Municipal issues

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! The motion report we are debating today concerns various parts of the municipal sector. Under a small number of headings such as "The municipal financial equalization system", "Targeted state grants" and "The long-term financing of welfare", a substantial portion of what is within the political system that the general public sees most of is gathered.

Something that characterizes Sweden and the rest of the Nordic countries is that a large part of the decision-making takes place at the municipal level, close to the citizens. It is also here that the majority of welfare services are performed. Municipalities and regions also account for a very high proportion of the total tax revenue.

With this extensive local self-government also comes a great responsibility for each region and municipality to provide the best possible service to the citizens and to ensure that their tax funds are managed in the most responsible and economically sustainable way possible.

Municipal issues

What responsibility then falls on us here in the Swedish Riksdag? Above all, it concerns us to create stable rules of the game and good conditions for municipalities and regions to fully do their jobs.

A large part of the state's contribution to the municipalities' financing goes through the municipal financial equalization system. It is undoubtedly the case that Sweden's municipalities have very different conditions, both demographically and geographically, and it is reasonable that we handle those differences in a way that makes it possible to create a welfare of good quality throughout the country. An investigation is also underway here which will soon report its result.

However, in this debate, I want to emphasize the importance of the equalization system rewarding efficiency and innovation. Dorotea cannot become Danderyd, but all municipalities can and must work actively and continuously to improve the benefit for the citizens. That is not always the case in today's system. Several of the large net recipients in the system are large municipalities from whom we should be able to expect more. It is up to everyone to become sharper and to prioritize the main tasks and prioritize down or remove that which is not necessary and which does not create maximum marginal benefit for the citizens.

Prioritizing is also something the state must do in its relationship with municipalities and regions. It is easy for the Riksdag and the government, in their endeavor to demonstrate decisiveness, to impose new or expanded tasks on the municipalities that may be quite important but which take time and money away from core activities.

For the same reason, it is important to keep an eye on the targeted government grants. They should be in reasonable proportion to the general grants and not constitute an unnecessarily large administrative burden for municipalities and regions. Long-term cost increases must also not be created when the government grants are changed. It is therefore welcome that our current government is actively working on the state's governance of the municipal sector. Even in this area, there is an ongoing investigation tasked with identifying targeted government grants that could be included in the general government grants.

A question that is also addressed in the report and more and more often in the general debate is the long-term financing of welfare and the conditions of the municipalities and regions. In recent years, we have seen increased pressure on the sector to invest in real estate and infrastructure. On one hand, we have a relatively strong population growth and changes in the population structure; on the other hand, there is a reinvestment need as a result of large parts of the real estate stock having stood for many decades. It is obvious that over the years we have not prioritized long-term investments but other expenditures.

Being able to handle periods with a higher investment pace must be assumed to fall within the mandate of the municipalities and regions. But we can also observe that the economic regulatory framework that the municipalities must stay within does not make this task entirely simple.

For some years, there has been an opportunity for the municipalities to set aside funds in a so-called result equalization reserve. However, the conditions for how and when the funds may be used have been well-restricted, and relatively few municipalities have chosen to use that possibility. It is therefore positive that the result equalization reserve has now become a result reserve that gives the municipalities better opportunities to save and plan for expenditures further ahead.

Mr. Speaker! Over the last decade, we have also been able to see an increase in the individual's opportunities to make active choices. Both within health and social care but also within the school system, we have been able to see an increased growth of private alternatives. This change creates a need for both municipalities and regions to ensure the economic compensation models but also to follow up on quality and delivery. This is, however, something that applies not only to the private sector but also to a large extent to municipal and regional activities. We must become better at following up on quality and efficiency while simultaneously ensuring the individual's opportunities to choose for themselves.

Mr. Speaker! I believe we have reached a peak for regulation. We must make life easier to live, create more freedom of choice for the individual and reduce regulations for entrepreneurship, so that it becomes easier to start and run companies. We must make it easier for municipalities and regions to concentrate on their main task.

In that way, more people will enter the workforce, and more successful companies can be run while the public sector prioritizes core tasks and works with constant improvement. Thus, we will be able to meet the financial challenges for Sweden's future. We will also be able to make life better for all our citizens.

I finally wish to move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

In this speech, Oliver Rosengren (M) concurred.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish welfare state is being challenged from several sides. The difficult economic situation does not only affect our Swedish households but also hits hard against the welfare, that is to say against healthcare, school, elderly care and the crime prevention work.

The SD-led government has not prioritized welfare. It has prioritized something else: tax cuts for those who already have and rotavdrag for those who already have. That says a lot about what the Sweden Democrats and the government consider most important.

Mr. Speaker! Our Swedish welfare model has served us well. It has given us the opportunity to have high employment, a more equal society, and a sense of security for us as citizens. This, in turn, has led to the fact that our economic development is good.

Welfare should be for all of us. We shall have healthcare based on need, not on the size of the wallet, equally good preschool and school for all children, regardless of the parents' finances, and high-quality elderly care, regardless of where you come from. Such a welfare model creates a secure and equal society, trust in one another and a sense of community. That welfare model is something we should all stand up for and develop.

It is actually sad to see how clearly politics makes a difference. The Sledda government prioritized welfare while we took responsibility for the economy. That meant 100,000 more employees in welfare. We Social Democrats will continue to prioritize welfare. It is clear what we consider most important. We have, for example, a proposal to secure the basic funding of welfare by, so to speak, inflation-protecting the general state grants. That would give municipalities and regions more secure funding and better planning conditions.

Mr. 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. It is also efficient.

But the differences in the country are still 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 should distribute the resources between municipalities and regions. It is a very important and decisive investigation.

I hope that we get an equalization system that, to a greater extent than today, promotes a more equal welfare throughout the country. Sweden does not benefit from us drifting apart. It is about creating opportunities for a good welfare in the whole country, so that all of Sweden can live and grow. It is actually a matter of justice.

Mr. Speaker! A green industrial revolution is currently underway in Sweden, creating thousands of new jobs in the country. For municipalities and regions that have previously seen out-migration, this means growth, hope, and faith in the future, but also specific challenges.

To enable the emergence of new industry and new jobs, the public sector has an important role in creating the best possible conditions. To support fast-growing municipalities and ensure that the jobs of the future land in Sweden, a growth package for municipalities during new industrialization is needed. The establishment of new industries requires large and risky investments from the public sector. We therefore propose state credit guarantees to the municipal sector. This would reduce the municipalities' risk and financing costs.

Housing construction in Sweden has plummeted. But the fast-growing municipalities cannot afford to wait out the recession. We therefore also propose a construction stimulus for the building of rental apartments specifically targeted at these municipalities.

Mr. Speaker! Tens of thousands of new employees should and will need to be hired, even as people are simultaneously being laid off around the country. Hiring is needed in healthcare, elderly care, and schools. This applies particularly to elderly care, because we have more elderly people who need good care and support. Many are also retiring now. It is estimated that 410,000 people will need to be hired.

The challenges, as said, become very prominent in certain areas. We saw during the pandemic that the cracks in elderly care were large. They became clear during the pandemic. Those cracks are not smaller now, but they are not as visible. We need to continue building a strong elderly care.

We are pleased that the government continues Äldreomsorgslyftet, because we believe it will play a major role for the future. But then one cannot cut back on the rest of the educations, i.e., the vocational educations, in order to get more people working within elderly care and the entire welfare sector.

Mr. Speaker! Privatizations and deregulations have proven to cost large amounts of money, increase inequality within healthcare, and increase segregation within schools. It has led to worsened working conditions for those who work within the welfare sector. These are people who make a very great contribution but who must run faster to fulfill their mission.

We must stop the pursuit of profit in Swedish welfare. Resources allocated for welfare should be used to improve school results and to give our elderly and sick a secure care - not for large profit withdrawals. Tax money intended to improve the school and the care should go to exactly that, not to individual private persons being able to put more money in their pockets. Sweden is the only country in the world that allows private profit withdrawals from the tax-funded school system. Let us change that!

Mr. Speaker! The gang crime and the shootings may have taken a small break right now, but they continue. Crime is still high in Sweden. The work to strengthen the police and the entire justice chain must continue. Now, corresponding investments also need to be made in the work to break new recruitment. We Social Democrats want that for every additional krona invested in the police, an equal amount is invested in crime prevention work. It is an important principle.

Mr. Speaker! Now the cost crisis has struck and healthcare has been put on a starvation diet. Historical cuts are being carried out all over the country. 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 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. Thus, we build further on the important Swedish welfare model. What Sweden needs are investments in welfare that create a more cohesive and equal society.

In conclusion, for the sake of time, I only wish to move for the approval of reservation 1, but we naturally stand behind all our reservations.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The situation is tough in the regions. Priorities will be needed, but how they are prioritized is up to the regions themselves. Either one prioritizes the core activities or one continues, for example, to provide grants to the social democratic campaign organization ABF.

The Sweden Democrats and the government allocated an extra 16 billion to welfare in the state budget for 2024, of which a large part went to the regions. What Member of Parliament Eva Lindh did not mention in her speech, and what the Social Democrats do not want to talk about, is who has had responsibility over the economy in the regions during the last ten years. They had influence over the political priorities and the power to create conditions during the good times that is claimed to have prevailed under the previous S-MP government to facilitate in times like now when priorities were needed.

Since 2013, regions and municipalities have had the opportunity to set aside money in a result equalization reserve to use when the economy is temporarily tough. Some regions have set aside money in result equalization reserves, but not all. During the last ten years, the Social Democrats have been part of the government in 17 of 21 regions. Of 21 regions, there are 7 regions where the Social Democrats have been part of the government that do not have a result equalization reserve. One has thus not set aside money in good times to cover the needs in worse times.

To ask the voters for power, get the power, govern poorly economically and then blame someone else – that is what the Social Democrats do.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not even intend to answer the silly thing about ABF. I am actually just leaving that.

We Social Democrats stand for creating a good welfare for everyone. We have provided good conditions for regions and municipalities, and I know that municipalities and regions do a very important and good job.

I want to take my own region, Östergötland, as an example. There, the same parties that govern the government are now in power. The region now has a deficit of 1.7 billion. That is almost as much as all primary care, that is to say, all health centers. In a first stage, it has been said that 600 people shall leave through so-called natural attrition. This means that if someone, for example, goes into retirement, you will not hire a replacement. This thus reduces the number of important people working within healthcare. One will also be issued a notice shortly.

I do not think it is easy for them, even though they are my party opponents. They are surely doing as well as they can. They think that this is tough. I will not say that one has mismanaged the region, even though I think one could do it in a different way. They are making large warnings that will affect all of us who live in Östergötland through worse care, worse quality, longer queues, and worsened working conditions for those who work there.

We Social Democrats will continue to stand up for the regions - above all for healthcare - and the municipalities and their important work and save the welfare.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That the Social Democrats will never admit that they have had influence over the politics in 17 of 21 regions and thereby governed the political priorities and the economy does not surprise me. The Social Democrats simply cannot say it as it is now. The Social Democrats have not taken responsibility for a long-term stable economy in the regions.

It is easy to claim that times were good under the S-MP government. Back then, the state took responsibility for the welfare. Still, one can easily get a clear picture of how things stand by checking the statistics for the period 2014-2022. The Social Democrats have been involved in governing 17 of 21 regions in Sweden during the time the S-MP government was in power. In 13 of these regions, the tax has been raised at least once. In 4 regions, the tax has been raised twice. In 3 regions, the tax has been raised three times.

In total, the Social Democrats have raised taxes in the regions 23 times. These are tax increases that hit directly against the nursing assistant in elderly care, the childcare worker in childcare, and the construction worker who builds the new school, to name just a few. These are groups that you – the "workers' party" – once claimed to protect.

Despite the Social Democrats having raised taxes 23 times in the regions and despite the Social Democrats having been responsible for governing the regions and creating conditions for a good economy, they have not done so. In 7 out of 17 regions, they have not even attempted to set aside money for leaner times, that is, they have not introduced the possibility, despite it being a simple political decision. It is pathetic. The Social Democrats are a party that claims to be state-bearing and that has asked for the voters' trust in the regions and received it. But when it actually needs to be taken responsibility, the Social Democrats shift the blame.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps not everyone watching this debate knows this, but I know that Member Mattias Eriksson Falk knows that if the municipalities that have the lowest tax capacity, that is to say do not have such great opportunities to provide their welfare, raise the tax, they must raise the tax several times to reach the same level as, for example, Danderyd, which has a high own tax capacity.

It is perhaps the case that one needs to raise taxes again to meet the challenges regarding welfare that one has in one's own municipality. I do not think the chest tones from Mattias Eriksson Falk would really be the same if he were a municipal politician in any of those municipalities that are truly struggling to provide the welfare that one thinks the municipal residents are worth.

We know that the differences in conditions are very large between different municipalities and between different regions. When people are going to sit in waiting rooms without receiving the care they have a right to and need, I do not think they will look back at how things looked in history, but rather look at the SD-led government, which is responsible for healthcare here and now. The fact is that the Sweden Democrats and the SD-led government have not provided the resources that the regions need to manage healthcare with high quality.

As I said, politics makes a difference. When we led this country, 100,000 more were employed within the welfare sector. That will not happen with this government.

(Applause)

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have now heard a debate on the regions' and municipalities' ability to deliver marginal utility to our municipal residents. It is a lot that actually only amounts to more resources. We heard Member Eva Lindh say that 100,000 more people have been employed, and it is more resources that matters. My one question to the Member is how all this resource increase is to be financed.

The second question is: Is this always the answer to the questions – are more resources always what provides effect in healthcare or schools? I did not hear anything in the presentation about efficiency or priorities. We almost never look at how we should streamline, do things in a different way, or increase the willingness for change in our operations. This does not only apply to municipalities and regions but to a large extent also state administration and us here in the Riksdag. How can we reward a different type of processes to be able to deliver more benefit to the citizens for fewer resources? This is at least important now in times of inflation. My question to the member is how the Social Democrats think when it comes to streamlining and priorities.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Adam Reuterskiöld for the question, which I think is important. We Social Democrats have shown in our budget that it is possible to prioritize differently. We prioritize welfare. We do not prioritize more money for those who already have. It is absolutely about priorities.

Of course, municipalities and regions should work with efficiency, and they are already doing so all the time. Studies also show that one is efficient in what one does. But one should not stop there. It is clear that this is important. We have a well-known "saying" that every lost tax krona is a theft from the people, and that is something we in the Social Democrats stand behind.

We see how profits in welfare drain it of much of the money that is supposed to go there. It is interesting that the Moderaterna are not more upset about that type of waste of resources. If welfare had kept the money that now instead goes to profit withdrawals from schools and welfare crime - the Economic Crime Authority says that healthcare has become a cash cow - we would have much more resources in welfare. Stand up for it! Vote to remove the profit withdrawals in welfare! Then I think we could get more resources that stay in welfare and do more good there.

(Applause)

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Eva Lindh very much for the answer. I react immediately by reflecting on what the Member says, namely that more resources are being prioritized. Once again, it is therefore not a question of prioritizing what one should do, but of prioritizing more money. More money and higher taxes are always the answer to the questions.

I am a bit surprised that we cannot be more dynamic in the discussions and consider whether there are things that can be changed in the processes for how we handle different matters. That must be done, because different regions are doing differently well. There are a couple of regions that are currently borrowing for annual operations. There are also regions that are not making any savings at all.

The discussion about constant improvements is a natural part of operations in the private business sector but is not rewarded in our governance of regions and municipalities. In the municipal equalization system, there are no parts that reward efficient administration. The largest contributors in the system are Malmö, Göteborg, and Södertälje. I think they should be able to manage their finances in a completely different way than what is the case today.

It is also interesting to hear that one does not consider where the money goes once it is invested. A private entrepreneur conducted an AI analysis last week of 33 million invoices from 229 different municipalities. Just regarding the costs for handling those invoices, one sees a savings potential of over 90 billion per year through streamlining. These are things that I think are incredibly important, but which I hear nothing about from the Member of Parliament and from the Social Democrats. When are we going to start discussing a changed way of working?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Malmö is often cited as an example. But Malmö does not even have the most state grants per inhabitant in its surrounding area. I just wanted to say that – facts are facts.

There are some large companies that have much more administrative overhead than municipalities and regions have. That picture that municipalities and regions would always be so inefficient is not correct. On the other hand, it naturally differs between municipalities. We think that municipal self-government is positive, not because some have higher costs for administration, but because one can do things in different ways. That is what is good - one solves one's issues and challenges in slightly different ways. They compare themselves with each other all the time and look at whether they can find other good ways to work.

Återigen: I think it is important with efficiency, and that is something we should also work on. But look at how much money disappears out of the welfare system by giving opportunities for profits in welfare and welfare crime! This is something the SD-led government should really work on. Then it is not just about working with individual individuals, but about tackling and handling welfare crime. Our tax money disappears out of healthcare and other welfare systems. If one were to prevent the possibility of making these crime profits, for example within LOV or other choice systems, and limit the possibilities to take out profits, we would get more resources.

We must absolutely work on efficiency, but more resources for welfare are required. I believe every single one of those who work within healthcare, who now have to run faster and who feel sorrow because they cannot give their patients the good care that they deserve, knows this.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report number 26, Municipal Affairs, and I would like to move for the approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 6, which concerns municipal inspection fees.

All our companies around the country try to contribute with innovation, jobs and tax revenues - revenues that we then use to finance the welfare for the citizens in our country. Everyone who has run a company knows that one puts their body and soul into starting the company, creating jobs and, in the long run, being able to hire, many times with a long and arduous working life ahead of them.

Depending on which industry you as a business owner are in, our authorities at different levels will exercise supervision and carry out inspections. This is fundamentally good; for example, we want to know that the food we eat has been cooked correctly. Unfortunately, we have a situation where the municipalities in many cases invoice the companies before the supervision has been carried out. In other words, they take payment before they have completed that which the payment itself is intended for. The reasonable order, Mr. Speaker, is according to us Sverigedemokrater that the municipality only after the supervision or that which the payment is intended for has been completed may take payment from the business owner.

The Sweden Democrats' reservation under this point aims to legislate on this – something that creates equality across all of Sweden while simultaneously creating predictability for our entrepreneurs regardless of where in the country an operation is conducted. This is reasonable to expect and could contribute to reducing the administration for companies.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating municipal issues, and those two words encompass quite a lot. A large part of Sweden's public activities are located precisely in the municipal sector, which includes both Sweden's 290 municipalities and all 21 regions - all with their unique characteristics, conditions, and opportunities.

When we debated the state's support to the municipal sector before the turn of the year, I pointed out that the Sweden Democrats and the government for 2024 have pushed through an extra 16 billion to our municipalities and regions. That was 40 percent of the reform space for 2024. In total, the municipal economic equalization amounts to almost 168 billion kronor in 2024.

It is about more support for the municipalities, more support for the regions, a specifically targeted support for health and medical care, support to shorten the care queues, expanded primary care and investment in cancer care and women's health. Then I still do not mention all the support we give to, for example, the school and elderly care. It is extensive support that Sverigedemokraterna and the government have given to the municipal sector.

But it is important to address the time we have ahead of us. That priorities will be needed is clear, but priorities do not have to be something bad. It can be about prioritizing an investment in AI, which, for example, can read X-rays and allow the doctor to have more time with the patient or see more patients during a day. The word priority can be negatively charged, but a priority can also be an opportunity. And we shall try to take advantage of opportunities.

It is naturally up to the individual elected assembly at each respective location to make decisions on which priorities should be made in Sweden's municipalities and regions and to implement them. Even though we have seen some warnings, we have not seen any resignations of healthcare staff, at least not anything that corresponds to the horror scenario that some parties are trying to paint. I can look at my home county Gävleborg, where out of a total of ten municipalities and one region, only one municipality has made a small reduction. The others have increased the number of people working within the municipality or for that part of the region. Why exactly one municipality decreased and with which type of staff, we do not know here.

Mr. Speaker! The failure that the Social Democrats here in the Riksdag are trying to describe, we do not see in Gävleborg. It is worth pointing out that the Social Democrats also govern seven out of ten municipalities in the county. I do not question that the situation in different municipalities and regions is tough, but at the same time, it is important that municipalities and regions prioritize correctly. If a municipality chooses to lay off a nursing assistant in order to hire another environmental strategist, this is not the right prioritization, in my opinion and the opinion of the Sweden Democrats.

During the most recent ten-year period, 2013-2022, the Social Democrats have been part of the political government in 17 of 21 regions. In other words, the Social Democrats have been the party that, in addition to being the largest, has had a decisive influence over the regions' economy and priorities all over Sweden, from north to south and from east to west. The social democratic shadow has hung heavy over the regions.

Mr. Speaker! I have never seen the Social Democrats as a party that dares to be honest and tell the citizens, and thus the voters, that over the last ten years, they have not taken the political responsibility that was requested and received from the voters to ensure a good economic situation for the future. It is the Social Democrats who have governed 17 of 21 regions over the last ten years. It is the Social Democrats who have had the political power over healthcare in almost all of Sweden.

Everyone who has ever drafted a budget knows that the economy can swing from good to tough times. The Social Democrats have wasted a ten-year opportunity to create good conditions for the regions' operations and finances. Now we see warnings from healthcare personnel - a result of the Social Democrats' failure.

Despite the Social Democrats having raised taxes 23 times in the regions during 2013-2022, they have failed. To raise taxes 23 times instead of taking responsibility, addressing structural problems, and governing the regions correctly is not serious. The Social Democrats have betrayed the regions, but above all, the Social Democrats have betrayed all those citizens who for years have seen the Social Democrats as a governing party but have now seen what it was worth.

The extra support to the municipalities and regions, which among others the Sweden Democrats in opposition pushed through, means that there is a certain amount of room to maneuver, while at the same time we have injected an extra 16 billion into welfare this year. But the management of operations in many regions is the responsibility of the Social Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! I will soon have a reply exchange with the Social Democrats' member Eva Lindh, who will want to talk to me about precisely the situation of the regions. The member and the Social Democrats will then not take responsibility for the influence that the Social Democrats have had over the last ten years in 17 of 21 regions. Instead, the Social Democrats will twist and turn to, as usual, shift the blame. But I will not let the Social Democrats deceive the voters any longer.

The Sweden Democrats will continue to point out the Social Democrats' responsibility for the last ten years of political failure in our regions, a failure signed by the Social Democrats.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can gladden everyone with that the Member of Parliament Mattias Eriksson Falk was right in one thing: that the Member of Parliament Eva Lindh would request a reply to this speech.

But I actually didn't intend to start by talking about the healthcare crisis. I would like to ask a question about something that I believe some people wonder about regarding the Sweden Democrats, namely profit-taking and welfare crime. A lot of money is leaking out of our welfare that we would really benefit from keeping to do good things: good quality within healthcare, a good school, and better elderly care.

It has been shown that the privatizations have cost money and affect segregation and quality within healthcare, school, and care. Time and again, we have received evidence of how bad this actually is. Money is taken out to be put into one's own pocket, and welfare crime has drained, for example, healthcare of money.

The Sweden Democrats never talk about this. They used to, but they don't anymore. I want to ask the Sweden Democrats: Where do the Sweden Democrats stand when it comes to profits in welfare - are you for or against?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for the question! The Sweden Democrats have addressed the problem of profits in welfare. We have addressed the issue of welfare crime, where companies or individuals exploit welfare resources.

Regarding the parts the member is asking about, it states in the report that we are debating today that there is ongoing work that the committee refers to. There is an investigation looking into some of these matters. It states in the assignment that proposals for regulations shall be submitted to ensure that the tax funds allocated for schools are used for what they are intended for, i.e., to finance the operation of school activities. It shall propose an expanded ownership and management review, certain profit distribution prohibitions or other profit distribution limitations, and stricter sanctions. The investigation also received an additional directive during 2023.

I await the investigation's conclusions and what it will propose. The Sweden Democrats will take a position based on what the investigation shows and the basis it delivers. Only then can we take a final position on the issue, when we have facts on the table.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that there is an inquiry that is to investigate matters concerning the school. I truly hope that it will come up with good proposals. I am skeptical, but I hope, because something really needs to be done when it comes to the school and the profits.

But what about healthcare? The Economic Crime Authority says that healthcare has become a cash cow for criminal organizations. It is millions of kronor that should go to healthcare but instead end up with criminal organizations. They are taking resources from the welfare system. Isn't that outrageous? Is it not something that the Sverigedemokraterna want to do something about?

The question is, therefore: Will the Sweden Democrats do anything regarding profits in welfare, not just in the school area but also in the other areas where we see that both welfare crime and profit extraction - I'm mixing things a bit here - drain welfare?

During the seconds I have left, I also want to take the opportunity to say that we took responsibility for healthcare. We had a pandemic during the previous parliamentary term. We provided resources so that healthcare, schools, and elderly care could manage the challenges that arose. That was also why a number of municipalities, but not all, ended with a surplus.

The Sweden Democrats must take responsibility for their policy for healthcare, school, and care. Right now, healthcare is bleeding. People must be laid off. In Östergötland, for example, there will be notices, and it will affect the quality and working conditions and cause longer queues for people to get the care they need.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to welfare crime, we must not forget that municipalities and regions have an own responsibility to create conditions to detect and prevent this and to constantly work towards ensuring that such a situation does not exist. But the member describes it as if all private activity were problematic and that welfare crime occurs simply because it is private activity.

We will, of course, strike hard against those who cheat our municipalities and regions or other entities out of money. That is who we must strike against. But we must also enable those who are serious to conduct serious business. It must be remembered that private elderly care and private home care exist because someone has requested this. They do not arise on their own and get customers, users, or whatever we shall call it, but they arise because there is a demand.

The Speaker claims that the Social Democrats have taken responsibility for the welfare during the ten-year period I mentioned. Why, then, did the 17 regions governed by the Social Democrats need to raise taxes 23 times? If the state now took its responsibility, why do we then see so many tax increases? Three regions raised taxes three times during the period we are talking about. During the good times that the Social Democrats claim it was, taxes were raised in the regions a total of 23 times. This is something that hits just the nursing assistant in elderly care, the childcare worker in childcare, or the construction worker who builds the new school.

The Speaker talks about chest tones. The Social Democrats pat themselves quite well on the chest and claim that they have managed the welfare. But why, then, have we seen these massive tax increases under the S-MP government?

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are facing a welfare collapse when the bills are now pouring in over the hospitals, elderly care is constantly understaffed and the teachers do not get the resources they need to do a good job in the classrooms.

Instead of ensuring that welfare receives prioritized resources, the government and the Sweden Democrats [Sverigedemokraterna] have [included] tax cuts in the budget. Now, regions and municipalities have to take the hit for this, and the government blames the regions. Here in the debate, we have heard that the regions are getting to prioritize better.

But the municipalities and, above all, the regions expect a budget deficit of over 30 billion during 2024. This cannot be saved by measures that are not noticed in welfare. When the government considers that municipalities and regions can streamline and cut back, it means longer queues to healthcare, worse schools, and closed bus lines. Most often, it is also the preventive work that gets cut. At the same time as young people are drawn into gang crime, the municipalities are forced to save on school and activities for young people.

The welfare sector has been underfunded for a long time and is now falling apart completely. In order for welfare to be able to continue to be one of the foundations of society, resources are needed, so that those who need care receive it in time, those who are elderly receive the support they need in everyday life, public transport runs as it should, and our children receive a safe and good preschool and schooling.

When gang violence terrorizes our society with bombings and shootings, a government was needed that rolls up its sleeves and invests what is required to put a stop to the gangs. A government was needed that allocates resources to social services to ensure that youth who are drifting off course end up in the right place.

Mr. Speaker! Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner notes that sick leaves are increasing. It is tragic for those affected by burnout or a broken body, but it also increases the municipalities' costs for sick pay and substitutes. In the worst case, it is a substitute stop, and those who remain then have to push themselves a bit more and risk becoming sick-listed in turn. Many municipalities and regions have already introduced substitute and hiring stops while substitutes are being dismissed, staff are being laid off, and certain personnel categories almost completely disappear.

Vänsterpartiet, together with the Social Democrats and the Green Party, has submitted an initiative in the Committee on Finance that the government should promptly provide the healthcare regions with notification and present a budget that ensures that people are not laid off in Swedish healthcare. The situation is acute, and Ulf Kristersson needs to act on his healthcare promise that no healthcare staff shall be laid off.

Mr. Speaker! We have large tax gaps in Sweden, which are deeply unjust. Eight out of ten municipalities with the highest tax rate are found in northern Sweden, and it is hardly the case that the high tax is reflected in the welfare being much better for us who live in northern Sweden. The ten municipalities with the lowest tax are found in Region Skåne and in Stockholm County. This year, the tax difference between the municipality with the lowest tax and the municipality with the highest tax increased to 6 kronor and 32 öre.

We cannot have a Sweden that is so divided. Therefore, we must strengthen the municipal sector, and the municipalities that have the greatest challenges are those that need this most.

In order for smaller municipalities to be able to offer a welfare that can be relied upon, Vänsterpartiet has proposed an indexing of the state grants so that they follow both the demographics and the price developments. The equalization between municipalities and regions must increase, and it must be one of the Utjämningskommittén's conclusions when they present their investigation proposal this summer.

Mr. Speaker! From welfare being primarily driven in the public sector, welfare was opened up to private market interests during the 90s. Since then, the market has penetrated deeply into schools, healthcare, and elderly care in a way that has resulted in an inefficient and unequal distribution of resources. School corporations and private elderly care homes make large profits on our tax money. Market-driven care means that the one with the greatest need does not necessarily go first anymore. Instead, it may be the one who can pay for it.

The Swedish healthcare system needs to return to being governed based on the health and medical services act's portal paragraph on care based on need. The neoliberal dogmas must be dismantled and profits in welfare must be prohibited.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 4.

In conclusion, I want to press again that the regions must now be informed: Will Ulf Kristersson deliver on his promise or not? Nurses, doctors, nursing assistants, patients, relatives and the regions are waiting. A promise is a promise.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to listen to the Left Party and their claims that they want to stand up for the welfare and that they want to invest in the welfare. At the same time, one can find examples from reality where the municipal or regional waste is at its extreme under the Left Party.

It is said that the state must provide more resources because there is currently a failure occurring out in the country. At the same time, we can look at examples from Uppsala municipality. There, Vänsterpartiet was involved in planning to establish a municipal film studio for 15 million kronor, something that was backed out of when protests were received from the citizens.

In Kiruna municipality, far up in the north, they are building a bathhouse for 1 billion. But now they have also decided to cut school milk for school children. In Åre municipality, the Left Party government uses a private PR agency to conduct opinion-building, something that is probably illegal. In Region Värmland, which the Left Party governs with the Social Democrats and the Green Party, they are buying art for 40 million. But they are supposed to save 23 million on the emergency room. In Gävle municipality, where I come from, the Left Party votes for a luxury culture project that now requires an extra 95 million and is up to over half a billion. But they are closing libraries in the districts where the children live.

These are the Left Party's priorities, and then one blames the state. It is shameful. I really do not understand how one can have this rhetoric when one makes such bad priorities where one holds the power. It is completely horrible.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is very clear that Mattias Eriksson would like to mix up the cards here and not talk about his own responsibility. He is actually the heaviest player in the government. It is simply you who hold the actual power in this chamber.

I believe that you are very reluctant to speak about the healthcare crisis that is now erupting out there. Healthcare is the voters' most important issue. We have an enormous number of people working within healthcare who are very eager to receive information on how the Sverigedemokraterna will act to prevent mass warnings in healthcare, longer queues for patients, and more medical errors and perhaps also fatal outcomes in our hospitals because of your budget.

You knew when you set this budget that it would mean major cuts within the welfare system. Now we see the result in black and white.

Ulf Kristersson sat in TV4's morning sofa and said that no one should be laid off in healthcare. I think it is up to the Sverigedemokraterna and Mats Eriksson to answer the following: Will you deliver on that promise? Will your government act so that no one is laid off in healthcare? I would like to have an answer to this.

Do not try to mix up the cards with some 15 million in the municipalities! That is not what it is about. The municipalities have for a long time had worse economic conditions, and some small cultural investment here or there is not what makes the school go to its knees and the healthcare is about to collapse. That is not what is the big question here.

What does Mats Eriksson intend to do about the major healthcare collapse that we have ahead of us?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I hear that the member opposite me is becoming very upset. I understand it. One usually becomes that when one is caught making wrong priorities out in the municipalities and regions. One is, therefore, trying to mix the cards from Vänsterpartiet when one blames the state and talks about longer healthcare queues.

I just mentioned this as an example: One chooses to buy art for 40 million in Region Värmland when one is supposed to save 23 million on the emergency room. It is in the emergency room that we help patients. It is there that we have staff who help the patients. It is your prioritization that makes it worse. You are going to put up fine art somewhere because you like it more. It is your prioritization.

I only mentioned a few examples. If I start looking across the whole country, I will find significantly more. I only made a quick estimate, and it went quite fast to find such madness. There is guaranteed to be more.

Vänsterpartiet had a decisive influence on the state budget 2014-2018, when they cooperated with the then S-MP government. They also sat in the government in 13 of 21 regions. But they have not contributed to ensuring that there are resources moving forward. It is the Sverigedemokraterna who have ensured that in opposition during the last mandate period and who have ensured that we have injected extra money now. It is not Vänsterpartiet who has done that. You have the responsibility in many municipalities and regions. You must still prioritize correctly.

The state must absolutely do its part. The state does a lot, and we will return with what the state can potentially do more during the spring. But you must take the responsibility you have in municipalities and regions. You cannot just blame the state when you withdraw school milk for school children because you want to build a swimming pool for 1 billion kronor instead. That is your policy. You hire private PR agencies. You buy art, and you choose to close libraries to build luxury culture houses. Those are the Left Party's priorities. It does not surprise me, because during my active time as a politician, I have always seen it. But that people shift the blame is interesting.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to apologize for giving Mattias Eriksson the wrong name in my previous exchange. I have stepped in for this debate instead of Ilona Szatmári.

But back to the question. We are not in this chamber in the capacity of municipal politicians, so I still think Mattias Eriksson Falk is trying to mix up the cards. Now it is not about what priorities we make in the municipalities. But if you are still interested, I can say that I was previously a municipal politician in Sundsvall Municipality, and there we left behind a good results reserve after the previous mandate period. If one wants to lead something in evidence, one probably needs to have a bit more facts than three municipalities, which you now state as some kind of factual evidence in this.

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of our regions are now running with significant deficits, and they will be forced to make large cuts. It is not about what results reserve they have had previously. It is about that your government has actively chosen to prioritize other things than providing sufficient resources to the regions so that they can even maintain the same level they had before your government took office.

This is what the question is about. You have actively chosen to prioritize something else than ensuring that it is at least at the exact same level as it was when you took office. You have actively given regions and municipalities less money. It is not about what municipalities and regions prioritize, it is about that they receive less money. A five-year-old understands that if you receive less money, you cannot perform as much activity. It is simple mathematics.

That is why I still want to get an answer from this government and those who rule the country: Will nurses, nursing assistants, and doctors be laid off at our hospitals, or will the government act on its promise? Many in this country want an answer to that.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are going to debate municipal economic issues, and it is just as well to say the following directly. Before I became a member of the Swedish Riksdag in 2022, I was for 14 years the chairman of the municipal executive board in a Swedish municipality. I stepped in in the autumn of 2008 just as the financial crisis erupted and growth fell, and I stepped down in the autumn of 2022 with double-digit inflation. And in between, there was a refugee crisis, a pandemic, and admittedly quite a bit of economic boom.

But now this is not about me, but about my municipality; Leksand municipality. Besides being good at hockey, crispbread, and celebrating Midsummer, we were Sweden's median municipality regarding population this year. That means that in terms of population, 145 municipalities were larger than Leksand and 145 municipalities were smaller. And Leksand has approximately 16,000 inhabitants. This means, therefore, that 145 municipalities have fewer than 16,000 inhabitants.

Leksand has a relatively good economy, and we never raised the tax during my 14 years. We grew by approximately a thousand inhabitants during these years, and we have a fairly good position in a labor region in the middle of Sweden. But I often thought, when we had difficulty obtaining competence or making the money stretch to get the basic service to function in the way that the citizens both deserve and should expect, how did all the smaller municipalities not have it, especially those in rural areas. All 290 municipalities have the same mandate.

Then one realizes that a system is needed that equalizes between municipalities, but a state is also needed to equalize in extreme situations where the municipalities cannot exert influence. With respect for local democracy and the fundamental municipal self-government, this system shall nevertheless ensure that we have a guaranteed basic service level throughout the country. It is unworthy of us as a country to have it that way, if one, as the Center Party, wants the whole country to live.

The Center Party considers that sparseness needs to be taken into account to a greater extent within the framework of the equalization system. No municipal merger and no municipal association or other form of cooperation in the world can make the distances shorter for home care staff when they are going home to the elderly to provide care and support.

Centerpartiet also sees the need for an island policy for, for example, Gotland, which takes into account the specific conditions and needs that fundamentally differ from the conditions on the mainland. With an island policy for our inhabited islands, the differences are reduced, and it promotes a positive developmental force.

Mr. Speaker! Many of us see that the line between permanent residence and holiday residence has become increasingly blurred. Digitization and the expansion of fiber in the country did its part, and then the pandemic did the rest, as many can now work from home. This "from home" can just as often be a holiday home for those who have one. With the current system, it is only in the municipality where one is registered as a resident that one pays tax, even though one often shares one's time equally between two municipalities. Here we often see that it is the smaller municipality that would need the income most, but we know that large city municipalities often have lower taxes and, for example, more frequent access to care, which makes it so that one is registered there. It is logical and reasonable that the individual does so, but we need to create a system so that even the smaller municipality that provides a large part of the municipal service receives compensation.

Many of us look forward to what the investigation that has taken the name the Equalization Committee will deliver. But since the committee's report was completed, the investigation has been granted an extension, and we hope that the government ensures that further decisions that are necessary for Sweden are not delayed.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by speaking about healthcare, school, and care. They are all three invaluable activities in the Swedish welfare state that are operated by our municipalities and regions. We are currently talking extra much about one of these activities after the Prime Minister in an interview recently said that no one should lose their job within Swedish healthcare.

There is a difficult economic situation in the country's regions. I have weekly morning meetings with, for example, Region Dalarna, and now they are planning further layoffs. But for the Center Party, it is equally important to highlight the school and the care sector. It is equally important to talk about the school, where we see great needs while teachers are being laid off and schools are being closed. It is equally important to talk about the care of our elderly and people with disabilities, where demand and costs are increasing while it becomes increasingly difficult to find competent staff.

We need to see these issues as public welfare where the state has historically taken responsibility in extreme situations - regardless of the color of the government. It may have been during a financial crisis, a cost crisis, or during a pandemic with economic effects. I agree with what other members have raised in the debate about working smartly and efficiently, prioritizing, and always working with development. But at the same time, it is reasonable and necessary for the state, regions, and municipalities to pull their chairs together in an economic crisis, not the other way around. It is always the people who need us most who are harmed and fall hardest between the chairs. A great responsibility rests on the government to ensure that this does not happen.

I move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The past year has been tough for many. A restless world, skyrocketing prices, and an escalated gang violence have characterized the everyday lives of many people. And now, the cuts in our common welfare are standing very clearly at the door. It is the welfare that, instead, should be reinforced in order to be able to meet precisely a restless world, skyrocketing costs for households, and the wave of violence that keeps entire residential areas in fear.

It is nothing that is forced to happen but is a clear result of this government's priorities. Other political priorities would have created a different reality. But right now, the government, with eyes wide open, is instead letting welfare pay the price for the economic crisis.

Instead of allocating the resources that are needed, money is spent on subsidizing airports and the tax is joyfully lowered for those who are already rich. The bill for inflation is sent to the children in school, the patients in healthcare, and the elderly in elderly care. It is they who are hit when the money is not enough. If nothing is done, drastic cuts in far too many places are expected to become a reality. This naturally affects the most vulnerable, but it also creates a colder and harder Sweden - a society that no one benefits from.

Our welfare is the very foundation of the Sweden that many of us are proud of. But it is a foundation that cannot be taken for granted. Every sitting government must manage to prioritize school, healthcare, social services, and elderly care, perhaps especially in economically tough times. We do not think that either children or the elderly should pay for the crisis; instead, we must tackle it together.

Sweden's municipalities constitute the foundation of our welfare state and need to be given the right conditions to be able to fulfill their mission. That is not the case today. SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, has repeatedly warned that the government must provide the money required to maintain a welfare that can be relied upon throughout the country. Now, instead, cuts are expected, despite the Prime Minister's promises last week.

What we can expect now is, at best, silence from the government and, at worst, talking points about how the economy can indeed be balanced and that it is efficiencies that must be implemented. But whatever the government believes, it is not empty promises or talk of efficiencies that will give children the help they need in school. It will not give the elderly a hand to hold when life is difficult, and it will not give the social services the conditions required to catch young people on their way into crime. It gives a development that is going in the wrong direction, because what is required most is increased resources.

Miljöpartiet has repeatedly presented policies that strengthen and secure the municipalities' long-term financing. With inflation-adjusted general government grants, the municipalities' budgets would be given better conditions to actually cover the costs resulting from inflation without, as is the case now, the operations being affected in economically difficult times.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to talk about gains in welfare.

It is completely incomprehensible to me how, in the year 2024, one can still think that it should be legal to make a profit on school, healthcare, and elderly care.

It is only in Sweden that companies can withdraw tax money that is actually supposed to go towards children's education and towards creating more equal conditions. It results in lost life chances and creates segregation and exclusion. It is a bizarre system that should have reached its end a long time ago.

We say that the pursuit of profit in welfare must come to an end. Money that is set aside for the schooling of children and young people simply must not be possible to extract as profit for venture capital companies. It must go back to the operations.

There is a reason why no other country has such a system, and that is that it is bad. It gives us less welfare for the money. Instead, money goes straight into the pockets of companies that prioritize profit over education. So we cannot have that. The pursuit of profit in welfare must come to an end, and now.

Therefore, it is high time that Swedish politics settles the score with the market school and says what should be obvious: that our children, elderly, and sick are not consumers in a free market but are citizens in a country where we have promised each other to do our best to create a secure society for everyone. It must be everyone's responsibility, and it is now time for the government to take that responsibility.

With that, I move for the approval of reservations 3 and 7.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for the speech!

It is always interesting to listen to a party such as Miljöpartiet, which sat in a governing position from 2014 to 2021, when they chose to leave the government. Miljöpartiet has had a decisive influence on the government's policy and the conditions that have been created across the country for our municipalities and regions.

The member says many interesting things in their speech; I must admit that. There is much that is interesting to listen to. But it is strange that the member's party and the member themselves come up with all the good things one wants to do when one has left the government and when one has lost power in the Riksdag. Then one comes up with all this that needs to be done for the welfare that one now claims.

During the seven years that Miljöpartiet sat in government, the discussion about general grants and targeted grants has continued. But from Miljöpartiet's side, no initiative has been taken to change this in order to facilitate for municipalities and regions to reduce the administrative burden.

Now we have a new equalization committee looking at these parts, which I think is good. I await the conclusions that will come from it.

I mentioned in my previous exchanges the responsibility that the Social Democrats and the Left Party have had for the political power in Sweden's municipalities and regions. When one looks at the Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Centre Party, and the Left Party, one sees that the Green Party is the party that has sat in a majority position in the regions the longest over the last ten years. You have had the most opportunity to influence policy. Even though you are a small party, you have had influence.

Why has the Green Party not ensured that there are economic resources in the regions now that it is a worse time?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Eriksson Falk, for the question!

It was indeed pleasant to hear that the Sverigedemokraterna member here thinks it is interesting to listen to what I say in the speaker's chair, especially considering gains in welfare.

The reason we did not ensure that it was changed during the time in government was simply that we did not have a majority in the chamber for that policy after the Sweden Democrats shifted on the issue. A few dinner parties, and then people thought it was completely okay for our common tax money to go straight into the pockets of private companies and into dividend payments. It is still something that I find incredibly difficult to understand – that a party that says it wants to protect the weakest in society has a policy that goes in the exact opposite direction.

I have also all the time been involved in pushing out money to municipalities and regions to the extent that it has seemed necessary during that time. It is not the case that we have resources to put into everything all the time, and it has been strenuous. But during the pandemic, Miljöpartiet sat in the government that gave enormously much support so that we could manage the crisis that arose then.

What we see now is that the Sweden Democrats support a government that does not put even close to that money. It is a crisis now, and it has been since roughly when this government took office. Perhaps it is not the government's fault, but it has coincided. We see a crisis in healthcare, and the government is doing nothing about it.

I actually have to bounce the question back to the Sweden Democrats. What is it that makes you underfund healthcare and welfare? And what was it really that made you turn in the issue of profits in welfare? Were a few dinners really worth it?

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can calmly say that I have not been at any dinner parties regarding discussing issues of gains in welfare, so the member can be completely reassured about that.

(Applause)

When it comes to resources for the welfare state during the pandemic, all parties were largely in agreement that we needed to inject money to ensure that everything would function. It was, after all, a global crisis that was ongoing.

I mentioned to the Social Democrats that during their time in majority in the regions over the last ten years, they have raised taxes 23 times. I believe that Miljöpartiet is the only party that has managed to beat the Social Democrats in tax increases. It is naturally impressive. But it is not good, because it hits ordinary people.

Despite that, there is no money in the regions to handle this situation. We are facing a problem now. It is a tough situation for our municipalities and regions; I admit that. But you have not ensured that there are any resources.

This is a shared responsibility. Regions and municipalities have the right to tax, and regions and municipalities have their own opportunities to prioritize their activities and direction. The State contributes, among other things through the municipal economic system, to creating good conditions throughout the country.

We can always divide resources, however much or little that may be, but I know that Sverigedemokraterna and the government have added 16 billion extra to welfare for this year. But as I said, the responsibility is shared, and there is no party that has had such an influence over the regions' possibilities over the last ten years as Miljöpartiet. But Miljöpartiet has obviously not taken that responsibility, neither in a government position nor in a majority position in the regions. Now you are trying to blame Sverigedemokraterna, and just as I said to Socialdemokraterna, it is not serious but shameful.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad to hear from Mattias Eriksson Falk that there is no money in the regions. In the situation we find ourselves in, this is a state responsibility. Just as the member says, one should, as far as possible, avoid raising taxes in municipalities and regions because it affects those with the smallest economic margins. Therefore, we are pressing for the government and the Prime Minister to keep their promise that no one shall be laid off in healthcare. But we have still heard nothing more about this. Instead, we hear about efficiencies and so on.

I do not intend to stand here and, like Mattias Eriksson Falk, hang out our regional and municipal politicians. I am convinced that, regardless of party affiliation, they are doing everything they can to make a budget with far too little money work, which leaves large needs unaddressed. They are now clearly turning to the government and asking for help, but are being rejected by both the government and the Sverigedemokraterna.

It is probably good that Mattias Eriksson Falk has not been at any dinner parties, but with all due respect, that is perhaps not where the decisions on the Sweden Democrats' policy are made. I would still appreciate finding out why the Sweden Democrats do not want the money to go to those it is intended for in school, healthcare, and elderly care, but instead into private pockets. It can be seen as a rhetorical question, but I am still waiting for the answer.

(Applause)

Municipal issues

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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