Municipal issues

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate the Committee on Finance's report 26 on municipal issues.

We are now in the final stretch of the 2022–2026 mandate period. This gives us the opportunity to summarize what the Sweden Democrats and the government inherited from the red-green parties, what we have achieved during the mandate period, and what the election on September 13, 2026, means for Sweden. This applies not only to the Swedish Riksdag, but also to our 21 regions and our 290 municipalities.

From the Riksdag down to the regions and municipalities, there needs to be a clear common thread in the politics. If, as a voter, you want the politics that the Sverigedemokraterna drive in the Riksdag regarding migration, safety, energy, and fuel to also take hold in municipalities and regions, you need to vote for the Sverigedemokraterna in all three elections, because everything is connected.

I come from Gävle municipality myself. There, representatives for the Social Democrats, for example, want immigration to Sweden to increase significantly again. That would take us back to the situation we had in Sweden in 2015 when 163,000 people applied for asylum in our country and the chaos that followed from that.

It would also mean that the tightenings currently being implemented regarding citizenship and qualification for welfare for immigrants would be torn up. The Swedish cash box would once again be opened up for all the world's people as long as they set foot within Sweden's borders.

It can also be about the development we have seen in regions governed by the red-green parties. There are examples of priorities in municipalities and regions that involve deteriorations for the citizens as operations are closed or centralized to larger cities. Maternity wards are closed, health centers disappear, and hospital activities are centralized. We also see deteriorations in emergency care.

For those living in a smaller locality, it can be a matter of hours to the nearest emergency hospital or maternity ward. It is usually women who are affected by this policy. A clear example is Region Västernorrland, which is governed by the Social Democrats. There, the maternity ward in Sollefteå was closed as early as 2017. Now, the decommissioning of activities at the hospital continues, or they are centralized to larger cities.

The consequence will be that women who are about to give birth must travel significantly further to receive care. In the worst case, women now risk having to give birth along the way to the hospital. This affects safety but also the willingness to form a family and stay put in the first place.

While the birth rate in Sweden has decreased by around 20 percent, it has decreased by a full 35 percent in Sollefteå. It is no coincidence. We saw the same development in my home county of Gävleborg. When BB in Bollnäs was closed by the Socialdemokraterna in 2002, the number of children born decreased sharply, and many young women chose to move away from that part of the county.

This shows what kind of policy the red-green parties have pursued out in the country. It is a policy that hits families and, above all, women.

Another example from this mandate period comes from Region Värmland. The red-green parties chose there to cut 23 million from emergency care operations but at the same time saw no issue with investing 40 million kronor in new art. It is these kinds of priorities we see in regions when the red-greens are in power.

Madam Speaker! Let us go back to the year 2022 and the situation Sweden found itself in. It was no coincidence that the Sweden Democrats increased significantly in the 2022 election. The voters had grown tired of the migration policy that had been pursued and the cost crisis that had emerged during the red-green years.

The red-greens had raised the reduction obligation and the tax on gasoline and diesel. They had shut down fully functioning nuclear reactors, which drove up electricity prices, especially in southern Sweden. All of this together fueled inflation in our country. When fuel became more expensive, transport costs increased. This, in turn, drove up the price of goods and food. When inflation rose, the Riksbank raised the interest rate, and housing loans and car loans became thousands of kronor more expensive every month.

These were not random events but a result of political decisions taken by the red-green parties here in Sweden's Riksdag. The result became clear. It became expensive to live in Sweden. That development did not only hit the households. It also hit Sweden's municipalities and regions hard.

The costs for food in schools and elderly care increased. Energy became more expensive in municipal properties. Transport became more expensive, and as a result, public transport ticket prices had to be raised. Interest rates rose sharply, and the Riksbank tried to counter the inflation that the red-green parties had created. This made investments in schools, elderly care homes, and infrastructure significantly more expensive. In many municipalities, we saw how they were forced to cut back in various activities. Butter for the sandwiches in school was removed, milk was cut, preschools were closed, and municipal fees were raised.

These were the consequences of an economic policy that fueled inflation. These were the consequences of a red-green policy that hit households, companies, municipalities, and regions.

Madam Speaker! When the Sweden Democrats and the current government parties gained a majority after the 2022 election, Sweden faced major problems, but we began the work of reversing the development.

We needed to make it cheaper to live and reside in Sweden. Therefore, we have, among other things, lowered the reduction obligation, lowered the tax on gasoline and diesel, started the work for new nuclear power, strengthened state grants to municipalities and regions, simplified regulations for companies and lowered the tax on income. From April 1, the tax on food is also halved. These are measures that strengthen the households' economy but also the economy of the municipalities and regions.

We needed to make Sweden safer. We have therefore restructured the migration policy, and Sweden now has the lowest immigration since the 1980s. This reduces the pressure on municipal operations such as preschools, schools, social services, and healthcare. It also means that the municipalities will now be able to address the enormous exclusion and the segregation that the mass immigration policy previously pursued by the red-green parties created. It also led to unemployment, housing shortages, conflicts, and crime.

We have also given the police more tools to fight crime. The penalties have been toughened, and more toughenings are on the way. We have also changed the regulatory framework for camera surveillance so that municipalities and regions can now more easily use cameras in their safety work.

But safety is not created only here in the Riksdag through the decisions we make. It must also be built locally by municipalities and regions utilizing the legislation that we here in the Riksdag have made possible for them.

Let me take Region Gävleborg as an example. There, my party Sverigedemokraterna is involved and governing. There, investments are being made in security cameras and better lighting in hospital areas. The number of inspectors in public transport has increased significantly, which has led to increased ticket revenue and reduced cheating. Fees for missed healthcare appointments where a language interpreter was booked have been introduced, as well as new fees for asylum seekers. And the grant to Ibn Rushd has been abolished.

These are concrete examples of how political decisions can change reality to make it better and safer, when one uses the opportunities that the Riksdag has actually given municipalities and regions.

Madam Speaker! The election this autumn is ultimately about a crossroads for our country. If one wants more immigration, higher fuel prices, unstable electricity prices, higher food prices and higher taxes, one should vote for one of the red-green parties. But if one instead wants a strict migration policy, new nuclear power, lower fuel prices, halved tax on food, more security and reasonable taxes, one votes for the Sverigedemokraterna in all three elections, that is to the Riksdag, regional council and municipal council – because all three elections are connected.

Either we turn back the clock to the red-green era again and get back the politics that created the problems in our country, or we continue the work of making Sweden safer, stronger, and functioning again.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a strong country, but the strength of a country is not measured in diagrams or budget tables. It is measured in how well the welfare functions in people's everyday lives – when or if the child receives support in school, the elderly receive care in time, and the family meets a healthcare system that is there when it is needed. That is where the real results of politics are seen. And that is why this debate is so important. Because when municipalities and regions are pressured financially, it is not figures that are affected first; it is people.

In municipalities and regions across the country, we hear the same message – from north to south, from east to west. The needs and costs are increasing, but resources are not increasing at the same rate. The consequences are clear. In their respective areas, the child groups are growing significantly. The school finds it harder to provide support to students who need it. Social services are being pressured harder. Elderly care struggles with staffing problems. Healthcare staff are forced to run faster and faster. This is the reality of Swedish welfare today.

Despite this, the SD government chooses to say the same thing time and again: More resources were not needed. They say that tax cuts for the richest are more important than welfare. They say that profits in welfare are more important than security. They say that the nursing assistant, the teacher, and the social worker should fulfill their assignments with less because the state has chosen to give less. It is a political valuation.

Mr. Speaker, people cannot wait for resources. Municipalities struggling with deficits cannot wait. Politics is about taking responsibility when reality changes.

Most recently today, we have seen the news that 50,000 new employees are needed in elderly care at the same time as two-thirds of those who already work in elderly care want to quit. They cannot manage to keep working. Therefore, the working conditions must improve so that we can manage the future of elderly care.

Even during the pandemic, the cracks within elderly care were very clear. At that time, there was a lot of talk about strengthening elderly care. But now, the opportunities for the municipalities to do just that are decreasing. The staff are working at full capacity to be able to provide good care for our elderly.

One of the most important issues in the report is not just about here and now but also about long-term financing. Municipalities and regions need stable conditions, not short-term project money or temporary targeted investments. They need long-term, general state grants. This provides the opportunity to plan, hire staff, and build up operations over time. Therefore, we Social Democrats want a foundation for welfare, where the state grants are adjusted in line with inflation. That is how you create stability in welfare.

Madam Speaker! The situation is particularly tough for small municipalities, municipalities in sparsely populated areas and rural areas, and municipalities that struggle with socio-economic challenges. They have higher costs per inhabitant, they have more difficulty recruiting staff, and they have less tax capacity.

That is why we have the municipal economic equalization system – so that people shall have access to equal welfare regardless of where in the country they live. But now we see that the government, instead of strengthening the system, is coming with proposals that risk hitting hard against precisely those municipalities that already have the toughest conditions.

Furthermore, the SD government has removed the special support that has gone to smaller municipalities in rural areas and in the countryside. The conditions for precisely these municipalities have been worsened. It is not to safeguard the whole country; it is to leave parts of the country behind.

Madam Speaker! Another central issue in this report concerns profits in the welfare sector. Today, Sweden is practically the only country in the world that allows unlimited profits in a fully tax-funded school system. Feel that!

We see the consequences clearly. Segregation in schools has increased. Resources are being moved from classrooms to shareholders. Welfare crime is growing. The same pattern we see in schools, we also see in other parts of the welfare system. When tax funds intended for healthcare, school, and care are taken out as profits, the money no longer goes to people's needs – it goes to returns. But we Social Democrats believe that welfare resources should go to the welfare.

Madam Speaker! Freedom of choice is naturally positive if one can influence the content. But then one must be able to choose. There must be an elderly care where one can influence the content and receive the services one needs.

One thing we should, however, be able to agree on, namely that freedom of choice must never mean that control over welfare is weakened. When unserious actors get access to tax funds without sufficient control, we risk not only the quality but also the confidence in and trust for the welfare system. Tax money should be used for what it is intended for: healthcare, school, and care.

Madam Speaker! This debate shows a clear political dividing line. On one side are those who see welfare as a collective social investment, that is, us. On the other side are those who accept that resources are decreasing, market logic is allowed to rule, and the municipalities must handle the consequences themselves, that is, the SD government.

We Social Democrats choose a different path. We want to strengthen the general state grants. We want to create more equal conditions between municipalities. We want to stop the profit-seeking in welfare and ensure that tax revenues go to the operations, because behind every budget item there is a human being: the child who needs support in school, the nursing assistant who is now running faster and faster between users, the family waiting for care, and the elderly person who wants to feel security in their care.

Welfare is not abstract politics. Welfare is people's lives. Therefore, we must have a policy that gives municipalities and regions the resources and conditions that are required. The Sweden we want to build is a country that holds together, a country where welfare is strong, a country where opportunities are equal and a country where security applies to everyone. That is the path we Social Democrats choose.

We know that the welfare state shaped Sweden. It built our democracy, our trust, and our security. It ensured that generations of children could grow up with faith in the future. It ensured that people felt that society carried them when life became difficult. To now let the welfare state be weakened is to let social cohesion be weakened. It is to create a more unequal, more insecure, and more divided Sweden.

We Social Democrats choose a different path. We choose cohesion. We choose the welfare state. I hope for a new direction for Sweden this autumn.

In conclusion, I move for approval of reservation 3 under point 2.

(Applause)

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Municipalities and regions are responsible for some of the most central tasks of the welfare state: schools, healthcare, and elderly care. These are activities that people encounter every day and which largely determine how well society functions. At the same time, many experience that these activities are increasingly influenced by decisions from the state. The state sets the regulations, the state decides on the grants, and the state makes decisions that in many cases drive up costs in municipalities and regions.

At the same time, the municipalities' mandates are broadening, or perhaps more importantly, being realized. I am thinking of crisis preparedness, both physical and digital, which places greater demands on both competence and equipment. This is the background to many of the issues addressed in report FiU26 on municipal issues.

Madam Speaker! The municipal sector has faced major economic challenges in recent years. The high inflation in 2022 and 2023, which we inherited from the previous government, rising pension costs, and increased interest rates have put severe pressure on municipalities and regions.

In 2023, the municipal sector reported a result of around 25 billion kronor in total, which may sound strong, but that result was largely due to temporary effects.

In 2024, the economy deteriorated in many municipalities. A large number of municipalities reported deficits, and the regional sector had a combined negative result of over 20 billion kronor. At the same time, it is important to remember that many municipalities entered this period with relatively strong balance sheets. This means that they had reserves to handle the situation.

In 2025, the municipal sector ran with a surplus. The municipalities had a total surplus of 32 billion kronor, and the regions had a surplus of 8.3 billion. It was only 35 of the country's 290 municipalities that ran with a deficit.

Madam Speaker! It actually matters who is in power. That is an aspect that is rarely discussed in the debate. When one studies the municipalities' finances over time, a clear pattern emerges: Municipalities and regions governed by conservative parties generally have stronger financial results, lower indebtedness, and better cost control.

It is not about ideology primarily, but it is about governance. Municipalities that work systematically with efficiency, follow-up, and long-term economic planning manage economic challenges better. It is therefore not surprising that many of the municipalities that have had a strong economy are also municipalities where the bourgeois parties have had a long-term influence.

Madam Speaker! A central issue in the report is the municipal equalization system. Sweden has large differences regarding municipal conditions. Some municipalities operate in rural areas with long distances and small population bases. Others are densely populated areas and have other types of cost challenges.

The equalization system exists to ensure reasonable conditions for welfare throughout the country, but the system is not always perceived as fair. Municipalities that succeed in creating growth and strengthening their tax base have, in many cases, a large part of this growth redistributed. It risks reducing the incentives to attract investments, companies, and new residents.

At the same time, there are municipalities that have become strongly dependent on the system over a very long period. An equalization system must therefore both safeguard equality and create incentives for development. It is therefore welcome that the parliamentary Equalization Committee has presented proposals in the report Nätt och jämnt – Likvärdighet och effektivitet i kommunsektorn.

During the previous year, referrals and comments were collected, and the proposal is now being prepared in the Government Offices and at the Ministry of Finance. The proposals aim, among other things, to reduce the income equalization system's negative effects on growth and to make the system more transparent and predictable.

Madam Speaker! The Government has also taken several initiatives to strengthen efficiency in the municipal sector. A special regional review function has been established at Ekonomistyrningsverket to analyze the regions' finances and efficiency. Additionally, an efficiency delegation for health and medical care has been established to assist the regions with analyses and spread good examples. These are important steps, for the truth is that the welfare's long-term challenges cannot be solved solely through increased resources. We must also use the resources in a better way.

Madam Speaker! There is a clear political dividing line here. From the opposition, we often hear the same answer to the challenges of the welfare state: more money. But more money does not solve all problems. If inefficient structures and methods of work persist, there is a risk that more resources will only exacerbate the problems. We cannot continue to do exactly the same thing as we always have done but at higher costs. We must also dare to develop new methods of work, new techniques, and better organization of the operations.

Madam Speaker! Another clear line of conflict concerns freedom of choice, as we heard in the previous contribution. The Moderates and the government clearly stand up for people's right to choose school, health center, and care. That freedom of choice has contributed to innovation, development, and better service for many people.

The opposition, instead, wants to significantly limit or abolish this freedom, but the reality is that many appreciated activities today are run by independent actors across the country. The problem in welfare is not that there are different providers, but the problem arises when the monitoring of deficiencies does not work. Therefore, we need strong supervision and clear quality requirements, regardless of who runs the operation.

Madam Speaker! Another issue addressed in the report concerns the state grants to the municipal sector. Today, there is a very large number of targeted state grants. Many municipalities have specific functions whose main task is to seek and administer these grants. This entails significant administrative costs, and it takes resources away from the core activities.

The Moderates therefore argue that general state grants are often preferable to targeted ones. The municipalities know their local needs best and should have greater freedom to prioritize the resources themselves. Fundamentally, we perhaps need to reform the entire system by reducing the state grants altogether while simultaneously reducing the burdens and the cost-driving effects that the state introduces. A municipality should be able to stand more and more on its own feet.

Madam Speaker! Municipalities and regions are the foundation of welfare in Sweden. To meet the challenges of the future, we need stronger incentives for growth, better economic management, less administrative hassle, and strong local self-government. This requires reforms, and it requires accountability and political leadership. That is what we see from the government today.

Madam Speaker! With that, I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee report.

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I have a question for Member Adam Reuterskiöld, but I first just want to comment on a couple of things that the Member said in his speech.

Ett: Reuterskiöld stands here and says that more resources exacerbate the problems rather than solving the problems. I think it is a mockery of all those who work, for example, within elderly care, who have to run faster and faster all day and still feel when they go home that they have not managed to meet the needs of the elderly. It is clear that money matters.

Two: It is not that we Social Democrats want to stop the possibility of choosing care and school. We want to stop the profit-seeking. There is a difference. But the Moderates do not believe that anyone will want to run care or school if one is not allowed to take out completely unchecked much of the money that is actually supposed to go to school or care. We have different views on that, and we think that money intended for school or for care should go to just that.

But now to my question. Adam Reuterskiöld just mentioned that there are large differences across the entire country and that there are completely different conditions for smaller municipalities in sparsely populated areas and in rural areas. They have to fight much harder because the challenges are greater.

Now, at the beginning of the mandate period, the parliamentary committee submitted a proposal that we actually agreed on. Nothing has come out of it, other than that the government has come forward with proposals that make it more difficult for many of the municipalities that need to be lifted.

My question to the member is: What is happening? When will a proposal arrive? Regions and municipalities deserve an answer. People in Sweden deserve an answer.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Eva, for the various questions! I will take them in turn.

More resources are not the answer to all questions, as I said in my speech, and I stand by that. Putting more resources into bad processes will never lead to better results.

What I mean is that we must find new ways to provide effective benefits to our citizens. I believe that we will find completely new ways to use healthcare technology with AI and that it will fundamentally change how we deliver benefits to our citizens. I do not believe that more resources for old processes that are inefficient solves the problem.

The clarity regarding freedom of choice is very good. It is good that we hear the Social Democrats define the issue of freedom of choice very clearly. One is for freedom of choice, but no one is allowed to have a company to manage it and one should not give companies the conditions that we give in order to contribute to freedom of choice.

There is an enormous number of entrepreneurs in Sweden who deliver fantastic service to our residents. We should be proud of that, and we should contribute to it. The problem in the choice system is, of course, not the profits themselves. The problem is that one must demand quality and results, and that must be done regardless of whether it is a municipal activity or an independent provider. It doesn't matter. We shall demand results and quality in any case.

Then there is this matter regarding the equalization system. Yes, one can see that a very large proportion goes to Södertälje, Malmö, and Göteborg, which naturally have enormously good conditions to themselves create this benefit for the citizens. It matters who governs the municipalities. One can see how the result for the city of Stockholm has fallen during the recent years.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! One: We are against extracting profit, that is to say, removing money from the welfare system. That is what we are against. That is what damages the quality of the welfare system, and that profit-seeking must be stopped.

Två: I believe the member needs to do some reading. It is not the case that Malmö receives a higher share of the equalization. Yes, if you count by number of inhabitants, because Malmö is larger than, for example, Perstorp. Malmö has more inhabitants than Perstorp. But Perstorp receives more per inhabitant. The member should do some reading before he expresses himself on matters concerning the equalization system, because the member has no basis for what he says. That is just falsehoods being spread.

Three: No, more money perhaps does not play such a big role if there are enough funds. Then perhaps more money does not play such a big role. But there are not enough funds in welfare, and then money matters.

I can make a comparison regarding what we do not agree on. If you give money to people who already have, it doesn't matter that much, does it? But if you give money, that is to say tax cuts, to those who do not have, it matters very much. The SD government perhaps should reflect a bit on how that hangs together.

Fyra: I only requested a time estimate of when the proposals for a fairer distribution of tax funds, that is, the money for welfare in the equalization system, will arrive. When can we get a more just and equal welfare in the whole country? That is what I wonder. When will it be?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva, for the comments here! We will take them in the same order as we started with.

Profit in welfare is a heavy issue to handle for many parties. For us, it is not so difficult, but for you, it must be very difficult. Should one then limit the cleaning company that cleans the school? Should they also have a limitation on profits? Should the construction company that builds schools and roads also have a limitation on profits?

Should we have a completely new system for the companies in Sweden where the state decides how much profit we should have? No, that system is ultimately called socialism, and it is something we do not stand for. We are quite clear that profits in the welfare sector are not the problem. The problem is the delivery of benefit. There we must be tough.

We must also be uncompromising in condemning welfare crime. Money should go to the intended purpose, not to any crime. The government has introduced a number of different activities to limit these effects. It is extremely important, and there we are probably in agreement – the money must, of course, go to what is intended.

When it comes to the most money and how it is calculated per inhabitant, it was what I said in my answer that Malmö receives the most money. I maintain that, because Malmö receives the most money. What I meant was that Malmö has all the opportunities a metropolitan region near Europe has to create prosperity and growth and therefore does not need a municipal equalization system. On the other hand, there are municipalities in upper Norrland that have completely different challenges than Malmö has.

I think that our distribution of the municipal equalization system must be analyzed more, and that is also what the government is doing. It simply doesn't work that we squeeze money out of municipalities with very few inhabitants and distribute it to very large municipalities that should actually be able to manage on their own.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind the members that when addressing a fellow debater, it is not just with a first name, but with a first and last name – and always via the Speaker. You know this after quite a few debates.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! When we go to the health center, we want to be assured that we are met based on our needs, not based on how profitable we are. When we receive a treatment, we want to be sure that it is given to make us healthy, not because it is the most profitable. When our children start school, we want them to be met as students, not as customers or profit opportunities.

Today, several billion of what we pay in taxes for welfare go to private profits, mostly to venture capital firms that do their best to evade taxes. The return on equity for companies within the health and medical care sector is more than double that of the entire service sector. Healthcare has become a cash cow.

What costs the most money, and which is crucial for the quality of welfare, is the staff. It is what companies most often cut back on to make profits. Private elderly care and private schools have lower staffing density and often lower wages than municipal elderly homes and schools have. Insecure employment is significantly more common in private elderly care.

Another way to save money is to rent premises, even for preschools, in properties without a schoolyard or gymnasium.

The profit interest distorts the way welfare functions. Health centers and medical clinics establish themselves much more often in areas where people are well-off and relatively healthy. Profit-driven schools preferably attract students from education-oriented homes with promises and advertising that do not correspond to the quality of the teaching.

As much as two-thirds of Sweden's population want to stop profit distribution in tax-funded healthcare, school, and care. Since criminal gangs established themselves in the welfare sector, there are additional reasons to stop the profits. It is time to make that decision now!

At the same time, the opportunity for idea-driven activities to participate in procurements needs to increase. It is reasonable to try to mitigate some of the negative effects that the LOV system has given rise to. One way is to facilitate for idea-driven actors to participate in procurements. When Uppsala, for example, chose to open a procurement exclusively for idea-driven organizations, the companies appealed and lost. Now I hope that more municipalities and regions can follow suit.

Madam Speaker! We can observe that the right-wing majority does not prioritize municipalities and regions. Instead of listening to the municipalities' plea to halve the number of targeted government grants, they increased them this year. Instead of securing the general government grants, they froze them this year. Instead of allocating resources to the municipalities' and regions' great need for investments, they lowered the tax for high-income earners. The municipalities and regions were left high and dry.

Needs vary and develop in line with population growth, but we do not have any system in Sweden that ensures that resources correspond to the needs. The general state grants are not indexed to follow the automatic cost development. Healthcare, schools, and elderly care must constantly be adapted to the prevailing cost situation instead of according to the citizens' needs. Vänsterpartiet believes that the general state grants to municipalities and regions must be indexed based on changed prices and wages in the municipal sector and based on demographic changes.

Madam Speaker! The municipalities and regions are responsible for a large part of the public activities, such as welfare services within school, health and medical care, elderly care, public transport, water supply and waste management, among others. All municipalities and regions have the same mission. All residents shall have access to good and equal welfare regardless of where in the country one lives.

At the same time, the conditions differ between different municipalities and between different regions when it comes to, for example, tax capacity, population size, age structure, settlement structure, and socioeconomics such as the population's educational background and income. These structural differences lead to the fact that the economic conditions are different both on the revenue side and on the cost side. Therefore, we have the municipal equalization system.

The system aims to create equal economic conditions for all municipalities and regions in the country to be able to provide equal service. The intention is that differences in municipal tax should, in general, reflect differences in efficiency and service and fee levels. It should not be due to structural differences. However, it has long been evident that the system does not fulfill the goal. This is shown, not least by the large differences in municipal and regional tax rates, where there is a difference of almost 7 kronor between the municipality with the highest tax rate and the one with the lowest.

A stop law that punishes municipalities that raise taxes and rewards those that lower them – as the government wants – is not the solution. The solution is a better equalization system and an increased state grant. Today, municipalities are forced to raise taxes if they want to maintain good welfare and service when the government does not increase the state grants but instead lowers the taxes.

Sweden's smallest municipality is large in area. Dorotea is as large as Blekinge and almost as large as half of Stockholm County. In Dorotea, about 2,300 people live, and in Stockholm County, over 2.4 million. In Dorotea, one must keep schools running with about ten students, because it is ten miles to the next school. A small and sparse municipality has different challenges than densely populated municipalities with short distances.

In order for Dorotea and other small rural municipalities to survive, an equalization system is needed that equalizes more. At the same time, we need to inject more money into the system. It cannot be the case that there is a difference of almost 7 kronor in tax due to the demographic conditions.

An investigation has submitted proposals for changes to the equalization system. Even though the investigation's proposals are far from sufficient to create equal economic conditions, the committee's proposals were nevertheless a step in the right direction. So far, the government has not implemented the proposals or even come forward with proposals. It is time to change the equalization system!

Madam Speaker! Since the government took office, we have seen constant cuts in municipalities and regions. The government is increasing the gaps and has doubled the number of poor people. Now, approximately 730,000 people – adult Swedes – live in material and relative poverty.

During the right-wing government's time in power, evictions have increased sharply. Since 2022, the number of evictions via the Enforcement Authority has increased by almost 50 percent. More than 824 children were evicted from their or a parent's residence during 2025. When children are evicted, the social services must act, and it results in costs for the municipalities.

With the policy that the right-wing government pursues, where people have become poorer and in the future will become even poorer, costs in the municipalities are increasing. When Denmark, for example, lowered social benefits, crime among young people increased. If the municipalities are forced to make cuts in social services, leisure activities, schools, and support for non-profit organizations, children's vulnerability increases even more. A wise municipality invests in the children to compensate for the government's lack of interest, even if it may require a tax increase.

Madam Speaker! It is my and the Left Party's absolute conviction that a strong, jointly funded and equal welfare, low unemployment and a strong social insurance system is the best way to counteract the class society. Today's large gaps between people and between municipalities must be reduced. All of Sweden is needed, and all people are needed. The municipalities and regions must be able to deliver good welfare without profit interest.

Sweden needs a new government and a new policy.

I support all the reservations, but I move for the approval of reservation 10 regarding the stop of profits in welfare.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are discussing the municipalities, for it is there that we build Sweden. This was stated by the Christian Democrats' first party leader, the priest Birger Ekstedt. The municipalities look very different and have different conditions. In the municipalities, municipal self-government prevails, and we believe that the decisions can become both better and more legitimate.

Here we allow ourselves to be guided by the so-called subsidiarity principle. It means that decisions should be made at the lowest possible effective level. Where the family can best decide the matters at home at the kitchen table, no higher authority should intervene. This applies all the way up to the European level.

The municipalities and regions provide a large part of the so-called welfare services that we as citizens value and are in need of. At the same time, the municipalities' activities are broad – one can say without exaggeration – and span such diverse areas as healthcare, elderly care, education, culture, leisure activities and technical infrastructure, to name just a few. Municipalities and regions are a sector that in 2024 turned over over 1.4 trillion kronor – 1,400 billion kronor. It is thus one of Sweden's absolute largest economic entities.

Madam Speaker! Let us always take care not to lump municipalities and regions together as if they were the same, because they are not. Just as people cannot be judged solely by biological sex, age, skin color, or nationality, the municipalities must be judged individually. One municipality may have a shortage of housing while there are jobs to apply for. Another municipality may say exactly the opposite: Here there is housing, but on the other hand, there are no jobs.

I believe that we will find a number of keys in giving space for more creative solutions, more of deregulation and less of detailed regulation. We need to reduce lead times and so on, as well as implement rule simplifications. I believe that companies, organizations and the public sector need not only to be able but also to dare to take initiatives to speed up the construction of the Sweden of the future.

Madam Speaker! It has been almost eight years since I entered the Riksdag, and one has witnessed quite a lot during these eight years. There have been shocking things such as the pandemic, not least, as well as high energy costs and the experience of war in our immediate vicinity. We have seen the horrific massacre that Hamas carried out on civilian Israelis. There are threats of tariffs that come and go, I was about to say, and now we also have the uncertainty surrounding oil prices and other things as a consequence of the situation in Iran. Alongside the enormous human suffering that these things have caused, they naturally pressure Sweden economically and make the economic future more uncertain.

Inflation was at almost 10 percent when we took power, and I do not mention that to assign blame here or there, but to state that precisely the inflation meant that municipalities and regions were calculated to receive an increase in pension costs of approximately 50 billion. Now that we have brought down inflation to the target level – and even below it – resources are released for the municipalities to spend money on other things.

Madam Speaker! Even though there are risk factors that we must always take into account – things do not just go smoothly – we now see more and more clearly the long-awaited signals that the recession is loosening its grip on our economy. I have great faith in the budget for 2026 that we in the Riksdag have approved. It feels, at the very least, reasonable, I believe, that we support households through, among other things, reduced tax on work, reduced tax on pension, reduced tax on fuels, reduced VAT on food, reduced tax on electricity, and reduced tax on the sickness and activity allowance, to mention a few examples.

I mention this because the municipal sector's economic conditions are largely influenced by the development of the tax base – and because the development of the tax base is influenced by how much people work. That we now have a government that wants to re-establish the work principle and improve the business climate is therefore also good for the municipalities' finances.

I want to take this opportunity to once again remind the House that the cake that many debaters so gladly want to talk about how it should be distributed must first be baked. It will also be easier to distribute the cake if it grows. Therefore, I am pleased that we Christian Democrats in the government cooperation pushed for the growth budget the government has for 2026. It strengthens purchasing power, gets more people into work, and makes it more profitable for people to run businesses. Investments are also made in both research and infrastructure. If growth is not accelerated, it will ultimately affect welfare – be certain of that! Therefore, it is very hopeful that Sweden is now projected to be one of the absolute leading countries within the EU when it comes to precisely growth.

Madam Speaker! We have an equalization system which, when it fulfills its purpose, provides the possibility of equal economic conditions for municipalities and regions. It should not counteract efficiency, development, and growth. The equalization system is important because the situations look very different out in the country, and one must remember that the municipalities have exactly the same mandate even if the situations look different. The municipalities have a primary mandate, and that is to ensure that citizens can rely on the welfare being there when they need it. In the municipalities, citizens shall also be given the opportunity to develop and grow, so that everyone can participate and contribute to our social community.

Madam Speaker! I will give you a tip: If you want to sleep well at night, you should not end the day by reading about the dependency ratio and the forecasts for the same. The dependency ratio is, therefore, the relationship between the working-age population and those who are children and young or retirees. A higher ratio indicates a greater dependency burden for the working-age population. Even though the number of employed people is now expected to increase, which mitigates the consequences of the dependency ratio, the forecast is that the current dependency ratio, which stands at 70, is to grow to 92 during the next 50 years. This is due to declining birth rates and an increase in the number of elderly.

I therefore want to conclude my speech by saying that I believe it is important that we continue to review the municipalities' operations and that they are improved. Since 1993, the state has had an efficiency requirement regarding the agencies' administrative costs. We Christian Democrats believe that the municipalities should also work according to that line and constantly strive to develop their methods of work. When a municipality identifies a way to do something both cheaper and better, resources are released that can be reinvested in the core activities. It also makes it possible to prioritize what is most important for the citizens, namely healthcare, school, and elderly care.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Hans Eklind lifts this with the cake, that is, the part that is to generate tax for the welfare. But as it looks today, under this government, there are 500,000 who stand without work.

I mean that this is one of the more important factors, that is to say that – just as the member highlighted – the volume that can pay tax is large. Does the member consider that enough has been done to get more people into work? Today there are 500,000 unemployed, including academics, and we have seen this throughout the entire mandate period. What are the government's solutions for the future today?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Anders Karlsson!

I said in my speech that we are presenting a growth budget. I know that the member, just as I do, is aware of the fact that four out of five jobs are created in small and medium-sized enterprises. If one wants to solve unemployment, one must ensure that we have an entrepreneurship where not only do people who have a life dream dare to start companies, but where entrepreneurs also dare to grow. That is the solution that applies in the long run, but it begins already here and now, with this budget. I think we are presenting a very offensive budget.

One can also bring up this point about how we are lowering the costs for households so significantly. Yes, it is true that a family with two children receives approximately 5,050 kronor more per month compared to before this government took office, but just the fact that households are getting improved purchasing power is extremely central to bringing forward more companies – and furthermore, companies that are doing well and that dare to hire. I therefore think that Anders Karlsson can be reassured that this government has already taken a number of measures.

What people do not talk about so much, but which I think is important, are the regulatory simplifications that have been made. This concerns the receipt requirement and other things. It is a cost that companies have had, and this government is reviewing regulatory simplifications in a way that no other government has ever done. We also have an implementation council that works with this regarding gold-plating, as it is called, namely that things are complicated to such a mild degree that we over-implement EU rules in Sweden. We have an implementation council that looks at what constitutes a good minimum level.

On a number of different points, both regarding the economy and regarding rules and other matters, this government therefore ensures that it does not just wait but actually stays one step ahead. Taken together with the budget bill and all the other work we do, I see that we will return to a situation where companies now drive the creation of new jobs in a completely different way.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Hans Eklind for the answer.

We do not only see high unemployment in Sweden today, but we also see a skills shortage – strangely enough, given the high unemployment. When we look at the core of the welfare system, namely the school, we see that 20,000 of those who complete primary school today are not eligible for upper secondary school. This is an important part to take seriously. Even here, things have gone in the wrong direction.

Madam Speaker! I mean that these two things go together. One must ensure that the municipalities function and can deliver a good school so that we get the right competence for our companies and so that we get growth. Both of these things have gone in the wrong direction during this parliamentary term.

I hope that Hans Eklind has a similar view of this. If he does not, he has the opportunity to reply.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! It was undeniably kind that I was allowed to reply to a, I think, rather ill-intentioned closing remark.

I still think that Anders Karlsson pointed out a number of different things that I also see as extremely important. Sweden has a matching problem that this government is trying to address. We are expanding the vocational training in a way that has not been done before.

I also see that we have a need for competence. It is not just about developing competence within the country, but that is best done by ensuring that it pays to study. The person who takes those extra years in higher education should also be able to see it reflected in their paycheck – anything else would be completely reckless.

I won't say it like that, but I must nevertheless note that Anders Karlsson wants to cooperate with a type of parties that have a different view on this than I do. Good luck, I say to the member if he means it seriously when he says we have a competence shortage. I don't quite understand how we are to remedy it with the other side's way of looking at people's possibilities to make a career and live well on their salary after having invested very much work.

I do not quite understand the conclusion that Anders Karlsson reaches. What I really care about when it comes to unemployment is achieving a much better functioning integration and an integration that is more demanding. If we look at the unemployment figures, we see that it is to an all too great extent those born abroad who dominate there. If one removes these persons, Sweden no longer has any deviating unemployment.

What differs in our case in Sweden is that we have a much greater difficulty in getting people who come to our country to take a job. Here, I believe very much in what the government is doing with the new benefit reform, not least when it comes to the activity requirement. If you are capable of working but unemployed, you shall activate yourself and make yourself employable. I believe that in the long run, this is one of the government's most important measures during this mandate period.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Finance's report 2025/26:FiU26 Municipal Affairs. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2 under point 1, regarding the municipal economic equalization system.

There are large differences between municipalities in this country. Those who look at the tax level in the different municipalities see a clear picture: Northern Sweden has significantly higher taxes than southern Sweden, with the exception of the Småland highlands, where some kind of Norrland phenomenon prevails. It can differ by as much as 6 kronor. The large difference has an effect when it comes to what one can do and achieve as a municipality.

It is important that these differences are leveled in some way and that we do not wait too long. I have been in the Riksdag for just over three years. I have studied this and what we do to move in that direction. I am not particularly impressed by the results. Some improvements have indeed occurred, but they have not made any decisive difference. There are still large differences between the municipalities. That has also been the case under other governments and for a long time.

Madam Speaker! More overarching changes are required in this area and acceptance of the picture we see. It is a must that we get the whole country to hang together. Then we must take the question of tax equalization seriously. It is not reasonable that northern Sweden, which has very large natural resources and which delivers both electricity and other resources to the southern parts of the country, has a significantly higher tax level. This is neither reasonable nor fair.

The equalization system should have more focus on how densely people live, sparseness and similar conditions than is the case today.

What effects does this have? The effect, many times, Madam Speaker, is that the school's results suffer. This can be compensated to some extent by raising the tax, but there are many times a limit to this. There is a limit to the citizens' acceptance for going this way all the way.

At the same time, we are discussing almost a school issue in this report. When we look at the financing, we are touching upon the effect on the school. It is distressing to see that 20,000 students today cannot proceed to upper secondary school because the school has not managed to deliver a good education to them. This is not acceptable, and it absolutely does not need to look that way. If one lets the municipalities govern more and use their wisdom and their local ability to know what is needed, one can achieve a significantly better level than having 20,000 who cannot proceed to upper secondary school.

I also want to say something about independent schools. If you, like me, come from a smaller municipality with just over 30,000 inhabitants, you are quite happy if you get any independent school to show interest. I am fundamentally for freedom of choice. That freedom of choice many times makes it a bit easier to make a positive choice. Not everyone may fit into the municipal school, and by having independent schools, one can make a positive choice toward such a school.

I had the privilege of bringing in a free school that showed interest and which we said yes to when I was a municipal councilor and had responsibility for these issues. When one makes such a maneuver, the existing municipal schools also stretch their backs and show that they can do a bit more. One therefore does not only get the effect of bringing in a free school and freedom of choice, but one can also get other positive effects.

When additional independent schools wanted to enter and take over a third of the municipal activities, I, on the other hand, was not on board. I realized that the risks of getting that type of independent schools were very large for a smaller municipality.

For me, it is totally obvious that independent schools must have the opportunity to make a profit. I see a problem with saying that one does not want profit. I saw that the John Bauer school in Jönköping did not make it. The problem is much greater if one incurs a loss in the independent schools. When someone is unable to manage an operation, a municipal school has a responsibility to take over immediately. It is much worse than an independent school having the opportunity to take a profit.

However, the same requirements must be placed on municipal schools and independent schools.

I am very satisfied with the School Inspectorate's way of exercising its duty of supervision. But the municipalities also have a duty of supervision, also when it concerns independent schools. Even though a clarification from the government has been required, I mean that the municipalities have always had a duty of supervision even when it concerns independent schools.

How transparent the municipalities are in their reporting of their finances is not unimportant. It concerns both results and the investment budget. Here, the Riksdag has voted through a proposal from the government on how the municipalities can manage a surplus in a more flexible way and more like a company. This happened at the beginning of the mandate period, and I welcome it. The proposal makes it a bit simpler for a municipality to manage its result, because it should not be difficult. However, it is not about real money but about putting together a result so that one can use a surplus in terms of results. The National Audit Office must also have full control, and the transparency must, as said, be great when it comes to municipal finances.

When it comes to state funds, many today have raised the issue of targeted state grants versus general state grants. Naturally, the municipalities are grateful for general state grants, as they can more easily make their own priorities. It is going in the right direction now, and we must not let go of this. It is as with regulatory simplifications; it is easy to fall back into the old ways as soon as one takes the next step. But the general state grants should absolutely be prioritized, and given how much we have agreed on the issue during today's debate, it should be self-evident to proceed in this direction.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Life in Sweden takes place in our municipalities. It is there that children go to school, it is there that the elderly receive their care, and it is there that people encounter the welfare state – or encounter its shortcomings. Therefore, it is also there that the consequences of politics become most clear.

Today we are talking about municipal issues and actually about what kind of Sweden we want. Is it a Sweden where welfare is strong regardless of where one lives, a Sweden where tax funds are used for what they are intended for, and a Sweden where municipalities have the power to both manage the welfare and transition to a sustainable society? Or is it a Sweden where the responsibility is pushed downwards, where resources are insufficient, and where the differences grow?

One of the most decisive issues is that of the municipalities' long-term financing. Today, the municipalities are being pressured from several sides simultaneously. It is about increased needs, demographic changes, and climate challenges, while at the same time the government is not taking its responsibility.

Miljöpartiet wants the state to take a greater and more long-term responsibility for the municipal sector's economy by increasing and then indexing the state grants. Around the country, one should not have to patch and repair year after year, always with too few resources for the needs, so that one is forced into cuts. In recent years, the Tidö government's economic policy has forced the municipalities to do exactly that. This causes welfare to falter when stability and planning conditions are needed.

It is about something as simple as being able to hire and not having to dismiss. It is particularly important to be able to protect the staff one has and be able to attract more. Otherwise, we will not manage to secure the welfare. If no one wants to work within the welfare sector, it will collapse.

In addition to the government continuing to underfund the welfare system, they are also throwing out the people who work there. These are people who have lived here for a long time, who have learned the language, who have children in school, who have done everything right, and who work in the welfare system where they are so desperately needed. The Tidö government is now throwing them out of Sweden. It is a cold and ruthless policy, not only against those who wanted to build their future and live their lives here but also against those who have to wait longer and longer in the healthcare queues and who cannot get an appointment at the health center.

As if this were not enough, we have a system where it is not needs but the market that rules. But welfare is not just any market. When tax money leaves the classroom, the health center, or the elderly care home and instead becomes profit distribution, it is not only the economy that is eroded, but also trust.

Miljöpartiet wants to see, instead, a welfare where the resources stay in the operation and where needs and quality take precedence over short-term returns.

Sweden is today the only country in the world where unlimited profit withdrawals are allowed in tax-funded schools. It is actually completely crazy when you think about it. From a socio-economic perspective, it is incredibly stupid, but the system of the market school is not just a question of economics but of the entire school's mission. When schools compete for students as customers, the incentives change. Grades risk becoming a means of competition, profitability, not needs, governs the resources, and segregation is reinforced. What should be an equal school where all students receive the help they need to reach the goals instead becomes increasingly divided, and many students leave school without passing grades.

It is also serious that the system drives forward a development that no one has decided on and that no one wants to be held responsible for, especially not the citizens and the Sverigedemokraterna. It is a development where schools are established where it is most profitable, not where the needs are greatest. It means that municipalities have to take a greater responsibility without receiving corresponding resources and that students are sorted rather than met. This has not just happened by chance; it is not an accident. This is increasingly an obvious consequence of the system's own logic.

We need to re-establish the basic idea of the school and see it as what it truly should be, namely a pillar of society and not a market. Miljöpartiet wants to return to the principle that quality comes before profit, equality comes before competition, and the students' needs come before the owners' return on investment. Miljöpartiet has long seen that this is not possible in this system. We must therefore all ask ourselves: What is the purpose of our common resources? Is it to create a return on a school market, or is it to build a strong and equal society?

For us in Miljöpartiet, it is clear. Profits must be removed from the school equation, and the market experiment must come to an end.

Madam Speaker! This is also important: At the same time as we in Miljöpartiet are critical of profit-driven actors, we want to strengthen the purpose-driven actors, i.e., civil society, cooperation, and organizations driven by commitment, not by profit interest. Here, people have come together and committed themselves to a better society, for a village school, or for a health center that otherwise would have been closed down. We think it is important to safeguard this. We want to strengthen them, because it is they who truly stand for diversity and take care of people's will to contribute and build something better together.

Madam Speaker! Everything we want to do in the municipalities contributes to creating a more equal and sustainable Sweden. We want to see stronger and more long-term funding with indexing. We want to see that the tax money stays in welfare. We want the market school to be removed but that the idea-driven actors should get better conditions.

When the state fails, it is felt in the municipalities, and when the municipalities are not enough, it is felt in people's everyday lives and becomes a question of justice, trust, and faith in the future.

The Green Party chooses a Sweden where welfare is held together and inequalities are reduced, where we invest in the future and do not push the problems ahead of us. Sweden deserves better, and therefore we must change the government in September.

I support all our reservations but move for approval only of reservation 9.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 18.)

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