviously knows that we have a distribution investigation, and it will provide its first partial report and analysis of the grid in December. The Riksdag and the government are not supposed to make decisions that we do not have a basis for, so does Mats Berglund seriously think that we should not await the analysis that is coming and the assignment that already exists regarding the distribution and the grid before we make decisions on any measures that must be taken depending on the grid's financing?

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I agree with the member that we should not make decisions on uncertain grounds, but that is precisely what we are expected to do now.

Kristina Axén Olin probably knows about inflation. During the current period, there was for a long time low or even negative inflation. But in recent years, inflation has increased sharply, and we have seen what an increased inflation has had for effect on the public service companies. They have had to cut significantly not only on staff but also in the program offerings. This is what we have to expect.

We have heard about the increased budget allocation before, among others from Alexander Christiansson. It is expected to be invested in such things as are needed for the transition due to technological developments and the rapid change in the media landscape. Additionally, there is the preparedness mission, which obviously costs more money in the defense and security policy situation Sweden is in. Already after the turn of the year, there could be a cost increase for SVT of 192 million and for UR of 50 million that they do not yet know if they should plan for. It is not the intention that the temporary increase of 3 percent should finance the network costs, and that was exactly why that paragraph was included in the investigation and the bill.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mats Berglund for the speech.

The member of Parliament has a high tone and argues that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is challenging democracy in area after area. Public service receives a huge amount of money over the coming eight years. It is a 3 percent increase in the first year, then 2 percent for a bunch of years and thereafter 1 percent, thus a step-down. Does the member of Parliament seriously mean that it is a threat to democracy?

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have a high tone in this debate because I am deeply concerned about where democracy is headed. Internationally, we see how the number of democracies in the world is decreasing and how the number of people living in democracies is becoming lower.

We also see how the strong Western democracies in Europe are losing positions in, for example, the index from the V-Dem Institute in Gothenburg. Sweden is no exception. We are still a strong democracy, but that does not mean we can stand on our tiptoes and let democracy fall. Because it is very easy. Democracy must be conquered and won every day.

Democracy is, of course, about big changes but also about the small needle pricks that are constantly being given and which we have talked about many times before in the committee, such as the suspicion cast upon culture, civil society, aid organizations, the media, and public service. It is truly time to put one's foot down and stop that development, because I am worried.

The median allocation is weak. This is something the public service companies themselves have written in their referral responses. As I mentioned in my speech, this is expressed in many referral responses, for example in the response from the government's own expert agency, Ekonomistyrningsverket, but there are many more. At the Total Defence Research Institute, for example, they are very concerned about how the public service companies will manage their preparedness mission. It is clear that resources will need to be taken from independent journalism, scrutiny, and so on.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

It is clear that the ambition for the upcoming broadcasting license is precisely some restructuring and efficiencies within the companies, which will be required. That is the entire purpose. That is why we are creating the conditions for this; it is clear that that is the case.

When it comes to using that kind of rhetoric: Imagine if – God forbid – a party that is truly anti-democratic were to enter this chamber in the future, and yet one stands here and throws around such terms now.

It reminds me a bit of the debate fifteen years ago, when people stood and shouted "Racist!" at everyone who criticized the conducted migration policy. Then one dilutes concepts, and that is quite dangerous. It is serious to use words in that way. There, I think we should be able to raise the level of debate somewhat and not engage in that type of terminology. It is to downplay a rather serious threat.

I have a follow-up question. We can take our neighboring countries Finland, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. All these countries are cutting their budgets for public service. They do not do as we do, that is, increase the appropriations, but they cut or freeze the appropriations entirely. What is that then – is it fascism? What does one put into that concept? It must almost be the worst thing that has happened since the Second World War. It becomes so strange when we use that type of concept when we talk about an increase in appropriations for public service.

Then perhaps there are parties here that would not have wanted to see as much money for public service, but given just those things that the member himself presented in his speech – that we see disinformation and campaigns online that are a serious threat to our democracy – public service needs to be there. That is why we have agreed to give so much money, but it comes with certain reservations.

Just because one does not agree with the member that they should have as much money is not a threat to democracy.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alexander Christiansson, for the reply!

In area after area, the government challenges democracy and nibbles at its edges. It is small needle pricks all the time. I am not the only one pointing it out, but there is a wealth of books, debate articles, and so on that very clearly demonstrate this.

Alexander Christiansson argues that I am crying wolf unnecessarily, but it is naturally part of the strategy to engage in the small needle pricks, which are subtle, to question the impartiality of public services by appointing reviews and investigations, to stand here and swear one's own innocence and point out that one's own members consider something and so on. It is the tyranny of the small steps. I think tyranny is a good term in this specific debate, even though we are still far from tyranny in Sweden.

We really need to win democracy, not lose it, in the world we live in now. We see clearly how democracy is being dismantled all over the world – in Western Europe, in the strong democracies, and in Sweden. It is not that Sweden has a high public service fee. I would say that, from an international perspective, it is very low.

(Applause)

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, the Journalists' Association had a debate article where concerns were expressed regarding public service and, in particular, regarding the future of the journalistic corps. I understand that concern and respect it, because I do not believe there is any profession, almost, that will experience it more differently, given the technological developments and the rapid advancement of AI in our society.

I laughed a little when I looked out here earlier, when there were several cameras and microphones. I remember that not so many years ago, at least one cameraman and one person holding a microphone arrived when reports were made, and there was a car next to them that handled the technology. Today, one can make the same report, perhaps even with better quality, with just a mobile phone. It is clear that SVT, Sveriges Radio, and even UR will have a different future given that they have very technology-intensive operations where exactly personnel and technology account for a large part of the cost.

What do we know about the future? Yes, we don't know. We know what we have here today. We can, of course, sense and guess and, with the help of research and experts, try to divine the future, but to say anything exact today about what the media will look like in seven or eight years, I don't think any of us dare to do.

Madam Speaker! On 23 February 2023, the government appointed a parliamentary committee to develop the new terms for SVT, UR, and SR for the next eight years. All parties were included. Even the Green Party, which here requested discussions and to be allowed to have views on the proposals, was in the committee. We had an extremely large number of meetings, sessions, and study visits. We met experts, and we spoke with the public before we finally, in May 2024, submitted the investigation with the proposals that I am happy and proud of are those we have on the table today and which the government now, in a proposition, proposes that the Riksdag should decide on.

What is extra unique is that public service, by virtue of the proposal, receives stable and long-term conditions and already knows what the financing looks like for the next eight years. What other activity, company, or agency knows today that they will have such a large income stably for the next eight years? Today's proposal means that we give the public service companies approximately 84 billion kronor. It is an incredible amount of money.

Many of the proposals that we will hopefully decide on here in the Riksdag tomorrow, we agreed on in the investigation. We have received a fantastic number of good documents from our capable secretariat, which we in the committee had access to. But there are some things that we in the majority parties agree on and want to emphasize, things that concern public services' role.

We think it is important that the public service companies engage in and focus on the core business, which is to broadcast audio and video and distribute audio and video to the public.

We also place special emphasis on the Swedish language and emphasize the public service companies' role in strengthening the Swedish language and also considering language preservation.

We also think it is important that the public service companies know their responsibility for popular education and that one therefore does not try to be a multimedia house and make programs that very many other commercial actors make without actually seeing one's social responsibility and specifically the responsibility for popular education.

We also think it is important to safeguard competition. Therefore, there are several proposals concerning the consideration of other qualitative media markets so that one does not crowd out other commercial companies. One is given, for example, a mandate to continuously report on how one uses text so that one does not compete out our text-based media.

It is true that we have wanted to see a number of analyses during the transmission period. Among other things, we want to see an analysis of how the public service companies' impact on other companies in the media market looks. We also want to see an external analysis of productivity and efficiency similar to the one that is conducted in Norway, and we want to see a research study highlighting the conditions for impartiality.

It is not a biased public service we have today. But what is worrying is that the Media Academy's trust barometer shows that trust has nevertheless decreased. If we look at the public service companies ten years ago compared to today, we see that trust has dropped by almost 10 percent for SVT and SR. It is serious.

If one also looks at how many people watch and listen to public service TV and Sveriges Radio and how many hours or minutes they do so, one also sees there that both the listening and the watching are falling.

If you ask in the group under 50 years old, that is 16–49 years, how many watch Rapport and Aktuellt daily, Madam Speaker, the answer is between 6 and 9 percent. 25 percent of those under 50 never watch Rapport or Aktuellt. It is serious, Madam Speaker, especially as we believe that the public service companies have an extra large responsibility when it comes to being there as a guarantee in the event of war or crisis.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am convinced that the proposals we present here today will provide stable and independent public service companies that safeguard a strong and independent public service and which can hopefully also increase their trust among the entire population.

(Applause)

In this speech, Carl Nordblom (M) agreed.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kristina Axén Olin, for the speech!

The funding that you in the SD government are proposing, once again in conflict with the other parties, constitutes a cut. You are also limiting the possibilities for public service to fulfill its mission and reach out. It is a limitation in being able to reach out and reach new groups.

What I am looking for with my question is political accountability. If one, as the government, chooses to cut back, it would be responsible to also point out what will no longer be done. What is no longer as important? We heard earlier from Alexander Christiansson that everyone is cutting back, that public service also must cut back, and that one will not be able to do everything and will have to make choices.

What part of the public service mandate should one then ignore to live up to? That is my question. I mean that it is not accountability to first underfund and at the same time increase the mandates and then place the responsibility for the cuts on SVT, SR and Utbildningsradion.

My question is therefore: In order to take responsibility for the policy itself, what does Kristina Axén Olin want public service to stop doing?

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Björn Wiechel for the question, but I cannot answer it because it is not a cut. It is plus 166 million compared to the current 2 percent increase. It is therefore not a cut.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Madam Speaker! I perhaps thank the member for the answer.

Then I can begin by saying that there is a difference between nominal appropriations and real appropriations. Some things are about how much it is in figures and others about how much it is in value, and with inflation and costs, a figure is no longer worth as much. This means that with the costs that the public service companies have had and also will have in the future, and with the increased mandate, one has received very much more expensive operations, which this allocation in no way covers. It will mean that one will be forced to conduct less activity. That is what a cut is.

I ask the question again. This is not some minor thing on the sidelines, but it is a severe underfunding that makes it difficult to fulfill the mandate tomorrow. It is worth taking seriously, I mean. What is it then that is to be removed? One will not be able to choose to do everything. Here is an opportunity for the government to show what it wants with the public services' mandate and how the government prioritizes. Is it programs and local coverage that are to be removed? Is it reaching new groups and keeping up with developments that are to be removed, or is it the readiness mandate that one is not to live up to? Something will have to be cut. What is to be removed?

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! Björn Wiechel asks again how the cut will be resolved. Then I want to say again: It is not a cut. It may not be as much money as Björn Wiechel's party and other parties would have wished, but it is still not a cut. The debate becomes very strange when one cannot calculate what our budget proposal entails.

It is also fascinating that one suddenly talks about how important it is to finance inflation. When the Moderate-led government took office a few years ago, we had an inflation of 10 percent. It is very interesting considering that it was the S-led government's increase of 2 percent annually to the public service companies that applied.

I cannot remember seeing anywhere that the Social Democratic government requested any extraordinary meeting to increase the money for the public service companies when inflation became more than 2 percent, but with 10 percent inflation they would live on a 2 percent increase. But suddenly, our government's proposal – which is a 3 percent increase the first year and 2 the second and which de facto becomes 166 million – is a catastrophe, and we will simply set a different budget to secure the inflation.

Madam Speaker! I cannot make that work considering how the Social Democrats acted during the last parliamentary term.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your speech, Kristina Axén Olin!

I want to return to this matter of the land network and the costs there. What Kristina Axén Olin finally answered Björn Wiechel was that no retrenchments or reductions are occurring, but that is what happens when you factor in the land network costs of approximately 1.5 billion during this transmission period.

The question hanging in the air is whether the public service companies will be compensated for the extraordinary costs that have arisen as a result of the commercial actors leaving the terrestrial network. Most recently it was TV4, just a few weeks ago.

SVT has sent a petition to the Ministry of Culture with a request for compensation for the extraordinary network costs. There, they also have the calculation that it amounts to a little over 192 million kronor per year.

My question to Kristina Axén Olin is whether SVT has received or will receive an answer to this petition. I am posing the question to Member Kristina Axén Olin in the absence of the Minister for Culture herself. She is not participating in this debate either, even though it is an incredibly important proposition in the Minister for Culture's area that we are debating. But I expect an answer in any case from the parties that represent the government.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! Then I shall try to answer Mats Berglund once more. We have a distribution investigation that is currently looking at the terrestrial network and performing various analyses. It will provide a first partial report in December. Given that the public service companies have a secured income of almost 84 billion over the coming years, I do not believe they will go bankrupt because they might not receive a decision before Christmas regarding the cost of the terrestrial network.

I have not, admittedly, been Minister for Finance or any other minister. I have, however, been a member of the Finance Council, and I think this is incredibly strange. Mats Berglund knows just as well as I do that Teracom, which owns the land network, is currently negotiating rents with the various actors, including the public service companies. That we, during a negotiation period, should promise some sums that the public service companies would receive or some kind of coverage is completely unthinkable to me. That is not what one does as economically responsible. Then Teracom could say: We take 5 billion from SVT, and then we take 3 billion from SR – the government has already promised to cover it.

Mr. Speaker! In my world, one does not do that during a period when negotiations are ongoing. I want to await the Distribution Investigation's analysis: What will the costs be? What does it look like? Are there other solutions? Should Rakel be included in the market network? Are there other actors, the defense or others?

I want a factual basis. I do not intend to disrupt any budget negotiations between Teracom and the potential customers or actors and in that way completely set aside all principles regarding the budget. I will not contribute to that.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kristina Axén Olin for the answer.

There is talk of waiting for the Distribution Inquiry. It will therefore come with a partial report in the middle of December where it probably will not touch on just this part. It will rather come in the supplementary assignment, and then it will take even longer. It is also not the inquiry itself that is to answer whether the public service companies should receive their money. That must come from the ministry and the Minister for Culture. I am not particularly satisfied with that answer, I must say.

Then one hears different answers to the question of why we cannot get a decision and why SVT cannot even get an answer to its petition. It concerns the Distribution Inquiry, it concerns ongoing negotiations, and it concerns, according to the Minister for Culture, the interpretation of the bill's text. What is it that actually applies? Where is the sticking point? Why can the department not decide? Will any money come – yes or no?

The public service companies need to prepare for the coming year. I do not think they want to sit and wait until this time next year, when the Distribution Inquiry comes with its final report, and furthermore the time it takes for an inquiry to be referred for consultation, if it is even needed, and for some kind of decision – a bill, a letter, or whatever it is that is required – to be drafted. It will take quite a long time. The bills will arrive directly after New Year. How are those bills going to be paid?

I think that the least one can demand is that the government still has some kind of clarity in the communication.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is the third or fourth time I have answered Mats Berglund in the same way: An analysis is currently underway. A basis is coming that the government and we all are waiting for. Furthermore, negotiations are ongoing. I will not contribute, nor will Parisa Liljestrand, to making mistakes in that part. We will return, and the public service companies know that too.

(Applause)

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today is a fateful and dark day. It is the day when the SD government lets the Swedes' public service go under the blade – or rather, when the SD government forces Sveriges Television, Sveriges Radio and Utbildningsradion to lay themselves on the chopping block and hold the axe.

Our Swedish public service is a fundamental prerequisite for ensuring that Swedes can be guaranteed independent news reporting to everyone in the entire country, information that is free from political and economic interests and accessible journalism that the Swedes know they can trust.

Public service produces news and programs about, for, and in our entire country where the variation that exists in Sweden is showcased so that everyone will be seen and so that we will understand people's conditions in parts of the country other than our own. It is also a meeting place where we can take part in the entire breadth – the entertaining, the deeply serious, and the close everyday life – in order to increase cohesion and provide new, in-depth knowledge for us Swedes.

For Sweden as a small language country, public service is a significant actor in ensuring that there is a Swedish cultural production in Swedish and in the minority languages, both by producing it oneself and by purchasing it from other Swedish producers.

In a time when technology and globalization bring with them a dominance of world languages that push aside Swedish, public services' role as a unifying place for cultural community, a creator of Swedish content, and a developer and guardian of the Swedish language becomes particularly important.

Public service is also the institution that year after year enjoys the highest trust among the Swedes.

Over the years, politics has therefore treated Sveriges Television, Sveriges Radio, and Utbildningsradion with respect and care. One has ensured that, in broad consensus across party lines, agreements are reached on the frameworks and conditions and on reasonable funding, regardless of the government. These conditions have been granted over six or eight years, and then public service has been allowed to carry out its mission without political interference and with a substantial arm's-length distance. One has not wanted to politicize public service and has therefore not proceeded with temporary parliamentary majorities that pull and push. Instead, one has maintained these truces regarding the mission and funding because this is so important for the country.

So that has been the case – until now. Now, however, the SD government is breaking this tradition. The committee that worked to carve out a common line, the SD government chose to let capsize. Instead, one chose to run one's own completely separate race regarding the terms and the financing. Then, one slammed the door shut for further negotiations.

This is not how it is done. This is not how one mistreats this fundamental infrastructure for information, cohesion, and preparedness for Sweden and the Swedish people.

But now we stand here with a skewed politicized product – a proposal that drips with mistrust towards public service, which contains intentional underfunding to force through cuts and which, point by point, seeks to prevent, hinder and limit public service's opportunities to fulfill its mandate.

This is serious. The SD government is breaking an important Swedish principle, deliberately creating a political conflict, and is now beginning the dismantling of a central Swedish institution.

Mr. Speaker! In the proposal, there is a new law, a skeleton of what public service is and what it shall do. It is okay. But it is then, when it comes to being able to do it, how public service is allowed and not allowed to work, that the problems begin.

The government wants to restrict public service from being able to use supplementary text, despite having met protests from the country's 1.7 million hearing-impaired people because it prevents them from accessing news and despite studies repeatedly confirming that public service is not displacing Swedish text media but rather contributes to increased general media interest.

The threat to Swedish newspapers comes instead from international media giants and from the fact that advertisements are being moved to social media. This is only about limiting public service's reach to the Swedes.

Furthermore, the government wants to prevent public service from being present on other platforms. One is not allowed to post news on social media, publish broadcasts on YouTube, or have their podcasts where podcasts exist. It is a death blow to the possibility of reaching young people and to strengthening the position of the Swedish language. It is also a death blow to the idea that non-news-consuming groups should be given an entry point to independent journalism instead of just algorithm-driven messages from international economic and political interests. This is a policy for fewer and fewer people in the future to utilize public service.

Public service is today covered by rigorous provisions regarding ethical guidelines, that is to say, scrutiny and requirements for impartiality. Likewise, public service shall be resource-efficient, which is evaluated and followed up. And that is good.

But now public service is to be scrutinized even further. It is being burdened with bureaucratic extra work that takes strength away from the main mission, which referral bodies have directed reasonable criticism towards. But the government takes no account of this, but instead lets its own mistrust guide it.

Furthermore, public service is ordered to commission extra studies regarding impartiality. This is absurd because investigations repeatedly establish that it is impartial. But this mandate is, according to the government, intended to increase trust, which makes it even more bizarre. Public service is, as is known, already at the top when it comes to the Swedes' trust. On the other hand, as we all know, a persistent campaign is being conducted by the far-right to oppose public service and lower trust.

If one truly wanted to increase trust, one could stop undermining it oneself. But now, instead, public service is being forced to spend time and resources on self-promotion. This occurs during the actual license period, which increases anxiety towards the politics. And it is questionable from the principle of arm's-length distance.

On top of this, Mr. Speaker, we have the question of funding; an underfunding that erodes public service. The allocation of funds implies substantial cuts. What makes this even more concerning is that public service has an important preparedness mandate. One is now also being assigned additional mandates, including for digital preparedness. At the same time, one receives less money in real terms.

The military intelligence service notes the importance of preparedness and states regarding the election year that we can expect that disinformation in the form of AI-generated images and films risks achieving wide distribution. By amplifying individual events or fueling conflicts, one can create radicalization and division within Swedish society or distort the image of Sweden, with an increased threat to our country and our interests as a consequence.

The Security Service, for its part, says that there are already examples of how foreign powers and violent extremists use AI to generate propaganda and influence material.

The Defense Preparation Board highlights public service's important role in preparedness, and notes that Sweden is exposed to influence campaigns and disinformation that threaten our security by creating polarization, undermining trust in society's institutions and thus, ultimately, society's collective resilience. It asserts that public service holds a special position through its broad mandates in the public service, its stable funding, the high requirements for accessibility, and the trust the public holds for the companies' operations.

The financing does not add up. Public service will hardly be able to fulfill the assignments. Something must be removed. One has to choose between cutting back on newsrooms and programs and on local monitoring and coverage, shutting down development work, stopping keeping up with the times and technology, and reaching fewer Swedes and failing to fulfill the emergency mission. Sveriges Radio points to the termination of several hundred positions – entire newsrooms and local channels.

We have a government that first adopts a law, with fine ambitions, but then puts public service in a straitjacket, takes away tools and withdraws funding. That is not how you act if you want public service and the Swedish people's well-being.

Mr. Speaker! The pandemic is a good example of public service's important role during times of crisis. The statistics show that it was to public service that people turned. The Armed Forces noted the same thing, that is, that people turn to what they trust.

SVT did a great job answering questions from concerned citizens, and they built up something of an information center. Utbildningsradion helped schools produce teaching and information material.

Another example is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Then there were many children who felt the anxiety: "Why is Putin doing this?" Lilla Aktuellt became a gathering place, whose chat became an important place to ask questions, get information, and get tips on where one can turn.

Safety, trust, credibility, reach, adaptability, and preparedness – that is what it is about. It is a campfire, which the SD government is now completely intentionally starting to extinguish.

Mr. Speaker! It is as if the SD government has not taken the global situation into account – or that it is being ignored. The party is going towards public service, which guards our Swedish, independent journalism and media production. What is it that the Swedes will get instead? Well, troll factories, propaganda on TikTok and Fox News. Media and tech giants overwhelm us with commercialized content, produced in other countries, which makes them rich. It is biased media channels owned by Elon Musk, which serve his economic and political interests. It is messages and disinformation from Russia or another hostile state. The reasonable thing would be to conduct a policy to resist this, to strengthen public service and to protect that which is Swedish-produced and Swedish-language and which has been created in the service of the citizens.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by saying: Everyone knows that the Sweden Democrats want to crush Swedes' public service. The party's view became obvious when Åkesson, after the party's troll factory was revealed, launched a total attack against free media. But what is new is that the traditional right is no longer holding firm. It is cracking under the pressure from the far-right.

The Moderates are unable to reach a broad agreement. Just as when they were unable to reach an energy agreement, they choose the Sweden Democrats over Sweden. It is SD that rules. We see where it is headed with the sketches for the slaughter of public service in the next step. And the right lets this happen.

The losers are the Swedish people, our cohesion, and our country's control over our media landscape. We Social Democrats safeguard the Swedes' access to public service and to independent and impartial journalism. We must return to broad agreements and to taking collective responsibility for important issues. But that presupposes a new government.

With this, I move for approval of reservations 4 and 5.

(Applause)

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Björn Wiechel is apparently new to the committee and has not sat on the committee, but his statement is either a lie or shows great ignorance. I choose to believe it is the latter.

Let me clarify a few things. Regarding the question of the companies' possibilities to publish text, they will not be removed. Björn Wiechel knows that is not the case. According to the old broadcasting license, the companies are not allowed to publish entire programs on external channels or in social media today. We have kept that exactly as it was before, and it was something the Socialdemokraterna stood behind in the previous broadcasting license. This scaremongering towards our functional groups is simply deplorable.

Björn Wiechel belongs to a party with a socialist ideological background. There, it is clear that one wants things in a certain way. One might perhaps dream back to the 70s, when more was state-owned and so on.

Given Björn Wiechel's rhetoric here, one could almost believe that everything that goes against the Social Democrats' socialist ideology would be a threat to democracy. It is absurd. I wonder if Björn Wiechel has read the report. There is nothing in the report that supports the rhetoric presented from the rostrum. It is deplorable.

Is it the case that one is a threat to democracy if one has different ideas than Björn Wiechel and the Socialdemokraterna?

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

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

The members of the committee perhaps noted that I did not use that word a single time in my speech. I therefore do not know what the question is based on.

I mean that public service should have the ability to meet its future. Public service should be able to be the gathering place. Public service should be able to cover the entire country with independent journalism, which reflects the whole country and which is accessible, and manage the mandate it has.

This is especially true given the world we live in now. It is the one that is changing. Today, it is about competition not from Upsala Nya Tidning above all, but from Silicon Valley, China, and various economic and political powers that are pushing into our media landscape. If we do not have a public service that can both scrutinize, evaluate, and counter this, and then provide good journalism for the citizens, we have dismantled a capability in relation to how the world is developing. That makes me genuinely concerned.

It is not only I who is saying this. Had one wanted to meet the future with a strong public service in order to safeguard these things, one would not have acted in this way. Then one would have strengthened public service.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answers.

From and including the budget allocations from 2026 until 2033, the public service companies will receive a little more than 1 billion, accumulated.

Fear propaganda is a Social Democratic rhetorical device. I remember that two ministers, Anders Ygeman and Peter Hultqvist, before the previous election year, 2022, called a press conference at the Government Offices, not at Sveavägen 68 and not as an individual party but as a government, and warned the population against voting for the opposition. That is how it is done in states that do not have so much democracy.

I think Björn Wiechel should tone down his rhetoric somewhat when it comes to this. We provide the public service companies with the conditions to carry out their activities regarding the core mission: to provide independent, impartial news reporting. We also talk about functional groups, national minorities, the Swedish language and so on. The public service companies will be able to live up to that.

How the companies choose to prioritize based on the resources that politics gives them is up to the companies, not me as a politician, to decide. But the member said roughly that the public service companies would need to put their heads on the block and hold the axe themselves when they take their own lives. It is incredibly dramatic rhetoric, which does not belong in a serious debate about a broadcasting license.

We are also increasing the appropriations. I understand the logic when it comes to cuts, cost increases, and all that. But this government has a different ambition, a different political idea. However, one is not a threat to democracy just because one is not a Social Democrat. Tone it down a bit!

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for the question.

I have never claimed that one is a threat to democracy if one is not a Social Democrat. I believe it was the member who claimed that I have said that. I therefore do not know who should tone it down when it comes to precisely that rhetoric.

What I mean regarding the "hugghubben" is that it is not responsible to cut back on an activity but not take responsibility for the cutback.

I do not want a media landscape dominated by Elon Musk and troll factories. I want a strong public service. And those who safeguard public service treat those companies with respect. But here, one breaks with the tradition of doing this in broad consensus across party lines. One limits the possibilities for public service to carry out its mission, and one cuts back in the form of a significant erosion from costs, which means they will not be able to keep up with developments, produce the programs they do, or meet the demands of our time. That is not what you do if you safeguard public service.

I mean that this is serious. We need a strong public service in our time, almost even more than before. I would have liked to see a different development. I would have liked to see a government that took the entire parliament by the hand and said: "Now we strengthen public service, in order to move our positions forward and safeguard independent journalism, the Swedish language, our community and cohesion in the country, and which we know we can rely on. Come on, now we take hold of it and move forward!" That is what I would have liked to see. But unfortunately, that has not been done.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have consistently argued for a final product that guards free and independent media. It is a cornerstone of our democracy. The issue of competition has therefore been one of our priority issues in the work of preparing the basis for this bill, which we did in the public service committee.

Public service will receive just over 83 billion kronor over eight years from taxpayers during the next period. Such a large actor risks creating an imbalance within the media market. We have therefore argued that public service should focus on its core mandate, not least on the production that is not delivered by commercial actors.

It is worth not only reminding but also emphasizing that free, privately owned media also serve democracy. Sometimes it does not sound that way. If this diversity is to persist, SVT, SR and UR must act in such a way that they do not create an unhealthy competitive situation against, for example, daily newspapers and commercial radio and TV. It is for that reason we have argued that public service should prioritize its own platforms and be considerate towards other media, for example, when they publish text news.

This bill safeguards the Swedish system with an independent public service where viable commercial media can be maintained and strengthened. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats want to see a public service that stands independent from both political and commercial influence. That we, as elected representatives here today, discuss how public service should carry out its mission is not only good but directly necessary. It is a duty, not least against the background that we actually use almost 84 billion of the taxpayers' money to finance it.

This is a dominant media producer. The question then is how we politicians can secure sustainable and good competitive conditions for everyone within the media sector. For me, it has been extremely important throughout this entire work.

The great threat to free media is political silence, not that we discuss how we should proceed. The threat to democracy is not posed by alternative media. The threat to democracy is rather that they are eliminated.

Mr. Speaker! As everyone here may know, I am a priest in my civil life; that was my role before I became a member of Parliament. During my pastoral training, we as candidates were required to practice preaching – homiletics, it is called in theological terms. On a number of occasions, we, ten to twelve candidates, were given exactly the same text, sometimes just four or five sentences, with the task of going home and delivering a sermon based on this short passage.

For me, it was truly eye-opening to do this together with others. I could observe that not a single sermon that we subsequently delivered was like the other. What was the reason for that? Well, we saw and reacted to different things. Our life experiences and much else that we brought with us created a kind of grid that we then subjected this text to. Even though we as candidates had in common that we wanted to capture the important parts of the text and be loyal to the text, the products, i.e., our sermons, became anything but identical.

This experience also applies to other groups. It applies to us politicians but naturally also to journalists. Every day, thousands of things happen. In many ways, it is an impossible task for newsrooms to evaluate which of all the different things that happen should be presented further. Naturally, there is a large degree of subjectivity involved. Why does one react in such a way that a news story is made of x, y, and z but not of a, b, and c?

It becomes even more difficult later when the journalist who receives the assignment is to sink their teeth into the selected products and make their interpretation and their presentation as an individual journalist. Which questions are the ones that are asked? Which questions are the ones that are not asked? Which answers are questioned? Which answers are not questioned?

Mr. Speaker! Against this background, I have experienced and experience that it is very good that we are getting a review. The media is described many times as the third estate. In that case, it is obviously important that there is impartial news coverage and dissemination of social information. That a review will now take place, for example via the external studies, is also important in order to be able to increase the trust from the viewers and listeners. If they believe that public service is not fulfilling its mandate, they should naturally get to see what is actually occurring.

I think there has been a bit too much fuss in this debate about why these different studies should be conducted. I have seen it as very good, for the simple reason that it is good to establish that public service is objective and does not take sides. It will benefit everyone that this is established. We Christian Democrats have an electorate that has a suspicion about whether all the information provided is fully impartial. Through these studies, I truly believe we can guard the legitimacy in a better way but also achieve increased efficiency. As has been mentioned previously, this has been done in other countries. It is therefore not exclusively Swedish.

Mr. Speaker! It is an entirely reasonable objective and also a requirement that public service shall provide independent and objective news reporting. We Kristdemokrater sign off on that every day of the week. For that reason, it is important that there is competition among the media and that there are other media that can make their own assessments, their own interpretations, and their own presentations. This has been immensely important – a common thread. All of you who have sat in the committee and listened to my contributions know that I have raised this again and again.

I believe that this bill tries to secure functioning competition in a good way. We have delved a great deal, not least from my side, into this issue of text usage. SVT's digital news service has made it harder for daily newspapers. They must to an ever greater extent subsist on reader-financed revenues instead of advertising revenues. In that case, it is naturally important that one does not compete them out. We have received a number of brutal examples. A newspaper can charge a certain amount of kronor for one to be able to read a news item in an article that a journalist may have worked on for over a month. Then it is posted completely for free on a digital website that SVT has at its disposal.

I would like to raise another issue from my work in the public service committee. It also concerns competition. It struck me again and again, not least when we met the managements of the different companies within public service, that they saw other media actors as competitors. They therefore saw it as their mission to compete, not to complement.

This was confirmed with all desired clarity in the middle of our work in the public service committee, when we were able to read in one of the evening newspapers about how a program director at SVT expressed herself. She had become "black in the soul, furious and enraged." What she was so furious and black in the soul over was that TV4 had won the bidding for the program Bäst i test. It is this attitude that I mean is worrying – we have a tax-funded company that sees it as its task to compete out commercial companies.

We force all citizens to pay for public service regardless of whether they watch and listen or not. Then a given question arises: Why should one pay tax for something that can obviously be financed in other ways? Is that not a reasonable question to ask as a politician? Public service should be a guarantee for an offering that is socially important but should not do things that can be managed on market terms, I argue.

Mr. Speaker! Before this work in the public service committee, I had a working lunch with the committee's chairman Göran Hägglund, an old party comrade of mine. I then asked him a question that I have asked over and over again: What will the media market look like in two years? That was my simple question. Everyone answers exactly like Göran Hägglund: I don't know. We are, therefore, to decide on a funding allocation for eight years ahead. I do not intend to join in the absolute certainties that have been heard about how it will now be this and that. I believe it is completely impossible to know what the media market will look like in eight years if one cannot even answer how it looks in two years.

We have nevertheless stood behind this allocation of funds for the simple reason that we believe it gives the public service companies the opportunity to fulfill the assignments that we have tasked public service with. Then, it will certainly require both rationalizations and reprioritizations. So be it. That is the case for everyone else, and so it must naturally also be for public service.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite know which end I should start with, as there was a lot to handle. The competition issue in focus, I have written in my notes. I think I will have to speak about that in my main speech instead. Much of what Hans Eklind spoke about concerns the relationship between the private media and public service. It is something that we have discussed in the committee work and where we differ very much. I will have to delve into that later.

But something I would like to pause at a bit is the difference in responsibility that public service and private companies have. The responsibility must be the basis for what one thinks it should cost. I know that Hans Eklind works with economic issues in ordinary cases and is careful that one should know where the money goes. I also think that is important. Then I think one can ask what it costs to be responsible for, for example, reaching the whole country with the public service offering and ensuring that important messages reach the public during crises and accidents. That belongs to the type of tasks that only they can perform. What does it cost to be a part of the total defense and always need to be able to make broadcasts, even in crisis and war?

Now the government has presented a budget proposal where they are a good bit below what the companies have flagged they will need in the coming years to maintain today's level of operations and secure future technology and security in the systems. Heavy institutions, agencies such as Ekonomistyrningsverket, Regelrådet, and Statskontoret, believe that there are deficiencies in the investigation's analysis of the consequences of the proposal being presented. There is concern that the companies will not be able to deliver the security and preparedness that will be needed in the future. We see increased pressure from disinformation and daily load attacks, and the total defense has a great responsibility. At the Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut, there is concern that the upcoming authorization period will entail increased costs for public service, not least due to the proposals in the area of preparedness. My question is how Kristdemokraterna have positioned themselves regarding these specific assignments.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Vasiliki Tsouplaki for a highly reasonable question. I can perhaps lighten the tone a little and say this: Normally, I sit in the Committee on Finance, but I joined you in the Committee on Culture and was made aware of this. It has been an exciting journey to sit in the public service committee. But I reacted immediately when we received a figure. I have requested from the secretariat, which we have had at our disposal, to receive a benchmarking, as it is called. It is about being able to compare our public service with other countries' public service.

When it finally came at the end of the year, it was a compilation that showed that Sweden was basically second cheapest in the Nordic countries when it came to the cost of public service. If you work with economics, you know that when it is stated per capita, it becomes a bit interesting.

If I am to produce a feature film, it will not become more expensive in my world because 4 million live in the country than if 10 million live there. If I am to make a news broadcast, it will not become twice as expensive if 5 million or 10 million live in the country, but the cost will be the same.

I quickly sat down during our meeting and did the math. If you remove per capita, what does it look like then? It turned out that Sweden is the most expensive in the Nordic region. With this contribution, I want to say that I absolutely believe that something can be done and that one can get more for the money, if I put it that way.

I love sports. I am a sports idiot to my fingertips. But something is still a bit tricky when one says: How is it going to go with all these things that public service is supposed to do? At the same time, one knows that SVT spends about 55 percent of its money on sports, entertainment, and fiction.

You always hear: If you don't do as we say, the news distribution will be affected. But over half goes to something completely other than news distribution. It is possible to do a lot of things.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are starting to get somewhere here. We have had exchanges of remarks for nearly two hours. The opposition has tried to squeeze the government parties: What is it that is to be removed? Now we get an answer here that it might be sport and entertainment. Those are the things that one might have to cut when the money, for example, is to suffice for the preparedness mission.

What has been conveyed by, for example, the Defence Preparation Committee, which was unanimous in its report, is that a breadth in the program offering is needed to attract viewers to the public service offering. In the event of crisis and war, one should know that those channels exist. One is familiar with and can find their platforms and their information.

The broad mandate is also part of the preparedness thought. If it is so that one has never watched public service programs, there is a very small chance that one will find their way there when it really matters. It is part of the broad.

It is also about, as the member pointed out, that the public is involved in financing it. One pays their special tax every month. Can one then not expect to be able to watch the football World Cup or to be able to take part in Melodifestivalen, which is an expensive arrangement?

Is it not reasonable that the Swedish people should be given a wide range so that there is something for all tastes? Otherwise, there is no point in one being involved in the payment. Then the willingness to pay also decreases. One ties a knot around one's own back if one starts to nibble at what is sport and entertainment, as the member is touching upon.

I want to return to the costs for high alert and that which is criticism from very heavy institutions. It concerns the Armed Forces and the Total Defence Research Institute.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, there is no prohibition against being on other platforms. What is stated in the bill is that the public service companies shall prioritize their own.

We have had examples in the committee's work that I know the member is well acquainted with. There is, for example, a podcast for the visually impaired that a private company has which is successful. The follow-up question then naturally becomes: Why should public service also start a podcast for the visually impaired?

I know that there have been some oversteps even from my party's side where people have looked at the program schedule and thought: Should this really be included? I can accept, even though I am a priest, that dating shows for priests do not feel like an urgent matter, or weight loss programs for dogs. I can have that personal opinion. But for me, it is important to be very clear about one thing. We Christian Democrats do not talk about what should be in the program schedule or not.

I merely note, based on SVT's own figures, that the claim that news reporting would suffer if one does not receive the money one demands does not hold up when one can observe that over half of the money today is used for entertainment, sports, and fiction. It was more of an account than a critique, even though I personally may have opinions. But I intend to refrain from that here. Arm's length distance is important. That is what we must try to preserve.

The members of the committee had questions about the allocation of funds. It is stated in the bill. The scale we have is furthermore front-loaded. The appropriation is highest in year one. That is because one must be able to make the investments that are required, among other things for security reasons. It is deliberately designed in that way so that one can afford to make the decisions that are required.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

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

It is yet another speech that demonstrates the great differences we have in the cultural sphere and cultural policy regarding ideology and fundamental values.

I take up the ball that Vasiliki Tsouplaki just dropped. I want to ask a question about SVT and public service creating an imbalance and an unhealthy competition. This would legitimize the strict budget allocation to public service from the Kristdemokraterna side. What is the imbalance that SVT creates in the media landscape? What unhealthy competitive advantage is it that SVT has?

In the media landscape in which SVT operates, they are now surrounded by international giants. It is about Disney, HBO, Apple, Netflix, Amazon and Tiktok. Even Spotify is significantly larger than SVT. That SVT in that world would create unhealthy competition or an imbalance by receiving a media allocation larger than the one the Tidö government wants to give them sounds very strange. SVT is a Lilliputian among giants, if one is to speak of Gulliver's Travels and Jonathan Swift.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Then the member has truly left the area for the Swedish media, if he calls public service a Lilliputian. Here they are no Lilliputian. Here they are the great giant.

It was incredibly interesting in many ways for me to sit in the public service committee and take part of both one side and the other. We were given concrete examples of how, for instance, a journalist at a daily newspaper down in eastern Sweden, south of Stockholm, had worked on an investigative report.

One had put in an incredible number of hours to truly fact-check. One had a breaking news story that not only those in the direct publishing area wanted to read and take part in, but also those outside of it. But it cost money to read it. That is what daily newspapers have to do nowadays to finance their own operations.

In that situation, one could see that it only took an hour before the same news appeared on SVT's regional digital page, and then it was free. I believe that even Mats Berglund, even though Mats Berglund is a Miljöpartist, realizes that we then have a gigantic problem. Then you kick the legs out from under the newspapers that are trying to survive in the competition.

It is those types of questions that matter. The allocation of funds, that they receive just over 83 billion, has nothing to do with the imbalance. It is not my problem. It is about where one is in the internet and cyberspace. We have said: Prioritize your own platforms to a greater extent, and limit it textually.

It is not an online daily newspaper. It is not your task. Your task is to convey audio and video, and not to be an online daily newspaper. We have other free, private media that take that task fully seriously. They secure democracy.

It is such questions, Mats Berglund, that we have struggled with, in any case from my side. Then there is the question of how much public service should cost, but that is another question.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to assert that Hans Eklind is mixing up the cards. In the media landscape that SVT finds itself in, they are constantly in competition with the big media giants. Of course, there are also printed newspapers that play in some kind of domestic competitive situation, but there one must also point out that the press support has been reduced. One should strengthen these newspapers and not least the journals that remain. More and more need to close down because they do not have the support that is needed.

It is naturally difficult for newspapers to survive when the advertising money is increasingly disappearing to foreign countries – that is quite true. It is the big giants I spoke about that are sucking up those resources. It is not least about Google, but also about Disney, Apple, Amazon and so on. It is this media landscape that SVT plays in.

To make other analyses or move SVT to a completely different playing field would be a flight of fancy. It is not grounded in the reality that actually exists. When you as a viewer turn on your smart TV, there are a number of apps, and there lies SVT's app. It looks just as large on the screen, but it is a miniature – a Lilliput – in that context.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In a free democratic society, it is not the state's role to finance a dominant media actor through coercive taxes. In a free democratic society, it is rather the state's role to ensure that we do not have illegal cartels and so on.

We are probably different here, but I think it is the state's role to ensure that we have a media market that functions. I don't believe for a second that democracy is threatened because one gives public service almost 84 billion kronor over eight years.

If the member has been out in the so-called reality he invokes, he knows that all companies are forced to prioritize and cut back on staff and so on. We have, therefore, had a very difficult situation in Sweden. The public service companies have already had to deal with it. Now they will, in fact, find out how much they will receive over the next eight years. Which other company has the opportunity to know what it looks like over the next eight years so that they can plan long-term and make strategically correct decisions? The other media companies – if the member protects them – do not have that reality at all.

In the parliamentary committee, we were able to travel around and meet with daily newspapers. I must say that it is a bit strange that the member sits in the Culture Committee and says that this is a reality he does not recognize. The member can travel to any daily newspaper and be told that this is a problem one has had with SVT – not with SR, we were also told. It is a problem that SVT takes the news that people have worked on with high personnel costs and puts them out completely for free on a digital website. This has been pointed out again and again to us committee members. Then one must act on it – if one thinks that the reality is relevant for the design of a final product.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is a major decision we are going to debate here today. It is major because it involves a lot of money and because it affects the entire Swedish people and very many employees. Ultimately, it also affects our preparedness for crises.

The decisions we make regarding the terms for the public service companies, namely Sveriges Radio, Utbildningsradion, and Sveriges Television, shall apply for the coming eight years. Two elections will have passed before the Riksdag gets a chance to speak again.

The idea with this long period was that the public service companies should be given opportunities for long-term planning with the broad political agreements that are usually made. What we see today is that only four of the Riksdag's eight parties stand behind the budget that is to apply all the way until 2034.

I really do not think it feels right that the government and the Sweden Democrats are moving forward with a proposal so weakly anchored. I am thinking of the debate we had here earlier about a referendum. There, seven out of eight parties agreed that we should not make very large decisions with narrow majorities. I think it is very unfortunate that one has not exerted more effort to reach a broader agreement, because this is a decision that is to apply over two elections.

It is also very special that the Minister for Culture is not here to answer our questions, debate, and present the first public service act that the Riksdag has ever adopted.

There is a fairly broad consensus on many of the conditions in the bill and the new legislation, but it doesn't help if, in the end, one disagrees on what it will cost to implement the proposals.

Mr. Speaker! I was a member of the parliamentary committee that, over a period of one year, prepared the new regulatory framework. I do not think we focused sufficiently on how the public service companies should be given the right conditions to meet the challenges of the future and to develop in a time of rapid technological development, increased international competition, and security challenges. Instead of discussions on which public service services the country's inhabitants and taxpayers need and demand, the Tidö parties have prioritized issues regarding the companies' impact on private actors within TV, radio, and the press.

I am concerned that the new restrictions and the insufficient funding being proposed will mean lost years for public service, while it does not lead to the private Swedish media market being able to win market shares in the way I heard the Kristdemokraterna advocate for. It is not primarily the public service companies' actions that challenge the private actors – even though there are individual examples, such as those we heard about from the rostrum earlier. It is not there that the big money disappears, and it is not there that the advertising revenues leak out.

Mr. Speaker! For us in Vänsterpartiet, it is important to try to maintain a diversity of media with different ideological orientations, geographical distribution, and a breadth of owners. It is a fundamental democratic issue that many different perspectives take up space in the public sphere. Good competition can also provide increased quality.

It is, however, important to remind oneself that the public service companies and the private companies partly have different roles and tasks. The private companies make their choices based on their owners' interests and cannot be held accountable for ensuring the entire Swedish population's access to news, social information, education, and culture. This is the public service companies' task.

As legislators and those responsible for the budget in the Riksdag, it is our duty to ensure that we have strong public service companies that can provide this for all our inhabitants. No one else can take that responsibility.

It must be emphasized that the news reporting from public service is the only available one for a large group in our country. This may be due to a disability that prevents one from utilizing the news services of private media, or an economic situation that makes it impossible to afford a subscription to a daily newspaper.

SVT and SR also have as their only designated actors the responsibility to convey news in the national minority languages and in sign language. Above all, SR has had several other language desks over the years. Together with Utbildningsradion, they also broadcast news-conveying programs in easy Swedish and for children and young people.

All of this is important parts of being a public service company in the service of the general public. It is also an important piece of a functioning democracy. We need well-informed residents, and that is ensured through a diversity of media.

For us, it has been clear that the media support for the press, which actually falls under the responsibility of the Committee on the Constitution and not the Committee on Culture, and the conditions for public service are communicating vessels. Strong public service companies with local and regional presence shall be balanced against good conditions for the local press, national newspapers, niche newspapers, and community magazines.

A new media support was developed during the same period as we worked on the new regulation for public service. Unfortunately, it became clear that the government and Sverigedemokraterna were not interested in listening to all the critics who were concerned that fewer newspapers would be able to receive the state support. With a larger budget and a better regulatory framework, one could have maintained and perhaps even increased the diversity and prevalence of high-quality news media. Instead, there is apparently a hope that a deterioration of the conditions for public service will benefit the private companies within radio, press, and TV.

Mr. Speaker! An example of how we believe the Tidö parties are worsening things for the TV and radio audience in their attempts to favor private actors, which was raised earlier, is an increased regulation of the public service companies' use of external internet platforms. What could that be? Well, as we heard from Mats Berglund earlier, the competition for the audience's time has increased, and over the recent years, global media actors have gained a larger Swedish audience. This is, of course, about streaming services for films and TV series but also about platforms for podcasts and for user-generated content, for example Tiktok, Youtube and social media.

I perceive the government's argument against public service programs being on these platforms as two-fold. On one hand, it concerns a perception that public service programs draw a Swedish audience to these platforms and make them more popular, which causes Swedish advertising money to flow there instead of to the Swedish daily press, commercial TV, and commercial radio. On the other hand, it is thought that the competition between private companies' podcasts and Sveriges Radio's podcasts is unfair, which we heard here earlier.

In the proposition, the government explains that the content of public services is of such high quality that it competes out the private companies' products if it is available to the public on the same distribution platforms. Therefore, it should not be as accessible in the future. The right-wing parties are thus moving away from the market thinking that they otherwise defend and which is based on the idea that competition creates something positive, namely higher quality. In this case, they instead want to make it more difficult for listeners and viewers to find the best programs. Isn't that strange, Mr. Speaker?

From the Left Party's side, we are very critical of the writings regarding restraint and greater restrictiveness on external platforms during the coming eight years. We think that the user perspective is lacking and that it is once again the interests of private companies that are in focus. I do not think that is what we are set here to take care of. It is not the government's task to make it difficult for those who finance public service content, that is to say all taxpayers, to find the programs they have been involved in and paid for.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the public service companies should continue to have good opportunities to find a new audience, especially young people. In the age group 8–19, people are on TikTok; that is where they read their news. Therefore, independent and objective news media must be there and ensure that the new, growing audience gets to access content with high credibility and sees our public service companies.

During the pandemic, we also saw that these three companies were important actors in informing the public and, for example, helping to transition society based on the restrictions.

One cannot simply tunnel-vision on the issue of competition, as the Tidö parties do, but one must also place other values in the balance when designing these conditions.

Mr. Speaker! We see that the public service companies have had tough years financially during the current license period. As the only party, the Left Party wanted a higher average allocation for the period 2020–2025, and we now see that it was a correct assessment on our part. The money had been needed. In fact, staff have been forced to be laid off in recent years, and estimated programs and newsrooms have been phased out.

We had, as said, hoped that the government would extend a hand so that we could negotiate a budget that more could stand behind. Our assessment is that the proposal now being presented is far from sufficient. Public service is expected to continue to have an innovative offering of high quality, which sounds great. One should have educational ambitions and a local presence. But how will the money be enough?

Vänsterpartiet believes that public service would have needed targeted funds for preparedness and a strengthened digital infrastructure to meet both today's and tomorrow's challenges. We propose 350 million kronor for those types of efforts. We also would have liked to see a higher percentage increase. Just as the government proposes, we suggest 3 percent for the first year, but then we propose that it should remain at 2.6 percent until the final years, when it should be at 2.3 percent. It would have given the companies the muscles they need.

We believe that there is now a risk of reducing interest in the public service offering in the coming years. Public service must be allowed to continue building strong trust and increased awareness as well as contribute to community, and that requires financial muscles.

We are also concerned that the cultural mandate will be weakened. This applies primarily to the new production of Swedish drama and Swedish film, which is very costly and where SVT, in particular, injects money. We also have the support of a number of referral bodies – from the Armed Forces, which I spoke about earlier, to the Arts Council and the industry organization Film- och TV-Producenterna.

Mr. Speaker! I realize that I have spoken for a long time, but I actually must speak a little more. I jump to the end of my script and take up the question of the program's content, where I want to speak a little about the gender equality and diversity perspective.

In the proposal from the government and the Sweden Democrats, there are changes to the wording. When it comes to public service reflecting the conditions in the country, the concept "a variation in the population" will be replaced with "the entire population". I know that previous debaters have also touched upon this, but I want to clarify our point of view.

This may seem like an insignificant change to most listeners, but the Sweden Democrats previously described it in the debate as a great victory against identity politics – I believe "woke" was the term used – and quotas.

We in Vänsterpartiet, and many with us, believe that public service, in order to create program content that the entire population has confidence in, must be able to reflect the entire population – with the variation that exists. There are, for example, minority groups that are very critical of this change, and this also applies to the disability movement. I think this shows how important it is that these concepts are allowed to remain.

I move for approval of reservation 1, which concerns exactly this.

We will find out a bit more about the economy later – perhaps in an exchange of remarks with the Liberals, who are next on the speaking list.

(Applause)

(cont.)

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