(cont. from § 4) The National Audit Office's report School Money - efficiency and consequences (cont. UbU12)

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since the 1990s, society has step by step lost control over the school to the market, with increasing profit-seeking, segregation, and increasing inequality as a result.

The market school that has emerged is characterized by weak public oversight and control, a world-unique opportunity to extract profit, an unfair purchasing system and, not least, a system for school fees that fuels the pursuit of profit instead of increasing equality.

The consequences are what we see now: a sorting school in Sweden. Profit-driven schools select students who are considered profitable. It is not children who choose schools. It is schools that choose children.

Mr. Speaker! Let us speak plainly. The Swedish school system is sick. Sweden, the country of "just right," distinguishes itself today as the country of extremes. Nowhere in the world has the school's adaptation to the market gone so far.

Year after year, we Social Democrats have pointed out a number of systemic flaws with the Swedish market school model, not least the absurdity of free schools being overcompensated with tax funds that create large profit margins. Now we are also getting a pushback from the National Audit Office.

In the report we are debating today, the Swedish National Audit Office's review of school fees is addressed, and their criticism is clear. The regulatory framework for school fees for independent schools counteracts the equivalence in Swedish schools.

The National Audit Office states that the school voucher system overcompensates independent schools, which disadvantages students in municipal schools and leads to inefficiency and waste of tax money.

Unlike independent schools, municipalities have a statutory obligation to offer all children a school place. This means that municipal schools must constantly be prepared to receive new students. Nevertheless, independent schools receive the same compensation per pupil as municipal schools, even though municipal schools have both a greater social responsibility and higher overhead costs.

The National Audit Office also points out a main problem in the principle that independent schools shall be replaced with equal conditions. The compensation to independent schools is increased, for example, if the cost of the municipal operations increases, even if the independent schools have not had increased costs.

In practice, it means that if a municipality, for example, needs to renovate its schools, the friskolorna must also receive increased compensation. The municipality must therefore pay for its renovations twice, first the renovation itself and then compensation to the friskola that has had no renovation. It is to waste tax money, Mr. Speaker.

Furthermore, the National Audit Office notes that municipalities have the statutory social responsibility for all students' right to a good school. But despite this, they lack influence over the school's long-term planning. Independent school groups often choose to establish themselves in locations with a student base that creates favorable conditions for profit extraction, while municipal schools are affected by overcapacity and rising average costs.

The design of the school fee, combined with the new establishment and expansion of independent schools, leads to an inefficient use of the school's resources. We Social Democrats therefore believe that reforms of the school fee must be combined with municipalities being given a right of veto against the establishment of independent schools. Society must have control over when and where schools are established.

On a number of points, the previous Social Democratic government presented proposals to address these problems. But they were voted down by the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals in the lead. It is those parties that now constitute the government and the government base.

But to my surprise, even though it has been less than a year since the government parties voted down our proposals, they have now shifted. When the Swedish National Audit Office comes with the same criticism that we Social Democrats have had for years, the government parties suddenly acknowledge the problems that they previously denied.

That they see some of the problems that exist is welcome. At the same time, it is regrettable that the government's response to the National Audit Office's report is that further investigations shall be appointed, this despite the fact that there are good preparatory documents and that the issue is already well-investigated.

Mr. Speaker! How many more millions shall the private school corporations be allowed to extract from Swedish schools before the government considers the issue fully investigated? The resource inefficiency and the maldistribution of the school's resources will continue as long as the government buries the question in further investigations. Those who lose are our children and young people.

The Swedish National Audit Office's review covers only the school voucher. But to achieve increased equality and better quality in teaching, other reforms are also required. The school's focus should be on education and knowledge, not on profit-seeking. Therefore, we Social Democrats want to ban profit extraction.

Resources matter. The state must take greater responsibility for the school's funding. In our budget proposal, we therefore propose much higher general state grants to the country's municipalities than the government and Sverigedemokraterna do.

Resource distribution also needs to be carried out to a greater extent based on the students' needs. Therefore, the equality grant for strengthened equality and knowledge development that the Social Democratic government introduced must be expanded and also broadened to upper secondary school. It is a state grant that, according to evaluations, has had the intended effect but which the government has unfortunately stopped the expansion of.

The state also needs, through Skolverket, to increase its presence around the country and continue the work with national quality systems to strengthen knowledge development in the schools. The quality dialogues that were initiated by the Social Democratic-led government have been cut in the current government's budget, but they need to continue.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish schools are being torn apart. We cannot continue to overcompensate free schools with tax money that creates large profit margins and increases school segregation. It is time that more parties act to break the segregation and give the school the resources that are needed.

Now it is up to the right-wing parties and SD to prove themselves. It is time to wake up and start working for the best interests of children and young people instead of propping up the private school corporations.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Historical revisionism is something the left is usually very good at. We have just heard here what historical revisionism sounds like. One tries to talk about "you were against it, and now you are for it," or whatever it was.

I can assure everyone in this chamber and also those of you listening that there will not be changes à la the Social Democrats. The Sweden Democrats are the guarantee that we will not get any bad copy of bad politics. There will not be any proposals similar to those that the Social Democrats put forward.

Aylin Fazelian has completely misunderstood us. We said throughout the entire last parliamentary term that there are areas where we can discuss. We were willing to discuss with the government and see if there was any area where one could ensure that problems were solved. But the Social Democrats were not interested. It was a cold shoulder.

The most important thing for the Social Democrats was to win the 2022 election, and then one was forced to present a proposition at the last second that was not thoroughly worked out and that did not have support in the chamber. One knew when presenting the proposal here in the chamber that it did not have support.

To then stand here now and say that just because we are putting forward the exact same views as we have had all along - one can look at our committee motion and similar - we yield to the Social Democrats. We do not do that.

This government constellation will present proposals that are sustainable and that have support in the chamber, and I can guarantee Aylin Fazelian that it is far from Social Democratic policy - thank goodness!

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! What the Sweden Democrats are the guarantor of is that Sweden shall continue to have market school.

What the Sweden Democrats do every time they have the opportunity to vote in the chamber is to vote against proposals that increase equality in Swedish schools.

Patrick Reslow has himself written debate articles where he criticizes our proposals and says that SD does not want a socialist school system. But, Mr. Speaker, the question that Patrick Reslow needs to answer is this. Has every other country in the world had a socialist school system?

Sweden is completely alone in allowing unlimited profit extraction from the school and completely alone in having let the school's adaptation to the market go so far. And the Sweden Democrats are the guarantor of that market school.

Please answer the question, Patrick Reslow! In what way does Sweden have a socialist school system if we were to do as all other countries in the world do and, for example, ban profit extraction?

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that sometimes it can be good to put on glasses when one reads. What I said very clearly in that debate article was that a school system that is not based on freedom of choice is a socialist school system.

What the Social Democrats are doing is a constant attack against the right to choose a school. Because there will be no right to choose a school if you ensure that the independent schools die out, if you introduce a funding system where they cannot remain and are forced to close down. There will be no freedom of choice from that.

The Social Democrats want a school system based on the idea that Social Democratic power-brokers should sit and decide. "Here is where you shall go to school! We think that is good. It is your residential area; that is where you belong. Do not make any other choice!" That fits very well for those who want it, but it fits less well for those who perhaps do not think it is appropriate or for parents who want their children to go somewhere else.

We stand up for the right to choose school. If the Social Democrats want to call it market school, then do so! We have no problem with that. Market school for us is the right to choose school and the right to choose between providers. That right we shall preserve, develop, and defend to the utmost. The Social Democrats shall not come and spoil students' opportunities to choose their own education. It is a fundamental right for them.

I hope that Aylin Fazelian and the Social Democrats have understood the meaning of the debate article, as it is not the first time I have heard an incorrect interpretation of it.

I also hope that it has become clear to Aylin Fazelian and the Social Democrats that the Sweden Democrats are the guarantor for the right to choose school and will ensure that this right is defended.

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats know very well that the Social Democrats have never presented any proposal to stop the right to choose school.

The Sweden Democrats are always very quick to criticize the Social Democrats. But now the National Audit Office is presenting exactly the same criticism that we do. It seems as if Patrick Reslow has not read the audit that we are debating today. The National Audit Office actually states that the system is inefficient and does not lead to equality and recommends that the government do something about the matter.

What you Sweden Democrats need to do is wake up and realize that it is you who are in power. It is actually the Sweden Democrats' government, and it lies on the Sweden Democrats' shoulders to do what is best for our children and young people. But there is not a single proposal in the Tidö Agreement. Patrick Reslow has not come up with a single proposal here that would rectify the inequality in Swedish schools. It lies on your shoulders now. It is time to wake up.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying that it is always interesting to hear others' exchanges of remarks. One perhaps should not comment on them.

The member's speech was also interesting. Aylin Fazelian said that the Social Democratic government presented a number of proposals to address the problems. As we were touching upon earlier, it is my and the Center Party's and many others' opinion that you did not quite do that.

You submitted a proposal to get a good election issue. If you had wanted to tackle the problems, you would have asked us what was required to get it through in the chamber. You did not do that. You could have asked the Liberals. You could have asked the Moderates. You could have asked KD. "If we submit a proposition to change these issues so that it becomes at least a bit better than it is today, what is needed for you to be able to be on board?"

We said, for example, what we have said several times – that in order to be able to go in and change the resource distribution system, we need to ensure that the small schools in the countryside can survive. The Social Democrats chose to present a bill completely without that perspective. In that case, one cannot expect us to vote for it. There, the Social Democratic government missed the opportunity that existed before the election.

Now we have a different government. We will have to see if it ever gets off the ground. I am skeptical. But one question that was raised here earlier and which is linked to the question of rural schools is that the Social Democrats want a veto, a municipal veto.

The current government in Linköping, Social Democrats and Moderates, is closing a rural school. Does the member believe that the municipality, with a municipal veto, would have allowed someone else to take over that school and ensure that the people in the countryside could have kept their children in the local school instead of transporting them to the central town?

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Niels Paarup-Petersen, for the question! I am pleased that the Center Party is reconsidering its school policy and has begun to acknowledge some of the problems that we Social Democrats have long raised. I hope that we can join forces in this very important work moving forward, because as Niels Paarup-Petersen said from the rostrum, this system is not liberal. The market adjustments have gone incredibly far.

I cannot answer here in hindsight as to whom the Minister called and whom she did not call. But what I can state is that this was a point in the January agreement for a long time and that many meetings were held. Many conversations were had. I was not part of these conversations, but I know that there were many opportunities for conversations.

What I can also state is that this government has never once invited us to any conversation, so we are waiting for that invitation and would gladly accept it.

It is important that municipalities, which actually have the statutory responsibility for every child's right to school, also have influence over free school establishments. It is also part of the criticism that the review presents: that new and expanding establishments drain the municipal schools of resources.

I and the Social Democrats therefore believe that this is an important step forward.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is correct that we are reconsidering our policy. It has been necessary, and I am glad that also our chairman sees this. Swedish school needs to get new frameworks for resource distribution and much more. That is how it is, and it is good that the National Audit Office raises it.

It is clear that the municipalities should have influence, as Aylin Fazelian says, and in that regard, the Swedish National Audit Office is clear. Note also that the Swedish National Audit Office does not speak of veto. They say influence, and that it should be taken into account. It is a significant difference.

The party leaders spoke about the January Agreement. I was part of these conversations. I don't know if I contributed that much, but I was there anyway. One could say that the difference between veto and influence in the January Agreement was that the Center Party had a veto and the Liberals had influence. And it makes a difference whether you have the deciding vote or not – in the chamber and out in reality.

Let us say that the municipality has the decisive voice when it comes to whether someone is allowed to establish themselves or not, and that the municipality then withdraws and no longer wants to take responsibility for every district having a school. The parents might then gather and say: We want to take over this, because we want to ensure that our children have a local school. Do the Social Democrats believe that the municipality should then be able to refuse? In that case, the municipalities can say: No, you are not allowed to. We would like to save the money, so we do not want you to be here.

We in the Center Party consider it an extremely dangerous path to take. I myself come from Malmö, just like several others here in the chamber. We can state that we have had a Social Democratic government there that has at times had a questionable view on alternative forms. I see nodding here in the chamber. Many of us who come from Social Democratic municipalities are a bit afraid of a municipality that has a veto against alternative forms of operation.

I would therefore like to hear from the Social Democrats whether they are ready to reconsider the word veto and change it to increased influence. I believe that it would have been better for Swedish schools.

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer is no. We stand by the fact that the municipalities need a veto regarding the freedom of establishment, which goes so incredibly far in Sweden's municipalities.

I can state that a lot has happened since the election. A lot has also happened since we submitted the propositions on this, which in many respects take into account precisely the criticism that the Swedish National Audit Office puts forward. I therefore hope that we can get things moving during this parliamentary term. But unfortunately, it lies neither on my shoulders nor on the Center Party's, even though we hope to receive an invitation and an opportunity for dialogue. I still hope that we can become a force in pressing the new government.

What I tried to highlight in my speech was that new investigations are now being announced, but this has already been well-investigated. One can have problems with the government bills, even though I believe some repositioning has occurred since then, but there are plenty of investigations. These investigations have been welcomed by all of Skolsverige, so it is only a matter of picking them up and coming to the chamber with proposals if it actually lies in the government's interest to put Sweden's children and students before the market companies' profit withdrawals.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I had written a speech, but I believe we have passed the point for that speech. I believe that this is going to become something completely different, and therefore it can also become a bit messy. I apologize for this.

Let me first and foremost move to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

The Sweden Democrats are not saying what we want – that is what we hear in the debate here from the Social Democrats. It is quite remarkable. We have committee motions that are submitted every year, where we account for what we think and what we intend, area by area. School funding is not a new issue; we have debated it several times in this chamber. It has been raised in interpellation debates, in written questions, which one can access and read the answers to, and so on. We have had debates on TV and on the radio.

It should not be particularly difficult to find what the Sweden Democrats have said regarding the funding system. We have, for a long time now – at least since 2012-2013, as far as I have been able to find – said that we shall allow an economic buffer for the friskolor. That must be taken into account.

It is about the permit review and the fact that it must be tightened. Now we have received some tightenings, but they are not sufficient and are not in line with what we want.

We have said that we want a stop to Muslim free schools. The Social Democrats do not think that is a particularly good idea. They apparently want Muslim free schools because they did not submit a single legislative proposal during eight years to stop them.

We have said that we want state ownership and thus also a national school fee. We have been very clear about this. If one does not quite understand what we think on the school fee issue when we say that we want a national school fee, then perhaps the problem is greater than I thought.

State ownership is important. It is the Social Democrats who have put us in the situation we are in now. It was not a bourgeois government that introduced 100 percent school fees. It was a Social Democratic government that did it. Do not pretend otherwise! It is you who have introduced this.

It was not a bourgeois government that municipalized the school. It was a social democratic government that did it. This meant major problems for the municipalities, not least in terms of financing.

It was not the case that the Social Democratic government, when it took office in 1994, automatically struck out against the friskolor because this was supposed to have been something incorrect. It was not the case that people talked about market school. No, they let it continue. Why? Yes, because at that time they thought it was good that there was freedom of choice. But now there is a different tune in the pipe, and you are trying to sound roughly as if you have always thought this way. But you haven't. We see through you. It is historical revisionism and nothing else.

There are problems with the school funding. We have said that. It is completely clear that if a school is closed down or forced to close, the students must go somewhere. If a school were to go bankrupt, the students must go somewhere. In that case, the municipality has a responsibility to ensure that there are places. It is completely clear that there are different responsibilities.

The problem was that the Social Democrats submitted a bill. Yes, in a rush and at the last second, they submitted a bill based on the idea that they would punish independent schools. They said: Here, we are going to have a reduction of the school fee just because you are independent schools, nothing else. There was no consideration for what the costs in the municipality were or that there could be a difference in the costs. It wasn't even the case that they presented how large the differentiated school fee would be, but the municipalities themselves were to decide, somewhat arbitrarily.

Requirements were also not placed on the municipalities to come and show an accounting: Look here! Now this is what applies in our municipality. We have received these additional costs, and then we make these adjustments in the school fee. No, that was not the case, but it was general. It was a general reduction of the school fee to the independent schools. So that was the proposal, and so the Social Democrats wonder why it was voted down in the chamber.

A system must be predictable. It must be sustainable. It must be long-term. One must know the rules of the game. It is not possible to come forward with a bill where one says: Now we are going to introduce a model. We do not know what it is going to look like. Skolverket can explain it when we have introduced it.

It is not sufficient. It is poor. It is not a well-executed legislative proposal. It was not. Now one stands here and says that it has been investigated and that it is on the table. No, it is not. There is poor empirical evidence regarding this, and we must ensure that it becomes better.

There is a responsibility for an accountable government to ensure that the decision-making basis is as good as possible. This government, together with us Sweden Democrats, will ensure that such a basis exists.

What we now see before us is a long-awaited paradigm shift in Swedish school policy, and in that paradigm shift lies also that we are to achieve a resource distribution model that is fair, that is forward-looking, that is transparent and that everyone understands.

As I said in a previous post: You who are now listening to this debate should not feel worried if you run small independent schools out in the country. We will ensure that we create a good financing model which, unlike the Social Democrats', does not mean that you will be forced to shut down your operations and give up the fight to provide students with the opportunity to choose the right school.

In the Tidö Agreement, we say that the question of school funding shall be investigated. Our aim is set on introducing a nationally binding school funding norm. We can see today that there are large differences between municipalities in terms of how much is allocated and how it is calculated, and that is not good. In that case, it is required that the state takes responsibility.

We would like to go all the way and have state ownership. The more state responsibility we get when it comes to the financing system, the better it is and the more order we get in the current system.

Furthermore, we guarantee the right to choose a school and that the independent schools (friskolor) are not affected by consequences from a government that actually wants to abolish them, as the Social Democratic government wanted.

It is also important that we get a financing system that is perhaps more linked to the state than to the municipalities. That is good, we think, because the municipalization was negative. It has had negative consequences. Then the state must step in and say: Now is the time for us to have control and ensure that we get the best of everything.

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes the debate develops in a direction that one has not quite envisioned, and then one might not be able to stick to the script that one has prepared and intended to stick to. In the event that this speech became a bit messy, I apologize. But for this other thing, I blame the Social Democrats.

(Applause)

In this speech, Anders Alftberg, Jörgen Grubb and Robert Stenkvist (all SD) concurred.

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! I noted that the majority of Patrick Reslow's speech was about the Social Democrats. I am flattered, Mr. Speaker, that there is such a great obsession and such a great focus on us Social Democrats. But perhaps Patrick Reslow should, after all, have stuck to his script so that we could have received some comments regarding what the Sweden Democrats actually want and what they think regarding the National Audit Office's audit report.

I have a question that I want to focus on. The Swedish National Audit Office points out that the Swedish school voucher system is an inefficient way to use our resources and that it leads to a waste of tax money. Independent schools are overcompensated with our tax money for responsibilities they do not have and do not take. This is thus stated by the Swedish National Audit Office. I will also add that the Sweden Democrats voted against proposals in precisely this direction that we submitted last spring.

How do the Sweden Democrats view the rather stinging criticism, one might say, from the National Audit Office regarding the Sweden Democrats' policy, which in practice means? The Sweden Democrats continue to stand up for the systemic errors that exist in Swedish schools. What do the Sweden Democrats think regarding what the National Audit Office notes about the waste of tax money?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly, the Swedish National Audit Office does not say that there is waste of tax money. It says that there are problems, and there are.

Secondly, it is not the case that the proposal that the National Audit Office now mentions was the proposal that the Social Democrats came up with. You were going to punish the independent schools. You were going to have a differentiated school fee, where you would punish the independent schools because they were independent schools. Why? Yes, because fundamentally you do not want to have independent schools. It was the profit interest you wanted to target. The Social Democrats have not even understood the difference between profit margin and profit withdrawal. To conduct a reasonable argument regarding these issues in that context becomes completely absurd.

Tell me how an independent school with a margin of maneuver of 3.5 percent is supposed to manage if it is simultaneously to receive a school fee that may be 10-15 percent lower than the municipal school's? There is no independent school that would manage.

I also think that Aylin Fazelian should tell me how independent schools should act if they are not allowed to make a profit when the Companies Act says that one must make a profit. Here, the Social Democrats are out on thin ice.

It is not a systemic error we are talking about. We have individual matters that must be corrected, but it is not about us creating differentiated systems where one school form and operational form is highlighted as more important than the other. That was the Social Democrats' big mistake this spring. That was why the chamber voted down the proposal.

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is sad. I think it is truly tragic that the Sweden Democrats stand here and defend and only talk about the school companies' right to take out profit. There is not a word about the children and our young people. There is not a word about the right to education and the right of teachers. There is only a focus on the right to take out profit. I wonder what the Sweden Democrats' voters think about that.

But I want to return to the question that I, despite everything, did not receive an answer to. The Sweden Democrats argue that we Social Democrats are against free schools when we state that municipal schools have a greater responsibility and thus greater additional costs and therefore should be compensated for it. It is exactly the same conclusion that the National Audit Office lands on. Does Patrick Reslow mean that the National Audit Office is also against free schools?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! According to Aylin Fazelian, the Sweden Democrats do not talk about what we want to do with the school. Let me then speak about what the problem is in Swedish school and what we want to achieve.

It is not the case that the knowledge results are completely fantastic and that we see a fantastic development over time when it comes to the knowledge results. It is not the case that the universities cheer over Swedish students' prior knowledge when they come to the university. It is not the case that Swedish upper secondary schools cheer over the knowledge gaps our ninth graders show when they come to upper secondary school. There is a reason why introductory courses in modern languages are introduced at the universities; the students have simply not learned what they are supposed to know when they come to the university.

This is the consequence of Social Democratic policy. Do the Sweden Democrats want to do something about this? Yes, we do, and we have massive proposals on how we put knowledge in focus and how we shall ensure that we strengthen the teaching staff and the teacher's role. We have proposals on how we shall ensure that it is quiet in the classrooms and how order is maintained. We have proposals on how we ensure that the universities adhere to academic freedom and how we get universities that are world-class and world-leading, which produce scientific articles and so on.

If Aylin Fazelian is interested in the Sweden Democrats' school policy, she is welcome to take out any of our committee motions and read up. There we explain this to the letter. But what we will never do is to present proposals where one form of operation is pointed out as more important than the other. What is important for us is the right for students to choose schools. It is that right that is central, nothing else.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is always pleasant when we have debates on education that there is so much from Malmö! Not bad - the school will surely become better because of it, we can take that as a given.

I want to start by reminding Member Reslow that he actually was Moderate when the school fee was lower, in the Moderate system.

Reslow talks a lot about state ownership. It is a mess he shares with the Liberals for some strange reason. Today there are around 900 owners. With a nationalization it would be around 600 owners. Is that what makes the difference?

To go from 900 to 600 principals, the Sweden Democrats want to completely tear up everyday life in Swedish school. All teachers shall change employment contracts. Buildings shall change hands. Every part of Swedish school shall be redesigned. It would take around 20 years, according to an investigation that is looking specifically at the question. It would take resources and energy away from Swedish school, that which is needed to teach students and not for making organizational changes. That is what the investigation also says.

Reslow also said that he wants a predictable and long-term regulatory framework. If we are completely in agreement on that, and that is why we think it would be nice to at some point receive a small invitation to the government to have a conversation about how we create this, because it is probably not created by a narrow majority.

If one then looks at this matter of nationalization, which we do not believe will happen, is it the state's management of Arbetsförmedlingen, where they suddenly shut down 100 offices around the country without the politicians wanting it, that one thinks is the state in its element? Is it when government after government has seized all possible money for the police so that you have to shut down education programs? Is that what is the goal for the state? Is it as with the defense, which has meant that we haven't even been able to defend the country?

Is that what the Sweden Democrats mean when they say that if the state governs, then it will be good?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the absolute best argument for state ownership is that we should escape this situation where our many municipalities interpret things differently and make different prioritizations in their budgets. Furthermore, there are a lot of burdens on the school that will also disappear. I believe it is important to have a uniform governance of the school in the whole country, and that is why we want state ownership.

I see no problems with teachers changing employment contracts and the like. On the contrary, I believe there is strong support within the teaching profession to return to state ownership. That question is something that teachers have pushed for for a long time.

I think it would be very good if that change were made, because then the state would also have the opportunity to ensure that it became more equitable in Swedish schools. Even though the municipalities will to some extent remain in Skolsverige, it is still the case that it is the national steering documents and the national funding systems that will be central.

I believe this is the most important measure to address the problem of equality in school.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is nothing new that the Sweden Democrats do not like diversity. But I am still a bit surprised. That school should be the same in Malmö, Filipstad, and Haparanda, that school can be managed in exactly the same way, and that the regulations can be exactly the same and look exactly the same in detail, does not work in practice. Half of Sweden's schools have under 200 students. They must be managed in a different way than Malmö's large city schools with 500 students. They are two completely different worlds. It will never be the case that everything is managed in the same way.

The idea that everything should be governed from this chamber, that we should stand here and find all the right answers for how it should look across the entire large, broad country, is a chimera. It does not exist! It is necessary that, based on local conditions, one can actually take local considerations, and that is reflected in welfare, in school, in healthcare etcetera.

When the authorities in Malmö closed the school where our good colleague Noria Manouchi went, she was able to create a strong local debate. She did a fantastic job with this, and that is among other reasons why she sits here in the Riksdag. She is skilled! If she had been forced to go to Lotta Edholm to say that this school in Malmö was a problem, she would never have succeeded. Today it might have succeeded, because now she sits in the Riksdag, but back then she did not do it.

Democratic proximity is extremely important for people. One does not understand that, and one does not understand that the state will then close small schools to make ends meet. They do not care about the countryside. They do not care about the outermost parts of the country when one sits here in Stockholm. We have seen this time and again, and that is why the Centerpartiet time and again fights for the countryside.

If one stands here, one can shut it down without any problems. Then it won't be like in Linköping or Norrköping now, namely that people get angry and talk to their local politician. It will go that far, because they have to go to Lotta Edholm, who will not care. She was in Linköping, but she didn't even talk to them. She had the chance, but she didn't do it.

Why should we be so far from people's everyday lives, so far from the sparsely populated areas, the countryside, etc.? Why must everything be decided in Stockholm? I do not understand it.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes a bit strange if one believes that state ownership means that everything should be located in Stockholm. It is about the regulatory frameworks. We have legislation in other areas that is decided in the Riksdag, and where the actual operations are then carried out elsewhere. That is not strange at all. It is about which regulatory framework one has and what governance and follow-up one should have when it comes to the regulatory frameworks. It is very remarkable if the Center Party has not understood that, but then I understand a bit why one has fallen behind.

I actually think that it is the local aspect that is the problem in Swedish schools today. The municipalization meant that a lot of municipalities make different priorities. One did not get any uniform governance over things. So we cannot continue any longer.

I also do not share Niels Paarup-Petersen's views regarding schools in rural areas, namely that it would become particularly difficult if one has a state ownership. The problem has been that municipalization has resulted in the closure of smaller schools in rural areas, rural schools, and the like. This is done because the municipalities do not have the money and resources to maintain the small schools, which I believe one will have if one gets a state ownership and a state financing responsibility.

It is in the municipal Sweden that rural schools are being closed. That was not done to the same extent when we had a state ownership.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The question of private schools' right to take out profit still lives to a very high degree. But after over a decade of struggle from the Left Party's side, where we for a long time alone have driven the issue of a profit ban, the school companies' champions have finally, one by one, slowly retreated. It is rarely we today hear high political representatives argue about the excellence of profit distributions as proof of how good the school companies and the independent schools are. It is perhaps possibly one or two Sweden Democrats who have suddenly woken up and express their wholehearted support for the school giants' draining of our tax funds - to the great confusion of the audience, it should be added.

We should not, however, believe that the rhetoric surrounding the school issue has caused the united right to radically change their position. On the contrary, it is rather a question of the people's will finally gaining ground, that is to say, the people who have for a long time been massively opposed to profits in welfare. They simply believe that tax money should go to what it is intended for. Vänsterpartiet has long maintained that every krona should go to the children and to the teachers. That is where our tax money does good, not in the owners' pockets.

Mr. Speaker! The loyalty to capital among the representatives of the right remains, even if it is rhetorically difficult for them to justify it. When it comes to our school minister, we have every reason to ask whether it is the Swedish people and the students she primarily represents, or whether it is her old friends in the school companies. That is perhaps also why the government chooses to delay the question of the school fee until the very end. Why else does the government choose to investigate the entire question of the school fee again, when there are completed proposals available?

From the government, we hear again the same old talk and see as little action as always. Is it so that the school companies can milk the people on paid taxes to the highest extent possible until the very end? I don't actually expect an honest answer to that question, but I want to be clear that we all see what is going on.

Regarding the design of the school fee, the Left Party otherwise believes that a system with class fees should be introduced instead of today's compensation per pupil. Today's model rewards large classes, or as the school company mogul Barbara Bergström herself expresses it: In a system with school fees, surpluses are created primarily because we can fill the classes. The school fee for the last two pupils in a full class is high compared to the marginal cost for the same pupils.

This means in plain language that in a school where the classes are small, with many teachers, the cost per pupil becomes much higher than if there are large classes. We know that it is a way for private school companies to make money, as they can have fewer employees and larger classes - just as Barbara Bergström herself admits.

Schools with high teacher density and smaller classes are disadvantaged, as are rural schools and schools with a need for smaller teaching groups. If we instead introduce a system with class funding in combination with a special compensation distributed based on the students' individual needs, all schools would benefit in the end.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party continues to represent the view held by a majority of the Swedish people - the money should go to the children, to the education, not to private profit.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to express once again that it is high time that we once and for all address the problems we see in schools today. Unfortunately, the right has for years blocked all opportunities to stop the leakage and thus the draining of Swedish school. Unfortunately, they also do not seem to want to do anything about the problems in a government position, at least not for real. Swedish school and the Swedish people deserve better.

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have to deal with the Swedish National Audit Office's report on school money - efficiency and consequences.

The National Audit Office has reviewed the regulatory framework for school funding to independent schools and concludes that the provisions concerning compensation to individual school owners for primary school students in certain respects counteract an equal school.

The regulatory framework is complicated and unclear, which causes difficulties in assessing applications for new establishments. According to today's 30-year-old system, there is a possibility for the Skolinspektionen to deny an application for the establishment of a new school, for example, if the analysis shows that a new establishment would entail significant negative consequences in the long term.

The National Audit Office, however, argues that the lack of clarity in the rules leads to an all too narrow application of these possibilities. Furthermore, the National Audit Office argues that the current school funding system entails difficulties for both the principals' possibilities to plan their operations and for the state and municipalities to achieve an effective distribution of resources.

Mr. Speaker! When the friskola reform was implemented in 1992 by the Bildt government, the goal was to achieve the greatest possible freedom for children and parents to choose school. This freedom was to mean the possibility to choose between the public school system and independent schools, but also to choose between a school in one's own municipality or a school in another municipality.

In the principal starting points set out in the bill from 1992, it states, among other things, that in order to create realistic opportunities for parents and students to choose between the municipalities' schools and independent schools, it is required that those who choose an independent school are assured the right to substantially the same conditions and economic circumstances as those who choose a municipal school.

Equal conditions, it is noted, however, does not necessarily mean that every school is given the same financial support. The public support that falls to a school must be based on what responsibility and commitment the school takes and fulfills. This is thus in line with the fundamental principles of the bill that Carl Bildt submitted to the Riksdag to be considered in 1992.

It is also from these principles, Mr. Speaker, that the Moderaterna, together with the other parties in the government base, now want to renovate the 30-year-old friskole system. The system shall, of course, be permeated by diversity, quality, and equality. That is also how we secure the freedom of choice.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Moderates presented several proposals to tighten the system. It may well be needed after 30 years. Stricter ownership review, quality requirements for profit, the possibility to demand back school funds in cases of crime and fraud, and increased supervision. The Social Democrats said no to all of this.

In the Tidö Agreement, we present further proposals on economic guarantees, profit prohibitions during the first year, and a sanction scale in the event of quality deficiencies. The system is not perfect and must be nurtured, and it is not about shifts in positions but about long-term responsibility. The Swedish National Audit Office's report and measures, which are to be investigated, will be another step in a classic Moderate direction regarding order in the finances, as former Finance Minister Anders Borg used to say.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office notes that municipalities have the statutory social responsibility for all students' right to a good school but lack decisive influence over the school's long-term planning. Free school corporations often choose to establish themselves in locations with a student base that creates favorable conditions for profit extraction, while municipal schools are then affected by overcapacity and rising average costs.

My question to you, Noria Manouchi, is: How do you intend to address the problems that the National Audit Office describes in its report regarding the severe consequences for the municipal schools' finances now that you have voted no to municipalities being given increased influence over free school establishments?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are definitely opposed to the municipalities having a right of veto when it comes to the establishment of independent schools. We are fully aware of the independent school slaughter that would occur in the Social Democratic municipalities if such a right of veto existed. We are well aware of the 400,000 pupils and 80,000 teachers who choose to attend or work in an independent school and that their places would be threatened by such a veto - Social Democratic municipalities from north to south would carry out the independent school slaughter that the previous Social Democratic government craved. It is true that we are opposed to such a veto.

What we want is expanded supervision. What we want is for the proposals that the Swedish National Audit Office is now presenting to be investigated.

What happened during the previous parliamentary term, Mr. Speaker, was that the Social Democratic government presented a bill that was based on an investigation that was appallingly substandard. This made it impossible for us in the opposition to support the government in any of the issues that were presented. It was impossible, and it was actually embarrassing how poorly that bill—which was based on an equally poor investigation—was written.

Even then we flagged that which we now intend to implement. An investigation was needed that takes long-term perspective into account and that thoroughly worked-out proposals for national equality are required. This is what we proposed then, and it is what we propose now. It is to take responsibility for real.

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that the proposals put forward by the Social Democratic government were hailed by Skolsverige, by Konkurrensverket, and by instance after instance pointing out that these were necessary reforms. The criticism of the system as it stands is widespread – everyone from teachers and students to international organizations such as the OECD points to the problems with the market school. Yet the right-wing parties seem to put their hands over their ears and refuse to listen. It is called embarrassing and bad, but heavy instances, heavy authorities, and international organizations pointed out how important these proposals were.

The Moderates do not want to do anything about the market school. For the Moderates, it is much more important to protect the school companies' right to profit and expansion than to put our children and students first, regardless of which school they attend and regardless of which form of operation it is.

Let me give an example from my own constituency. In the surrounding municipalities of Gothenburg, Internationella Engelska Skolan is pushing hard to establish itself where the student base is favorable. In Härryda municipality, for example, they want to open the gates for 600 students. The municipality assesses that this would lead to 1,000 empty school desks, which would mean that the students in the municipal schools would be forced to live with large cuts while the limited company takes out profit.

I repeat my question to Noria Manouchi: What will the Moderates do regarding the difficult financial situation of municipal schools when independent schools continue to have free freedom of establishment?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! The independent schools do not have a right of free establishment, which is also noted in the National Audit Office's report. The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has the right to deny them to establish themselves. The Social Democrats cannot stand in this speaker's chair and lie about the fact that the Swedish Schools Inspectorate does not have the right to do so, because they do.

The National Audit Office notes that the regulatory framework is difficult to interpret, and this is something we are now willing to rectify. That is how one takes responsibility for policy. That is how one takes responsibility for ensuring that the systems function. One ensures that there is a majority in this chamber that is willing to see to it that the systems function. One does not hedge in the debate and disregard the majority conditions only to then fail to push through any of the changes that one believes will save the school. That is not how things are done in a serious manner.

I can also take an example from my own municipality when we are now talking about the municipalities' difficult economic situation and how the friskolor (independent schools) exploit the system.

In my municipality, Malmö, there are many areas of exclusion and even more schools with difficult problems. When we have school groups—which the Social Democrats claim is the biggest problem within Swedish schools—that want to establish themselves in the tough areas because they believe they can actually run a good operation, the Social Democrats say no. I say this so that the member shall be aware of their own party's accountability in these issues. Then the Social Democrats cut the municipal school budget by 200 million.

It is true that I, as in Malmö, do not want to give the Social Democrats a veto over what the Swedish school system should look like.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Manouchi used a classic bourgeois expression in the speaker's chair. It was wonderful; there are many of us who miss the good old alliance days with bourgeois rule!

The finances are in great shape. We are going to have order in the finances in Swedish schools. As the member mentioned, we have not always seen that in the Social Democrat-governed municipality of Malmö – the member and I have certain shared experiences from there – and we still do not always see it.

I can also state that there is not quite any order in the finances of Swedish schools. If I am to be a bit liberal, or conservative, I can say that there must be certain prerequisites if one is to have a market. Competition on equal terms is one such prerequisite, and the regulatory frameworks are what create a market. A market without a regulatory framework is not free – Nobel laureates say this; it is not just me.

If a municipality thinks it would be fantastic to have staffed school libraries in all schools in the municipality and wants to make it a reality, it costs a lot of money at the current time. Let us say that it costs 1 million and that half of the schools in the municipality are independent schools. Then the municipality would not have to pay 1 million, but 2 million to do this. The one million goes to the independent schools, which do not need to introduce school libraries. You are therefore paying twice as much as it costs without getting double the effect. This is not having the finances in order, it is throwing tax money into the lake. This is what we are used to seeing as a Social Democratic "paradgren" (ideal opportunity). I am very sorry to now see this as a Moderate "paradgren".

I would like to hear from the member: Are we ready to properly tackle the school fee?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank my dear colleague from Malmö for these questions.

It is absolutely the case that the Moderaterna, during this mandate period, just as during the previous mandate period, are ready to tackle the Swedish school voucher system. This is not a new position. This is not a shift in position, but rather it is to maintain the Moderate line. We are willing to investigate this issue. We are willing to take measures to achieve a better functioning financing system for Swedish school.

This can be read in our positions in various types of committee motions and follow-up motions during the previous parliamentary term. One will also witness this during this parliamentary term. I want to be very clear about that.

We shall establish a system that ensures money goes to the right things, and we will base it on the principles that the 1992 proposition was founded on. The responsibility and the commitment that the school takes and fulfills shall be leading for a new system for school funding. That is my promise. What is yours? The Center Party is now changing its school policy, but the party leader does not point out any direction but merely states that one doesn't quite know but that something might come. I wonder where your announcement is. The bourgeois, liberal Center Party that supports the Social Democrats, what will be your announcement to the voters?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! What a wonderful question to receive. Now I must allow myself to lay out the text regarding the Center Party. I assume that we will continue to be a liberal party - unfortunately the only one remaining in the Riksdag.

We have democracy within the parties, and I appreciate that we utilize that structure before we say how we are going to reorganize our policy; it is valuable.

I wondered if the Moderates are ready to tackle the issue, and the answer was that they are ready to investigate it. That sounds like a Social Democratic answer. Presenting more investigations instead of doing something now was a criticism of the January Agreement. I wonder how the Moderates view that?

Of course, we must investigate to find out how things stand, but there is much here that is not legally complicated. It is about what is to be priced.

We are the absolute greatest friends of freedom of choice. We want a school with freedom of choice and reasonableness. Many teachers will surely be surprised when I say: Let us get a bit more market into the school. Let us ensure that what we pay for is also delivered. A market is when one gets paid for what one delivers and competes on equal terms. But that is not what happens today.

The problem is that we have the strange arrangement where one can say that they want to be involved and then receive payment regardless of what they do. Many receive payment for more than they deliver. It can also be difficult to get paid for what one actually delivers. Should we not do something about this and get the finances in order?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! What our schools shall compete with is quality. Students and parents shall have the right to choose a school, and they shall have the right to make decisions themselves regarding their family situation and their future. That right shall not be taken away from them by, for example, the Social Democrats.

My message regarding the Swedish school funding system is that we are willing to address it. It is stated in the Tidö Agreement, and the government has repeatedly been clear that it wants to address this. If this is not sufficient as a guarantee for the member, he can go back and look at what the Moderaterna proposed during the previous mandate period.

We are very keen to address Swedish school funding, but we are not willing to present proposals to the Chamber that are under-worked and based on a substandard investigation. To those who claim that this does not need to be investigated and that the investigations already conducted are sufficient, my message is: We will not present proposals based on poor investigations.

The previous investigation was not good. It did not even map out the direct costs. The member requests what is expected to cost. Let us start by looking at that, because we need to answer that question in order to be able to develop a long-term sustainable system. That is the ambition of the Moderates and the government.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 2.

Today we are discussing the Swedish National Audit Office's report on school fees. What does the National Audit Office say then? Is the regulatory framework for school fees equivalent today? No. Is it effective? No. It was not good. Then one can ask: Does the government want to do anything about it that quickly? No. It is a problem.

Here is where we stand today. We have a system that is neither equitable nor efficient and which the government does not want to address. It is a challenge.

Investigations are good. We can agree that school policy in recent years has not yielded as much effect as many of us would have liked to see. This applies to both sides and the extremely narrow center. But we know that there are a lot of schools that are paid for things they do not do.

Imagine that we have a shop with two different suppliers of milk, for example Skånemejerier and Arla. We would like to support the local farmers and are prepared to pay a little extra to get milk from them through Skånemejerier because one gives the rural areas of Skåne better conditions and good terms. The competitor offers German milk with worse conditions for the animals. We agree to have a low-price alternative, but the supplier wants the same money as Skånemejerier. Why, we say, you have worse conditions for the animals and do not help the rural areas of Skåne. Then they say that they are in the same market and should be paid just as much, and that Skånemejerier's higher costs for the same product does not mean they should receive less pay.

No one would take the German milk for the same price, as that would have been very strange. The market works such that lower quality yields lower pay. That is how it works in all markets except the Swedish school market.

The problem with the Swedish school system is not that it is a market, but that the market does not function. From a liberal perspective, it is a huge challenge that with the current system, it is impossible to compete. If the municipalities have a high cost, independent schools receive high pay. If the municipal school has low costs, independent schools receive low pay. In other words, the independent school also has no opportunity to improve quality, because they are not paid for it. Every time a municipality is to achieve a quality increase, they must pay double, and every time an independent school wants to achieve a quality increase, they cannot be paid for it.

This is a bad resource model for Swedish schools, which means that a huge amount of money disappears that does not go towards better schooling. This is everyday life in Swedish schools. From that perspective, we need more market thinking, more freedom of choice, and more reasonableness. One should compete with high quality instead of competing with lower quality and taking out money. This is what we must do.

Then I must ask my old good bourgeois friends in M: Why do you want such a waste of taxpayers' money? I must ask the Liberals: Why do you want such a waste of taxpayers' money? Why does KD want such a waste of taxpayers' money? It is not reasonable! I can also ask SD - I started with the bourgeois friends: Why do you want such a waste of taxpayers' money? It is not reasonable! It must be changed.

The Social Democrats did an incredibly poor job during the last parliamentary term. They failed to do what they were supposed to. I spoke with them, and we could have taken steps forward, but they did not. But now it is you who are in power. It is not possible to blame what has been. It is forward that we must think. That is what we must do. And it can be changed.

We must be honest that the resource model is crucial, for example for small schools in the countryside. They are expensive. The only way to fix this, to keep small schools in many places, that is not achievable. They are closed instead. It is done in Linköping where M and S rule together. It is done in Norrköping where it is L, KD and M who rule together. It is done because one does not see the possibility of having very high costs for certain students when one simultaneously must pay extra for a lot of extra students who do not attend those specific schools.

Why must Linköping and Norrköping, in order to maintain freedom of choice and the possibility for children in the countryside to attend a local school, pay for large central schools in the middle of the city that are run by corporations in Stockholm? Why is that reasonable?

This is the kind of thing that knocks out rural schools across Sweden. It doesn't work to have them, because it is too expensive. It is also about qualified teachers: the more qualified teachers, the more expensive it is. Therefore, you must pay as if all independent schools had qualified teachers. But they do not, because it is cheaper, but you must pay for them as if they did. It is not reasonable! It is the same thing with staffed school libraries. If all the municipal schools have it – which is not the case, let us be clear about that – you must pay for it at schools that do not have it. Why is that reasonable? It is not reasonable. And what about student health? The better student health you want to create for your students, the more you must pay to someone else who is not delivering it.

There is no other market that works that way. It is not reasonable. If Skanska is commissioned to build a motorway and receives 1 billion per kilometer, we don't pay NCC 1 billion to build a local road next to it, do we? No, we perhaps pay them 800 million, because it is cheaper to build. Why should we, specifically in the school market, pay that billion instead? It is not reasonable!

We must return to the principle that one should not have to pay for things that one does not do. This applies to both the school system and all other areas. In the current situation, it is such that the one who has ambitions cannot compete with the one who does not because it becomes too expensive.

With today's resource model, we ensure that we have a resource distribution that rewards low ambitions over high ones. It cannot be a bourgeois school policy! We have a left that is ideologically opposed to freedom of choice. We are ideologically for freedom of choice, and we want it. But freedom of choice must ensure that we get a good schooling, not a bad one.

So please, let's get things happening! Let's not wait for a lot of years. If we are to wait for an investigation that has not yet been appointed to first start investigating, it takes two years - I believe the last one took that - and then we are to start discussing and after that a proposition shall be submitted, and then it will be like last time: It is submitted just before the election, and it becomes an election issue instead of solving the school's problems.

We can do better, but then the government must also start inviting the other parties and ensure that things happen. And that, my friends, I hope happens very soon.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish school faces great challenges. We need to re-establish an educational tradition based on trust and confidence between students, teachers, and parents. We need a school with order and discipline where students experience safety and peace of mind, a school that has high expectations of both students and staff, a school that meets every student's challenges with faith in the student's potential to succeed, and a school where every child gets the opportunity to realize their own dreams.

There are many different things that need to be done to steer towards this goal and reverse the development in the Swedish school system. Many measures are needed, but making it more difficult for friskolor to help students is not one of those things. On the contrary, an important part of restoring the Swedish school system is that the friskolor are given the best possible conditions to participate and contribute to helping students succeed in school.

Madam Speaker! Free schools create a diversity and a greater opportunity for parents and students to exercise their right to choose a school that fits, but also, perhaps even more importantly, to opt out of one that does not work.

All students have the right to attend a school where they feel good, enjoy themselves, are given peace to work, and are treated with respect. But unfortunately, that is not the case today. It is a major problem that naturally needs to be addressed from several sides, but the least a student can expect here and now is, in any case, that they can be allowed to switch to another school.

A school system that allows for choice and diversity can also be quality-driving and contribute to the development of the entire school system. An active school choice can, if it is used correctly and constructed correctly, be a factor that actually also reduces segregation, because it is significantly easier for economically weaker families to choose a good school than to buy a home in the area where the school is located.

Madam Speaker! Having the freedom to choose a school has a value in itself. Free schools should not be regarded as complements to the municipal school, but as schools that operate on exactly the same terms. If free schools are to have the opportunity to operate on the same terms as the municipal schools, they also need to receive a fair compensation. It is here that this debate, in connection with the National Audit Office's report, comes into the picture.

Finding a model for how independent schools should be financed in a fair way is not entirely simple, not only because the municipality's costs can be measured in many different ways but also because the independent schools are so different. They have different profiles that cost different amounts, they have different costly student bases, and they have different sized governing bodies that have different conditions when it comes to economies of scale, investment capital, and so on. Therefore, we have reason to approach this question of compensation to independent schools with some humility.

For indeed, the home municipality responsibility entails an extra cost for the municipality, admittedly not necessarily for the individual school, but well for the municipality as the principal, and indeed municipal primary schools may sometimes need to conduct their activities with fewer students in the classes than what would be most economically advantageous. But at the same time, the picture is not quite so simple either. Simultaneously, not all independent schools have the number of students they want and need for a reasonable economy. And at the same time, independent schools are also often not compensated for premises costs in a fair way, depending on how different municipalities calculate. We also know that the additional amount for students in need of special support very rarely is paid out to the independent schools.

That is why one needs to look closer at this issue. There are no given simple answers for how to replace the friskolor in the most equitable way possible. That is why the Kristdemokraterna have always opposed left-wing ideas about generally lowering the compensation for precisely the independent schools. But it is clear, however, that the current school funding model has some skewed effects. From the Kristdemokraterna's perspective, it is reasonable that the schools receive compensation per pupil, but it clearly becomes difficult to plan for the principals when the level of the school funding for all pupils can vary depending on whether a pupil switches from one school to the other.

As we have touched upon earlier in the debate, a large part of the school's costs are fixed and cannot be reduced if the school loses some students. If a student switches from the municipal school to an independent school nearby, the municipality's average cost per student on its own municipal schools increases. Thus, the school fee and the total cost for the students in the municipality increase, even though it is actually the same number of students. It is the reasonableness of such things that one can reflect upon.

Madam Speaker! If one is a supporter of freedom of choice and independent schools, one must be prepared to reflect on these issues, refine the system, and correct imbalances. Therefore, the Christian Democrats have long been advocates for increased state governance of the school voucher model. We therefore welcome the Swedish National Audit Office's conclusions, the government's response, and the government's announced investigations and proposals in the Tidö Agreement. We look forward to what can be put on the table as quickly as possible.

The school exists for the students, not the other way around. Sweden shall also continue to have a school system where parents and students have the right to choose which school one shall attend, a system where good schools are encouraged and bad schools are scrutinized, rectified, and closed down, a system where no child is held back or left behind, and a system where every child is given the best possible conditions to realize their dreams.

With this, I move for approval of the proposal in the Education Committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office has reviewed the school voucher system in its current form and concludes on an overall level that it counteracts an equal school and that it needs to be changed.

The system makes it difficult to plan and allocate resources in an efficient way. It is noted that the responsibility for all students' education, which only the municipality has, costs money. Therefore, equal conditions is not a fair and efficient way to distribute money. It can lead to absurdities that we have heard about today, where students' change of school leads to increased costs for the municipality's students, which means that the municipality needs to give money to someone else who does not have increased costs, and it can lead to that increased costs that only affect one municipality, such as a property renovation, result in money being given to someone who has not renovated a property.

I would like to take the opportunity to be a little humble here in the chamber. I am last on the speaking list, so it is no use for me to urge others to also be so. I have, however, noted that different members have slightly different attitudes toward humility.

The National Audit Office considers that governments since 1998 have been slow in handling the observations made regarding the municipalities' additional costs, so it would be appropriate if we all took the review seriously. Now we have a new government at the helm, and it places great emphasis on what previous governments have done during eight years or, more accurately stated, notes that nothing has happened. This may, however, be because focus has been on something other than the school debate.

I am going to be a bit retrospective and apologize for this in advance. It shall not become a habit, and we can soon leave that stage.

After the 2014 election, there was a unanimous voice from the school world: If you touch it, you kill it. Do nothing more with the school! We are exhausted. There have been reforms of curricula and grading systems. We just want peace to work.

It was a look back at where we were then.

Miljöpartiet provided more employees in the school during its time. We ensured that teachers' salaries became higher. Schools received resources for renovations, which were overdue. We regulated the groups in preschool. We introduced a read-write-count guarantee. We tackled the basic work. Since it is a school debate, Madam Speaker, perhaps I should say that we did the homework. We convened a school commission because we must have a broad foundation to stand on where research and profession provide the underlying data. We wanted to investigate a stronger and more equal school system. We clarified at an early stage that the profit hunt must be removed from the school equation.

Now it is time to put this knowledge to work. My message to the government, which in every way has been clear that the previous government was useless at cooperating with others, is therefore: We are waiting. Show us now how we should have acted! Take the leadership that you will have for four years and manage it! I believe that Swedish school has earned political long-termism and accountability.

From now on, I thought primarily to look forward, because we want things to happen now. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party have a common reservation in the report. We want to see swift work from the government in this matter. We urge the government to use the underlying documents that exist.

I am deeply concerned about every year that passes with worsened conditions for the education of children and young people. They are the main characters here, as are teachers and everyone else who works in the school, and we must provide them with the conditions to do a good job. Every year a new cohort begins in preschool, and every year some begin middle school or take the scary step up to upper secondary school. One begins upper secondary school, graduates, and moves on into working life and further studies. It happens every year.

If we have been so slow before, we shall see how it goes now when it becomes fast and correct.

Just today, the subject of the debate is the Swedish National Audit Office's review of the school voucher system. However, I would like to lift our gaze a little from the school voucher to the entire system. In our country, we have allowed the school to become a market where teachers become service personnel, parents become customers, and children become purses of money being moved around. As long as we have students who leave school without sufficient knowledge to continue to upper secondary school, it is directly offensive that our common money, which we spend on school, is not used effectively. That is what the Swedish National Audit Office says in its report.

When it is not children's and young people's right to education that is the purpose of an activity but profit distribution, it is clear that it becomes an unfair system where our common money suddenly goes towards buying a waffle stall or an archipelago plot. It is not education. It is not having students, teachers, or other school professionals at the center.

But this is not about what profit distribution does to certain schools, but about what it does to the entire system. Almost regardless of which problem is highlighted, one returns to the fact that market logic is a problem – more "joy grades," fewer trained educators, and a greater and larger need for control. I think this is a warning signal. It results in more bureaucracy and control, and teachers' mandates are curtailed.

We need to tackle the foundation of how we view the conditions of education, we need to tackle the entire market school, and we need to ensure that education is about the pursuit of knowledge. The time has come. New students start in school every year, and they do not have time to wait.

The school deserves that we can cooperate politically and that we are not constantly interfering in details and symbolic issues that have little or no effect on the learning outcomes. We shall give teachers and principals the best conditions to do their jobs for every student. We shall build an equal school. I look forward to us doing that during this mandate period.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 1, which means that the government shall, quickly and based on existing knowledge, rectify that which the National Audit Office has pointed out in its report.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I requested the floor because the member said that it is important to hurry. There is a rush to achieve a rule change. That is how I understood it. And in the reservation, it states that a proposal for a more equivalent school fee should be submitted as soon as possible.

Then there is a problem. If one does not have a good basis, should one still, as a government and government basis, present a proposal? That is at least not my view. It is important to have a good basis for the decision that one wants to make. It is not about the important thing being that it goes quickly. The important thing is that it becomes right and good.

I therefore wonder if Camilla Hansén shares the opinion that a law to be enacted should be right and good and have a good basis, and that it is not primarily about it going quickly?

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Patrick Reslow for the question. Different governments can, of course, assess the basis in different ways. And we see that there is some pulling in the directives and different messages are coming out regarding how the investigations should proceed.

I think it is important that we move forward in this issue quickly. Criticism has been directed repeatedly at previous governments that it is going too slowly. Therefore, I would like to see that there can be some pace when it comes to the changes that are needed.

These are not new questions. If this entire assembly is to take self-critical responsibility, the National Audit Office actually directs criticism towards all governments since 1998.

Make your assessment of the basis! We, the dissenters, believe that there is a basis to proceed.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! The problem now is that it is a new government, and this government does not have at all the same ambition as the old one had when it comes to implementing legislation that involves discriminating against a certain form of operation. Our idea is that a national school funding norm shall be introduced. There is no basis for this. And we still have a preparation requirement that applies in Sweden. If a government wants legislation that involves having a national school funding norm, it must investigate the issue.

What I have heard here in the chamber from Camilla Hansén and others is that there is criticism regarding the desire to appoint an inquiry. But there is actually a legal requirement that an inquiry must be appointed in order to have a basis for implementing the policy that one wants.

Then the question to Camilla Hansén: Does she think it is good that one follows such a regulatory framework and appoints an investigation so that one gets a good basis for a decision? Or is it most important that it always goes quickly and that we should have a quick decision with a poor and deficient basis that is not in line with the government's will?

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Patrick Reslow says that it is a problem that it is a new government, and I can, in fact, agree with that.

It is you who are in power now. If you are not satisfied with the underlying documents that exist for you to want to do something completely different, then produce your own underlying documents! It is you who are responsible for the preparatory process.

There is nothing here that says one should not follow the preparation conditions that exist. But we mean that there is a basis for what now needs to be done. We want to see that it happens.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report Skolpengen - efficiency and consequences

As previously mentioned, it is somewhat concerning that we are facing the 2026 election and are in the same position as before the 2022 election, while for a long time from many parties we have pointed out that this is a problem.

I also notice that some confusion is being created here regarding the regulation of the school fee and how it should function, how it should work with school choice, and when it comes to profit distribution. It is probably a good opportunity to be clear that this is about it being fair and long-term sustainable. It is not about us not having school choice. On the other hand, it is about the fact that we cannot have a market school that sets a completely different logic for education than the one we want to see, where it is knowledge that is at the center – where it is the students' knowledge and the teachers' conditions that should be the basis for a long-term and sustainable policy.

We haven't really delivered here. It wavers a bit between different governments. New initiatives are actually needed now where we take a collective responsibility that is based on more than a three-mandate difference in the chamber.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 23 March.)

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