(cont. from § 6) Response to interpellation 2024/25:252 on national minority languages and budget cuts
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that a prioritization has been made by redistributing state grants from administrative municipalities to the language centers' activities because these funds were not fully utilized 1. M emphasizes that the language centers are a well-functioning operation that should be strengthened 1 and that the government is working towards language revitalization by improving mother tongue instruction, removing prerequisite requirements for Sami, and offering Sami instruction within Äldreomsorgslyftet 2. S considers it problematic when money is redistributed and that the strange way of handling the budget process creates concern 3. S emphasizes the importance of resources so that language speakers can reclaim and develop their languages 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I shall try to recall which questions we debated just before the adjournment.
A question I received from the interpellator concerned how we found the money, that is, whether we found them or if we changed our minds and did something else to get hold of them. There, I want to clarify that already in the budget presentation, when I presented that we had set aside 8 million kronor for the language centers' activities, I said that we will return with an announcement on what the entire framework will look like.
There was already a thought that we need to strengthen the language centers' activities with more funds, but that we will need to look at redistributions within the framework of the regulatory letter processes. However, nothing can be said about this until the Riksdag has made a decision on the budget. That is why I tried to inform as clearly as I could that the framework will be larger, but that we have to come back to it later.
When the Riksdag had finally reached a decision on the budget, there were reasons for us to look at what the outcome will be and how we should strengthen an operation that we consider to be well-functioning and which works in a good way with language revitalization for the minority languages.
Just as Member Räihä pointed out in a previous post, we then landed on that we would make a redistribution. We have redistributed a part of the money – i.e., the state grant – that has gone to administrative municipalities and used them for the language centers' activities.
This can, of course, be questioned. It falls within the scope of politics to do so. It is a prioritization that we have made, and we made it against the background that the state grant that went to the administrative municipalities was not fully utilized over several years. There are slightly different reasons for this which are also being discussed, but for various reasons there have been funds in the state grant that has been paid out annually to the administrative municipalities, which they have not spent and which have therefore returned to the state treasury at the end of the year.
That is how it has looked repeatedly over several years. For that reason, we think it is better that these funds are put to use somewhere where we know they are needed, rather than that we are constantly paying them out in the form of a state grant where the entire amount is not used.
Some of the money from the state grant and the appropriation is used to cover the language centers' operations. That is how the total framework looks, i.e., the 28 million that we are talking about. That was why we earmarked 8.5 million of them in the budget and had to come back later with what the remaining part would look like.
That is how we have made the prioritization, because we saw that we would need to prioritize. We could not do it in any other way, but we needed to look at where we could find money for that which we still consider to be a well-functioning operation. Then we chose to do the redistribution and reprioritization of funds.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, even though I think it is a somewhat strange way to handle a budget process. It creates concern.
It also becomes more difficult democratically for the opposition to discuss something that one cannot see, that is, what is on the table, such as a regulatory letter. It would have shown more clearly how the government intends to handle the budget and the items within it. This is already done early on, when the budget for 2025 is adopted. This is still a somewhat strange way to handle it.
Well, in a state budget, 50 million is quite a small amount of money, but for the activities the money provides, it makes a considerable difference. It is good that money has been found, but just as my colleague said: When you redistribute, you take from something else, and it is problematic when you do that.
What is this issue about then? Well, it is about the fact that we need to have resources for the national minority languages so that language speakers throughout the country can maintain, reclaim and develop their language. It is important.
When it comes to Sámi Giellagáldu in particular, it is a problem that the cooperation agreement has not been taken into account. I truly hope that it is done, not only for the sake of Nordic cooperation but because it is important what the activity leads to. It is about respect but also about preserving the language and the culture. It is important that we show respect for those who speak the language.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with Member Lindh that language is an entirely vital part of us as human beings and of being able to maintain both ourselves, our heritage, and our culture.
What we disagree on is how one needs to prioritize and how one can choose to invest in language revitalization. On the table was a grant that was temporarily 90 million kronor, which the previous government allocated during 2022-2024.
We have had a tough budget situation to contend with. We have tried to look at how we can best manage the budget and at the same time strengthen where we see that the language revitalization is making a difference. The language centers are a fantastic activity that was introduced under the previous government and which we choose to safeguard by directing funds to it in the way I have previously described.
We also do other things. I believe in long-term thinking when it comes to language revitalization. It is a key to success.
Language promotion efforts must be able to be carried out in several ways. The Government does this, among other things, by improving the conditions for mother tongue instruction and removing obstacles such as prior knowledge requirements for, for example, Sami so that one can be able to study one's language. It is about the fact that one previously needed to know the language before being allowed to study it in upper secondary school. We are changing that now.
We ensure that within the framework of Äldreomsorgslyftet, one can learn Sami during paid working hours in order to be able to manage healthcare and elderly care.
We are also looking to change teacher education in order to strengthen the supply of competence in the long term. So one can also work with language revitalization.
I believe that all of this taken together will mean that we can safeguard both Sami and the other minority languages moving forward.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.