Healthcare, medical care and social care

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is a harsh winter, not only here outside the Riksdag building but also in the Swedish economy. The government has therefore presented a restrained budget which means that we take responsibility in an economically tough time and prioritize what is most important.

We strengthen the finances of families and companies when ordinary people struggle with high electricity and fuel prices, high inflation, and high interest rates. We launch the largest offensive ever against organized crime. And we arm both the military and civil defense strongly – something that needed to be done long before Russia's war of aggression against our friends in Ukraine.

The bourgeois government prioritizes what is most important. It is also noticeable that we prioritize healthcare and welfare.

The situation within healthcare is strained. By that, I am not primarily thinking of the increasing spread of covid, the RS virus, and the influenza that are currently raging, but of the long healthcare queues that the Social Democrats have left behind.

163,000 people have not received the care they need in time, and only 60 percent are treated within the care guarantee's three months. This is not sufficient. The government therefore begins its important work of cutting the care queues, so that those who are ill receive care in time, and begins the work to create more equal care for all people in the entire country.

We are allocating 100 million to a national state healthcare coordination to make healthcare capacity visible, shorten the queues, and offer faster care for people regardless of where in the country they live. In addition to the three billion for the queues, we are also introducing a new performance-based compensation of 2 billion kronor to increase the number of healthcare beds.

Improving accessibility within healthcare by shortening waiting times and reducing queues is one of the most important issues for the bourgeois government. But unfortunately, this does not seem to apply to the opposition, which has repeatedly set records in healthcare queues and additionally stood for a welfare betrayal during the previous mandate period. Not only the Socialdemokraterna but also Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet - the united opposition - say no to the government's initiatives which focus precisely on more people who are ill receiving the care they need on the day they need it.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to mention the government's prioritization of the reinforced and extended investment in maternity care and women's health, which will amount to 4.7 billion kronor over the next three years, so that more women can feel safe during childbirth.

I had the privilege of becoming a father a couple of years ago and remember how significant Filippa and the other midwives at Nya Karolinska were for me and my family when our son was born. Of course, I want every woman expecting a child in the country to be treated in the same wonderful way. Therefore, I think it is very good that the government is now going to develop a national maternity plan that will increase accessibility to maternity care and reduce regional differences.

National guidelines are needed to prevent birth injuries and promote competence development among staff. But we also need to ensure that more maternity clinics are opened and that staffing is increased, so that as many as possible get access to a maternity team throughout the entire care chain.

It is not only when we are at our weakest and come to earth that we need to be met with love and care, but we need it throughout our entire lives - not least when we get older.

The involuntary loneliness and isolation is a societal problem that affects very many people in Sweden, not least older people. One may have stopped working, the children have moved out, and in the worst case, one may have lost both one's life partner and several of one's close friends.

Involuntary loneliness is naturally a problem for the individual human being, but it is actually also a societal problem. It creates a greater need for health and medical care, contributes to premature death, and also to health problems in the form of mental ill-health. Sweden therefore needs, like other countries, for example the United Kingdom, to now consolidate efforts against involuntary loneliness and isolation and its consequences.

As a Christian Democrat, I mean that one can judge a society quite a bit by how it treats its elderly, and they should be treated with respect. Therefore, we Christian Democrats are very proud that the government is now investing 145 million kronor to strengthen and develop the work to break and prevent involuntary loneliness and isolation among the elderly. This could, for example, involve developing the elderly calls and health calls that exist in the country's municipalities.

Madam Speaker! In less than a week, it is time for most of us Members of Parliament to travel home to family and friends to celebrate Christmas. Some of us will then have the opportunity to meet the elderly who are in our vicinity. I am very much looking forward to meeting my grandmother, among others.

Unfortunately, however, there are far too many people in Sweden who do not have a home to go to. Homelessness in Sweden is far too large a problem. A few weeks ago, I met representatives from the Salvation Army; there are, therefore, 600 children and young people in Sweden living in homelessness. Even though this is a problem throughout all the days of the year, I cannot help but feel that it feels a bit extra heavy at this time of year. Now the cold is biting, and Advent candle holders and Christmas trees light up existence for those of us who fortunately have a home.

I am pleased that the new bourgeois government is raising the ambition when it comes to combating homelessness. Since homelessness often has its background in mental illness and substance abuse, part of the homelessness strategy is precisely state grants to enable the "Housing First" model to become national. This is something the Kristdemokraterna have been pushing for for decades. It is therefore very welcome that the government is injecting additional funds into this initiative, so that more people in Sweden will have a home to call home.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, as Chairman of the Committee on Social Affairs, I would like to take the opportunity to perhaps a bit early thank the Speaker, the members, and all the support staff for this autumn. I would also like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in due course. Thank you for the good cooperation!

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! The conclusions of the Corona Commission were clear. Major, well-known deficiencies within Swedish elderly care were the explanation for the high death rates. The Commission also considered that the Riksdag and the government must review what constitutes sufficient staffing in our nursing homes and in our home care services. They focused, in particular, on those with dementia who are there. Furthermore, the level of competence must be raised in Swedish elderly care. Unfortunately, Sweden is distinguished by having a small proportion of medically trained staff within elderly care.

KD:s party colleagues spoke in opposition about how the previous government had, with bold courage, allowed the spread of infection to increase during the corona pandemic. Now they sit in a government position but still make no major reinforcements of elderly care. Instead of a substantial investment in elderly care, they choose a number of time-limited, small targeted state grants that do not contribute to the structural changes that are needed.

They are also not addressing the issue of staffing, which is the most central in the coming years. Instead, because they do not trust the municipalities, they want to counteract it by introducing national language requirements and raised wage floors for labor migration. It will hit staff even within elderly care and healthcare.

I have two questions for the Christian Democrats. What considerations did you make when you chose to invest in small, time-limited government grants to the municipalities instead of structural reforms and general government grants for elderly care? And how are municipalities and regions supposed to manage staff recruitment when it is de facto made more difficult by the government's proposal and the Tidö Agreement?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In order for us to strengthen Swedish elderly care, we naturally need to manage the staffing supply in a good way. A good way is both to recruit enough people who want to work within elderly care and to ensure that the elderly people in elderly care can feel security, that they can understand the staff working there. It is against exactly that background that the government is now investigating how the language requirements should be designed to ensure the elderly's security in the residential homes.

Regarding the types of continuing education that exist, it is the case that some of them will continue. But others will cease. But the question of staffing will not disappear. The Government will need to take a collective grip on competence supply issues within the elderly care area. It will be necessary to return to how the continuing education initiatives should look in the future.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I note that I have only received an answer to one of the questions, the one concerning the staffing, but not to the one concerning targeted versus general state grants.

When I read the Tidö Agreement, I noted that elderly care is only mentioned through the language requirement for staff. In the Tidö Agreement, elderly care is only mentioned in connection with the fact that it will become more difficult to recruit staff to our elderly care in the municipalities. It is strange.

I have no problem understanding that the staff in our elderly care must speak Swedish and that supporting measures are needed for those who have difficulty with the language. And many municipalities have that. That is why, in municipality after municipality, they have voted no when the Sverigedemokraterna have motioned for exactly that which is now also the Kristdemokraterna's policy, that is, the introduction of language requirements in elderly care. It complicates recruitment for the municipalities. It complicates when one is to staff the care and give the elderly the help they need.

At the same time, one is also cutting in the area concerning wage requirements for labor migration. In 2019, 1,401 people working in Swedish health and social care were labor migrants. 75 percent of them would lose their residence permits according to the government's new policy and the Tidö Agreement.

It is alarming. It is dangerous for both municipalities and regions as well as private healthcare providers, who will be deprived of their necessary workforce. But above all, it hits patients, the elderly, and those receiving care who need the staff at their residences, hospitals, and health centers.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Much can be said about targeted and general government grants. The advantage of the general government grants is that they give local politicians a large scope for action. The advantage of the targeted government grants is that they go to what one considers needs to be focused on.

If very little money is invested, regardless of whether it is targeted or general state grants, it often comes at the expense of the operations. We know that. For example, it would mean a hard blow to Sweden's elderly if the Center Party's budget proposal were to win approval here today. The Center Party chooses, in fact, to cut very precisely by 700 million kronor on just stimulus grants for the elderly sector. One targets the elderly with precision.

Centerpartiet also wants to remove 5 billion from our expenditure area 9, which is to go to healthcare, elderly care, and social care. And in practice, they only add 2.3 billion to expenditure area 25, which are general state grants. Then the burden of proof does not lie with the government. Centerpartiet must explain why they choose to strike against Sweden's elderly.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! Staff, staff, staff – that is what we will be talking about for four years, during the mandate period. It is about staff within elderly care and staff within health and medical care.

The government has provided 6 billion plus in state grants, even though, according to SKR, 20 billion would have been needed just to maintain the level we have now.

Mr. Speaker! Christian Carlsson mentioned the Left Party's somewhat half-baked budget. We have contributed 10 billion to strengthen the staffing density within municipalities and regions. We have also contributed an extremely large amount to precisely state grants. You have not done that, while one sees that there is a continued crisis within health and medical care. The staff are forced to run faster and faster. I am completely convinced, after having spoken with staff, regions, and municipalities, that your state grants that you have, those 6 billion, will not cover the crisis we face. I am very worried.

I wonder, Christian Carlsson: How fast will the healthcare staff have to run in the coming years? How many hourly employees will fill the elderly care? You will not be able to afford the budget that is set for hiring within elderly care that I see. Those are my questions to the member.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding expenditure area 9, Vänsterpartiet invests 550 million less than the government on healthcare, elderly care, and social care. Instead, they invest generously in general state grants. That must be given to Vänsterpartiet. But we know how it is with them. Municipalities and regions can use them for completely different things than what Karin Rågsjö desires.

Directing funds to a certain type of purpose within the framework of the general state grants is also not compatible with the principles. It will be very difficult for the Left Party to guarantee that the money goes to the right purpose, if it is indeed competence supply initiatives within healthcare and elderly care that is what is being sought.

The situation for healthcare personnel is strained. We are in complete agreement on this. We are also in agreement that in order for us to be able to get more care beds, more staff are needed who choose to seek employment in healthcare and social services professions, and more who choose to stay within healthcare and social services professions.

That is why the government allocates 3.2 billion to support regions and municipalities in their work with skills development and skills supply. We have 500 million in 2023 to increase further education for nurses. We have 100 million per year from and including 2023 to enable development and career opportunities.

We have more targeted initiatives that go straight into healthcare and elderly care than Vänsterpartiet does. I believe that is good if we are to manage to secure more care beds and more people who choose to seek out and stay within the healthcare profession.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! I can mention that the targeted government grants will decrease by 25 billion during the next four years. It will not rain money over municipalities and regions from the right-wing government, I must unfortunately say.

We have listened very much to what the regions want and what the municipalities want. They want long-term investments so that they know they can work, hire, and increase what they need to increase.

It is obvious, I believe, that your 6 billion, plus a little extra, will not be enough to give the healthcare staff the opportunities they want in order to be able to do a good job. It will not benefit patient safety.

I am thinking about the elderly care that we spoke about. We have spoken about elderly care throughout the entire pandemic. Everyone stood and wept a little in the speaker's chair. Now that it is to be put into practice, there will be a lack of money to hire these nursing assistants. There will not be the conditions for it in your budget. It is very sad.

The Left [Party] is investing 10 billion to increase staffing levels within both regions and municipalities. We think that is reasonable. I will go into that later from the rostrum.

I still wonder, Christian Carlsson: How are you going to be able to ensure that the healthcare staff get conditions to work with with the budget? It is about 3 billion here and 1 billion there. It will become a fragmented operation.

We have truly listened. We also had this type of smaller targeted grants previously. Unfortunately, it is the case that your targeted state grants will not grow. It is exactly as I said. They will be reduced by 25 billion during the upcoming mandate period.

I am concerned. I wonder: Are Christian Carlsson and KD not also? How, for example, can a healthcare mediation be squeezed in now?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am concerned about the crisis in the staffing supply that the left-wing government left behind, which we now have to deal with. I am very concerned about it.

That is also why we in the government have said that an important priority this mandate period is to develop a national plan for skills supply. In that, it is about mapping the needs for personnel nationally but also about arriving at concrete measures for how to get more people to seek out the profession. It is about how one improves the working environment and the conditions for staff within healthcare.

Very many employees within healthcare are pressured by the long care queues that the government that Vänsterpartiet chose to support previously has caused. It is very strange when one looks at Vänsterpartiets priorities. There are some things that you choose to prioritize away. It is 300 million that are to go to strengthening care in the countryside. That is apparently not so important for Vänsterpartiet. Then there are the 2 billion kronor that are to go to increased care capacity.

That is the big problem in Swedish healthcare. We spend a lot of money, and we have good quality in the care that people receive. But too few sick people get the help they need in time. Still, Vänsterpartiet chooses to remove the 2 billion that are aimed precisely at solving the big problem in Swedish healthcare. It is misprioritized.

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a restless time. Putin's war in Ukraine has reshaped the security situation and led to skyrocketing prices for electricity and energy. In Sweden, households and companies are pressured by both high inflation and high interest rates. Real wages are being eroded, and the economic reality is pressing into people's everyday lives.

The difficult economic situation highlights the need for a secure society, where welfare delivers across all of Sweden and where we face tough times together. The situation demands a government with a secure and safe leadership. The situation demands a government that one can trust.

But instead, we in Sweden have now received a government of broken promises. During the years in opposition, Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna have promised everything to everyone.

A high-cost protection for electricity has been promised according to the Norwegian model.

A lower petrol price of 6.50 kronor per litre has been promised.

A billion-kronor investment has been promised for a high-cost protection in Swedish dental care.

Pensions have been promised to be increased.

Promises have been made to improve the care deduction.

More money has been promised to elderly care and healthcare.

Promises have been made for major investments in disability policy, not least increased compensation for assistance, to name one thing.

All this has been promised. And none of this is included as a delivery in the budget that has now been presented.

Instead, the government's first budget delivers a savings condition to Sweden's municipalities and regions. Ulf Kristersson invokes the old principle from the Alliance years that in a beginning of a low-cycle, only one-third of the municipalities' and regions' needs should be replaced. The remaining two-thirds shall be paid by the regions and municipalities themselves.

In low-tax municipalities, it shall be paid for with tax increases, while in those municipalities where the tax is already far too high, it shall be paid for with cuts. At the same time as the government is raising the threshold for state tax at a cost of 13 billion kronor, children and the elderly in the country's poorest municipalities will get less time with their preschool teachers and nursing assistants.

Mr. Speaker! It is a stone-cold right-wing policy. It is not what Sweden needs.

We Social Democrats have another alternative. We put welfare first and thereby equip Sweden and the Swedish people to meet the tougher economic times. Through investments in welfare across the entire country and by strengthening the finances of families with children, we meet the approaching crisis together.

So we prioritize so that the children in school, the patients in healthcare, and the elderly in elderly care do not have to pay the price for the recession. So we prioritize to increase the pace of the climate transition and create green jobs throughout Sweden. So we prioritize to reclaim democratic control over welfare.

We know that our Sweden can be better. Within expenditure area 25, this means that we have proposed a doubling of the government's investments to municipalities and regions. We assess that in this situation it is most urgent to ensure that we can compensate the regions and municipalities for the cost developments to the greatest extent possible. Since it concerns general funds that municipalities and regions can use as they wish, we know that the funds in this situation will be used to secure the level of welfare.

In addition, within expenditure area 9, we have proposed a total net increase of 300 million kronor. The majority of these funds are allocated to support those municipalities with vulnerable areas that need to invest larger amounts to prevent crime.

For me, as a former chairman of the Committee on Justice, it is a mystery how the government can proceed here with an investment of 10 million kronor. 10 million kronor corresponds to approximately ten new social workers in this entire country. It is a mockery of all the social services that are currently on their knees and which could achieve so much more if they only had sufficient resources. We Social Democrats are investing 50 times as much and are allocating half a billion to strengthen the social services' crime-prevention work.

In addition to this investment, we are making certain redistributions within appropriation 1:6 so that the budget will more clearly support recruitment to health and medical care. Here, the government has indicated that it intends to conclude the personnel investment of 2 billion kronor per year that has been running since 2018.

We think it is the wrong way to go. Instead, we need to strengthen and make this initiative permanent. It is through long-term support that we give municipalities and regions the conditions to effectively convert these targeted funds into investments in staff. We also allocate a quarter of a billion per year for a targeted initiative on VFU places, i.e., workplace-based training.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say something about elderly care. During the Social Democratic government, historically large economic investments were made here. These were completely necessary, both to meet the demographic development and to compensate smaller municipalities that have great difficulties in prioritizing their elderly care to a sufficient extent. The deficiencies are, in their own right, large with too low staffing and thus difficulties in recruiting the right competence.

In this work, Äldreomsorgslyftet was a key initiative. Äldreomsorgslyftet means that new and existing staff are given the opportunity to educate and further educate themselves during paid working hours. It has been an enormous success. Over 25,000 people have started an education. It has also been a popular reform regardless of whether it has been an S- or Moderate-led government.

This is what the government now means in the budget, that they intend to conclude after 2023. It can be described as nothing other than complete nonsense. This is a reform that Sweden needs. This is an investment in Swedish elderly care that has truly shown that we, from the national level, can in a clear way strengthen the local conditions to do a good job.

Removing this means that thousands of healthcare assistants who have started the training will not have the opportunity to complete it. It sends completely wrong signals to cancel this initiative, and it could lead to municipalities not continuing to make the initiatives that are needed.

In total, we allocate 300 million more to expenditure area 9. To expenditure area 25, we add 6 billion more than the government.

For us, the budget is a whole. This also means that we refrain from taking a position and instead have a special statement within the expenditure area. We will come back in upcoming debates with all our proposals based on our budget and point out what we believe is the best path for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Lundh Sammeli speaks of broken promises in his speech. Let us talk about all the broken promises that the Social Democratic government committed during its eight years in power.

The new government has been in power for 58 days. Now, Member of Parliament Lundh Sammeli expects the government to deliver shorter healthcare queues and more healthcare beds, all this in just two months.

Let us talk about the promises that the Social Democratic government gave to the Swedish people. They promised, for example, that cancer patients would receive care within four weeks. What is the result after eight years - 2,936 days - in government power? It is that the care queues in Sweden have more than doubled already before the pandemic, that not even half of all women with breast cancer receive care in time, and that not even one in three men with prostate cancer receives care in time. That, if anything, Mr. Speaker, is a breach of promise.

I am proud to support a government that is now seriously tackling Sweden's major challenges, that takes responsibility for supporting vulnerable households in difficult times, that makes it cheaper to fuel the car and get to work, that provides support to be able to pay the electricity bill, that now, in this area, addresses the lack of availability and invests in more care beds.

Would it not be appropriate, Member Lundh Sammeli, if you and your party took responsibility for all the broken promises that you have committed during the eight years - the 2,936 days - that you have held government power and ruled Sweden?

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Hultberg, for the questions!

We Social Democrats definitely take responsibility for the years we have held government power. We have prioritized welfare, we have taken Sweden through a comprehensive pandemic, and we have invested in that which builds Sweden strong. We also put forward, in this area, proposals to stop the development of private health insurance that erodes the general [system] and creates a fast track, and to implement a policy that builds a strong society.

I believe that in my speech I pointed out some of the challenges that politics moving forward really needs to continue to address.

It is about the supply of skills. It is about the financing. It is a task that we as a government have begun during our years, and it is a responsibility that the sitting government needs to take on. It is not that I, after 53 days, expect the government to deliver answers to all of society's challenges. But I can only state that none of what was promised and what I chose to enumerate, and which covers very much, is something we see in this budget.

One also does not encounter SKR and their clear message that one needs 20 billion so that the Swedish welfare is not eroded.

It may be a completely different debate, but Member Hultberg nevertheless chose to say that here the government is creating support for everyone who is worried about their electricity bill. Then we must remember that half the country is being excluded because Norrland does not have those opportunities. It is a different debate, and there I am seeking the opportunity to debate with the Minister for Energy and Industry.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me just briefly comment on the last point. This government receives extensive support for the high electricity prices – the high electricity prices created by a deliberate social democratic red-green policy where well-functioning Swedish nuclear power has been phased out. It has led to the fact that we now have a severe shortage of predictable electricity production, which has led to record-high electricity prices.

We think it is unreasonable to send this entire bill to Swedish households, and we get a good electricity support in place. It is based on the historical electricity prices, and it is to consumers in electricity area 3 and 4 that the support goes.

When it comes to the financing of the welfare state, it was still the case that the Social Democratic government promised Europe's lowest unemployment. And what was the result after eight years? It became Europe's fourth highest unemployment. I believe it is only the Greeks, the Spaniards, and the Portuguese who have a worse development than Sweden.

If Sweden had only had a growth corresponding to the EU average, welfare would have had an extra 40 billion every year. That, Mr. Speaker, underlines the importance of a strong work line and of a policy that creates jobs and growth. This is what the previous Social Democratic government has flagrantly failed to do. They betrayed their most important election promise, and it has eroded the resources for welfare. If we are to talk about welfare resources, it is this breach of promise that we need to focus on.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that we are beginning the work of getting Sweden in order. This concerns the energy supply, and we are making record-breaking investments in upgrading the defense and the justice system. But we are also able to tackle the major challenges in healthcare. We are making targeted investments, and we are also strengthening the general state grants and beginning a laborious task of ensuring that all Swedes will receive care and nursing in a timely manner and of good quality.

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! If it were true, what Member Hultberg says about the high electricity and energy prices being due to the past Social Democratic policy, then the whole of Europe would not be in the same situation. For surely we Social Democrats are nation-builders. Surely we are an enormous force in Swedish and international politics. But it is not the case that the whole of Europe's energy crisis is due to the past policy. There is a war going on in Europe, and that is the reason why this winter will be very, very tough.

In this situation, one still has to state that regardless of who you are and where in the country you live, you must be able to feel security if we are going to have these high prices and receive extremely high electricity bills. Therefore, it is completely insane that we have a government that excludes half of Sweden in the matter.

But in this situation, it is also a consolation for municipalities and regions all around this country, regardless of who won the confidence to lead it this mandate period, that we had a Social Democratic government during the previous mandate period that so clearly invested in welfare. When this government fails that responsibility and does not meet the challenge that a very large part of the welfare will face, the small consolation is that in very many areas, a buffer has been able to be built up from the investments we have made during the preceding years.

It is a buffer that will help municipalities and regions during the coming years. But it is a buffer that will not be enough to compensate for a national policy with a right-wing government that does not invest in welfare. There needs to be a major debate regarding this.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It was interesting to listen to Lundh Sammeli's speech here in the rostrum. And certainly – I have also noted that the Social Democrats are adding 500 million more, including for social work, and that there is a high level of tail-following in that.

At the same time, I can think it is quite interesting that the Social Democrats, during the years they themselves have sat in government, have spent approximately 670 million on this appropriation, while this government instead delivers 1.2 billion and more or less doubles the appropriation for social work.

It is therefore very interesting to listen to MP Lundh Sammeli who now, after eight years in a government position, suddenly considers it extremely important to invest in social work. I would like to pose the question of why one does that to MP Lundh Sammeli.

It is clear from the member that the Social Democrats are Sweden's welfare party. I actually cannot agree with that, Mr. Speaker. They have had eight years. How does it look in society today? We have an incredibly strong sense of insecurity. They did not succeed in breaking the gangs. They offered "juice-and-bun" politics. We have sky-high unemployment. They have undermined the entire welfare system by not daring and succeeding to set demands. There is an enormous crime of benefit fraud against the Swedish welfare system.

We have seen the largest reduction in benefits in Swedish history during the Social Democrat-led government. Personal assistance and the goal for this have also been undermined in order to be able to fund immigration during 2015. So yes, it is easy to stand and say that the Social Democrats are the Swedish welfare party, but they are rather the Swedish benefit party.

Again: What is it that prompts the issue of social work to be so very pressing for the Social Democrats now?

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of who one is and regardless of where one lives, one should be able to feel safety at all hours of the day. For us, it is an incredibly important image to work from. It is a vision that we must ensure the policy is built around.

We have during our years in government both fought crime and the causes of crime. In recurring reforms and in recurring debates, we have pointed out the importance of the broad approach. We need to strengthen the police and introduce new legislation and new methods and tools, which we have done. There is a broad consensus in Swedish politics on that.

But that unity and the possibility of forming broad alliances, we have not seen when it comes to ensuring more money for schools to make them more equal, to break the segregation in our society, and to create better opportunities to break the new recruitment.

If we are to manage to combat the crime that plagues our society, we need to manage to do both. It is a task we have done, and it is a task we will also continue. This is an important part. We must find a position where we see that just as much money as we invest in strengthening the justice system, we need to strengthen the social work with.

It means that in this budget we are allocating 1.6 billion just to strengthen social services and increase the work for an equal school. We are also allocating 100 million to sports, which is an important actor in creating better conditions for children and youth.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I also noted that you have the view that for every krona invested in the police, 1 krona should also be invested in social work. Does that mean in practice that the Social Democrats in the previous government have not invested that much in the police earlier because they have had a budget that has been around 670 million? It is clearly visible in Swedish society that just this has not been so prioritized. In any case, they have not succeeded with it.

But one must also remember in this context that the Social Democrats have been in power for eight years and that this government has been in power for quite exactly three months since the election. It has clearly not been elected since the election, but the change actually took place already then.

What I would come to is that what the government is now taking over are incredibly and illegally long healthcare queues that the previous government has not managed to handle, but which have instead grown. The working environment and the supply of competence out in the regions and municipalities, they have also not managed to steer in the right direction. This is something that now begins when we take a major grip to get to rights with it. Then it might not suffice to patch and repair and throw out more money at it, but we need to step back and get a nuanced picture of how we can do this in the best way.

I think it is a sound approach. One cannot simply force this through, but it needs to be done methodically and constructively so that we can address the challenges that we see in the Swedish health and medical care.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that one has not succeeded if one has had eight years in power. I would like to say to the Swedish people: Give us at least eight years so that we can prove that it is possible to change the development that we have seen within the Swedish health and medical care, for it has not gone in the right direction. Nor has the Swedish society done so for that part. What is it in your budget proposal that would strongly change the entire Swedish health and medical care, which you have not succeeded with during the previous eight years?

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is fascinating - when one hears Member Lindberg, one can get the impression that a very large amount of what has been done has been completely insane.

I have welcomed that much in both the Tidö Agreement and the budget is to join forces and continue what is already underway. Many priorities and investments that we Social Democrats have launched are now being continued. That is great!

At the same time, I am strongly critical of pulling the rug out from under such a good reform as Äldreomsorgslyftet, which has hit the mark so well and covers so many people. It will mean that very many care assistants who have started their training will not be finished.

It surprises me - if one is serious about the fact that staffing is what is important and we share the view that the supply of skills is the welfare state's absolute greatest challenge - that in the budget that Member Lindberg stands behind and perhaps is the designer of, one so clearly removes the investment of 2 billion that we, in our budget, instead believe needs to be strengthened with an additional 850 million and made permanent.

For all that's concerned, this government has not been in power for long, and I hope it won't be for many more days. But a billion-kronor investment in dental care, increased pensions, improved sick pay, more money for elderly care and healthcare, and major investments in disability policy were promised very clearly. None of this is included in the budget. Even though one has only been in power for 53 days, this is the budget that will shape reality and everyday life in our country and the direction for the coming years.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is certainly fascinating to hear a Social Democrat speak about broken promises, given the betrayal of the welfare state that the Social Democrats have been responsible for over the last eight years.

The healthcare queues were record-long even before the pandemic, and 163,000 sick people have still not received care in time. The Social Democrats have had eight years. This government has had eight weeks to remedy the problems. There is no doubt that it is the Social Democrats who are responsible for a welfare betrayal.

Projection, I believe it is called in psychology, is the defense mechanism that the Social Democrats are now applying to try to hide their own shortcomings and project them onto someone else in order to save their own self-image. It is possible that it is effective, and it is perhaps good for public opinion, but it is actually not very flattering.

What I intended to speak about is the crime prevention work. This government is now launching the largest offensive against crime ever. We are allocating 5 billion kronor to the justice system, which will go to the police, the Prosecution Authority, the Prison and Probation Service, and the courts. We are creating the economic conditions for 10,000 more police employees, and we are providing resources so that the police can obtain more effective tools in the fight against crime.

But we are also investing in preventive work. The social services' crime prevention work is strengthened, and not least, the parenting support programs are expanded with a full 200 million kronor in 2023. This is simply done because a truly secure society is built by strong families with time for the children and by people with good values and children and young people who have hope for the future.

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! Neither I nor the Social Democrats have anything to hide from the past eight years. We have delivered a policy that has taken Sweden through a pandemic. We have strengthened investments in welfare. We have created reforms and proposals to build Sweden stronger.

Welfare's greatest challenge concerns the supply of competence, but it is also about financing. Let us then have a discussion on how national politics can strengthen the conditions for our municipalities and regions to truly deliver a good welfare. In this budget, the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, shows that they are not prepared to make those priorities. They meet the needs to one-third, but the rest must be resolved with increased taxes or slashed welfare locally and regionally. It will not make Sweden better or safer for people.

Crime prevention work is an area that I have worked with during the last four years. There, it can sound in tone and in debates as if we stand enormously far apart. Looking at informants and removed interpreters, regarding some of the proposals that the government together with Sverigedemokraterna deliver, we also stand far apart. But in the goal of getting 10,000 police on the ground and strengthening the entire justice system, we do think alike. But it is important to also broaden that debate. That is what we will need to do in our area, because that crime prevention work needs to be prioritized.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the crime prevention work needs to be prioritized. Therefore, the parenting support programs are expanded with 200 million in 2023, and the social services' crime prevention work is strengthened.

But the fact is that the Social Democrats say no to the preventive measures that the government proposes in several cases, especially the measures concerning prevention before the social services need to intervene. 50 million kronor to strengthen preventive work through home visit programs within BVC are lost with the Social Democrats' proposal. 50 million kronor to finance an expansion of funds to children's and youth organizations within the expenditure area Culture, media and religious communities disappears. You also say no to the leisure card, which aims to strengthen children's and young people's opportunities to participate in sports and association life. It is an initiative that is primarily aimed at children and young people in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. I think that is regrettable.

I note that the Social Democrats have the ambition to invest more money in development when it comes to crime prevention work, and I fundamentally welcome that.

Almost as much as the Social Democrats want to increase the appropriations, the Center Party wants to cut in that budget item. The question is therefore: What is the alternative to the government's policy? Probably no one can answer that. It is clear that there is red-green division even in this area.

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am the first to welcome all the parties from the government side who want to take a firm grip and ensure that we get broad alliances when it comes to crime prevention work. For far too long, the debate on cracking down on gang crime has only been about more police, tougher measures, and harsher sentences. But I am completely convinced that we know it is about breaking the new recruitment early - ensuring that children and young people do not see crime as a path and that they do not get recruited by the gangs.

I welcome that the government now intends to proceed with the large-scale gang crime investigation that we have commissioned and which has now presented its proposals. The parenting program is also good. How do we create security for parents to be present?

But when Member Carlsson counts up 50 million here and 50 million there and points to what we have said no to, it is correct, because we are investing 1 billion more in schools to increase equality. We choose to invest half a billion more in social services in crime prevention work. That is prioritizing. It is not about dabbing here and there so that all parties can be satisfied and say "Look, what we have got through!", but here we have laid a budget that creates the conditions for a better Sweden.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As you all know, we are now debating expenditure area 9. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

On September 11, the Swedish people gave the coalition parties the confidence to lead the country, with the Sweden Democrats as the largest party on the right. On September 11, our Swedish citizens chose to replace the red-green government with a blue-yellow government that seriously sees the problems and is prepared to implement its policy.

In the election campaign, we in the Sverigedemokraterna particularly highlighted that Sweden shall become good again. That is the primary goal. Of course, we want to be the best, but Sweden does not need to be the best at everything in this situation. We shall, however, not be bad at anything. But we shall be good.

Swedish healthcare faces, as we all know, many challenges. The coalition partners have high ambitions and are prepared to work hard to change the direction that has been the path for far too many years. Swedish healthcare is unfortunately characterized by long care queues, lack of accessibility, and an insufficient number of care beds. We see that low productivity, insufficient competence supply, and lack of continuity and coordination mean that Swedish citizens today do not receive the care they should be able to expect.

Furthermore, Sweden spends more money on healthcare than our neighboring countries. Yet, we receive less care. This indicates inefficiency, and it requires courage to dare to act. It is about taking a new direction in new tracks. It is clear that the right way of working has not been employed.

We want to achieve increased state control in healthcare.

We also want a broad fundamental investigation into the organization of the Swedish health and medical care. The Swedish healthcare, the taxpayers, and people who are in need of care must now be prioritized.

Working in healthcare is something one should be proud of, and it should be a workplace where employees thrive and want to go to work. It should be a place where cancer patients receive rapid care and where young people with suicidal thoughts do not have to leave their psychologist with the words "you are welcome back when or if we have time."

We are now making investments that will make a difference. We need to shorten the healthcare queues. It is one of the primary goals. We are investing an additional 1 billion to increase the number of healthcare beds. We are also investing 3 billion in performance-based measures to shorten the healthcare queues. A shortage of available healthcare beds implies a major patient safety risk.

Parallel to this, we want to map out the healthcare beds across the country and develop a national plan for how we can address the queues that have persisted for years. These are not pandemic queues but healthcare queues – healthcare queues that we have inherited from previous governments, which they have not been able to reduce. These are queues that are illegal and unreasonably long. The queues have actually resulted in people dying while waiting for care.

To make available healthcare capacity visible, reduce healthcare queues and make healthcare more accessible, we will, together with the initiative I just mentioned, also establish a national state healthcare brokerage. The goal is to fulfill the legal healthcare guarantee, i.e., that the patient shall have their operation or other treatment performed within the framework of the healthcare guarantee. It has deteriorated significantly during the recent parliamentary terms.

Of course, one should be a bit humble, we have had a pandemic that has caused problems. But likewise, the differences in waiting times between the regions and between different parts of the health and medical care are far too large today. It should not look like this in our Welfare Sweden.

To manage this, we also need staff. The working situation for those employed in health and medical care really needs to be improved. Everyone sitting here in the chamber today is in complete agreement on this. Therefore, we allocate funds, among other things, to specifically prioritize the nursing profession with competence development and competence supply in health and medical care to support regions and municipalities in their work with this.

We also allocate funds so that more nurses can train to become specialist nurses. At the same time, in the Tidö Agreement, we give clear instructions on a mapping of medically trained healthcare personnel, where it shall be clarified what measures for existing and new personnel need to be taken to improve the supply of competence.

The red-green parties have actually not succeeded with just this, Mr. Speaker. They have not succeeded in listening to the healthcare staff and prioritizing the work environment. Yes, they have obviously listened, but it has not yielded sufficient results. It is high time that we address these challenges. We truly need to invest in making the work environment good and creating a safe and attractive environment to address these challenges.

Another dimension in this is the investment in women's health, which we are very pleased with. We see research on women's diseases and women-dominated professions within healthcare. Healthcare is a women-dominated industry, and it is primarily women who become burnt out due to a poor work environment. They work split shifts and struggle to balance family, work, and everyday life.

We are also investing 145 million kronor in support to prevent ill health and loneliness among the elderly. It is also a very important investment, an investment that other parties choose to remove in their budget proposals. But I am glad that there is a majority for our proposal for the budget.

The Tidö Agreement and the budget are important for Sweden, with new reforms in many areas, and with ambition and forward-looking spirit in the belief that we will truly get Sweden right. It feels really good to stand here today, three months after the election, with both the Tidö Agreement and the budget behind us.

Change is not achieved in three months. The previous government had, as I mentioned, eight years but did not succeed to any significant extent. To those of you listening to the debate, I want to say: Have patience - this is going to take time. Quick media statements where money is squeezed out to appease some voters will not suffice. We will do this systematically and wisely and with the right priorities. I will do what I can to incorporate the Sverigedemokraternas policy to the greatest extent possible.

The elderly will get better with this state budget. Women's health is prioritized, and the Swedish health and medical care is truly prioritized.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement contains proposals that will have a very significant impact on Swedish healthcare in the future. Certainly, there are some positive elements in the Tidö Agreement, but they are, as it were, drowned out by the two most central Sweden Democrat points, namely the one regarding reporting and the one regarding denying people the right to an interpreter.

The so-called "informant paragraph" means that staff at municipalities, regions, and state authorities shall be obliged to inform the Swedish Migration Agency and the Police Authority when they come into contact with persons staying in Sweden without permission. Internal border control is being shifted over to librarians, preschool teachers, and healthcare staff.

The second point concerns denying people the right to an interpreter. It has been completely condemned by healthcare staff, who foresee how it will lead to incorrect assessments of patients' conditions and how it will be difficult to convey the diagnosis one makes or the treatment one recommends because it cannot be perceived correctly by the patient. Child interpreters risk becoming once again a common and important part of Swedish hospitals and Swedish healthcare facilities. The healthcare staff have been completely unanimous that this threatens patient safety and the working environment.

I have two questions for the Sweden Democrats. Can the Sweden Democrats really see a single case where it is actually reasonable that healthcare personnel are obliged to report to the border police that a patient is missing the last four digits of their personal identity number? And will the Sweden Democrats, despite healthcare personnel sounding the alarm about threatened patient safety, stick to the point in the Tidö Agreement regarding limiting the right to an interpreter?

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Bergenblock for the remark.

I have looked a bit at the Center Party's budget motion. One picks up a good deal of the initiatives being made in the government's budget. I note that one takes quite a lot from the various agencies.

I would like to ask the member how they intend to handle taking money that should have gone to the various authorities and then allocating it to state grants to municipalities and regions. It would have been interesting to hear, I think.

It does not say in the Tidö Agreement that anyone shall be denied the right to an interpreter or that anyone shall not be given an interpreter. The running point in that specific paragraph is who shall pay for the interpreter. In other countries, similar interpretations have been made and it has been concluded that it is perfectly reasonable for a certain cost, or a patient fee, to be charged for using an interpreter.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask: When does the Centre Party consider it reasonable that one is expected to be able to speak the Swedish language to such an extent that one does not need an interpreter when, for example, visiting healthcare? Is it after 10, 20, 30, or 50 years in the country? How long is it considered reasonable to have a free interpreter at the taxpayers' expense? This would be interesting to get an answer to.

It is connected somewhere to the language requirement within elderly care. It goes without saying that it is important that one can make oneself understood. It is important that one can understand each other. When it comes to the issue of interpretation, it is also, as we have highlighted in the Tidö Agreement, important that there are incentives to actually learn the Swedish language.

When does the Centre Party consider it reasonable for one to pay for their own interpreter?

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party does not think that this with the interpreters is a reasonable measure.

We must have a good integration in Sweden. It is based on the fact that we have an education system and SFI that works and gets people into work. That does not mean that we should threaten their patient safety when they seek care, regardless of whether they have been here for 1, 3, or 20 years. They may have been here their whole lives but have become demented and forgotten their new language and only remember their old mother tongue.

Patient safety must come first. That is what you want to break down by worsening the possibility of interpretation in Swedish healthcare. We naturally understand that it is about the Sweden Democrat view on immigrants in general and the desire to make it as difficult as possible to live in Sweden, but you perhaps did not count on the great storm from healthcare staff who see that this will threaten both patient safety and the staff's working environment in the future. Sweden risks once again getting a system where children have to go in and interpret for their parents. I do not think anyone wants to see that again.

We need a well-functioning healthcare system. We do not need reporting in Swedish healthcare. We do not need to limit the possibility of interpreters, but we must ensure that the healthcare staff are given the opportunity to do what the staff are there for and to do it on reasonable terms as well as putting the patient first.

During triage at our emergency departments, the nurse shall primarily ask about the patient's condition based on medical history, symptoms, vital parameters, and so on. The last four digits of the personal identity number are not what one should focus on when someone arrives seeking medical care.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the epithets being stuck on me. These are things that are completely irrelevant in this chamber and which I do not think we should be fussing with at all. There is no one here who has the attitude that the member is talking about. I thank you for that.

It is not about anyone being denied an interpreter or about limiting the right to an interpreter, but in broad terms, it is about who should pay for the interpreter.

We have previously stated in our motions that children and young people should not interpret. It occurs today in several places that children and young people receive information that they are to translate and interpret for their parents. This is completely reprehensible, and the investigation will look into it. This is not at all the right way to go. Children should not have to interpret for their parents, especially not when it concerns healthcare, as it can be very problematic and heavy matters that children and young people are to convey. Member Bergenblock does not need to worry at all that anything such would be introduced in Sweden – absolutely not.

Of course, the elderly and those with dementia should be exempted. They can, in the autumn of life, lose their knowledge of the other language.

This is absolutely not about any martyrdom, but it is about whether it is reasonable for Swedish tax money to pay for free interpretation year in and year out. This is something we must look at. I do not think it is reasonable. The government parties do not think it is reasonable either. The parties behind the Tidö Agreement agree that we need to look at this issue. It is highly relevant and highly reasonable.

I cannot see the drama that Centerpartiet is playing up in these issues. I believe one should exercise a bit of restraint and not blow up something that actually does not exist.

No children and young people should have to interpret, and the elderly should be able to receive the support and help that is needed.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! SD is no longer in opposition but sits in the same boat as the government, and has for a long time highlighted issues regarding health and elderly care – that is, not just questions about who should be Lucia or read stories in the libraries.

In the budget that has been presented now, welfare will lose approximately the equivalent of 15,000 employees in school, health care, and elderly care. We can read this in various places, for example with SKR. Extra money has been added to the state grants by 6 billion kronor instead of the 20 billion that would have been needed to maintain the standard that exists within health and medical care, elderly care, and so on.

At the same time, you in your alliance have given a Christmas present to the absolutely richest, including to me. We get approximately 1,400 kronor a month by changing the breakpoint for state tax.

What Christmas message do the Sweden Democrats have for, for example, the staff within healthcare and elderly care? Will there be more nursing assistants in elderly care? What happens to the staff who want more colleagues and a better working environment? The state grants you have factored into your budget are quite meager. Why is the Sweden Democrats investing in the richest instead of in healthcare? That is what I wonder.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, just like Member Rågsjö, we have close dialogues with SKR. We follow the debate taking place there. I want to make it clear and distinct that the Sweden Democrats continue to prioritize staffing, skills supply, and the working environment in regions and municipalities.

It is extremely important to address the problems that exist and have existed for far too many years. Previous governments have not had the opportunity to meet the need that has existed. The profession has signaled for a very long time about a lack of competence and the need for competence supply. We are investing particularly in maternity staff and midwives to be able to meet the shortages that exist there.

One would obviously want to invest everything so that everyone is one hundred percent satisfied. In some sense, it is about priorities, but in the Tidö Agreement, it is also clear that we will specifically look at how we can most effectively and best reach out and strengthen both the competence and the staffing supply across the country.

Every time we meet, in all meetings and in all debates, we talk about the fact that the key point to addressing the problems in Swedish healthcare is the staff. I do not believe there is anyone in this chamber who thinks otherwise.

We must ensure a good working environment and good personnel policy, but also that the money lands correctly. It is indeed the case that year after year money has been invested in regions and municipalities, but that one has still not succeeded in shifting gears. That is a fact. That is how it is.

My question to Rågsjö and Vänsterpartiet, who have been a support party to previous governments, is why they have not succeeded earlier.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is I who am asking my small, modest questions. During the previous parliamentary term, the Left Party was in opposition, and then we also made some deals with M and KD, if the member remembers.

I am very concerned. I have met with SKR, healthcare staff, and unions, and they are concerned that the state grants are so low. Even the targeted state grants will decrease, unfortunately, and by 25 billion during this mandate period. I think that is concerning.

It is a major question what will happen with the staffing within health and medical care. It looks bad now. One would have wanted significantly more to be invested in welfare, and the Left Party has flagged this all the time.

I am also very worried about elderly care. You are removing the Äldreomsorgslyftet after 2024 despite the fact that continuous investments were truly needed. The healthcare and care sectors are constantly saying that they want long-term investments, not just a little bit here and there.

Now this is the Sweden Democrats' responsibility. They do not sit in the government but right next to the government and have, as I perceive it, very great power. I have nevertheless perceived SD as a party with a very strong focus on welfare, but now they have unfortunately changed character in precisely that issue. Instead of welfare, efforts are being made on completely different issues, for example the richest in society. That one must still say.

I will not talk about electricity policy here, Mr. Speaker, because that would be tedious, but it is not the case that that policy is directed towards those who have it the absolute worst. It is consistent throughout the entire government's budget. It becomes more for those who already have and less for those who have it very, very tight.

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not share Member Rågsjö's view of the whole thing. I do not think that worldview is correct at all. I think that a good and balanced budget has been presented, even though there is absolutely more to be desired. We Sverigedemokrater naturally have our thoughts and reflections on what needs to be strengthened and what needs to be adjusted. That is how it is.

I agree with what Member Rågsjö said regarding competence and staffing in the countryside. It is very important to resolve those problems, and as I have said before, I believe we are in complete agreement in this chamber when it comes to that specific issue.

But back to this being a budget for the wealthiest. I cannot agree with that. In the budget, there are many initiatives that benefit the common man - not least access to healthcare, where we actually invest more than Vänsterpartiet does when it comes to expenditure area 9.

It is about, for example, the leisure card for children and young people, which particularly lands in socioeconomically weak areas. We think that is very important. We also know that it hits the mark. It results in leisure activities for those children and young people who cannot get it through their families and their parents. It is very important. It is a better investment than, for example, strengthening the child allowance, because then one doesn't really know where the money ends up and if it actually goes to the children.

Then I also think that the initiative concerning involuntary loneliness among the elderly is extremely important. It is primarily aimed at those who are not already reached by care and services but still live at home and have great loneliness, noticeable ill health, and not least poor nutrition. I absolutely think that it is a good and balanced budget that is on the table.

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now the Sweden Democrats are in the Government Offices. They have government power in everything except ministerial posts. They have that political agreement, and they have their state-employed officials who monitor its compliance in Rosenbad.

They have submitted their first joint budget. In that budget, a great deal is said about crime and about how crimes should be resolved and punished after they have occurred. It is in all respects good policy - I have commented on that previously. It is the same policy that we Social Democrats launched during the last mandate period. It is good.

However, very little is said about how crime should be prevented. Here the budget is weak, and few initiatives are taken. In the expenditure area that we are now debating, only 10 million kronor are added for the purpose. This corresponds, as I said in my speech, to approximately ten new social secretaries in the whole country. We Social Democrats allocate 50 times as much - a total of half a billion - to strengthen this area.

This is a clear example of the Sweden Democrats' logic. That which cannot be described with click-friendly headlines about tougher measures against gangs is not prioritized, even though we all know that it is necessary. It is the preventive work that ensures that children and young people do not fall into the gangs' clutches from the very beginning.

My question to Member Lindberg is what joy Sweden's 290 municipalities have in having to share ten social secretaries. How can that prevent gang crime?

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Lundh Sammeli for the remark.

Yes, it is a fact that we have civil servants who sit in the Government Offices. The Social Democrats no longer do. It is true.

It is also true that the Social Democrats allocate significantly more to the item social work and the appropriation social work in their budget motion than the government does in this budget. However, it is a fact that this government allocates twice as much to the appropriation social work annually as the Social Democrats did earlier during their eight years in government. That can also say a lot.

As I said in our exchange earlier, it stated particularly clearly in your budget motion that for every krona spent on the police, a krona must also be spent on social work. This suggests that you have not prioritized either the police or social work during the years you have been in government. It is somewhat interesting.

To actually stick to expenditure area 9, which we are largely debating today, I can say that from the side of the previous government, with the Social Democrats at the forefront, they have not succeeded in addressing the healthcare queues or getting the staffing and the working environment in order, and the issues that exist regarding the working situation across the country.

The queues in cancer care stand out particularly in Sweden. Before the pandemic, Cancerfonden pointed out that only 3 of 21 regions managed to meet the goal of performing a breast cancer surgery within 28 days from when cancer is suspected.

There is much that is faltering within the Swedish health and medical care, so my question to Fredrik Lundh Sammeli is: Why have sufficient efforts and measures not been made earlier when you had the chance and the opportunity while you sat in government?

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! When one stands on this side, one has the opportunity to ask questions to the person who has given the speech. We had this exchange of remarks when I had the opportunity to elaborate on and answer Member Lindberg's questions. But I am happy to do so again.

We have, during our years, made enormous investments in the entire justice system. We are on track to reach the goal of 10,000 more police officers in 2024. It is incredibly important. We have tightened seventy types of crimes and added new methods and tools.

At the same time, we have constantly pointed out that we must combat both the crimes and the causes of the crimes. That is why it is incredibly important to have an equal school that sees every child and a social service with muscles to be able to intervene early and clearly. In that regard, the intermediate sanction is one of the reforms that we have launched and which will really provide better opportunities to meet this societal problem.

We have also developed the principle of crown for crown, which is what we need to work more clearly with moving forward. What we add to the justice system as extra investments, we must clearly meet in crime prevention. It is a principle I am happy to lend to the government base, because I believe it is something that we politicians need to achieve together.

I think it is interesting to have the opportunity to ask the question to Member Lindberg what she considers to be the government's agenda moving forward for crime prevention work. The Sweden Democrats constitute an important part of the government's support. One is not in the government, but he is definitely setting the pace.

We also have the small question that the member touches upon regarding the leisure grant. Does member Lindberg mean that it can be compared with the multi-billion investment in child allowance that is in our budget?

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

Linda Lindberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, it is obviously not possible to compare it with the child allowance, so we have cleared that up. I am only saying that it is a fairly decent initiative, because then we know at least that it goes to the child and ends up exactly where it should be so that one gets that leisure activity and the important part that children and young people need - to get out and meet other children and young people as well outside of school activities.

It is also a fact - we see it now - that we have had a fantastically strong opposition in both the Committee on Justice and the Committee on Social Affairs during the previous term. This also forms the basis for the good preparatory work that now exists for the government that is in place today. I believe the Committee on Justice is the committee that has proposed the most announcements, and followed by the Committee on Social Affairs, so it is perhaps not entirely honest to say that it is the previous government's policy that was pursued. It is in many ways the opposition in the Riksdag that has prompted the many proposals for announcements, and certain political measures have been forced from the government's side.

The Chairman also asked a question earlier that I missed answering, regarding whether we think the preventive measures and other welfare components are important.

I want to remind that we see it as very urgent. We truly safeguard the Swedish welfare. Among other things, in the Committee on Social Insurance, we have pushed very strongly for, for example, the health insurance. There, it took a long time for the Social Democrats to get support together with the Sweden Democrats to pass through important reforms and important proposals to improve the health insurance.

It is not the Sweden Democrats who dismantled, for example, personal assistance, where, in favor of immigration, unreasonable goals were set and personal assistance was significantly worsened.

We are, therefore, still a guarantor for a good welfare and a good welfare system that is to function.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! Why does the cancer-stricken primary school teacher in the rural area have to wait two years for an examination while the business lawyer in the city apartment runs marathons, eats exclusive wagyu beef and kale, and obtains a private health insurance to jump the queue in healthcare?

For us in Vänsterpartiet, health is not a question of a lifestyle that one chooses, but it is a class issue. Inequality in health and life expectancy has increased in Sweden. During the same time, one can see that the market has pushed its way deep into healthcare and elderly care.

The budget that the Sverigedemokraterna, Liberalerna, Kristdemokraterna and Moderaterna have developed does not provide healthcare and care personnel with a good working environment. No establishment control. No tightening of either online doctors or private healthcare insurance. Instead, cuts. The Sverigedemokraterna's and the government's healthcare policy does not offer much hope for the coming four years.

Healthcare is in crisis. The queues for both specialist care and emergency rooms are quite long, nurses are on their knees, and the mountains of both overtime and postponed operations that the pandemic brought with it are constantly being reminded. But despite the fact that healthcare staff, patients, and regional politicians are shouting to you who currently hold the power for long-term reforms and more resources, these are conspicuous by their absence in the palace agreement, the Tidö agreement, and even in Elisabeth Svantesson's budget.

What happened, Mr. Speaker, with the staff's need for more colleagues and a better working environment? What will happen with primary care? With elderly care?

The SD-led right-wing government's state budget was a cold shower for the welfare system. At least 20 billion in increased state grants had been needed just to maintain the level we have now. You added 6 billion extra.

Mr. Speaker! The Left invests 10 billion for municipalities and regions for increased staffing levels in elderly care and healthcare during the entire mandate period. It is also about social workers being able to work with preventive measures to prevent new recruitment into gangs and about getting more doctors and nurses and more assistant nurses within elderly care. The need for staff is, in fact, increasing. It is also about training at the same pace, isn't it?

We are also adding 14 billion in state grants to the welfare system. Sometimes people talk about a printing press in the basement, but we do not have that. This is within the framework, I want to point out, so if you want to say anything to me later, you do not need to say it.

If we count with the government's 6 billion, it will be a total of 30 billion more annually in state grants to welfare during the following years. It is a major investment we are making - it is welfare first for us, within a framework, as it were. It is about long-term investments, just as healthcare and care have requested.

It is clear that we must have increased national governance for equal healthcare throughout Sweden; we completely agree with that. People in, for example, rural municipalities have much poorer health than the average, while residents in wealthy municipalities around major cities have much better health. Access to and the use of healthcare is greatest where the most and healthiest people live - there are investigations that show this.

To secure access to care even in sparsely populated areas, a solidary investment via taxation is required so that resources to the rural areas increase. All of Sweden should, of course, be able to rely on the healthcare we have.

We also want to provide increased resources to be able to offer nurses and midwives paid specialist training throughout the country. We have been talking about this for quite a long time, and here the pace must be increased.

So, regarding elderly care. So much we talked about elderly care during the pandemic! We also made certain joint initiatives. We were all so upset. The needs to hire staff and provide increased opportunities for competence development and career paths are very large. Therefore, we have allocated funds to be able to continue with Äldreomsorgslyftet. It must be able to continue even after 2024; it is extremely important. The initiatives we make must be long-term to hold together.

We cannot have elderly care based on hourly workers, with few nursing assistants. Elderly people who have home care or live in elderly care homes must feel safe; it is extremely important.

A question we have talked about very much is mental health, and it is not at its peak; we can see that. Still, psychiatry is one of the most neglected areas of healthcare. The focus is usually on short-term treatments and medication, and it is very uneven between the regions when it comes to what one receives. Where are the conversations? Different medical treatments are of course very important, but therapy is also needed. Often, as a patient, you have to buy therapy in town, from private therapists. This ultimately becomes a class issue.

We must begin to equate mental health with physical health; it is extremely important and central. Here we step in and invest extra, precisely in order to be able to offer better talk therapy for those who are within both primary care and psychiatry.

Mr. Speaker! Teeth are a clear class issue. If someone shows their teeth, one can largely say which class the person comes from. Teeth are a part of the body and should be included in healthcare. Everyone should have the means to have good teeth, not just those who can pay for expensive treatments.

We want to equate dental care with healthcare; we think that is extremely important. We have included such an initiative in our budget. It costs 6.5 billion to put the whole thing together, so that we get a ladder. There is an investigation on this, and I know that this is also in the Tidö Agreement. Please look at that investigation and come up with this, I say to the government and SD. A reform within dental care was needed.

We have, debate after debate, highlighted the healthcare and elderly care staff's need for more colleagues and a good working environment, haven't we? In the budget that the government and the Sweden Democrats have now presented, it is, we believe, clear that once again the healthcare and elderly care staff are left on the platform with a cheerful round of applause and a good luck.

It is clear that, for example, primary care would now need resources to pull through. We believe that state grants would mean a great deal. That did not happen. We do not see the major investments in primary care. On the other hand, there will be an investigation into removing the money for interpreters for those who need an interpreter within healthcare and whether the healthcare system, which is subject to confidentiality, should report patients who do not have a residence permit. The Sweden Democrats have, we believe, had their demands pushed through. They must be very satisfied. You others get to sit in a government and more administer parts of SD's wish list.

There are many fine words in the palace agreement regarding health and medical care. Some points are very good, I think, but resources are lacking. We have stood behind a number of the government's points, regarding for example leisure, the elderly and so on. We thought that was obvious, because those are good things, simply. Then one must be able to say yes, we go for it.

But resources are lacking, state grants for long-term investments in healthcare personnel which are absolutely necessary for sustainable healthcare, and investments so that the social services can become more offensive. The social services must leave their desks and go out into their communities and be more hands-on. For this, resources and more social workers are needed.

When the right rules, it often happens that resources for welfare disappear and one invests in those who have it best in society. It is a classic and nothing that surprises me too much. But now I believe that even the Sverigedemokraterna are getting on that train. I think it is important to emphasize that. We will see where this train is going. I am happy to be the one who says stop.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand if Member Rågsjö, who is a member of the Left Party, perhaps does not watch much commercial television, but on one of the commercial channels, there is a program called Lyxfällan. The Left Party could actually be the subject of that program's attention for an entire season, because the politics that the Left Party pursues reminds precisely of the behavior that the participants in the program have. One lives beyond one's means, consumes on credit, and has a policy that is a bit like peeing in one's pants – it gets warm first, but it gets cold afterwards.

The Left Party says that they certainly finance their activities within the framework. But if you look at the Left Party's budget proposal, you see, Mr. Speaker, that they are raising taxes by 68 billion. It is a real slap in the face to companies and households that are already being pressed hard by rising prices and an increasingly weaker economic development.

But that is not enough to finance the Left Party's initiatives. If one looks at the Left Party's motion and takes note of their own figures, Mr. Speaker, one sees that they are borrowing over 200 billion. That is to fuel the inflation fire that is making us all poorer. It drives up interest rates. It would drive up the pension costs for Sveriges kommuner och regioner. It is this that makes Sveriges kommuner och regioner now desire increased state grants - in order to, among other things, compensate for the sharply increased costs for pensions. Then the Left Party is driving a policy that would lead to even higher inflation and even higher pension costs and, in the long term, would erode the conditions for financing the welfare. Is this, Member Rågsjö, taking responsibility?

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thought the economic debate was yesterday. I absolutely think that we have a very reasonable budget. We are investing in welfare. We are investing in those who are doing a bit worse in society. But you are charging ahead. I do not intend to talk about electricity and about how half of Sweden does not get a penny. I do not intend to talk about how the one who has three summer cottages can cash in a bit more electricity support for a swimming pool and a bit of other things.

But I can talk about something else that I also find interesting. There is a report by Grant Thornton called How the private health and social care sector in Sweden is doing. They have looked at how much the private companies are cashing in - I think that belongs to this healthcare debate, because isn't that what we have?

We can see that the private healthcare companies' profits in 2021 increased by 7.3 billion kronor, to 141.7 billion. That is something we can start to reflect on; I think we should dig into that. Where is the money coming from? What influence do they have in regional politics? It would be interesting to look at that. How is it that I, if I have a private healthcare clinic that has an agreement with the region, can also receive those who have private healthcare insurance? It is relevant to talk about.

It is also relevant in this debate to talk about how it is that those who have poorer education and finances also have worse and worse health.

We find ourselves in an extremely insecure world right now, and it is clear that Sweden must then borrow for some of the things that must be done. It is about, for example, getting the trains running. Would it not be good if they pushed forward instead of just improving the roads?

I do not intend to have any budget debate here today, but instead, I think we should focus on health and medical care. I think we should discuss issues concerning health and medical care.

We have made this budget. What we have presented within the framework is clear. We have a completely balanced budget, and we are investing in those who are in the absolute worst position.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Excuse me for laughing a little, but it is astonishing that in the debate on expenditure area 9 in the state budget, Member Rågsjö says that she does not want a budget debate. In that case, Member Rågsjö will have to come back at another time, because that is exactly what we have today. We have a debate on Sweden's state budget before perhaps the most important decision we are to take regarding Swedish health care and social services in the chamber this year. In that case, one actually has to be a bit more serious.

The fact is that Vänsterpartiet in its budget motion proposes that Sweden should borrow over 200 billion. This will drive up inflation, make people poorer, reduce resources for welfare, and force Sweden's municipalities and regions to spend more on pension contributions instead of investing in the staff, which is what Member Rågsjö says she is for.

Mr. Speaker! We must talk about basic economic policy in order to be able to have a serious discussion on how we can prioritize our resources and be able to invest in developing Swedish health and medical care.

I must say that I am surprised.

The government that the Left Party indirectly supported for eight years pushed forward what the Left Party is so critical of, namely the existence of private health insurance. They have grown because the previous government so flagrantly failed to deliver an accessible health and medical care.

We Moderates therefore propose, together with our coalition partners, a national healthcare mediation and performance-based compensation to improve accessibility. The Left Party strikes out this entire initiative of 3 billion to shorten healthcare queues. How are people in the Left Party's Sweden then supposed to receive care in time?

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! Of course we have a budget debate, but we are talking about health and medical care, aren't we? I wonder how these 3 billion for the national healthcare brokerage will land in 21 regions that will have a super-crisis next year because you are cutting so much.

You are putting in 6 billion, and that is not enough to fill up within health and medical care, elderly care, school and so on. We are putting in, for example, 10 billion just to achieve a functional staffing density.

Who is going to work with your healthcare brokerage? Who in the regions will work with it? Is it not intended that the private actors should be clustered around this? Is there not a thought about that? The member asks the 21 regions if they can take care of a healthcare brokerage so that Karin can have her knee operated on; there will not be many who can do that here. But then one can contact the private actors, because it is they who will come in when it turns out that the regions do not manage this.

It is obvious that your budget for health and medical care and social services is not sufficient. We will talk about this every year, perhaps several times a week. Who knows?

In SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, regardless of whether one is Moderate or Left Party, one has been very critical of the low state grant. It is clear that I wonder about the 6 billion. Even if you make other investments, you will not reach what is needed to cover the needs.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Three months ago, Sweden went to the polls. At that time, the Swedish people voted for a change of power and change. The Moderates have since, together with the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, formed a strong government which, through close cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, has a majority in the Swedish Riksdag. Thus, we finally have a government with the ability to do what is required, a government that can implement the many reforms needed to solve Sweden's many and large societal problems. The Tidö Agreement constitutes a stable foundation for extensive and necessary reform work.

After eight years of red-green mismanagement, the government's tasks are demanding. It is a demanding task to crack down on crime and restore safety throughout the country. It is a demanding task to rebuild our electricity system, which was once perhaps the world's best but is now very fragile and vulnerable after the red-greens, with their policy, have shut down six of twelve Swedish nuclear reactors.

Also within the area we are now debating, that is to say health care and social care, the problems are many and the challenges are great.

But now, Mr. Speaker, the work to get Sweden in order has finally begun. The work has begun to shorten the healthcare queues. By establishing a national state healthcare brokerage, we want to strengthen the patients' position and utilize all the capacity that exists collectively across our country. At the same time, the government is investing 3 billion annually in a performance-based compensation to the regions in order to shorten the queues and improve accessibility across the entire country.

To shorten the healthcare queues, many measures were needed, not least more healthcare beds. Therefore, a national long-term plan to reduce the shortage of healthcare beds shall be developed and a performance-based compensation of as much as 2 billion annually shall be introduced.

Crucial to shortening healthcare queues and increasing the number of healthcare beds is a good supply of competence. The work environment within healthcare and elderly care needs to be improved and staff are offered good opportunities for further education and competence development. For 2023, the government is investing around 1.2 billion to support the municipalities' and regions' work with competence supply and competence development in health and medical care. In addition, the government is investing a further half billion annually to increase further education of nurses and to create better development and career opportunities.

We in the four coalition parties are convinced that increased national leadership and accountability are required. This applies particularly to strategic and overarching tasks such as skills supply. Therefore, the work of developing a national plan to improve the skills supply becomes important.

Mr. Speaker! Work has also begun to strengthen social interventions and all the country's social services. It is particularly important to develop the preventive work and give the social services better conditions to intervene early, not least so that we can put a stop to the criminal gangs' new recruitment. Children and young people shall not be drawn into crime or substance abuse. Children and young people shall go to school and be given a safe, loving, and good start in life.

That is why I am pleased that the government is allocating specific funds to strengthen the social services' work against youth crime and, not least, that the government is investing several hundred million to strengthen parental support. Being a parent is the most important but also the most difficult task in life. Therefore, it is important that parents can receive support and help to shoulder that task in a good way.

Mr. Speaker! The investment in a reinforced parenting program is one of many initiatives in the government's budget that has a preventive approach. Today, we address both health problems and social problems in a far too reactive manner – this despite the fact that we know that actually all social problems and a very large amount of illness and ill health are preventable, for example, around one-third of all cancer.

Switching to working more preventatively and health-promoting within both social services and healthcare is difficult, especially given how heavily pressured these operations are by acute tasks, but nevertheless, it is precisely what needs to be done. Through more preventive interventions, a great deal of suffering and large economic resources can be saved. Thus, the pressure on social services as well as healthcare can be reduced in the long term.

One of the biggest health problems we have today is the problems with mental ill-health, not least among children and young people. Therefore, it is very welcome that the government in the budget bill allocates 380 million kronor to improve accessibility to child and adolescent psychiatry. Furthermore, measures are taken to develop the work with mental health in general and suicide prevention in particular. This is truly vital.

Mr. Speaker! One cause of mental ill-health and even suicide is loneliness. It is a problem that the government wants to address by, for the first time, making a major investment in a strengthened and developed effort to break involuntary loneliness and isolation, an effort that I foresee needs to be carried out in very close cooperation with civil society.

Speaking of civil society and association life, the government, with the 2023 budget, begins a comprehensive initiative to support the promotion of an active and meaningful leisure time for children and young people. A special leisure card shall be introduced to improve access to sports and association life, particularly for children and young people in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. This is an important initiative to prevent both physical and mental ill health, but also social problems.

Mr. Speaker! The budget is thick and extensive, and I have therefore only been able to make a few quick observations. Had I had more time, I would have spoken further about how we are investing in advanced cancer care and how we are strengthening and extending the investment in maternity care and women's health. I would have spoken about our investments in strengthening primary care and child and youth health care.

I would also have liked to tell more about the investments and reforms for a safer elderly care, about the government's investment in the "Housing First" method to reduce homelessness, and about the small but so very important investment in the context of strengthening Bris's support line. Strengthening the protection for children's rights has long been a priority issue for us Moderates. Therefore, I am happy and proud that we now have a government that uses both economic and political muscles to ensure children their rights and that we now have a specific Minister for Social Services who sees exactly this as one of their most important tasks.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I note that a very extensive task lies ahead of the new government. Shortening the record-long healthcare queues, reducing the shortage of care beds, and strengthening social services are not easy tasks, but we four parties who stand behind the government and the Tidö Agreement are determined to solve them. With the budget we are now debating, many both large and important steps are taken to get Sweden in order.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Lastly, I would like to convey a greeting from my good colleague Lina Nordquist from Liberalerna, who unfortunately has fallen ill. She was charged up and looking forward to today's debate but was forced to stay home due to illness. That Nordquist stays away so as not to infect the rest of us is taking responsibility, and the budget that the government has presented means taking responsibility for Swedish health and medical care and social care.

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! Before I focus on the supply of skills, it is with pleasure that I note that we ensured that the Convention on the Rights of the Child became law during the previous parliamentary term. At that time, the Moderates did not advocate for children's rights at all in the same way as Member Hultberg did in the rostrum just now.

But my reflection concerns the supply of skills. Yesterday, we invited Social Democrats, trade unions, professional associations, and employer organizations in the welfare sector, with a focus on health and medical care, to a meeting about the supply of skills within healthcare, elderly care, and social services.

The organizations described a situation that has worsened over a series of years. It is tough for doctors, nurses, nursing assistants, and social workers. They are leaving their workplaces due to low wages, low staffing levels, and a poor working environment. The organizations we met wonder where the large state investments that the previous government made have gone. They want the state to think anew and take new initiatives, and that the policy nationally should be able to focus on and work with these issues moving forward.

In addition to doubling the investment in welfare, which we do in the budget in relation to the government and which I raised in my speech, we Social Democrats have taken the initiative for a welfare commission in our budget motion. We have seen how the Defense Commission has done a good job, even in a polarized political landscape, and we believe that something similar would be needed in the area of welfare. My question to Member of Parliament Johan Hultberg is: What is your position on our proposal for a welfare commission with a focus on skills supply?

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first state that we now, for the first time in many years, have a government that has support here in the Swedish Riksdag, a government that can push through its policies, a government that can drive precisely the ambitious reform work that we need to solve the many and great challenges we face, not least linked to the supply of skills.

I am proud to belong to a party that has clearly stated that we are ready to talk with all parties in Sweden's Riksdag. We are ready to join forces with everyone who is ready to take responsibility for solving the problems we have, and I am absolutely ready to look more closely at the proposal that Member of Parliament Lundh Sammeli mentions.

I believe it is very important that beyond parliamentary terms and beyond party and bloc boundaries, we can find solutions to address the long-term problems, which naturally will not be gone even after this term. I will be humble and say that the challenges we have in the area of skills supply are so great that they will not be solved in four years, but I am convinced that we will have taken important steps along the way.

I mentioned in my speech how we are making important investments in the skills supply: 3.2 billion during 2023. I believe it is also extremely important with the many other reforms that we are starting, for example, creating a better IT infrastructure. When surveys are conducted among staff within health and medical care, it is often highlighted that poor IT systems are a greater reason to end one's employment than the low salary.

Cleaning up the swamp of dysfunctional systems that cannot communicate with each other is a concrete, important improvement of the work environment. It is also a measure that can free up time for that important patient meeting, instead of the nurse, the nursing assistant, or the doctor having to spend time frustrated reporting in yet another poor system.

Broad work is required here, and I am pleased that the Social Democrats are extending a hand so that we can find broad, long-term solutions.

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

Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)

Mr. Speaker! What Member Hultberg forgets to mention is that the government consists of three parties that all lost in the election. The only reason there is a government base with a majority is that Kristersson is in Jimmie Åkesson's government. As long as the government is prepared to dance to Jimmie Åkesson's and the Sverigedemokraternas tune, they will have support, but the day they are not, the government will not be a winning government with a powerful agenda.

The Social Democrats' agenda is clear. We shall take back control over the welfare sector and stop the pursuit of profit in that area. A strong welfare in our country is the best tool for increased security and equality. We Social Democrats have prioritized delivering more employees in the welfare sector over lowered taxes during our time in government. In our budget alternative, we double the resources to the welfare sector in relation to the government.

If I and Member Hultberg share the picture and agree that the supply of competence is perhaps welfare's biggest problem, the question remains: Why is this not seen more clearly in the budget that the government has now presented? And what is the message from the government and the Sverigedemokrater to all those municipalities that now realize that the government, in a tough situation, is leaving them in the lurch, where the choice is to cut back or raise taxes to maintain the level of welfare within health care, within elderly care and social services?

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The basis for a strong welfare state is that Sweden works - that the Swedish people go to work and pay taxes. Unfortunately, we have had a government that has dismantled the work principle and which has pursued a policy that has resulted in us having a record-high long-term unemployment.

I will return to what I said in my previous exchange. Had it been the case that Sweden had only had the same economic development as the EU average, we would have had 40 billion kronor more annually for welfare. If one translates that to skills supply, Mr. Speaker, it would have meant 65,000 more primary school teachers, 80,000 more assistant nurses or 59,000 more police officers. That is why it is so incredibly important that we now have a government that can re-establish the work principle, focus on a strong economic policy and create competitiveness for our companies so that more people can get into work and so that more people can contribute to the public welfare. It is extremely central.

Mr. Speaker! When we zoom in on the issue of skills supply, I think we are taking large and important steps in this budget. We are making major investments to support the municipalities and regions in their work to strengthen the skills supply and offer career paths and educational paths. And we are beginning the work of developing a national plan for the skills supply.

It is primarily the overall responsibility that I believe it is important for the state to take. It is, after all, the municipalities and regions that need to do the homework to become better employers - to improve the work environment. But the state needs to coordinate the work better and look at how to develop the education system to match the needs that exist.

I am also proud and happy that we have a government that pursues a responsible economic policy, which ensures that if the crisis becomes tougher, there is room to make further investments to support municipalities and regions in their important welfare work.

(cont. § 10)

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