Higher Education and Research

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I hope we have fewer technical glitches in the broadcast here than I had yesterday and what perhaps some students had during the pandemic years when they had distance learning.

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposals in both reports and the rejection of all reservations, so that I have done that.

Madam Speaker! There are two reports, and it is actually two debates that we have merged into one. It is about colleges and about research. At the core of all this lies an educational ideal. Throughout the entire school system – straight through all levels of school and then through universities, colleges, and other adult education – there is the idea that people should be able to shape their own lives, make their own decisions, and reach the goals of their own dreams, regardless of who they are from the start and regardless of what circumstances they have.

When it comes to higher education and to research, the idea of education (bildning) is also extremely central. There is sometimes a debate in Sweden that sounds as if all education must lead to work. It is clear that it is important that we ensure that higher education and universities' programs lead to work on a structural level – on an overall level. But it is also incredibly important to safeguard the idea of education as central in all higher education and research policy.

Society becomes better if we obtain more knowledge. And society becomes better from the ideals and principles of universities and colleges when it comes to internationalization, the exchange of knowledge, and constantly striving to make things better. That is what is actually also the core of liberalism – that we are progressive and believe that society tomorrow will be better than today if we cooperate based on those ideas.

Madam Speaker! We do not only need to ensure that those who want to and can attend college and university are able to do so. We also need to ensure that the quality is high. We need to strengthen the quality within research and college and university education in Sweden. This government has done that, and it continues to do so.

But, Madam Speaker, there are also some threats to the formation and the free research. One such threat is the downsides of internationalization. Internationalization is, of course, an incredibly central part of all modern research activity. It has actually been that in all historical research activity as well. It is, so to speak, the very core idea that we shall exchange ideas with one another. But there are countries that are out to harm Sweden and which use our universities and colleges offensively to drive their agenda.

I am thinking, in particular, of a country like China and of the Communist Party in China, which has adopted a military doctrine and which has announced and been very clear that its view on warfare and on defense is holistic. They list a number of areas that lie outside what we traditionally think of as war and what we traditionally think of as areas where we conduct defense activities. One of them is research and higher education.

Madam Speaker! This means that we need to be very vigilant, not only when it concerns cooperation with China in areas that are obviously linked to defense and to the realm's security. This actually applies to all areas. China and the Communist Party of China use the united front policy to wage a low-intensity war against countries like Sweden and other democracies in the West.

Madam Speaker! Free research is under attack in the world. It is our task here in Sweden and in democracies like Sweden to defend it, to stand on the side of the individual researcher, to stand on the side of the research institutions and to stand on the side of the students.

There are a number of threats. One very clear threat is when antisemitism flourishes at colleges and universities – sometimes in Sweden and sometimes in other parts of the world. It has been an increasing problem during this parliamentary term, partly as a result of the war between Israel and Hamas. A good deal of expressions from students and sometimes from teachers have shifted from being legitimate criticism of democracy in Israel to being antisemitism, Madam Speaker. There are reports that show this. It is not something I am making up here at the rostrum. This is something we must take with the utmost seriousness. If we do not succeed in clearing this away, we do not have free universities, free research, and free students, who in the future could become our best researchers in this country.

Madam Speaker! Researchers must, of course, also be free from pressure from one another and from university managements. They must be free to be able to seek funds from different sources in order to be able to conduct their research as freely as possible. Thoughts must be allowed to be free. But it is clear that it is also as the researchers themselves say: They must be free from political influence.

Within all systems that are publicly funded, there is of course a certain influence. If we make decisions in here to invest X billion kronor in a certain research area – let's say we want to start a new space center – it is clear that it steers the research to some extent on a structural level. But, Madam Speaker, it does not steer the content of the research. It is very important that politicians do not steer the content of free research.

One thing that this government is doing to strengthen research, to strengthen the colleges and universities and, ultimately, to strengthen Sweden's democracy is that it is looking at the colleges' autonomy. The autonomy inquiry is one of this mandate period's most important higher education and research policy initiatives. It is also one of the most important things that this government is doing to strengthen democracy, perhaps together with the inquiry on a freer judiciary.

Madam Speaker! We from the Liberals have tried to do this before. At that time, we were met with great opposition from the left, but also from some universities and colleges. We believe that there is now a way forward when it comes to ensuring that our colleges and universities actually become freer from political governance than they are today. It is extremely central.

Madam Speaker! There are very good examples of this working – that the quality of teaching and research becomes good when colleges and universities are allowed to be free.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I wish to repeat that I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the reports.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to the Education Committee's debate on higher education and research, Joar Forssell!

The introduction in Member Forssell's speech was roughly: There is a debate about that all educations must lead to jobs. Then Joar Forssell spoke about educational ideals.

It is as if the Liberals are doing a complete 180-degree turn. The Liberals have throughout the entire mandate period justified their cuts to folkbildningen by stating that they are investing in education that leads to jobs. The Liberals have throughout the entire mandate period used the same argument to cut and move around ceiling amounts and other specially designated grants between the educational institutions because they are investing in education that leads to jobs.

It is Joar Forssell and his ministers who have driven the line that all educations should lead to jobs, in direct conflict with what Joar Forssell says from the rostrum about ideals of education. That implodes into empty talk when one slaughters people's education, cuts down on educational places and centralizes educational places and research resources to the larger institutions, as Joar Forssell does.

I would therefore like to get a clarification: Is it a new educational policy line that we hear from the Liberals in the speaker's chair today? Is it the old one that applies, that everything should be prioritized towards educations that lead to jobs, or is it what Joar Forssell says today, that the ideal of education should prevail? What is the liberal line?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! It is as if Member Sköld has not seen himself in the mirror for many, many years. The Social Democrats in this country have, year after year, decade after decade, pushed for higher education and universities to focus on quantity instead of quality and to ensure that everyone gets a higher education instead of ensuring that higher education maintains good quality. You have spent numerous hours and energy hollowing out the quality of higher education and the value of a higher education when you have governed higher education policy. This you have done because you have had no educational ideals.

Madam Speaker! The old labor movement certainly had ideals of education. I believe that a modern social democrat who looks at themselves in the mirror and reflects on what has been done during the decades they have been involved in governing the education policy in this country should be ashamed before their old allies in the old labor movement, where there was an ideal of education.

Madam Speaker! For the Social Democrats, education has never been important. I agree that we of course must spend money on adult education. That has always been the Liberals' position. It was the Liberals' position before this parliamentary term, it has been the Liberals' position during the parliamentary term, and it will be the Liberals' position after this parliamentary term.

Madam Speaker! What I say myself, and what the Social Democrats surprisingly highlight now, is that the ideal of education is very important. At the same time, it does not, of course, always have to stand in stark contrast to the fact that things should lead to jobs. We are neither industrial socialists who think that everything should lead to jobs and that everyone should have a university education, even though that devalues the worth and quality, nor are we people who are afraid of doing real politics. We have made incredibly important investments in research and higher education during this parliamentary term.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Never have I heard a Liberal admit to being so overridden. One third of the grants to the study associations are being removed, and the places at the folk high schools must be reduced by thousands. If this is the Liberals' version of investing in popular education, Joar Forssell is actually saying that the Sverigedemokraterna have overridden the Liberalerna and forced them to cut the grants.

It looks the same in academia, I can inform Joar Forssell. I think it is absurd to say that one is investing in higher education when fewer are admitted, even though we had a record number of applicants to the university both this term and the last.

The result of the government's policy is that fewer people can get an education. The reason why quantity is important, Joar Forssell, is that we, unlike the Liberals, believe that this country's competitiveness should be built on knowledge. We need to have a well-educated population and a well-educated workforce so that we can build our country's economy and growth on knowledge.

The alternative, which Joar Forssell stands for, is that we should build competitiveness on poor working conditions and low wages. It is clear that it then fits perfectly that higher education should be for a few, a small already privileged elite.

For us Social Democrats, that is not how it works. If we are to be able to maintain our country's competitiveness based on knowledge, a large part of the population needs to be highly skilled labor. It is that simple. But Joar Forssell would rather lower wages and build our country's competitiveness on cheap labor.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking the Social Democrats for being so clear that they put quantity before quality.

I want to tell a small anecdote, Madam Speaker. My father was the first to obtain a university education in our part of the family. He grew up with his single mother, who was a cleaner. His first job was at a scrap yard, where he smashed tin cans into smaller pieces of metal that could be melted down and become new objects.

Dad also had an academic talent, and through school and higher education, he got the chance to make a class journey. In his time, it meant something important to have a college or university education. For him, it was this that made the class journey possible.

After that, social mobility has possibly stalled, partly due to the enormous tax burden that we bear here in the country. Social mobility has stalled because one cannot earn money properly in Sweden by working, saving, and investing. Every time the Social Democrats are in power, they make social mobility impossible by raising taxes and pushing back people who want to make a social move.

Madam Speaker! Class trips are also being stopped for thousands of students every year in Sweden because the Social Democrats, decade after decade, have devalued the worth of a higher education by investing in quantity instead of quality. This means that today, unlike in the past, one needs to have a degree to apply for a job where that knowledge might not be required.

It is not about the Social Democrats wanting to ensure that one can make a class journey, because then one would not have acted in that way. Then one would not have raised taxes for people who work. Then one would not have raised taxes for people who save and behave correctly. Then one would not have ensured the devaluation of the value of knowledge.

Member of Parliament Sköld and others want to look good and stand and say such things in the speaker's chair, but from the Social Democrats, no reality-based class journeys are coming.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Joar Forssell was in his speech regarding the importance of academic freedom and the need for it to be protected.

Miljöpartiet argues that it needs to be protected in the constitution, and it seems as if the Liberals also want that. I simply wonder how this is going to happen. There are a number of investigations, but we would like to see what happens immediately regarding taking action on the constitutional issue.

How will the process proceed? What does Joar Forssell consider it means to protect academic freedom?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, all legislation in Sweden proceeds in the same way: One has a political negotiation, and then one appoints an investigation and an investigator who conducts the investigation. A little later, a proposal from the government arrives which the Riksdag processes.

So that is what the process looks like, and I hope that we can do it together with those whom we cooperate with.

What then is academic freedom? That is perhaps the more interesting question. It is about both the institutions having to be free and there having to be many different pots of money to apply for research funds from, i.e., both publicly and privately funded research, publicly funded research at different levels and so on. The private can involve companies, foundations and other free actors. One must have the possibility to apply for research funds from many different actors so that one does not risk being steered either by the content or by the funds themselves. I believe the member understands what I mean.

Another part of this is that researchers must be free from pressure from one another, i.e., from colleagues and management. It may not be as big a problem as it has sometimes seemed in the debate, but it is nevertheless a problem when it happens. There, we must also have a protection for the individual researcher. It is therefore not just about the institutions but also about the individual researcher.

Another example, which I also highlighted in my speech, is the increasing gross antisemitism that we have seen at a number of universities during this parliamentary term. Students are being held back even though they are part of the free academy and actually of the free research. One can participate in research even at a lower level as a student.

There are many different parts to this – both freedom from politics and freedom from governance in other ways. I hope that Miljöpartiet stands for all parts.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! As you know, I am a Member of Parliament, so I have become somewhat familiar with the general features of the legislative process. Joar Forssell surely understands that this was not the purpose of my question. I want to know when and how steps will de facto be taken to constitutionally protect academic freedom as a whole, economically and organizationally. This concerns both students and higher education. There must also be a protection against political steering, which has shown itself to be one of the issues that researchers are most concerned about.

Let me move on to another issue. I heard some variants of "if too many have higher education, the value of it is devalued." It was very strange, because the more knowledge one has, the better it is. Moreover, one can share it with very many without it becoming worse.

The Liberals have had as a classic slogan that they want more Nobel Prizes. For me, the Nobel Prizes begin with the universities welcoming a breadth of students from many different parts of society. If there are to be any Nobel Prizes, meetings between researchers and students are needed. Free research is needed, where researchers do not experience threats to either the results or themselves as persons.

The Liberals have not been particularly generous when it comes to the funding of higher education. We have, for example, heard that Linné University in Växjö needs to reduce by 1,000 students. Had the Environment Party's budget with approximately 47 million kronor more been a reality, they might have avoided it. I do not understand how there is to be more Nobel Prizes when the students and the educational institutions are not funded.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! There are many parts here. I will begin by saying something about free research. Even in my opening statement, I highlighted political steering as the most important threat. I was very clear about that. The member can go back and look if she is unsure.

Madam Speaker! If we are to get more Nobel Prizes, it begins, if one wants to be a bit picky, already in preschool. Then it applies at all school levels, up through universities and colleges and to research. It also begins with a responsible internationalization. It begins with research exchanges both between researchers within Sweden and between different countries. Many Nobel Prizes are not the result of research from just one country but of research together with researchers in other countries. So far, I agree.

I also want to say something about the devaluation. When I and the Social Democrats debated this, it was about social mobility. That one gets life chances is one aspect of education, but if one has something that many others also have, the opportunities to use it as a lever in a social mobility move decrease. It does not mean that the value of knowledge has been devalued. It is something completely different and a distinction that I believe even the Green Party is capable of making.

What I am critical of, however, is if one invests in quantity over quality. Sometimes it is not possible to do both things at the same time. I mean that it is important that we in Sweden invest even more in quality from where we are right now.

An important part in increasing the quality of research and education and also in achieving freer research is autonomy. I believe that Miljöpartiet over the years has sometimes been for autonomy and sometimes against it. Therefore, I want to ask Member Hansén whether Miljöpartiet, in a government position, will continue to pursue the issue of the universities' autonomy.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to point out that we Social Democrats stand by all our reservations, but for the sake of time, we move for approval of only one reservation in each report. They happen to have the same number, namely reservation 1 in UbU12 and reservation 1 in UbU13.

Sweden is a nation whose competitiveness shall be built on knowledge. It requires that a large proportion of the population has the opportunity and the will to educate themselves, so that the knowledge of the workforce is high. It requires that we have high ambitions when it comes to research here in the country. It requires that we allocate large resources for research and that we have an innovation system that delivers. It also requires that academia stands free to ask the research questions it wants and to provide the education that is needed with the methods that have scientific support.

Sweden is a country in which everyone should have the chance to grow, develop, and educate themselves – the chance to become their best self. It requires that there are ample opportunities for education throughout life. That is why we Social Democrats persistently invest in ensuring that adults are given the opportunity to develop – at different levels in the educational chain, but nonetheless throughout life. It requires that higher education is not only accessible to a few, an already privileged few, but for people regardless of what background they have, where in the country they live, what gender they belong to, or whether they were born in Sweden or somewhere else.

Educational institutions have had the mandate of broadened recruitment for decades. It is time that we find ways to strengthen it, because the skewed recruitment to higher education is still large. Someone who has parents with an academic background is much more likely to be a future student. Someone who lives in the countryside is much less likely to be a future student than someone who lives in the city. Someone who is born abroad is much less likely to be a future student than someone who is born in Sweden.

Sweden is a country that must hold together. It requires that there is education and research throughout the entire country. It is good for the supply of skills. It needs to be possible to train as a social worker, nurse, teacher, or leisure educator in all corners of the country. There need to be people with education to staff those jobs everywhere. It is also good for innovation.

When research and education are conducted close to their application, i.e., in close cooperation with the surrounding society, the quality and usability increase, which strengthens Swedish higher education. For us Social Democrats, it is important that higher education and research are spread across the entire country. It becomes increasingly clear the further this process goes that one needs to be able to educate oneself without moving, which underlines the need for functioning learning centers throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! In contrast to our priorities stand the government's. Throughout this entire mandate period, we have invested more than the government on both research and higher education. When the government presented its research bill, which was claimed to contain historical investments in research, we had already invested more than 700 million more in the first year in increases to research resources.

We have also every year rejected the government's cuts within higher education. We have in every budget throughout the entire mandate period invested more in higher education than the government has.

It is not as Joar Forssell claimed here, that is, that we are pitting quality against quantity. We cannot accept a declining quality in higher education. That is why we view the decreasing teaching time with such seriousness, especially in courses at the basic level and in programs with the broadest recruitment base. There, the teaching time needs to increase. It is an important piece of the puzzle in the review of the resource allocation system that we Social Democrats have demanded for several years now.

Another important piece of the puzzle is that such a review is carried out in a parliamentary committee with broad anchoring so that we avoid abrupt changes in how the financing system looks.

In contrast to our priorities stand the government's. When the government provides supplementary funding to research and higher education, it is a matter of micro-management. Every additional krona in the research bill that the government placed on the Riksdag's table went to politically prioritized projects.

An important point regarding academic freedom is that the funding is also freer. We need to increase the basic grants, and we need to have free funds for the researcher-initiated research.

When we are talking about academic freedom anyway, it may be appropriate to remind the audience – you who are listening – that both Liberals and Sweden Democrats during this mandate period have committed some quite gross transgressions and have not respected the boundary that should exist between politics and academia. They have stepped into both institutional freedom and individual freedom. They have reviewed courses and have wanted to shut down departments and withdraw funding to certain educational institutions. That type of transgression will no association form investigation in the world protect academia from.

When we make the accounts for this parliamentary term, we see that the government in every instance has prioritized reduced appropriations for higher education all over the country. Instead, they have prioritized lowering taxes for those who already earn a lot, and that is bad economic policy. The power of the state's resources should be used to smooth out the economy over time.

A good way to do that is to invest in education during times of recession. Then, people who are unemployed or newly graduated students will be able to use the time of unemployment to educate themselves and enter the labor market stronger when the economy turns. But in a time when we have a record number of applicants to higher education, the government has made the priority to reduce the number of places and instead lower the tax for society's very richest. I think that is unwise.

I thank you for the floor and, as I have said, move for approval of reservation 1 in the Education Committee's reports 12 and 13.

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report UbU13 Research.

This is my final speech on the subject of research. I therefore intended to air some questions I have had during my years here in this bastion of democracy.

In 1928, Gerard De Geer wrote in the book Sveriges andra stormaktstid the following: "Our matches, ball bearings, telephones and separators carry the Swedish name on the wings of reputation, just as before our victories on the battlefields. If our renown was previously limited to northern Europe, it is now universal."

There is hardly a larger city in our entire globe where one does not find the SKF sign on one of the leading streets. The Aga-light guides shipping from Magellan's strait to Asia's northeast coast. The wonderful triumphal march of the Swedish matches across the globe has made the Swedish name more known than our armies' campaigns during the 17th century.

Now we are fighting instead to be cited in some scientific journal. Being cited is not quite the same thing as inventing the AGA light or the ball bearing.

A central indicator in today's system is indeed citations and bibliometric measures. It is the measure of delivery when it comes to research. But the fact that researchers cite each other does not mean that the research is groundbreaking or that we learn more about the world and nature. The citations do fulfill a function. We should not stop measuring this, but the measurement method has clear limitations. The number of citations and scientific articles does not correspond to an increase in scientific breakthroughs or discoveries. The problem is that the system risks rewarding citable articles rather than truly groundbreaking discoveries.

I am also afraid that we have a system that favors conformity over curiosity. Many researchers steer their research according to what donors want to hear, not according to actually making a new discovery. In short: We need fewer applications and more research.

Madam Speaker! Let me bring up the somewhat more overarching global research situation, something I like to talk about.

We find ourselves in a situation where Europe has distanced itself from the USA in several ways, and this also applies within academia. When Europe stands more alone in the world, China is investing massively in technology, AI, and materials physics. The USA is also investing strategically. Europe risks here to become a bureaucratic follower. The EU and Sweden must invest more in issues that provide geopolitical power within research.

In the current global political situation, we must invest more in research within technology and natural sciences and areas that make our economy and our competitiveness grow. It is such things that give our nation and continent muscles to contend with in a headstrong and sometimes purely idiotic world.

I also want to say something about Old Norse territory in the form of Greenland. In connection with a certain president deciding to annex Greenland, research regarding the Arctic suddenly became highly topical. How so, you ask. Yes, it was not only military presence that was pointed out as important for making claims to and taking responsibility for the Arctic region, but also Arctic research, especially the presence of potent research vessels.

The number of Russian and Chinese research vessels has, according to SVT, been identified as a threat to Greenland. The number of Nordic research vessels was mentioned as a deficiency. The failure to build a new, potent research vessel has thus proven to be a significant, serious security policy threat. We have it in black and white now. If we are to take responsibility for security in the Nordic region, a new research icebreaker after Oden must enter the budget. Nordic territory is at stake here.

Finally, regarding research, Madam Speaker: I continue on the geopolitical track. I have previously spoken until I was hoarse about the fact that we must have both universities and research that follow meritocratic principles. It is even more important given how the developments in the world around us have looked. In this situation, I argue, we cannot afford anything other than to let merit be the factor that determines where the research funds should go. True equality in academia means that the best idea wins, not the right background. We shall judge researchers by their results, not their identity.

This, Madam Speaker, shall be my political testament regarding research. Now we move on to the university.

I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in report UbU12 on higher education, Madam Speaker. This is my final speech on higher education, so I take a slightly broader perspective here as well; one has the right to do so.

Do not fix what is whole. It is an old proverb that retains its relevance even today – I am thinking here of the associative form. There are problems in our academic system, but the operational form is not one of them. Solve the problems we actually have instead!

Every reorganization consumes enormous resources. Historians have sometimes noted something interesting: When Västrom was in decline, the number of reorganizations increased in direct correlation to the loss of land areas and economic decline.

We are not going to reorganize the operational model, Madam Speaker. What we should instead reorganize is the cooperation between the universities. We should think more in terms of quality and less regionally, contrary to what Linus Sköld just said. We should have niche universities that are at the top in their specific areas. After that, we should concentrate broad, socially important educations at the institutions where they are best conducted – also to achieve a critical mass, as it is so nicely called.

We shall organize the higher education system so that we obtain the best research and the best teaching. There is a clear potential for improvement here, which OECD also points out in its latest report Outlook 2025.

We must also have a financing system that promotes quality to a greater extent. This should be investigated and developed by experts; I believe it is somewhat beyond our level of competence.

Our financing system is particularly problematic when it comes to international students who cheat their way into university places only to drop out shortly after the start of the term. The universities earn money from this while society loses. So we cannot have it – do something about the problem! It is a task for you in the committee; I am retiring.

I would like to ask two questions about academic freedom. The topic has been raised here before, but I do not believe anyone has asked them, Madam Speaker.

Why should we have academic freedom? I believe it is absolutely necessary for development and for us to move forward knowledge-wise. Without freedom of thought and free bouncing of ideas, the entire higher education system is rather meaningless, I believe. We should rather have more intellectual confrontation than we do today. There is a pressure to be politically correct, we have heard, and that does not promote success.

Question two: What freedom and for whom? When we have discussed academic freedom, we have only discussed freedom for the boards. It is only a small part of academic freedom. SD primarily wants to see academic freedom for individual teachers. They must, for example, be allowed to establish their own reading lists and manage their own course. If they cannot do that, they should not teach at all, in my opinion. We are convinced that this would be a direct quality-enhancing measure. Academic freedom promotes quality.

How are our universities going to become better internationally? I have heard many say that we should become an internationally leading research nation. It sounds a bit like when I started here in the Riksdag, when we were supposed to have the world's best school. I don't know if anyone was here and remembers it, but there was a hell of a lot of nagging about it. Then came the famous Pisa report, and after that it became quiet. I actually thought it was a bit nice, even though the report was tragic.

My point is that we cannot just operate with talking points. We must take actions that actually move us forward in a concrete way.

As I have pointed out previously, we must also invest more in natural sciences and technology, so-called STEM subjects. That is what matters internationally. China and the USA are investing enormously in these subjects. We and Europe must take up the fight with those countries if we are serious about moving forward in the lead. Otherwise, it is just talk.

We must also – this is important – change our self-image. We are not small, and we are not weak. Sweden has an immensely proud tradition when it comes to inventions and innovations. We are strong. We can compete in all areas, with anyone. We are great, even if not in terms of population. That is the image you must put in your heads.

Finally, Madam Speaker, we must also streamline the mandates. A growing amount of administrative side tasks makes our higher education weaker and inefficient. "But these are good things," the critics say then, "necessary." Yes, but then we will not move forward in the competition – it is that simple.

This shall be my political testament on higher education issues, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank the Speaker's Bureau for that we were allowed to begin and not be last today in this debate. Warm thanks for that!

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Robert Stenkvist posed in his speech what one might assume was intended as a rhetorical question: Why should we have academic freedom? I thought I would take the liberty of answering it, even if Robert Stenkvist did not want it to be me who did so: It is for the simple reason that otherwise it would be Robert Stenkvist who decided which research gets done.

Academic freedom is, so to speak, an extension of democratic freedoms – freedom of speech and freedom of information. If educational institutions cannot exercise that freedom, they will also not be able to engage in things that are uncomfortable for Robert Stenkvist or other power holders in this country. That is why we must not have political steering of which research questions may be asked, how the research is conducted, or how the research is published. It must be free for the educational institutions to decide that. Otherwise, Robert Stenkvist will have the opportunity to censor things that will be uncomfortable for him. I think that would be very unfortunate.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was quite concrete – that is what I am grateful for.

No, I do not want to decide what the researchers should research, their results, or how they do it. Before we entered the Tidö agreement, we had proposals for increased basic grants. No politicians would have any opinions on what the universities did with those basic grants. No politician should at all interfere in the research that the universities decide on themselves. It shall be free research. They shall come to results that are sometimes uncomfortable, not just for me, Madam Speaker, but also for Linus Sköld, I hope. Then he will have to take it – take it in good faith, quite simply.

On the other hand, we have strategic research areas, and we have had that even under Social Democratic governments. Money has been allocated to certain socially important research areas. The Sweden Democrats and we in the Tidö agreement have continued with that, as have all governments. Now I don't quite remember, but I believe it was a bourgeois government that started with the strategic research grants. And the Social Democrats have continued with them.

We must have free research, absolutely. We cannot control the research. We do not have that competence at all.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Still, I have heard Robert Stenkvist grade research, which is more or less real research, countless times in this chamber.

I have seen a number of examples of Sverigedemokratiska colleagues of Robert Stenkvist who have launched attacks against the Centre for Gender Studies or the DEI office at Chalmers. I have, for example, heard Robert Stenkvist say that he wants to abolish all gender research.

There is research that is obviously uncomfortable for Robert Stenkvist, which he would prefer to avoid. That is why he also does not think that the educational institutions need to be independent.

Why should we have academic freedom, he asks? So that Robert Stenkvist cannot make that type of intervention in which research questions can be asked, how the research is conducted, or how the results are published. It is that simple.

Then there is a balance point between research being used to solve societal problems, that is, through politically prioritized funds for certain things, and free funds for other things.

It is something that both Robert Stenkvist, I, and all other members in the chamber need to step up for. We have all submitted proposals for this and voted them through. There is a legitimate governance that is about the fact that we need to solve societal problems with knowledge.

What research is conducted, what questions may be asked, how it is carried out and how the results are published, Robert Stenkvist actually must not decide. Therefore, we must have academic freedom.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not want to decide that either. Linus Sköld is mixing up two different things. It is apples and pears, or even further apart. One thing is about deciding which research should be conducted; the other is about grading it.

I have graded research, which a huge number of people have done. I read a huge number of newspaper articles where a huge number of people within academia and outside academia give grades, and sometimes one gives a failing grade to that which is deplorable. I intend to continue doing that. It is my personal freedom and even my duty to do so as long as I sit here in the Riksdag.

It was a newspaper article that 1,000 researchers signed. Then other researchers within the academy said it was the most pathetic thing they had ever read. There were at least 990 researchers who had no idea what they had signed in a newspaper article. I intend to continue criticizing such things. It is my human right, and it is almost my duty as a politician. On the other hand, I will not attempt to direct any research.

When it comes to the department of gender studies, I have said many times: Research whatever you want, as long as you follow the Higher Education Act. What does it say in the Higher Education Act, Madam Speaker? Yes, it says that all research shall be based on a scientific basis or proven experience.

If one now quite obviously discovers that it is not the case, one must ask oneself why it is happening. We must have the right to ask ourselves that question. Our universities are tax-funded. It is the working class that Joar Forssell spoke about that finances the universities and the higher education institutions.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Every day we are reminded of the unrest that exists in the world around us. It is becoming increasingly clear that democracy is important. We should be grateful that we have our democracy here in Sweden. In a democracy, all forms of education are important. Therefore, I look forward very much to the debate on higher education and research.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposals in both reports and for the rejection of the motions.

Higher education and research in Sweden have for a long time belonged to the most prominent in the world. They have been a driving force for our capacity for innovation and economic development. However, a lot is happening in those areas. Today, new demands are being placed on technical development. Global competition is increasing, and we are also experiencing changed competence needs.

Madam Speaker! Education issues affect very many people. In Sweden, approximately 400,000 study within higher education. That is quite many. It corresponds to approximately 4 percent of the entire population, and of these, 60 percent are women.

Now, for the spring semester 2026, more than 200,000 students were admitted to our higher education institutions, and 80,000 of them started there for the first time. People will study later in life. The previously so typical student who came directly from upper secondary school no longer remains, but it has changed very much. It will be a lifelong learning moving forward.

According to statistics from UKÄ, the Swedish Council for Higher Education, 14 percent of those who study today go directly from upper secondary school to some higher education institution. A third start at some higher education institution within three years, and two-thirds start within five years. Three-quarters have started within ten years.

Many are waiting, but why are they actually waiting? Many want to work and save up money for their studies. Some want to do their military service. They can also be uncertain about their choice of education, and more students study when there is a recession.

But above all, the requirements have changed. You need to further your education during a large part of your professional life. This places demands both on the one who is the education provider and within professional life.

Madam Speaker! Why do so many then pursue a higher education? They do it, of course, so that they can get a job but also because they want better job opportunities. They may want a higher salary. They achieve personal development.

They learn a great deal during their education, and they meet very many people. They often develop a stronger social commitment. I have said it before: Quite a few also end up in the Riksdag. Interest can be awakened as early as during the education. They also get international opportunities.

Madam Speaker! Higher education in Sweden generally maintains high quality. That is something we in the Moderaterna are very proud of and want to safeguard. We must, however, match more with the labor market's needs. We must have more flexibility within the educations, and they must be both relevant and in demand.

The labor market is constantly sounding alarms about competence shortages, above all within technical occupations but also within healthcare and teaching professions. The electrification also requires a lot. The green transition is something that we prioritize very highly within the Tidö parties. Here, very specific competence is needed.

Latest this morning I heard on the news about Chalmers. I must, of course, always mention Gothenburg and Chalmers when I debate here, because I am a Gothenburgian. They spoke about the sodium batteries, which are more environmentally friendly and more stable. It is something that is coming within the research that is very positive. A lot is happening all the time.

Still, it is the case that three out of four companies are alerting that they have difficulty finding people with the right competence. This also applies internationally. Sweden must be at the forefront to reach both Swedish and foreign competence.

Madam Speaker! To remedy the lack of competence, we need to invest as early as in primary school and, of course, also in upper secondary school. Just as Joar Forssell said, it actually begins as early as in preschool.

It is very important that upper secondary education maintains high quality, whether it is a vocational education or a theoretical education. Several colleges unfortunately warn that certain skills, for example in mathematics, are lacking among students in order for them to complete the educations in a good way.

It is very tragic that one must have remedial courses at the university for the students to be able to handle the mathematics before they begin. There are deficiencies in the upper secondary school. That is why we within the Tidö parties do very much to invest as early as preschool, primary school, and upper secondary school so that the students do not have to supplement when they come to the university. At some universities, as many as 40 percent do not pass the program because they cannot do mathematics when it comes to technology.

Our educational institutions need long-term and sustainable conditions to be able to maintain our high quality of the courses and on the students' learning. There must be good study conditions and also a good working environment for the staff. This places demands on a robust system.

Madam Speaker! We within the Moderaterna want to open up to looking at more forms of association. That in principle all educational institutions are state agencies is clear when it comes to lines of responsibility. But it has also become a limitation for long-term perspective, flexibility, and development.

In 1994, Chalmers tekniska högskola and Jönköping University were reorganized into foundations. Since then, no high school has been reorganized, primarily because we have not had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, in January 2026, the government appointed a special inquiry to see if we can obtain a more purposeful form of association for all state universities and high schools.

It is not certain that it must be a foundation; it could be something else. But we must review what we can do to improve what exists. This is done primarily to strengthen the independence of the educational institutions, promote academic freedom, and protect against political steering.

It is also about achieving increased excellence and internationally competitive cutting-edge research. It is important for us. We also want to ensure autonomy and flexibility, and we want to reduce the administration. Since we are already at it, we would like to review the Akademiska Hus model, which is not always so well-functioning.

The Moderates and the Tidö parties want to see fewer political finger-pointing influencing research and education. We want to see expertise within both research, development, and the business sector.

That is why we in the Riksdag have, among other things, something called Rifo, the Society of Members of Parliament and Researchers. It is precisely about members of parliament and researchers meeting. When we want to develop changes, we also want to receive support from research. It is an excellent opportunity to meet and see that one has an exchange with each other. We will have an annual meeting very soon. More are of course welcome to Rifo, because it is important that this cooperation continues.

When it comes to research, Madam Speaker, I am very proud that the Moderaterna are making such a large investment in research. It was mentioned that it is not large enough, but 6.5 billion until 2028 is a lot of money. We are doing that as an increase. We also see that we must have a good research infrastructure that must be clear and long-term.

We are reviewing the state funding of external research so that it supports the research in the best way. It is important that we get a long-term available research infrastructure that becomes sustainable so that one feels that there is a long-term perspective in this.

There are also other funders that we sometimes do not talk about. Not everything comes from the state. There is, for example, the EU's framework program for research and innovation Horizon Europe, the Riksbank's Jubilee Fund which invests heavily in the humanities, and the Cancer Foundation which invests heavily in cancer research, as one hears from the name.

Despite this, we see a decrease in people who want to become doctoral students in Sweden. At some institutions, there is almost no Swede who wants to become a doctoral student. It is important that we change this to promote our research. If we are to remain those who award the Nobel Prize but also receive the Nobel Prize, we must have more doctoral students and more people who want to conduct research in Sweden. It is important to establish a cooperation between the business sector, municipalities, and educational institutions to ensure that it actually pays off to be a doctoral student and to conduct research.

I also want to say that I am very proud of the research that we have here in Sweden. We have a lot of technical research; we are known for it. Much happens within technology development, for example within Volvo, but also within medical research.

Cancerfonden recently turned 75 years old. When it was started in 1951, it was 70 percent who did not survive their cancer. Now it has turned so that it is 30 percent who do not survive their cancer, and it is constantly improving. I am very pleased that we are good with our research. A huge amount is happening within the research.

I cannot stop without talking about space research, which is also very important. Here we are making a major investment. We are investing in doctoral students within space research, in satellite research, and in achieving long-term perspective. We also work together with defense research when it comes to space research.

We are therefore doing an incredible amount in research, and I think we should be very proud of Sweden's educational institutions and Sweden's research.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström says in her speech that three out of four companies have difficulty finding the right competence. At the same time, we have an unemployment rate in this country that is higher than it has been for a very long time. Consequently, we have more applicants for higher education than we have had for a very long time. We have not seen this type of figures since the financial crisis. At that time, the government is conducting a policy that results in us having thousands fewer places in higher education.

A few weeks ago, an example came from Linné University in Växjö and Kalmar in Småland. For the first time since they were formed, they will have to reduce the number of study places. They are to save 47 million, and it will cost 1,000 places at Linné University.

Then I will just briefly ask Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström: Is it, in her opinion, the right way to solve the problem of the mismatch to reduce the number of educational places so that individuals have poorer opportunities to educate themselves to get a job and so that employers get fewer educated applicants for their positions? Does it seem to be the right measure?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to Linus Sköld for the question!

I want to say that we are investing incredibly much in that we should have many places, but we prioritize quality over quantity.

We also see more paths to vocational training. We are changing things slightly so that it should be easier to access a practical vocational training. That is much what is being requested. Even if one does not pass upper secondary school, one has the opportunity to study a practical vocational training.

We must see what is being demanded. We must see what it is. It is primarily a lot within practical occupations and technology, for example electricity and telecommunications, that is required. We try to match by creating different forms of education in order to produce what is demanded.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström refers to the fact that there are many different forms of education. The Government has, after all, pursued the same policy when it comes to all of them.

There are fewer places in all forms of education for adults. There are fewer labor market trainings now than when the government took over. There are fewer places in higher education. There are fewer places in adult education. There is less money for komvux from the state since this government took office. In all forms of education for adults, the number of places has decreased. At the same time, we have more job seekers, and three-quarters of the recruiting companies say they have difficulty finding the right competence.

Everyone in Småland who is now wondering what will happen to their competitiveness, with the growth and economy of these towns – I think Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström owes them an answer.

The municipal councilors and regional councilors in the affected region and the affected municipalities have written a debate article where they point out that this is particularly serious for this region and that the university is a key for jobs and growth. This I am completely convinced of. I assume that Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström agrees with me that the university is a key for jobs and growth.

That is why I believe that Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström owes all Smålanders an answer. Is it the intention that the government's policy should lead to fewer jobs and less growth in Småland?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Linus Sköld for the question!

The government's policy is that there shall be jobs and education, obviously not only in Småland but also in other places. We are investing heavily in reforming the entire education system so that we get a well-functioning system for both primary school and upper secondary school but also for higher education. We have simply reviewed how we can distribute the money, but we are making large investments in many educations. I cannot say exactly regarding the case of Småland and Linnéuniversitetet, even though I know that changes have occurred there. But we are making large investments in finding different educational paths, and we are reviewing how the universities should be financed.

We have now invested more in certain educations. We are, for example, putting a lot of money into STEM initiatives. We are putting a lot of money into AI research, for example for teachers. I believe we are investing 100 million on AI research for teachers to see how one can better match, for example, workplaces and educations with AI. We are therefore investing quite a lot, in many different ways.

I cannot answer the question about Småland exactly right now; I can come back with what I am going to answer regarding Småland. But we are striving to ensure that there is education and employment opportunities throughout Sweden.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! The V-Dem Institute shows that only 26 percent of the world's people live in a democracy. It is the lowest figure since 1978, and it looks as though the development towards fewer democracies continues.

This is worth considering when we today talk about higher education and research, two areas that are absolutely crucial for Sweden's future. It is about our democracy, but also about our competitiveness, about our ability to meet an increasingly chaotic world, and fundamentally about every individual's opportunity to shape their own life and realize their dreams.

Sweden has long been a proud knowledge nation. We have built our prosperity on innovation, and our democracy is built on a well-educated population and on an academia that has been world-class.

Mr. Speaker, we are losing ground. The quality of Swedish research is declining in international comparisons, our innovative power is lagging behind, and our democracy is being threatened. And far too many companies, not least in rural areas, are sounding the alarm about an acute shortage of skills.

The government's response in the research bill and in the policy being pursued is, unfortunately, insufficient. One speaks of excellence but allocates funds in a way that cements old structures and reduces academic freedom. One talks about innovation but does not understand that it begins with free researchers and high-quality education throughout the country.

For the Center Party, the direction is clear. Our policy for higher education and research rests on three cornerstones: academic freedom, sharper excellence in Swedish research, and that higher education shall be available throughout the country. Let me begin with the last, for it is fundamental to holding Sweden together.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps the greatest and most increasing structural inequality regarding education in our country is today the geographical divide between city and country. As we have previously shown in this chamber, the connection between education level and economic conditions is striking.

A resident in Danderyd has an average disposable net income that is more than four times higher than that of a resident in Dorotea. At the same time, over 40 percent of the residents in Danderyd have a post-secondary education, but only 11 percent of the residents in Dorotea. This is not a coincidence, but rather a consequence of a policy that has concentrated opportunities.

In order for all of Sweden to live and develop, higher education must, just like roads, electricity and broadband, be regarded as a basic infrastructure. People need the opportunity to develop their abilities wherever they live, and professions such as nurse, teacher and engineer are needed everywhere.

Centerpartiet therefore wants a powerful initiative to make higher education accessible. We want to strengthen the regional universities and their cooperation with local businesses. We want to expand the university colleges, which are one of our most successful forms of education for matching the labor market's needs. We also want more learning centers, where people can study remotely but still have a social and academic context in their home municipality.

It is about giving the whole country the opportunity to meet the green transition and the digital transition and about securing the supply of skills. It is also about giving people the opportunity to choose their own path, wherever they live in the country.

Madam Speaker! This leads me to cornerstones two and three – academic freedom and sharper focus – for these two are intimately connected.

The current government likes to speak of excellence, and that is good. We in Centerpartiet also want research of absolute world-class quality. Excellence and breakthroughs, however, cannot be ordered from a department in Stockholm, because they are born from curiosity, creativity, and freedom.

We are therefore deeply critical of the government's funding model. The proportion of competitively funded funds from the research councils continues to be increased instead of strengthening the institutions' own basic grants. This means – as we have expressed in the chamber and in debate articles – that we have built in mechanisms that make research unfree. Researchers are transformed from proactive seekers of knowledge into reactive application writers. Time and resources that could be spent on groundbreaking research are instead spent on administration.

We in the Center Party want to see a fundamental reform. We want to move power and resources from the state bureaucracy to the educational institutions and the researchers themselves. This means two things.

Firstly, it means institutional freedom. The educational institutions must be allowed to become more autonomous, that is, more independent. They should not be administrative agencies or the government's extended arm, but instead free academic institutions. We welcome that the government is now investigating the issue of forms of association but simultaneously regret that the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats oppose this. Freer forms of association, such as foundations, are a way to secure the distance from political opportunism and strengthen long-term strategic capability.

Secondly, it means financial freedom. This is where the government's policy fails most. One of the biggest problems is the high requirements for co-financing that state research funders impose. It creates a paradoxical situation, where the institutions' own, free basic grants are forced to be used to co-finance projects that external funders have prioritized. This pushes out smaller research areas and ties up the universities' resources, which in practice reduces free, curiosity-driven research.

Centerpartiet therefore wants to reduce the requirements for co-financing. We also want to create strong incentives for donations from the business sector, civil society, and private individuals to build up the institutions' own capital, as is seen at successful universities abroad.

Madam Speaker! With freedom comes responsibility. The leadership of higher education institutions must take greater responsibility for developing their environments, promoting quality, and standing up against the threats to academic freedom, whether they come from the political sphere, from society, or from activist groups within academia.

To regain our position as a leading knowledge nation, a policy is required that trusts the profession, that gives education throughout the country a fair chance, and that gives research the freedom it needs to achieve true excellence. The government's current direction is therefore a step in the wrong direction.

Madam Speaker! With the motion presented, I move for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation 2 in the report UbU12 and reservation 2 in the report UbU13.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Anna Lasses said that we are lagging behind other nations in terms of research, but I do not know if we are. The picture is complicated, but Anna Lasses may have some numerical examples.

None of what the member proposed would, however, make us catch up with the rest of the world in terms of research. Anna Lasses proposed more regional politics and more regional research, Madam Speaker, but according to me and actually also the OECD, this would reduce the quality of research and education. We would therefore fall even further behind – I do not know if Anna Lasses has answers to that.

Member Lasses also said that we want to reduce the requirements for co-financing, and that could actually be a good proposal. I and Anders Ådahl have discussed this in the chamber. But if our universities and colleges were to become foundations and autonomous, then neither Anna Lasses nor anyone else could implement that proposal.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Now let's see. I will begin with the basic grant, which I believe is among the absolute best means to use to increase the quality of research precisely because it guarantees free research. One is not then forced to adapt to the requirements of different clients – or at least that should be the case. It is precisely for that reason we say that co-financing should not be a requirement, and it is indeed pleasing that the member agrees with that.

When it comes to foundation colleges and foundation universities, we already have two such today, and they seem to function perfectly well, so I have some difficulty seeing that just this would be an obstacle to increasing the quality of higher education.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have been positive towards substantial basic grants, in addition to the other types of grants that we also must have.

The universities do as they please when it comes to the reduced requirements for co-financing, but we can come with reduced requirements for co-financing. If we here in the speaker's chair demand reduced requirements for co-financing, it is a requirement from us. It is a political direction, and it goes against the rest of the speech about autonomy.

It actually does not go against what I said. We want increased academic freedom for those who work at the universities, because we do have problems. Erik Ringmar, for example, pointed out that he was not allowed to set his own reading list. If one is truly for academic freedom and freedom for researchers and those who teach, why do you then not come up with proposals, for example, that teachers who teach at universities should be allowed to set their own reading lists?

Erik Ringmar had to include a book by the author Judith Butler, who is from the USA. He then contacted Judith Butler and told her that he had to include her in his literature list, and even Butler herself thought it was insane.

This would be a concrete, that is, tangible, way to directly increase academic freedom for those who work there. What does Anna Lasses think about that, Madam Speaker?

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Without entering into the discussion on the existence or non-existence of literature lists, and if we stick to academic freedom, I think we can look at the USA. There, it is now claimed that they want to increase academic freedom, but what has de facto happened is that they have instead ground down the subjects that politics deems inappropriate.

I must say, this is a very great concern I have regarding, for example, the settlement between Sverigedemokraterna and Liberalerna that has just been announced. People talk about academic freedom, but what is actually meant by academic freedom? The last thing we want to see is for people to take aim at individual subjects because they say they are not sufficiently academic. Who is it that considers that?

I am concerned about the type of research involving democracy and gender studies if the Sweden Democrats' view on academic freedom takes hold.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is fundamentally a knowledge nation. Our welfare, our competitiveness, and our ability to meet the great challenges of the future are based on the fact that we have a strong education and strong research, and that the two are interconnected. Universities and colleges are therefore not just educational institutions or research environments in themselves, but essential parts of our entire social structure.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposals in the reports on education and research and for the rejection of all reservations, Madam Speaker.

The core of both higher education and research is quality, and quality presupposes freedom. Sweden has a long tradition of academic freedom and institutional independence. Universities and colleges shall make their own decisions regarding the direction of research and the design of education. It is precisely this freedom that allows knowledge to grow, be tested, and be developed.

Freedom must, however, always be combined with responsibility. Educational institutions have a responsibility to use society's resources well and to contribute to Sweden's competence supply. The government's work to develop the governance of the sector is therefore about finding the right balance between freedom, responsibility, and quality.

Madam Speaker! Education and research are two sides of the same coin. High-quality research strengthens education, and high-quality education lays the foundation for future research. When students encounter current research in teaching and when they are trained in critical thinking and scientific method, we do not only build knowledge but also a strong and resilient society.

We must also be clear about another thing, namely that higher education must to a greater extent meet the needs of the labor market. Sweden faces major challenges when it comes to skills supply. The business sector, industry, and welfare demand highly educated labor in a number of areas; it is about engineers, about technicians, and about skills in digitalization and artificial intelligence, as well as advanced skills linked to the green industry's transition and the development of healthcare.

Today we see a paradox, Madam Speaker: At the same time as companies, industry, and welfare are crying out for competence within technology, AI, healthcare, and the green transition, we have academics who are left without work. It is not sustainable. An important explanation is that far too many educations are not sufficiently linked to the labor market's demand. Students are educated in areas where the opportunities for work are limited – while at the same time there is a skills shortage in others. This is not a failure for the individual but a systemic problem.

That is why we need to strengthen the link between education and the labor market. It is not about the government micro-managing every educational position, but about creating better cooperation between the state, higher education institutions, and the working world, and providing students with better information about the labor market's needs.

We must also safeguard the knowledge requirements, Madam Speaker. Higher education is based on students having good prior knowledge and being able to acquire studies at an academic level. To lower the requirements would be to betray the students. To maintain the requirements is to give the students the best possible conditions to succeed both during their studies and in working life. Sweden shall be a knowledge nation of world-class standard.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time of increased geopolitical uncertainty. Questions of security, strategic knowledge, and responsible internationalization are becoming increasingly important. The international dimension is central both for education and for research, and Swedish research and higher education are to a large extent international. We have extensive research collaborations within the EU, not least through programs such as Horizon Europe. Swedish higher education institutions participate in international networks, joint educational programs, and exchange activities. Collaborations with other countries, Madam Speaker, are crucial for quality and for Sweden's position as a knowledge nation.

The government has established a clear direction for research policy. It rests on three fundamental pillars: excellence, internationalization and innovation. Sweden shall not be content with just being good, but we shall be leading. This requires long-term investments in research of the highest quality so that we can continue to be an attractive knowledge nation where researchers from all over the world want to work.

Internationalization must also occur responsibly. Educational institutions are today working more actively with security issues, for example in collaborations within sensitive technology areas. We are working focusedly to facilitate the establishment of international competence. This involves, among other things, shorter processing times and more efficient processes for residence and work permits for researchers, doctoral students, and highly qualified labor.

We also have a clearer focus on good employment conditions in academia, not least for researchers and doctoral students. It is about countering insecure fixed-term employment and strengthening the merit systems so that more can see a long-term career within academia.

Madam Speaker! Research shall be translated into innovation, jobs, entrepreneurship, and solutions to societal problems. The Government is making important investments in free, curiosity-driven research. This is crucial because many of the greatest breakthroughs emerge precisely there, in that which cannot always be planned or directed. Here, investments are being made in strategically important areas such as artificial intelligence, health and cancer research, climate and sustainable community building, as well as new technology. This demonstrates a policy that combines breadth with direction and which strengthens both our competitiveness and our society.

For us Christian Democrats, it is also crucial that knowledge reaches the entire society. This applies in particular to practical research within school, healthcare, and social work, where research meets people's everyday lives and makes a concrete difference. Here, it is about strengthening what works. We need more evidence-based knowledge about which methods actually yield results in the classroom, in healthcare, and in social work. Research should not only be relevant but also systematically tested, evaluated, and capable of being implemented in practice.

Madam Speaker! In summary, we want strong universities and colleges where education and research go hand in hand, where quality is prioritized, where freedom and responsibility are balanced, and where knowledge is translated into development for the whole society. Now we are building a Sweden where knowledge, education, and research stand strong.

I move again for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Higher education, research and innovation are prerequisites for a strong and prosperous society. Research shall be free, and academic freedom must be strengthened in its entirety. Quality in higher education and close cooperation between academia, the business sector and civil society create the innovative power needed for a green transition and long-term welfare.

The country's educational institutions need higher basic funding. Miljöpartiet wants to invest in strong research environments and increase the number of teaching hours in the programs that today have too little teacher-led instruction.

Madam Speaker! Recruitment to higher education needs to be broad so that more people can study at a college or university, regardless of what family background one has and regardless of where in the country one lives. Miljöpartiet wants to make it easier to take the step to study further by improving students' housing situation and economic security. We want to safeguard equal and high quality in education at all the country's educational institutions. The educational institutions shall cooperate with both the surrounding society and the international research community, as well as conduct research based on the interests of researchers and students and the needs of society.

Madam Speaker! Cutting back on educational institutions is to back into the future. We are now seeing the consequences of the government's higher education policy. In Smålandsposten, we have been able to read about how Linné University is cutting back. It concerns as many as 1,000 fewer students. This is described as a death blow to Växjö municipality and to the entirety of Kronoberg and Kalmar counties. It is, to connect to Joar Forssell's words in our previous exchange, fewer in Växjö who are given life chances with the Tidöregering's policy for higher education.

From the Green Party's side, we are clear that university education is needed throughout the country. It is truly worth investing in Linné University and other higher education institutions in Sweden. During this parliamentary term, Miljöpartiet has invested around 46 million in Linné University. Now, cuts need to be made that correspond to approximately this sum. It concerns a substantial amount for both research and higher education.

We have invested more money in all educational institutions across the country. It is about the fact that we do not make the productivity deduction which is particularly unsuitable for higher education and research. We have not made general cuts to state agencies. We have also not done anything that we call investments but which are less than the cuts we have made.

For Miljöpartiet, it is obvious that people should be able to realize their dreams of higher education at universities and colleges. It is equally obvious that companies should be able to find competent staff. These are things that build Sweden strong and give Sweden good opportunities to meet the future.

Madam Speaker! Following the Riksdag's research day and the Education Committee's joint seminar with the Defense Committee, the importance of international cooperation has been clarified. Something else that has been clarified is the difficulties it entails to cooperate with researchers who are located in dictatorships or who are in other difficult or even dangerous situations involving war, conflicts, or genocide.

The mobility of Swedish researchers and students is important, whether it concerns educational institutions in Sweden or educational institutions in other places in the world. The conditions for international exchange within higher education and research are, however, poor right now. Researchers, students, and teachers are exposed to great risks.

There are organizations that protect researchers. Several Swedish educational institutions participate in the Scholars at Risk activity by receiving researchers who risk their lives in the countries they are in.

We want a Students at Risk program to be introduced in Sweden. This would mean that students who risk their right to education, for example through engagement for human rights or through their specific choice of study, receive support to continue their studies in a safe environment in another country. We also want Sweden to push for a Students at Risk program within the EU. It is high time to strengthen the protection even for students in risky situations.

Madam Speaker! The university's task is to provide education on a scientific or artistic basis and based on proven experience. The university shall also conduct research and artistic research as well as development work. The mandate includes cooperating with the surrounding society for a mutual exchange and working to ensure that the university's competence benefits society.

Sweden is a country of education and has everything to gain from research within a breadth of research areas. I particularly want to highlight areas such as social sciences and humanities, which give us an increased understanding of our society. We need to increase the support for these areas in the same way as for other areas. We need that knowledge to understand how the country functions and how we should approach the challenges we are faced with. Sweden shall continue to be a country of education. For that, social science, humanities, and artistic research are needed.

Artistic research, in addition to its self-evident intrinsic value, has an important role in the sustainable transition. Culture and art have the ability to examine human values, evoke emotions, and visualize future visions. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to see that artistic education and research are given a stronger place in society. In order for us to reach the goal of an economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable society, natural science research needs to be combined with broader areas of research.

There must be a close connection between education and research. According to the law, students shall have influence over the education and be able to take an active part in developing it. During this parliamentary term, we have seen that the government has warned of cuts regarding the student unions. Despite major protests from both the higher education institutions and from the student movement, these cuts are being implemented. This poses a risk both for the quality of the educations and for the students' influence.

According to the Higher Education Act, the activities at the universities shall promote sustainable development, which means that current and future generations are assured a healthy and good environment as well as economic and social welfare and justice. This is a great mission.

I want to highlight that the universities have an enormous potential to constitute a strong force in this transition through education, research, collaboration, and the transformation of their own operations. Just like many other social actors, the educational institutions must, however, intensify their work on how their own operations affect these goals.

Madam Speaker! As is known, it is an election year. For those who want to strengthen research and higher education, it may be worth considering that with the Green Party's policy, one gets constitutionally protected academic freedom and more money for the universities, which themselves get to control these funds. One also gets more money for education and research, as I showed in the example with Linné University in Växjö. One also gets stronger student influence.

I move for approval of reservation 7 in UbU12, which concerns Students at Risk, and reservation 5 in UbU13, which among other things concerns research within the cultural field.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Honored members! Hello to all of you who are listening or watching at home!

I am substituting today in the Education Committee's debate on higher education and research. It feels a bit nice, because higher education and research are close to my heart – I live in Lund, which is Sweden's best university city. I don't know if one is allowed to say that in a debate with the Education Committee or if I have now broken some diplomatic rule.

I will not elaborate much on the text here. In Ubu12 Högskolan, Vänsterpartiet wants to demand approval of reservation 9. It concerns the targeted initiative Kulturskoleklivet, which is a national educational initiative to train and further educate cultural school educators so that they can work in the music and cultural schools.

Educated teachers who receive continuous continuing education are crucial for good teaching for children and young people. We believe that Kulturskoleklivet should be reviewed so that more educators can be trained and so that Kulturskoleklivet can be developed into more educational institutions.

I UbU13 Research, the Left Party (V) wishes to move for approval of reservation 4. It concerns research within the police field, more specifically regarding the profession's methods and ways of working. By conducting research within the police profession, the profession can be developed. It is positive that the Police Authority, police education, and higher education institutions have moved closer to each other in recent years by, among other things, establishing the academic main area of police work. We believe that police science should be its own research area so that there is an opportunity for police officers to conduct research and contribute to the development of their own profession. Therefore, an institute for police science research is needed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 March.)

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