(cont.) A law on public service and guidelines for the operations 2026-2033 (cont. KrU2)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L safeguards a large, strong and broad public service as a free and independent news source to defend free freedom of opinion 1. L believes that public service holds Sweden together, contributes to the survival of the Swedish language and is an important part of Sweden's preparedness 1. L argues that they stand in the middle on the funding issue and that the proposed increase is good 2. L emphasizes that public service should reflect the population and national minorities 3. C believes that public service should be politically and commercially independent to guarantee credibility 4. C argues that it is problematic to erode the funding allocations 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Malin Danielsson (L)
Madam Speaker! It is so wonderful to resume the debate after a two-hour break!
We have debated public service very diligently in recent years, both in the media and here in the chamber. Should we have a broad or a narrow public service? Should we spend more or less money on public service? Is public service impartial? What about the use of text? The view on public service has been more divided than before, at least if one is to believe the state of the debate, even the state of debate we had here earlier today.
Still, we stand here with an eight-year broadcasting license with economic conditions that, in plain terms, give a somewhat higher increase than during the previous broadcasting license and a continued broad public service. As Per Andersson of Kulturnyheterna noted in a column shortly after the bill being discussed here today was presented: There is arguing over nuances in the financing, but fundamentally everyone is still in agreement that Sweden shall have a large, strong, and stably financed public service with broad and varied content. It sounds a bit like the starting point the Liberals had before the parliamentary committee.
The reasons why we need a large, strong and broad public service are many. Let me highlight three reasons that I think are extra relevant in the time we live in now.
Firstly: Public service is a free and independent news source with high credibility that is available to everyone. Public service is in the service of the public, not the state. Public service shall stand on the side of the citizens, not the side of power.
When disinformation spreads at lightning speed, newsrooms that stand up for facts, objectivity, and scrutiny of power are needed, regardless of who sits in the government and regardless of where the power lies. That is how we defend the free formation of opinion, which is the very core of democracy. When wars rage in the world, it is no longer just about war on the ground but also about an information war unfolding on platforms whose algorithms are far from transparent and overwhelm us with information daily. Competence is required to ensure that the information is correct. Competence is something that SVT has built up in the form of SVT Verifierar. SVT Verifierar does not only scrutinize clips from war zones but also reveals when politicians slip on the truth, clears up myths from TikTok, which reaches thousands of children and young people, and scrutinizes data on drone alarms to provide the viewers with facts. Free journalism, built on facts, is a part of our democratic self-defense.
Secondly, Madam Speaker: Public service holds Sweden together. Regardless of where you live, what background you have, and what language you speak, public service is available through the radio and the TV. Mello, Allsång på Skansen, Bolibompa, the Christmas calendars, and Sommar i P1 are some of the campfires that many of us gather around every year and which characterize both children's upbringing and the topics of conversation during the coffee break. They help us build a common "we".
We are not that many. Just over 10 million people speak Swedish, and Swedish is one of the 100 largest of the world's 7,000 languages, but 10 million people is still not a huge market when it comes to creating films, series, or radio productions. Through their productions and purchases of productions in Swedish, the public service companies contribute to the survival and development of the Swedish language. This also, of course, applies to Swedish sign language.
News in minority languages, children's programs without advertising, accessible services for people with disabilities and the extensive educational offerings that Utbildningsradion provides are also things that contribute to community, knowledge and participation for more, which we need in a time when many sometimes speak more about us and them than about us together.
Thirdly: Public service is an important part of Sweden's preparedness, which several of my colleagues have touched upon earlier today. When a crisis occurs, the network is down, or disinformation flows, people must be able to rely on a voice that provides correct, calm, and accessible information. It is not just a matter of journalism but also a matter of security and safety.
It is to public service that we turn in times of crisis. That was clearly seen during the pandemic. It was also clearly seen after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Likewise, SR's news broadcasts during the terror attack on Drottninggatan were crucial in curbing the spread of rumors regarding where one was safe and not. By Sveriges Radio broadcasting live from several locations, listeners could learn where it was safe to move and where it was not. Lilla Aktuellt made an important contribution for children who, during and after the horrific school shooting in Örebro, could get answers to their questions when other adults were not available.
We really have to hope that it never happens, but if Sweden is subjected to war or the threat of war, public service will have a decisive role in ensuring that the Swedish people can be reached by reliable information.
Madam Speaker! These were three examples of why the Liberals safeguard a long-term sustainable and independent public service with a breadth and quality that appeals to many and which aims to build long-term trust. With the proposal we are to make a decision on tomorrow, we lay the foundation for this during the coming eight years. I move for approval of the proposal in the report.
Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)
Madam Speaker! I thought we would continue to drill into the budget issues.
When it comes to the funding for SVT, UR and SR, there is a special account for the specific tax funds that are collected. Currently, there are around 4 billion there, and there is therefore a large surplus on this account. When we in the opposition talk about that more funds could go to this funding, we are not talking about money that competes with investments in, for example, healthcare or school; I believe it is important for the audience to understand this.
I have wondered why the Tidö parties have not wanted to ensure that the companies receive the funding they claim is required for the future and for the upcoming challenges. Malin Danielsson raised many important issues regarding preparedness, availability, and reaching out to the entire country. It sounds like we agree on the mission in large parts. My wonder is how it is that the Liberals have landed on a budget proposal that implies an underfunding moving forward when the money is there and when one actually does not need to set an investment against other budget items.
I am a bit surprised that the Liberals are on the other side regarding public service issues. I wonder if Malin Danielsson wants to reflect a little bit on whether it was so wise to include public service in the Tidö Agreement. I perceive it as that this has tied up the Liberals and that they have had to negotiate separately within the Tidö parties and have not had the space to approach us other four parties. It has complicated the budget agreement that I think we could have reached together. I hope that the member has a reasoning to offer when it comes to that question.
Malin Danielsson (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank Vasiliki Tsouplaki for the question.
I would not say that the Liberals stand on any side. I would say that the Liberals stand in the middle. In Sweden, we have had a rather exhausting debate about the funding of public service for quite a few years. There are those who would like to spend less money, and there are those who would like to spend a bit more money.
Those who want to put in a bit more money have only appeared recently. If I look back at the 2022 election year and what the parties said about the budget for public service, I see that the vast majority said they wanted to keep the current budget with the current increase. That was stated, for example, in Journalisten. Only Vänsterpartiet was one of the few parties that already then pointed out a need for additional funding of public service, while Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, who have had a high tone today, thought the level with a 2 percent increase was reasonable. Let us remember that inflation was at 9 percent then.
The Liberals land somewhere in the middle. We continue with a tally, and that tally becomes somewhat higher when it is spread out over the eight years. I believe it is in the ballpark of 170 million more that public service is financed with over the coming eight-year period, and we think that is good.
We know that many suffer from the high inflation we have and have had, but which we hopefully will not have moving forward. The inflation situation does, however, mean that many different operations need to make some prioritizations, and I am convinced that the public service companies will be able to manage them in the future as well.
Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)
Madam Speaker! To "manage" is a bit weak. I think we would have taken the chance to equip the public service companies for the future. What they have primarily put forward is that they need to make large investments in new technology, security-enhancing measures, and in the digital field to stay at the forefront with their streaming services. These investments cost, and one cannot nibble at the edges when it comes to security or the digital because the audience expects it to work. Then other parts of the operations will have to bear the brunt, and that worries us. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the Liberals have beforehand committed themselves to negotiating within the Tidö parties. This does not concern the member, but she will get the chance in the next turn.
There are other issues where I had expected the Liberals to think like us. In the writings now, it mentions equality and diversity and that public service should reflect the whole country. We think that it should also reflect the variation in Sweden's population. I know that the member is passionate about functional issues, and I think it would have been the normal liberal position to back up this type of writing now that the diversity and equality goal is being removed. Perhaps I have an old image of what kind of party the Liberals are, but I think it is sad that we could not reach an agreement on this issue.
My question to Malin Danielsson is therefore: Was it so wise to include the public service issue in the Tidö Agreement? Otherwise, you could have been free to pursue your own party line. Or is it the case that this is now your party line?
Malin Danielsson (L)
Madam Speaker! The Liberals' public service policy is that a broad and varied public service is still needed, which also reflects the population and the variation that exists within the population. I see no contradiction here. But perhaps some follow-ups can be done differently when the concept is broadened slightly. We have also been keen to point out the national minorities and those people who have Swedish sign language as their mother tongue in the broadcasting license in order to increase production for precisely these groups. We are, therefore, the same old Folkpartiet or the Liberals when it comes to these issues.
It is also gratifying that we landed in this middle position considering how high the tone has been in the debate on public service. Sweden retains a strong, broad and stably funded public service with a broadcasting license that extends over eight years. Thus, there are good conditions to continue to run the varied and good operations it has at the present time.
Catarina Deremar (C)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 3 under point 4.
Madam Speaker! Having the opportunity to be part of the public service committee was educational, varied, and at times quite frustrating. But it was also very enjoyable to work on an important issue.
The period 2026–2033 is a long time. There are clear advantages to long licenses for public service. But it also requires reflection, because if we turn the time perspective around and look eight years back in time, we probably see that the vast majority of us have completely different media habits today than we had then. And who knows what the media habits and opportunities will look like in eight years' time again?
A broad media offering is important and in many ways decisive for a functioning democracy. Public service plays a major role in reflecting the whole country and is needed side by side with the private actors to achieve a diversity of perspectives.
Public service is radio and television in the public's service, and public service shall be both politically and commercially independent. All political steering reduces freedom and thus credibility. Independence is needed so that as a recipient, one can feel secure that individual political opinions do not govern the content. Public service also has long license periods to guarantee independence and to bridge temporary political majorities.
Madam Speaker! In the deteriorating security situation, public service plays a significant role, which the Defence Preparedness Committee also highlights in its report Kraftsamling. In times of disinformation campaigns from actors who have an interest in promoting division and reducing trust in society, a public service with its independent journalism is needed. It is also a part of our total defense.
In such a situation, it is particularly problematic to erode the funding allocations. We have heard several times that it is more money than before, and yes, 84 billion is an immense amount of money. But the result is that all residents receive the entire public service offering for a little over a hundred kronor a month. How much do we not spend on a telephone subscription or a sporting event?
We see the importance of Sveriges Television continuing to have opportunities to support, develop and co-produce Swedish film and Swedish drama. It is good for Sweden that there is a long-term perspective for artistic renewal and talent development within Swedish film, and here Sveriges Television plays a major role. Also important is the Nordic cooperation with co-productions and program exchanges that allow us to get to know our Nordic neighboring countries.
Swedish film and Swedish drama are an important part of public service's cultural mandate. It is a democratic utility, and it is therefore also financed solidarily through the public service fee. No one is excluded either. One is not met by a paywall, and one does not need to register personal details to be able to access the programs. This resonates well with my liberal soul. This is also of great importance in a poorer security situation where the need for reliable sources gains even greater weight and where it is important that everyone can access them.
The media, including public service, is of great importance for democracy. When such issues are investigated, a special caution and openness are needed to seek broad, long-term political consensus. Therefore, it was painful that we could not reach an agreement and total unity in the public service committee. That is my opinion.
I was asked late in our work whether we would reach an agreement, and I answered: "Of course, it is clear that we will reach an agreement." I am a former local politician and used to staying at it until an agreement is reached so that one can take the next step. I was extremely disappointed and reflected a lot on my own contribution in the public service committee and what I could have done differently so that we could reach total unanimity. But we reached a dead end and could not move closer to each other, and I am the first to regret that.
To further strengthen public service, I think it would be interesting to look at the constitutional protection for public service.
Madam Speaker! I can state that competition in the media market is good. It benefits the quality of the production. I wish that public service should continue to be able to properly verify that the news being broadcast are true and real, and that film and drama of high quality can continue to be produced. We have hardly talked about this at all. It is probably the best – when we can take part in a drama production of high quality – but it has been completely omitted. I think we could place even greater emphasis on that when we talk about public service. When there are opportunities to make productions of high quality, one can strengthen both cohesion and the Swedish language in our country.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, it has sounded in today's debate as if we are very much in disagreement, but despite that, we were actually in agreement on very many points in the public service committee, including regarding the responsibility for the Swedish language and the minority languages and that the broad mandate remains. But if we narrow the finances and the economic conditions for public service, it is clear that there will be a risk that the journalistic content will suffer. That would be extremely unfortunate in these days.
But the broad mandate remains, and we must continue to fight to ensure that public service is free, strong, and independent and is in everyone's service.
Then I also think, as a previous speaker said, that it is unfortunate and a bit dull that the Minister for Culture is not participating in the debate here today, but we have at least done our job today. I thank you very much for the debate.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.