Municipal issues
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government has taken over a country with high unemployment and inflation 1, and that the municipalities have received almost the money they requested 2. M claims that the government is adding significant resources to the municipal sector 3 and that it is wrong to claim that the government is cutting back on welfare 3. M believes that municipalities should use their equalization reserves and prioritize when money is lacking 4. S argues that the government's budget implies a cost crisis for welfare 5 and that the resources are insufficient 5. S wants to double the investments in welfare 5 and wants an equalization system that promotes equal welfare 6. S argues that the government is cutting back on resources for welfare 7. SD argues that the equalization system should help smaller municipalities in rural areas 8. SD considers it unreasonable that the state, through mandates, lets municipalities and regions take an ever-increasing responsibility for state policy 9. SD wants to investigate retrospective billing of supervision fees 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (15)
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! Outgoing governments often speak of the set table that the new government has had to take over. The question then is what the table was set with when the new Moderate-led government took over government power in the autumn.
The lavish buffet that was served consisted, among other things, of the EU's lowest economic growth in 2022, the fourth highest unemployment in the entire EU, the world's highest diesel prices even before Putin's invasion of Ukraine, serious shortages in the electricity supply with threatening electricity shortages, as well as rapidly rising inflation and interest rates. One had also served up a skyrocketing gang crime with a record-high number of people shot dead and deadly settlements between criminal groups, something that has no equal in Swedish history.
In addition, a gigantic and growing sense of exclusion had been placed on the table in our suburbs.
The new government's task is to clear away this distasteful buffet as quickly as possible and replace it with something better.
Madam Speaker! In addition to all the problems the new government inherited, new ones have arisen. The global economy has slowed down, and in Europe, a recession is already prevailing combined with high inflation and rising interest rates. In the shadow of Russia's barbaric attack on Ukraine, Sweden simultaneously needs to upgrade its defense and adapt to an upcoming membership in Nato.
I believe that most sane people realize that it is a long and arduous road ahead for Sweden and the Swedish people. At the same time, we know that the left side and their friends among journalists and mass media will do everything to lay the blame for all societal problems on the government that is actually finally trying to solve them.
But we are prepared and will never back down. Step by step, we will present proposals for a new policy while we try to solve urgent problems in our country.
Madam Speaker! Municipalities and regions are always the most important providers of welfare services. This applies to school, elderly care, healthcare and public community services. Not least, it is the municipalities that are the final guarantor that people who fall into a sudden and serious economic situation shall receive temporary extra support from society.
During the pandemic, the municipal sector received very large extra supplements, often following direct initiatives from us Moderates and other opposition parties. This was valuable and ensured that the municipal sector and not least the regions received some financial breathing room and could focus on their core tasks in a very strained situation. Thanks to these large supplements, the municipal sector's collective results have been at historically high levels over the last two years. Many municipalities have created reserves in their result equalization systems. These are funds that can be used now when times get worse.
One of the first issues I championed as a newly elected Member of Parliament in 2006 was precisely that we should introduce some form of result equalization system for municipalities and regions. This also became a reality during the Alliance's years in government. A large majority of the municipalities and regions have used this opportunity to save surpluses from good years and use the money when times get worse. The result equalization funds create a better balance between good and bad years.
In 2021, it was 203 of the country's 290 municipalities that had set aside a total of 30 billion in this type of reserves, and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, believes that an additional number of municipalities will set aside money for 2022. It is also 13 of 21 regions that have saved a total of 10 billion in result equalization reserves. One can therefore conclude that these reserves became exactly the success that I and others hoped for when they were introduced, and these generous 40 billion in provisions - or perhaps even more - will now come to the rescue when times worsen.
At the same time, the surpluses in 2021-2022 were temporary in nature as a result of large pandemic supports. The coming years will be more difficult in purely economic terms. Tax revenues are affected by both unemployment and demographics, and costs are affected by inflation, wage development, interest rate hikes, and energy prices.
In the budget proposal, the government therefore adds increased state grants to municipalities and regions totaling nearly 13 billion SEK, of which half are general state grants. In addition to these increased state grants, municipalities and regions also receive a share of the electricity price support. SKR estimates that this support adds 5 billion to the municipal sector.
There are also other items and proposals in the budget that directly strengthen the municipal sector's economy. For example, the waste incineration tax and the penalty tax on combined heat and power are being abolished. In my own home municipality, Mark, electricity production in the combined heat and power plant was shut down when the penalty tax was introduced. Now there is an opportunity to restart and expand the local electricity production. Instead of having to pay a penalty tax, the municipality can now receive revenue from sold electricity.
At the same time, all politics are interconnected. The major investments we are making in the police and the justice system are for the benefit of all residents and, of course, also for the municipalities. High crime, extensive vandalism, car fires, social exclusion, and crime controlled by criminal gangs entail enormous costs for certain municipalities. If we can turn this around, it will also have great economic significance for the municipalities. It is the same when we now tighten migration and reduce immigration. It will have a great significance in the long term for the economy of the municipal sector.
Another important item in the state budget is the measures to reduce the costs for transport by car. We are now taking the first steps, and more will follow. After our tax cut, the fuels cost one krona less per liter than they otherwise would have. For a rural municipality with extensive driving with municipal vehicles, a one-kronor lower fuel cost means a lot. A properly improved travel deduction also makes things easier for the municipality's employees. For a rural municipality, reduced travel costs will also have a great significance for the possibility of recruiting staff.
Overall, the government's policy actually means that the municipal sector is strengthened this year by quite close to the 20 billion that the municipal sector itself considers it needs.
Madam Speaker! The municipalities can, at the same time, in many ways influence their own future themselves.
A good business climate, reasonable supervision fees, and high service towards companies lay the foundation for a municipality's growth and population development. Having a diversity of providers offering different welfare services is also valuable for developing the operations. These important issues are raised in several motions that are addressed in this report.
At the same time, some of our municipalities must prioritize much better. The examples of municipal waste are now many and eye-opening. To be economical with the tax money one has is a matter of course for a responsible municipality.
Are, for example, 170 communicators needed in Malmö stad or 200 in Stockholm? It is just one example in a row of how bureaucracy and administration swell while the number of employees within elderly care and school unfortunately have to take a backseat. As long as municipalities spend money on things that are less important than the core activities, there is room to strengthen welfare without either increased state grants or increased municipal tax.
Madam Speaker! Inflation is the greatest threat to people who have a weak economy and who are without an economic buffer. In the economic situation we have today with high inflation and rising interest rates, the state therefore cannot provide the Swedish people with broad and extensive economic compensations for all rising prices and interest rates. If we did that, it would directly drive up inflation. It would not only eat up the benefit of the state supports but also be met by the Riksbank with even higher interest rates to counteract the inflation. The net for vulnerable households would unfortunately become negative. In this situation, the government therefore chooses to more specifically support households that are particularly vulnerable, and it has great significance for the municipalities.
Already at the last turn of the year, housing allowances, guaranteed pensions, student grants, and a large number of other compensation systems were increased to compensate for inflation. In addition to this, the government chose to make the temporary higher level in the unemployment insurance permanent, which was introduced during the pandemic.
The first part of the extensive electricity support has now reached almost all households in electricity area 3 and 4, and in the near future, a second electricity support will be paid out to all Swedish households and companies. At the turn of the year, as mentioned, the fuel taxes were also lowered, and without this reduction, gasoline and diesel would have therefore cost one krona more per liter at the pump today. Furthermore, a significant improvement of the travel deduction was introduced at the turn of the year, and households with high travel costs can actually benefit from this increased travel deduction directly every month if they request a tax reduction from Skatteverket.
The government is now also announcing a further increase of the housing allowance for families with children, as we know that these often have it extra tough.
All these supports reduce the burden on the municipalities when it comes to social assistance. It is very important to include that in the picture.
Madam Speaker! The report deals with motions on the municipal equalization system. The issue is currently being investigated. Since I am part of that investigation, I do not intend to anticipate the work of the investigation, but it is a very serious investigation that goes into depth regarding the costs of the municipal sector and how to best create a reasonable equality between municipalities without harming growth in successful municipalities and without reducing the incentives for own efforts in municipalities that are not as successful or that have a difficult demographic situation. I look forward to the continued work of the investigation. Our next meeting is actually already next week.
Madam Speaker! The report deals, as stated, with a number of motions that point out various problems and challenges within the municipal sector. In a number of issues, the government will return. And several issues are being investigated right now, for example, the equalization system. We will likely have many new debates on this in the future, but today I move for approval of the committee's proposals in the report and for the rejection of all motions.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! The budget that the government and the Sweden Democrats presented this autumn entails a cost crisis for the welfare sector. Despite rising inflation and increased interest rates, which pose difficult challenges for Sweden's municipalities and regions, the government and the Sweden Democrats choose not to allocate sufficient resources to the welfare sector. This means that the welfare sector risks deteriorating, and already now, municipalities are planning for the need to lay off staff who are needed in the welfare sector.
We Social Democrats want to double the investments in welfare. What Sweden needs are investments that create a more cohesive, equal, and egalitarian society. We need a better welfare with more staff who have better working conditions. We know, in fact, that a strong welfare reduces inequalities and strengthens equality.
All of Sweden shall live and grow, and that requires resources. Money matters. Politics makes a difference. When healthcare, schools, and elderly care do not receive the resources required, it means cuts. Therefore, I want to ask Jan Ericson from Moderaterna: Which welfare does the government not want?
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! This is a bit funny considering that I spent about half of my speech precisely explaining that the municipalities have actually received almost exactly the money they themselves have requested. One can add up the state grants, the electricity subsidies, and the other reforms and things that we do in the budget, which directly affect the government's finances. It is about, for example, keeping down the costs for social assistance, which often increase in bad times. Now we are adding state funds in different types of support, and then the municipalities are spared these costs.
If one adds up all the measures the government is taking, one can see that it is quite close to what the municipalities themselves are requesting. At the same time, the Finance Minister has been very clear that we are following the developments, that we have reserves, and that we can provide more money if needed. But we cannot waste money if we do not know what the situation looks like.
What Eva Lindh says about many municipalities planning layoffs is actually a bit of a novelty for me. The picture I have is that the biggest problem today is managing the staffing supply and recruiting staff to important positions. I have no picture of extensive layoffs being planned within the municipal sector. We can look at unemployment in total. Figures came in today showing that unemployment is currently falling. There is therefore no drama regarding planned large-scale layoffs.
I would like to know from Eva Lindh: Which municipalities are planning gigantic layoffs of staff?
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Jan Ericson is counting apples and pears. What Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner says is that 48 municipalities are estimated to run with a deficit during this year. 17 of 21 regions are budgeting for a deficit. It is clear that this means difficult conditions for both municipalities and regions to provide welfare already this year. And it is estimated to become even tougher next year, 2024.
Jan Ericson is right that there is also a competence shortage. That does not make the whole thing any easier.
When one receives less money, one must ensure that the resources one has are managed, and the welfare system consists of staff. Even if it is difficult to find competence in certain areas, one needs to calculate how to cut back. The money simply does not suffice, because the state has not provided the resources needed for one to manage the welfare.
It is not we Social Democrats who are standing here making things up. Resources are needed within municipalities and regions in order to manage the welfare. It is about the welfare, which is important for all of us. It is about managing the care of the elderly, a good education for our children, and security that makes us know that the healthcare is there when we need it. That is not the case today. Therefore, I ask again: Which welfare does the government not want?
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! I therefore received no answer as to which municipalities are planning layoffs. There may have been none when Eva Lindh began digging through her papers.
We are fully aware that a number of municipalities will have deficits this year, and I pointed out exactly that it has been a couple of years with very good surpluses and that many municipalities and regions have therefore put money into equalization reserves that can now be used when times are bad.
That is how this system is supposed to work. When times are good, you can set money aside, and when times are bad, you can use the money you have set aside, just as it has long been possible for the business sector. Now we have finally established that our public activities can also act in the same way.
For the Social Democrats, it is always the case that if there is a shortage of money, one should cut in welfare. I gave an example, and there are quite a few others. Malmö city could start by firing its 170 communicators, so that one can avoid firing 170 employees in elderly care or the school. Somewhere, municipalities must also prioritize when times are bad. What is most important for the citizens? Is it the communicators, or is it the staff in elderly care? Every municipality has that choice, and every municipality must make that choice.
It cannot be that the state must always guarantee the volume of the operations that a municipality or a region has, regardless of what it entails. Now, it is a critical situation. Now it is a matter of prioritizing and using the money wisely, and that the municipalities that have been able to set aside money can use them now when times are tough.
I think it is a bit of a strange picture from the Social Democrats that it is always the state that should chip in more money when there is a shortage somewhere.
I said earlier that the state is following this. The Minister for Finance is following this, and if the situation were to become much worse, it is clear that the state would return. But in the current situation, we do not see it.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I am proud of the Swedish welfare model: a good education and start in life for our children, care when we need it and good care when we get older.
Our Swedish welfare model has served us well. It has given us the opportunity to have high employment, a more equal society and a security for us as citizens, which in turn has led to our economic development being good.
But our welfare model does not just exist on its own. It needs nourishment in the form of resources to continue to be accessible, equal, and of good quality. In the autumn budget, the government and the Sverigedemokrater decided on insufficient resources for welfare at a time when the needs are great. Instead, the Sverigedemokrater and the government prioritized tax cuts for the wealthiest part of our population. They invested 13 billion on tax cuts, while they put 6 billion into welfare. That says quite a lot about what the Sverigedemokrater and the government think is most important.
Let me give you a picture of the situation in the welfare sector right now. Healthcare faces great challenges after tough years. After the pandemic, many regions are still struggling with the postponed care. In a large part of the welfare sector, there is a shortage of staff with the right competence, and the list of shortage occupations is long. Many are struggling with high electricity prices, higher interest rates, and increased rents for premises. I am not just talking about households, but also about regions and municipalities. It has been a long time since the municipalities had such a weak result as they risk now. 48 municipalities are budgeting for a deficit and 20 for a zero result. 17 of 21 regions are budgeting for a deficit, and the difficult years are just around the corner.
The difficulties for municipalities and regions are unevenly distributed. Some municipalities and regions have it tougher than others. Our equalization system equalizes, but still equalizes too little. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner assesses that the deficit for the municipalities could amount to 24 billion for 2024, i.e., the coming year. Staff are being laid off due to the tough economic situation.
Despite this, the government and the Sweden Democrats choose to deprioritize our municipalities and regions, which provide all our welfare. The investments they are making are insufficient in this difficult situation. The welfare model that we have proudly built up is at risk of being broken apart. It is sad how clearly it shows that politics makes a difference. The S-led government prioritized welfare while we took responsibility for the economy, which meant 100,000 more employees in welfare. In the budget that was laid in the autumn, we Social Democrats allocated twice as much as the government and the Sweden Democrats to welfare.
Madam Speaker! Municipalities and regions are the foundation of Sweden's decentralized welfare model. Local self-government provides great freedom to design and take responsibility for their operations based on local needs. It is a good and well-functioning model that should be developed.
During the previous parliamentary term, the Riksdag decided on a new cost equalization, and now greater consideration is given to sparse settlement and socio-economic factors. But the differences are still all too great. It is toughest for the smallest municipalities in rural areas, but also for those that have lower so-called tax capacity.
An investigation is currently underway of the entire so-called equalization system, that is, how we are to distribute resources to municipalities and regions. It is a very important and crucial investigation, and I hope that we get an equalization system that, to a greater extent than today, can promote equal welfare throughout the country. Sweden does not benefit from us drifting apart. It is about creating equal conditions for all municipalities and regions so that all of Sweden can live and grow. It is a matter of justice.
Madam Speaker! Tens of thousands of new employees will need to be hired within healthcare, elderly care, and schools. This is particularly true for elderly care, as we are getting more elderly people who will need care and support. In that case, there must be people to hire, otherwise we have no welfare. It is estimated that 410,000 people will need to be hired. Above all, this depends, as mentioned, on demographics but also on the fact that so many are retiring in the coming years.
Despite this great need, the government and the Sweden Democrats withdrew resources for educational places and labor market policy measures in the autumn budget. It was a dramatic reduction. Furthermore, after 2023, there is no money for Äldrelyftet or the competence initiatives that the S-led government developed within the healthcare sector.
Some time ago, however, the government made a small turn. They themselves called it an investment in training places to get more people into jobs. In reality, it corresponded to less than half of what they had already cut when it comes to training places.
But a little is better than nothing. Now we hope for the same turn when it comes to resources for the welfare system. A little more is, as said, better than a little.
Madam Speaker! False grades for students in adult education who have never attended the courses they were passed in, schools that issue "joy grades" to attract students, schools run by violence-promoting Islamists, home care within LOV that has opened up for welfare crime, large increases in costs for interventions that are not carried out, and youth homes that take out million-dollar profits to run housing for children and young people who need special support – unfortunately, there are plenty of examples that society is losing democratic control over welfare and that unserious actors and profit-driven corporations have advanced their positions with profit-seeking in welfare and increased inequalities as a result.
Privatizations and deregulations have proven to cost large amounts of money, increase inequality within healthcare, and increase segregation within schools. Marketization has also entailed worsened working conditions for those who work within the welfare sector and that care is being fragmented. In the same way, privately run elderly care in many places has lower staffing and insecure forms of employment for the staff.
The pursuit of profit does not belong in Swedish welfare. Resources allocated for welfare should be used to improve school results and give our elderly and sick a secure care and treatment - not for large profit extractions. We Social Democrats want good and equal care, and then we must take back the democratic control over welfare. Tax money intended for welfare should go to welfare, not private profits.
Madam Speaker! Sweden can truly do better than this. Social Democracy will continue to be the champion of the welfare state. We built up the Swedish welfare model, and we will continue to defend and develop it. We Social Democrats want school, elderly care, and healthcare to be universal, open to everyone, need-based, tax-funded, and of good quality. Our common tax money should go towards making school, healthcare, and care better, not towards profits.
What Sweden needs is investments in welfare that create a more cohesive and equal society.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Madam Speaker! When I listen to Eva Lindh from the Social Democrats, I can state that we agree that the equalization system is an important part of the Swedish welfare model, that is, the financing of our municipalities and regions and ensuring that there are resources for welfare. An adjustment has, after all, been made to the municipal economic equalization system during the previous years, precisely to enable municipalities that need support to a greater extent to receive support. There has, therefore, been a redistribution.
What pleases me above all is that the assistance to smaller municipalities in rural areas has been expanded. This can apply to municipalities that do not have the same geographical conditions or population numbers to be able to conduct an efficient operation in welfare.
What worries me, however, is that larger and larger municipalities, especially large urban municipalities such as Malmö and Göteborg, are receiving more support. The basis from the beginning was to help smaller municipalities conduct welfare activities, not to increase the grants to large municipalities that have better conditions to conduct activities.
The reason it is so today, for example in Malmö and in Gothenburg, is a consequence of the previously conducted migration policy. It has created an unsustainable situation in the municipalities with major social problems with, for example, exclusion.
When I read the Social Democrats' proposal regarding the municipal economic equalization system, I cannot find the truth behind the problems anywhere in the proposals, namely the failed migration policy.
Are the Social Democrats now ready, Eva Lindh, to acknowledge the problems that the migration policy has created for our municipalities and regions?
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! It is a bit difficult to know where I should begin.
The Sweden Democrats always refer to the fact that all problems have to do with immigration. They do not. We want an equalization system. It should be a system that equalizes for what we usually call uninfluenceable factors. I agree that we absolutely must equalize for sparseness. It is important because it costs more to provide welfare in a municipality with large distances and often a smaller population. It also costs to have different conditions. That is exactly what the equalization system is supposed to handle.
We want all children to receive a good education, and there are differences between and within municipalities. It is therefore a matter of distributing resources equally. Which child should not receive a good education? For us, all people are equally worthy, and it is about taking care of all people living in all of Sweden. Then the resources that exist should be distributed more equally because the conditions differ between large municipalities as well as between the group of large municipalities and small municipalities. We believe there should be an equal welfare for everyone.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Madam Speaker! Let us look at the example of Malmö regarding the proportion of residents supported by subsidies. There, the percentage stands at 17.7, to be compared with the Swedish average which is 11.9 percent.
The migration policy results in problems with integrating people, with exclusion and segregation. Those problems naturally also enter the school system and affect, as Eva Lindh herself pointed out, the children's opportunities for a good education.
The Social Democrats' solution to the problems is to redistribute, redistribute, and redistribute. That is to say, they do not want to see the root of the problems, namely the past migration policy from the state level and from the municipal level. The municipalities have a responsibility because they stand behind the past migration policy from the state level and have not helped to put a stop to it. The solution is not to redistribute, redistribute, and redistribute, that is, the Social Democrats' model. The solution is to get to the bottom of the root of the problem, namely the past migration policy. It has created exclusion and segregation, and it leads to more and more people needing to support themselves with the help of benefits - in, for example, Malmö municipality.
If one is not prepared to acknowledge the problems with the migration policy, which the Social Democrats are obviously not prepared to do, we will never get any change. If one does not dare to say what the problem is, one will never be able to do anything about it and achieve a lasting change.
We Sweden Democrats have been clear that the problem, primarily in large urban municipalities, for example Malmö and Gothenburg, is the difficulties that the past migration policy under, among others, the Social Democrats has created. The consequence is that Malmö and Gothenburg need more and more support from others, even though they have all the conditions to succeed themselves, but they cannot change their policy.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! We equalize more, and that is good. We stand behind the cost equalization we made. Some municipalities need more state grants than others, and it is so that it will become more equal.
We do not turn a blind eye to things. We Social Democrats do not [support] that type of politics. We see reality, and the politics are carried out based on our values and how reality looks.
Of course, those who come to Sweden as newcomers have more difficulty with education than others do because of the language. But that does not mean it is forever. Furthermore, I stand behind the political decisions that we made in the area of migration. There were fewer immigrants to Sweden even before the Sweden Democrats came to power. Now it is often said that it is due to decisions that have been made, but that is not the case. It is also about having a good reception at the right level. Municipalities and regions shall receive everyone, both those who already live here and those who, after having been granted asylum, have the right to live in Sweden.
This is about simplifying, a way to just talk about integration and migration. It is not the only thing. Difficulties can exist in many ways, and more resources are needed.
What the Sweden Democrats are doing together with the government is to cut resources for welfare, and thus welfare is on its way to deteriorating in many areas. I do not believe that is what many voted for. The Sweden Democrats have often said that you stand for a better welfare, especially in elderly policy. But that is not what we see today. To only talk about one thing, when we are talking about a welfare issue that is important for many, is troublesome.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall begin with a correction of what Eva Lindh just said in her reply. She claimed that the government is cutting resources for welfare. As I showed, we are adding approximately 18 billion in pure money to the municipal sector. How that can be a cut, I do not really know.
Eva Lindh repeated in her speech that staff are being laid off due to the economic situation. I asked earlier which municipalities it is that have laid off staff during the last half year. If Eva Lindh can specify that, I would be very grateful.
At the same time, Eva Lindh said in her speech that 410,000 recruitments need to be made within the municipal sector in the coming years. That does not add up. One cannot both talk about that we need to recruit 410,000 people and at the same time claim that large-scale layoffs are occurring in the municipal sector. This is not true. Recruitments were needed, and if people become redundant, they will be placed in other positions. That is how it looks in most municipalities and regions today.
It is actually like this, Eva Lindh. There is a report from the Transition Fund, which handles the transition of public employees, where it is stated that during 2020-2022 between 500 and 1,000 employees within welfare were laid off every year - and at that time the Social Democrats were in power. There are figures there showing that they actually have made layoffs. On the other hand, Eva Lindh is welcome to tell me which municipalities have laid off staff during the last half year since the new government took office.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! The S-led government added very many resources to municipalities and regions during all the eight years that we governed. We did it in general state grants and also in targeted resources to the welfare to maintain the high quality that exists within the welfare.
During the pandemic, we also added three times as much as was lost in tax capacity. That is the reason why there are good resources, which Jan Ericson talks so much about. Many could set aside money because we were what one can call – sometimes I hesitate a bit with the word – generous with grants to municipalities and regions. Those grants do not exist forever, but they made it possible for some municipalities to set aside money. Not all, for not everyone could do it; some barely managed to get by. But some could set aside resources, and that is what can be used now when it becomes tougher.
I said in my speech and also in my reply that people are planning to resign because they cannot manage the welfare now.
I do not know what Jan Ericson is doing. Does he not meet local politicians across Sweden who see how this actually affects things? Even municipalities that otherwise have had fairly decent conditions say that they now face difficult, tough challenges because they have not received sufficient resources. Then it becomes even harder for those who have already had it tough. That is when you plan for layoffs. That is what you do.
Then it explains quite a bit that one cannot see that there can be both a need to lay off people because one lacks resources and simultaneously a shortage of competence. Yes, that is the case in quite many municipalities.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! Generous is Eva Lindh's description of the government. I remember how it happened. I sat in the Committee on Finance during all these years. I was involved in drafting the committee initiatives that came from M and from V. Sometimes we did it jointly with the other opposition parties. It was we who pushed the government forward and pushed these funds to the municipal sector. The government did not do that in its budgets. It was we who brought it forward from the opposition side in the Committee on Finance. Otherwise, the municipalities would not have received these funds.
Despite this, these layoffs occurred during 2020-2022, according to the Transition Fund - when the Social Democrats were in power, so do not come and claim that it is the Social Democratic policy that protects welfare! That is actually not the case.
Once again: We are allocating almost as much money as Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has requested for municipalities and regions combined. Then one cannot claim that we are cutting back on welfare. I do not think it is serious at all.
Again: One cannot have good times every year - not in a company, not in the state budget and not in a municipality. When times are good, you save for a rainy day, and when times are bad, you have to use the money that you have put aside.
In truly bad times, one must also prioritize. What is it that is most important for our municipal residents? I would then like to ask Eva Lindh if she thinks it is completely uninteresting for a municipality to prioritize what one uses its money for when times are bad. Is it the case that the state must always guarantee that every single activity that one has ever started in a municipality must always continue, regardless of how the economy looks and regardless of what the challenges are in other areas of a municipality? Or is there room to prioritize?
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I think it is a bit mocking towards a good number of municipalities that are truly streamlining. They look at their crowns and calculate. It is not actually the case that one lightly throws away money. It is somewhat the image that Jan Ericson shows in his reply.
We Social Democrats want a strong welfare state. We think it is important for everyone - for our society, to create an equal and equitable society but also to have this good welfare. It is about resources. Of course, municipalities and regions should streamline. They do that too.
I become a bit upset when you say that you are providing the resources that Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner are asking for and that it is about 20 billion. You are adding up all sorts of things that are supposed to go into that. That is actually not what it is about. More supplements are needed than what the government is doing.
Furthermore, inflation is high and interest rates are high. Costs are higher for municipalities and regions now than they were previously, so it is clear that additions must be made. Municipalities and regions must also receive electricity price support, just like households, in order to be able to manage their operations.
The competence shortage is also a major challenge for municipalities and regions, and it is something that needs to be worked on. It will not resolve itself. One will need to hire very many people in elderly care to provide good care for our elderly.
Then there is a very good measure that we Social Democrats decided on called Äldreomsorgslyftet. It has been very good. More people who have received competence to work in elderly care have been able to be brought in. You want to remove that measure.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report 26, which concerns municipal issues, and proposals from the general motion period in the form of committee motions and individual motions.
The Sweden Democrats have two reservations in the Committee on Finance's report. One concerns supervision fees, and the other concerns the municipal sector's mandate. The Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind both reservations, but in this case, I choose to move for approval only of the reservation concerning the municipal sector's mandate, reservation 9.
Many are the conversations and emails with stories that we receive from entrepreneurs all over Sweden. They are stories about municipal fees that dig holes in the companies' finances but which are not matched by any performance from the municipality's side.
The municipal inspection fees are decided in each respective municipality. It is also decided there how the work surrounding the inspection shall be carried out. In the vast majority of cases, fees are currently collected in advance by the municipalities, many times without any actual inspection being performed. That is to say that there is a lack of a counter-performance in the form of physical inspection for what has been paid for by these entrepreneurs. This means that entrepreneurs who do not have any inspection pay the same fee as those who do. The same fee as those who have deficiencies in their operations is also paid by those who do not, which is unreasonable. We can only ask ourselves: In how many cases would we be prepared to pay for something that we do not know when or if it will actually be carried out? I believe few, if any, would be prepared to do this. Nevertheless, it is precisely this reality that our entrepreneurs face today.
A change needs to be made here. That is why the Sweden Democrats' view is that a legal requirement for the retroactive billing of supervision fees should be investigated. For me as a Sweden Democrat, it is about creating clarity in what one can expect when paying for this and thereby creating reasonable conditions to plan both finances and operations based on the requirements that are set and controlled during a supervision. It contributes to us obtaining a regulatory framework that is uniform throughout the country, and it also motivates entrepreneurs to expand their operations across municipal and county borders when the rules are the same as far as possible.
Madam Speaker! The second proposal I want to debate here today is the Sweden Democrats' reservation 9. It concerns what are the core missions of our municipalities and regions, and what can and should be changed to create better conditions and stability in purely economic terms.
We have today a situation where municipalities that should be able to deliver a positive economic result despite this struggle to make the finances balance. Malmö is an example of a large city municipality that is one of the municipalities receiving the most grants through the municipal equalization system simply to keep Malmö afloat. Almost a quarter of Malmö's revenues come through the municipal equalization system.
What lies behind the economic results of Malmö and many other municipalities is, to a large extent, the migration policy that previously existed in Sweden and which has dug deep holes in society. The results of this policy we see today: high unemployment, social exclusion, segregation, gang formations, organized crime, and so on - the result of an unsustainable and deliberate policy over decades. No, no one has deliberately worked politically to create gang formations, but the result of the policy pursued and the inability to break this direction in time has contributed to the fact we face today.
Malmö receives, as a fact of the unsustainable policy, a total of 6.3 billion kronor in equalization support for the year 2023. It is the most in all of Sweden. Other municipalities and the state have paid, and continue to pay, so that Malmö can have its unsustainable policy. And this is no longer something unique to Malmö. More and more municipalities are feeling the consequences of the unsustainable migration policy and the consequences of this, as mentioned earlier. As the municipalities face increasingly greater problems, the core mission is also pushed aside, and the citizens who end up caught in the middle are all those whose school, care, health and medical care, etc., lack resources.
Everyone in Sweden needs to ask themselves whether it is reasonable that municipalities that do everything to create a balance between income and expenditure and that create good conditions should then bear the burden of municipalities that choose not to do so. No, of course not! Just as we Sverigedemokrater describe in the basis for our motion, it is a prerequisite for a stable development in our municipalities and their economies that we can curb the high level of migration that has been.
This is something that will now become a reality through the agreements regarding migration policy that are included in the Tidö Agreement between the Sverigedemokraterna and the government. This will also, in the long run, reduce the need for welfare, something that Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner describes under the heading "The Government Declaration's impact on the migration area" with the following words: "In the long run, the need for regular municipal activities, such as schooling and healthcare, will also be less."
Madam Speaker! Despite the changes occurring in the migration area, changes that are necessary, municipalities and regions must nevertheless return to what is the core of the welfare mandate: school, care, and health and medical care, to name a few things. Even though Malmö is mentioned as a warning example of poorly conducted policy, it is nevertheless the case that even the state policy, pursued by both Social Democrats and Moderates in government, has had and has a negative impact on our municipalities and regions and their opportunity to fulfill their mandates, and it will continue to have that even moving forward. Municipalities and regions have been burdened with new mandates, more legislation, and thus also higher costs without receiving full economic compensation for this. It is something that gradually erodes the municipal economy.
It is not reasonable for the state, through surcharges, to let the municipalities and regions take an ever-increasing responsibility for state policy, for example for the previously conducted migration policy, where one is compensated somewhat in the beginning to then take over the responsibility completely for many people's maintenance. Not to be forgotten is that many municipalities themselves have been a contributing cause to the economic situation when they saw an opportunity to receive equalization grants when people moved into the municipality and where the state provided maintenance and housing for two years. When those two years ended and the people had not entered employment or studies, the responsibility for maintenance shifted from the state to the municipalities, with large economic consequences for these municipalities.
It is not reasonable that previously self-sufficient municipalities are now found at the top receiving support from other parts of the country, especially not as a consequence of previous migration policy. The Sweden Democrats' view is that the mandate to the municipalities and regions should be reviewed precisely to focus on the core mandate in welfare.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.