Culture, media, religious communities and leisure

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is about the final culture budget during this mandate period. There have been lively debates during these years, which has been fun and refreshing in many ways.

It has also been striking how entertaining the opposition's tone and criticism have at times been during these years. It is interesting, not least considering that this mandate period has been characterized by budgets that have actually passed through the chamber, which has created a financial stability and a long-term perspective that has been good for Sweden. This applies especially in these times of uncertainty, both regarding Russia's heinous invasion of Ukraine and regarding the high inflation and the recession that we have gone through.

It is also interesting because the criticism that the opposition has directed at us over the years has been that we invest too little in culture. It is a slaughter, and you are starving out culture! So it could have sounded, for example. But the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have during these years invested in parts of culture that have been necessary to address. This applies in particular to cultural heritage, sports, preparedness, and reading.

Mr. Speaker! Six seven, Sigma and 507 – these are things that I find incredibly difficult to keep up with. I am constantly reminded of these by my sons, who say that I am far too old to understand this. It also puts a bit of a finger on the digitalization that we have seen and what actually affects our children and young people. Investments in the Swedish language and literacy have been important priorities for the government and the Sverigedemokraterna. My colleagues in the committee will during the debate report on what else we are investing in.

Mr. Speaker! We have, therefore, been able to make investments despite the previous government leaving behind a historically high inflation which resulted in a serious recession. The question then is why it is interesting to look backward when we should be looking forward.

It depends on the fact that the criticism is directed at the Sweden Democrats and the government, and when cultural workers choose to come here and follow the debate in real time here in the chamber as a kind of protest, I want to be very clear about one thing: The last budget that the previous government submitted to the Riksdag included a total of 16.2 billion in expenditure area 17 in the forecast for 2024. What is important to keep in mind is that this government's culture budget for the same year included 16.6 billion kronor. Is that enough? No, it is not. But the last three years have been characterized by financial instability, and that must be kept in mind.

What do I want to say with this? The opposition now apparently has the opportunity to invest heavily in culture, and then my question is: Why didn't they do that when they were in power? Temporary support during the pandemic, to its credit – that was absolutely good and necessary – but where did all the long-term investments go? Those are the kinds of things that they apparently want to do now.

Why did one literally let the roof fall in on our beautiful state museums? Why did one let the Opera decay? Why did one not take action regarding important cultural monuments in the form of castles, ancient remains and so on? That is what we have done through the grant properties. Why did one not increase the church antiquarian compensation to secure the ecclesiastical cultural heritage? Why did one not invest in preparedness and digitalization? These are questions that I think are important to ask.

It also concerns the cultural cooperation model. Why were the appropriations not increased during the years of high economic growth and low inflation when you are now sitting here as the opposition and want to invest in all of this? These are questions for which the opposition is answerable, especially given the high level of tail-wagging that you now have in these issues.

Now it is truly possible to invest. Miljöpartiet and Vänstern increase by 2.4 billion kronor more than the government. It is not serious! The Socialdemokraterna increase by 700 million kronor more by restoring the supports to themselves through ABF. It is hardly surprising, but why is the culture school used as a segregation-breaking measure? Centerpartiet also increases but simultaneously cuts back on contemporary culture and cultural heritage to invest in study associations and sports.

Mr. Speaker! These investments, as has been said, could have been made during a period of high economic growth and low inflation. It is a thought that I believe even the spectators in the stands should take with them.

The Sweden Democrats have since 2022 worked tirelessly to tackle organized crime, clean up after decades of an irresponsible integration and migration policy, lower electricity and fuel prices for ordinary people, break subsidy dependency, stop skyrocketing inflation, create growth, and so on, and so forth.

These are things that people out there see and appreciate, and that is what is important to me. We have done all of this to create security after decades of mismanagement. We have started this and laid the foundation for it through a historically high pace of reform.

As a culture policy spokesperson, I would of course have wished that Sweden had had better conditions to invest in culture. I would have wanted to invest more in culture that creates value for ordinary people every day. I would not have wanted to have to renovate neglected cultural properties, build up preparedness and digitalization, or save cultural monuments from being lost forever. It would have been nice if it had been done continuously all the time, but that has not been done. That is how it is, and we Sverigedemokrater will continue to prioritize in our own way. That is something I am proud of.

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

(Applause)

In this speech, Pia Trollehjelm (SD) agreed.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Alexander Christiansson, for the speech!

If we are to make some fiscal policy observations between our parties and our elections, one can say that although you have had a recession, your policy has deepened the recession. Your fiscal policy has led to the recession becoming much longer and deeper than what would have been necessary. Your policy has led to higher unemployment, lower growth, and large deficits.

It depends on that you choose the wrong things, such as lowering the tax for the rich instead of doing it for ordinary people. As a result, we also get worse welfare. One can afford less, and that is sad.

I have a specific question. In your budget, you are making draconian cuts to popular education and study associations, with a third of the appropriations. Premises and staff in the operations will disappear. This primarily affects rural areas and the countryside and their opportunities for cultural events, association life, and their own creativity. In many municipalities, study associations are the only thing that exists.

Furthermore, we have a rehearsal room death. It is said that 20,000 people could lose their rehearsal rooms because of this.

This is not something one is forced to do, but something one chooses to do: to remove a third of the infrastructure for culture in Sweden.

When you remove this many rehearsal rooms, I think of the music country Sweden. What does Alexander Christiansson think the consequences will be for a music country like Sweden if 20,000 people lose their rehearsal rooms? What do you think?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we have ideological differences when it comes to economic policy. To invest one's way out of low growth is a means that we use and which I think is good. It costs in the moment, but it also gives back.

When it comes to our initiatives on adult education, I do not know for the how many times we have a debate on that specific issue. I understand that one wants to bring it up. Our policy is based on the criticism that has been directed at the study associations, not least from the National Audit Office, linked to the cheating and the irregularities that have existed there. Certain measures have been taken against this, but we would gladly have seen a larger reform of adult education.

How the Folkbildningsrådet and the study associations, in cooperation and the study associations themselves, choose to prioritize with the resources they receive – they still receive very much money, after all – is up to them. It is nothing that we politicians interfere in.

Then there was the view on what state funding has meant for the music miracle. Yes, it has contributed. But it is not the case that Sweden is a fantastic music country solely because of state funds. There are other things that make us enormously good at music in this country. It is even a phenomenon. Within the music world, people say: What is in the water in Sweden? How is it that you manage to build up such a fantastic industry around music?

It is in any case not the Social Democrats' merit. In the 70s, the Social Democrats were supposed to challenge the commercial culture. They thought that ABBA was just glitter and such nonsense. Let me put it this way: ABBA succeeded despite, not thanks to, the Social Democrats – so be it said.

We have different priorities. I think it is a pity that one chooses to prioritize as one does within the student unions, but that is how it is. We will nevertheless continue to act against organizations that engage in cheating.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I believe the member is confusing the Social Democrats with the 68 movement. They are somewhat different things.

The government says that things have been done to invest one's way out of the economic situation. Yes, you have cut back on housing construction when the economy fell. You have cut back on labor market policy when unemployment increased. You have steered consumption toward those who have the most money and put it in the bank instead of toward those who needed the money to go to the store and buy food. It affects the economy, which means that you have a worse economy, lower growth, larger deficits, and poorer welfare as a result – boring!

When it comes to the study associations, I still think it is a question of infrastructure and proximity. I believe it matters for the music country Sweden that people have access to premises wherever they live – that it is accessible, that it is nearby, that people can have this in their everyday lives.

Regarding the fraud, they cleaned that up much earlier, several years ago. The cuts now are not linked to study associations that have left. The lost staff is simply, or for the very most part, linked to the cuts.

To date, 15 percent of the study associations' rehearsal rooms have been removed, but 19 percent of general premises. This means that one has prioritized less to remove specifically rehearsal rooms and instead prioritized removing other things. What does the member think is more important to prioritize removing if one is not to have rehearsal rooms? This concerns the associations' arrangements, the activities of the elderly, theaters, concerts, author visits, and arrangements that are to come to the local community. It is a cultural heritage. It is an educational tradition, and there are people who uphold it locally.

What of what they do and carry is it that should be removed? If it is not rehearsal rooms, what is it that should be prioritized for removal?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost three debates in one. There will be some fiscal policy debate as well, but that is interesting. The member has sat on the Committee on Finance for many years, so I understand that it touches on that.

When it comes to the 68 movement and the Social Democrats, I refer to the culture bill that you tabled before the Riksdag in 1974. There is a record that the Social Democrats had a clear negativity towards commercial culture. But we can have that discussion another time.

All this with electricity prices, fuel prices and the economy is about things that were done before we took power. What we have done is to ensure that prices are lowered for ordinary people. As said, we perhaps should not have a fiscal policy debate here, but I am very proud of what the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have done for ordinary people in the countryside.

It was raised how the student unions should prioritize. Unlike Björn Wiechel and the Socialdemokraterna, I am not allowed to comment on the culture and say what should be prioritized. There is, so to speak, a kind of invisible line between them. In that case, I would be violating the arm's length principle, so I will not do that.

I can, however, say this: Sveriges Television made a very interesting documentary about the miracle of music where it was shown that the free church has played an incredibly important role for music in Sweden. I myself come from a musical family and have grown up within that movement. You can go to almost any professional musician in Sweden: Very many of them have this background, and it is addressed in the documentary. There are, therefore, many different parts that have played a role.

My ambition is not for the study associations to close down rehearsal rooms. With reference to the cheating and the irregularities that have existed within the study associations, it could however be seen that something needed to be done, and we have done that. We will also continue to do so, and I will stand tall and with my back straight when we do.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your speech, Alexander Christiansson! I am pleased to hear that the opposition has at least been entertaining in the cultural debate. That is, of course, our goal with the opposition work.

Another goal is to examine the cuts that have been made with the Tidö government and the majority we have now had for three years and will have for another year.

We will also examine your arguments in the budget you have now presented. When Alexander Christiansson asks why we did not invest in culture when we were in power, I must still answer that it is obvious that we did. We could, of course, have invested more, but if one follows culture's share of the state budget over a long period, one can see clear dips when the right-wing rules and peaks when it is red-green rule in Sweden. I think, therefore, that we have done so.

One can also ask, and I think it is an important question, what would have happened if Miljöpartiet's Amanda Lind had not served as Minister for Culture during the pandemic. Would we have seen the pandemic deaths? And above all: Would we have seen the substantial restart grants? Probably not. In hindsight, one can believe that it was a given that this would happen, but it naturally was not.

I intended to ask a question about the preparedness. When you have dismantled the cultural life across the country in this way, the preparedness also suffers. Dik submitted a report which showed that only 4 percent of those who work at libraries and museums consider the preparedness at libraries and museums around Sweden to be sufficient. I think this is a failing grade for the government, especially since the government does not seem to care about it.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Our debates are entertaining. I hope that I also contribute to that. It was not my intention to be mocking. I think this is important.

Culture differs slightly from other debates in the chamber, at least regarding the committees I have sat on previously. It evokes many emotions, and that is also very good. I believe that culture should evoke emotions.

I last went through the cultural cooperation model, for example, and I have also done so before in other debates. During the years that Amanda Lind was Minister for Culture, it was not counted up at all. Then it was counted up during the pandemic, and I think Amanda Lind did a good job then. It was necessary, and she did it in a good way.

There were discussions during the pandemic that I was bothered by regarding the private actors, who were not even identified as cultural workers. They were seen as belonging to the entertainment industry. How that gap could have arisen in Sweden is another debate. But even there, people were eventually on their toes and made sure to rectify it.

When it comes to preparedness, we have sat here for three years. The government, together with us Sweden Democrats, has held power for three years. Mats Berglund knows what challenges Sweden as a nation has faced. It has been incredibly much. Before Russia attacked Ukraine, there was practically no one talking about preparedness – at least it happened very rarely. Then, all of a sudden, it was included in everything. That was when one realized: Oh, what have we done in this country? What has happened? We have dismantled the defense. We have converted all our magazines and bunkers into bicycle garages and all sorts of things. And all of a sudden, we are standing here in an ice-cold shower that makes us wake up startled and realize that – oh! – something should have been done a long time ago.

But that we are not investing in preparedness and digitalization is not true.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say that I am pleased that we have a very good debate in the Culture Committee. On that, we agree.

On your side, regarding the cultural cooperation model, you have not only avoided increasing but have actually even decreased the appropriations to it for this year. I agree – I think it is a problem that the cultural cooperation model has been dragged down with a deficit actually almost since the start and has not received enough. But we have, in any case, more money now, almost 150 million, in our budget. We would like to implement that.

Regarding preparedness, we agree across party lines that we need to invest in defense and civil defense. In the Defense Preparation Committee, they also actually address the importance of both cultural life and preserving cultural heritage. We know from almost all wars that cultural heritage is attacked. But also the living cultural life – theaters, cinemas, reading, books, the entire cultural life – needs to function even during war and crisis. We are not only talking about war here, but it can also be crises.

Civil society needs to function. We saw, for example, during the refugee crisis 2015–2016, how incredibly important civil society was to make it work.

What you have pointed out, that there are lacking resources for the preservation, digitalization, and protection of cultural heritage, is one thing, but you also seem to have completely missed what the Defense Preparedness Board has written about the importance of culture. We see in the war in Ukraine how important cultural life is. We must build up cultural life in peacetime so that it functions during war and crisis. I think you have completely missed that part.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! My rhetorical question, for I realize that the member cannot answer, is: Did the Green Party do enough for preparedness during its years, truly, considering that they now have this tail-end and say that we have not invested in this? It is one of the areas we actually have invested in. Have we invested enough? It is possible that we have not done so. Then we would have had to prioritize differently. But we must zoom out a bit in the picture and see the whole picture and what we do in the nation Sweden, not just in the cultural sphere.

We are restructuring large parts of the distribution policy to meet the new demands we face as a nation, with an enormous integration debt, crime – all of that. I do not need to repeat it all. It is easy to stand here and say these things now, in opposition. But if one were to look at oneself in the mirror, the question is: Are you satisfied? Does the member think that one did a good job in these issues during their eight years?

Okay, we should have needed to put more on the cultural cooperation model. I think most of us in here would want that. When we handle our negotiations internally, as one always does in a government – this can Mats Berglund – it is a holistic picture that the politics must take into account. As individual members of Parliament, we are constantly fighting for our values. I think we have succeeded quite well, given those conditions.

What remains is the question of why one did not succeed better during eight years with a completely different premise, purely economically. I think that is a much more relevant discussion to have with the Green Party and the Social Democrats. I am not directing this at the cultural creators, but with you, I am happy to have that debate.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can start by just briefly answering the question I received: What did Miljöpartiet do regarding crisis management during the last parliamentary term? We managed one of the very biggest crises we have had in modern Swedish history, I would say, namely the pandemic. As mentioned, what would have happened if Miljöpartiet had not held the position of Minister for Culture during the pandemic? I am thinking primarily of the restart grants that were provided, which we would have gladly liked to make permanent.

Mr. Speaker! Culture, sports, outdoor life, free media, religious communities, popular education and people's engagement are building blocks for a strong, resilient, democratic society. Strong, engaged individuals build strong, democratic societies. The public expenditures for all this are a measure of the different parties' trust in people's own engagement but also in the trust in democracy.

Democracy – this soon-to-be-obsolete word. In my own historical studies, I have encountered how the concept of democracy before universal and equal suffrage was introduced was used as a derogatory term for a social order that has lost control and the strong leader. And if we look out into the world today, we see that we are back at square one. Democracy is in a strong and rapid decline. Only 29 countries in the world are still strong democracies. It is 12 percent of the world's population that lives in a democracy, according to the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg.

According to Reporters Without Borders, there are only seven countries left in the world that have a good situation for journalists. Sweden is one of those countries. We continue to rank high in the rankings.

We can, of course, choose to feel some kind of pride and satisfaction. But the correct feeling is concern. These are loud warning bells. We are high, but we are losing both points and positions in rankings.

One often hears that one is like Peter in the fable crying wolf when one shows that also the Swedish freedom is threatened, challenged, and exhausted. But the wolf is prowling around, and no, it does not help to defy both the EU Commission and science and lower the reference value to 170 Swedish wolves, which the government is doing right now in order to eventually eradicate the species completely in the Swedish forests. I will return to that discussion.

But the threats to democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression also exist here in Sweden. They come from many sides: from antagonistic states, from domestic troll factories, and from the government budget that we are discussing today.

According to Dagens tidning Magasin K, next year's culture budget is the lowest in over a quarter of a century, seen as a share of the budget's size. The dismantling of culture is visible in closed libraries, poorer opening hours for museums, fewer independent exhibitions, and recycled music houses and rehearsal spaces across the country. It is primarily the rural areas and the people who live there who are affected when premises and activities are closed and shut down.

Cuts are also being made to the theaters. And Swedish film has the second lowest public support of all Western European countries. I wonder: Where is the film proposition?

We also see it in a constant suspicion and questioning of the culture, the free media and public service, not infrequently from representatives of the government parties.

Only 4 percent of Sweden's library and museum employees believe they have sufficient resources to fulfill the preparedness mission. One might think that is an alarming figure. But the Tidö government's Minister for Civil Defence overrules the culture and argues that it is the librarians who have misunderstood their job description.

The Prime Minister's press secretary says in SVT's Politikbyrån that it is her "responsibility to point out quality deficiencies in the media." It is a somewhat odd notion in a state with freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

The Minister for Culture said at a film festival this spring that she does not consider it to be her mission to be the representative of culture in the government. Who will then represent culture in the government and in the budget negotiations with the Minister for Finance? In the Tidö government, that function is obviously missing. And we are getting the lowest culture budget in 26 years. We cannot have it this way.

Miljöpartiet thinks bigger about culture. In our budget, there are 2.4 billion more for the entire expenditure area and 1.5 billion more for culture. Culture needs a restart after the hard years with the Tidö Government. The wheels must start rolling.

We have 150 million in our budget for the cultural cooperation model, for which the government, for the first time since the model was launched, lowered the appropriations to in this year, 2025. We have 200 million more than the government for the cultural schools, 150 million for strengthened libraries and 300 million for a film fund to implement the Film Commission's proposals.

We want to see a cultural right of public access for all children and young people. This means reintroduced compulsory aesthetic subjects throughout the school system. We know that personal creation is important for personal development and for performance in all school subjects. Studies show that results in natural sciences and mathematics benefit more from an hour of personal creation than from an extra hour of mathematics on the schedule. Today, aesthetic abilities are also required in almost every profession on the labor market.

In our cultural right of access, there is also more song and music in preschool and a cultural guarantee for all school pupils. It is a guarantee to repeatedly encounter professional culture throughout the entire school system.

The culture school receives strengthened state support. But we also want to introduce a culture school act to strengthen the municipalities, to level the differences between the municipalities, and to support the pedagogy and strengthen the culture school teachers.

Culture must also have the opportunity to reach everyone. Miljöpartiet wants to see a vibrant and strong cultural life across the entire country. We restore the substantial cuts of half a billion to the study associations and strengthen the folk high schools with an additional 100 million.

We are investing 150 million in addition to the government's investment in strengthened and more accessible public libraries. The AI Commission argues that the population's knowledge needs to be strengthened regarding things such as fake, manipulated, and AI-generated works. We listen to that and allocate an additional 100 million to the libraries for that work. We believe this is important for, for example, preparedness.

We also know that the free cultural life is in need of organizers, venues and infrastructure. In order for the cultural ecosystems out in the country not to collapse but to be able to recover, become strong and functional, we are therefore allocating new resources to the voluntarily organized culture, to the organizing sector, to local organizations and to the art forms – music, theater, dance. We also strengthen the compensation to the artists. We commit to increasing the grants every year, for example to the cultural cooperation model.

I mentioned the wolf. It is an ancient symbol of danger and a being that in folklore brought misfortune and death. But it is also an enabler, a guarantor of diversity and species richness in our forests. Our large predators are crucial for the ecosystems to survive and function. But the wolf itself is an endangered species.

The current government keeps the fear of wolves alive. The fear of the wild, untamed, old and somewhat scary forests is great in the corridors of the Government Offices. A guess figure, unfortunately a very low one, has been put forward to limit the wolf population to a level insufficient for survival.

The Eurasian eagle-owl is now extinct, and so is the long-eared owl. The species-rich old forests are to be converted into clear-cuts. The protection for shores and narrow watercourses, which are important for fish, insects, and small animals and their reproduction, has been reduced and is proposed to be removed entirely.

At the same time, significant cuts are being made to nature conservation and on the maintenance of trails, windbreaks, and rest areas. The outdoor organizations, which I am speaking about now, receive a supplement of 100 million in the Miljöpartiets budget in addition to the government's budget so that more people can take part in our nature. We naturally also invest in nature in other policy areas.

Mr. Speaker! Something good must still be said about the government's budget within expenditure area 17. To strengthen the municipalities in the planning of arenas and sites for sports, 250 million is allocated. There is continued support for the sports associations' work in vulnerable areas. And a substantial sum, but unfortunately completely misdirected, for the leisure card is included in the government's budget.

Initiatives for sports, movement, and health are important, and the public sector must be involved there and shall be. We in Miljöpartiet are strengthening the government's budget with an additional 50 million to get more people in areas with lower socioeconomic status to engage in sports. 30 million will go towards strengthening para-sports. It is extremely important. Not least intellectual disabilities need to be supported. And 50 million will go towards training more leaders across the country.

Miljöpartiet rejects the leisure card. Now that this year's application period has just ended, we see that the utilization rate barely reaches the government's disaster level of 25 percent. The costs for administration and for the authorities thus exceed the funds paid out to the families. The setup is an administrative monster for the associations. For that reason, the vast majority of associations choose to stay out. The leisure card is a failure.

We instead allocate the resources where they do good: to the cultural schools and to the sports organizations, and we allocate 100 million to outdoor life.

The government is making certain investments in cultural heritage, in digitalization, and in the relocation of archival materials and museum objects. Unfortunately, it is insufficient. Miljöpartiet is adding extra. We also allocate additional funds to the ecclesiastical antiquarian activities to help our parishes restore and preserve our churches and collections across the country.

Mr. Speaker! Due to the budget rules, I cannot move for approval of the Green Party's budget proposal. Instead, I stand behind the specific statement included in the report. If I had had the opportunity to move for approval of our proposal, I would have moved to increase the state's budget for expenditure area 17 Culture, media, religious communities and leisure by just over 2.4 billion. That is the difference between the government's and the Green Party's budget proposals. It is the difference between mistrust and a belief in a strong democratic society that is built from the bottom up, through people's engagement.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice to see so many in the gallery. It will be fun to get to talk about cultural policy.

Sweden is a cultural nation. In some respects, we are even the best in the world at culture. Our ability to create, innovate, and inspire has shaped us and also our identity and economy – from Strindberg to Max Martin, from the Nobel Prize in Literature to video games like Minecraft and streaming services like Spotify. There are many examples.

From this year onwards, the works and events that have influenced our identity as a people are gathered by us in a cultural canon. This cultural canon functions as a compass so that one can orient oneself in the Swedish cultural heritage and understand how we have been shaped as a people and as a nation. Our Minister for Culture, Parisa Liljestrand, is extremely active in visiting things that are included in the cultural canon. As a resident of Gothenburg, I of course visit SKF, which is our pride and is included in the cultural canon. The fact that we have common stories and cultural points of reference makes it easier for us to understand each other, regardless of where we come from.

To further highlight how important culture is, we also have Folkets kanon, with over 10,000 works, events, and phenomena that have been important for a long time and have to do with our origins or are relevant right now. This is important for context and inclusion.

I look forward to the cultural canon being visible in many different activities. We hope that everyone here takes the opportunity to visit what is included in the cultural canon, because it is important. It is part of education. It is a matter of community and inclusion.

Mr. Speaker! It is not enough to safeguard and preserve culture. We must also provide the conditions for it to grow, develop, and stand strong even when political winds shift. I hope, of course, that they will not shift for a long time without us continuing with the winds that are blowing now.

It is required that we have good financing of the cultural sector. It must be financed in different ways, not only through public support but also through private commitment and entrepreneurship. It is also the case that people themselves choose to invest in culture. One in three kronor in culture comes from households. Therefore, it is also important that we as a government lower the tax for everyone. Many say that we are lowering the tax for the rich, but we are doing it for everyone. We now have the lowest tax burden since 1975.

Broadening the funding of the cultural sector is one of the Moderaternas most important priorities. We can say that it will be a paradigm shift. Culture can be financed with different means. We can facilitate sponsorship, and we can increase the right to deductions for private financing of culture.

We can look at an example: The Royal Opera. It was just spoken about how the ceiling is almost falling down, and 3 billion is required for a state investment to restore the Opera. The business sector is contributing 300 million kronor. That means we can get a second stage, with culture for children and young people. For us, culture for children and young people is very important. We want to see more of this cooperation within culture. It strengthens culture's freedom and independence and ensures that we can get more culture and more different cultural expressions.

We also need to shed light on the fact that culture is a large part of the business sector. It is actually the case that one in ten Swedish companies is found in cultural and creative industries. They turn over 650 billion kronor and employ 250,000 people. Sweden is one of the three countries that export more music than they import. Every fourth person on earth has played a Swedish video game. It is incredible! We are immensely successful, but sometimes we do not think about how skilled we are. I think these are figures we should be proud of.

It is clear that culture is an important basic industry for Sweden. The government's strategy for the creative industries up to 2030 sends a clear signal that we take the culture sector seriously. Culture should actually be with us everywhere. We want to promote innovation and facilitate for companies to operate internationally. We must also protect intellectual property and ensure that Swedish culture gets the platform it deserves on the world stage.

It is also important that we make major investments in culture and reading in schools. Literature is extremely important. Since 2024, there have been significantly increased funds to purchase literature for preschools and schools. The Government, together with the Swedish Arts Council and the National Agency for Education, has developed reading lists, which many have surely received, as support for educators all over the country. We are also making major efforts to ensure that the works on the reading lists are available in the schools. We are investing a lot of money to get more literature into the schools.

The government is making a major concerted effort for reading. We are strengthening staffed school libraries with 460 million kronor. We are to have more stories that awaken a desire for reading and imagination. We simply must ensure that people read more. We must, for example, provide teachers with training in evidence-based methods for how to teach reading with the decoding method, so that every child can crack the reading code. If one does not have a stable reading ability, one cannot benefit from culture at all. One risks never reaching one's full potential.

Mr. Speaker! For children with Swedish as a second language, reading instruction plays a double role: firstly, of course, for language development, and secondly as a key to school success and to entering society and achieving integration. Reading is incredibly important and is what we invest in the most. For those with Swedish as a second language, this applies throughout the entire primary school. From day one, it is important that one learns to read.

Culture and language go together. One cannot survive without the other. That is why we are now investing in socioeconomically weak areas by giving the Berättarministeriet 30 million kronor per year. We also continue to invest in Skapande skola, which today reaches 70 percent of all students. The Social Democrats and the Green Party want to remove this – for somewhat unclear reasons, I think. We believe that Skapande skola should reach even more. It is not just for the sake of our children, but it is also the case that very many work within this sector. Skapande skola provides jobs across the entire country and should also exist across the entire country.

The Moderates believe that cultural creators should have the right conditions to be able to live off their creations. Scenkonstnämnden and the central bodies distribute over 100 million kronor annually to support freelance artists, mediate assignments, and stimulate artistic development.

Mr. Speaker! Quite a lot has been said about preparedness now. It is something that perhaps has not been so prominent earlier in the cultural debate. But on account of the war in Ukraine, people are talking very much about cultural heritage being destroyed. We must protect and preserve our cultural heritage. It has been said that we previously were not so careful with our civil defense, but now we have a minister for civil defense. We are careful that cultural heritage is important. We must at all times have a preparedness for our society, a preparedness to maintain democracy, and a preparedness for our culture.

The government's cultural policy is based on four pillars: children, education, preparedness, and diversified funding. Children who encounter culture early also develop their talents in many other areas. Education is a universal right where reading and access to literature are central. Common cultural reference frames create understanding between people. Preparedness is, as I mentioned earlier, a part of the collective resilience to maintain our democracy. I have also spoken about diversified funding. Culture should not be unilaterally dependent on public funds. We must ensure that culture can preserve its freedom from political steering. We therefore want more ways to fund our culture.

Sweden is a world-leading cultural nation, but we cannot take it for granted. Culture requires freedom, resources, and commitment. By letting culture stand on several legs, by investing in children and reading, by seeing the cultural and creative industries as the basic industry they actually are, and by safeguarding the common points of reference that our cultural canon offers, we create not only a richer cultural life but also a stronger, freer, and more vital Sweden. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the speech, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström. You raised children, education, preparedness and expanded funding, and that is where I strike.

When it comes to children, you are satisfied with Skapande skola, which, after 15 years, or whatever it is, only reaches 50 percent of the children. With your initiative, you are to reach 70 percent, which I doubt a little. That must be evaluated. For our part, we want to reach everyone through our cultural guarantee in the schools.

We have discussed education quite a bit. I just want to mention your exampleless dismantling of popular education.

Then we have preparedness, which we discussed earlier. The Minister for Civil Defence wrote a Facebook post where he completely dismissed the report, which I consider quite alarming, submitted by the trade union Dik, which shows that the investments do not reach far enough. Certainly, one needs to continue building this up for a long time, but one should at least take the report more seriously than Carl-Oskar Bohlin did.

Regarding broadened financing, you appointed an inquiry late in the mandate period. It will be completed in May. Then it will be subject to consultation. One might wonder if there will be time for a government bill on supplementary financing.

I have been chairman of the Culture Committee for a little over a year and a half now, and one proposition has come during that time – the one about public service. I do not think much is happening. Is there, for example, any film proposition coming? Sweden lags far behind other Western European countries. You reduced the support for production incentives even though they were already too low. We need 300 million kronor for a film fund. We have those funds in our budget, but you do not. Is such a proposition with money coming?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Mats Berglund, for the questions!

Some of this we have already discussed quite a bit. We are approaching 70 percent for Skapande skola. We want to develop it even further. We do not really see why one should change something that we think works and instead invest in a completely new form that needs to be developed. This is something that we think works, and we want to continue investing in it.

When it comes to study associations, folk high schools and folk education, these are very important areas. We invest a total of 4 billion, so these are large and important areas. At the same time, we say that if one does not have the literacy, it does not help if one attends a very good education or a continuing education within folk education.

That is why we are currently investing heavily in children and young people. Reading is the highest priority. It is a great concern to see that the figures for reading are falling, and right now they are beginning to fall for young girls. It is an important issue that we need to work on together in the Education Committee and the Culture Committee.

It is such a primary question that one cannot leave it anywhere. We are making a major investment in children and young people, just as I said: an investment, on the letter B. We prioritize it and think it is important.

When it comes to the bills, Member Mats Berglund will have to wait and see. But it is clear that we want to get our bills through. We have conducted very important investigations. Even if Mats Berglund has not seen the results yet, we are working at full capacity. There is an incredible amount of movement under the surface.

Many different propositions will come. But I cannot answer Mats Berglund exactly when they will arrive, but they will of course arrive. We are, of course, investing in this.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström, for that answer!

We hope that a government bill will be submitted. The investigation was good, and it received good consultation responses. We can agree that it will also become a good bill for Swedish film.

It is a bit of a shame that the Minister for Culture is not here today either. The Minister for Culture has not participated in a single debate with the Culture Committee during the mandate period. It is a bit disappointing.

I would have liked to see the Minister for Culture have been present in our previous debate on public service. There, I had to ask questions to the Moderate member that I perhaps should have asked the Minister for Culture. I am asking them again now.

It was about public service. What happened with the market network was urgent for that debate. The public service companies are being left with a large cost. The bills are starting to arrive now, immediately after the turn of the year, and they still have not received any notification.

Money is available in the public service account, but can it be used? The public service companies are still waiting for that decision. The answer I received then from the Moderate member in the debate was that we would wait for the Distributionsutredning's partial report. It will arrive in two weeks, on December 15.

My question is: Is that when we will get an answer? Is that how I was promised – or in any case interpreted in the debate as we had then – that we get an answer and the public service companies get an answer as to whether they can pay their bills for the ground network? Will it be delayed, or will there be no answer at all?

I believe that the public service companies and we others are quite curious. We are waiting for answers.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Mats Berglund, for further questions!

Public service is obviously an incredibly important issue. There have been many questions about the market network, how it should work with permits and so on. The level for public service is raised by 3 percent. During the first year, there are 10 billion extra that will be invested precisely to avoid the concerns that may arise initially. It is not an issue we are leaving behind, absolutely not. We think it is very important.

I cannot answer exactly when clear messages will come and when the investigation will be ready. Within two weeks we will surely also have that answer. But a major investment is being made in public service. We know that it is very important. We are making higher investments than other parties do in their budgets. It has previously been a goal of 2 percent, and now it is 3 percent instead. It is an important issue, and we continue to invest there.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats' cultural policy is based on three things: to strengthen Sweden by

that culture creates cohesion

that culture is a part of our welfare

that culture moves Sweden forward.

Firstly, cultural policy creates cohesion by ensuring that we safeguard our Swedish language and its position. It is so that we can understand each other and so that everyone can participate in society. We do this through books and newspapers, as well as a Swedish film production, and not least with a strong public service throughout the country and a free and independent journalism in the public's service, where we can gather and reflect one another.

Cohesion also stems from our culture of taking collective responsibility for the country. It is about an active civil society, living popular movements and a strong Swedish model. It is people who freely engage together, in their local community, based on their interests and needs. It is a responsibility from below, where one manages everyday life, participates in the social debate, drives issues and contributes to Sweden. It is a culture we should be proud of.

Thus, our cohesion is increased through sports, this broad, popular movement where, not least children and young people, receive community, upbringing, and health. There, one learns to take responsibility for the team and for the club, and to arrive on time for practice on a rainy Thursday. Together with comrades, one gets to meet children and young people from other places, perhaps with different backgrounds, but on equal and fair terms. There, everyone, leaders and parents, can make contributions. Culture contributes to cohesion.

Secondly, culture is a part of the welfare. It is not an extra, not a garnish, but a material foundation in everyday life and the building of society. Therefore, it should be easy to participate in and try out. This applies especially for children within sports and the culture school.

There must also be an accessible cultural heritage – music, theater, museums and libraries – so that one can know where one comes from, get to know one's context and understand one's contemporary time.

Thus, living local communities are needed. It is important that there are rehearsal rooms, football pitches and meeting places for people where we can have a good life. Culture is a part of the welfare.

For the third, we Social Democrats argue that culture moves Sweden forward, with people who think anew and challenge, freely, at arm's length from politics. This happens through a critical debate, with a diversity of voices, where issues are tossed back and forth and where we can weigh arguments and manage conflicts.

It also provides innovative power and gives birth to new ideas, new products, new services and new industries. Just take gaming as an example. The culture for Sweden forward.

Mr. Speaker! This is Swedish. It is our language, our culture, and our way of life. Cultural policy contributes to security, trust, and growth.

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, Sweden has suffered under a cost-of-living crisis. We Social Democrats criticize the fact that the government and the Sweden Democrats have furthermore worsened the situation and prioritized tax cuts for those with the highest incomes instead of investments for ordinary people.

It has also affected culture. Parents have been made poor and forced to opt out of sports and cultural activities for children. Local museums, stages, and events have had to scale back their activities.

We can observe that the tax cuts for the wealthiest, which the government chose instead of investing in culture, have at most benefited Östermalms Saluhall. But they have entailed an economic deterioration for Sweden as a whole, and especially for ordinary people around in the rest of the country.

And it doesn't get any better that the government has simultaneously chosen to forgo investing in municipalities and regions and forced them into a situation where they have to choose between prioritizing away culture or covering the costs themselves.

It is important to see how the culture in the country is struggling. It is about students who want to organize a concert with a popular artist, a football club that wants to organize a cup, or a book café that wants to arrange an author visit. They are finding it harder because of the government. It is pulling the country apart, increasing the distance between people, and is an obstacle to community and trust in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We are very critical of the SD government's large cut to the Swedes' public service. This is an important Swedish institution. That the government initiates a dismantling harms our cohesion.

Similarly, we are extremely critical of how the government harms the welfare of Swedes when they cut a third of the support to student unions, this essential infrastructure for civil society and cultural life throughout the country. They help our pensioners with their activities. They provide support to the disability movement when it comes to advancing their issues. It is there that people can get a scooter license or a hunter's exam. It is there that voluntary tutoring for children after school is organized.

In smaller municipalities, study associations can be the salvation for the culture school through cooperation on premises, staff, and equipment. It can also be about arrangements to reach out with our cultural heritage.

In rural areas and the countryside, study associations are often the only cultural activity that residents have – along with public libraries. But in Åsele, more than half of the cultural events have been forced to be cut. In four out of ten municipalities, the premises have closed completely or partially – so far. In the music land Sweden, a rehearsal room death is now occurring. 20,000 people could lose their activities.

The SD-government's policy here exhibits an elitism, a disrespect towards Swedish cultural history and an ignorance of Sweden's educational tradition and of ordinary people's conditions. This affects people's welfare.

Mr. Speaker! In order to stand guard over freedom and foster the innovative power in culture, we must respect civil society's independent role, not threaten withdrawn support when people say what they think. We must take seriously the reports coming from the museums regarding that they are self-censoring. Additionally, we must care that journalism is not subjected to political pressure and becomes fearful. We shall promote a culture that moves Sweden forward.

Mr. Speaker! With a Social Democratic policy, Sweden would have had a stronger economy. We would have had better growth and more money for the welfare system. Ordinary people would have had more money in their pockets. This year, nine out of ten would have received more in their pockets with our policy. Even Kultursverige would have fared better with the Social Democrats. Throughout the entire parliamentary term, we have invested more every year – a total of 3.5 billion more.

This year, we propose a culture budget that would create better conditions for children and young people to participate in and practice culture. It would strengthen sports and nurture a culture throughout the entire country – for cohesion, welfare, and innovation.

We want all children to experience culture, regardless of the size of the parents' wallet. Therefore, we are investing 300 million kronor to begin the introduction of a culture guarantee in schools. It would guarantee that every student, every term, gets to go to the theater, visit a museum, see a film, or go to a concert. It is an important new political initiative where we target the student, because culture should be for every child.

We also propose an investment of 100 million kronor to develop the culture school, so that more children can attend it.

In our budget, we also re-evaluate the country's living regional cultural activities, as we have done in previous years. Local museums, theaters, folk high schools, music venues and community centers are central to our Swedish cultural life. We turn against a narrow metropolitan perspective that sidelines this. We therefore allocate 100 million kronor in broad grants to regional cultural activities. Culture actually exists – and shall exist – in our entire country.

We also propose 20 million kronor in investments in public meeting places around Sweden.

When it comes to popular education, to the study associations, we want something different than the government. We safeguard the local commitment, a rich association life and that culture is close to everyone. Therefore, we increase the grant to the study associations by 350 million for next year.

We also have higher appropriations for sports, even this year. We know that it can be expensive to make a sports investment, especially if one focuses on elite sports or if one is active in para-sports. We Social Democrats dislike it when the parents' finances determine whether one can afford it. Therefore, we propose an investment in elite sports and para-sports with 100 million kronor. It strengthens sports in Sweden, and it grants opportunity to more.

To contribute to a greater diversity of media, we propose that an additional 50 million kronor be allocated to media support. A broad and vibrant media sector across the entire country ensures that more people are heard. It makes us wiser, and it moves us forward as a country.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker! Culture and sports bring us together. Furthermore, culture has the ability to describe existence and society with new expressions and perspectives that make us feel, think, and understand in new ways. Therefore, it is important that more people get to participate in and practice culture, and for that, it must be easy.

The Social Democrats' cultural policy is about strengthening Sweden. Culture creates cohesion, is a part of the welfare state, and moves Sweden forward.

With that, I would like to refer to our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Björn Wiechel, for the speech!

It is remarkable to hear the member say that the government and the Tidö parties are not investing in culture. We are investing an enormous amount in culture. Then one can invest in different things.

The Board of Directors says that the study associations have received reduced grants. One can say that it is still 1.5 billion for study associations and 2.6 for folk high schools. But it is also the case that the study associations themselves decide on their programs. Unfortunately, they have lost almost 50 percent of the participants since the pandemic. We have adjusted their budget accordingly. Then there has unfortunately been a lot of extensive cheating, which has had to be rectified. This has made us a bit cautious with the funding. It is extremely important that it works. If we are to invest a lot of money, we must know that it is being used in the right way.

Study associations reach primarily adults, which is very good. But we have chosen to invest more in children and young people in our budget. We consider it a priority target group. Therefore, we invest more there.

I actually wonder where the member has received their instructions from.

The opposition says that we are lowering taxes for the rich, which is completely wrong. We have made so many tax cuts. As I said earlier, we have the lowest tax burden since 1975. Now we are lowering taxes on work and on pensions and electricity tax. We are lowering fees for preschool, after-school care and so on. We are not lowering taxes at all just for the rich. We are lowering taxes for everyone, which I think is very important.

I also want to hear why the member wants to remove this with Skapande skola, for example. It is something that we see as very well-functioning. I wonder then why the Social Democrats do not want this.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the interesting questions for discussion.

You have lowered the tax mostly for the rich. It is a bad economic policy, and it is an unfair economic policy. We see the result of this. There will be less consumption. One could have spent the money on those who actually use it. Then we would have had much better growth in Sweden. Then we would have had more to spend on, for example, culture. We would have had more room for reform.

They removed the housing support when housing construction fell. They cut into the labor market policy when unemployment rose. As the only country in the Nordics, they have not increased the child allowance. They have cut people's housing allowance. They have made medicines more expensive. These are quite precision-targeted matters that do not really benefit the groups who would have needed the money, so to speak. It is a bad economic policy, besides being unfair.

Then it concerns popular education. Cheating is bad; we should not have that. Therefore, efforts have, of course, been made to manage it. There are rigorous control systems, and a great deal has been settled regarding that. It is after that has been settled that your proposals for cuts come. They come after the cleanup. Therefore, I think that argument sort of falls.

If the member wishes to engage in the consequences for popular education, I can say that there are reports that show them very clearly. With a map of Sweden, it is shown what the effects are for the different activities and for the different municipalities and which groups are reached. It is in black and white. There is very clear statistics.

It is the countryside that is hit hardest. It is there that the culture does not reach out. It is a broad cultural activity with association life, cultural events, concerts, and everything else that the study associations arrange so that we can take part in our cultural heritage that is disappearing.

I wonder what one envisions when one removes a third. What is it that is no longer to be done? What is it that you do not want from folk education in Sweden?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Björn Wiechel, for the discussion!

If you look at the budget overall, you can see that there is not such a large difference between what the government and the Tidö parties invest and what the Social Democrats invest. The difference is not particularly large, and therefore I do not quite understand that question.

When it comes to the cheating, it is obviously very bad, and even though it has been cleaned up, there is still a bit left to do. Therefore, we are still cautious. But of course, those who have not cheated should not be punished.

I am also a bit concerned that the Social Democrats want to remove the leisure card, even if one does make changes in the budget now. What has one been against regarding the leisure card? My colleague Emma Ahlström Köster will speak much more about how good the leisure card is. We do, however, hear from the opposition parties that there is hesitation regarding the leisure card, but it is about exactly what the member said: to get a financial chance to get out and meet sports. Therefore, it is extremely important that it remains. There have been quite a lot of reflections regarding it from the opposition's side, which I obviously find noteworthy.

I do not want to have too many tax discussions here when we are going to talk about culture, but I can at least say that because we have lowered the taxes so much, which I have said a couple of times now, it also gives more people the opportunity to afford to participate in culture, which I think is very important. We will continue to lower the taxes, because we want people to be able to choose for themselves what they want to use their money for.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! More people can afford more culture – tell that to those who are going into unemployment! Tell that to the mothers who cannot give food to their children! Tell that to those who cannot afford to pay the rent and have their housing allowance taken away! Tell that to those who have received expensive medicines! Tell that to those who needed higher child allowance!

Their priority list is quite clear, and that is why the children have disappeared from these contexts. The parents simply do not have the means to have their children in cultural, leisure, and sports activities. It is a clear class policy we see. Who has been helped? Who are those who have received the most money?

I will answer the member's questions. When it comes to Skapande skola, we are presenting a cultural guarantee because we want to reach all children. Skapande skola does not reach all children, and therefore we are targeting the student rather than the school.

Regarding the leisure card, our basic criticism is the following: Your economic policy has made Sweden poor. Swedes have become poorer with less in their wallets. Support is needed. You have not increased the child allowance, you have removed the housing allowance, you have made medicines more expensive, and we have lost ten years of real wage increases.

Here you come with a leisure card that might make things easier. Then we say that we shall not take that away. We do not take money away from people, because they need it. That is how it looks in everyday life.

However, there is broad criticism against the leisure card. Colleague Mats Berglund raised it in the rostrum. There are huge problems with the introduction. It is administrative and bureaucratic burdens, and it does not reach all clubs. It is very problematic, so we absolutely must evaluate it.

There are differences between our and your cultural policy beyond the fact that we actually give more and have done so every year. We safeguard popular education and culture throughout the country. Above all, we safeguard public service. We believe that public service is very important for Sweden. It is a very big difference.

(Applause)

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Stefan Löfven said: We shall have Europe's lowest unemployment. It went about like that. Then people started talking about employment instead, because it was a bit more diffuse and poorly defined. I had quite a few debates with the then Minister for Employment regarding that when I sat in the Committee on Employment.

Sweden has become poorer, says the member. As a father of four, I remember what it was like to live under the Social Democrats' enormous electricity and fuel prices and high inflation. In this, the Social Democrats' budget contained a lower share for culture than what we have.

On that basis, a preparedness debt was built up. We have an opera that people refused to touch with a ten-foot pole because it was difficult. We have cultural properties that people refused to handle until the roof collapsed in. Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand and the Ministry of Culture have had to work for three years putting out fires after the Social Democrats' total failure.

That is why it becomes so provoking with the high tail-wagging from Björn Wiechel. My question is: Is Björn Wiechel satisfied with the eight years that you held the power over cultural policy?

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Alexander Christiansson, for the question and for an important discussion!

My first period in the Culture Committee was from 2014, when I entered the Riksdag, and one of the first things we did was to invest in a massive knowledge lift. We did that once in the 90s so that people would enter society, integrate, and get into work. Popular education was a very important part of that.

Kunskapslyftet was a cultural policy, an education policy, and also a labor market policy that we actually would have needed today to turn these things around. I am very proud of it.

When we handed over power to the Tidöregeringen, we had a falling unemployment rate. We had received an inflation due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which hit many prices. But unemployment was falling.

The result of your policy is that although the inflationary pressure has gone down, your fiscal direction has deepened the recession. Had you only followed the curve that was expected, we would be in a much better position today with fewer unemployed, higher growth and a smaller deficit. You worsened the economic situation. You have to take responsibility for that.

It is also about what measures have been taken. It is about the labor market policy, the investment policy and not least the distribution policy, i.e., who gets the money. It is about, for example, trying to get people into education so that they can get a job. Instead, cuts are made and unemployment is seen to increase. What does that do to our public finances? What does it do to our cohesion? What does it give for room for reform to invest in culture?

There is a very big difference in the policy, and I mean that with us it would have been a different situation. But we also have more money for culture, and we have had that year after year.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! With us, it would have been a different situation, says Björn Wiechel. We saw that situation in 2021 and 2022. I do not want to return to that situation, and I know that there are very many in Sweden's population who do not want to return to high electricity prices, high fuel prices, and the enormously destructive policy that you pursued during those years – largely because you failed to form a majority government that could manage to pass its budget here in the chamber.

Knowledge lifts and more money for culture year after year, says the member. The fact is that if we go back to the Social Democrats' culture budgets during those years, we see that you did not invest more, apart from temporary support during the pandemic.

This will be an ideological debate where the Social Democrats, with their grandiose self-image, see themselves as some kind of saviors. There are many of us who do not want to go back to that time, and I truly hope that we will not return to that time after the next election.

It is difficult to debate with someone who has such a view of themselves; in classic socialist spirit, it just becomes everyone else's fault. But that is not how it works in reality.

(Applause)

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not recognize that I presented it that way, but it was rather the member who attacked me.

(ALEXANDER CHRISTIANSSON (SD): That says it all.)

I explained the differences in the policy, and I think it is worth saying that besides the fact that we have a cultural policy that has more money, it also matters what one does and which groups one invests in. We invest in public service, we invest in regional culture, and we did that as well before when we were in government. We think it is important to have culture throughout the whole country.

I said in my speech what I consider to be a priority, namely to create cohesion. It is part of our welfare, and it moves Sweden forward. It is important cultural policy. We have, among other things, more money for folk education.

It is, like, a basic infrastructure to be able to reach out and for more than those who are well-off living in large cities to be able to participate. It is fun for them, but what about the rest of the country? This is an important perspective that we want to bring into the debate.

Broad participation in culture is very important. It is what makes the children come in. That is where we place our efforts, besides giving more money.

Since then, it is not insignificant that it would have been a different situation with us. Our fiscal policy would not have led to the same recession. It would have provided greater room for reform. One can ask the Fiscal Policy Council about that. The measures this government has taken have not at all had the good effects that would have been needed. It is only a matter of comparison. We operate within the same frameworks.

I think it is sad that the politics being pursued creates differences between people and results in a worse situation with less money in the wallet and larger deficits. The government will leave behind large deficits in the state's finances. That is how it usually is when right-wing parties rule. Every single time they leave behind large deficits, higher unemployment, poorer growth, and poorer welfare, and we have to clean up. That is how it usually is, and it will reasonably be so again.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

A year ago, I stood here at the rostrum and spoke about the return of the patrons. I told about the patron Nadezjda von Meck, who through her support enabled Tchaikovsky to create music that still touches the world today. My speech received an unexpected continuation. The director Gertrud Larsson sat up in the gallery, became inspired, and wrote the play The Patron's Return. The production became a success at Teater Brunnsgatan Fyra and will soon go on tour around Sweden. That says something about culture; when someone wants to carry it forward, even if it is only one person at a time, things happen.

The question of co-financing of culture has become highly topical in many ways. The Christian Democrats, which I represent, know that culture carries its own value and that public funding constitutes the basis for a free and vibrant cultural life, accessible throughout the country for all people. But we also say something more, namely that culture benefits from several sources of funding.

We want it to be easy and attractive to sponsor culture – not to replace the state but to complement it. It is about making culture more independent, stable and resilient and less vulnerable to economic fluctuations. This is in line with our Christian Democratic view on responsibility, civil society and community. Therefore, we welcome the government's investigation into broadening the funding of the cultural sector. It is sound and forward-looking and is requested by the industry itself.

In the report Who Pays for Culture? both Svensk Scenkonst and Sveriges Museer express support for this. It is argued that by creating favorable conditions for funders and cultural activities, complementary funding can lead to a greater and sharper cultural offering for the citizens, and furthermore that the business sector has to gain from cooperation with culture – not least through new perspectives within innovation and creative thinking.

When more want to take responsibility – private individuals, the business sector and foundations – cultural life grows. It gets more legs to stand on, not fewer. A culture that stands on broader ground also stands freer. It becomes so free that it can withstand crises and so strong that more than the state want to contribute.

Mr. Speaker! On Friday, I was in Kungälv. It is a very beautiful place. I visited the culture house and something called Kultlab together with our local KD branch. There, we met young people who had found both creativity and safety in a warm environment. A teenage girl showed how she designed her own pins. I got one, and it is sitting here on my jacket. It depicts a fish. It suits me, as someone who comes from the coast, perfectly.

Meaningful leisure time shapes young people. Efforts are being made across Sweden. I think it has sounded quite negative here, but those efforts save both worry and money for the future of this country.

On a wall in Mimers Kulturhus hung a poster about the fritidskort. That made me extra happy. The fritidskort is a Christian Democratic reform, an idea we have pushed for many years, which now finally covers the entire country. All children in Sweden between eight and sixteen years of age have been given the opportunity for a fritidskort loaded with 500 kronor. Children in households with housing allowance can receive 2,000 kronor.

We are already seeing results. In Kungälv, 40 percent of the students at the culture school had used their leisure card to pay the term fee. It is a formidable success – not a failure. It is the largest public health reform for children and young people in a long time. Moving, creating, playing music, singing and dancing – all of this builds health, self-esteem and community.

The latest figures speak for themselves. It is 338,174 children who have been granted leisure cards. More than 40,000 of them have received the higher amount. Today, 5,415 associations are affiliated. This means that hundreds of thousands of children who otherwise might not have done so are now participating in leader-led activities.

The opposition in the Riksdag has been great and sometimes a bit intrusive. It has been difficult to get this through. But we Christian Democrats believe that the child's participation should be the starting point. The leisure card changes everyday life for those who need it the most.

Mr. Speaker! Another issue, which sometimes disappears in the debate but is of decisive importance, is the preparedness of our cultural heritage. Sweden is in a new security situation.

The government has taken responsibility for something that has lain dormant for far too long. When the work began, there was in practice no coherent structure for how cultural heritage should be protected during a crisis or war – not what should be saved, not how it should be stored, and not who bears responsibility. One essentially started from square one. Now this has taken shape, and the government has designated Riksarkivet and Riksantikvarieämbetet as emergency authorities. Civil defense has been strengthened, and long-term work is underway to ensure that Sweden's most valuable collections, documents, and environments can be saved if the worst were to happen. It is a quiet, laborious, and very important national commitment. It is to take responsibility for protecting our heritage, our history, and actually our democracy.

Mr. Speaker! I see that my speaking time has expired. I have quite a lot left to say, and if you contact me, I can tell you about all the good things the government is doing. I have a whole list, but I will stop here out of respect for my colleagues and the Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! Year after year and in measurement after measurement, one can see Sweden's class differences reflected in people's cultural habits. Those who have longer education, earn more money, and live in a large city participate in culture to a higher degree than those who earn less, and the same applies to their children. At the same time, we here in the Riksdag have, through our national cultural policy goals, established that everyone shall have the opportunity to participate in cultural life and that cultural policy shall promote everyone's opportunities for cultural experiences, for education, and to develop their creative abilities.

The question is what tactics the government has to reach these goals. Is one perhaps working to make culture as cheap as possible so that everyone can participate? Or is one perhaps aiming to redistribute resources from those who are well-off to those who have poorer margins? No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are doing any of that in their budget. Rather, they are doing the opposite.

Sweden belongs to those OECD countries where economic inequality has increased the most since the mid-80s. The government has, however, continued to lower taxes by a total of 110 billion during this mandate period, which means that the room to invest in households and welfare is constantly shrinking. Those who have received the very largest tax cuts are those who were already very well off before. Those who previously had difficulty taking the whole family to the theater or to a cinema visit will need the few hundred kronor they receive in tax cuts to finance their increased food costs. That is the reality.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet shows with its budget proposal that another path is possible – that it is possible to strengthen welfare, lower unemployment, invest in the climate transition, and give households better finances and hope for the future. We show how we can get culture in the whole country and strengthen the association life and folk education. We know that it is now we must act so that our children can grow up with the right conditions. For us, it is obvious that culture, sports, and outdoor life make childhood better, safer, and more developing. We see that the school has a special mission to work compensatorily and be the arena where all children get the opportunities that not all home conditions can offer.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats also say they want to invest in children and education, but their proposals are not comprehensive. They are not prepared to strengthen all parts, and I do not know if it is due to ignorance, haste, or stinginess.

We can, for example, take a closer look at the investment in reading, which is the trump card. Much good work is being done here. Investments are being made in books and in staffed school libraries. But despite having had three years to do so, there are no extra funds to train more school librarians, and in that case, the reform cannot be implemented. We also see that those who are supposed to teach the children to read, the teachers, are on their knees because of larger classes.

In our budget, in addition to more money for training places for librarians, there are also more resources for the municipalities and targeted funds for public libraries to achieve more equal service across the entire country.

We are also doubling the literary support so that those who are to write the books, publish them, and review them can be given better conditions. The latest announcement from the government is instead that a part of the existing literary support specifically shall go to books that are on reading lists ordered by the government. I have nothing against giving educators reading tips, but I think one should stay away from directing support to titles that the state points out. This also means less money for new works when more will be distributed to older favorites.

Mr. Speaker! We also want to see a national performing arts guarantee that gives all children the opportunity to participate in professional culture during school time. It is not primarily about injecting new large sums, but about using today's funds more smartly and ensuring that there is a national system that facilitates work for cultural workers, schools, municipalities, and regions. Today, there are many good local examples of a cultural guarantee, but we believe that the government needs to develop a system that gives all children the same opportunities.

Recent statistics from the Swedish Agency for Cultural Analysis have been released. They showed that few children get to go to the theater in their free time and that there is a large difference depending on what education one's parents have and whether one lives in a city or in the countryside. It is not reasonable that a welfare country like Sweden continues to accept these types of differences year after year.

Mr. Speaker! In total, Vänsterpartiet allocates approximately 1 billion more than the government to culture, 900 million more to folk education, and 500 million more to other parts of civil society, such as sports, religious communities, and outdoor life. As you understand, it is not possible to list all the initiatives, but in short, we are listing most of the appropriations in the culture committee's budget. It is needed if we are not to have higher fees in the sports clubs, more layoffs within culture, or more cuts within folk education.

We also have forward-looking initiatives to elevate film, music, literature, dance and so on so that more people can take part in them. Initially, Alexander Christiansson from Sverigedemokraterna called it unreasonable, or was it unserious, when he saw our budget figures. But I maintain that this is both necessary and important. For us, it is important to strengthen all parts of cultural life because they are closely interconnected.

Let me take an example of how we reason. To get really talented musicians in our country – we heard earlier here about the Swedish music miracle – we need to build a strong chain from the education for preschool teachers to the primary school's music education, the music initiatives at youth centers, and the aesthetic subjects in upper secondary school. We need the specific courses and programs at the folk high schools. We need better access to rehearsal rooms via student unions. We need good conditions for those who are to study at a university. We need a copyright legislation that protects cultural creators. And we need social insurance and an unemployment insurance fund that works for all cultural workers.

Unfortunately, we have a government that, at best, nudges things here and there with its investments, but it also cuts back on central areas, for example study associations, which we heard about earlier. Other areas are completely ignored and it is hoped that another million for internationalization will continue to keep the Swedish music miracle alive and contribute to a fine image of Sweden, because that is what they think is important.

We, on our part, see that investments in public institutions, the non-profit cultural life, the independent actors, and a strong arts policy belong together and strengthen one another.

In this context, I perhaps need to say something about folkbildning. I hadn't intended to do so, as we have done it seventy-one times here in the chamber. But I must, for the sake of new listeners, nevertheless say that the Tidö parties' claims that study associations have cheated to obtain funds are incorrect. There are individuals who have cheated to obtain money from study associations, which have had deficiencies in their follow-up systems.

If this had been an agency, one would have received more money for the reinforcement of IT systems to ensure that no one can cheat themselves into money they are not entitled to. But that is not what has been done in this case. Instead, the study associations themselves have had to finance the entire expansion of increased controls that they have, and they have been penalized with a third less in state support.

This has since struck directly against the infrastructure that we have previously been able to be proud of. All municipalities have had study associations. Now there are 29 percent fewer premises. These are premises that have been used in a very fine way. We have heard examples from the opposition earlier, so I will not repeat them. But I think it is regrettable that we time and again hear lies here in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! Let me return to the Left Party's proposal. We see that an economic policy is needed that aligns with the goals and visions we have for society and for all of us who live here. We are convinced that many people would fare better if they received care. Therefore, we are working to shorten the care queues.

We know that culture is important for people to be able to express themselves, develop, and for us to have a stronger democracy. Then we need to invest in it. It is not more difficult than that.

We listen to the research that says public health improves if more people get access to outdoor life. In that case, we ensure that resources are allocated to exercise tracks and nature reserves. When unemployment is high and many young people lack complete qualifications, we increase the places at the folk high schools. We see the problems in society, and we propose political solutions. This is, of course, financed by us collecting more taxes than the government. We believe that those who earn over 50,000 kronor a month can manage without the tax cuts that the government and Sverigedemokraterna propose for next year. They have already received large tax reliefs. We also believe in taxing the banks' excess profits.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Tidö parties have chosen a different path. They are already satisfied with the state's efforts in a number of areas and think that we can continue to lower taxes. They think that the residents in the municipalities are the responsibility of the municipal politicians. If the school is poor, they must prioritize in another way. If the public libraries do not receive money, it is the fault of the municipal politicians.

It is also clear that one is convinced that a certain kind of people need to have it a bit worse in order for them to start behaving correctly – that they need a bit more whipping to pull themselves together. It is often said that it is about individual shortcomings for the one who has become ill or unemployed. Sometimes it is actually also said that it is the immigrants' fault. That occurs quite a lot as well.

It is also said that there are another kind of people, those who instead need a little more carrot to do more for society. They need larger tax cuts to want to stay in the country, or to work more than full-time. They also need large tax subsidies so as not to hire their cleaning help illegally. The tax collective shall be involved in financing this.

We choose somewhat differently, Mr. Speaker. Let me summarize my message. It matters who sits in the government and what view of humanity and ideology they are guided by. All opposition parties have today shown a clear will to invest in culture, community life, popular education, sports, and outdoor life. I hope that we get the chance to translate our proposals into practical politics next year.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Vasiliki Tsouplaki for the speech.

As a member, I do not agree with everything the member has said here. When we talk about the investment that the Tidö parties and the Moderate-led government are making, it is about staffed school libraries. It is incredibly important, and it is mandated by law.

Of course, librarians are needed. As it is now, it is actually the autonomous colleges that decide if they want a librarian education. More people apply for the librarian education, but unfortunately, fewer complete the education because many drop out. First, they must complete the education to become a librarian.

When we now offer staffed school libraries, it becomes a larger market for librarians. Therefore, we hope that more people finish reading. Our parties are doing everything to ensure there are more librarians, and we think that staffed school libraries are very important. It is a major investment from our side, and of course, it is about reading.

I want to hear what the members think we can do about this. We are doing a lot to produce librarians. Teachers should also be able to study further to become librarians, even if they do not complete a full librarian education.

We have also looked into the area of performing arts. The performing arts are found under the appropriation for Skapande skola, and there we invest a lot.

I also want to ask a question concerning copyright. We are investing a lot of money in this very important issue. What is the Left Party actually doing? Intellectual property is incredibly important, and it is a priority issue from our side.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

I think the following regarding the librarian education. It is common for governments in the higher education bill to direct funds to different parts of the university world because they want to expand the number of places, push or increase research in an area. It is not at all unusual, and one could have done that regarding school librarians. We allocated money to this already during the previous parliamentary term.

The Green Party politician Gustav Fridolin investigated the issue of staffed school libraries. A figure emerged regarding how many were missing. The figure was perhaps 1,500 at that time, and now I believe it is assessed that 2,000 are missing. We think that both the previous government and this government should have started expanding the education for school librarians already back then. It takes a couple of years before one is finished; it lags. If many drop out, it could be good if more targeted funds can be obtained. We know that many have more difficulty completing their university studies, and then perhaps a little extra support is needed.

Then there was the question of fast-tracking teachers. It is an emergency solution because there is also a major teacher shortage. It is unfortunate if we lose on the teacher side to fill up on the librarian side. Of course, those who want to retrain should have the opportunity to do so, but it is not a long-term solution.

When it comes to Skapande skola, it has been a bit shaky back and forth. Above all, the independent schools have had difficulty applying for support over the years. Now it has been simplified, and more schools are applying for support. But above all, the private schools have had difficulty participating in the support. The guarantee for performing arts is something completely different that should rather complement Skapande skola. That is how we have presented our proposals.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Vasiliki Tsouplaki for the answers.

Quite rightly as the member says, we can control what the universities shall provide for educations, and they shall ensure to provide those educations that the labor market demands. Then it is not entirely popular when we control too much. They actually want to be autonomous, and therefore we shall not control too much.

A priority issue is still that one should be able to complete an education and that the number of places should be increased. It is clear that there must be quality in the educational places, not just quantity.

The committee members raised the issue of study associations. Just as we have discussed previously, it is mostly adults who study at study associations. We want to invest more money in children's and young people's culture and leisure. That is why we are making larger investments there.

Then there was the question of reduced tax. For many years now, we have had the lowest tax burden. Low-income earners receive the lowest tax reduction in percentage terms, but investments are being made at all levels. As has been said before, the reduced electricity tax affects everyone. Furthermore, it is also a matter of lower preschool fees and lower fees for after-school care. These are also important.

If one has money in the wallet, it is also easier to use it for cultural purposes. We think that is important, and we absolutely want to prioritize that one should choose culture. Furthermore, there is much culture that does not even need to cost money, and additionally, there is the leisure card to be able to practice sports.

We are making major investments to reach out to culture, and right now we are making most investments on children.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! We shall see if I have time to answer all the questions.

The committee members previously asked about copyright. There is much for the government to do there. Some rules are regulated at the EU level, and we from Vänsterpartiet had a number of proposed amendments when the directive from the EU was to become Swedish law.

We think the latest development is worrying when one has not listened to the cultural creators in questions regarding the AI development at, for example, the Royal Library. There is money from the government's side for a new AI model, but funds have not been set aside for the cultural creators, for those who have written what the AI development is to be built upon. One must receive compensation for that material as an author. There is more for the government to do.

Furthermore, it was the question of study associations. We often hear the argument from the government parties that they have invested in the children instead, but we show in our budget that one does not have to choose between either popular education or investment in the young. One can actually do both, but then one cannot lower the tax for high-income earners. I said in my speech that it is about 110 billion, and it is clear that one could have improved the school for that money. One could have established a two-teacher system so that there are two educators in the classroom who can help all the children. There is a wealth of proposals on how one can use the 110 billion in a much better way to get more to pass school.

When it comes to cultural interest – a measurement of this was recently made by the Agency for Cultural Analysis – we can see that most Swedes, regardless of social class, are very interested in culture. If they had the means, they would have spent their money on it, I think. But instead, we see that food prices have truly skyrocketed. This was what I was trying to describe. In that, the government has only invited food giants to coffee breaks. They have not addressed that issue for several years. It has punished households.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is good to see that some are staying up in the gallery now that we have come a good way into the debate!

The expenditure area that we are discussing right now spans several different areas. It ranges from cultural policy, youth policy, sports policy and outdoor policy to media policy and issues concerning religious communities and the national minorities. That perhaps explains why it can be perceived as if we are tackling very different and disparate things.

In order for us to reach all the goals we have within these policy areas, funding is required not only within this expenditure area but also within several other areas. The 17.3 billion that we are discussing here today, however, constitute an important part so that culture can be a dynamic, challenging, and unbound force with freedom of expression as its foundation, for a civil society where every invested krona yields diversity in return, and so that more people can be reached by sports, culture, and leisure throughout our long country.

It is completely impossible to cover everything within the area in a speech, but I want to highlight a few things in the budget that are particularly close to the hearts of us Liberals.

Let us begin with a little order and clarity, Mr. Speaker! By order and clarity, I mean addressing old sins. It is about a 15-year-old serial – not one of those exciting serials, you know, where you just wait for the next part, but rather a tragedy in several parts. It concerns the premises supply and rent setting of some of our major cultural institutions, specifically the Swedish History Museum, Dramaten, the Opera, the Nationalmuseum, and the Swedish Museum of Natural History.

As early as 2009, an announcement was directed from the Riksdag to the government regarding this: Something needs to be done! Since then, governments have come and gone, while reports have surfaced frequently about leaking roofs, poor working environments, and neglected maintenance. This has shown that the current model does not work.

Now we can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. New agreements will be negotiated, and a long-term solution is in sight. The announcement from 2009 can finally be considered concluded. This is a bit internal for the committee, but it is still important that one can actually add something to the records.

Several positive things are happening in the museum sector in this budget. Nordiska museet, Skansen, Tekniska museet, and Arbetets museum receive long-awaited supplements in this year's budget. Their appropriations have remained unchanged since 2017. Furthermore, funds are allocated to proceed with the issue of a national museum card.

The museums have made a very exciting journey, in roughly the same way as the libraries, and have become truly important meeting places in our society. A museum card has proven to promote that development and increase visits to museums in other countries. I will follow with great interest what opportunities it could mean to also have a museum card for Swedish museums.

Mr. Speaker! Another area I would like to touch upon is resilience and preparedness. Culture is in itself a part of the resilience in society. It is the free culture with freedom of expression as its foundation that is worth defending. Unfortunately, this is being reminded of in our immediate vicinity. Putin's view on Ukraine is that the Ukrainians have no culture of their own, no language of their own, and not even any right to exist.

Ukraine is currently fighting for its right to exist, for its language, and for its culture. ”Pride parades rather than Russian soldiers on the streets of Kyiv,” people chanted already during the Maidan demonstrations in 2014. Ukrainians want to maintain their way of life, their freedom of expression, and their culture. It is this that builds their resilience and their will to defend.

In Ukraine, we also see how Russia is attacking cultural heritage by bombing important cultural buildings to pieces. We must learn from this. We must protect our own cultural heritage – it is about everything from making plans for how the cultural heritage should be managed if the worst were to happen to digitizing our collections, so that we can access them now and in the future and on a broader front than today.

It is cultural heritage that tells the story of us. But the Russian invasion gives us more lessons, not least when it comes to the impact that Russian troll factories have had and continue to have by spreading false narratives. We need to learn to exist in a world with AI, with fabricated news, and with leaders with delusions of grandeur who try to impose their narratives on the world. It is important that more people are able to see through the flow of information that reaches us daily and learn to distinguish between true and false. Therefore, the funds that we allocate to the Media Agency to strengthen the work on media and information literacy are very welcome.

A question that is close to my liberal heart is education. Education, popular education and culture are for me closely associated with freedom and empowerment.

An important part of many people's educational journey is literature. Through literature, we can take part in other worlds, other eras, and others' thoughts. It expands our own world and hopefully makes us a little more understanding towards others' worlds. It gives us knowledge and insights that we can use to free ourselves from the molds that we would otherwise be born into.

More must be given the opportunity to experience the magic of books. But when the school puts an iPad in one's hand, the school library lacks a librarian who can help one find the right book that increases the desire to read, and the endless scrolling takes up all one's time, yes, then this magic is lost for many. To break this trend, more must be done.

That is why I am pleased that the public libraries' work with reading promotion is doubled and extended with 40 million annually during the coming years and that the Storytelling Ministry's important activities are granted funds to reach more children and young people in vulnerable areas. This occurs in addition to all the initiatives on books, school libraries and school librarians that are made within the education committee's expenditure area.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about outdoor life and sports, which are also included in the somewhat diverse portfolio that we are discussing here today.

We have a long tradition of outdoor life in Sweden, and with all our lakes, we have for a long time had high ambitions when it comes to swimming proficiency. Many who come new to our country do not quite have the same relationship to forest, land, and lakes as we who have grown up here. Therefore, it is important that more people get the opportunity to discover outdoor life and wonderful swimming trips during the summer.

Particularly in our marginalized areas, we know that swimming proficiency is at low levels. Therefore, funds are now being targeted to increase swimming proficiency but also to get more people in these areas to discover outdoor life.

A historical investment is also being made in sports halls and venues for sports, where half a billion is invested over two years to increase accessibility so that more people will have the opportunity to participate in sports. One probably has to go back a few decades to find a corresponding state investment in sports facilities. I believe that many municipalities welcome the investment.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and the government's proposal for the budget.

(Applause)

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Mr. Speaker! This has been a debate with broad brushstrokes, so I was pleased when there were some more personal contributions from both Roland and Malin.

We need to achieve the cultural policy goals that we have set here in the Riksdag. But it is still with ourselves that it begins and actually also ends. When we are touched and feel that we develop as individuals, society as a whole also develops. Here, culture has an immensely important task, but also to keep us together and create a sense of community. This is what it is about.

I would like to begin by saying that the Center Party's budget in this area is above the level that the Riksdag has decided for the culture budget, so I cannot reserve myself in favor of our proposal. I therefore choose to abstain from taking a position and submit a special statement on the Center Party's policy within expenditure area 17.

Not unlike the budgets of other opposition parties, the Center Party's budget should also be seen as a coherent whole where no part or parts can be broken out or treated in isolation.

The Center Party's budget motion focuses on strengthening jobs, companies and growth, lowering climate emissions and investing in welfare and infrastructure throughout the country. In that context, I am also speaking about the infrastructure for culture.

Mr. Speaker! Culture, media, sports, and civil society need to be available for everyone in the entire country. It has been quite Stockholm-centric in the examples that have come from this rostrum. All these areas are of great importance for taking advantage of and securing the opportunities for a strong democratic society. The state needs to contribute to creating good conditions. That children and young people, above all, participate in these areas needs to be protected and closely monitored. Everyone, regardless of place of residence, background, disability, and life situation, shall have the opportunity to participate in a cultural life that encompasses both professionally produced culture and the creations of amateurs.

Madam Speaker! We have many areas and many authorities within our field. It is impossible to touch upon all of them with any kind of respect, so I choose a few.

For us in Centerpartiet, it is important that we see the whole country and that we create good conditions for cultural life in the countryside as well as in the city. Centerpartiet wants to strengthen cultural life throughout the country, among other things by establishing a national cultural capital year. Then smaller cities will also have the opportunity to both develop and showcase their cultural life.

Centerpartiet also wants to strengthen the freedom of culture. The arm's length principle cannot be emphasized enough. We believe that if we increase the opportunity for more to participate in financing culture, it will also become freer. But it should be seen as complementary funding side by side with the public funding, which we cannot and sometimes actually should not replace.

Centerpartiet also wants to restore the contribution to the study associations. I have pointed out many times that we have a completely different view than the government on the importance of the study associations' activities. I will return to that even though we have talked about it seventy-one times.

Centerpartiet wants to see a continued strong independent public service. I am concerned that the government does not seem to take into account that the public service companies are now having to bear large costs for the market network. The 3 percent increase that, for example, SVT receives, which the government parties are proud of, is being eaten up by market costs at the expense of journalistic content. This is deeply concerning. Here the government must provide an answer: How is this to be financed? Or is it simply placed in the laps of SVT and SR to solve? I believe that these are special reasons for the government to provide funds, and as has been said, there is money in the public service account.

Madam Speaker! There are two things that every municipality has and which are important for culture. They are the public libraries, and they are the study associations. Both of these are a prerequisite for a rich cultural life, even in sparsely populated municipalities.

Folkbildningsrådet, Studieförbunden i samverkan and Svensk biblioteksförening have produced the report Vid vägs ände? which shows the consequences of the reduction of the grants to the studieförbund. It shows that the folkbildning activity continues to decrease. In the first half of 2025, 20 percent fewer arrangements started than during the same period in 2023. Soon, 1,000 employed folkbildare have had to stop, and 15 percent of the studieförbund's local premises have closed. For other premises, the depletion is even greater.

Other funding does not compensate for the cuts in the state grant to the study associations, even though we know that participation fees contribute to a very large extent. During 2024, the study associations' folk education activities reported a deficit of 216 million. It is clear that then one must consider how to make ends meet. That is why several premises have been closed down. It also means that the number of opportunities for cultural events decreases. But the participants themselves paid 567 million kronor in participation fees during 2024.

Centerpartiet wants both the public libraries and the study associations to have good conditions to participate and contribute to the cultural policy goals being met. In that case, investments in both of these must occur. The Government must see what important resources this is for young music-interested people to be able to develop their interest. It is also about continuing to strengthen our democracy, strengthen free and voluntary lifelong education, strengthen persons who have some form of disability and provide a meaningful leisure time even for that group.

(Applause)

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Culture Committee's report regarding expenditure area 17 in the budget bill for 2026, which covers the areas of culture, media, religious communities, and leisure. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decisions in the report.

Several Sweden Democrat representatives are participating in today's debate to address different parts of the state's culture budget. In my contribution to the debate, I intended to focus on the parts of the budget concerning state grants to civil society.

Madam Speaker! During the mandate period, Swedish cultural policy has risen from the red-green swamp of grants and rolled up its sleeves to tackle the many problems that have arisen with state grants to various organizations being sprayed off in all possible directions without accountability for the taxpayers' money.

The left bloc's cultural policy has consisted of pouring billions of kronor in state grants into folk education across religious communities and other sectors without control, in order to be able to say that one is investing in culture. When it has then repeatedly during previous terms shown that the money has flown off to Islamists, gangsters, and others who should be kept far away from the taxpayers' money, one has acted very sluggishly.

Why did the left act so foolishly and slowly? It can be understood to be due to a general lack of initiative and to the fact that one takes the taxpayers and their money for granted. But we should probably not underestimate the self-interest from the left that also exists in parts of the cultural policy. One is sometimes involved in nurturing the same sphere that one belongs to. In this case, I am perhaps referring primarily to the state subsidy to folkbildningen.

Madam Speaker! It is widely known that the study association ABF stands very close to the Social Democrats and that they have overlapping representatives. For example, the current chairman of ABF went straight from the Riksdag to his new post this past year. The connection to the Social Democrats also becomes clear considering how ABF provides premises in areas with high concentrations of immigrants, where they have polling stations and similar during election years. We have seen many examples of this, including in my home municipality, Linköping.

ABF is at the same time the study association that receives by far the most in state grants. I believe one must take that into account if one is to understand the high tone from the left, not least from the Socialdemokraterna, when it comes to the study associations and civil society as a whole.

Madam Speaker! During the parliamentary term, the Sweden Democrats and the government have acted to take control over what state grants to civil society are used for. We have implemented new, stricter democratic conditions for state grants to civil society, which came into force quite recently. We have already been able to see that it has made a difference. Islamic Shia Communities in Sweden are among the organizations that have lost state grants. It was naturally overdue given the Islamist Iranian connections they have, and given that Säpo has warned about the matter.

The Sweden Democrats monitor the implementation of the democratic conditions, and we are, of course, ready to propose new measures to stop state grants from ending up in the wrong hands.

In addition to the democratic conditions, which encompass the entire civil society, the Sweden Democrats and the government have during the mandate period done much to ensure that state grants for folk education go to what they are intended for and not to Islamists or fraudsters. The tightened guidelines for the Folkbildningsrådet are part of that, and more reforms will of course follow, based on the Folkbildningsutredningens report.

The Sweden Democrats' and the government's folk education policy was also what ultimately put a stop to the grant roll-out to the Islamist study association Ibn Rushd, which during the mandate period has announced that it is phasing out its activities. When the red-green parties governed Sweden, it was instead a grant roll-out to Ibn Rushd with tens of millions of kronor in state grants per year.

Madam Speaker! Since we are debating the culture budget today, I also naturally want to touch upon the reduced grant to the study associations, which has been part of the policy during this mandate period. The reduction is a necessary prioritization given that this mandate period has been characterized by inflation control and by historical investments in the justice system and defense.

It is also about something else. A great deal happens within the framework of the study associations' activities that is actually not particularly important. There are many important things, but I will give a few examples of things I do not think are so important. There are book clubs about the Communist Manifesto, lunch discos in residential areas with a high immigrant population, and courses in dog parkour. It is clear that one can engage in that, but the question is whether the taxpayers' money should go towards this.

With that said, I look forward to continuing on the path set by the Sweden Democrats and the government parties in cultural policy through yet another budget decision in the right direction.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! Since Jonas Andersson was a bit selective in how he described the activities of the study associations, I felt a need to stand up and supplement for those listening to this debate and explain that all parties except the Sweden Democrats have a connection to a study association. Either one has been involved in founding them or one is a member of a study association.

It is also the case that most other associations in our entire country are affiliated with a study association so that they can carry out their educational activities. This concerns associations within culture and sports – there is a specific study association for the sports clubs. It is also the case that social associations and environmental organizations – in principle all associations in Sweden – are affiliated with a study association.

When the government cuts one-third of the state subsidy, it hits the entire civil society hard. I am convinced that the Sverigedemokraterna are very aware of this. I am more surprised that the other parties in the government have agreed to this. They actually have insight into and knowledge of what important activities the study associations have – especially out in the countryside, as we heard. There, they are often the only actor offering a meeting place – an arena – for people to meet.

We heard earlier that it is significant from a preparedness point of view. It is also significant for the cohesion in a locality that there is a place where one can exhibit their paintings after having completed an watercolor course, and where one can organize lectures and literature discussions, invite authors, and so on.

My question now is whether Jonas Andersson can explain to us in what way cheating is countered by forcing a closure of 29 percent of the country's study association premises. One third of the state subsidy has disappeared. One third of the premises have been closed down during this parliamentary term. In what way does that counter cheating?

(Applause)

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Vasiliki Tsouplaki began her speech by talking about how other parties also have connections to student unions. I am, of course, well aware that there is such a history in several cases. However, I am not aware of any other party having such intimate ties to student unions as the Social Democrats do. I know, for example, that there are also historical ties in various ways from the bourgeois side, but I do not see anyone going straight in as a Member of Parliament and taking over the chairmanship of any student union while their party colleagues are sitting and shouting in the Riksdag that democracy is under threat.

In the work itself, one seems to see it as parts of the support for branches within the Social Democrats that are threatened. ABF is also part of something larger. That is what one must see. We have had the party lotteries, which have been debated quite vigorously during this mandate period. There, the Social Democrats have also stuck out by wanting special legislation for their own activities, which by chance benefits them very much – or rather, I don't think it is by chance.

To address Vasiliki Tsouplakis' question: What I stated above was not actually that lowering the appropriation would contribute to reduced cheating. I stated that a large part of what is being done is such that I do not think is prioritized or that taxpayers' money should be spent on. When we have historical investments in the justice system, defense, and other areas, there are other priorities to make. I actually have no problem standing for these any day.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! The reason I asked the question was that the member in the speaker's chair said that they have tightened the financing to counter fraud. That was what I reacted to. I have full respect for the fact that different parties prioritize different things. That is not strange. What I react to time and again when we debate this is that the Sverigedemokraterna come with sweeping accusations and incorrect facts and present this as some kind of Social Democratic conspiracy when it actually is not so. I think that needs to be addressed.

I do not know exactly how many Center Party members there are on the board of Studieförbundet Vuxenskolan. I do not count in that way. What I can state, however, is that all parties have historically seen the importance of folk education. When a party engages in an issue, it is clear that there is also an interest in seeking jobs within that sector. They are passionate about the issues. That is why all parties except the Sweden Democrats have, over the years, protected folk education.

This also applies to the folk high school side, where we see that, for example, there are many religious folk high schools with roots in the free church movement. This has been a broad mobilization from the whole of society, and during the last century, we have built up Swedish democracy in parallel with having a strong civil society that has driven those issues.

Politicians of all party colors have received their education through study associations and through civil society. That is how one has learned meeting processes and member democracy. The Sweden Democrats do not have that foundation. It is noticed time and again when we talk about civil society and about democratic issues that you do not see the value of civil society and do not understand how we can safeguard our democracy in the best way.

Instead, there are proposals for restrictions on the freedom of demonstration and restrictions on the freedom of assembly. There will also be large cuts to the grants to civil society.

(Applause)

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we know that student unions have a long history in Sweden. That is so. It is clear that in association life in general, and also in student unions, one can teach people about associative democracy and so on. We who are involved in political parties, such as those present in the chamber, know that. Many of us have learned how it goes to, for example, organize an annual meeting and those types of things in our local municipal associations.

One refers with one hand to the history of the study associations and simultaneously believes that with the other hand, one should lecture us Sverigedemokrater on how it should be done in associative democracy, but if one looks back decades, the Vänsterpartiet, as far as I know, had rather close ties to dictatorships than to any kind of associative democracy. I must say that it becomes a bit rich to come and try to lecture me regarding that matter.

We can also go into the other parts. One can, of course, make people poorer with tax increases and present a pure fantasy budget to the Swedish Riksdag, as the Vänsterpartiet has done, and then say that people would get more culture with it. I do not believe that people will be able to afford more culture when you have raised taxes to the ceiling, but it is the opposite, Vasiliki Tsouplaki. When the taxes on fuel, the fuel prices and the electricity prices skyrocket – and all other taxes that you want to raise – there will not be more culture. There will not be more culture with your politics. There will be less culture.

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

Kristoffer Lindberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to state that I stand behind the Social Democrats' special statement.

In politics, a fact needs to be clearly underlined: Sweden is larger than Stockholm.

Throughout Sweden, there are fantastic operations that make professional culture available to the residents and at the same time create jobs for cultural creators across the country. This includes, for example, county theaters, county museums, regional operas, archives, concert halls, and so on. The state covers approximately one quarter of the cost through the cultural cooperation model, but it is not to be forgotten that the majority is financed by regions and municipalities. For a long time, the state's share of the funds has also decreased while the regions and municipalities have increased their shares.

The government now proposes that the state's grant to the model next year should increase by 2.8 million kronor to partially compensate for the fact that the grant is no longer adjusted for price and wage increases. It is, of course, very welcome that the government sees the need for more resources – even if it may be a very small compensation – because it has had major consequences for the regional cultural institutions that the compensation for price and wage increases has been discontinued. The development leads to fewer performances and exhibitions, and in the long run, the cultural institutions' ability to operate is actually at risk.

For the next two years, the government announces further reductions, exceeding 40 million kronor, of the state's share in the cultural cooperation model. This should be seen in light of the missing price and wage adjustments in recent years, the extremely modest adjustment this year, and the state's reduced responsibility over time. This is about precisely that cultural activity which helps Sweden reach the cultural policy goal that everyone shall have the opportunity to participate in cultural life. We Social Democrats therefore propose a reinforcement of the state grant even this year in the form of 100 million to the cultural cooperation model.

Madam Speaker! The cultural school shall be available on equal terms throughout the country, for all children regardless of background. We Social Democrats want the question of a cultural school act to be investigated. It would give the cultural school a national framework and emphasize the cultural school's importance for the development of children and young people as well as the cultural school's role in the artistic education chain in Sweden. Such legislation should be designed as a framework act in the same manner as the library act and the museum act.

In such an investigation, we also argue that questions of how the state can contribute to further strengthening the culture school in Sweden, not least regarding the supply of competence and the future availability of trained culture school teachers, should be included. We further propose that the state development grant to the culture school be increased from 100 million to 200 million next year.

Madam Speaker! Access to art and culture for children and young people is not met solely through the activities of the cultural school. The school has an incredibly important role to play so that all children and young people, regardless of where in the country they live, shall receive the experiences and personal development contained in their own creation and in the professional culture to which they are entitled.

Skolverkets curriculum stipulates that cultural experiences shall be a part of learning, but access to art and personal creation for children and young people is unequally distributed. In some schools and municipalities, exemplary work is already being done, but we also see that there are students who rarely or never come into contact with cultural experiences during their school time.

It should not matter which municipality you live in or what economy your school has. We therefore want to see a state-funded culture guarantee in preschool and school that guarantees that all children continuously experience professional art and their own creation during their schooling, both in the school's premises and on-site at cultural institutions. This involves, for example, school cinema, performing arts, own creation, or visits to museums. This would give all children better opportunities to take part in Swedish cultural life and the sense of community that exists in practicing culture and sharing cultural experiences. To initiate the implementation of the culture guarantee in school, the Socialdemokraterna propose 300 million in a new appropriation.

Madam Speaker! Throughout our country, there is an impressive number of public meeting places run by associations. They are a great asset to our society; not least, they fulfill an important function in the cultural infrastructure, both as independent organizers and, above all, as an arena and enabler for other parts of association life. They constitute a cornerstone of Swedish cultural life, contribute to making art and culture accessible throughout Sweden, and have a decisive role for the conditions of civil society to operate, not least in rural and remote areas.

Madam Speaker! The function of assembly halls as meeting places also makes them a resource in society's crisis preparedness and our civil defense. We Social Democrats see it as important that the state's support for the assembly halls is prioritized and provided long-term. We therefore propose an increase of the state's contribution to public assembly halls by 20 million in addition to the government's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Kristoffer Lindberg!

I wanted to bring up a phenomenon that I find interesting, namely how it can happen that a party changes its mind.

The Speaker spoke about the cultural cooperation model. It was introduced by the Alliance government in 2009, I believe it was, and has been adopted by the Social Democrats – and actually by the entire political landscape. One may have views on the development, but now the cultural cooperation model is included in every party's policy. I find that exciting.

Then we have the leisure card. The member and I, as well as other members, have debated this several times. One could say that you have been quite resistant, Kristoffer Lindberg. Since I find this interesting and exciting, my question is: What is it that makes a party, in this case the Social Democrats, adopt the leisure card after having been so resistant and contrary to it? Now you have changed your mind; you are not removing it from your budget. How did that happen? Perhaps we can get a small insight into the Social Democrats' inner life here. What is the talk like? How does it happen when a party changes its mind in that way?

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

Kristoffer Lindberg (S)

Madam Speaker! According to a post, we have a grandiose self-image, and yet we are still to share our inner lives here in the chamber. I do not know who I should listen to!

However, I think like this: The government's leisure card reform is being implemented now. What we Social Democrats share with the government and the member is the ambition that more children and young people should have the opportunity for an active and meaningful leisure time. Then we continue to question whether the leisure card is the right reform to achieve that, but now it is implemented. It is ongoing right now – with mixed success, one could say.

Over one-third of the funds, corresponding to around one quarter of a billion, shall go to administration at Ehälsomyndigheten and Försäkringskassan. Our criticism has been that it is primarily about resources that instead could have been used to strengthen activities where the children are – on football fields, in cultural schools, in dance halls, and in outdoor areas.

The fact that the reform has now been introduced makes it even more important for the government to ensure a solid and transparent follow-up of the leisure card. It must become clear which children are actually reached by the support. It is crucial to get answers on whether access to activities has increased where the needs are greatest or if the support has instead reinforced already existing inequalities.

The government also needs to report how smaller, ideally driven associations manage the requirements set in this system, which are not the easiest to handle, and whether the resources in practice are concentrated among fewer and larger actors.

We will monitor the implementation of the leisure card closely, but we will also continue to work for a policy that builds children's and youth's leisure from the ground up, with more leaders, more premises and more safe communities.

Based on the speech for which the member requested a reply, I would like to ask: What is the member's position on our proposals regarding the culture school, on a culture guarantee for children and young people, on saving regional culture, and on supporting public community centers?

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to say this to the member: You have indeed adopted the leisure card. I think you are starting to waver a little on this, Kristoffer Lindberg. It sounds like it is still a bit reluctant, but you have adopted it and will not remove it from your budget. If, against all odds, you were to take government power again, it will remain.

It is, however, clear that such large reforms have certain teething problems. I notice that the member has really looked into this matter regarding the leisure card, and that pleases me very much. It is clearly evident that there is a strong interest.

I remain at this point regarding changing one's opinion. You have indeed adopted the cultural cooperation model. In very large issues, such as the NATO question, you have also changed your mind. Now we are in NATO. The leisure card is not as big an issue, but I mention it anyway. It shows, after all, that politics is the art of the possible.

I am still wondering if it might be extra tricky to adopt a proposal that comes from the Christian Democrats. Could it be that, or is it just about worry over what people will say and worry about losing votes in the 2026 election? The member may be welcome to describe how the thoughts are going here.

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

Kristoffer Lindberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I intend to refrain from reviewing the quality of proposals coming from the Christian Democrats; we can take that outside here later.

The future of the leisure card and how we view it likely lies very much in the follow-up and what the result of this will be. It is important that the money goes to what it is intended to go to and that it does not reinforce already existing structures but actually reaches where it is needed.

I asked some questions to the member which the member perhaps did not hear or chose to ignore, but I can conclude by summarizing it roughly as follows: We have seen a halved development grant from this government to the culture school and a very tough economic situation for municipalities and regions. We have a situation where the state forces the regions into cuts on welfare and on culture. The government is starving out the regional culture. It is flagged that entire performing arts institutions are threatened, and nine out of ten culture schools are forced into cuts. How long will the government side remain silent in these matters?

I cannot draw any other conclusion than this: Either the government does not care about either culture schools or access to culture outside Stockholm's inner city, or the government and the Sverigedemokraterna want the municipalities and regions to raise their taxes to stop the cuts in healthcare, school, care, and culture so that they themselves, in a position of government, can continue their tax cuts for the very richest in society.

(Applause)

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

Emma Ahlström Köster (M)

Madam Speaker! Sports and outdoor life have a completely unique ability to create community between generations and between people with different social backgrounds. At the same time, it is an arena for democracy, creativity, and social belonging.

When we took over government power nearly four years ago, the Social Democrats had led the country for eight years. Those were eight lost years. It was clear that the government base at that time was unable to get the security or the economy in order and that they were unable to manage the cultural area.

In a few months, we will stand at an important crossroads. Either we will once again have a mandate period characterized by uncertainty and paralysis, or we continue on the path we have set. The latter option means that we take action against crime and restore households' purchasing power while we can invest in culture and leisure.

Madam Speaker! This government has both the mandate, the will, and the ability to invest in sports and culture. However, we do not do so with yesterday's solutions, because then we get yesterday's results. During the three years that have elapsed, a number of measures have been taken to make sports and culture accessible. Much of what has been implemented has already been mentioned here in previous speeches, but I want to add something that has not yet been touched upon.

Last week, I visited the Swedish Football Association. They spoke warmly about Idrottsklivet, which is one of the government's important reforms so that children who are far from an active leisure life or sports practice shall have the opportunity to find their way there. This consideration is of extra great importance because it has made it possible, and also will continue to make it possible, that even those who today stand far away are invited.

Madam Speaker! Swedish children move far too little. Many do not reach 60 minutes of physical activity every day, which is the recommended time. It is not enough. Therefore, the government has done more so that children, regardless of background, are given the opportunity for an active and meaningful leisure time. We know that children who move a lot in their free time perform better in school and feel better. Ultimately, this is a matter of justice.

Earlier this year, we launched the leisure card. It is a support aimed at children and young people between 8 and 16 years old that can be used as payment for a leisure or cultural activity. The Social Democrats have said that it is an expensive reform. We Moderates say instead that parents' finances should not stand in the way of the opportunity to play football or to learn to play the guitar.

Yesterday, on December 1, 338,147 leisure cards had been granted. It is actually an impressive number. Over 40,000 children and young people have been granted the slightly more expensive support of 2,000 kronor. They come from families who receive benefits.

Let us state that we are on the right track. Children who previously stood far away from a leisure activity have now been invited.

Those who take a positive stance toward the Social Democrats' argument that the leisure card is too expensive need to put this into relation with what it would have cost if the over 40,000 children who today have received 2,000 SEK had not been invited. What would it have cost in sedentary behavior? What would it have cost in mental ill-health? What would it have cost in worsened school results? What would it have cost in a lack of trust and community?

It should be emphasized that the reform is one of many measures being implemented across the country. I am proud that the government has dared to think anew and has not become stuck in old tracks.

Madam Speaker! I also want to point out that the government has invested extra in swimming instruction. We see that Sweden is falling behind when it comes to this competence, and we are doing something concrete about it.

We are also allocating funds to Fritidsbanken to make it easier for more people to obtain affordable sports equipment. This also applies to para-sports equipment, which is expensive but important.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say a few words about outdoor life. In the budget for 2026, we are allocating 5 million kronor to outdoor life organizations. This is so that all people shall have the opportunity to have nature experiences, to feel well-being in forest and land, find social community, and gain increased knowledge about nature and the environment. Spending time in nature also provides many important health effects.

A recently released report from Svenskt Friluftsliv shows that three out of four believe that outdoor life is important for health and well-being, but many also believe that they are not out in nature as much as they would have liked. Therefore, I am glad that our policy has noticed the issue and invited more – or invited out.

In Sweden, it should be easy to take responsibility for one's health. It is possible to read what the state grants have done for the outdoor organizations during the mandate period – but even more importantly, what significance and effect they have had.

Madam Speaker! Sport, culture, and outdoor life are about the freedom to develop, meet other people, find oneself, and explore new ideas and forms of expression. This freedom can never be taken for granted, and it requires that we create conditions without micro-managing. The government's budget balances exactly these two parts.

We are also strengthening civil society. We want to develop and improve civil society's opportunity to involve people and strengthen the conditions for people to be able to contribute to social development and deepen their knowledge.

In the budget for 2026, the government has allocated approximately 17.3 billion to the area we are now debating. A large part of these funds goes specifically to sports: 2.1 billion to be exact. I am particularly proud that a portion of this money goes toward working to ensure that those who are furthest away from sports find their way there. Our policy has led to measurably more hours of sports. Idrottsklivet, the fritidskort, and the focus on movement-promoting activities and outdoor life are the government's melody. The government stands for determination and an effective policy where we see the problems and want to make a difference in practice.

Madam Speaker! With these words, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Anne-Li Sjölund (C)

Madam Speaker! Sports and outdoor life are so much more than physical activity. It is community, faith in the future, and one of our strongest forces for creating a Sweden where people grow. For the Center Party, it is clear that everyone should be able to participate regardless of age, functional ability, background, or zip code.

In every society that stands strong, people meet, not because some authority has said so, but because that is how we humans function. We train together, learn together and create together – on the schoolyard, in the swimming pool, in that first hall where balls bounce, shoes squeak and dreams take off, and out on the path where children discover the joy of movement long before they themselves understand how important it is.

That is why the Center Party invests in community life and the sports movement. We want to give associations stable conditions, less hassle and more freedom, because when community life functions, society functions. When children meet safe leaders, insecurity decreases. When people move, they feel better. When we invest in community, we invest in the future.

Madam Speaker! This expenditure area is about exactly that, that which truly builds Sweden. The policy for civil society is about the places where people actually meet and where cohesion is created. It is about the sports halls, the clubs, the community centers, the study circles and the folk high schools. It is there that loneliness is broken, young people find their way and community takes root.

The infrastructure of democracy is village halls, community centers, scout activities, sports clubs, outdoor organizations, choirs and conversation groups. In all these environments, the trust a country needs to hold together is created. This can be completely decisive locally. It can be about that village hall that is the only open space in the village or that association that struggles to keep the door open. But the associations' costs are increasing while the support remains stagnant. It is not sustainable.

In Sweden's rural areas, we see that libraries are closing one by one and that the book bus no longer comes because the stop has been decommissioned. We see that study associations are being shut down and that premises at the local community centers are closing. All of this happens because the government is removing the money from the organizations that keep the rural cultural life alive in practice. So, we cannot have that. The countryside has the same right to culture, folk education, and meeting places as the large cities.

Sports and outdoor life are not just activity. It is public health, quality of life, and preparedness. People who move in nature, who cooperate and who find their way in darkness and cold stand stronger when society is tested. It is also about when children run on trails as if the world were theirs and when we sit on a mountain peak and understand that this is worth preserving.

But nature is not accessible on its own. Trails must be maintained, signs must be visible, and barbecue areas must not fall into disrepair. Therefore, the Center Party invests in outdoor life: safe trails, accessible areas, and long-term conditions for the outdoor organizations.

Nature is our greatest, and cheapest, outdoor gym. Every krona invested in outdoor life yields more back in reduced ill health, less loneliness, better mental well-being, and stronger local communities. Nature shall be for everyone, and every investment in outdoor life we will receive back many times over.

Madam Speaker! Ahead of the Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina, we feel pride. Our athletes show what power exists in blue and yellow. They inspire children and show what is possible when talent meets hard work. But behind the successes lies a harsh reality. Many elite athletes live under unreasonable conditions and risk soon having to pay to compete for Sweden. Centerpartiet wants to change that. Sweden must be able to afford both breadth and the top. No one should have to borrow money to represent the country. We have also seen how athletes such as Paralympics medalist judoka Nicolina Pernheim Goodrich have had to fight more for their assistance than for their sport. This cannot continue. Therefore, we invest in both elite sports and inclusive sports.

Sport is one of the greatest freedom reforms Sweden has. It is movement, joy and health but also the courage to try something new, the support from a teammate and the security when a leader sees you. Sport is one of our strongest counterforces against insecurity, sedentary lifestyles and mental ill-health. But if sport is truly to be for everyone, the state must take responsibility.

Civil society is the fabric that holds Sweden together. Leaders, officials, and associations create safety and engagement, but they need better conditions and less bureaucracy. Therefore, Centerpartiet wants to strengthen support for community halls and village halls and restore the conditions for study associations, which are one of our most important democratic institutions. When the government cuts, rehearsal rooms, language circles, cultural projects, and meeting places disappear across the entire country.

Madam Speaker! Hope for the future is not created in here, in this chamber. It is created when people feel that they belong, when they get to contribute and when someone believes in them. The great thing is that the solutions are often simple: a path, a trail, an association, a community center, a passionate individual. That is what sports do. That is what outdoor life does. That is what civil society does. Therefore, the Center Party prioritizes exactly this in our budget. That is where life happens: on football pitches and slushy running tracks, in the training facilities of para-sports, on hiking trails and at grill huts, in village halls, scout halls and rehearsal rooms, in study circles and at folk high schools. That is also where politics must begin.

Centerpartiet bets on community, movement, freedom and accessibility throughout the country, because that makes Sweden strong.

I naturally stand behind the Center Party's special statement.

(Applause)

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

Runar Filper (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the Culture Committee's proposed decision in the report.

The Swedish cultural heritage is important and crucial for our identity and cohesion. It is invaluable. It includes Swedish history, both material and immaterial, and provides understanding and knowledge of previous generations' toil, knowledge, faith, and life stories, and also explains our own present day.

Cultural heritage is central. It is the history of Sweden. For this valuable heritage to continue to be meaningful, a long-term policy is required that values and guards it.

Giving more people access to culture and to Sweden's museums is an important deed. The museums ensure that cultural heritage is preserved and brought to life. Investments ensure that they can continue to operate with high quality. Museums that are foundations have received grants so that their operations can be strengthened and more people can gain access to culture.

For example, the Nordiska museet's role as a cultural bearer and preserver of cultural heritage is great. The museum preserves both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, such as objects, traditions, customs, legends, and folk songs. Its role in preserving intangible cultural heritage is indispensable. The museum is an expert body for oral traditions, expressions, social customs, rites, and holidays, and it actively documents this living cultural heritage.

The preliminary study on a national museum card that can give more people the opportunity to visit some of our many museums around the country is also an interesting initiative. It has worked well in our neighboring country Finland, and it could get more people to participate in and take an interest in our cultural heritage.

The current government's culture budget has in recent years entailed increased appropriations to grant properties managed by Statens fastighetsverk. Between 2024 and 2026, the appropriations have been increased by a total of 450 million kronor to improve the maintenance of cultural-historical buildings such as archaeological remains, fortresses and castles.

The initiative aims to address deficiencies in maintenance that have existed previously. It concerns buildings of cultural-historical value that cannot finance their own maintenance through rental income. A total of 1,320 million will be allocated to such properties over three years, 2024–2026. The previous appropriation was not sufficient to cover the maintenance needs, which led to a risk of dilapidated buildings.

Properties included are, among others, Riddarholmskyrkan and castles such as Skokloster and Nyköpingshus. Fortresses that have received investments previously are Karlstens fästning, Nya Älvsborgs fästning, Bohus fästning and Varbergs fästning, to name a few. These properties are an important part of the story of our history. There lie the keys to our past. This is an important cultural heritage effort that the Tidö parties have prioritized.

Digitalization initiatives for, among other things, the National Archives have also been made to accelerate the work with the digitalization of the cultural heritage. Already last year, funds were allocated to strengthen the work with digitizing the cultural heritage. The reform means that the government invests 20 million kronor annually 2024–2026 to secure the cultural heritage through digitalization of archive and object collections within state museums, other state activities, and activities with state support. That the cultural heritage is digitally available is of great importance, not least as a preparedness measure.

Promoting reading and reading comprehension is a priority. During 2024, the Swedish National Agency for Education and the Swedish Arts Council were tasked with producing reading lists with different types of literature to serve as a support for preschool teachers and teachers. This initiative was further complemented last year.

In the budgets that have been presented, large investments have repeatedly been made in reading in various ways, not least when it comes to the school and students' opportunity to receive adequate reading and literature in the classrooms. The extension of the previously decided investment in public libraries' reading promotion work aimed at children and young people is good. The 40 million kronor that are now allocated to this will be beneficial.

School is an important actor in giving all children and young people the opportunity to encounter cultural heritage at an early age. This gives the students knowledge and experiences of the past that make them better equipped to understand their present and shape their future.

Finally, I would like to mention some approaches that perhaps can sow some seeds for upcoming negotiations. Few other ideas and institutions have had such a significant impact on Swedish culture as Christianity and the Church of Sweden. Over the years, Swedish culture and the Church of Sweden have mutually influenced each other.

During the last century, secularization and changes within the church have resulted in many choosing to leave the Church of Sweden and thereby refrain from paying the church fee. This has led to a significant reduction of the church's resources. This represents a threat to Sweden's largest collective physical cultural heritage, which is still used for its original purpose.

The compensation has been the same from 2009 until 2024, when the SD government or the Tidö government increased it from 460 to 490 million annually. In SD's cultural heritage billion, which we had in 2021 in the last budget we submitted before we received a joint Tidö budget, we budgeted the sum that the church should actually have in view of the depreciation: 700 million kronor.

With this, I thank Madam Speaker for the floor and apologize if I exceeded the speaking time by 50 percent.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was more than 50 percent, unfortunately.)

(cont.)

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