All of Sweden shall function - politics for stronger rural areas

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Industry's report 21 All of Sweden shall function – policy for stronger rural areas. It is a report that I stand behind, and I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposals in the report.

That we all agree that all of Sweden shall live is no news. No party and no member in this assembly would claim anything else, so when we debate differences of opinion today, one must nevertheless keep in mind that the purpose and the will to create good conditions throughout the country is something we are all inspired by.

Personally, I can think that the name of the report is somewhat unfortunate as it can be interpreted as if there is some kind of opposition between city and country. That is not the case, and it also appears from the text in the report.

A vital Sweden presupposes vital rural areas and a well-functioning interaction between city and country. In many cases, it is in the rural areas that Sweden's long-term competitiveness is created and secured. The development of rural areas can therefore be considered decisive for the success of the whole of Sweden. It is also the case that the values that our rural areas give rise to are particularly important for our self-sufficiency and preparedness capacity – or as it is formulated in the bill: ”The Government sees the rural areas as a resource to be utilized and developed – not a problem to be solved.”

This is a good starting point that is well in line with what I have said in previous debates about that people and companies in our rural areas do not want to be viewed as subsidy-dependent and pitied, but they simply want reasonable conditions and prerequisites to develop and thrive. I mean that there is a fantastic drive among many of the people who live far from the Stockholm local transport's route map.

At the foundation, all citizens have the same right to security, education, work, and service. One should be able to have faith in the future regardless of whether one grows up in Hemmesdynge or on Kungsholmen. There is a value in striving to break the city as the norm and instead start from the unique conditions of different rural areas, villages, and cities. If you live in Puoltikasvaara or Juoksengi, you understand that you cannot have the dental clinic around the corner. But when the clinic that exists a few miles away can never offer patients appointments because there is a constant shortage of staff, one experiences that the care is not on equal terms. Here, our regions have a very large responsibility to shoulder, not least my home region, the Social Democratic-led Norrbotten.

One of the things there is most of in our elongated country is distances, in many cases large ones. A priority for the Tidö parties has therefore been to do something about the enormous maintenance debt that our entire transport system suffers from after decades of neglectful treatment. We are making historical investments in Sweden's common road infrastructure, we have removed the aviation tax, and in my home region, large investments are now being made in capacity increases on the Malmbanan, which is so important for the mining industry and Sweden's industry.

We do not tax people who have no other choice than to take the car. We understand that making people poorer does not make them happier or more productive. We put a stop to a really bad travel deduction that was about to be introduced, if it had not been for the change of government in the 2022 election. We have lowered fuel prices in stages, and when something happens in the world, we do not just blame the global situation but investigate the possibilities of implementing measures that further compensate consumers and companies for costs that otherwise hit them not only at the pump but also in the grocery store through more expensive goods and ultimately through the high inflation that prevailed as a result of the Social Democrats' previous sky-high fuel and energy prices.

Another important function for keeping all of Sweden alive is the access to commercial services throughout the country. This is also addressed in the report. We Sverigedemokrater have long advocated that the design, adequacy, and accuracy of these supports should be scrutinized to ensure that they provide the intended benefit. The commercial service often constitutes an important hub in Sweden's various regions. We therefore consider it important to protect it by ensuring that the supports the state pays out match the needs in the best possible way. At present, we have no indications that the supports are not functioning as intended, but that does not mean we must not be responsive to changed conditions in this important area. As is well known, it is not entirely uncommon for the small rural snack bar or country store to function as both a snack bar and a grocery store while simultaneously serving as a postal agency, pharmacy agency, bus station, library agency, and an agent for Svenska spel, and thereby constitutes an important hub in the region.

To further strengthen Sweden's rural areas, I and the Sweden Democrats believe that a system should be introduced for returning a larger portion of the profit from the production values created in the countryside to the local communities where the production or raw material extraction takes place. The conditions for our municipalities have simply changed over time. They have the right to tax, but today people commute to a greater extent than before. Production can be more intensive than ever but less labor-intensive. The time when the mill owner lived on the other side of the mine fence and the workers cycled or walked to the industrial gates has long since passed. This is a fact that erodes the tax base of many municipalities. Thus, enormous values are still often generated in the countryside, but without these municipalities receiving real conditions to invest in basic municipal services in a way that would have been desirable.

Here we mean that our proposal for a regionalization or municipalization of the property tax for industries and power production facilities can be precisely such a reform that remedies this problem. I note that there are several proposals pointing in a similar direction, and if Madam Speaker allows me to peer into the future, I believe that we will see such a reform in one form or another within not too distant a future. Otherwise, the social acceptance for large industrial investments out in the country will simply be eroded in a way that does not benefit AB Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Finally: If all of Sweden is to live and our rural areas are to be strengthened, all Swedes must have the same right to our common land. It is simply not possible to ignore that the status of mining as a national interest constitutes one of the most intrusive restrictions on land use in large parts of northern Sweden. It is a circumstance that has far-reaching consequences for permit processes, investment willingness, and regional development.

That it has also recently emerged that the state-funded Samefonden incorrectly financed several samebys' legal costs when they sued the state in order to exclude everyone else from our mountain world and obtain exclusive hunting and fishing rights in northern Sweden makes one realize that something is wrong and that a new order must be established.

Well aware that it does not constitute part of the report we are now debating but is a completely different debate that must be conducted at another time, I nevertheless maintain that a new reindeer husbandry investigation and amendments to the Reindeer Husbandry Act are absolutely necessary for the building of stronger rural areas, at least in the northern half of our beautiful Sweden.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eric Palmqvist, for the speech! When one listens to Eric Palmqvist, one can become a bit thoughtful, especially regarding the reinstatement of the property tax. I am completely convinced that, for example, Gothenburg would gladly accept the property tax from Volvo and that Södertälje would accept the property tax from Scania, just as with any other major industrial establishment in southern Sweden. Redistribution is an issue that I will return to in my speech.

I have a question for Eric Palmqvist. We Social Democrats are running for election on a platform of stopping market failures. Many of them affect our rural areas. Something else that affects the rural areas is the state's retreat – that Trafikverket turns off streetlights, that the postal service closes service offices, and that the police take down the sign.

I would argue that the majority, who stand behind the report, are slightly misleading. When it comes to our motion to introduce a lex Malå regarding response times for the police, it is answered that it is entirely up to the Police Authority. In almost every other case, the majority wants to direct the authorities, but not when it concerns the police. Why should rural areas tolerate that the police sign is taken down and that the response times become very long? In the lex Malå case, it takes the police much longer than an hour to arrive at the scene. Why, Eric Palmqvist?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Things change quickly in politics and in hockey.

I actually cannot comment on the police as it is not police matters that we are debating here today, but in our policy, we in the Sverigedemokraterna have been clear that we want to increase the police presence throughout the country, not just in Malå. We increase the admissions to the police training, and we raise the wages to make the police profession more attractive. We believe that the police should have a good and acceptable response time throughout the country.

The member from [name omitted/mentioned] also mentioned the extinguished traffic lights in his reply, but that decision has been halted as there was great attention surrounding the issue. It is not something that has been ordered by politics, so to speak.

The Chairman also mentioned the state's withdrawal. I almost expected a question about Statens servicecenter, but it did not come. The question was instead about market failures and the like. A typical example that the Social Democrats usually put forward is Bilprovningen. In my home municipality, we have had major problems with it, but there it was sufficient to change the shift format so that Bilprovningen could compete with the mining industry. Suddenly, there were times available. When the state is to compete with the civil market, one may sometimes have to adapt to the rules of the game that apply in the area, in order to be able to attract the same type of labor if there is competition for it.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! But now it is like this, Eric Palmqvist: Let us say that the report only has a small piece of legislation concerning the regions' duty to consult, which everyone in the committee stands behind, but in the bill, all the parts that the Tidö parties have worked on are mentioned. That is why we have submitted a motion, where we, for example, have a "must" action regarding police presence, precisely because the police have withdrawn from several locations. The police have taken down the sign, and from many rural municipalities, clear, documented observations are now coming in that in more and more municipalities it is taking longer for the police to travel to carry out an intervention.

In Malå, the local police are stationed in Skellefteå. SVT conducted an investigation that clearly showed that approximately 20 police stations disappeared during 2025 from mainly small municipalities. This is something that is happening under the supervision and leadership of the Tidö parties. It is happening now, and it rightly creates concern. Is the rural population not served by a fair police presence, Eric Palmqvist?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member From for the question, which actually belongs in the Justice Committee's debate on police presence. I will nevertheless try to answer it.

The Swedish Police Authority is an agency that must make its own assessments of which offices should be kept. Both Isak From and the undersigned know that many of the offices located in the countryside have stood more or less unmanned and have only been manned for an hour here or there. They have actually functioned as a coffee break or rest stop for police officers who have come from somewhere else and then had an assignment in the area, when the station was manned for a short while.

This is naturally unfortunate, and I would gladly see a completely different development. As a person from Norrbotten, I would gladly see a much better presence throughout my county, but that is not the assessment the authority has made based on the availability of staff.

With this said, the Sweden Democrats are, in any case, fighting for more police and for law and order in society. If it then leads to the need for more stations to be opened, an instruction must then be given to the authority regarding that. It is not up to us in the Committee on Enterprise to make decisions in that matter, but it is a completely different committee that handles it, which the member From is well aware of.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the speech!

We have a great concern in the world right now. We see conflicts, perhaps above all that is happening in the Strait of Hormuz.

I would like to ask a couple of questions about fossil fuels and how the Sweden Democrats view it in relation to how all of Sweden should function and that the countryside should do well. When the price of fossil fuels rises, quick measures can be taken by lowering the tax, which the Sweden Democrats have been pleased with. The Centre Party has also proposed it as an emergency measure. Other countries have taken a different path.

When I look at the slightly longer lines, I wonder what the Sverigedemokraternas policy looks like. Would it not be better to invest in domestic renewable fuels that come from the forest or agriculture, or in electrofuels that perhaps come from the wind? We can have facilities in the countryside where we can return the values to the local population and local municipalities instead of making ourselves increasingly dependent on fossil fuels in the long term.

I want to hear about the Sweden Democrats' policy in this area. Often the answer tends to be that it is nuclear power they are aiming for. If nuclear power is realized, it will be ready by 2045 or 2050. How is the rural economy to be developed? How will it be economically feasible to transport oneself in a scenario where fossil fuels become more and more expensive as conflicts in the world increase?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anders Ådahl, for the questions! There were quite a few of them, and I will try to stick to a couple of them.

I am thinking about the forest. Swedish forestry is fantastic, and it is a great asset for Sweden – not least economically but also as a carbon sink. It contributes to jobs and prosperity.

Sometimes I wonder, however, how one views the forest from the side that thinks we should use the forest as fuel. It is not least about the fact that the forest is often pointed out as a protected asset. According to many, it should therefore not be utilized in the way it is done today, but it should be a more small-scale utilization. Large areas in the mountain world should, according to some proponents of this, for example within the EU, be exempted. The forest shall replace plastic. Our straws, plates, and the like shall be made of, for example, paper pulp or cellulose instead of plastic. The forest shall, according to some, replace cement. We shall not build with cement, because it generates large emissions of carbon dioxide. We should instead preferably build in wood, they argue.

So now we are also going to use the forest for driving cars on. The question is whether the forest will be sufficient and what the costs will be. We saw what the reduction obligation led to for fuel prices.

My counter-question is therefore: How much can the fuel cost if we use cellulose and pulp, that is, the forest, as fuel? How much is the member prepared to let the fuel cost during such a transition?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! As far as I understand from Member Eric Palmqvist's answer, there is no insight or agenda when it comes to strengthening the people in the countryside in getting away from a fossil dependency, where prices will probably rise year after year.

Nuclear power is usually the answer. It will come, as I said in my previous turn, perhaps 2045–2050. But until then, the people in the countryside risk being hit by ever higher transport costs. An alternative model one could consider is to invest in renewable fuels, for example, by-products from forestry. Centerpartiet is a strong advocate for intensive forestry. It could also be by-products from agriculture. But it could also be about expanding electricity production out in the countryside with wind power and perhaps solar and wave power and adding storage capacity to achieve a stable electricity system where we can more quickly achieve an electrification of our vehicles on-site.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Center Party are deeply concerned that we are increasingly locking ourselves into a fossil dependency. Those who have to pay the bill for this are not the city dwellers, who can use public transport, but it is the people in the countryside, who, due to the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy, are forced to continue with petrol and diesel as the cheapest option right now, but perhaps not tomorrow.

I therefore want to ask the member again: What is Eric Palmqvist's view on the possibility of switching to renewable fuels and renewable electricity so that the people in the countryside can get a lower transport bill that is just around the corner?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anders Ådahl, for the question!

I noted that I did not receive an answer on how much it is allowed to cost. We saw what the reduction obligation led to when biofuels were mandated by law in fuel. We saw how it affected fuel prices for the people in the countryside. At that time, it was not 100 percent renewable but a mixed part renewable in the fuel, but we still saw the highest fuel prices we have ever had in Sweden. They were among the highest in the entire world.

The people in the countryside know what it costs. They know what works in reality today. They know what works when it is 30 degrees cold. That is the harsh reality.

One may want to have sun and wind as propellants. We cannot really power cars with nuclear power, except by plugging them in, but reactor-driven cars we have not really seen in the current situation.

We know that diesel and gasoline serve us well when it is cold and when there is no wind, but we have not really seen that with electric cars. Posten is purchasing electric cars. They are freezing cold, and then they are replaced. Luleå municipality is getting rid of its electric buses, because they were a fiasco. The buses were cold, and people froze. The technology is not finished, yet people are still being forced into a technology that is expensive to purchase and which is also not proven.

It is the people in the countryside who have to take the hit for this. People in Stockholm can sit on the subway or the bus, but that is not possible if you live in Puoltikasvaara or Junosuando.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the report Whole Sweden Shall Function – policy for stronger rural areas.

One might think that this concerns something grand, but it is about a small legislative amendment that clarifies the regions' duty of consultation. There is nothing strange about that. The entire committee stands behind the consultations, and the legislative amendments shall enter into force on June 1 this year.

I believe, however, that all of Sweden's rural areas expect something more. How does this affect me in my everyday life? That is perhaps what the vast majority ask. Is the service there for me? Is the venture capital there for me as a sole trader? Where can I go to drop off my package and pick up my package when the service has deteriorated and the local post office has closed?

Where can one get help from the authorities if one needs help from Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen, Skatteverket, and Migrationsverket in the countryside? The service centers have been on site, but one of the first actions this government basis undertook was to cut the budget conditions for Statens servicecenter.

That all of Sweden should live and be given the conditions to develop is one of the most important issues for us Social Democrats. I note that it is only the small change in the legal text regarding the regions' duty to consult that distinguishes the report from being a memorandum on the Tidö parties' failures.

We Social Democrats have presented a multitude of proposals in this chamber from all our committee groups, all of which have been voted down. Many of these proposals have concerned the rural inhabitants.

We have eight reservations, some of which are written together with other opposition parties. We Social Democrats, of course, stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservations 1 and 10.

We have a number of requests in the report concerning infrastructure. I will not go into them to any great extent, as our transport committee groups will debate this later, in June. I can, however, note that Trafikverket's shutting down of the countryside is only paused and not stopped.

It seems that important infrastructure for industry across the country will only be realized if there is an opportunity for joint financing or if it is a large municipality that can co-finance. The same requirements are, however, placed on a small municipality. It is not reasonable, and we will return to that.

We can also observe that the state has for a long time withdrawn from rural areas and the countryside. A great deal has been handed over to market solutions, which has not always functioned. There are long distances and lower population density. This has been strongly escalated during the Tidö parties' period of government.

If it is to be possible to live, work and run businesses in the whole country, basic services such as petrol stations, pharmacies, dental care, veterinary services and vehicle testing must function and be available there. Yes, the deregulation of the inspection market has worked in the larger urban areas, where the times for, above all, car inspections have become more frequent. We still maintain, however, that it has become worse in the more sparsely populated areas, especially when it comes to registration inspection of vehicles, inspection of heavy vehicles and so on. There, the trucking companies usually have to drive to a larger town to have their vehicles inspected.

When you are going to pick up medicine at the pharmacy here in Stockholm and it is not available, you are referred to another pharmacy. When you are going to pick up medicine at the pharmacy in Sorsele, Vilhelmina, or any other location in the countryside and the medicine is not on site, they can also say: If you want it today, you have to go and pick it up somewhere else, perhaps 20 mil away. Otherwise, maybe it will be available here tomorrow, but that is not entirely certain.

A new S-led government will ensure basic access to community services throughout the country, everything from fuel to medicine, mail and service. The state must take greater responsibility when the market does not deliver the infrastructure that companies and individuals depend on.

Municipalities and regions in rural areas take on a great responsibility and compensate for much of the state's failure. We have an extensive regionalized governance in Sweden, which is good, but the conditions for carrying out the mission differ. Therefore, it would have been very welcome if the cost and tax equalization proposal that all parties, I believe, agreed on could have been launched. However, it has somehow become locked in the Tidö parties' handling of this. Or perhaps some of the major parties have actually said: No, we do not want to expand a fair tax equalization model. We do not want to introduce this.

It is stated somewhat vaguely in the report that the government parties are expected to put something on the Riksdag's table during 2026. This means that one has now sat for two or three years with something that Sweden's rural and countryside municipalities have requested and waited for. It is bad.

We believe that rural policy needs to be legally secured and that legislation should take into account and specifically examine how rural municipalities and rural residents are affected. We also believe that the authorities should have such a mandate before coming up with any new proposal or proceeding with perhaps shutting down an entire rural region.

There are very many areas where we need to take a new approach. We go to the election on re-establishing Statens servicecenter. Their mandate needs to be expanded. It needs to be ensured that basic financial services are available. Here, Statens servicecenter can also be a possible local where banking activities and local entrepreneurs can meet and discuss loan conditions.

It has been quite a while now, since 2017, since the Parliamentary Rural Committee submitted a report with 75 proposals for Sweden's rural areas. Several of these were implemented, some not fully. We can state that the current government's basis rolls back the proposals. Now nothing remains. All parts that concerned strengthening business development in small municipalities have been withdrawn – very cheap measures, and very much appreciated. Someone in the government's basis is welcome to explain how they came up with that. How did they come up with the idea that they did not need to support small and medium-sized companies in the countryside in getting out onto the export market? Especially in today's uneasy situation, such measures would have been worth their weight in gold for these companies.

Mr. Speaker! There is very much to talk about when it comes to strengthening the conditions for sparsely populated areas and the countryside, but I will stop there.

(Applause)

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Isak From, for the speech and for your, as I perceive it, genuine interest in rural issues!

I noted that the member said that the Social Democrats are going to the election on restoration, reinstatement, or however it was formulated by Statens servicecenter. It is now 14 years since the authority Statens servicecenter was established. It then had 230 employees. For the following four to five years, it remained stable at 300–500 employees, before swelling to 1,500 employees a few years later. It even reached up to 1,600 employees.

Parallel to that, we have seen a decreased migration – they have had a part of the Swedish Migration Agency's cases – which has lowered the pressure somewhat. We have also seen an increased IT maturity in society, where more people actually do not need to go to the Statens servicecenter but can sit in a forestry machine out in the forest, in a fishing boat out on the lake, or in Isak From's hunting forest and perform their agency transactions by phone and similar.

Is it then a reasonable and sound way to use the taxpayers' funds to go from today's 1,200–1,300 employees back to a situation, what one calls a restoration, with approximately 1,600 employees? Is this Isak Froms goal for increasing the state presence in the Swedish countryside? Is this the best one can come up with?

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Is it the Sweden Democrats' opinion, Eric Palmqvist, that we should have equal conditions? Some municipalities today have a very large state presence. I ask myself: Is state service more than alcohol? There is nothing wrong with Systembolaget, but in some municipalities, it is the only state activity that remains on site.

We Social Democrats went to the election on the promise that 10,000 more state employees would be relocated within the country and that more agencies would establish themselves in the countryside. That is because the local costs are cheaper there and the staff are more loyal. And the operations often function better there.

We fought hard, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the Swedish Tax Agency would not be able to move from Lycksele, and we won that battle. Now the Swedish Tax Agency is closing offices in other places. Vetlanda is one such example.

Should everyone have access to Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, and Skatteverket? Not everyone needs it. Many manage to handle their affairs by going online, but not everyone does. Sometimes problems arise.

We mean that politics can govern this. Therefore, it is reasonable to demand that more state service offices that have been closed be reopened. More who had access to an office have been left without. We had begun a construction phase, which this government base is dismantling.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Isak From, for the attempts at an answer! However, I did not quite get an answer as to what it will cost, whether it is a reasonable investment to go back to 1,600 employees in an agency that has gone from having 230 employees in 2012 to now having approximately 1,200–1,300 employees. It is, therefore, still a very large agency, which has decreased slightly, and that implies a relatively small budget change nonetheless.

One can absolutely have views on which offices the authority has chosen to close. But I also know that the Social Democrats are usually quick to criticize what is called ministerial rule and to defend the authorities' right to make their own decisions.

Systembolaget stands, as the member states, for the only state presence in some locations. It may have to do with the fact that one can declare from home and fill out the Försäkringskassan papers at home. But if one manufactures alcohol at home and acts as one's own systembolag, one will be punished, even if one lives in Norsjö where the police presence is a bit hit and miss. The intoxication in Sweden has nevertheless increased significantly since 2012.

To some extent, I share the view that the wrong offices have been closed. I believe that Statens servicecenter has an all too large footprint in the large cities. But it is still up to the agency to make those decisions.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is actually so, Eric Palmqvist, that politics is steered via bills, budget bills, and decisions here in the Riksdag. If the majority proposes a reduction in an activity, the responsible authority must adjust to that meal. If there is less money, then something will disappear.

I met with Postnord in Umeå last week to discuss the closure of a number of mail terminals. It has been announced that they will close in Sorsele, Åsele, and Dorotea. During the meeting, it was also presented that they will close in Nordmaling. It is also due to the fact that this government basis has approved every other day delivery, or delivery two days a week, of letters. That may be reasonable. But the consequences will be that one has to drive from Storumans central town to Ammarnäs – one way 20 mil – or from Vilhelmina to Borgafjäll in Dorotea – one way barely 20 mil.

Successively, activities are being removed. In Norsjö, we still have the police sign. That is good. But the police is one of two authorities – Systembolaget and the police.

In Umeå, I believe there are 37 state activities on site. That makes it so that when you look at the counties, it looks like Västerbotten has a fairly good allocation of state activity. But most of the small municipalities have no or hardly any such state activity.

If we are to have equal conditions, is it not reasonable that the state is actually present in all municipalities?

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This committee report concerns something that is easy to say but significantly harder to achieve in reality: that all of Sweden shall function. It must function not only on paper, not only in a strategy and not only in those parts of the country where the distances are short and the alternatives are many. It must also function in those places where everyday life requires a bit more planning and a bit greater patience.

For me, this is not an abstract question. I grew up in Stenkyrka in northern Gotland and have known from an early age that the countryside is not a special interest. It is people's home, workplace, and dream for the future. It is about people who get up in the morning, do their jobs, run their companies, take responsibility for their families, and contribute to their parish. They should rightly be able to expect that society will also be there for them.

Mr. Speaker! It is here that a serious rural policy needs to begin, not in romantic images, not in temporary projects and not in new layers of administration, but in the reality that people actually live in. For many, the car is not just a convenience choice. It is a prerequisite for being able to work, shop, drop off the children or, for example, get to healthcare.

For many entrepreneurs, a functioning road, a stable power grid, and a reasonable permit process are not details. It is the difference between being able to grow and being forced to turn down jobs and opportunities.

That is why politics needs to be down-to-earth. It needs to understand that the same solution does not work everywhere and that decisions that may seem small, such as when an agency in Stockholm changes a comma, can have consequences for the person working in agriculture, in the workshop, in the tourism industry, or at the farm in a smaller town. For all of Sweden to function, politics needs to start from people's everyday lives, not from the agencies' organizational charts.

That is why the government is presenting this bill. We clarify that a region has an obligation to consult in its regional development work and that representatives of civil society organizations and individual educational providers within the higher education sector must be able to participate.

It may sound technical, but in practice, it is about something that is quite simple. Better decisions are made when more people who know the local needs are able to contribute their knowledge. Civil society often sees things that authorities miss, and educational actors know what competence is needed for companies and the public sector to be able to grow. When those perspectives are brought in earlier in the regional development policy, it can become better anchored and more accurate.

Mr. Speaker! One cannot build Sweden stronger from the desks here in Stockholm, even though we Members of Parliament would of course have hoped for it. If one wants politics to work in Stenkyrka, in Slite, in Sorsele, or in Simrishamn, one needs to listen to those who actually live there, work there, and run businesses there. It is only then that the reforms become practical in a real sense, and it is only then that people can feel that the state does not just talk about the whole country but also understands the whole country.

Mr. Speaker! For the Moderates, rural policy is linked to a larger issue: Sweden needs to become wealthier. It is not an end in itself but a prerequisite for everything else we want to do. If one wants to expand the defense, upgrade the infrastructure, strengthen the energy system, combat crime, or secure the welfare, it requires an economy that grows and that more people work, invest, and build companies.

That is why the Moderaterna are running for election on the basis that the economy shall continue to grow – we shall become the richest in the EU – and that an ordinary family shall be able to keep approximately 5,000 kronor more in their wallet every month. That means a lot in the whole country, but perhaps especially in places where the distances are a bit longer, where the car is needed, where the electricity bill really is a factor, and where families' margins are small. When people are able to keep more of their own salary, not only is the family's own economy strengthened, but it also makes it possible to stay, to invest, and to build one's future where one feels at home.

This report points in the right direction and establishes that the countryside is a strength for Sweden. But for it to become a reality, reforms that make a difference are required. It is about simplifying for entrepreneurs, shortening permit processes, expanding vocational training that leads to jobs, strengthening the electricity supply, and ensuring that the infrastructure functions even outside the main corridors. All of this, Mr. Speaker, is not contained in a single report, but it naturally belongs with the same reform-oriented work.

The government has begun the reorganization. Now there is a crack in the wall of complicated rules that put a stop to new activities. The conditions for small businesses have improved, and the energy policy has been shifted from symbolic politics to a focus on predictable and fossil-free power.

It is not finished, and we must be honest about that. But the direction is right. Just the direction matters for the entrepreneur who is considering investing, the family who wants to build a house, and the young person who wants a future in their hometown.

Mr. Speaker! Against this stands an opposition which, in this report, shows quite clearly that it is not in agreement. From other debates we know that there is no agreement on the contributions, the aid, the taxes, and so on.

In this report, the left-wing parties reserve their positions in various constellations, in different directions and with different statements. Sometimes they stand together, sometimes they stand separately, and sometimes it seems as if the only thing that actually holds them together is that they are against the government.

It is not quite sufficient for those who want to see long-term conditions. Rural entrepreneurs, families, and municipalities need to know whether the policy will make it cheaper or more expensive to, for example, take the car to work, easier or harder to run a business, more or less profitable to work, or more or less possible to build the electricity production that Sweden and perhaps especially Skåne needs. That is where the political dividing line lies.

One cannot really say that the whole country should live and at the same time pursue a policy that makes everyday life more expensive for those who have the longest distances. One cannot speak warmly about the rural areas' companies and at the same time meet them with higher costs, more administration and poorer incentives. One cannot say that one stands on the side of ordinary people if one's only proposal is that the state should take more of people's wages.

Mr. Speaker! There is a difference between talking about the countryside and understanding the countryside. One cannot say that the whole country should live while simultaneously making everyday life more expensive for those who have to take the car to work. One cannot praise small business owners in ceremonial speeches and then meet those same entrepreneurs with more complications, higher costs, and worse conditions. All of Sweden works when people get to work, companies get to grow, and politics stops standing in the way.

Mr. Speaker! Safety is also a crucial part for Sweden to function. The government has fundamentally restructured the crime policy. Now that the shootings in the large cities have been pushed back, the next step needs to be to strengthen the present police across the entire country and ensure that everyday crimes are taken more seriously.

In the countryside, safety is often about crimes that rarely become national news but which nevertheless affect people's lives in a very concrete way. It can be burglaries in the machine hall, thefts from entrepreneurs, fraud against the elderly, or vandalism that makes people feel that the state is far away precisely when it is needed. For those who are affected, these are not small crimes. They are attacks on safety, on entrepreneurship, and on the broader trust in society.

Therefore, the rule of law must be felt also where the distances are long. A police force that is only perceived in theory is not enough. People who behave correctly should be able to feel that society stands on their side, regardless of whether they live in a large city, a smaller town, or for example on an island.

Mr. Speaker! For Gotland, all of this is very concrete. Our communications are not a detail in the margin but a lifeline so that we can work, study, and have a functioning everyday life and a growing tourism industry. The boat and the flights are our highway, and when they function, places like Gotland can grow and contribute even more to Sweden. When they do not function, the distance to the mainland becomes not only geographical but also economic and social.

That is why, with a policy for all of Sweden, one must understand that different parts of the country have different conditions. This, in turn, is not about demanding special treatment, but about conducting a practical policy that ensures people and companies can actually operate on reasonable terms.

Mr. Speaker! We are not there yet. There are still many roads that need to be reinforced, and companies that are waiting far too long for decisions. There are places where the service is very fragile, and there are many people who wonder if the politics really see their everyday lives. The answer to that is not to change direction toward more uncertainty, higher costs, and a weaker work line. The answer is to hold the course and increase the pace in the reform work.

That is how we build a fairer Sweden – a Sweden where the economy grows, where work pays off better, where companies can develop, where the police are present throughout the country and where people have more left in their pockets. We do not do that by pitting city against countryside, but by ensuring that the social contract works regardless of where one lives.

Mr. Speaker! All of Sweden must function. This applies in Stenkyrka, and it applies in the whole country. The Moderates' message is that we intend to continue to reform Sweden, hold the course, and increase the pace for a Sweden where effort pays off, where crime is punished, and where people can feel both security and faith in the future.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) agreed.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson, for the speech! I nevertheless choose to interpret Jesper's speech kindly. If the government base continues to receive confidence and maintains its course, more operations will be shut down. Then, operations from rural and countryside areas will disappear.

I have a question. When I met Unionen in Västerbotten just over a month ago, it stated in the report we received in our hands that 70–75 percent of the companies in Unionen's area in Västerbotten do not find the competence they need. They lack people.

How is Jesper Skalberg Karlsson's party going to turn the ship around so that the companies in Dorotea, Norsjö, Vindeln and Skellefteå find the competence they need? How are people to be made to move there where the jobs are?

Until now, we have seen nothing at all from the Tidö parties. We see, however, that the Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen) is returning billions of kronor and is not enabling a job seeker in another part of the country to travel and look at a vacant job.

One conducts an active labor market policy that entails a total stop on movement in the labor market. That is what Jesper Skalberg Karlsson's party has been doing. Is the intention to maintain the course also in that area, Mr. Speaker?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member from From for that question!

On an overall level, I want to say the following: It is better that we have an education system that trains people for the jobs that exist than that we need to create jobs to match the educations that people happen to have chosen.

We need to transform the education policy so that more vocational educations lead directly to jobs. We need to make adjustments in higher education, for example to get more engineers. There is a very large shortage of engineers in Sweden.

Furthermore, we need to set requirements that those who do not have a job seek employment, even if the job is located some distance away from where one currently lives. It is reasonable and fair.

At the same time, we must be honest that it will not be possible to live in the whole country if the left-wing parties were to gain power in the autumn. Then there will be mortgage tax, property tax, increased tax on savings and increased tax on work. This implies a broad and sharp turn to the left that makes it more expensive to live and reside in the whole country.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also note that many of the rural initiatives put forward by the various parties on the left have quite different priorities behind them. The Centre Party probably proposes the most rural initiatives, but they do so with an interesting financing. They want to cut 10 billion from the budget. Is that something that Isak From and his party can accept?

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think that questions to the Centre Party are most appropriately posed to the Centre Party. I am quite certain that Anders Ådahl will gladly answer questions about the Centre Party's policy.

I am completely convinced that we need to make a turnaround. We need to make it possible for those people who are outside the labor market to move into a job. On May 1, we presented a joint proposal to refocus the efforts at Arbetsförmedlingen to actually get people into jobs. All opposition parties have said that Arbetsförmedlingens development has been catastrophic for getting people into jobs.

There are jobs. We do not need to create any make-believe jobs. Masses of companies in the public sector are seeking people. Many of them are located in smaller rural and sparsely populated municipalities throughout the country, but many of the unemployed are, however, in the metropolitan areas. A paradigm shift is needed here.

Interventions were needed so that we use the money that Arbetsförmedlingen has actually received and do not give it back to the state treasury. For four years, a non-policy has been pursued in order to not carry out any intervention at all. The Moderates used to be a party that nevertheless worked hard to ensure that people got into jobs. Here, they have actually seen the development, and it has become worse and worse. There has been more fly-in and fly-out in Malmfälten. Fewer and fewer small municipalities find competence for their sectors. We need nursing assistants, nurses, dentists, dental nurses and so on in most of the rural regions. The jobs are here.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me state that it has been tough years for Sweden. This government has had to spend a lot of time cleaning up the mess and the wasted boom that the previous government left behind.

An inflation of 10 percent has now been worked down to lie close to the Riksbank's goal. Unemployment has decreased for ten consecutive months, and it continues to trend downwards. Child poverty is today at its lowest in a decade, from 10 percent in 2014 to approximately 6 percent here and now.

The figures are heading in the right direction. The Moderaterna are going to the election on the basis that Sweden shall continue to be a growing economy. We shall become the richest in the EU in order to be able to finance an expanded defense, secure the welfare, and safeguard the infrastructure in our entire country. Then good conditions for entrepreneurship, for investments, and for new ideas are needed in our entire country.

So, what is the Social Democrats' policy in this area? Well, it is to put tens of billions into new subsidies for companies all around the country. They say in their budget proposal that this costs nothing, but for the entrepreneurs, for the employers, for those who create job opportunities in our country, it is about tens of billions just to fulfill what the Social Democrats promise regarding the care deduction.

Is it the right time to make such a sharp turn to the left just when Sweden has started to rise again after tough years? I do not think so. I believe that we need to hold the course, and I believe that we need to increase the pace. Sweden will only function if we become wealthier and safer at the same time, and the Socialdemokraterna cannot achieve either of those goals with their intended government base.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to the debate, it seems as if there are completely different worlds depending on where one lives. But that is to be expected.

Whole Sweden shall function – politics for stronger rural areas is the title of the report NU21, and that is what we are to debate.

In the bill, the government submits a proposal for a clarification of the duty to consult in Section 9 of the Act on Regional Development Responsibility. According to the proposal, it shall be clarified in the Act on Regional Development Responsibility that a region's duty to consult regarding organizations shall include representatives for relevant organizations within civil society and individual educational providers within the higher education area. That is good.

The Government emphasizes that the proposal does not expand the regions' duty to consult, but rather clarifies that consultation shall only take place within the county. Furthermore, the Government proposes that a reference to the Act on National Minorities and Minority Languages shall also be included in the law. That is also good.

We have no objections to the changes in the bill on regional development responsibility. But I can unfortunately state that the government's bill on a policy to strengthen the countryside contains few concrete proposals. It is rather a matter of an account of the government's work.

There are large and growing regional differences in Sweden, and therefore a policy is required that is based on long-term commitment, cooperation, and increased regional influence. Furthermore, the state shall take a clear responsibility to ensure a basic service throughout the country. I therefore advocate for an active regional policy that gives all municipalities equal opportunities and that guarantees service, education, and infrastructure throughout Sweden.

But honestly, my colleagues, governments – regardless of color – sometimes take up rural issues so that it is perceived as the government saying: Yes, we see you, we hear you. Here come proposals that cost almost nothing for the state, and we are working on the issue.

This is what we have heard, regardless of the government's color. Hypocrisy, I would call it – if it were permitted.

Let us look at the heading A strong local community and an effective rural policy. What would my colleagues say a strong local community means? What should a strong local community contain?

First and foremost, I assert that there must be people who live and work on site and who thrive.

I have written in my script that I see nodding from my colleagues, but I saw no nodding. Perhaps you do not agree with me?

Then, obviously, a society that functions around me and my everyday life was needed. Or wasn't it?

Then I come to the difficult part when it concerns a functioning society. What is it that we expect from the common good? Is it that children should have a good education at reasonable distances? Is it that preschool should be offered so that parents can work and have a somewhat reasonable life in everyday life? Is it that one gets care when it is needed?

Police presence has been addressed, as has state presence in general. There is talk about how the digital world is moving forward. Yes, it is. Then there must also be a network that works. Media monitoring – is that something we should expect? Elderly care, housing for those with dementia and home care – should it be available in one's own municipality? Culture – is it a luxury, or should there be something of that sort? The mail – is it to be delivered at all? Daily newspapers – are they only for city dwellers? I can't get any newspaper delivered. Road maintenance – is it a luxury, or should it be somewhat comparable to the suburbs of the cities, where there are also small roads? Street lighting – is it for everyone or just for Trafikverket's own parking lot?

Mr. Speaker! There are many questions that will not get answers, even as we debate policy for the countryside. It is clear that those rural and sparsely populated areas that are relatively close to growth centers and have commuting distances to jobs and community services will survive. But there are also municipalities that have lost population for more than 50 years and today are on their knees. They are cutting back on things that would have given the last straws for people to reach for. At the same time, there are municipalities that contribute to Sweden's prosperity with great values in the form of electricity production, minerals, and forest products but still cannot afford to hire an extra teacher, provide support to civil society, or let some streetlights continue to shine. That is everyday life out there.

I am now at an age where I somewhat remember what happened approximately 55 years ago. I will begin with a story of an uncle who was a relative of my father.

It was in the late 60s. The moving trucks drove in shuttle traffic to southern Sweden from Tornedalen. He said that after the work week he took a shower instead of a Friday sauna, which was common among us in Tornedalen. He was enthusiastic and surprised that there was a ready apartment when he took the job in southern Sweden. He said: It was as if it was built for me – absolutely fantastic!

Society had made it so that he could take the job and move there. Housing was available for everyone who came and got a job. He told how he stands on the balcony of this prefabricated apartment, which he feels is for him, and looks out and observes the Friday evening. He listens to three guys who pass by. They speak this Finnish, or meänkieli, which was my language, and they express an enormous homesickness. They talk about how they have been forced to leave their parents with the farming and all the work they used to help with.

These young guys left home, family, and loved ones to contribute to Sweden's prosperity and growth. This uncle told how these young adult guys cried over their situation. But they contributed to Sweden, because we had collectively ensured that it was possible to do so. We had collectively built up a society where young unemployed people could move, and housing was available.

Today we have a shortage of labor and housing in northern Sweden, but what is offered is reduced night trains, turning off street lighting, and 30–40 jobs in a graphite mine in Vittangi – the minister comes and points with the whole hand and says that the county administrative board shall produce the detailed plan. What is forgotten is that the mine would probably be staffed by fly-in/fly-out personnel. We do not have people up there. We lack people. The government points with the whole hand, and the local population is expected to keep quiet and accept, regardless of how degradingly they treat those who live and work in the area. We are still expected to be a colony for natural resources that the state simply extracts – the profits as well.

They are trying to divide the local population by throwing firebrands into issues that really need to be sorted out with local solutions. I do not defend the Girjas judgment; it is reprehensible. But we cannot back down – the judgment is there. However, reducing the number of reindeer, which the government and a certain party have made statements about, provides no capital to build housing in Kiruna. I am just saying it.

The arrogance towards northern Sweden that is now being displayed is unparalleled. Fine words will not solve the competence supply, which has been touched upon, and the societal challenges that the countryside faces today. A fair distribution of the values created out there is needed. That is the only way these towns can continue to contribute to Sweden's prosperity. We simply need a system where towns that contribute to Sweden with natural resources receive rightful compensation for what they sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker! I was at a seminar on forestry and reindeer husbandry yesterday. It is clearly evident that both parties want to compromise and reach an agreement on how this can be resolved. But I contend that people who live and work on-site are needed. Previously, it was common in the countryside that we were self-sufficient in most things – yes, even in people. But that is no longer the case. Today we lack people, not only in the business sector but also in the public sector. The consequence is that the drivers who work with land preparation in forestry do not meet the local population anywhere and that the staff who look after your parents during the summer holidays are hired and do not know the users or the local population. Do you really believe that this makes it easier for us to solve our challenges within different industries in the countryside?

We really need a new direction, which someone was touching upon, but it might look different to me than it does to Jesper Skalberg Karlsson. We need people who can sustain our rural areas. Today, this government is deporting people whom we are in desperate need of for many society-sustaining functions. Then one has the nerve to boast about how one has stopped immigration. I truly hope that we make a game-changer, a word that some usually use, on September 13 and ensure that we fix the green transition, give the countryside the right conditions, show that the future lies in a Sweden that holds together and takes care of our differences in the best way – not like now, when one wants to divide us people and regions.

Mr. Speaker! I have never during my time as a voter or an adult actually been afraid of an upcoming election result. Roughly, I have known what a bourgeois government would mean – they lower the tax and privatize a little bit more. During the first year with the Reinfeldt government, I used to say: They are at least honest thieves.

But this time, I am actually truly afraid that the sitting government will continue to have confidence. What I hope for is that people out there will remember what morality and honesty mean. We really need a new direction for Sweden and its rural areas. But then we cannot let this government continue. So that is it.

Mr. Speaker! I place my hopes on a change of government and on more of the values created in the countryside in the form of electrical energy, minerals and forest products staying in the places where they are actually extracted.

Of course, we also have a huge opportunity for food production. It is about civil preparedness, but also about what we discard every day. There is a lot in the countryside. It is this opportunity we must not miss. We also produce food there.

Mr. Speaker! I have so much to brainstorm and talk about when it comes to the countryside. But I see that I have already exceeded the time. I intended to move for approval of reservation 2, but I change my mind so that we do not do the same thing. I move for approval of reservation 7 instead. And I thank you for the opportunity to say this.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! All of Sweden shall live. All of Sweden shall hold together. It is a fundamental Christian Democratic conviction that our entire country has value – not only the big cities and the fastest-growing regions but also the countryside, the industrial towns, the archipelago and the smaller municipalities.

This government, Mr. Speaker, has produced important keys for a vital Sweden. It is vital rural areas that create a stronger local community and a more efficient rural policy. It is about simplification for companies in rural areas. It is about better conditions for housing construction, entrepreneurship, and investments in rural areas and about safe, attractive, robust, and cohesive rural areas.

We have a pragmatic government, Mr. Speaker. It is not empty rhetoric. We have begun a work that we want to see continue. I am proud to see what is happening in Sweden and how we take advantage of the fantastic forces that we are now building upon. People should be able to live the good life in all of Sweden.

We Christian Democrats have a great focus on carrying out what we are doing now – an investment in infrastructure. It is absolutely crucial for the whole of Sweden to function. For those who live in the big city, public transport is just a few minutes away. For those who live in the countryside, the car is completely necessary.

Mr. Speaker! We have a policy that is based on people's everyday lives. It must be possible to run businesses in the countryside. There must be functioning roads, a stable electricity supply, access to services, and the opportunity to get an education and build one's future regardless of postcode.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all motions, which I believe leave the door wide open. The government has, in fact, established a national plan for infrastructure. The frameworks are set, and with them come major investments in the transport infrastructure.

For Sweden's rural areas, operation, maintenance, reinvestments, and measures for increased load-bearing capacity concerning the road network are of particular importance. It is about the importance of improved road maintenance on both high-traffic and low-traffic roads and about the importance of regional planning contributing to strengthening the business environment, regional development, and rural development.

Mr. Speaker! Regional development and rural development are ultimately about human value and about trust in people's own strength. We create the conditions for that. We do it by improving the business climate. We do it by shortening permit processes and creating better conditions for investments. We do it by restoring the work line so that more people get into work and so that more companies can grow.

Ung Företagsamhet is important for all of Sweden and represents a great potential for the countryside. Through Ung Företagsamhet, our young people are equipped. It also increases the possibility of starting new companies. We Christian Democrats want to go further with Ung Företagsamhet. We want all upper secondary schools in Sweden to be required to offer Ung Företagsamhet. There is a lack of entrepreneurship in, for example, practical upper secondary educations, and here there are great opportunities to open paths for students to start companies.

Mr. Speaker! We all know the importance of strengthening the competitiveness of the countryside. During this parliamentary term, extensive work has been initiated to strengthen agriculture's food production and improve the conditions for agricultural enterprises – this is to ensure that we have a strong agriculture. It is extremely important for the development of our Swedish countryside.

Mr. Speaker! During the past week, I met several dairy farmers in my region, Region Gävleborg, in Hälsingland. They work hard and do a fantastic job, with commitment and energy. They have faith in the future today and also confirm how crucial it is with long-term and stable conditions. It is precisely for that reason that the government is now strengthening the competitiveness of agriculture, investing in food production, and working for better conditions for Sweden's dairy farmers.

Rural development is also about digital infrastructure. It is a prerequisite for entrepreneurship, remote work, education, and welfare. Access to fast and stable broadband is today as important as roads and railways. Electronic communications are of very great importance to, among other things, increase the use of digital technology. The Government is conducting a review of the digitalization policy to increase the attractiveness and functionality in rural areas. Mobile services provide companies and the residents in rural areas with new opportunities.

The expansion of digital infrastructure continues at a high pace. Mobile operators are making significant investments and upgrading existing infrastructure to 5G technology. Where there are no commercial conditions to expand the digital infrastructure, public funds can be utilized. In this way, one can contribute to those areas receiving a functioning connection. A well-developed and reliable infrastructure opens up for new application areas as well as promotes innovation and development.

We Christian Democrats stand firm on the position that there should be a Sweden where development is not only to take place in a few growth centers while the rest of the country is expected to adapt to decommissioning. Sweden's strength lies in the entire country. We build Sweden from the bottom up through cooperation, community, and an open, cohesive society. It is about a functioning civil society and robust public services by improving the coordination of state activities, simplifying contacts, and increasing accessibility to public services – this is to maintain and strengthen local presence and the conditions for service in rural areas.

The green industry's investments in the north, a growing tourism industry, strong export companies, food production, the forest industry and the innovative power in small and medium-sized enterprises show that growth is not something that only occurs in large cities. Today we see great opportunities all around in the whole of Sweden.

For us Christian Democrats and for this government, it is about creating the right conditions, Mr. Speaker.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all motions.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would request a reply because Lili Andrés' party also holds the position of Minister for Civil Affairs in the government.

Sometimes we get a quick response. I just received an email from a business owner in Överboda outside Umeå who specifically thanked me for highlighting Postnord's deteriorated service.

Postnord guarantees, with a few exceptions, that the package will be delivered the next day. Överboda is located two miles outside Umeå, which is still a fairly large central town. If one orders a package from southern Sweden to the company in Överboda on Monday, it is delivered on Thursday afternoon, at best. But one has to pay just as much for that business package as for a business package sent somewhere else. Is that a reasonable development?

In 2024, the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority removed the provision that parcel deliveries should be a public mission. We Social Democrats have noted this and are adding funds to our amendment budget so that the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority will once again see that deliveries of postal parcels must be a socially important function that should be approximately equal throughout the country.

There is quite a big difference, and there are quite a few entrepreneurs out there who get quite angry when they read on Postnord's website that it will be delivered the next day and then it takes four days in reality. Is that reasonable, Lili André?

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Isak From, for your question and for raising this issue regarding Postnord!

Today, far fewer letters are sent in our country. Therefore, it is important that we transition to digital solutions, and I said in my speech that the broadband network shall be strengthened and the digital competence increased for every person, no matter where they live.

When it comes to parcels, Isak From said that it took about three days to receive a parcel, and for that long I have to wait even in Gävle. Where there is a longer distance between the service points and the homes and therefore longer to transport the parcels, the future is that we want to strengthen the road network and ensure that it can go faster.

A transition is occurring today, and we want to strengthen where the needs are.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! So it is the Kristdemokraterna and Lili Andrés' idea that small business owners in the countryside should have to wait much longer to receive a delivery.

Let me take another example. In my home municipality Norsjö, there is a company that produces graphic profiles. They print pictures, cards, and wallpapers. Sometimes it is a package that does not conform to Postnord's requirements. Today, the business owner then has to get in the car and drive to the post terminal in Skellefteå, nine miles one way. This is also Lili Andrés's idea.

That is what is happening today. When it comes to improving the road network, we have a very good road from Norsjö to Skellefteå thanks to the fact that it is an ore road that Boliden pays for in large parts. But it is completely unreasonable to demand that a small business owner, just because they are in a small municipality, should have to drive nine miles one way to deliver a package. The public service in this area must become much better.

You must take this up in your party. It cannot continue to be this way!

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! To Isak From and the Social Democrats, I would like to add that the government's line is clear: service must function throughout the country, and companies must also be able to be operated in the best possible way.

We have begun a piece of work regarding transport and infrastructure, which is what this is about. We continue with that. It may take some time because Isak From and the Socialdemokraterna did not start this earlier. We are also strengthening air connections, something that allows packages to reach the company faster. We are upgrading roads and ensuring that the infrastructure will function better.

Mr. Speaker! I look forward to the packages arriving on time to the companies, as the government's goal is that service shall be available and that companies shall be able to be operated even far out in the countryside.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Whole Sweden shall function – policy for stronger rural areas. That is how the government has chosen to call its bill. It is a title that commits. It is almost a bit bombastic – "policy for stronger rural areas". In a bill that is 212 pages long, there must be many reforms and legislative proposals to take a stand on, I assume. Let us return to that in a little while.

First, a short little parliamentary statement of purpose: The Riksdag has four tasks – I wave to the gallery! We shall enact laws, decide on the state budget, scrutinize the government and, in varying degrees, together with the government, be responsible for foreign policy and EU policy.

What we are engaged in right now in the chamber is not about the state budget, the scrutiny of the government, or foreign and EU policy; instead, we are now talking about legislation. We are debating a report from the Committee on Industry, which is based on a bill with legislative proposals from the government, and after the debate, we will vote on the legislative proposals.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's bill "Whole Sweden shall function – policy for stronger rural areas" is, as mentioned, 212 pages long and does not contain 53 legislative proposals but only one legislative proposal – a small, small adjustment. It is the thinnest soup that can be served on the Riksdag's table. No resistance to chewing, almost nothing to take a stand on. No reform, no legislative proposals on improved infrastructure, more accessible service, increased police presence, more qualified teachers or strengthened study associations – actually nothing about how whole Sweden shall function.

Instead, there are 212 pleasant pages with a reported situational overview, admittedly well-documented. But this is not a book club discussing the sequence of words or the text's dynamics; it is a legislative assembly. There is no policy for stronger rural areas, except for a single legislative proposal.

In this proposition, the government writes: ”The government proposes in this proposition that it shall be clarified in the Act on Regional Development Responsibility that a region's duty to consult regarding organizations shall include representatives for relevant organizations within civil society and individual educational providers within the higher education area. The proposal corresponds in substance to the current wording according to which a region shall consult with representatives for relevant organizations and the business sector in the county.”

Furthermore, the government writes: ”The proposals in the bill are only a clarification of what already applies today. The proposals are therefore judged not to have any economic consequences for the regions and do not affect the costs or revenues for the state, companies or other individuals. The proposals do not involve any further restriction of local self-government and do not have any other consequences that need to be reported separately.”

Mr. Speaker! It was a thumb-sucking of rural policy. We expected more.

Mr. Speaker! During the current year, the government has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the countryside for Sweden's cohesion, total defense, and competitiveness. But in practice, the policy has been characterized by a lack of reform momentum and cuts that have weakened the conditions for residents and businesses in rural areas.

The geographical differences are increasing. Closures of local service offices, the lack of real regulatory simplifications, and unclear messages regarding energy supply and forest policy have created significant uncertainty. For Centerpartiet, it is crucial that rural areas are given stable rules of the game, present authorities, and fair conditions.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Center Party welcome the proposal to clarify the regions' duty to consult with civil society and educational actors. No problem – it is a reasonable adjustment. But as I have pointed out, it is also the proposition's only concrete proposal. Otherwise, the document consists mainly of descriptions of the current situation and compilations of already decided or announced measures. Everything from investments in roads, railways, public transport, and broadband expansion to reforms that strengthen the economic conditions of rural municipalities is missing.

The government emphasizes a bottom-up perspective, which is in line with the Center Party's ideological starting point of decentralized power. But it becomes hollow when the bill does not contain any tools that actually move power or resources to local communities, municipalities, and regions.

A real reform agenda must contain concrete tools for local development. We in Centerpartiet have presented just such an agenda in our party motion, with powerful proposals for skills supply, infrastructure, business climate, and service throughout the country. A central element in such an agenda is that the values created locally must also stay locally.

When electricity is produced, minerals are mined and natural resources are utilized, today a disproportionately large part of the profit goes to the state treasury, while the local community primarily bears the costs. We therefore propose a regionalization of the tax bases where the property tax from electricity-producing facilities and revenues from mineral fees fall to a greater extent to the municipalities where the operations are conducted. It is the type of structural reform that creates fair conditions, strengthens the municipalities' finances and increases local confidence in the future and the attractiveness of the countryside.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, the government bill is an account, not a reform agenda. The Centre Party believes that this passivity risks hindering the development of our Sweden. We therefore propose that the government returns to the Riksdag with, firstly, major rural initiatives on infrastructure, service, innovation, and entrepreneurship; secondly, a decentralization reform that gives municipalities and local communities more influence; thirdly, a clear and long-term policy for energy and agriculture and forestry; fourthly, strengthened conditions for local ownership and cooperation; and fifthly, a national strategy with measurable goals for how the rural area's development power shall be strengthened.

Member of Parliament Lahti, I believe, said from the rostrum that what the government has presented is an arrogance towards northern Sweden. I could go as far as to say that it is probably actually an arrogance towards all of Sweden outside the city centers.

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

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Member Ådahl for the speech!

Ahead of the election this autumn, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party are putting forward the proposal to quickly close Bromma Airport. The same decision was also made at the Centre Party's latest convention.

Closing Bromma Airport would mean fewer options for using domestic flights. It would probably also become a very expensive monopoly for the company that gets the opportunity to operate domestic flights at Arlanda, the remaining airport.

Fewer opportunities, monopolies, and it becomes more expensive for the rest of Sweden to participate in the labor market that exists in Stockholm. How does that square with Anders Ådahl's statement here today?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I must admit here at the rostrum that I am not entirely pleased with exactly how that decision was made and what the consideration of consequences looked like.

I can, however, note that Member Skalberg Karlsson resides on Gotland. The Centre Party has been strongly pushing, if not leading, to want to strengthen Gotland's transport to ensure that Gotland does not become an isolated island. Just as Skalberg Karlsson states in his speech, the air traffic and the ferry traffic from Gotland are the Gotlanders' highways, equivalent to those we have on the mainland.

I must nevertheless say that the criticism of an individual parliamentary decision regarding a local airport should not be taken to mean that we want to worsen mobility for Sweden's rural areas.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite true as Member Ådahl says that the Center Party has certain budget initiatives for Gotland in its budget proposal submitted last week. The challenge, however, is that we have heard the Center Party's promises before. Ahead of the 2018 election, they promised new power cables to Gotland and included that in their budget proposal, but when it came time to negotiate politics, it was forgotten. During the four years the January Agreement was in place, nothing happened.

Mr. Speaker! I want to continue on the theme of funding and negotiation. The point is that the Center Party has a number of rural initiatives in its budget proposal. Things are also mentioned here in the report. But my question is about the status of the funding for those proposals.

Mr. Speaker! Will it be the Left Party's property tax? Will it be the Social Democrats' mortgage tax? Will it be the Green Party's proposal to make fuel for the car and the tractor 10 kronor more expensive per liter, or will it be the Centre Party's proposal to reduce the grant to the unemployment insurance fund by approximately 10 billion? These are four very different proposals. There are many red lines.

My question to Anders Ådahl is: Who is going to back out in your intended government base? Because if there is no agreement on the financing of your initiatives, then not much will get done. The Center Party went to the election in 2018 on new cables to Gotland, but then nothing happened for four years. It would be sad if it turned out that way once again.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thought this was an interesting question. We have completely different starting points now as we approach an election campaign and an election day.

We in the Center Party decided quite early that we are not particularly interested in a block politics where we divide the parties into a left block and a right block. We want to stand strong in our conviction and in our politics, which has a right-leaning economic policy.

We want growth, investments, green transition, AI and so on, and pair it with an inclusive social policy. We saw that no other party has that direction. That is how we approach the voters. The Moderates, on the other hand, have chosen a model where they are united on their side. That is to say that the Moderates currently lack their own identity. They stand in the shadow of the large party, Sverigedemokraterna, and fail to present any of their own ideas to the voters.

The voters are faced with a blue alternative that lacks individual contours. We opposition parties do the opposite. We present our policies and what we believe in. The Social Democrats have their policy, the Green Party its policy, the Left Party its policy, and the Centre Party its policy. Then the voters can vote for the parties they find best. After the election, the day when Tidö has eventually fallen, negotiations will be carried out. I cannot stand in this speaker's chair today, Mr. Speaker, and report how such negotiations turn out.

We are very secure in our policy, and we know what we want to negotiate. How it ends up – yes, we will have to see.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we see how entrepreneurs and families living in the Swedish countryside face several obstacles that hinder development. It is very clear that the conditions differ depending on where in the country one lives. It also becomes clear that we need to level the differences and create better conditions for living, working, and running businesses throughout Sweden.

From a liberal perspective, we identify that what needs to be done is to strengthen the business climate in rural areas, above all, but also in smaller towns. We need to continue to reform the shore protection to be able to build better and in more places and promote what we can call a new homeownership movement across the country. Most important of all is probably to ensure a high and equal quality in schools.

Our starting point is, naturally, the belief that people should have power over their own lives and their own situations. A liberal policy for a living countryside means that the state's main purpose should be to remove obstacles and ensure basic services with the goal that more people should be able to shape their own future, regardless of where in the country they live.

Let us look a little more in detail at what would need to be done. What we here in the chamber usually call "reducing red tape" is perhaps the most important. The regulations are far too detailed, which makes it very difficult to do things correctly. They need to be reformed.

Furthermore, the shore protection needs to be changed, as it complicates construction throughout the country. Steps have been taken, but the work is not yet finished. We want to go further. We believe it is an important issue of freedom, especially for people living in rural areas.

From the Liberals' side, we have also talked about introducing a tax-free home savings for young people and promoting a new owner-occupied housing movement so that construction takes place throughout the country. We believe that more people should be able to both build and own their homes, and this naturally also applies outside the large cities.

Perhaps most importantly of all is that we need to strengthen Swedish property rights. What one owns, one also cares for, and that applies just as much to the farms here in Skåne as to forestry in Norrland. The countryside does not need more lectures from here in Stockholm, but rather the freedom to be able to grow on one's own terms. This is achieved through simpler rules, stronger property rights, and trust that people – farmers, forest owners, and entrepreneurs – know what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker! Let me say something briefly about the school. The quality must be high regardless of where in the country one happens to live and where one's school is located. Every student in Sweden must be given the same chances to succeed. Knowledge shall be at the center regardless of where one lives. The state shall ensure equality.

In the long run, this naturally not only strengthens the freedom of the individual, children, and students, but it also gives the countryside opportunities to provide for skills and competence much better.

Finally, politics is at its best, in my opinion, when it gives citizens the opportunity and the actual space to shape their own lives, their own everyday lives, and their own housing. This also applies to society as a whole and the countryside. Increasing freedom and strengthening the opportunities for self-determination are important steps if we are to be able to strengthen the Swedish countryside.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! For many residents living in rural areas, the expression "all of Sweden shall function" can sometimes sound more like a mockery than a promise from politics. In many rural municipalities, we see how services disappear, how public transport is thinned out, how the distances to healthcare, school, and jobs have become longer, and how faith in the future can sometimes waver.

At the same time, most of us know that it is precisely these parts of Sweden that support much of our food production, our energy supply, and our natural capital.

The referral we are debating today is both urgent and necessary, but we expected more than this from a government that claims to protect the countryside. The government's proposition was a thumb, a product with a single sharp proposal but a proposal that lacks funding. We had hoped for much clearer support and a much clearer direction and development where a greater focus is placed on sustainable development, local power, and future investments.

For us, rural policy is not about preserving what once was, but about ensuring that those who live in a place are given the opportunity to live the life they desire. At the same time, many rural municipalities can also be central parts of the solution to the climate challenge, the energy supply, our food production, and Sweden's long-term development.

Mr. Speaker! The most important thing for a functioning countryside is basic community services. It is about access to public transport, functioning digital infrastructure, healthcare, school, safety, and a presence from the public sector. When the market does not deliver, society must step forward.

In addition to the public sector, civil society also plays a decisive role. Therefore, it is pleasing that the government highlights that consultations shall take place with representatives from civil society. On the other hand, it is problematic that funding for this is lacking, not least when the government's overall policy leads to large cuts in civil society, from study associations to service and cooperative development. This obviously means that it will be a major problem for civil society to bear any responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! The climate transition is a great opportunity for many rural municipalities. When many new companies arrive and old industry transitions, faith in the future and the opportunities for development increase. In many of these municipalities, wind power is also being built, and that is where the forest grows and the production of fossil-free energy can expand.

If it is to happen, more of the value must remain locally. Just like many others, we therefore want municipalities and local communities to receive a return on the revenues from energy production and natural resources. It is something that several in the opposition have jointly raised today.

It should pay to contribute to society, not primarily for cities and the state but for the people who live where the production takes place. But it is also about something greater: the trust that it will be possible to live, reside and work in the entire country. Such trust is not created through temporary investments but through long-term politics.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: If we are serious about the whole of Sweden functioning, we must also dare to prioritize it. It requires investments, political will, and a clear direction where sustainability and local development go hand in hand. The countryside shall be developed, not phased out. We want to see places where people can and want to live – places with faith in the future and increased quality of life. Therefore, I move that reservation 4 be approved.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 22.)

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