Municipal issues

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Many citizens view municipal and regional tasks as the state's, for example, healthcare, school, and care. Sometimes they may be right; it is often the state that, through grants and economic incentives, influences these activities the most, but the state also becomes a cost driver through new laws and regulations.

There are great differences in the conditions for Sweden's municipalities. Some municipalities operate in rural areas with long distances, while others are densely populated but in return have higher costs. The municipal equalization system aims to level the differences between primarily city and country, but it is not always perceived as fair. A very large part goes to large urban municipalities that have all the conditions to manage on their own. Furthermore, a municipality's management often affects how well it succeeds with the financial outcome.

Madam Speaker! There are several problems in the system. One example is the lack of growth incentives. Municipalities with high tax capacity are punished through redistribution, which can reduce the willingness to attract companies and new citizens. The system can also be perceived as unclear and complex. It is difficult to predict, and it becomes difficult for the municipalities to manage this financially. Furthermore, it can be perceived as unfair. Some municipalities receive more support than necessary, while others pay disproportionately much.

The system can lead to reduced self-determination. Municipalities that are considered wealthy have less opportunity to prioritize local projects and local welfare. Above all, there are certain risks of grant dependency. Some municipalities are completely dependent on these grants.

The system should reward efficient management rather than costly prestige projects. Furthermore, municipalities and regions with strong growth need better conditions.

The government is actively working to reform the municipal equalization system, with the ambition to create a more just and efficient system that rewards those municipalities and regions that demonstrate good economic management and have strong growth potential. The goal is to reduce the system's complexity and give the municipalities better opportunities to adapt their priorities to local needs.

The Government and the parliamentary Equalization Committee are working on changes to the municipal equalization system. In its report, *Nätt och jämnt – Likvärdighet och effektivitet i kommunsektorn* (Smooth and even – Equality and efficiency in the municipal sector), the Committee submitted proposals to reduce tax rates and negative effects of income equalization on growth. The proposals are now being prepared within the Government Offices.

The Government also intends to initiate work with the aim of establishing an information portal on targeted government grants in order to facilitate municipalities' and regions' management of such grants and reduce administrative costs.

In its deliberations, the Equalization Committee proposed which targeted state grants could be incorporated into the general state grant to the municipal sector. The Committee presented principles for when the state should use targeted state grants and how they should be designed to reduce the problems they create.

The Government has also decided to establish a regional review function with a focus on purposeful resource utilization, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency potential. The function is established at the Swedish Agency for Public Management with the primary mandate to review the regions' economic situation. The agency shall, among other things, publish an in-depth review of the development of the regions' administration and what impact it has on the operations' efficiency. The mandate also includes making an in-depth comparison of the efficiency of operations performed by private providers versus those in municipal or regional management.

The government has also previously established an efficiency delegation for health and medical care at Kammarkollegiet. The delegation shall assist the regions with analyses, propose measures that can increase the operations' efficiency, and disseminate good examples. The delegation is also responsible for a temporary state grant for measures for an efficient health and medical care. This is a response to the structural changes occurring within the welfare sector and aims to strengthen efficiency.

Madam Speaker! Many motions in the report concern changes in the financing and efficiency of welfare. The reforms that have allowed more providers within healthcare, school, and care have strengthened society, increased freedom of choice, and provided room for innovations. No single school fits everyone. The possibility to choose doctor and home care is important. This does not only create individualized welfare but also drives forward better services.

But the quality must never be compromised. Municipalities have moved from being providers to auditing and procuring. Strict controls of both companies and personnel are absolutely necessary. It is of the utmost importance that constant controls and audits ensure that resources are used in the right way. Poor quality and delivery must never be accepted, regardless of how it is delivered.

We cannot continue to do the same thing as we have always done but cheaper. We must develop new processes, technologies, and ways of working. More money for bad processes is not the solution.

Madam Speaker! Many municipalities have specific functions solely for the purpose of applying for administrative state grants. Some grants are so complicated to apply for that it is not even worth it. General grants are therefore to be preferred over targeted ones, even if certain political initiatives require earmarked resources.

In principle, the municipalities should be able to finance themselves through the right of taxation. The state, however, is the largest cost driver for municipalities and regions, with approximately 400 state agencies. An alternative to increasing the regulatory burden should be to simplify the regulatory framework and thereby lower the costs for the operations. In that case, one could also imagine that the state grants would decrease to a corresponding extent.

We must simplify and clarify economic transfers. Today, municipalities and regions are busy applying for and following up on grants instead of focusing on core activities. Municipalities must be given more power over and responsibility for their own finances. At the same time, the state needs to take a step back and reduce unnecessary red tape. That is how we can create long-term sustainability in the welfare system.

Madam Speaker! I would therefore conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Adam Reuterskiöld, for raising so many questions! I would like to ask two questions in light of your speech.

Firstly, the Member of Parliament is speaking about the equalization system. Many municipalities are now waiting and wondering what became of it. The Member of Parliament only says that it is being prepared now. I wonder: What does this mean? What does the timetable look like? Can the Member of Parliament give any information to those municipalities that are now wondering and reflecting on what became of the investigation?

Question number two: In his speech, Reuterskiöld mentioned several times the difficulties with the targeted state grants. If this is agreed upon. I know how it affects many municipalities, especially many small municipalities that do not have the possibility of having special officials employed who apply. We know how difficult it can be.

My question is therefore: Why does the SD-led government have zero kronor in general state grants? Adam Reuterskiöld advocates for general state grants and argues that it would be so very good. Instead, one has quite a lot in new targeted state grants. Why no general state grants but many new targeted state grants?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Eva Lindh, for the questions! I think, as I said in my speech, that these are extremely important issues. We should talk more about both this and the previous topic, state governance.

When it comes to the preparation, the municipal equalization system is extremely complex. From what I have heard, there are very few individuals in state and municipal administration who can understand the entire system. That this requires a rather lengthy preparation is therefore, I believe, quite given. It is, of course, the Government Offices and the coordination that manage that process.

I do not know and cannot comment on how long that process will take. I can only state that during the eight years I was the chairman of the municipal executive board, not many changes occurred regarding the municipal equalization system. It has been an ongoing problem for very many municipalities for very many years. Solving this in a short time may not be entirely feasible. There are also very many wills pulling in different directions in this context.

When it comes to targeted and general grants, I believe, as I also said in my speech, that the answer is not to increase the number of grants. I believe that within the state administration and within the municipal sector, we must look at how we can redistribute the resources in a different way. I believe that we should reduce both the general and the targeted grants but make it cheaper for the municipalities to create operations.

For example, we build pantries in all rooms in special housing – we have always done that. But no one uses them. The first thing that happens when a special housing facility is opened is that these pantries are turned off so that those with dementia diseases cannot use them. We continue to do this, and it costs a lot of money. But we cannot change that.

We have very many state regulations that affect the municipalities' finances. We should focus more on that, not on more grants.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, some of us here know very well how complicated the equalization system is. We had an investigation that is finished and which has submitted a proposal to the government. The starting point was that it should be implemented in January 2026. Now there is nothing on the table. Municipalities and regions out there are waiting to receive an answer. It is not enough to just say that the issue is being prepared. One must at least give some indication of when a referral or a proposal will arrive – something to hold to as the government's proposal. When can one imagine that a new equalization system can be on the table? I continue to ask the question, because the Member of Parliament should have a bit more knowledge about this than that it is just being prepared.

And number two: We do not have the same view when it comes to whether resources are needed in the welfare sector or not. I believe that quite a few out there, who are now running faster than they have ever needed to, when the queues to healthcare grow and the conditions and working conditions for many who work within the welfare sector become worse and worse, do not share the picture that resources are not needed.

But I also think it is incredibly strange that many politicians in the parties that are part of Tidögänget often only talk about small details: here something is being done, and it is problematic that money is going to this. But that millions of kronor disappear in profit or due to welfare crime, they don't seem to care about. I really think that you should tackle that instead. Then we would also get more resources for welfare.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the comments! It was a very broad palette of different things that I shall try to handle in two minutes.

When it comes to the preparation, I believe the member also understands the complexity of this change, considering that under the previous government, absolutely nothing happened regarding the municipal equalization system. So I may not agree that this is the most important thing. In a speech about details, perhaps it is a detail.

When it comes to subsidies and queues, it is an ideological discussion we are having. I think it is quite interesting. One can see how the queues have increased drastically and how the regional service here in the Stockholm region has dropped dramatically. It is simply because, for ideological reasons, one wants to phase out all private operators and thereby increase the queues.

For example, eating disorder clinics are being removed because they have a private provider. I think this is fundamentally wrong. It affects our citizens. What should be discussed is not profits in welfare, but quality and how many resources are allocated to different things. The quality for the citizens is the absolute most important thing. Who is the provider is secondary.

I think on the contrary that it is important that there are more opportunities to choose for oneself. If one is not satisfied with one type of care, one should be able to go to another type of care. It is a system that the Social Democrats do not want. We have different ideological foundations. The Social Democrats claim that everything of a private character is wrong, and I think that is something we should discuss.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I have, in a sense, lived and worked in the middle of the Swedish welfare model, which I have truly been proud of. I have worked in schools, I have worked within social services, and I have had my children within childcare – a life in the middle of the Swedish welfare model. That was why I became politically engaged, because I believe it is important that we have a strong welfare state. We know how incredibly decisive it is for equality and gender equality, and actually also for economic growth, that we have a good society to live in.

If one takes the temperature of the Swedish welfare model now, one sees that it is no longer in such good shape. Let us look a little at what the situation is in the Swedish welfare system today.

Thousands have been laid off within healthcare. This means tougher conditions for the staff, and it will become harder to get care for those who need it.

All over Sweden, cuts are being made in schools, a school that is struggling to provide everyone with a good education and which already had it a bit tough providing an equal education to all children. For the school, it has not become easier.

The reforms in elderly care, we talked a lot about during the pandemic. They were clear then. Now it seems to be forgotten that we perhaps should improve elderly care. Instead, the staff, who work at high speed to be able to provide good care to our elderly, are being reduced.

It is unevenly distributed in the list of difficulties for municipalities and regions. Some of them have it tougher than others. The situation is much tougher for many municipalities located in rural areas, which are smaller or simply have lower tax capacity than others. Therefore, we need a renewed equalization system, where we distribute the resources to municipalities and regions. But nothing such has arrived. We are waiting, but we do not know when it will come.

Then, when it is unclear and uncertain when we will get a new equalization system, the government chooses to remove the specifically targeted resources to the municipalities that are particularly struggling, namely municipalities in the countryside. This is completely unreasonable and unfair. It is also completely incomprehensible that the money is being removed in this situation. We need a good welfare across the entire country.

The conditions for all of Sweden to live and for people to have a good welfare in our entire elongated country are incredibly important. We have talked several times about whether resources are important or not. We believe that resources are crucial. That is why we constantly, also in opposition, direct money to welfare. We believe that it is crucial and plays a major role.

At the same time, the SD-led government has exactly zero kronor in state subsidies. Resources matter. They are crucial for how we are to live, and we need a more just and equal welfare across the entire country. Sweden does not benefit from us drifting apart. It is about creating equal conditions for all municipalities and regions.

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, the Act on Choice Systems, which has opened up for welfare crime and large increases in costs for interventions that simply are not carried out, as well as youth homes, so-called HVB homes, which take out million-dollar profits and are even run by criminal actors – unfortunately, there are far too many examples of how the market within welfare is a total failure.

Society is losing democratic control over welfare. Unserious actors and profit-driven corporations have moved forward their positions, with profit-seeking in welfare and increased inequalities as a consequence. Privatizations and deregulations have proven to cost money, increase inequality within healthcare and other areas, and increase segregation within the school system. Companies have been able to make profits at the expense of good quality and opened up for welfare crime.

In the school area, we are actually completely exceptional compared to all other countries. Sweden is, in fact, the only country in the world that allows private profit from the tax-funded school system. Our children's education is being sidelined.

Marketization has also entailed worsened working conditions for those who work within the welfare sector. Care is being split up, and the wallet is increasingly governing instead of the patients' needs. The pursuit of profit does not belong in Swedish welfare. Resources allocated for welfare should go to welfare itself, not to large profit withdrawals.

Madam Speaker! Sweden can truly do better than this. Our Swedish welfare model has served us well. It has given us the opportunity to have high employment, a more equal society and security for us as citizens, which in turn has led to our economic development, which has been good.

Right now, however, the Swedish welfare model is not doing so well. It would need care, attention, more resources and more equal conditions so that the money allocated to school, healthcare and elderly care actually also goes there.

Here and now, the ongoing cost crisis is leading to cuts in many places, fewer colleagues on the night shifts, and fewer nurses and nursing assistants. We see how socially important activities risk deteriorating when there are not enough resources. It is therefore important that we continue to prioritize welfare in all the ways we propose: more resources, no to profit-seeking, and resources that are distributed more equally throughout the country.

We will continue to fight for the welfare. We built up the Swedish welfare model, and we will continue to defend and develop it. We want school, elderly care, and healthcare to be universal, open to all, need-based, tax-funded, and maintain good quality. It is precisely this that the proposals and motions we are dealing with today are about. What Sweden needs are investments in welfare that create a more cohesive and equal society.

I move for approval of reservation 3 under point 2.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Member from the Social Democrats often speaks about Swedish healthcare and describes the situation as if thousands of resignations are occurring within the Swedish healthcare system.

I have actually asked the Riksdag's investigation service to check this more closely. It turns out that during 2024, a total of 297 people were sentenced across the entire kingdom within our regions, of which 200 were not personnel directly linked to Swedish healthcare. That leaves 97 people remaining, according to figures from the Riksdag's investigation service.

I would like to ask the member which figures she is referring to when she speaks of thousands of layoffs. We all understand that a number of notices have been given, but not all notices mean that staff are actually laid off in the end. I would like to have a clarification from the member there.

Another part concerns the municipalities, where, according to the Riksdag's investigation service, 675 people who are preschool teachers or childcare workers have been laid off. What the municipalities have primarily referred to is not economic reasons, but that the children's groups in the preschools are decreasing.

The Social Democrats have traditionally been a party that has promised to reduce the size of children's groups. In that case, I mean the number of children that each employee in the preschool takes care of. Now there is the opportunity to do this. Instead, the Social Democrats in municipalities across the country choose to lay off staff who could make that possible. At the same time, we lose the valuable knowledge that these people possess.

It is the case that the number of children born fluctuates and changes between years, so when the number of children then increases, this staff is no longer remaining in our preschools. What does the member from the Socialdemokraterna say about the fact that they are now not fulfilling their own election promises?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is refreshing that Member of Parliament Mattias Eriksson Falk is no longer providing examples. He usually provides exact, concrete examples of what has or has not happened in a certain municipality.

Let us talk about what is happening in healthcare! There are more layoffs – not just notices but layoffs – in healthcare. All around the country, for example in my home municipality or home region Östergötland, hundreds fewer people are working now than last year. It is not only administrators who are laid off, but it is many who no longer work with care within healthcare.

It is problematic, I think. It means that it will become tougher for those who work within healthcare. It will also mean longer queues to get care. I think that is outrageous.

I am met quite often by those who work in healthcare here in Östergötland. They come and tell me how it looks. The Member of Parliament is warmly welcome to Östergötland to experience what it is like within the health and medical care there.

I will not go into exactly how the municipalities do or do not in preschool. I think we need to provide more resources to increase the quality within preschool, regardless of what happens. The Sweden Democrats do not share that opinion because they do not provide the resources needed to strengthen the quality in either school, preschool, elderly care or healthcare.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament from the Social Democrats is now trying to mix up the cards. It is quite common from the Social Democrats' side in the debates.

They are now trying to make the preschool issue about economics, even though the municipalities themselves say that it is about the number of children having decreased and that they therefore see an opportunity to lay off staff. That is what the municipalities are communicating to the citizens.

What I am pointing out is that the Social Democrats have had as a flagship promise to reduce children's groups in the sense that the number of children that each employee takes care of is actually to decrease. Now it does not. Now it will remain at the same level because you are simultaneously laying off competence that exists in the preschools out in the municipalities. That is a fact.

The Chairman wants to highlight Östergötland as an example in this case. Figures from the Riksdag's investigation service show that 200 people have been laid off in Region Östergötland. A large proportion of them are, for example, administrators of various types.

At the same time, I can see that there are vacant jobs within the municipalities in Östergötland County. There are also such jobs in the neighboring regions and in the neighboring regions' municipalities. There are vacancies that need to be filled in municipalities that are seeking competence that is now available on the labor market. It is good, I think, that the municipalities now have the opportunity to fill the vacancies they have.

I want to stop again at the preschool. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we think it is a pity that the municipalities are not taking the chance to reduce the number of children per employee in the preschool now that the number of children attending there is decreasing. Instead, the municipalities, which are primarily Social Democratic-led, choose to lay off this competence. I and the Sweden Democrats think that is very much a pity, because it is competence that we should preserve and be able to use even in the future.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite understand the logic in what Mattias Eriksson Falk says here regarding the preschool. Does it mean, then, that he hereby promises that even if there are fewer children in the preschool, no staff within the preschool will be laid off in any of the municipalities governed by the Sverigedemokraterna? That is how I perceive what Mattias Eriksson Falk says.

I want to stick to the healthcare because Mattias Eriksson Falk says that only 200 people have been laid off within healthcare in Östergötland. Yes, that is true. It is approximately 200 people who have been laid off. But I have never stuck solely to that, but rather I have said that fewer people work in total within healthcare in Östergötland. Those figures perhaps Mattias Eriksson Falk has not looked at.

What has been done in the regions is that they have not appointed staff when others have left. When people have retired or otherwise left, they have not appointed more. They waited with the layoffs, and then they just laid off 200 people. It sounded a bit nice, but in total, there are hundreds more who have not been appointed. This means that there are approximately 800 fewer – I cannot give the exact figures – working within healthcare in Östergötland today than a year ago. That is the problem, not just how many who have been laid off, because those hundreds of people who previously worked within healthcare were needed. But now there are no resources to be able to keep them, and that means major consequences within healthcare. Above all, we see that it means major problems within psychiatry in Östergötland for people who are having a very tough time. That is something you have to take responsibility for when you do not prioritize healthcare.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Eva Lindh and I have just had a debate and discussion regarding welfare, and there were a few things in the member's speech that I reacted to a bit.

I want to start by saying that we are in complete agreement that good quality is what is crucial. That is what we shall strive for. Good quality in the work, regardless of who does it and regardless of how it is done, is the goal in order to deliver benefit to our citizens.

I naturally also agree with the member that welfare crime can never be acceptable. It is unfortunately an increasing problem, which the government has taken action against, for example by introducing a payment authority to keep track of which resources are going out into the welfare system.

What I object to is when the member, in his rhetoric, equates profits for companies with welfare crime. I want to point out that profits for companies are the basis for all welfare. I, and our government constellation, believe in free enterprise even when it concerns welfare and that type of activity. Without profits in welfare, and without profits in society overall, the country will not move forward – we believe. One may possibly have a different opinion if one is a social democrat.

Is it the case that the member proposes that we should ban all private execution in order to reduce welfare crime? Is that a correct interpretation of the member's statement?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the questions, as I evidently need to clarify a number of things.

When it comes to the Swedish Payments Authority, we are in no way in disagreement. It was we who proposed and introduced the Swedish Payments Authority, and we think this is very good. We will continue to stand behind the Swedish Payments Authority and its development. I believe that we also still need to talk about whether there are more things the Swedish Payments Authority could consider taking care of. We absolutely stand behind the Swedish Payments Authority. It is an authority that has been introduced precisely to get control, so to speak.

Are profits the same thing as welfare crime? No, that is not what I mean. It is good that I get to clarify this. However, I am against profit-seeking and profit extraction. Sometimes people try to talk about how we would be against the need for money to invest in the operations, but that is both good and obvious. What I, and all of us, are strongly critical of is that money is taken out of the operations that should have gone to the important school, the important elderly care, or other things.

I mean that not enough is being done to curb welfare crime. We need to seriously address some of the legislation that allows for welfare crime. On that point, we clearly disagree completely. The law on choice systems, for example, provides opportunities for welfare crime. We therefore need to review that legislation – and also remove it – in order to prevent these opportunities for welfare crime.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the clarification that welfare crime and entrepreneurship are not the same thing. I think this is extremely important and cannot be emphasized enough in this debate. Often it becomes a misinterpretation – perhaps deliberately.

When it comes to profits in welfare, profit in a company is a sign of efficiency. The fact that more resources are allocated to a process does not necessarily mean that more utility is generated. That municipal activity is not measured by profit is a problem. I say what I started with saying again: What we should devote ourselves to is the quality of the execution. It is the delivery that is important, and measuring the delivery. It is measuring resource consumption with output. That generates a profit.

I turn to all parts where we do not get value for money, regardless of whether the execution is private, municipal, or regional. The problem is that we devote very little to regional and municipal efficiency and much more to demanding that no profits should be made.

I grew up in a society where we could choose which school we wanted, as long as it was a state school. There were no other schools to choose from. We in our party began the journey with the idea that one should actually be able to choose a school. We can take Nacka as a good example. I think this is immensely important.

I believe that mixing up welfare crime, profits, and freedom of choice is very unfortunate. I believe that most in our country want to be able to choose which doctor they should go to, and they want to choose providers for home care. I also believe that the home care staff who perhaps form their own company for the first time should be able to do so and deliver benefit to the elderly in that municipality.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Not all entrepreneurs are, of course, criminals or engage in welfare crime. There are incredibly many serious entrepreneurs who do a very important job and who truly make an effort. It is not them we are talking about here.

We know, however, that most criminal organizations also engage in business. It is a problem that we must do something about. This also affects the serious entrepreneurs – if we are to talk about business. It is very difficult to compete with criminal actors. We must do something seriously about welfare crime and crime in our country.

When it comes to the profits, I do not see it as merely a sign of good quality that one has been able to drive up the profits. On the contrary, the profits have many times been made at the expense of the operations. I do not think it is okay that one, for example, has a "joy grade" at a school in order to attract more students. It increases the profits for the one who runs the school. It is not okay.

For me, the most important thing is that students receive a good education, that the elderly receive good care, and that care is provided based on need. We see that this is thinned out when the pursuit of profit receives the highest focus. It is this that I want to address. I want to address the pursuit of profit in welfare, and I want to address the welfare crime in welfare. Then we would get more resources for what welfare is intended for: good quality for everyone.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats return many times to the profits. I see it as a concern how this is described. Generally speaking, profit is something quite natural when one looks at how companies are run. For a municipal school with municipal responsibility, the problem with losses is actually a greater concern. When schools such as, for example, John Bauergymnasiet went bankrupt, the municipal school very quickly faced an enormous problem.

On the other hand, I think one should have a child's perspective. If there are a smaller number of private providers, one can as a parent, together with the child, choose a private alternative. One must know that the municipal activity is not one hundred percent. It is a great advantage in a municipality to have the possibility to make an active choice for something else – a positive choice.

One must also not forget that the duty of care still lies with the municipality, Madam Speaker. If one sees an activity that is not functioning well, the municipality has a personal responsibility. The School Inspectorate is the guarantor that the activity is conducted at a good level. The School Inspectorate has views on both private and municipal providers. I think it would be good to have a bit more balance in this.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anders Karlsson, for the opportunity to speak about this! You have many points of view, but also many slightly more debating and discussing questions.

We Social Democrats naturally understand that companies need to invest in their operations. This is not the problem and is not what we are talking about. We are talking about that we have a system within, for example, the school area that is completely exceptional in an international comparison. That one can make private profit withdrawals from tax-funded school is problematic in itself. If one takes money out of the school and drives up the profit by, for example, reducing student health services, not having school libraries and driving up "joy grades" – if one does not do what is actually best for the students – it is a problem.

I have worked in schools for quite a few years and also see what this entails in many other ways. We have a free school system that does not function so well. We must address the pursuit of profit in, for example, schools.

Anders Karlsson said that the losses are a greater concern. I absolutely think that it is a problem with losses, because if the school no longer exists, the municipality must step in and save those students whose school education is interrupted. It is a huge problem, but it stems from the pursuit of profit and from the fact that we have this system.

It is absolutely a problem with losses, but I and the Social Democrats also think that the pursuit of profit is a problem. We must take back the democratic control.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! For me, Member Eva Lindh's description of profit-seeking approaches a ban on thought. It has not been defined what hunting actually is.

Profit in welfare is something else, which is natural when running a company. I think it is more honest to say that one does not want any private activity at all than to say that a company should not be allowed to make a profit in a privately executed part. It is not possible to run an activity that is not allowed to make a profit. There, I think the member is wrong in her view on private companies, and I would like to hear her reflect on this.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by answering something that Anders Karlsson raised in his previous question, namely this issue regarding the risk of detection. Of course, we must follow up on all activities; it is very important. There must be a risk of detection when it comes to crime. However, we cannot follow up on everything; instead, we must access the systems.

That is why we turn towards the market failure that it actually concerns in many areas. Welfare is not a market that functions like all others. It is not possible to make any amount of profit without the quality being affected. Our parties have different views on this.

For me, it is a problem that the marketization in the welfare area has not only resulted in problems for students and the elderly but has also resulted in worsened working conditions and other things. We need to do something about it.

I do not think that Anders Karlsson and I will agree here today, but rather it will be a clarification of what we think. Of course, we need to continue to follow up on the operations. We must have a focus on quality. We cannot have profit-seeking in Swedish welfare, because profit-seeking means that resources that should have gone to welfare are removed. It also entails other consequences that are not good for welfare, so do something about the systems!

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! In the municipalities, we build Sweden, said the Christian Democrats' first party leader Birger Ekstedt. So right he was! It is out in Kommunsverige that the welfare is built. It is there that we create the conditions for a good life and take responsibility for many of the social problems and challenges we have to manage.

We see, however, that municipalities have different circumstances, and therefore we safeguard municipal self-government. Decisions become better when they are made close to the citizens they affect. The Christian Democrats believe in the subsidiarity principle, which means that decisions should be made at the lowest appropriate level in society, from the family's kitchen table all the way up to the EU level.

Madam Speaker! Upon taking office, the Government inherited a municipal sector in free fall. Inflation and expensive pension agreements caused large holes in municipal budgets. The most important thing we have been able to do for the finances of municipalities and regions is to pursue a policy that combats inflation. Now we also see that the Government's policy has yielded results and that inflation has gone down.

Last year we invested 16 billion on welfare, which was nearly half of the total space. It was the absolute largest investment in the budget. Of these 16 billion, 6 billion went to the regions for healthcare, of which 3 billion were as sector grants. An additional 6 billion were added to healthcare through the healthcare reform budget, which was the single largest investment there.

The government cannot compensate for all the price increases that have occurred, but it has not left welfare or households in the lurch – on the contrary. The government's most important contribution to the municipal sector's economy is perhaps not individual initiatives. It may instead be the balanced and cautiously offensive economic policy of not promising everything to everyone but prioritizing the core of welfare, supporting the most vulnerable groups, and fighting inflation to put a stop to the cost increases.

Thanks to the government's economic policy, the municipal sector's costs have decreased by nearly 50 billion for this year. It is the single most important reason why the municipalities' finances have turned from a deficit to a surplus. SKR expects that the regions' combined results will turn from a deficit to a small surplus for 2025 and that the municipalities' results will improve significantly to over 25 billion per year in the coming years.

Despite this, the government continues to invest. However, we choose to prioritize and invest where we believe we will get the most value for money. In the government's budget for this year, the investments in the core of the welfare system continue.

The government's investments in the healthcare area amount to a total of 18 billion this year. In the budget, the government allocates 7.5 billion to increased care capacity, 2 billion in sector grants, 250 million to national care coordination, 3.8 billion to the transition to good and close care as well as an expanded primary care, 1.7 billion for civil defense within health and medical care, 1.6 billion for equal care, women's health and maternity care, 1 billion for measures for better cancer care, and 480 million for competence supply within health and medical care. These are some of the measures that the government supports within welfare.

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned earlier, the subsidiarity principle is important for us Christian Democrats. At the municipal level, it means that we safeguard municipal self-government, which means that the municipalities have great responsibility and room for maneuver to manage many issues locally. The government, however, supports welfare and households when needed and has made major investments during these years.

The question is whether one should have targeted or general state grants. We can observe that there are fewer targeted state grants now than in 2018, and the government's direction is also to reduce the number of targeted state grants to give the municipalities greater flexibility. In some situations, however, it can be justified to have targeted state grants for specific purposes or to achieve certain results. Even more important are perhaps the performance-based state grants which, for example, stimulate increased productivity or more care. This concerns, for example, the "kömiljard" (queue billion) which was introduced and later increased. It is one of the reforms that has yielded the most results when it comes to shortening care queues and obtaining more accessible care.

Madam Speaker! The economic conditions of the municipal sector are largely influenced by the development of the tax base, which in turn is influenced by how much people work. The Government argues that the policy pursued through a re-established work line and an improved business climate is of great importance for the municipalities' economic conditions.

The equalization system is important to provide the municipalities with good conditions regardless of where in the country they are located, what the demographics look like, and what the future holds. It is about being able to perform what is the main mission of all Sweden's municipalities: to ensure that there is welfare for the citizens to rely on when they need it and the opportunity to develop and grow so that everyone can participate and contribute to the social community we so much need.

The parliamentary commission that has reviewed this recently submitted its report on measures to address the inequalities that exist between the municipalities. The committee's assessment is that continuous efficiency work is being carried out in the municipal sector, but that measures need to be taken to reduce the differences. It is also important that there are factors that promote growth and efficiency in the municipal sector so that there are clear incentives to work with efficiency and digitalization in the municipal sector.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Finance's report number 26 on municipal issues. Within the scope of municipal issues, there are quite many different proposals and questions that are debated and examined by the Riksdag.

On behalf of the Sweden Democrats, I will initially speak about municipal supervision fees, that is to say the fees that municipalities have the possibility to charge business owners for various forms of supervision that occur from the municipality's side – or yes, at least supervision that is intended to occur. It is primarily the latter that makes the Sweden Democrats' proposal to introduce a legal requirement for the deferred payment of supervision fees need to become a reality. It is about creating both predictability for our business owners and equality within the framework of the municipal supervision and between different business owners within the same industry.

I can understand and agree that entrepreneurs who conduct activities subject to legislation on supervision find it extremely strange that they pay for inspections that never take place or pay as much for the supervision as companies that have, for example, deficient reporting and documentation – this is in addition to the fact that they must pay the supervision fees in advance. It is not reasonable that conscientious entrepreneurs end up in this situation in relation to both the public sector and those who do not behave properly.

The Sweden Democrats want to create predictability and increased clarity in how the work of supervision is carried out and how the fees for this supervision are collected. Therefore, I move for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation, number 5, in this report.

Madam Speaker! I began my speech by saying that within the words municipal issues, there is quite a lot, and there is very much that we can and should debate here in our elected parliament. We are now a little over 2 ½ years from the historical shift in power after the 2022 election. After a little over eight years of government tenure by the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, the Sverigedemokraterna together with the government took over the responsibility for Sweden. We did so in a situation with sky-high inflation, sky-high fuel prices, and sky-high prices on electricity. The Swedish population and the entire public Sweden had it tough under the previous S-MP government.

It was no coincidence that there were sky-high prices during an S-MP government with the support of Vänsterpartiet and Centerpartiet. These parties raised the reduction obligation to extreme levels. Fuel prices skyrocketed, and transport and even food production became more expensive. Consequently, there was also less money in ordinary people's wallets. New, stricter regulations on the food sector also contributed to driving up the costs of food. At the same time, by a margin of one vote here in the Riksdag, a number of nuclear reactors were shut down. The consequence was a capacity shortage in southern Sweden and extremely high energy prices.

All this combined contributed to raising costs for both private individuals and the public Sweden. Whether it was about buying groceries, fueling home care cars, running public transport, commuting to work, or keeping the public baths open so that children could learn to swim, the Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet made this more expensive in Sweden with their anti-Sweden policy – for that is exactly what it was.

With Sweden Democrats' policy, Sweden today has lower fuel prices, approximately 10 kronor lower directly at the pump, and more stable electricity prices. The tax on agricultural diesel has been lowered to keep production costs down, but unfortunately, it does not help for food that is imported. We are also trying to counteract unnecessary regulations that drive up production costs and thus also the costs for the public sector.

As a comparison: Thanks to the Sweden Democrats' policy, it now costs a family approximately 5,000 kronor less to refuel 500 liters of diesel. In the same way, the trucking companies that perform transports have received significantly reduced fuel costs. This also applies to companies that perform various services every day around Sweden, not least on behalf of the public sector.

All of this affects our citizens and our public sector positively. More remains to be done, but by cleaning away the Sweden-hostile policy one step at a time, we have begun the improvement for our citizens and our public sector.

Madam Speaker! To strengthen the municipal sector, the Sweden Democrats and the government have provided record-high support to municipalities and regions. Both the general support and the targeted support have increased significantly since the change of power in 2022. Now that the costs for pensions are decreasing in municipalities and regions, the general support remains at the same level, which contributes to further strengthening public Sweden.

The regions themselves assess that they will achieve a combined surplus of 2.6 billion this year, 11.4 billion in 2026, and 10.2 billion in 2027. In other words, the surplus, or the positive outcome if one wishes, amounts to approximately 24 billion kronor over the next three years for all of Sweden's regions combined.

Madam Speaker! We have strengthened the municipalities' responsibility for crime prevention work. At the same time, we have facilitated for the municipalities to carry out this work. As recently as last week, the Riksdag decided on legislative changes that facilitate camera surveillance. This will make it easier to prevent, detect, and investigate crimes and thereby create a safer society. It will also contribute to getting individuals convicted and thereby give crime victims redress.

Swedish migration policy has been restructured. Despite the levels for the number of asylum seekers being at the same levels as in 2015 in the rest of the EU, Sweden is now at the lowest level since the 1980s. It is a consequence of the fact that the Sweden Democrats' migration policy is now becoming a reality and, furthermore, is receiving increasing support among the citizens.

The open borders we saw under the Social Democrats' and the Centre Party's policy are now but a memory. However, it is at the same time a warning of what a change of power in 2026 would mean if their policy with 100,000–150,000 asylum seekers annually becomes reality again. It would mean approximately 400,000–600,000 asylum seekers for the coming parliamentary term.

In the same way that they want to raise fuel prices, shut down the remaining nuclear power, and increase the number of regulations for agriculture, they want to increase the number of asylum seekers in Sweden. They want to ease the rules for family immigration and reduce the requirements for those who come to our country.

What it will mean for our country, our municipalities and regions can be easily envisioned. It would mean more exclusion, more ground for organized crime, housing shortages, lack of space in schools, more money for lavish subsidies and a healthcare system that cracks under the pressure from hundreds of thousands of new people. It is a clear signal to the voters about what awaits in a change of power if the red-greens regain influence over Swedish politics.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government have made it more attractive to work in Sweden by lowering taxes for low- and middle-income earners, while we have, among other things, increased the threshold for when one pays state tax on their income.

It contributes to increasing the number of hours worked in society. This, in turn, means that our welfare receives more tax in the end, even if individual persons get to keep more of their income, which is reasonable and right.

That is why I view with great concern how, among others, the Social Democrats now year after year proceed with proposals to freeze the upward adjustment of the threshold for when one should pay state tax on one's income.

When one does not increase the threshold for state tax, it means that the number of people who will have to pay state tax every year will increase in line with wage increases.

It is about our staff in the public sector such as nurses, midwives and doctors. It is about principals who have the ultimate responsibility for our schools, and it is about the construction and civil engineering workers who, on behalf of our municipalities and regions, build schools, hospitals and apartments.

If the Social Democrats' proposal not to increase the threshold for state tax becomes a reality, it would mean that until 2028, approximately 530,000 more people in Sweden would pay state tax on their income. Over half a million more people would thus start paying state tax on their income with the Social Democrats' proposal.

The number of nurses who pay state tax would increase from 20,500 to 44,100 people. The number of midwives who pay state tax would increase from 1,600 to 3,200 people. The number of principals who pay state tax would increase from 9,300 to 12,100 people. The number of construction and civil engineering workers who pay state tax would increase from 11,100 people to 34,200 people.

In other words, there would be a doubling of the number of nurses and midwives who pay state tax, and for our construction and civil engineering workers, the number of people who pay state tax would increase by 300 percent.

The next time you hear the Social Democrats talk about state tax, it is you in the public sector – such as nurses, midwives, doctors and principals – who will have to pay state tax, or even more state tax than you do today. It is you that the Social Democrats are referring to when they do not want to change the threshold for when one pays state tax.

The same applies to you who build our schools and hospitals. It is your income that the Social Democrats want to tax more heavily. Think about that when you make your choice in 2026.

Everything I have just mentioned is relevant for our municipal sector. When the Social Democrats want to increase the tax for staff in welfare professions, yes, then as a consequence the attractiveness of these professions will also decrease. It will become more difficult to recruit staff within our public sector.

Citizens of Sweden: Say no to the Social Democrats' proposal to significantly raise taxes for our welfare workers and for those who build our schools, hospitals and elderly care homes or build our roads and railways!

Let us instead contribute to people being able to keep more of their income. Let us increase the number of hours worked in our country and in that way also ensure that we receive new resources for our welfare while simultaneously making it attractive to work in it.

It is good policy for our citizens, and it is good policy for Sweden.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Mattias Eriksson Falk takes it further when he describes our party's policy as a Sweden-hostile policy. Of course, we do not have that.

The member is also completely wrong regarding the energy tax for electricity. It has always been a 100 percent deduction for agriculture. The member should also know that regarding the change the member mentioned for diesel, it was also largely fully deductible in the past.

The diesel price is a fairly small total cost for food production. I will not accuse Member Mattias Eriksson Falk for the high food prices right now. It is other things such as market prices that play a role and that happened before the government took office and that happened after.

The member made a big deal out of the fact that the reduction obligation was removed. At the same time, we now see that the member understands that one is forced to restore the reduction obligation to some extent. It is probably not sufficient, and here, large penalty costs await in the future. We must take that into account when we look at the calculations being made right now.

Nuclear power was phased out on commercial grounds. I just want to emphasize that for the member.

When it comes to the money for the municipalities, the member speaks of injecting money. I want to assert that one has reduced the pace of injecting money to the municipalities.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member for the questions!

We can start with the cost linked to food production within our agricultural sector. That is part of it. But it also relates to the fact that costs are increasing for transport and for the individual people who are going to the grocery store to buy the food items.

All of this, in its context, drives up the total costs. It is when production costs increase, transport costs increase, and the costs for the individual person increase.

That is what we have tried to address. It is also what we addressed when we reduced the reduction obligation. Of course, we have had to agree to a certain increase, but we compensate for it by instead lowering the tax on fuel so that the cost is still kept lower.

What has been the Sverigedemokraternas entry into this is that the costs for the fuel should decrease, and we have succeeded with that. I am very pleased about that.

When it comes to nuclear power, I have many times heard from certain parties that it is argued that a closure has occurred on commercial grounds. At the same time, there was a vote in the Riksdag, where the Sverigedemokraterna were a party that voted for us to retain the nuclear reactors that are now closed.

The claim that it happens on commercial grounds is a truth with modifications. Legislation was introduced that made it more expensive for nuclear power to exist in Sweden. From that perspective, there are commercial grounds, yes.

But the politics under the previous government could have handled it if it had been desired that nuclear power should have been given reasonable conditions in relation to other types of energy.

It was conscious political decisions that ultimately led to the closure of nuclear power. This applies in particular to the vote here in the Riksdag.

I believe that was an answer to what the member mentioned. Otherwise, the member may repeat it.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The member is changing tracks slightly when it comes to the cost for the consumer to purchase their groceries and the transport to the store. This happens in very many different ways. It can happen via the subway, via an electric car, or in other ways when one purchases their groceries.

When it comes to electricity, the member has been diligent in increasing the cost of owning an electric car, which will be the future way of transporting oneself. It is a somewhat backward policy, Madam Speaker, which I see in the member's way of approaching future problems.

When it comes to nuclear power, we are creating the conditions for the type of technology that is to be dominant moving forward. Nuclear power was chosen to be decommissioned because it was not commercially viable. It was obsolete at the facilities that were relevant at that time.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker and Member! The Member mentioned that, for example, one can buy groceries when taking the subway. The Center Party has its largest voter base in the large cities, so I understand that one has that perspective when looking at the city of Stockholm.

The Sweden Democrats' view on fuel costs is linked to rural and remote areas, where people need the car to get to the grocery store and work or whatever it is they need to do, for example, taking children to a practice. From that perspective, we need lowered fuel prices so that there are reasonable conditions for people living in rural and remote areas to be able to do these things.

This is what we have contributed to now that we have lowered the price of gasoline and diesel. As I mentioned, we have lowered the price of diesel by approximately 10 kronor at the pump since the election. It is something that I and the Sverigedemokraterna are naturally very proud of.

When it comes to nuclear power, one can, as said, refer to commercial grounds, but one introduced legislation that made it expensive to operate nuclear power in relation to other types of energy. It is in that case what justifies the commercial grounds. But this could have been changed by adjusting the legislation during the last parliamentary term. One chose not to do so, and I honestly do not know why. It may be because one actually does not like nuclear power, but the population wants it to remain in Sweden.

The second part when it comes to nuclear power is, as I said, that we had a vote here in the Swedish Riksdag during the previous mandate period where it was one vote that decided in favor of nuclear reactors being shut down. It is nuclear reactors that we would have wanted today, not least to contribute to a green transition and create conditions to, for example, produce electricity but also to be able to use it.

It concerns above all in southern Sweden, where we today see a capacity shortage that results in electricity having to be transferred from northern Sweden, with the consequence that prices increase sharply due to bottlenecks in the system. These were the consequences of the red-green politics during the last parliamentary term. Now we are trying to clean this up.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request a reply to Member of Parliament Mattias Eriksson Falk's speech this time. We have had quite a few exchanges of replies in this chamber. But enough is enough with the false claims! What Mattias Eriksson Falk stands here and says actually cannot go unchallenged.

I will only devote myself to a couple of small things of all that was touched upon in the speech, which concerned how terrible it would become with Social Democratic policy. I believe that most would think it would be quite good with a more just, equal, egalitarian and green policy, so I will leave this unsaid.

I will, however, bring up a few other things. I thought, nevertheless, that Mattias Eriksson Falk would stop dealing with this matter regarding the threshold. He was also dealing with it in the previous exchange of remarks we had, during the autumn of 2024. It concerns a difference of 6 billion kronor in income to the state. Those are funds that we can use for the welfare system. I believe that quite a few who work within the welfare system would have thought that would be good.

Now Mattias Eriksson Falk stands here and mentions profession after profession and talks about everyone who works within the welfare sector. Last time, for example, he mentioned nursing assistants and healthcare assistants. Does Mattias Eriksson Falk know how much nursing assistants and healthcare assistants earn? 98 percent do not even come close to the threshold. 96 percent of teachers are not affected by the threshold at all. These are quite large parts of those who work within the welfare sector, but Mattias Eriksson Falk apparently does not care about them.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member mentioned that enough is enough. I shall correct the member immediately and say that I made a historical review of what a discontinued upward adjustment of the threshold for state tax would entail. If we look back to 2001, the threshold would have been at approximately 20,000 kronor if it had not been adjusted upward, which the Social Democrats now want to stop doing in the future.

The Social Democrats have submitted proposals on this for 2024 and 2025, and we will guaranteed see more of it ahead. It would, as I mentioned, have affected almost all welfare workers if the threshold had not been increased at all since 2001. It is the type of policy that the Social Democrats now want to pursue, and I gave a historical perspective on what it would mean for workers in Sweden.

Those who wonder can check the Social Democrats' budget, where you wanted a frozen salary ceiling both last year and this year. You will likely want it in the future as well, because that is the policy you are now pursuing. I informed about what it will mean for welfare workers, nurses and midwives, and for construction and civil engineering workers when you freeze the ceiling. I spoke about how many more who will pay state tax with your policy, because that is what this will lead to.

The members of the government themselves said that this would have meant more income for the state, and they come from the fact that there will be more state tax on the incomes of welfare workers. I pointed out good alternatives to this and said that it is nurses and midwives who will have to pay more in state tax with your policy.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Mattias Eriksson Falk says that this is hypothetical and that it is only a calculation example of how it could have been. One must say that it is an innovative debating technique. I would like to call it a lie, because it hasn't happened. What Mattias Eriksson Falk is doing is trying to point out something that is actually not reality, which is poorly done.

What we are talking about now and which applies for this year is that we did not increase the threshold. It is a choice, because we think it is important to increase the resources for welfare as it looks right now. Then we would not need to have the healthcare crisis that we have right now and not need to reduce the quality within welfare.

Then we would also not have to betray the countryside in the way that the Sverigedemokraterna are doing now. You are removing specifically targeted resources that would have gone to welfare in the municipalities that have it toughest in the countryside. You are removing specifically targeted measures to increase entrepreneurship in the countryside. You are removing service offices, which are now being closed down. They could have helped people who live in the countryside and given the support that the service offices have given.

Instead, Mattias Eriksson Falk engages in hypothetical calculations in order to be able to blow blue haze into the voters' eyes. He makes false claims.

Furthermore: Mattias Eriksson Falk says that it is 5,000 less in costs for gasoline and diesel. It is 30,000 more in increased food prices over a year. I believe that it is also quite tough for many.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! As I stated in my contribution, the Social Democrats have now for two consecutive years proposed that the upward adjustment of the threshold for state tax should be frozen, that is to say, that it simply should not occur. I informed the voters of what it will mean in the event of a change of power when Social Democratic policy becomes a reality, if that should happen in 2026, and onwards during the mandate period when one chooses to freeze the upward adjustment of the threshold and how many more would then need to pay state tax – nurses, midwives, principals and doctors but also construction and civil engineering workers. The number of construction and civil engineering workers who pay state tax would increase by over 300 percent.

This is your own policy. You want to freeze the upward adjustment of the threshold for the state tax. It is in your budget. You have also spoken warmly about it yourselves – the member did so just now in the exchange of remarks. It is more state tax from a part of the welfare workers that you want to extract. It is them you turn to. You want to raise the tax for nurses, midwives, doctors, principals, and construction and civil engineering workers. It is all those who work in the welfare sector or contribute to building hospitals, schools, and elderly care homes who will have to pay more in state tax next mandate period with your policy if there is a change of power.

I think the voters need to know it. They need to know what a change of power would actually mean so that they can take a stand on what your politics would mean for them and their incomes when they decrease because you want to place additional tax burdens on the welfare workers.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I am usually a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and am joining this debate as a substitute in the Committee on Finance. I have been an active substitute in the Committee on Finance before, and one recognizes certain parts of the debate. Other parts are a bit new.

I will try to stick to the matter at hand. I thought that the debate here earlier was possibly a bit too far from the report we have before us. I will not comment on either nuclear power, diesel prices, or other things that do not directly concern the financing of our municipalities and their important operations.

With that said, I still think a perspective has been missing in this debate, a perspective that I, as a member of the Committee on Taxation and the Committee on Enterprise and as a working substitute in the Committee on Finance, always thought was important to include. It is: Whose money is it that we are talking about?

Sometimes it can sound – and I believe many who are watching this debate also think so – as if we politicians are discussing that we should take state money and let it go to a municipality, to a region, or to a reform or an investment at the state level. We must, however, remember that it is always someone else's money. It is always a citizen who has worked hard to create the value that we then tax and the money that we then use. It is always an enterprising person who has gone to work, innovated, or created something from scratch that makes it so that there is money to take.

There needs to be prosperity for us to be able to have a welfare. That is the foundation. The foundation of everything we do in this chamber is to ensure that there is prosperity by letting people be free and creating it.

The Liberals are for general state subsidies to the municipalities. We think that it is fundamentally positive. We think, however, and it is important to emphasize, that one must let resources go hand in hand with reforms. One cannot just give more money, but one must simultaneously have a reform pressure that ensures money is used in a more efficient way. Tax crowns must be used wisely.

There is a great deal of waste of tax money at all levels. It is natural. Bureaucracies tend to swell, whether it is bureaucracies at the municipal level, regional level, state level or EU level. It is in the nature of the matter. Therefore, one needs to constantly have a pressure for reform.

However, it does not mean that resources are not needed, on the contrary. Resources are needed, but it must go hand in hand with reforms so that we can counter waste of tax money and use the resources in a wise way.

Madam Speaker! Earlier in the debate, we spoke about welfare crimes. It is also a very important discussion to have. It can be individuals, companies, or criminal gangs that organize themselves to steal money or defraud municipalities and regions of money, for example. It is an incredibly serious crime. It must be combated.

Once again, I want to remind the Chamber and those of you watching the debate from home that it is not the municipalities that are the victims when it comes to welfare crime, but the taxpayers—the people who have worked and whose money we have then taken to distribute to the important services that municipalities and regions perform. They are the victims of crime when it comes to this type of crime, and we must not forget that. It is important.

Madam Speaker! More money may be necessary, but it does not solve the problems. What solves the problems are reforms together with resources. School is a very good example of that. We believe that more resources are needed for the school. That is obvious. But it is also obvious that the school needs reforms so that the resources are used in an effective way.

Madam Speaker! I, who am jumping into this debate from other committees, can inform that regardless of which debate one jumps into – I usually can jump into debates in different committees – all members would like to have more resources specifically for their areas. It is not so strange. If one is working on an issue, one thinks that it is very important. One learns, gets involved, finds out details, makes study trips, and sees problems that those who are not working on the issue perhaps do not see. Then one will perhaps also want to give more resources to this.

Politics, however, is about prioritizing. It is about the fact that needs are always infinite but resources are finite. Therefore, it is important that while we talk about resources and how they should be distributed, we also talk about the fact that we must have more growth. The wheels must turn faster. We must have more work in the economy.

Growth is nothing strange. The economy is actually that people work and cooperate. That is what we call the economy. If one works and cooperates a little more than one did the year before, produces a little more, does it a little more efficiently and does it a little better, it is called growth. Growth is nothing scary but something that happens naturally in a free economy when we become a little better. It is therefore just about us becoming a little better and more efficient.

It also means that we get more resources. It is for that reason, Madam Speaker, that the municipal equalization system must never be designed in a way that is growth-inhibiting. If one inhibits growth today, one gets less money to distribute tomorrow. If we get less prosperity today, we have less welfare tomorrow. That is the direct connection. We must never inhibit growth.

We must do our homework and ensure that there is a municipal equalization system that works. The municipalities in Sweden – it makes no difference to the taxpayers whether they pay their money to the state or to the municipality, and it is from their perspective that we should debate these issues – must also do their homework and ensure that they work in an efficient manner and that there is no waste of tax money. They must stick to the core of the welfare, prioritize the tasks that we actually have municipalities to perform, and not do a lot of things outside of that and expect someone else to pay.

Let me, without being private, give a personal example. I went to primary school in a social democratic municipality with a social democratic district committee – thus I may reveal that it was in Stockholm. At that time, there was a project that the Social Democrats were engaged in. In a few schools, there were local school boards with a majority of students and parents.

I sat on such a board. I, a friend, and our parents had a majority in our local school board. And so we had a small equalization system between the schools. If we had a surplus at our school, a school located near us received a share of that surplus to finance its deficit, or vice versa.

At its core, it was a pretty good idea. But since as a teenager one starts to discover things happening outside one's own school, we also began to discover what they did with the money at this other school that was running at a deficit. It wasn't that they ran at a deficit just because they needed to repair windows, buy literature for the school library, or have better school meals. It was also that they arranged fun days where all students got to jump in a bouncy castle. They engaged in a lot of things that were outside the school's core task but that we were never given the pleasure of doing at our school.

Well, I can say we became irritated in the local school board. Thanks to the Social Democrats, who had let us decide locally at our school, we ensured that the money was used to invest in what is the school's core task instead of it becoming a surplus that went to a school that wasted the money.

That is exactly how one must think about the equalization system between municipalities. If one sticks to its core task, invests in it, and ensures that it is managed in an efficient way, one should be rewarded. But if one does not behave and does things outside the core task, one should not be rewarded. Then it is growth-inhibiting. One must prioritize the core of the welfare.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report. Do not forget to allocate resources for reforms, but one also cannot distribute resources without implementing reforms.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! The cuts continue in the hospitals, elderly care is still understaffed, and teachers do not receive the resources they need to do a good job in the classrooms. Instead of ensuring that welfare received prioritized resources, the government and the Sweden Democrats prioritized tax cuts in the budget for 2025.

Despite the fact that healthcare is in crisis, the government and the Sweden Democrats choose instead to pour money into the very richest. The constant underfunding of municipal and regional operations leads to a very high workload, which in turn contributes to high sickness rates.

Sickness absence affects what the welfare can deliver in the next step and simultaneously represents a large cost for society. The municipal and regional sectors have the highest number of sick leave days per employed person of all sectors. 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 shortage, and the few who remain have to push themselves a little more and risk becoming sick leave themselves in turn.

Madam Speaker! During 2024, 133 municipalities ran with a deficit, an increase of 53 municipalities since 2023. A total of 16 of the country's 21 regions ran with a deficit, and almost all also ran with a deficit in 2023. These are large deficits that municipalities and regions must now work off at the same time as inflation increases more than tax revenues.

More cuts are to be expected. It is not possible to save by means of 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 raised ticket prices in public transport. 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 schools and activities for young people. When gang violence terrorizes our society with bombings and shootings, a government is needed that rolls up its sleeves and invests what is required to put a stop to the gangs. A government is needed that allocates resources to social services to ensure that youth at risk end up in the right place.

The welfare sector has been underfunded for a long time and is now falling apart completely. For welfare 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. In the uneasy times we live in right now, welfare must function. When the defense is being reinforced, we must also ensure that the civil defense, in the form of a functioning society, is also reinforced.

In January this year, approximately 40 percent of those who had waited in the healthcare queues had waited longer than the 90 days that the healthcare guarantee says one should wait at most. The few billions that the government has allocated to shorten the healthcare queues are not enough because that supplement is less than the regions' deficit. Instead, it becomes, at best, a brake on the planned cuts, but the cuts will continue with the government's budget.

Vänsterpartiet proposed in its budget a recovery support to municipalities and regions. Had Vänsterpartiet's budget passed, municipalities and regions would have received 20 billion more in general state grants as well as an additional 5 billion in sector support to healthcare beyond what the government gave.

When people find it harder to manage everyday life due to rising prices, not least food prices, the need for the welfare system to function also increases. For example, more children are eating at school now than before, while several school kitchens testify that they are revising the menus and finding it harder to follow nutritional guidelines when food prices increase more than the appropriations. When the food at home is not enough, it should be extra important that the food in school is healthy and nutritious.

Madam Speaker! The ten municipalities with the lowest tax are found in Region Skåne and in Stockholm County. The ten with the highest tax are small municipalities in the countryside, and the majority are located in northern Sweden. The municipalities that can have low tax are all in densely populated areas with well-paid jobs within a short commuting distance, while the municipalities that have high tax are rural municipalities. The tax base is unevenly distributed across the country, and the differences in tax rates show that we do not have a redistribution system that distributes sufficiently well.

Last year, the tax difference between the municipality with the lowest total tax and the one with the highest tax increased to 6.32 kronor. It is the same this year. We can also see that several regions and municipalities this year have been forced to raise the tax in order to make the finances balance.

We cannot have a Sweden that is so divided. Therefore, we must strengthen the municipal sector, and it is the municipalities that have the greatest challenges that need the most. The equalization between municipalities and regions must increase, and it is time for the government to take out the investigation from the Equalization Committee and implement the proposals that lead to increased equalization.

Madam Speaker! The needs in welfare services, for example, schools, elderly care, and healthcare, vary and develop in step with the population growth. But the government does not ensure that the resources correspond to the needs – rather the opposite. The costs for the municipalities and regions increase every year, but the general state grants do not increase at the same rate. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that the state grant be indexed to follow the automatic cost development.

Today, it is impossible for citizens to understand whether increased state grants correspond to a cut, an unchanged situation, or a real improvement. When the state grants do not cover the needs, it is still called an investment, and when the region needs to save despite the government's so-called investment, the blame is placed on the region.

With an automatic indexing, the political trade-offs regarding welfare would become clearer. Furthermore, more targeted state grants should be converted into general ones so that the municipalities themselves can manage their operations long-term and strategically.

Reservation 4 applies to motions that Adam Reuterskiöld should vote yes to. The reservation concerns reducing administrative costs when applying for targeted government grants, which the member mentioned in his speech. Adam Reuterskiöld is no longer in the chamber, but reservation 4 would suit him.

From elderly care, school and healthcare being primarily run in own management, welfare was opened to private market interests during the 90s. Since then, the market has penetrated deeply into school, healthcare and elderly care in a way that has resulted in an inefficient and unequal resource distribution. At the same time, the criminal networks have started to use the welfare companies as a way to turn black money white but also to be able to cheat the public out of money.

But it is not only the criminal gangs that exploit the welfare system and take payment for services that were never performed. As recently as yesterday, Västerås Municipality terminated the agreement with Attendo and filed a police report against the company for having taken payment for time that the company was not entitled to, failing in patient safety, and being negligent with the medical responsibility.

Vänsterpartiet has submitted a motion that resources allocated to welfare should be used to improve school results and to provide the elderly and the sick with secure care and nursing, and not go towards large profit withdrawals in private operations. We believe that the possibility of taking profit out of welfare operations must cease.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to see a three-year moratorium on the establishment of new companies in the healthcare, school, and care sectors to clear out criminal activities.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind the Left Party's all reservations in the report, including the one I mentioned earlier, but I move for the approval of reservation 7.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, member!

The members of the committee stayed for a while on the regions' economic situation. We share the view that the previous year and the year before that were tough for our regions. Much of this was due to the fact that, among other things during the previous year, there were very high pension costs. For many regions, the increase in pension costs constituted the large part of the deficit.

For 2025, it looks significantly better. It is also judged to look significantly better heading into 2026. I am pleased that the Sweden Democrats and the government have been able to continue maintaining the general support in our budget, even though the costs for the regions are now decreasing. This naturally creates better conditions.

I am wondering about what the member spoke about regarding the economic situation in the regions. They mentioned in a previous exchange of remarks that the regions themselves assess that they will have a combined surplus this year of a little over 2.6 billion kronor. They assess that they will have a combined surplus during 2026 of 11.4 billion and a combined surplus during 2027 of approximately 10.2 billion kronor.

It means that the coming years look very positive and bright for our regions when it comes to managing, among other things, costs that have existed during previous years and which are now to be restored. But one can also continue to invest in welfare and in the staff. Furthermore, for next year, no region assesses that they will run any kind of deficit at all, as I have understood it.

The regions themselves assess that the situation looks significantly better already this year. Why is the member painting a picture that does not match reality?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! During 2024, the regions made very large cuts to get a budget into balance. They still did not succeed. It was mentioned in a previous exchange of remarks that Region Östergötland perhaps did not lay off that many in the end. But the hiring freeze and the fact that people resigned and quit meant that they still landed on a very large reduction of staff.

If we look at the whole country, we see that approximately 4,500 people were notified of layoffs within healthcare in August last year. But most of those layoffs do not occur until now during the spring. That is to say, 4,500 people are to be removed from the regions so that the regions can manage to get their finances into balance. If they succeed with that, it is due to all the cuts. Then the healthcare queues grow, and then people do not get the care they need. I would therefore not say that the regions' future is positive and bright.

Hopefully the regions will get more money in a couple of years, because we hopefully will have a new government then. Is that perhaps what one counts on when making one's forecasts? But if the future is to be positive and bright, it presupposes that the regions can re-employ all the people who have now been forced out. But they may have found other jobs and disappeared to something else. The future does not look positive and bright.

Furthermore, the regions will have difficulty recruiting people due to demographics. Too few are educating themselves for healthcare professions, and we will have more sick and elderly people and fewer people to take care of them.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer to my question!

The Sweden Democrats and the government, within the framework of the Tidö Agreement and the budget, have allocated record-high general state grants to our regions and municipalities. They have never been this high. Despite the fact that the costs for our regions and municipalities are now falling sharply, partly linked to the costs for pensions, the general support remains at the same level throughout the entire mandate period. In addition, we have sent targeted sector grants to, among others, health and medical care.

Vänsterpartiet governs some of the regions in our country. I want to mention four of them in particular. These are the regions that have the most layoffs. It sounds drastic to say; in the end, it concerns between 15 and 25 people, most of whom are administrative staff. I naturally understand that it is tough for them to lose their jobs and mean nothing else. But I still want to point out a change there.

It is in among others Region Stockholm, Västra Götalandsregionen, Region Värmland and Region Norrbotten that Vänsterpartiet is involved in governing. And they all assess that they will make more or less substantial surpluses.

Then the question to the member is: Should the regions not have reduced the substantial surplus somewhat and instead retained the healthcare expertise that they are now getting rid of, but which they actually have the room to manage within the surplus they are making?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Mattias Eriksson Falk! I forgot to say that in my first answer.

The regions, as mentioned, received far too little money from the government during 2024 and were therefore forced to lay off staff. This will persist even when things turn around, which they hopefully will with a new government after the next election.

The opposition members speak about how so much money is being given despite the costs for pensions decreasing. But much suggests that they will not decrease as much as one thinks, because inflation currently looks to be higher than the government has accounted for. In that case, the costs for pensions also increase in both municipalities and regions.

In the Left Party's budget proposal, we have allocated 20 billion more to municipalities and regions. We see that this is what is needed so that neither municipalities nor regions will have to save and streamline. The government has therefore not given as much money as the member here implies.

It is also said that it is only administrative staff who are being laid off. That is not quite true. There are as many groups as you can imagine, both nurses and nursing assistants as well as doctors, where positions that disappear are not being filled. This leads to longer queues.

When it comes to administrative staff, you stand here and speak broadly about how good it is with outsourced operations. But who is it that audits it in municipalities and regions? Yes, it is the administrative staff. Who is supposed to audit that the private entities behave, which it has been discovered in Västerås that they do not, when the administrative staff who work with it are laid off?

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report number 26 Municipal Affairs. I move for approval of reservation 2 under point 1 concerning the municipal equalization system.

When it comes to municipal tax, as we have heard, there are large economic differences in the country, over 6 kronor. It is a concern for equality in the country. If we are to hold the country together and get the whole country to grow, we cannot have such a large difference as we have today and as we have had for a long time.

At the same time, we are in agreement many times over on the view of trying to get the country to hang together. But when we then get down to the detail level and are to negotiate and decide on details in how the equalization system should look, it easily becomes a bit watered down. And not only that – it is very difficult to push through. There are very many parameters, and the effect is not always what one thinks – in combination with the fact that there are long transition rules that further water down the system that we are working with today.

A new approach is needed regarding the tax equalization system. As I see it, we should not just patch, repair, and adjust the existing system, which is difficult to have an overview of. Our proposal is that the government appoints a parliamentary commission on an equalization system where one looks more at the basic service needs across the entire country and weighs in more of sparsity and long distances. I also want to mention that those living on islands today have it a bit tougher to even get access to important functions. The islands have not been allocated enough funds in the municipal tax equalization system.

In addition to this, as mentioned here in the debate two years ago, a reduction of funds to municipalities and regions was made – instead of the increase that municipalities and regions should be able to count on. This is also concerning. The reduction hits precisely those municipalities that have it the toughest – those that experience the great difference of 6 kronor and are located in this district. The high tax burden is in no way linked to better service. On the contrary, these municipalities often have very great difficulty delivering good welfare, school, healthcare, and so on.

These parts must be included in the system. If a municipality "is in the wrong position," it eventually ends up at the expense of the school and welfare systems in the priorities that must be made. But before that, one often makes priorities that involve removing investments in the municipality. One might, for example, have needed a bit more industrial land for companies to be established. But such investments have disappeared long ago when it comes to achieving even a basic good service for its inhabitants. A new approach is needed if we are to get the whole country to grow.

Then it is also a question of how one describes the municipal economy. We have today a Local Government Act that allows one to remove certain parts and not include them in the economy. If we see that a municipality is in the black, Madam Speaker, one has often not included the pension debt that many municipalities have – it lies outside. If we were to include the pension debt, we would many times see a deficit in the municipalities. I think that this is a way of deceiving both the citizens and themselves regarding the economic situation in the municipalities.

Today we have talked about the establishment of independent schools and whether we should have private or municipal schools. I think we are finished with that discussion. We are in favor of private independent schools. But there is a problem that I want to raise, which has to do with private independent schools entering into clusters. They buy and sell these independent schools among themselves, and something else is formed that was not known from the beginning. Perhaps it is even a form of ownership with a foreign owner who has purposes that are not quite known; we do not know what they want with these schools. We should review this and even limit it, so that it cannot occur to the extent that we see today.

When it comes to priorities, one must trust the municipalities, which means providing general funds to the municipalities. The municipalities themselves are good at determining what are the right priorities for that specific municipality. Today's detailed regulation, which requires a great deal of administration, we must move away from.

Madam Speaker! I feel that we have already debated much of what I had intended to mention. We have also had exchanges of remarks. I hereby conclude my speech.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

The member stated in their speech that the municipalities today do not fully manage their welfare mandate and that this perhaps especially applies to rural and sparsely populated municipalities. That is approximately how I perceived the member. I apologize if that was incorrect.

It was also mentioned that a rethink was needed. In that case, I immediately think of how the Centerpartiet in a previous report has proposed that a municipality could hand over the responsibility for certain municipal activities, for example the school, to another municipality, which would handle the administration.

Is it this that the member is referring to when he says that a rethink is needed? Or is it perhaps mergers of municipalities and regions that we see ahead of us when it is spoken of the administrative burden and that one cannot manage the assignment? Many times, it is about reducing the administrative work so that it becomes easier to manage. Are mergers the way forward? That is something that the Sverigedemokraterna strongly oppose.

The question to the Centre Party is: Will we, after a potential change of power in 2026, when the Centre Party might be part of a government, see proposals for mergers of our municipalities and regions?

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Mattias Eriksson Falk raises the question of how we act regarding mergers and cooperation. We already have the upper secondary school reform. We were "forced" into a cooperation that I support and think is very good; the right priorities are being made. This is, therefore, already happening today. This type of cooperation, where someone else handles a service in a municipality, I think is good, especially for the very smallest municipalities, which cannot manage to have all functions in their municipality.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to mergers, I want to mention municipal self-government. I believe that the best way in that case is to reach an agreement with another municipality to make a change. But it is absolutely nothing that the Center Party prioritizes.

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answers to the questions.

The model we have today for cooperation in our municipalities and regions is based on that within the framework of, for example, a joint committee or a municipal federation, there is a cooperation where each municipality or region is ensured an influence in the form of voting rights in relation to the issues being decided. There are examples of that today. What the Center Party proposed in another report concerned that one could formally hand over the responsibility entirely to another municipality and that the municipality would then also have the decision-making power over that activity. That was what my question concerned. That they cooperate in a municipal federation, I have no problem with. That possibility exists today according to the Local Government Act and is also practiced to a large extent within various activities, including waste management.

What causes my concern when one talks about the need for a rethink and about the administration that involves a great deal of work in many municipalities, which I agree it does, is the risk that what the Center Party means is municipal mergers or regional mergers. Now the member clarifies this somewhat and says that the Center Party does not see it as a way forward, and I hope that this is indirectly in some way a promise. My concern regarding municipal mergers and regional mergers, which the government can actually decide on even if the municipalities or regions do not want it themselves, is that they would move both welfare and the opportunities to influence local governance further away from the citizens by joining a larger entity.

That was also why the Sverigedemokraterna – and the Centerpartiet, it should be added – were against the intended regional merger that was discussed seven to eight years ago. I am glad about that. I hope that together we can hold the line against any municipal mergers and regional mergers that may come to be proposed.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Eriksson Falk, for this question as well!

In the Local Government Act, it can be seen that a municipal federation is a municipality. If one creates a municipal federation, one has therefore already created a new municipality, according to the legal text. When it comes to what cooperation takes place and what we, so to speak, put into all of this, it is, as I see it, important that the municipalities themselves get to decide. That it can concern the upper secondary school is excellent. There are other things that would also fit perfectly to include in this.

Today, there are coordination associations with a financing that is somewhat complex. They could also fit into municipal associations, with the decision-making rights that all municipalities that are part of the municipal association have. Generally, I think that municipal associations as a form of cooperation are a good way forward.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Welfare is the foundation of our society. It is the glue that holds us together. It is the security that we all deserve and that we build up together. And in welfare, Sweden's municipalities and regions play an absolutely decisive role. It is there we see the face of welfare, in the preschools, the schools, elderly care, healthcare, and social services.

But today, municipalities and regions stand in the middle of an economic crisis, a crisis that is largely created by the government's policy and by a system where private profits are allowed to take precedence over people's needs.

The municipalities are responsible for the most fundamental welfare activities, but they are often left without sufficient resources to meet the needs. They must ensure that our children receive a good school and that our elderly receive dignified care, that healthcare functions, and that the socially vulnerable receive help. But what happens when the resources are not enough? Then there are fewer teachers in schools, less time for care staff, and increased inequalities in society.

Despite the growing needs, the government is cutting state grants to municipalities and regions. Short-term support is provided that does not solve the long-term problems. At the same time, more responsibility is placed on municipalities and regions but without sending sufficient resources. The result is that at the local level, they are forced to raise taxes, cut back on activities, or privatize, which leads to an even more unequal welfare where the place of residence determines what service the citizens shall receive. It is completely unacceptable.

Miljöpartiet wants to see, instead, a stable and fair financing of municipalities and regions. We want to increase the general state grants, so that the operations out in the country and closest to the residents can plan long-term and offer an equal and qualitative care across the whole country.

The state must take its responsibility and inflation-proof the general government grants to provide municipalities and regions with better planning conditions – a guarantee model for the financing of welfare so that the municipalities can handle crises and recessions without the welfare being affected.

Furthermore, we believe that the government should develop a growth package for fast-growing municipalities during re-industrialization, so that the jobs of the future are created here in Sweden and not anywhere else.

Resources are one thing, but it is also clear that profits in welfare must be abolished. Resources allocated to welfare should be used to improve school results and to provide the elderly and the sick with secure care and nursing. That money should not go towards large profit withdrawals.

Every krona given in dividend payments and not going towards children's education or the elderly's care is a lost krona for society. It is we, the taxpayers, who finance the welfare, and it is we who need to have a guarantee that the resources go to what they are intended for and not to private profit interests.

Miljöpartiet has long fought to stop the pursuit of profit in welfare, because we believe that welfare should be driven by need and not by someone's opportunity to make money. We want to strengthen the public sector. We also want to invest in the staff's working conditions and ensure that welfare is developed based on quality, not profitability. We want to strengthen supervision and implement national measures for increased equality and staffing, so that care and nursing are provided according to actual need and not market principles.

We are increasingly reached by news of organized crime that has taken over private operations and can conduct its criminal activities from within the public sector. It is a completely absurd system that I have not yet seen this government have done enough to put a stop to. Rather, it is obvious that it is being defended. For the government, with these arguments, should abolish the possibility of taking profit from welfare operations and instead develop non-profit alternatives to the market and choice models that have been introduced in the public sector. Then the money goes to what it is intended for, and the conditions for organized crime in welfare would completely disappear.

Madam Speaker! Instead of profit extraction, we want to see measures to promote non-profit welfare, and there is very much to be done here. The share of non-profit actors in the welfare sector is small in Sweden compared to other countries in the Nordic region and Europe. The increase in the share of procured welfare services in recent decades has primarily benefited commercial actors at the expense of non-profit ones. The Government should therefore continue to work to promote the development of just that non-profit welfare, so that more operations can be run with people's best interests in focus instead of profit maximization.

Let me summarize: How then do we create a better welfare and better conditions for municipalities and regions to manage their mandate? There are three important steps:

We need long-term sustainable funding. We must provide municipalities and regions with the right resources to maintain and develop the welfare, including an inflation-protected state grant and a guarantee model to secure funding in a crisis.

We need to abolish profits in the welfare sector. Our tax money should go to healthcare, school, and care, not to venture capital companies. We also want to see a development of the non-profit alternatives and strengthen the supervision.

We also need to do more to promote the idea-driven welfare. It provides freedom of choice. It provides better conditions for idea-driven actors. Then we can also ensure that more welfare activities are run with social benefit in focus while freedom of choice is maintained.

But the question remains: Shall we continue on a path where the government underfinances municipalities and regions and lets profit interests rule in welfare, or shall we stand up for a fair, sustainable and equal welfare where everyone has access to good schools, dignified care and functioning healthcare?

I know what I and Miljöpartiet want. We want the government to increase its ambitions to create a better welfare for everyone, even if I perhaps do not believe that it will happen now when it has not happened until now. If this does not happen, it is time for a new government – a government that wants to see a stronger welfare and that is prepared to invest in it.

I want to conclude with a text from Per Molander's book Ojämlikhetens anatomi: "The municipalities are the ultimate guarantor of the welfare state's survival. It is there that the meeting between individual and society takes place, where justice is not just an idea but also a reality. An underfunded municipality is an underfunded welfare, and an underfunded welfare is an underfunded democracy."

With this, I want to say that I stand behind all our reservations but only move for the approval of reservation number 6.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to warn that there is a certain risk that I will exceed the speaking time that I have declared in advance. It is not particularly strange given the surreal debate that we have been part of today. Pure fantasies have been mixed with black-painting, especially of smaller municipalities and how they conduct their activities.

What is it that the Swedish people actually want? I believe that the vast majority in Sweden simply want to mind their own business. People want to be at peace. People want to go to work, earn money, and use their wages to pay for what they need. It is about housing, about food, and about perhaps being able to go on vacation once a year. That is about as much as one wants to need to worry about.

There are a lot of other things that one doesn't want to worry about. I believe that the vast majority envision that the children go to school, that they receive a good education, and that they can rely on the teachers having the time and competence to be able to give the students the support they actually need.

One wants to know that grandmother, when she gets older and cannot manage on her own, receives the help and the support that she needs from elderly care. Regardless of what it looks like, one wants to know that is the case.

When one becomes ill, one wants to know that one can go to the hospital or to one's health center, as we call it here in Gävleborg, and receive help and support. It is simply a matter of being cared for.

Unfortunately, we have moved away from a society where one could rely on it actually being this way. This government does not make it easier, rather the opposite.

We heard earlier here that the Christian Democrats claimed that the government's policy has yielded results. Let me give an example of something that is a result of the government's non-policy.

Right now, the high food prices are digging deep holes in everyone's wallets – it concerns especially those with low or average incomes. At the same time, the food giants are making record profits and creating a supply-driven inflation in Sweden. It is not about people earning too much or about wages skyrocketing too much, because wages are stagnant. We have had the largest real wage cuts in Sweden since the 30s – in a hundred years. At the same time, the food giants are making record profits.

Already two years ago, we in Vänsterpartiet demanded that the government summon the food giants and ensure that they did something about this, so that this inflation could be stopped in some way. What the government did then was invite the food giants to a coffee break. It is nice to have a little coffee break, but there wasn't much result from this. Inflation perhaps leveled off a bit, but it wasn't because the government took any direct measures. It was something that happened on its own due to the current global situation and other circumstances. But now we see how food prices in Sweden are starting to shoot up again. The government's response is again to invite them to a coffee break. That is to be done this week. Maybe it will be a chocolate ball and coffee – it will be tasty.

Jimmie Åkesson's tips to the Swedish people in this situation is that one should start looking for low prices. It is easy to do that when you have an income of perhaps 150,000. Then you can give such tips from the coach – as if low-income earners don't already know how to do this.

That it is starting to rumble in the ranks of the people regarding this right now is not particularly strange. As a cherry on top, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have also agreed that in this situation it is exceptionally good to raise the limit for the high-cost protection for pharmaceuticals. It is roughly like the Sverigedemokraterna and the government think that those on sick leave and pensioners have far too much money to move with. We in Vänsterpartiet do not think that. We do not think that they have too much money.

This is symptomatic of this government, because it does, like, nothing for ordinary people's concerns. Instead, it holds its friends' backs. This is what is also happening in the welfare sector. And who is it that carries the welfare? Yes, it is municipalities and regions.

When healthcare is now facing perhaps the greatest crisis that any living person in Sweden can remember – possibly with the exception of the pandemic – the government's response is to present a budget that in practice means that further cuts are to be made.

This is not something new. This has been done for decades.

In this debate, we have heard that one has never injected so much money in kronor into welfare. It has never happened before. No, but that is not particularly strange. We have inflation. The value of money decreases, and in order to be able to maintain the same value, one must add more money. But one actually has not injected enough money.

Let me give an example. If you are consistently forced to make cuts every year, over a period of approximately 30 years, it does something to the activity you are conducting. It means that you reduce the service that you provide.

If you add a little extra one year, it does not mean that you restore the service – or the welfare – in any way. It only means that you slightly slow down the development that we see ahead of us.

I believe one should be a bit cautious when, from the government side, one beats one's chest over what one is doing.

I am now approaching the speaking time that I had registered. I am not finished, I can say.

The healthcare crisis is being handled somewhat differently in different places in Sweden – by different regions. In some places, patients are placed in the corridors – with pots and lids so that they can signal when they need help.

In my own home region, where the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates and the Christian Democrats rule together with the Healthcare Party, it has been decided that a good solution is to corporatize the entire primary care. An investigation has been conducted with the help of consultants, which has concluded that the best thing for healthcare in Gävleborg would be to privatize practically everything.

Now, those who govern in Gävleborg have not been very clear about what the intention is, other than that it should be corporatized. But with the greatest probability, the primary objective is that they should sell off health centers or identify which health centers, which our primary care centers are called, should be closed down because they are unprofitable.

I can guarantee that if the population in my home municipality Hofors is faced with the alternatives of either having an "unprofitable" health center remaining in the locality or having no health center at all, the choice for them is quite simple. I believe they want to avoid traveling to the neighboring municipality or to Gävle.

The responsibility for this development lies with the government and the budget that is presented every year. The school is a victim of an experiment that no other country in the entire world wants to follow. There was another country that had a similar system, and that was Chile. But they have given up that idea, because it doesn't work. In the rest of the world, they are now looking at Sweden as a deterrent example.

Due to the policy that is being pursued, it is no longer knowledge that is the most important thing in Swedish schools, but rather to give the school owners as high profits as possible. We have received a market school that makes us incredibly poorly equipped for the future, and the government is twiddling its thumbs while the teachers are on their knees.

We in the Left Party have warned against this development for decades. It is actually the case that we have now lived through 30 years of the neoliberal experiment where it is stubbornly asserted that if one simply privatizes and cuts back or streamlines, as they so nicely call it, the welfare will become better.

Over the last ten years, a purely xenophobic, if not racist, policy has been consistently pursued where it has been claimed that the welfare state's shortcomings are due to immigration. Simultaneously with this development, the gaps in Sweden have increased to levels that we have not seen since the 1910s. For the richest in Sweden, Sweden has become a tax haven. Right now, we have a corrupt government that does everything it can to benefit itself and its friends, either by lowering taxes in a way that benefits them themselves with surgical precision or by giving their friends well-paid top jobs within the Government Offices or at various agencies.

After 30 years of neoliberal policy and 10 years of witch hunts against immigrants, which we all see do not lead to any improvements whatsoever, I believe I have the Swedish people with me when I say that it is time to change direction. We must ensure that our welfare functions. When one goes to one's health center, one's primary care center or one's hospital, one should be able to feel confidence that one actually receives the help and the care one needs. Healthcare personnel should not have a lump in their stomach when they go to work because they do not know if they or their colleagues will manage to do their jobs properly and provide care and attention to everyone who needs it.

We must stop the market school and re-establish a school that has sufficient resources and that aims to actually provide education and competence to our children. The school must be able to take care of and catch all those who are in the school, regardless of where they live in the country or what background or circumstances they have.

Municipal issues

That is how we build a stronger country. That is how we give our population hope for the future. That requires us to have a party in government that actually prioritizes these issues. And that party, my friends, is Vänsterpartiet.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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