The University

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We now have to debate the Education Committee's report number 10, titled Higher Education.

Free and independent universities are a cornerstone of democratic society. Those who are free to seek knowledge will also deepen their knowledge and contribute to both their own development and the development and education of society.

Many of today's societal problems will require more knowledge and research in order to be solved. This applies, for example, to how one can cure severe diseases, produce vaccines and medicines, meet the climate crisis and produce more nutrients in food - but also how one can tackle social challenges such as crime, mental ill-health and children's learning.

There is a benefit for society here, but also the possibility of creating a better life for millions of people. It can range from alleviating pain in illness to giving children opportunities for better schooling.

Research, science, knowledge and facts are also central for us to be able to become more resistant against conspiracy theories, disinformation and self-proclaimed experts and fortune seekers on Youtube in general. Knowledge strengthens society's resilience. A crowd that is well-educated becomes harder for a demagogue to incite. A group that is well-educated becomes harder for an ideologue to manipulate and deceive with simple solutions. The free academy is a prerequisite for a liberal society, for an open society and for Sweden to be a successful industrial and welfare nation.

Madam Speaker! Today, Minister for Higher Education Mats Persson has tasked the Ethical Review Authority with mapping out the much-noticed decisions the authority has made recently, which, among other things, restrict the possibilities for researchers in, for example, the humanities to use statements from open sources in their research. This assignment from the Minister for Higher Education is very good.

The government has high ambitions for research in Sweden. Next autumn, a new research bill will be presented. Such a bill is presented in the middle of every parliamentary term. At that time, we will take further steps to strengthen higher education, research, and innovative power in the long term. This is, among other things, about strengthening quality and excellence.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, there is a series of initiatives announced in the Tidö Agreement that we in the Liberals, Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Sweden Democrats have agreed upon. Let me mention some of them.

To raise the status and attractiveness of the teaching profession, the admission requirements to teacher education shall be raised and the content reformed with a greater focus on subject knowledge, cognitive science, and practical methodology. Increased funds shall be provided for research on women's diseases and health. Companies shall be given good incentives to invest in research. A national research program shall be established in the area of mental health and suicide prevention.

A new energy research proposal shall be presented to enable an effective climate transition and strengthen Swedish competitiveness. Within the framework of the energy research, funds are also allocated to develop methods to recycle spent solar cells. Special research funds are allocated to the area of social interventions against youth in crime within the social worker education. To strengthen Sweden's competitiveness as a research nation, the provisions for doctoral students' and researchers' opportunities for residence permits in Sweden are being reviewed, something that has received a considerable amount of attention. This is a problem that has followed from the new Aliens Act that the Riksdag passed one and a half years ago.

Madam Speaker! The committee also emphasizes the importance of security issues at our educational institutions. In February, both our military intelligence service and the Security Service published their annual reports, both of which identified our Swedish colleges and universities as of interest to other countries. The Total Defence Research Institute assesses that the educational institutions are vulnerable. Both Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet have reported on how Chinese students have signed secret agreements and on how Swedish researchers collaborate with Chinese researchers who work for the Chinese military.

This is extremely serious, and it must be taken with the utmost gravity. Shortly before Christmas, the Government tasked the educational institutions to report on how they are working with information security, threats, vulnerabilities, and other risks, whether they have conducted such analyses, and whether they have changed them given the security situation we have now. The Government has also announced a review with the aim of bringing in security policy competence into the boards of the educational institutions. In order for this to be implemented as soon as possible, the Government has, as a one-time measure – nota bene: one-time measure – decided to shorten the upcoming mandate period from three years to 17 months, this in order to more quickly bring in this competence into the boards.

With these words, I wish to move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe the topic for the evening is the changes in the boards of educational institutions. Member Malm touched upon this regarding security, which was the reason why Minister Mats Persson announced changes in the boards. It has been stated that the threat to security has become increasingly acute, just as Member Malm said, and that, for example, Säpo has essentially demanded measures from the government to increase security at our educational institutions. I would like to know if Member Malm has anything further to add in this matter, Madam Speaker. There has been very much written about it in newspapers and on social media.

Furthermore, I want to point out that it has been presented in the media in a strikingly bombastic way that SD would have been involved in this decision, Madam Speaker. I wonder if Member Malm knows if SD has been involved and taken this decision and if SD has had any contact with the department, so that we can clear that up already at an early stage this evening.

Then I wonder what the reason can be for why the media and left-leaning academics, admittedly with impressive academic CVs, are so frenzied about the fact that SD is behind this decision. Could it be that those in power would rather put forward the theory that SD is seeking to politicize higher education? These are just my reflections.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I want to be very clear that this decision has been made by the government. This is not regulated in the Tidö Agreement which regulates the Sweden Democrats' participation in various decisions. The decision has been made by the government. It is not a decision in which the Sweden Democrats have participated. I want to be very clear that that is the case.

In the past, one could have a narrower view on security and various military issues. The problem we face today is that it is much broader. As a well-educated and modern country with a lot of cutting-edge research and high-tech research, especially with a focus on telecommunications, the automotive industry and so on, we become exposed to countries that are less accountable, more heavy-handed and more destructive, and which will not shy away from any means to either try to obtain technology or in other ways try to spy on Sweden.

In this context, it is important to note that it is not just one agency that has raised the alarm about this; it is our military intelligence service, our security police, and the Total Defence Research Institute. In addition, a number of different media reviews have been conducted. I mentioned one of them in my speech, which concerned Chinese students. But other reviews have also been conducted that show how extremely serious the issue is. We need to look at this broadly. The issue of university boards should not be taken out of context. This is part of a much broader policy that is needed to secure Sweden.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Security is an important issue. I believe we will return to it this evening.

Let us pause for a moment on this matter of the politicization of higher education. SD has no other policy than that which is formulated in our committee motions and that which is presented here from the rostrum. Member Malm can certainly tell us if we have had any secret negotiations beyond those that we have clearly declared in our motions and in our speeches, which are the reason we are standing here.

I believe the opposite, that it is the Social Democrats who have succeeded with Gramsci's "march through the institutions", which was shown, not least before the last election, in the email list with 261 names of non-political civil servants from among others UD. In the email list, great concern was expressed that the wrong parties would win the election. The "right" parties won the election that time anyway, but at the last election, misfortune struck.

I can reassure everyone here and state that neither the Alliance nor SD are even capable of carrying out any such infiltration. It is simply not possible.

On the contrary, we want to depoliticize higher education in any case. We always talk about meritocracy and freedom for teachers and researchers. We talk about removing political burdens completely, not replacing the old ones with our own.

Member of the Government Malm can explain his party's and the government's position on the issue.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! No, this decision was made by the government. The Sweden Democrats have not been involved in it, and we have not held any secret negotiations either. I just want to emphasize this in case anyone should think otherwise.

What we see ahead of us and what I believe it is important that we carry with us in the matter at hand here is the global situation we have. This primarily concerns two countries; we all know that. It concerns Russia, and it concerns China. But it also concerns other countries.

Iran is now mentioned in every annual report from, for example, the Security Service as a country that engages in extensive espionage in Sweden. This is partly directed towards the Iranian diaspora in Sweden – exiles, refugees, and so on. But it can, of course, also be directed towards Swedish educational institutions, not least because Iran is quite enthusiastic in terms of developing its nuclear capabilities, which is well known.

It also came, Madam Speaker, an extensive review from news media in several different countries. If I remember correctly, Expressen in Sweden was part of this. It showed that in Russian documents one could see that Russia specifically pointed out the Baltic Centre at Stockholm University as a possible actor to try to make various interventions to, for example, strengthen Russia's position, which representatives for Stockholm University were horrified by and were extremely concerned about in articles.

One simply cannot overstate the seriousness of this.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I will also dwell on the appointment of university boards. I believe we need to clarify the state of affairs from the beginning before we can move forward.

Member Malm described a deteriorated security policy situation. I believe that all members of the Swedish Riksdag understand and see that it is a deteriorated security policy situation. We understand that even universities and colleges are exposed to risks, that there is a risk that patents disappear abroad, that espionage occurs, and that it can even be organized by states how one infiltrates Swedish colleges and universities.

We share the problem. But what we are actually talking about is academic freedom and the measures that the government has taken here.

One has chosen to shorten the time the boards sit from three years to 17 months. It means that if we have a threatening situation now, we shall take a measure that will become effective only in perhaps two years. The situation is therefore not more acute than that we can wait two years for something to happen at the universities.

The normal procedure when one sees a problem is to maintain a good dialogue, an owner dialogue, and to regulate in the regulation letters if any kind of situation arises that the principals, the operational managers, must handle.

My question to Member Malm is this: The agitation that we have seen within the academy over the fact that academic freedom is actually being threatened here, can Member Malm understand that agitation?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I think it is important to emphasize that what is now required is a holistic approach to security issues. It is about whether we in Sweden should, for example, enter into deepened cooperation with other countries in order to be able to coordinate efforts in Europe and whether stronger national guidelines and other things are required.

The boards are merely one component in something much broader in order to be able to build stronger resistance against any destructive influence from outside and protect our educational institutions and also our research and, in the long run, our students, not least students who have roots in the countries that can be very destructive.

One must not forget, Madam Speaker, that our educational institutions are authorities. It is the government that appoints a majority of the boards. Our educational institutions have no influence over most of the people who sit on the boards. And this is regulated by law. There is a parliamentary binding in the statutes when it comes to which criteria are required, so if we want competence in these security issues - security threats and other things - to be present in our university boards, a political decision is required for it to become so.

That the terms of office are shortened happens only once in order to be able to get this in place. The members who are now appointed to the boards are appointed according to precisely the same criteria as all previous ones, so I find it very difficult to see that academic freedom would in any way be threatened.

The purpose of this is to strengthen academic freedom. It is to be able to protect our universities from threats from the outside.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! What I am thinking of can be related to the previous contribution from the Sweden Democrats.

I find it difficult to see that there is a left-right scale in the issue we are discussing now. Instead, the scale is freedom versus authoritarian. That is what is interesting.

And it is about the procedure itself. It works out so that there are a number of nominating persons who propose boards, and then the government adopts a proposal. The nominating persons were finished with their proposals already at the beginning of the year. But four days before the boards were to take office, on April 27, the nominating persons received the assignment to call around to all board members and say that now it is so that it will be 17 months instead of three years.

Something has happened very quickly here, and what the entire academy feels is that this, like, doesn't add up. How can one have a security policy reason behind such rapid action when it is a measure that will only become operational in two years? It is something that seems a bit strange.

I also think that competence in terms of security policy - or equality or sustainability issues or harassment - is not something you put in boards. It is a competence that the rector, as the chief executive of a university of applied sciences, must ensure that he or she has at their institution.

That is precisely why the academy has become so upset. The universities' autonomy is being curtailed now that the government steps in and decides which competencies shall sit on the board.

Once again, Member Malm: Is there any understanding that all the country's principals are visiting the Minister for Education and are very worried?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I fully agree with Anders Ådahl's reasoning that this should not be a left-right issue. I fully agree with that.

I note, however, that it is mostly the opposition that is upset that we now truly want to strengthen our universities' ability to withstand security threats. It concerns me somewhat. I thought there would be broader agreement on how important this is.

It is, after all, our military intelligence service, our security police, the Total Defence Research Institute, and a number of different media reviews that point to this. There is a war ongoing in Ukraine. We see China's expansionist, extremely destructive actions.

I must then be clear, Madam Speaker, and state that I consider this to be important for our educational institutions. They are authorities, and regardless of whether one wants to downplay the boards' role for the universities, it is the boards that are the universities' highest responsible bodies.

I agree that, just like the Minister and the government, I think it is important that this competence is also present in the boards, and then decisions need to be made. This is governed by ordinances and regulations, and there are parliamentary constraints and other things that mean it must be handled.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that some of the agitation is due to the fact that there was a misunderstanding at the beginning – some interpreted the statements as that the mandate periods would be shortened continuously moving forward, before they understood that this only happens once so that these changes can be implemented.

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! On Thursday, April 27, the government made a decision that affects the governance of the country's universities and educational institutions. It was decided that the mandate period for external board members shall be halved from today's three years to 17 months. The reason given by the Minister for Education was that the government wants to bring in more security policy competence into the boards. The Minister for Finance has given a somewhat different explanation.

The government's actions have caused a storm within academia, and representatives of the country's universities and colleges have written a letter of protest to the government. Their main criticism concerns a concern for increased political steering of who is given confidence to sit on the boards of the educational institutions and the threat to academic freedom that this ultimately entails.

What does academic freedom mean for MP Fredrik Malm? And how can the government's sudden decision to halve the mandate period for the board members be accommodated under academic freedom? Is the risk not obvious that the appointed members will feel scrutinized by the government and be influenced by this in their work?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to propose to Mats Wiking that we meet here again in 17 months and see whether we still have academic freedom in Sweden or not. I am fairly convinced that we will have it. I do not see this as a threat to free research or the free academy in Sweden.

What threatens the free academy, free research, and the free pursuit of knowledge and, in the long run, that which is our civilization's greatest achievement, freedom of expression, are leaders like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and their pack of accomplices around the world - in Belarus, Iran, Eritrea, Cuba, Venezuela and wherever they may be. We must not forget to mention Pyongyang and Myanmar, since we are at it anyway. They threaten academic freedom. They trample it and loathe it.

What we have to do in Sweden is to safeguard our country's security but also our research results, our patents and the integrity that our higher education needs to have. We must also protect, for example, the research that is closely linked to Swedish industry - something that in the long run is immensely important for jobs and growth in Sweden.

It is not the case, Madam Speaker, that Sweden's government is just saying out of the blue that we should do this now. This is based on reports from our security agencies, which have access to information and knowledge that Mats Wiking, myself, and others in the Riksdag do not have, because we do not have access to this classified material, thank goodness; we should not have it either. These agencies make the qualified assessment that we must now strengthen security at our educational institutions. That is why we are doing this.

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats do not question the security policy analysis, but what we question is how the academy is handled.

The Liberals were involved in 2022 and helped develop a research proposition. At that time, S, C, MP and the Liberals were clear that academic freedom must prevail.

In the contacts we have had with our universities – I was myself at Högskolan Väst last week – we have noticed that there is a clear concern for the future, partly over the increased political involvement in the example we are talking about, and partly over political expressions of will from the governing parties here in our assembly regarding the introduction of more changes for our universities. More directed literature and an increased concentration of research to our large universities are some of the proposals in today's report.

My questions to the member are: What is the government going to do to regain the trust of the educational institutions? And are there other areas within academia where the government intends to make decisions that, according to the government, do not fall under academic freedom?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with – this is regulated by ordinance. For example, there shall be an equal gender distribution in the boards, and some other things are also regulated.

What is needed is also to introduce criteria that ensure there is competence when it comes to how the higher education institutions can work to eliminate, for example, security threats, espionage, and other such things. Naturally, functions must also be built up around this. It could, for example, involve further training for heads of higher education institutions or creating different types of structures and mechanisms to detect these things. It might involve whistleblower functions, cooperation with other countries, and so on. It is several different measures that are required. From the government's side, we have identified that this competence is needed in the boards.

It jeopardizes free research that we get security policy competence into our university boards, say the Social Democrats. I, Madam Speaker, find that reasoning difficult. What would jeopardize our universities the most would be if there were no security policy competence in our university boards. That would be a considerably larger problem.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that this can be handled and resolved in the usual order, just as we resolve matters – by reviewing these provisions and looking at what needs to be added. Now there will be a slightly shorter period for the newly elected members of the institutions' boards, and after that, it will continue as before. Hopefully, the boards can then also take a more active role in the institutions' very important work to ensure security and safeguard free research.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I had intended to ask if the Liberals stand behind this surprising decision, but I do not need to waste time on that - Fredrik Malm is extremely clear.

Madam Speaker! Malm does not see that this decision can harm academic freedom. The rectors at all the country's universities see that this is a threat to academic freedom. I would in any case not have cast my vote for the Liberals, but here I have confidence in the country's rectors.

The Minister for Education argues that it is in this way we can ensure that we have the right security policy competence moving forward. This approach made it possible for all principals to agree on a joint appeal for the government to change its mind. As I understand it, the Minister for Education has recently met with the principals, and no clarifications have emerged from that.

I am considering something that I would like to hear Fredrik Malm elaborate on. Malm is himself an experienced foreign policy expert, who knows very well that China's, Russia's, and Iran's capability and their interest in different types of operations against Sweden regarding espionage is nothing new. It is also not new for the country's educational institutions.

Is this really the fastest and most efficient way to increase security policy competence at the educational institutions?

What happened with the dialogues with authorities and contact with the heads of the authorities? Why not give the expert authorities a mandate to provide support to the educational institutions? Why, for God's sake, not have a dialogue with the country's principals before publicly shredding them?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The security policy competence that is now being discussed is in no way isolated to the boards. I have tried to say that both in my speech and in the barrage of exchanges that have followed this. But the boards have full responsibility for the operations. It is therefore important that the competence also exists there.

I am surprised that the Green Party seems to be more concerned about our desire to strengthen security at the universities than about the regimes that threaten security at our universities. You should be standing here and responding to me and saying: Fredrik Malm, have you seen the information about what the Chinese researchers are doing and what Russia is doing against Sweden? What is the government doing about this – you must take significantly stronger measures than just this with the boards?

The fact is, Madam Speaker, that we are doing quite a lot, and we will need to do even more. Firstly, a mandate was issued to our colleges and universities four months ago, which means they are to analyze what they have done and whether they have changed their analyses regarding security and so on. It is a dialogue. In addition, a continuous assignment is ongoing at the Total Defence Research Institute regarding these issues.

But I am the first to admit that more will need to be done. It could be about national guidelines or international cooperation. It could be about the educational institutions needing to quickly train themselves. Perhaps our rectors also need to have more knowledge about this. It could be about setting up different facilities and structures, whistleblowing services, the possibility to report on things anonymously and so on. A lot of work will be needed, but this is truly serious. Miljöpartiet must also understand this.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! What qualified nonsense to claim that we would not want to safeguard the free academy and protect it against foreign influence! It is of course clear that we do want that. But that can be done with other tools. It is about ensuring that the competence exists. One does not need to change the mandate period for board members with a few days' notice.

Andra has already been into the question of whether this is really urgent or not. Fredrik Malm makes it sound as if there is acute information to handle. In some security policy contexts, one perhaps does not beat around the bush, but rather proceeds to the task.

I asked specific questions about using other tools, authority dialogues and such. Obviously, having contact with the educational institutions directly when the candidates arrived was not something that existed there.

Malm says that this tool should only be used once. But more things may come. The principals need more knowledge. We shall see how long they are appointed for the next time they are to be elected.

The point is that there has been a trust in the regulations in the Higher Education Ordinance which state that the mandate is for a fixed period, up to three years. This has meant that the mandate period is three years. It has always been so, and it has been trusted. But to be informed with a few days' notice that it is being halved is perceived as a threat. It is evident in the debate.

It may seem like a trivial question, but we know that the foundations for a strong democracy are academic freedom, independent courts, artistic freedom, free press, and so on. The devil is in the details, and this is exactly such a detail.

What I wonder is whether the Liberals are prepared to strengthen the independence of academia and the freedom of research and academia in law and the constitution. The Green Party thinks it would be time to do so now. In what ways does Fredrik Malm want to protect academia from the government's fingers?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, the academy does not need to be protected from the government's fingers. What the academy needs to be protected from is, for example, such things as we have discussed now, namely security threats and other matters. The academy also needs to be protected against, for example, various political forces that in different ways want to restrict the academy. We see this in a number of other states. There is a certain correlation between these states and the states that constitute a threat also to Swedish educational institutions. This should be pointed out.

Camilla Hansén from Miljöpartiet says that we can have authority dialogues. We absolutely can. I am prepared to turn over every stone to get these parts to work. I have been very humble regarding this. But the question about boards being discussed now is whether a mandate period should be three years or 17 months. I mean—and I admit it—that the Free Academy does not live or die by this change.

What is important is the continuous work to guarantee the protection of patents for inventions and for research results and also the integrity and protection for students at our educational institutions. This strengthening of our educational institutions' resistance and protection against authoritarian and undemocratic states should have been prioritized more earlier.

The Green Party sat in the government for eight years and did not turn particularly many fingers to strengthen security. This work is indeed continuously very important, but I am humble regarding this. More will need to be done on various fronts to guarantee this in the future and to protect the free academy and free research.

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! The hour is late, but we shall not fall asleep just yet.

I stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservations 14 and 18.

More and more people are choosing to study at universities and colleges. It is something we can be proud of. The right to free and accessible education for all is and has always been important for us Social Democrats.

Sweden has also been successful in allowing colleges and universities to grow. The number of students was 190,000 during the 1990s, and today we have passed over 400,000, i.e., more than a doubling in just over 20 years. This is fantastic, and it means that companies, municipalities, and regions have access to many well-educated people who can take qualified jobs within different sectors.

Madam Speaker! Today, however, our universities and the education sector stand at a new crossroads with questions that have arisen: How do we increase the quality, and how do we ensure that more students manage to complete their education?

To improve quality, the Social Democratic government increased the basic grants to our educational institutions in 2022. Unfortunately, the government and the Sweden Democrats have instead gone in the opposite direction with the latest budget and reduced the grants. We therefore see a concern about whether the government will continue to shrink the budget for the small colleges or if it is understood that education must exist throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! Now I will come to the question we just discussed.

When we speak about academic freedom versus governance, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the government's interference in the appointment of new boards for our educational institutions. The government, in its eagerness, has in one stroke changed the mandate period for the new boards from three years to half that time, i.e., 17 months.

Sweden's educational institutions face sharp criticism and see the government's actions as a lack of confidence in the competence of the current boards and the prevailing process for appointing these. The arguments from the government are said to be an increased security risk in the country.

We Social Democrats have full confidence in the appointment of the boards of the higher education institutions and believe that academic freedom should prevail in areas where the academy has been granted trust. We also believe that the academy is sufficiently competent to manage its own planning of both the course offerings and the content of various educations. Here, several right-wing parties instead want to stop the development of our small colleges. Proposals have been made that involve a sharp reduction of research at colleges, and they want to reduce the number of places at colleges. They also describe a need for an additional elite university in Stockholm.

Madam Speaker! It feels as if our new government is ready to abandon the small colleges and wants to invest more in the large universities in our big cities. We Social Democrats believe on the contrary that education at higher education institutions should be able to be provided throughout the country, sometimes physically at a university or a college, but sometimes also at a learning center near those who cannot commute or move to a higher education institution.

We also need to give students the opportunity to receive digital teaching when they see that possibility as the best solution in the puzzle of life. We must move away from the myth that higher education is not for everyone. Not everyone may want to go to higher education, but higher education should be adapted for all types of students. Class, learning ability, mental well-being, and family situation are some areas that our institutions of higher education today actually must take into account.

This should not prevent us from also having top-tier educations that correspond to the needs that exist in the labor market, where companies need to recruit exactly top-trained individuals. But to have a good top, one must always have a good breadth, and therefore we Social Democrats are careful that more should be able to participate in and pass higher studies. And the development where we have seen a doubling of students over just over 20 years shows that it is possible.

Madam Speaker! In times like these, with a recession, educational institutions need to become even more flexible. Under the S government, we introduced an opportunity for aspiring teachers to take a fast track by studying a one-year supplementary pedagogical education. We have also ensured to support the possibility of becoming a teacher for those who have another job as a base. We also want to further broaden the opportunity for people to validate their knowledge, and we want professional experience to once again count as a merit when applying for higher education.

We also want the government to review the application of the Ethical Review Act. We can see that several cases where researchers have been reported to the prosecutor have created uncertainty within academia. That which previously has been research according to good research practice has, since 2018, in some cases been overruled by GDPR. Now the government has taken an initiative to look at the issue, which we welcome. It has not been good that researchers in some cases have had to limit their research based on unclear legislation.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats want to emphasize that higher education is important for us to meet future recruitment needs and that it is an obligation to offer more paths so that more people can enter education. However, better support for our students is also needed, so that they can complete their education. Only then can we manage to meet the competence needs we have in our country.

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! The boards of the universities were raised again here. I will return to that, because I actually think that we Sverigedemokrater are being dragged in in a very ugly and dishonest way.

I had intended to forgo this exchange, but then I heard Member Mats Wiking say that security is said to be threatened at our universities and colleges. The phrasing that it is said to be threatened indicates that it is not threatened in reality, but that it is merely some political outcry.

In an editorial in Svenska Dagbladet yesterday, reference was made to Säpo's latest report. It is a part direct quote from that as well. In the article, it says:

In the Security Service's annual report for 2022/23, China (alongside Russia and Iran) is given its own chapter under the section Foreign power in Sweden. Säpo describes China as 'a long-term and growing threat', whose intelligence services conduct systematic and extensive security-threatening activities against Sweden and Swedish interests. It concerns espionage, cyberattacks, influence operations, and activities to stop regime-critical opinions.

Madam Speaker! I wonder if Mats Wiking and the Social Democrats have any proposals for measures regarding these security threats. Or do they simply not exist, according to the Social Democrats?

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Robert Stenkvist! The security situation is truly worrying; we agree with that, and that is also what I said in my previous exchange with Fredrik Malm. That is what I want to emphasize.

The government has plenty of tools to use to strengthen the country's and the educational institutions' work with these issues when it comes to the connection to the educational institutions. How we handle the security situation in Sweden is something others should handle, I think. When it comes to the educational institutions, a faster way would be, for example, to give the educational institutions a mandate to work with these issues through regulatory letters. Then a change could have already been handled.

We do not, therefore, doubt the security description that Robert Stenkvist provides, but what we are saying is that the educational institutions shall be handled with respect towards the educational institutions and that the security issue shall, of course, be handled in a special manner.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is good to hear what Member Mats Wiking says. Security at our colleges and educational institutions is primarily the government's responsibility. It is not primarily the colleges' responsibility.

Of course, there are a lot of other measures that can be taken and which I hope will be taken. This proposal, as mentioned, was not something the Sweden Democrats were involved in negotiating or producing at all, so I cannot defend just that. But powerful measures need to be taken, and it is the government's responsibility.

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! When things move very quickly and the educational institutions are handled in a way that we Social Democrats believe shows a lack of respect towards the institutions, we suspect that there has been a discussion behind this. That is why we raise the question.

Robert Stenkvist is clear that the Sweden Democrats have not been involved in that discussion, and I must respect that. But the Sweden Democrats are part of the government base, and therefore we naturally assume that the discussion has been held with the Sweden Democrats. In this case, however, the Sweden Democrats argue that they have been left out. I see Robert Stenkvist nodding.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Higher education has always been a current and important issue. For me personally, it is very current right now because my eldest son will soon graduate from Chalmers after five years. He will become a civil engineer, and he has been very satisfied with the education. The labor market is also very good for many of the civil engineers who are graduating just now.

The youngest son has just completed his first year at Chalmers and participated in Cortègen. If not everyone here has seen it, you can do so next year, and I warmly recommend it. You might not know how important it is, but it is incredibly important not only for student life but also for Gothenburg's cooperation with the university. There is joking about politicians and what has happened in the business sector, but it is also something that actually binds Gothenburg together with the university world, which is very important.

Madam Speaker! A major cause for concern that we hear about now, actually daily, is the competence shortage prevailing in very many areas. Surveys show that three out of four companies today have difficulty finding the right competence for them. We see this also internationally, which makes it even more important for Sweden to have good education so that we can hold our own in the tough competition internationally. There is a great shortage in many areas, for example within the manufacturing industry and the IT sector but also within environment and sustainability.

We have the joy of having received a battery factory in Sollefteå, and soon another one will come to Gothenburg. More will also come to Western Sweden - and perhaps also in the rest of Sweden.

Electrification is very important in the green transition and is something that the Moderates and the Tidö parties prioritize very strongly. Very specific competence is also needed here. The educations must be adapted to what the students demand and, above all, to the needs of the labor market. There is a great shortage in many occupations, for example service occupations. Here we must also supplement the educations so that we get the competence that is needed.

Madam Speaker! In order to remedy this lack of competence, we need to invest as early as in upper secondary school. It is very important that upper secondary education maintains a high quality, whether it is a vocational education or a theoretical education. Several universities unfortunately warn of deficiencies in, for example, mathematics, which means that the students do not complete the education in a good way. Several technical programs must provide extra mathematics instruction so that the students can complete their education. At some universities, it is as small a proportion as 40 percent who complete their education because many do not manage, for example, the mathematics. Many also do not complete the education within the allotted time. It is therefore important that we invest in the education from the beginning, and in that regard, both primary school and upper secondary school are important.

Madam Speaker! I was at a seminar yesterday organized by Forska Sverige. There was a lot of talk about exciting ongoing and future research. It was primarily about research regarding health and prosperity, which of course is very important for all research.

Among other things, a presentation was given by the newly appointed rector of Karolinska, Annika Östman Wernersson. She spoke about important research at KI, but she also told that in addition to being rector, she also teaches, among other things, future nurses and doctors at KI. The reason she teaches is that it is important to maintain contact with the students, but it also gives her very much as a lecturer. It is very important to see that without students we have no university and no research either, and she emphasized precisely that we must protect the students.

We also need more students for higher education. Here, the Moderates and the Tidö parties are working together. How are we then to reach the students? We are, of course, talking about broadened recruitment, but it is also a matter of finding the right students for the right education and adapting the educations to what is in demand. There must also be easily accessible information about what is available and where the educations are located. One must also be able to compare the quality of the educations between different institutions. It is about developing the study guidance in order to be able to reach the students and also guide them. One should also be able to follow and report on the graduates' establishment in the labor market. We must also speak about which professions there is a shortage in.

It is obviously also important that quality takes precedence over quantity. We have much to do to reach the students and also to speak about the importance of having a higher education.

Madam Speaker! It is important that our educational institutions adapt to the development of society. The programs must be more flexible. This we have seen, in particular, for example in connection with the transition study support, which we have talked about in previous debates here and which was launched last year. It will require much more flexibility as well as shorter and more targeted programs, for example.

Madam Speaker! We also need professors and lecturers who teach at our universities, because without teachers, it does not help that we have students. The requirement is that these work with scientific, pedagogical, and artistic skill. According to UKÄ's investigation, there is now almost an even gender distribution between men and women who research or teach at higher education institutions. When it comes to the professors, it has begun to even out, but there are still more men than women who are professors. Right now it is 68 percent men, so there we also have some work to do.

The Moderates also see a concern with the fact that the number of teaching hours at the universities is decreasing. The teachers also experience this as a major problem. A survey study that has been conducted shows that the administrative burden has increased significantly, which occurs at the expense of time for lectures. Fewer teaching hours lead to the fact that students actually miss important teaching that must be done on-site by lecturers. This is something we need to review so that we get an improvement.

Madam Speaker! I remember my time as a student as very enjoyable, and many of my colleagues also say that it was the best time of their lives. But there can also be difficulties during the time of study. It is a new environment for many, and the studies can be very demanding. In that case, it is very important that Student Health Care exists. It should exist across the whole country, but it varies very much. I myself have sat as a member of Akademihälsan in Gothenburg, which had a very well-functioning operation, but we also needed to spread knowledge nationally, because there was a big difference in how student health functioned. It is incredibly important for our students.

The Moderates are very positive about the web portal for student healthcare that is currently being built. It is Stockholm University, Linköping University, and UHR, the Swedish Council for Higher Education, that are looking at it. We view this very positively in order to be able to achieve more equal student health throughout Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates also want to safeguard academic freedom, which we have discussed a lot here earlier. It was indeed written in as a principle provision in 2021. We also see that one must work actively with it both at the universities and in the municipalities. An investigation is ongoing regarding whether it should become law or not. It is therefore not finished, but that academic freedom shall be safeguarded is absolutely important.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to say that the Moderates and the Tidö parties want to see fewer political finger-pointing and not as much influence over research and education. We want to see more expertise regarding both research, development, and business among principals and board members. Great demands must be placed on diversity within these boards.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the Moderates and the Tidö parties consider education to be incredibly important both for the individual and for society, but also for the future. I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Last week, I asked a question during question time regarding the government's decision to shorten the terms of office for the boards of educational institutions. Since Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson answered general questions, it was she who answered me.

Unlike the Minister for Education, who says that this is something one does in order to be able to elect suitable security policy competence in 17 months, the Minister for Finance responds that signals have been received that something is not sufficiently security-classified or sufficiently assessed, and that a proactive and rapid decision is therefore being made to ensure that the processes are secured. The Minister for Finance adds that we probably all think it is wise that we know who sits on the boards and that no improper influence occurs.

Madam Speaker! What I am reacting to, like DN's editorial page the other day, is the difference between the two ministers' answers. Persson focuses on the fact that in 17 months, people with better competence regarding the security policy situation will be elected, while Svantesson focuses on the fact that there are now signals of lacking security clearance and insufficient assessments, and that decisions must be made to secure the process. I interpret that as changing the processes so that they become more secure.

I wonder where the Moderates stand as a party. If there are acute security policy threats against Sweden, as the Minister for Finance implies in his answer, is it then a reasonable measure to elect new members in 17 months?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I brought along Säpo's investigation, which we have talked about so much today, where it is stated precisely that an increased security threat is seen. I mentioned both China, Iran, and Russia here. That is actually the heaviest reason why one wants to make this temporary change. Just as Member Malm said earlier, the idea is that it shall return to a three-year mandate again after that.

I do not want to review what the Minister for Finance answered. But I can say that it is not said that one must choose if everyone after 17 months, but one should evaluate the situation. We have not said that a completely new appointment will take place after 17 months. We do not know that yet. Säpo, FOI and several others have said that they want an investigation where the security situation is looked at. That is where we stand, quite simply.

I think it is good that the Minister for Education has met and spoken with the principals to discuss and talk about why one wants to do this. I, like everyone else, have read all the posts and letters he has received and understood that there is anger and concern from the educational institutions, so I think it is good that he has done that.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I wonder what the member intends to do with their understanding of the anger and concern that the academy is displaying, because that work begins for you in the government now.

What you have done is to damage the trust between academia and the government. That needs to be healed, and it is the government's responsibility. It is not only the Liberals' responsibility because they hold the position of Minister for Education.

We can say that this is a temporary change, for this government, here and now. We know nothing about future governments. The regulation that the government decides on says that one shall be elected for a fixed period of up to 3 years. That is to say, another government can take 12 months, another 24 – whatever one wants up to 3 years.

The Green Party wants to raise academic freedom in a broader sense at the constitutional level. The Tidö parties have announced a constitutional investigation, and I think it would be appropriate for them to take the ball on academic freedom there to secure the freedom of academia from governments that can do as they please with the terms of the boards.

How does the member view securing academic freedom through better constitutional protection and better legal protection?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to say that the Moderates, of course, take as much responsibility as the Liberals, even though we have a liberal Minister for Education.

I am also very much out at colleges and universities and meeting with rectors. We are therefore taking a great responsibility. Of course, we should share it in order to be able to have a discussion and be able to explain why this decision has been made.

This has happened once before. In 2016, a shortening was also made, then one went back to three years as it had been previously. The intention is, of course, that it shall become so again.

When it comes to constitutional law or legislative changes, it is discussed. We have not reached an exact conclusion on how we should proceed. But just as I said in my speech, we are working on the fact that this must be implemented at the educational institutions, but also that it must be anchored how it should proceed with academic freedom, which we consider to be extremely important.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of reservation 1 in this report.

Once again to these boards: A couple of weeks ago, the government announced a change in the boards of educational institutions regarding the length of the boards' terms but also the composition of these boards.

Just this area is not within the Tidö Agreement, and the Sweden Democrats therefore had nothing to do with the decision. We were not even informed before the proposal was presented.

During a direct question for 30 minutes, Minister Mats Persson said that SD had nothing to do with the decision, which apparently no one heard, even though the Minister repeated the answer no fewer than four times if I counted correctly.

The media bombarded the unsuspecting population with speculations regarding SD's involvement in the decision. It was said that SD wanted to take over and politicize the entire higher education world.

As deplorable examples, it can be mentioned that a professor of clinical bacteriology, known from the corona pandemic, as well as a former Social Democratic finance minister, came up with the most fantastic speculations about a complete takeover of the academic world.

Unfortunately, it is all lies and cursed poetry. I think it is sad that people who are usually regarded as authorities get away with spreading pure fantasies.

Madam Speaker! Former Social Democratic ministers and TV personalities with academic backgrounds are speculating and guessing wildly. They feed the public pure fantasies and lies. No one, absolutely no one, asks us about the matter. No one, not even the state media, checks what is stated in our committee motion on the issue. It is failed, completely failed. I give it a grade of F. And now I understand why some want to remove this grade.

Our policy is otherwise contrary to what is claimed. We consider, for example, that one should clarify the freedom of thought and opinion in the Higher Education Act, just as one should stipulate some form of academic freedom within higher education. In Germany, for example, they take academic freedom significantly more seriously than one does in Sweden. And I believe that we should also have a provision on this in the Higher Education Act.

Why is teacher freedom important? Well, because we have seen problems with this at some of our colleges. Teachers who teach courses in history have been forced to include literature that has nothing to do with the course itself.

This, my friends, is pure dictatorial behavior. It does not get any better by shouting oneself hoarse about academic freedom in an editorial a week later. We cannot have freedom only for the universities' boards. We must broaden the concept of academic freedom to also apply to the teachers and the researchers.

Freedom of thought should of course also apply to the students. But freedom of thought and freedom of expression should also not mean that the teachers at the university are forced to adapt the teaching so that it becomes uncomfortable for certain students. On the contrary, the teaching should be uncomfortable and insecure for the students, otherwise it is largely meaningless. Students do not learn to think if they only have their dogmas and opinions confirmed, and then often to the left. In the concept of thinking lies that one ventures into unknown territory to some extent. Old ideas collide with new facts and perspectives. It is exactly this that our universities shall offer.

Something that I hope the government will address, which it already has, concerns improper information gathering from foreign students. This primarily concerns Chinese students. This is not just about military, technical secrets but about advanced technology altogether.

If the government's change of the boards at our educational institutions will remedy this problem, I will at least leave that unsaid. It is clear that measures must be taken and that this is a matter concerning national security and not just an issue for the individual educational institutions.

Madam Speaker! In contacts with companies and their organizations, it has emerged that there is a glaring shortage of technicians, engineers, and natural scientists. Companies are finding it difficult to grow due to this shortage, and it falls upon us in this assembly to remedy this problem. I believe that in the future we must invest more in natural science and technology and ensure that we achieve the right balance between, on the one hand, the humanities and social science subjects and, on the other hand, the natural science subjects within higher education. This is a large and complicated issue, but I actually believe that we must begin to tackle this issue.

Madam Speaker! So, to the recurring question of student housing. The system with Akademiska Hus to provide students with housing works far from satisfactorily. I have raised this many times before, but I continue to nag. I believe it is time to abolish Akademiska Hus and replace it with another system, or alternatively give Akademiska Hus completely different directives. Furthermore, the universities should be allowed to both own and rent out housing. This is something that could be introduced directly without investigations and such. This is, in fact, already happening today for guest students.

Madam Speaker! Finally: In the future, we must look at the question of concentrating certain educations at institutions where they can be conducted in a successful and rational manner. If one institution has a high-quality education in a subject, it is better that all education takes place there than for another institution to conduct a mediocre education with six places 15 miles away.

We must achieve a critical creative mass to drive development forward. Smaller educational institutions should niche themselves in what they are best at. In this way, we raise the quality of all colleges.

I believe that everyone can be the best at something, also when it comes to educational institutions. I usually speak here from the rostrum about quality before quantity. But it also applies to regional politics – quality over regional political considerations.

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are part of the government base and have, through the Tidö Agreement, gained a power that the party has never had before. SD wants the government to consider a comprehensive review of the number of educational institutions and university status. He also said that here in the speaker's chair.

Higher education is characterized precisely by the close connection to research. But we Social Democrats perceive that SD wants to remove large parts of the research at the small institutions and concentrate it in a few locations. The Sweden Democrats also write that universities that do not meet the standard should be deprived of their university status.

I therefore want to ask the following questions to Robert Stenkvist: Which universities are it that do not meet the standard in Sweden? Which colleges shall be deprived of the close connection to research? And how shall the education in these locations be able to maintain the quality required in higher education?

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! We do not intend to withdraw the university status in the near future for any single institution. Nor can we do so. We are the government support, we are not in the government.

What we have been critical of is, for example, the conversion of some colleges that do not meet the standard. They have become universities even though they should not have become so. To strip away that status is a completely different matter. That cannot be done just however one likes.

The last university in Central Sweden had received serious remarks for lack of quality. It was a student who got her tuition fee back because her mathematics teaching was so substandard. She was ordered to have her tuition fee returned. After that, the college was designated as a university. Now it is Mälardalens högskola that is to be designated as a university.

We thought that was wrong. I still think so. But we will not withdraw any university status. No one needs to be worried about that.

We have talked about increased cooperation between the universities to achieve synergy effects. They did a reform in Denmark. Now it is starting to be quite a long time ago. It might have been 20 years since they did the reform.

That reform was very successful. It took place on a voluntary basis. It meant that the colleges specialized more in what they were best at.

It does not mean that any university will have less to do and fewer students. It is an increased specialization, quite simply.

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you that Robert Stenkvist is trying to answer the questions. It does not always happen when we have exchanges of remarks between different parties.

I come from a small municipality, Trollhättan, with 60,000 inhabitants. There, the college has meant very much. When expanded research resources were received, it strengthened the education.

What does Robert Stenkvist think about this for the small colleges? The Sweden Democrats want to reduce research resources. I and my party, the Social Democrats, think that research is a part of the development of education. One can develop the regular programs by having good research.

If one removes the research, even if one collaborates with other universities, a piece of what higher education should be is missing. Does the member think that by merging small universities, one also somehow manages the research? That is one question.

I think that the Sweden Democrats must still have a picture of how higher education institutions should be phased out so that one can complete the education in the whole country. I am a bit curious about that. The member said that one should not think too much regionally.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! We do not want any university to be closed. There are regional political considerations to take into account, and we shall take regional political considerations. The University of Trollhättan should probably remain for the foreseeable future.

However, there are situations when things are put to the test. Should we maintain high quality in an education, or should we remove an education from a smaller university so that it can focus on something else? In that case, quality must take precedence over regional political considerations.

Then there was the question of the research funds. We stand behind the budget that the government has presented. Now I cannot find Trollhättan University. But we stand behind the figures that are here.

I have at some point in a speech mentioned that it has gone to an extreme that there must be research linked to every education. A regional university may have a program for preschool teachers. They might not need a research institution there just because they train preschool teachers who are going to work at the preschools in the villages around the university.

I think it has gone a bit too far there. One must be able to have certain educations without having a large research section. It is simply an idea that someone has had.

No research grants should in principle be reduced in Sweden. If we are to do anything, we should increase them.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! If one has read the committee motion on academic freedom that Member Robert Stenkvist describes, one sees that there are quite large similarities with the Center Party's committee motion. It is quite interesting to stand here and state that.

We both safeguard academic freedom. In the speculations that have been about the government's appointment, I and the Center Party have chosen not to speculate about who might be thought to be behind the decision. We have not known it and have therefore thought it to have been unnecessary.

Let's say that I am now a naive person who chooses to believe what is stated in the committee motion, and I choose to do so. There are quite large similarities.

What I want to ask concerns the decision that the government has made. We in Centerpartiet have been deeply critical. We believe that one genuinely threatens academic freedom. One chooses to place their own people in the boards.

When one does that, one removes a part of the institutions' autonomy to manage their own activities. It is about being the free shining lighthouse that shines over society with academic freedom. There, the researchers can choose their research questions and the institutions can choose their priorities.

Given that we seem to agree quite similarly on academic freedom, the question to the Sweden Democrats is: Do you have the same analysis that the government decision threatens academic freedom?

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, I do not make the same analysis that this proposal would threaten academic freedom. Regardless of whether it is a coalition government or a left-wing government with the Social Democrats who simply appoint their own people to the boards who mostly have political merits, it is a clear politicization. I believe it would be a very unfortunate development.

I think that people should be appointed based on their merits and that they fit in the boards. They should have good ideas for how the educational institutions and the higher education world should be developed. It is a huge question that I have thought a lot about.

I believe that the Social Democrats are quite good at politicizing various agencies and boards. That the government appoints someone to university boards already happens today. I believe the member Anders Ådahl knows that. It is two nominees, of which one is appointed by the government and one for the academy.

We have another proposal. I do not know if Member Ådahl has read our proposal in our committee motion. We believe that it would broaden and strengthen academic freedom. We would get a greater emphasis within the academy than the emphasis being from the government side and politics. That is what we believe.

However, I want to emphasize that the government has the ultimate responsibility in certain matters. When it comes to security, the government has the ultimate responsibility, and the university has not always shown itself capable of the task. That is my opinion.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I conclude here, as I have received answers to my questions.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Ådahl has now concluded his remarks, but I had a small matter I would like to take up. Ådahl can answer me personally out in the corridor instead.

It concerns the fact that SD has been involved and has been part of the decision and that we want to politicize the universities. This has been stated by very heavy-weight academics in newspapers, on TV and on the radio. I cannot mention any names, Madam Speaker, because they are not here and cannot defend themselves. But it is truly heavy-weight academics who just go out and guess wildly when it comes to how this has gone about.

I can guarantee that what I am saying is true: We have not been involved in this decision. But these academics go out on TV and in newspapers and guess wildly, and then they are quoted by ten newspapers. It is a false statement from the beginning! We are talking about source criticism. Has no one devoted themselves to source criticism and checked where these pieces of information originally come from? No.

Now the member cannot give any answer, but my thought is that it can damage the trust in the academy in the long run that heavy academics go out and speculate in this irresponsible way.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Education Committee's report titled Higher Education. I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that the most important task of higher education is actually two: to convey knowledge and to ensure the country's supply of skills.

The Christian Democrats take a clear stand for quality and excellence in higher education and research. Sweden shall be one of the world's leading research and innovation countries and a prominent knowledge nation. To reach that, competent higher education teachers, competent researchers, a stimulating work environment, and study-social security are required.

Higher education must accommodate all interested talents to keep Sweden competitive. It must be possible to study at a college or university regardless of whether you come directly from upper secondary school or if you are a single parent of small children, and regardless of whether you were raised in a working-class family or an academic family. Christian Democratic higher education policy is therefore based on knowledge, quality, freedom of choice, and security.

Madam Speaker! I would particularly like to highlight the student unions' important role in developing the universities, among other things by the student unions identifying quality deficiencies from a student perspective and providing suggestions for improvement. In that way, the student unions contribute to promoting the students' social health in their studies and driving forward for high quality within higher education. It is therefore important to support the student unions and their activities.

It is also important to emphasize the importance of active work from the institutions' side to secure the students' working environment. It is particularly important to organize student health so that those students who are affected by mental ill-health get access to the support they need. If more are to be given the opportunity for further studies, which I assume everyone in here desires, we will also need to provide more people with increased support. The institutions must be on their toes and offer the conditions for all students to complete their studies.

Madam Speaker! So, to the university's important task of ensuring the country's competence supply. Let me take an example: health and medical care. Higher education is, of course, completely crucial for providing Sweden with the important competence that needs to exist within healthcare. And the need is enormous. From a Christian Democratic perspective, we have talked about that a clearer national responsibility for planning and coordination may be needed to map out the need for licensed healthcare personnel.

Today we do not really have any national knowledge of how many people there are within the different competencies, and we also do not really know how large the need actually is and will be. There is more to be done there. We believe that a national responsibility could be an advantage when it comes to accessing this.

It is also about identifying new competencies that will be needed moving forward within modern healthcare. This applies in particular to mathematicians, who will be needed to manage and analyze the large amount of health data required for us to be able to continue the development within healthcare in Sweden.

With clearer national coordination and planning of the need for personnel within healthcare, the overall national need for the number of training places at the educational institutions can be predicted in a better way. Thus, conditions can be created for long-term planning and distribution of the number of places between the different educational institutions.

Madam Speaker! Let me take another example of how higher education provides the country with important competencies. This concerns the supply of teachers within primary school. Teacher education needs to be reformed in several different ways. It is about increased focus on subject knowledge and a greater understanding of how important reading is for the children. It is about strengthening the education in leadership and conflict management in order to be able to strengthen the teachers' leadership in the classroom.

The work of getting truly skilled people to want to become teachers needs to be strengthened. Also, the work of getting more academics to want to change paths and become teachers in the middle of life would need to be scaled up.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we also need to ensure that those who enter higher education have the prerequisite knowledge required. Unfortunately, there are several examples of students who have been admitted but who lack sufficient knowledge in, for example, mathematics or Swedish. This leads to a decline in the quality of the education, to many dropping out, and to fewer completing the education within the intended timeframe.

So, there is some development potential within higher education. But, Madam Speaker, I would at the same time also really like to emphasize that there is much that works really well. We shall continue to take advantage of that so that Sweden shall have a higher education for quality and excellence.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Government bears sole responsibility for the Government's decisions. The Christian Democrats are also part of the Government. I would therefore like to give Mathias Bengtsson the opportunity to account for the Christian Democrats' position regarding the board appointments and the Government's decision to halve the mandate period with only a few days' notice.

I know quite well what it is like to be a small party in a government with much larger parties. It can be quite tough negotiations. Sometimes you have to settle for not getting exactly what you want. You simply have to live with certain things.

It may seem like a trivial question, this matter of the terms of office. Changing the time someone sits on a board - does it mean that much? But all principals believe that it means a lot.

We in Miljöpartiet truly believe that academic freedom – and that the government should not be involved in tampering with the independence of higher education institutions – is a foundation for a strong and vibrant democracy. The devil is in the details. And this decision is such a detail, which is much larger than it may appear on paper.

Partly I wonder how the Christian Democrats view the academy's extensive protests against the decision, and partly I wonder how Mathias Bengtsson himself would like the security work at the universities to be strengthened.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Camilla Hansén, for the question and for the opportunity to also give my view on the matter. We have, after all, turned the question a few times in a number of exchanges of remarks.

I have no other opinion than the one that previous representatives for the government parties and also Education Minister Mats Persson have expressed. I can, of course, understand that one reacts and raises their eyebrows at first glance when such a matter arises, but for that reason, I do not agree with the criticism.

If one considers the reasons for the decision and looks into this a bit more deeply, it is not particularly remarkable, I think. Reports come from the military intelligence service. Warnings come from the Total Defence Research Institute. Säpo comes out and says that there is an obvious risk. The media confirm in their reviews that Swedish patents are disappearing abroad. We have examples where researchers with strong connections to the Chinese military are active at Swedish universities and go home to China and take patents in the same area.

When we receive such warning signals, I think it is responsible of the government to act. It is responsible to, as a one-time measure – for that must be remembered – shorten the mandate period to 17 months in order to be able to review what security policy competence was needed in the boards. I think that is reasonable. It is good that the government acts when there are security policy threats.

At the same time, I want to emphasize, now that I have the opportunity here, Madam Speaker, that no one needs to be worried that the government would want to restrict any academic freedom. On the contrary, this government is working to reduce the political requirements and reduce the mandate in the regulatory letter in order to strengthen academic freedom. This can be done while simultaneously taking security policy threats seriously.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I and Miljöpartiet are of the opinion that we can strengthen the security policy work of educational institutions without restricting academic freedom.

It is not just about the decision itself, but also about the approach of calling people just a few days before a decision—that one does not anchor and work systematically with, as the member says, such an incredibly important issue. This is an external threat to Sweden and to Swedish academia.

The question I asked the member was: How does the member want to strengthen the security work? Can we get examples of that? It needs to be something other than electing new members in 17 months. Sweden is subjected to espionage and intrusion attacks every day, so replacing a few people in 17 months is not such a powerful action. What other measures where something can be done quickly would the member consider effective?

This is a remarkable decision. One does not get all the country's principals to agree on a position in less than a day if something is not remarkable. It is in the nature of academia to preserve its distinctiveness.

The board member also says that this is a one-time decision. Yes, well, I don't know that. No one knows that. The current legislation allows for different terms of office for the boards. It might depend a bit on whether one likes the board members who sit there or if one has some one wants to get rid of.

Fredrik Malm wanted us to return in 17 months. I am happy to do so, because then we will see who obviously did not have sufficient security policy competence or were compromised in some way, as Elisabeth Svantesson suggested.

So please give me some examples, member, of how you want to strengthen security!

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that a broad palette of many different measures is needed to strengthen security both in the short term in the acute situation and in the long term. No one believes that the security policy threats will be gone tomorrow, in a year, in two years, or in three years. We have a completely new security policy situation in the world.

I can in some way understand that the opposition is asking these questions. I think it is right and proper that the government is scrutinized. I can have understanding for that. It also somewhat belongs to the nature of the political game that the opposition should criticize the government for doing too little and too slowly.

In this case, however, I am also somewhat confounded, Madam Speaker, by the angle of attack that is being chosen. When warnings come from the Military Intelligence and Security Service, the Total Defence Research Institute, and Säpo, and we repeatedly see examples in the media of how Sweden's educational institutions are exposed to security risks, should the opposition not be upset that the government is doing too little and press it to do more? Instead, one chooses to attack the government for doing too much. I am somewhat confounded by that choice of angle when we see how China, Iran, Russia, and several other countries are challenging the Western world.

I think it is responsible of this government to strengthen academic freedom by protecting our universities and students against external threats. I might have wished that the opposition pushed a bit more in that direction instead of criticizing the government for doing too little. We must remember that what actually endangers our research and our free academia the most are the external threats, not that this government takes security policy seriously.

(Applause)

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I wish I could begin by saying that we see an improvement, a positive development of society. There have been several things that have had an enormous impact. First, we had a period of pandemic, then the invasion of Ukraine, and as a plaster on the wounds, Sweden is now one of the countries with the highest inflation. It is clear that we are a wealthy country and have a somewhat stable social structure that allows us to meet crises in a better way than most countries out in the world. But we have also had governments that have created cracks in our social construction instead of developing the positive, and in the positive, I of course include our colleges and universities as an incredibly important piece of the puzzle.

The situation of students and educational institutions is not decoupled from the crises we face. The cost of living continues to rise, and many students struggle to get by. This means that more are seeking the full student grant and that many have to work extra, not always with completely successful results regarding health and stress.

Price increases and efficiency requirements towards the educational institutions have also left their mark. Today, the educational institutions are forced to review their rental contracts and the number of teacher-led hours, in a situation where Swedish students already have the lowest teacher-led time in Europe, an average of eleven hours a week – and that is the mean; some programs have lower averages than that. This obviously affects both students and teachers, but it will also affect our future capacity for innovation and further worsen our competence supply.

It is this that makes it difficult for me to see the point of this government's policy. Everyone agrees that competence supply is number one for the business sector and the public sector, and thus for job creation. Yet, they are making it harder for Sweden's students. We need to increase and broaden students' opportunities for education, increase the number of teacher-led hours, maintain and expand the labs, and increase equality. These are quite large issues, which are now facing cuts. To that, we now have a situation where the government wants more control over the boards of higher education institutions without having anchored the changes, something which obviously creates concern at all colleges and universities.

A free academy, independent courts, free art and a free press are all cornerstones for upholding democracy and protecting human rights.

For Sweden to be a leader in research, it is required that we also invest in basic education, because today's students are the researchers of the future. The current resource allocation system for higher education has existed for nearly 30 years. Vänsterpartiet was already critical at the introduction of the price tag system that a portion of the money was distributed through a performance share based on point production.

The Steering and Resource Investigation came in 2019 with its proposal on changed funding of higher education. The investigation stated, among other things, that the performance-based resource allocation system means that education at undergraduate and advanced levels, which in different ways are flexible for students, is often financially disadvantageous for higher education institutions to offer. It limits.

As part of this, it was proposed that the performance-related part of the education funding should be reduced, in order to increase the opportunities for more people to study and to secure the funding and opportunity for development of the higher education institutions.

Today, the educations receive funding via a price tag where different educations receive different sized grants. There are quite large differences between the grants. The low price tag naturally affects the quality of the educations, among other things by resulting in even fewer teacher-led hours. Vänsterpartiet thinks that the price tags need to be reviewed and adapted to the needs of higher education and the educations and changes in costs.

Vänsterpartiet also proposes an equality bonus to promote a more equal gender distribution. There is much to be done to increase equality at Sweden's universities and colleges. This would become a tool to achieve that.

For a long time, we have had a research and higher education community where most students choose places of study based on stereotypical gender role patterns. It is largely men who are professors, and men find it easier to advance up the career ladder. Despite the fact that women have long been in the majority in undergraduate education, men have been in the majority in postgraduate education.

It also differs between different fields. Women are overrepresented in medicine and public health, while men are overrepresented in technology and natural sciences.

Last but not least, I want to highlight the problems that the fixed-term employments create. Insecure employment is a general problem within the academic world. Organizations such as Naturvetarna have described it as "the biggest obstacle for Sweden to be a leader in natural science research." They further describe that "working conditions within academia are perceived as outdated, unhealthy, and directly family-unfriendly. It benefits neither research and innovation nor Sweden's competitiveness."

Since researchers are not given a secure future or secure working conditions where they can concentrate on their work, they opt out of, for example, research positions in favor of administrative positions, and we as a society lose the opportunity to have researchers.

One can also reflect on how free research and education is if researchers and teachers must adapt in order to receive renewed employment or funding.

Within the artistic educations, there is also a special rule which means that a teacher can be employed for five plus five years, i.e., ten years. It is a special rule that was created in the past, when it was believed that it would benefit artistry. Here, we at Fackförbundet Sulf, Sweden's university teachers and researchers, believe that the paragraph which allows these ten-year fixed-term employments should be repealed.

With that, I move for the approval of reservation 16 and take the opportunity to invite you to the interpellation debate on the university boards' terms of office on June 1.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I have the pleasure of presenting three essential areas for the Centre Party when it comes to higher education and its development. I intend to speak about academic freedom, a higher education sector for the whole country, and sharper excellence in Swedish research. Most of my time I will devote to academic freedom, as it is so topical.

What is academic freedom, and why does the Center Party find it so important? There are many attempts to define the concept of academic freedom. One of the most cited definitions is, in a Swedish translation by Professor Shirin Ahlbäck Öberg: the freedom to conduct research, teach, speak, and publish in accordance with norms and standards for scientific inquiry, without interference or sanction, wherever the search for truth and understanding leads.

It is very important that the concept of academic freedom is understood from two levels, partly the institutional, and partly the individual. The institutional level refers to the institutions' possibilities for self-governance in order to maintain the institution as a free and independent actor in relation to, for example, the government, the Riksdag, and the market. The individual level refers to the right to professional self-determination granted to the individual teacher and researcher in teaching and research.

Academic freedom at both of these levels has historically proven to yield the best results for academia compared to micro-management and political opportunism. For the Center Party, it is a matter of course to safeguard and develop academic freedom. In the long run, it is about jobs, export revenues, welfare, and a developed democratic society for everyone.

But an important addition must be made. With freedom comes an equally large portion of responsibility. High academic freedom entails great academic responsibility. University managements and university boards have a great responsibility to develop their environments. Within certain fields of science and certain institutions, academic anomalies occur where the science is very weak and where research environments tend in some cases to become political. It could be termed the internal threat. It is the academy's responsibility to close weak environments itself, to develop the academy towards high scientific quality where scientific methods are used and research studies demonstrate reproducibility.

To not bear academic responsibility is to ask for a more authoritarian approach to the academy. It must be avoided in very many aspects.

Furthermore, the question of academic freedom is not a question of left or right in politics. It is instead a question of freedom versus the authoritarian. The dismantling of a society is carried out by authoritarian political forces according to a recurring pattern. First, the media is circumscribed, then the judiciary, then culture and academia, and finally the rights of individuals. Those who love freedom and those who love Sweden should therefore be extremely vigilant regarding signals where academic freedom begins to be restricted.

It is in that light that the government's decision to shorten the term of office for university boards from three years to 17 months must be seen. It is also why a unanimous academy reacts so forcefully. In Sweden, the relationship of the legislative and executive power to the country's educational institutions rests on trust and consensus, on respect for different roles in society.

The normal procedure is that the state's ownership interest is managed through regulatory letters and ownership dialogue. If the government sees a deteriorated security policy situation and sees itself forced to strengthen the security policy issue at our educational institutions, which can of course be completely legitimate and correct, the normal way is that it is written into regulatory letters or even better handled through an ownership dialogue with the operational management.

University boards are just like corporate boards. Their mission is to work for the best interests of the educational institution or the respective company. As a board member, one should not work for the interests of one's appointing authority but strictly use one's competence to work for the best interests of the educational institution.

With the decision on boards, the government has presented a downward trajectory where the final destination is called authoritarian rule. By micro-managing which people or which competencies shall sit on the board, the government departs from Swedish practice, and in the long run, it is quite rightly as the country's principals point out that academic freedom is threatened. It is not a policy that the Center Party can stand behind in any way. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 2 on governance and academic freedom.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about higher education and research for the whole country. The countryside is not a depopulated area – it is a repopulated area. We now see town after town being drawn on the map as the new green transition industrialization takes hold: Skellefteå, Mariestad, Boden, Liikavaara, Torsboda.

Nowhere else than in the emerging countryside is the skills gap so large. The labor market in many regions is crying out for skills, across the broad spectrum. It is about engineers, nurses, police, and veterinarians. Both in the business sector and in the public sector, skills are lacking.

Higher education is an infrastructure that must be both of a cutting-edge nature and locally and regionally situated, just like electricity, water, and fiber. There should be institutions of higher education across the entire country, and they should become more autonomous. They should also be given further opportunities to design their operations according to regional conditions as well as to strengthen their cooperation with the surrounding society. When more higher education places are added, it is important that quality is not only maintained but also strengthened, and that they meet the needs of the labor market.

Madam Speaker! Sweden also needs sharper edges in research. We are doing well on the innovation side, but worse when it comes to scientific quality. We are met with signals that the quality is vaguely declining. At the same time as we talk about increasing the breadth, we must also increase the edge of the country's universities.

In principle, there are two methods for the state to push for increased quality. It is partly about how we choose to organize the higher education sector, and partly about how we choose to finance it. There is every reason to review both the resource allocation system and the organization of Swedish universities and colleges.

Centerpartiet has long pointed out that we want to see more colleges leave the role of agency colleges and instead transition into foundation form or another form. With such a reform, we do not only increase the diversity among the educational institutions but also the possibility for individual institutions to build their own capital to freely use in their academic institutional freedom.

Educational institutions also need the conditions to manage two perspectives, partly autonomy with academic freedom, and partly cooperation and close connection between research, higher education, and the surrounding society. Without independent research and education, it is more difficult to identify, understand, and solve societal problems. Without cooperation with the surrounding society and responsiveness toward the challenges identified by the business sector and politics, educational institutions risk becoming isolated islands in the body of society. These are two perspectives that are partially opposing but which must function side by side within higher education and research.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Ådahl speaks of a slippery slope for academic freedom. The Member argued that there is too much influence and meddling and so on from the government. But all the Tidö parties have probably said that they want to reduce the meddling and the political influence, and that is how we work.

Now it was an exceptional situation, which many have mentioned here earlier, and we have also spoken about those who thought it was so. I wonder how the member thinks one should do instead if one wants to accelerate this. He mentioned ownership dialogue, but if one feels that there is no possibility for that – how does the member believe one could do it in a better way?

It has not been said that the nomination process should be changed so that the government appoints certain board members and the universities others. That is not what was said. It sounds to the member as if everything has been thrown overboard and that some catastrophe has occurred. I know that many are extremely disappointed, but I do not think one can say that this has destroyed academic freedom.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! No, it has not destroyed academic freedom. However, I express a concern that if one continues in this direction, academic freedom is threatened. I do not mean that it is [threatened] now, but I say at the same time - as the member points out - that with such a decision, one steps onto a slippery slope and takes a first step towards restricting the autonomy of the academic institutions.

When one chooses to shorten the period of appointment in order to place one's own people in the boards as soon as possible, it is a rather risky and difficult path to tread. It is actually precisely for that reason that the entire academy - with all its rectors and many professors - has reacted so powerfully in a very short time. We who do not work within the academy daily can shrug our shoulders and think that it is probably not so serious if one shortens appointments and puts in a few new people, but those who work in the academy understand that free culture, free courts, and a free academy are needed and that such a measure is a first step towards circumventing the freedom to self-govern priorities. That is why the reaction is so powerful.

What I mean is that instead, one should hold a normal ownership dialogue and issue regulatory letters. On the one hand, much more can be achieved in a short time, and on the other hand, the force is directed towards the right people. You direct the force towards the principal, who is also a head of authority, so that the principal can immediately begin with the task. I think that method is both faster and more powerful.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! It seems as if Member Ådahl has a crystal ball that I do not, because he spoke about how we are going to replace people and almost knew which people we are going to put in. That is not the case, but we want to conduct an investigation because of the external threat which is alarming and which has been so for a longer period of time. Unfortunately, it is getting worse and worse, and that has been discussed quite a bit here today.

The chairman has apparently envisioned that everyone will be replaced and that it will only be our people in the boards. That is absolutely not the intention. I think that previously it has rather been the Social Democrats who have appointed their people, who perhaps have also been more political. We in the Tidö parties, on the other hand, speak in terms of less political influence. We want more professionals in the boards.

I think that Member Ådahl has a tongue that shows something worse than what is even intended, and the Member apparently knows what the government is going to do, which I do not agree with in that case.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is very pleasant to have such a crystal ball and to be able to see into the future. I wish the member also had one such!

Jokes aside - what I am describing is not what will happen, but that the government is now taking a first step towards reducing autonomy within the academy. As I said in my speech: The whole idea with a board for both an educational institution and a limited company is that the members sitting there shall work for the best interests of the educational institution or the company.

When an owner chooses to place their people in the board and govern through the board, they make the classic mistake of letting the board members influence the daily operations when it is the CEO who should handle that matter. The boards shall ensure that the academy and the respective companies develop in the best possible way. If the owner thinks that something is happening that is wrong, it must be addressed in an owner dialogue. That is how it works in both the business world and the academy. Now the government is breaking this practice. The academy perceives it as the autonomy and academic freedom being diminished, and that is exactly what I, as a freedom-loving member of the Center Party, also react against. That is the whole reason.

I am not a language expert, but this is a first step that is deeply worrying.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker and dear colleagues in the Education Committee! In a moment, we will close the chamber for the evening after a long day.

Madam Speaker! Our position as a knowledge nation is built on a well-educated population and on high-quality research. Education is important for both the individual and society. Sweden shall be a country where everyone has the opportunity for lifelong learning. Knowledge contributes to an understanding of the world around us, regardless of whether it is of commercial interest or not. Humanities, art, and interdisciplinary subjects are strengthened and developed in harmony with education in technology, natural sciences, and social sciences. Basic research and research funding that is not earmarked are necessary prerequisites for future commercial breakthroughs and successful cutting-edge research.

I want to highlight the students' situation and briefly remind that Miljöpartiet in the autumn budget revision again proposes increased student grants and extra payments during the summer. This is a group that has tough economic conditions. Students also have the right to a really good education. Students need more time with skilled researchers and teachers as well as a secure and inclusive study environment.

I also want to highlight the skilled teachers and researchers. They need good conditions. They need secure employment. They need time to conduct research. They need time to develop their courses. They need a good working environment and the freedom to design both research and education.

More doors need to be opened to higher education. Recruitment to university, adult education, and post-secondary vocational training needs to be broadened. These forms of education have an important task in conveying knowledge and education and in this way creating prosperity and an open and democratic society. Access to knowledge is a democratic right. It is therefore important to broaden the recruitment to these educations.

Sometimes it appears as if a broadening would be some kind of reduction in quality; one believes that the reason why some do not go to higher education is that they do not have sufficient ability. But we must remember that there are many other reasons why one chooses to opt out of higher education, for example, that one comes from a home unfamiliar with studies. Every year, there are thousands of young people with top merits from upper secondary school who choose to opt out of higher education and research. It is a loss for Sweden.

Just as in sports and culture, we need both breadth and excellence. We want many children to participate in sports, and we are proud that a country as small as Sweden can have so many great sports stars out in the world. We want all children to have the opportunity to develop their artistic abilities, because it is part of being human and has an intrinsic value. Furthermore, it practices skills required in their future professional lives: creativity and problem-solving ability. We also need higher education throughout the country so that more people can get an education and so that more people can become researchers.

Research shall be free, but not just research, but also higher education. Independent basic research is important for Sweden and actually also for Sweden's contribution to the world's development. At the same time, it is reasonable that some of the money that society invests can be subject to political priorities and strategic investments. We particularly want to invest in research that helps us manage the climate and environmental crisis we are facing.

However, this must not come at the expense of basic research. The basic funding therefore has an important role to play. It shall give universities and colleges the conditions to make long-term independent decisions about their research and safeguard the institutions' integrity towards partners. This is important, not least in the security policy situation that we are talking about today and which, frankly, is nothing new. This is something that has been going on for a long time.

It may seem like a small matter that the length of time one is to sit on a board is changed at short notice. But we know that the foundations for a strong democracy are academic freedom, independent courts, artistic freedom, and a free press. The devil is in the details, and the government's decision to halve the mandate period is just such a detail.

Swedish academic freedom is constitutionally weak in comparison with other countries. We see now that we can no longer have the same trust in the authorities' ability to maintain an arm's length distance as we have had previously. It is a breach of trust that has occurred in connection with the decision on the shortened mandate periods.

Freedom of research is protected in the constitution, but higher education is not protected as strongly. We need to strengthen academic freedom by providing a clearer constitutional protection and clarifying the safeguarding of academic freedom for researchers and teachers. It should be protected both by the higher education institutions themselves within their activities, and respected by the state. It would be very welcome if the government gave a forthcoming constitutional commission directives on this.

I want to be extremely clear that the security policy situation is serious. Everyone who follows the news knows that. We members of Parliament know it, as we have made a number of decisions based on the changed global situation. We who have leafed through the annual reports from FRA, Must, and Säpo for more years than this know it. I do not have them with me up here at the rostrum, Madam Speaker, because we are not allowed to have props here. But I have them at my seat.

What I take away from today's debate are the unclear messages regarding which reforms will take place concerning the security policy protection for Sweden and for the educational institutions. We know that the government wants to take swift and extensive measures to strengthen Sweden's security policy situation. We are in the midst of a major reorganization of the policy. The questions that remain hanging in the air are: What is it that will happen now? What is the next step? What does this major reorganization entail?

Madam Speaker! I move for time-saving approval only for reservation 32 on widened recruitment.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 24 May.)

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