Public service, film and video games

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! Last week, the prestigious international gala DICE Awards took place in Las Vegas, USA. The gala is for the gaming industry comparable to the Oscars in the film world. In 7 of 23 categories, the award went to Swedish-made games.

Mr. Speaker! There is currently an incredible amount of misery all around our world to worry about. In that case, it is also important to see what is positive in life and what is going well. An industry that truly both deserves and spreads good news is the video game industry – for what development it has seen in recent years! Despite tough times and a harsh economy, the turnover for the video game industry increased last year by 6.4 percent. It now turns over 34.6 billion kronor. That is more than, for example, the export of clothes and iron ore in Sweden. Including the subsidiaries abroad, the Swedish video game industry turned over over 90 billion last year. We Moderates do not, of course, like to talk about taxes, but it contributed to Sweden receiving over 5 billion in extra tax money. This is needed in these tough times when we need to use our money to increase safety and security in the world.

It also started a hundred new Swedish video game companies last year. Now almost ten thousand people work in the video game industry in Sweden, and we see how it is increasing all the time.

Public service, film and video games

In the world, there are approximately 3 billion people who play video games – in Sweden, over half of the population. It is said that of these 3 billion who play video games in the world, every fourth has played a game that is created and manufactured by Swedes.

We should be proud of the industry. I am glad that we have included the video game industry in the strategy we have decided on, which is about our desire to highlight the cultural and creative industry in Sweden. We have decided on a strategy where we will be able to follow the industry closely and see what we can do to help it further. For example, it can already be mentioned that the Swedish University of Applied Sciences has doubled the number of vocational programs within the cultural and creative industry this year compared to last year.

Today's report, Mr. Speaker, also deals with public service and the film industry. These are also important issues, but there are currently government inquiries under discussion. Regarding the film industry, a government inquiry that has been tasked with reviewing the entire industry's needs and development will submit its proposal next week or the week after. Regarding public service, there is a solid government inquiry that the ministry is now working on. I feel, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that those discussions have either been conducted or must wait until we have a basis to discuss.

With that, I refer to the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are therefore debating motions from the general motion period in autumn and the requests concerning public service, film policy and video games.

The Green Party has ten reservations in the report. I stand behind all of them but, in order to save some time later, I limit myself now to moving for approval of reservation 3, which concerns the fact that we in the Green Party want a broad and independent public service because it is so important for democracy.

Democracy can never be taken for granted. We have known that for a long time. General and free elections are not enough. Democracy must be won every day in people's everyday lives. This sounds like old truths. Yet we know that democracy is being challenged and is losing ground. Globally, a clear trend in, for example, the VDem Institute's reports from Gothenburg is that the number of democracies is decreasing while the autocracies are increasing.

If we count countries, the distribution between democracies and non-democracies is still relatively even. But seen in terms of the number of people, the trend is very strong. For just over a decade ago, barely half of the world's population lived in non-democracies – or autocracies, as the institute refers to the non-democratic states. When the latest report came out just under a year ago, the figure had increased from 48 percent to 71 percent of the world's population. So many are it is that do not live in democracies today. And the development, not least in the USA these days, is, to say the least, worrying.

In Sweden, we maintain our place in the democratic top tier but still lose points on several of the metrics that the institute uses. I say this because we face very large changes both globally and in Sweden. But there is no legal obligation in this development. Sweden does not have to follow the development at all. It is up to us here to choose the path.

Back to my motion! Public service is an important institution. It is not a guarantee for the strong Swedish democracy but a necessary component, I would say. Therefore, it is so worrying that the public service committee could not reach an agreement. Four parties, today's opposition parties, wrote both individual and joint reservations that were relatively similar in wording. They agreed on the need to maintain a strong public service with a broad offering for the entire population, high accessibility, and continued high trust.

The central allocation is naturally completely central. If the government does not change its line and actually lands on a higher allocation than what the report proposes, the public service companies will be forced to make very large savings, which will affect the program range, the quality, the core missions, and probably the trust.

It is also important that the public service companies are where the audience is. Not least all young people, but actually people of all ages, are in the digital age we live in on a multitude of platforms or apps. Therefore, the requirement that the public service companies should prioritize their own platforms is very unfortunately formulated.

In addition to the democratic aspect, the very serious security policy situation we find ourselves in also gives the government further reasons to actually go back to our reservations and reflect for a while before the referral to the Council on Legislation and the bill are submitted in the spring. It is the case, Mr. Speaker, that MIK, media and information literacy, is an area that is becoming increasingly significant in the digital noise surrounding us. Here, public service plays a central role. We need secure sources for news, world monitoring, and reliable information. A national strategy is needed to counter disinformation and propaganda and to secure and strengthen the public's source criticism and media and information literacy.

Public service has a central role in this part and has a special status in the Swedish total defense. We in Miljöpartiet have petitions regarding this in the report. We also have petitions regarding accessibility, not least for the indigenous people and the national minorities. The minority languages need to be highlighted, used, and have a natural and obvious place.

Mr. Speaker! I will also say something about film and video games.

Sweden is traditionally a strong film nation. We have a long tradition, and we have prominent Swedish directors, screenwriters, actors and filmmakers. We can boast a number of groundbreaking films.

The Green Party took this legacy very seriously in government position during two parliamentary terms. With us, important steps were taken in the development to strengthen Swedish film. The transition to a new state film policy when the film agreements more or less collapsed, the introduction of the extensive crisis and restart supports during and after the pandemic, and not least the introduction of production incentives for film and TV productions occurred during the years with Green Party culture ministers.

But the world and the external and internal conditions are changing rapidly. Today, Swedish film has fallen behind in an international comparison. We are at the bottom of Europe when it comes to public funding, but there are also problems and obstacles regarding the production, distribution, and screening of Swedish film.

Next week, the Film Commission is expected to be presented. At that time, I hope there are also answers to these challenges in its report. Miljöpartiet would like to see a significantly higher ambition for public funding here as well, when it comes to both the direct grants and an increase in production incentives. Last time, the money ran out in just over a minute. So we cannot have that. After that, the government has both reduced the grants and withdrawn the calls for proposals. So you don't solve a problem. On the contrary, Swedish productions are now forced to seek both funding and production and production teams abroad.

I myself visited a typical such film production the other day, actually on its last day of filming, outside Rosenbad just a stone's throw from here. It was one of the few filming days in Sweden. Otherwise, this film, a major production, had been filmed in Lithuania, and the Lithuanian team – there are quite a lot of people in a film team – had come along to Stockholm. The reason is that Lithuania has better conditions, just like so many other European countries. The government must wake up here if we are not to continue losing jobs, tax revenues, competence, and high quality in Swedish film production.

Miljöpartiet also wants to see some form of streaming fee on streaming services, so that the large international companies are included in the financing of Swedish film. Can a new model possibly be found, for example with a new film agreement that distributes the costs, there is absolutely no locking on our part that we must remain in the state-wide film policy.

We need to continue to protect our cinemas. Film should also in the future be able to be seen in community on large screens across the country. Our cinemas are an important piece of the cultural ecosystem.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to say something about video games. Even here, Sweden has been an early mover and is still a leading nation today. Swedish video games, game studios, and innovative solutions hold their own in the international competition.

There are several reasons why we have ended up here, such as a favorable business climate with – whatever people say – low tax pressure for fast-growing companies as well as an early developed digital infrastructure. When I have spoken with people in the industry, I have also heard that the lack of arcade halls in the urban Swedish environment has contributed in such a way that developers instead sat at home and coded. What do I know – maybe that is a success factor. The creative educational chain with cultural schools, folk high schools, study associations and higher artistic education has naturally also been contributing.

Miljöpartiet was early in including video games in cultural policy. We have long maintained that Sweden needs to adopt a national strategy for video games as a growing creative industry and for a vibrant cultural life around gaming and video games. The Culture Committee is now in the middle of a major piece of work, and we can state that there is a broad consensus regarding recognizing the video game industry as a basic industry and video games as a cultural expression. As the previous speaker mentioned, there are every reason for us to be proud of the Swedish video game industry. On that, we also agree.

There are some challenges along the way. The supply of skills is one of them; the educational pathways need to be secured. But the strict regulatory framework surrounding migration is probably right now the very biggest obstacle for the industry's growth. In that part, we are probably not quite in agreement, but that belongs to another committee.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! TV, film, radio, and games of various kinds occur in almost every Swedish resident's life every day. They are cultural and media forms that touch, create engagement, and common frames of reference. They provoke debate, shape us, and inform us about the world. That these are phenomena that are important in our everyday lives and for our society, we can probably agree on across party lines, but the question is what conclusions we draw from that.

In recent years, the debate has been intense regarding what responsibility we should take politically to guarantee that the country's inhabitants are provided with a media offering that gives us everything I listed. What should we leave to the market to manage entirely without political involvement or financial support?

During the course of this parliamentary term, I have perceived that the Tidö parties' rhetoric has shifted from talking about it being desirable that private financiers can support culture to a greater extent to an open dissatisfaction that the cultural sector expects higher public support. There is, however, a positive tone when talking about creative and cultural industries as a base industry and as export successes, and a pride when musicians, directors, and game producers contribute to a positive image of Sweden in the rest of the world.

I am a bit unsure whether the Tidö parties have taken the time to understand what the cultural ecosystem looks like, and I am very curious about what level of ambition is held. Does one want more or less culture in our country? Does one have the ambition to work towards achieving the cultural policy goals?

What has happened in recent years is that the cultural sector, just like other parts of society, has been hit hard by inflation, but before that, things were extra tough due to how the pandemic hit cinemas, theaters, concert organizers, and all those who make a living from public events. To that is added that very many of the cultural grants had remained stagnant for many years before the pandemic.

What I want to say with this is that it is not only the government's fault that large cuts are occurring within various parts of the cultural area, but it is the government's responsibility to listen to the signals that were first presented in a calm tone but which have recently been shouted out. To point out to the decision-makers what consequences their decisions have is surely to take responsibility for the national cultural policy? Whether one thinks it is relevant or not is up to each politician to decide, but it is a very unfortunate path to dismiss information and opinion-forming as manifestations of out-of-touch elitism.

Mr. Speaker! Let me now approach the main areas of the debate. What is common to film, TV, games and to some extent also radio is that they lie in the borderland between cultural policy and business policy. Many film and TV producers and distributors, actors and game companies are on an international market.

We in Vänsterpartiet want to emphasize that a strong cultural policy foundation must exist before we can then talk about export support, the Swedish music miracle, or gaming incubators that attract people from all over the world. It is this foundation that is now eroding.

Before Swedish films or Swedish film workers in various categories can be nominated for an Oscar, the road is long. It begins with the cultural school, study associations, the youth center, the aesthetic subjects in school, the folk high school course, the YH education or the higher education. A strong municipal and regional economy is also needed that can accommodate cultural support so that one can then proceed and apply for the state grants from the Swedish Film Institute, the Swedish Arts Council and the Swedish Arts Council (Konstnärsnämnden).

My message is not that all cultural activities should aim for us to get higher export revenues or win prestigious prizes, but it is that one cannot live in the delusion that artistic quality is born overnight and that there should be private patrons or commercial interests that carry the entire Swedish cultural life.

Mr. Speaker! Enough of the shortcomings in the government's and SD's political choices and ideological rhetoric – what does the Left Party want? I begin with the question of film policy and finally take a turn towards public service. The gaming issues are now being reviewed by the Culture Committee, so we will refrain from submitting proposals in that area.

We in Vänsterpartiet have in recent years seen a need to take a new holistic approach to the entire audiovisual area. It is a cumbersome concept, but it is an important policy. It is not so long ago that a major shift was made, moving from a film agreement where many different stakeholders jointly financed Swedish film to introducing a state film policy. But since then, the development of the streaming market, the pandemic, and the inflation of recent years have challenged the economy of the system. It has changed consumption patterns and challenged film production, distribution, and cinemas.

For nearly a year, a review of the film policy has been ongoing, which Kristina Axén Olin mentioned earlier. But we mean that one cannot just twiddle one's thumbs until it is finished and lands in a government bill. Already this summer, a situation report was issued by the investigator, and in it, the erosion that has occurred of the appropriations that the Swedish Film Institute manages was made visible. There is a lack of funds for the broad film activities, including archives, libraries, and cultural heritage issues, and for the film pedagogical work and the support directed to different parts of the industry.

The Swedish Film Institute is not an agency and receives no percentage increase as compensation for price and wage increases that other agencies receive. This has, year after year, eroded their finances, and they have therefore had to lay off many staff members. I am deeply concerned about the effects of this and that, for example, the digitalization work and the preservation of the Swedish film heritage have to take a backseat. It is a task that must not be lost.

In our budget, there were 70 million extra for the Swedish Film Institute for 2025. I also regret that the production incentive is being cut by 13 million this year. We were broadly agreed that it should be introduced to support the film industry. The cut is being made before it has even been evaluated how it has performed. The investigation that formed the basis for the incentive showed that the support would be self-financing, which the Tidö parties should also appreciate. It is regrettable that through this cut, both jobs and tax revenues are being lost.

Mr. Speaker! Another very important piece of the puzzle in the ecosystem for producing films and drama series that depict Swedish conditions and our dreams and stories in the languages spoken in Sweden is SVT. Every year, they, Utbildningsradion, and Sveriges Radio place orders with Swedish producers for many hundreds of millions. It therefore worries me greatly that the Tidö parties, parallel to the weak interest in Filminstitutet, also show an unwillingness to give the public service companies SVT, SR, and UR more resources.

For one year, I sat on the parliamentary committee that was to develop a proposal for a new public service mandate from 2026, and it is to last for eight years. That is the longest period we have had. We could agree on quite a lot, but towards the end of the investigation period, it turned out that the Tidö parties did not want the companies to receive the resources that the companies had calculated the mandate would cost.

The proposal from the committee has been out for consultation, and heavy authorities such as the Swedish Agency for Management of Government Resources, the Council on Legislation, and the National Audit Office consider that impact assessments are missing for, among other things, the budget that is proposed. Many consultation bodies, approximately 30, highlight the importance of that the funding allocation to the program companies is adapted to the expanded requirements and tasks linked to security and preparedness, which is very serious. Two of these are the Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish Defence Research Agency.

The government now has a few weeks to move from the position it took in the committee, with a low increase, to a more realistic budget proposal.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to remind all listeners that the fee that all taxpayers contribute to SVT, SR, and UR has been lowered every year since it was introduced. Nevertheless, there is today a very large surplus in the account that we in the Riksdag are not allowed to use for other budget items. This is, therefore, not money that competes with other investments in the budget; this is a special tax that is only intended for public service.

What I understand is that the reason for the proposal regarding the low increase that the Tidö parties proposed in the committee was neither based on the households' economic ability to pay or what their proposed tasks would actually cost in practice. This is an ideological view that strong public service companies would risk competing out private alternatives.

I therefore only want to send a message to the Tidö parties, now that they are in full swing with completing their bill, that they should listen to the referral bodies, their own colleagues in the Defence Preparation Committee and the state expert agencies, and then come to the Riksdag with a proposal that we can agree on broadly, across block boundaries. I would like to see a proposal that gives SVT, SR and UR good conditions to continue playing an important role in all residents' daily lives but also in the event of crisis or war.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by apologizing for perhaps running over time a little bit and promising a shorter contribution in the next debate.

(Applause)

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

Lars Mejern Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since my colleague Lawen Redar has been ill and cannot participate in the debate, I would like to announce that we Social Democrats stand behind our special statement together with the Center Party, the Green Party, and the Left Party and move for approval of reservation 1 regarding public service.

Madam Speaker! Not everyone knows that Sweden is one of the world's leading nations in video game development. The gaming industry creates not only entertainment but also innovation, jobs, and new ways of telling stories. Therefore, the Culture Committee's follow-up group has embarked on a journey of knowledge to learn more about the gaming industry's opportunities and challenges.

Our first stop was Skövde on Monday. It is a city that in just a few decades has become one of Sweden's most important centers for game development. Here, a strong cooperation between education, business, and politics has created a breeding ground for game companies to grow and flourish.

But our journey is not only about understanding the industry, but also about finding ways to strengthen it. How do we create better conditions for innovation? How do we ensure that Swedish game development continues to be at the top of the world? The gaming industry is growing rapidly, but we must also keep track of important issues such as working conditions, equality, and education. Games are a cultural force but also, as we have heard, an economic engine.

This journey of knowledge has only just begun, but one thing is already clear: A national video game strategy is a must. The gaming industry deserves a larger place in the political debate. Sweden shall not only maintain its position as a world-class gaming nation – we shall also create the best opportunities and conditions for the creators and entrepreneurs of the future.

The development of the gaming industry is reminiscent of another central part of our culture: the film industry. Swedish film has a long and rich history but faces significant challenges today.

Film is much more than entertainment. It is an art form, a carrier of history and a democratic voice. Through film, we tell our stories, preserve our language and pass our culture on to future generations.

Madam Speaker! I wish I were in India – and by that, I do not mean Ekshärad but India, just as Fröding did. Here, in the world's most productive film nation, more films are created than anywhere else, with an energy and a commitment that testifies to the importance of film as an art form and a carrier of culture. When we recently visited Bollywood, this colorful world of stories and visions, I thought of our own Värmland poet Gustaf Fröding. In his poem En spelekarls visa, he expresses a longing to be able to play music that touches and unites people: "I wish I were a fiddler, who could fiddle and play."

This desire to share joy and sorrow through art reflects the power of film to affect us deeply. Just as Fröding dreamed of being a fiddler, who could "tear those strings" to awaken people's emotions, the film has the ability to unite us through stories and experiences. For is it not exactly that the film does? It lets us escape, reflect, laugh, and cry together.

In Bollywood, I saw this passion and ambition, but I also see it here at home in Värmland. There are the stories, the people, and the environments – everything that can shape strong cinematic art, if we only provide the right conditions. But this requires a film policy that understands that film is more than an industry; it is culture, history, and the future.

If we want Swedish film to flourish so that Värmland's and Sweden's stories reach out into the world, we must invest in it. That is why it is crucial that we safeguard our film policy and ensure that Swedish film production receives the resources required to continue touching and uniting us, both nationally and internationally.

Madam Speaker! Time is short, the camera is rolling and Filmsverige faces its greatest challenge in a long time. It feels almost like a thriller where the tension builds but no one knows if it will be a happy resolution or a tragic cliffhanger.

We have a script full of potential: talented directors, fantastic actors, and stories that deserve to be heard. But without the right funding and without political will, we risk the film being abruptly cut before the final scene has even been filmed. We heard earlier that the government, despite this, chooses to lower the production incentive from 100 million to 87 million this year. It concerns a support that was already criticized both for the application process and for being insufficient, and which is now being lowered further, in the midst of a time when the industry needs more, not fewer, resources.

Madam Speaker! What needs to be done then? We Social Democrats believe that a new approach to Swedish film policy must be taken and that the parties in the Riksdag must be involved in this. We must review the level of production incentives, the state's cooperation with the regional film funds, as well as the level and the regulation's structure regarding how the film support is distributed. For, Madam Speaker, no one wants to be in a film where the budget is strangled, the production is shut down, and the credits start rolling before the story has even had a chance to touch the audience.

It is not just about figures on a piece of paper; it is about what kind of country we want to be. Do we want to be a country where stories are given space to be created and where we invest in our culture and our creative industries? Or do we want to see a development where Swedish film is marginalized and other languages and cultures take over while we fall silent? No, it is time to rewrite this script and give Swedish film the future it deserves.

Let us look at our neighboring countries. Denmark has chosen a different path. There, the Danish Film Institute receives an annual supplement through a so-called cultural contribution from streaming services according to the EU's AVMS Directive. In Denmark, the streaming companies contribute at least 2 percent of their net revenues to domestic film production. If they do not produce Danish films themselves, the contribution increases to 5 percent.

Why have we not done the same thing in Sweden? Why do we let global streaming giants extract large profits from the Swedish market without contributing back?

Madam Speaker! I have previously told you here in the chamber about my experience when Quisling was filmed – a film in which I appear in a scene that was filmed in Trollhättan. Now the film has premiered and can be seen both on TV and in cinemas. Let me just say one thing: If you want to be sure of actually seeing me, choose the cinema screen! It is larger, the details are sharper, and the chances of seeing my beardless profile in the courtroom are significantly better.

But jokes aside – it is exactly this that makes the cinema experience so special. It is about the sound, the light, and the big screen, which surrounds us, deepens the experience, and allows us to enter the story in a way that no TV screen can. That is why film policy is so important. We must protect the cinemas, ensure that Swedish film production is given the right conditions, and ensure that we also in the future can take part in grand stories on an equally grand screen.

So take the chance – go to the cinema! And if by some chance you don't see me in the film, well, you can just see it again.

Watching a film in a cinema is a different experience than watching it on a small screen. It is a shared cultural experience, a part of our social life.

But when the cinema audience declines and support remains absent, cinemas across the country are threatened with closure. The conditions for cinemas must be reviewed and strengthened. It is an important aspect of film policy that the government must take into account in connection with the ongoing film inquiry. Will Swedish film get a second act, or will it be reduced to nostalgic repeat screenings?

Sweden faces a decisive crossroads: Shall we strengthen Swedish film and the creative industries to safeguard our culture, our national identity, and our competitiveness in a globalized world? Or shall we let underfunding and a lack of political responsibility continue to erode the industry?

We Social Democrats welcomed the appointment of an inquiry, but that is not enough. We must strengthen the support for film production, simplify the application processes, and ensure that Swedish stories are given space to be told and spread. Swedish film deserves a second act, but it requires political courage and a willingness to act.

I want to conclude by quoting His Royal Highness Prince Daniel: ”What is it that gives the film its strange ability to transform us? I guess, because in the film, when it is at its best, all the arts meet: theater, literature, painting and music and together they make the film irresistible!”

Let us ensure that Swedish film continues to be just this: irresistible. Let us give it the conditions required to flourish.

I support all of the Social Democrats' reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 13.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The current broadcasting license for public service runs from 2020–2025. It will therefore expire this year, and the next license shall be valid for eight years from 2026 up to and including 2033. The public service committee appointed by the government in 2023 submitted its report, Responsibility and independence – public service in turbulent times, in May 2024. There, it is proposed how the public service mandate should be regulated and what should be included in the mandate. The purpose is to "create good conditions for public service activities and uphold and safeguard its independence." The proposals have been sent for consultation and are being prepared within the Government Offices; a government bill is expected during the late spring.

The Christian Democrats have for a long time decided to work to safeguard public service, which should be available broadly in the channels that people use. To strengthen the legitimacy of public service over time, we believe that the mandate needs to be narrowed and given a primary focus on social information, independent and objective news reporting nationally and regionally, as well as, in addition, a high-quality cultural offering. An important part of the mandate is to make the offering accessible to persons with disabilities and to meet the needs and wishes of minorities. This is, therefore, our policy regarding public service, summarized briefly.

Madam Speaker! For me, film is an important cultural heritage. Film serves both as an art form and as a creative industry and creates many jobs. Swedish actors and directors serve as brands for Sweden and contribute to a positive image. Swedish film has a good reputation in the world with many award-winning directors, actors, makeup artists, sound mixers, cinematographers and producers. This is especially important for a small and export-dependent country like ours.

On 25 January 2024, the government decided to appoint a special investigator to conduct a review of the national film policy. The purpose of the review is for the film policy to better meet challenges and needs. The assignment was intended to be reported on 28 February 2025, but now we know that it will be reported on 4 March.

The Christian Democrats consider it important that Swedish film is promoted. We also see that there is a need to develop proposals regarding the future of film policy so that the children and young people of the future will have good experiences of film, preferably in cinemas.

We mean that the appointed investigation is important, not least for improving the conditions for Swedish film. These are broad directives, and the investigation aims to conduct a broad review of the entire national film policy so that it can better meet tomorrow's challenges. What can be more important than this when it comes to the future of film policy?

So, here come important changes ahead. Attempts have been made previously. I remember that a previous government was going to overhaul the entire film policy, and it crashed, so to speak, with a number of announcements. But now we are making a new attempt.

Madam Speaker! Several previous speakers have mentioned our visit to Skövde this week. Fascinating work is underway at the college, where game development has become an important part of the college's offerings. I was struck by how many game developers made their way through their studies strengthened by knowledgeable teachers who gave them the tools. Thus, the students succeeded in establishing themselves as entrepreneurs, forming their own companies and then staying in Skövde, where they became important taxpayers, including when it comes to corporate tax, and employers and contributed to putting Skövde on the map all over the world. There was, however, a problem with the international contacts, namely that it was difficult for foreigners to pronounce the name Skövde specifically. There were many different variants there. It was apparently a recurring problem for those who worked there.

A cluster of developers exists throughout Sweden. It is desired that this should become a primary industry. It is something that one has to work on on different fronts. It becomes a primary industry when it is established as such, when we start calling it a primary industry and so on.

Of course, there is a responsibility towards children in relation to screen time and gaming. That responsibility is shared by the gaming companies and parents, teachers, and others. Even politically, the Christian Democrats, led by Jakob Forssmed, and the Public Health Agency have developed guidelines for children's screen time linked to mental ill-health, declining school results, and lack of sleep.

Everything is permitted, but not everything is beneficial, as the saying goes.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I know Member Utbult as a politician who is open to listening to others' opinions and is willing to compromise – a pragmatic politician. Therefore, I thought I would take the opportunity now, while preparatory work is underway at the Ministry of Culture, to produce a government bill on the conditions for public service for the upcoming period.

As the member said, it is about a period of eight years. It will therefore span across several parliamentary terms. I think there is a particularly great value in there being broad political agreement on the public services' mandate but also on the allocation of funds.

As I mentioned in my speech earlier, there are very many who are now concerned that the levels that the Tidö parties set in the investigation are too low to fulfill the broad mandate that we have agreed upon. The member mentioned that KD wants to see a slightly narrower mandate, but that is not what we have agreed upon in the committee.

I am, therefore, a bit concerned now, partly because the Christian Democrats' position regarding a narrower mandate will be given weight in the bill, and partly because the referral bodies might not be listened to.

What I now want to ask Member Utbult is whether the member sees the value of a broad political consensus regarding the terms and if the member is prepared to speak with their colleagues at the department so that we can have a negotiation, a conversation, about the levels of the funding allocations that shall apply for the coming eight years.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the impact on the development of public services, so to speak, and what is to become of it all, there has been criticism that one has not, so to speak, been able to participate in deciding the directives. Then I think: Between February 2023 and May 2024, I believe it was, all parliamentary parties sat in this committee. Then one must have had all conceivable opportunities to express oneself and try to influence the whole thing. Therefore, I am surprised that people are not quite satisfied today.

It is this matter of not being involved in deciding the directives. But someone still has to govern in this country. It is natural that it is the government that decides the directives. But there were all the opportunities to influence.

Then it concerns the extra allocation of 3 percent for 2026, i.e., next year. It is lowered to 2 percent 2027–2030. Then it goes down to 1 percent 2031–2033. The government assesses that the public service companies can streamline. They still receive economic conditions. These are enormously large sums that the government allocates to public service. I believe that most recently it was about 200 million extra due to the adjustment being made. I believe that the government simply expects that one streamlines and prioritizes in a better way than before.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! My criticism does not concern the instructions to the commission at all, and I perceive that I have had very great opportunities to discuss with all the other seven parties over a period of one year.

I can promise the members that I have worked hard to influence, argue, present objective information, show consequences, and point to the underlying data that has come from the public service companies which show what the finances look like and how they have used their money. They have streamlined every year.

When we took up the previous conditions, the Left Party was the only party that reserved itself against the budget allocation. We wanted to see a higher budget allocation. What we have now seen is that the 2 percent that the other parties agreed on was too little to manage the digitalization, the security developments, and the investments that have had to be made in the companies.

In the coming years, SVT, with current levels, will need to cut 400 million. Sveriges Radio has cut over 200 million – I do not remember the exact sum. Beloved radio programs were ended. Staff were laid off and entire newsrooms were closed. The current period, in which a 2 percent increase has been received, has therefore entailed hard cuts.

The question is what more the member thinks can be done. I think this is something that needs to be taken seriously. Does it mean that public service should continue to be able to reach the entire population, have a broad range of programs, produce its own popular productions, and also be a guarantee for information, factual news, and a system that functions even during crisis and, in the worst case, war? This requires large infrastructure investments. A lot of resources are required just for the security work. I do not think the Tidö parties have included this in their calculations.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now 3 percent extra has been allocated. This concerns, among other things, preparedness and such issues. It is extra money now – the first year is 2026. It is more than before. It is correct that it will then be scaled down.

To be honest, I do not know what the member is worried about. The Christian Democrats and the government do safeguard public service. That is the case. I do not believe that the member needs to feel such great concern for the development of public service.

This extra support, as it can be called, will therefore gradually be phased out. The government assesses that the companies can manage it. The companies are still given good conditions. And it is expected from the government's side that the public service companies will prioritize, increase their cooperation, review the whole and streamline.

My assessment is that the member does not need to be particularly worried about the future of public service in Sweden.

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 on public service, film and video games. Therefore, I stand here in the rostrum to present the Sweden Democrats' position regarding how the Culture Committee has handled the motions addressed in the report.

I would like, at the beginning of this speech, to move for approval of reservation 19, from the Sverigedemokraterna, in the committee report.

I am of the opinion that it is actually difficult to summarize and address major issues in the cultural field, such as public service, film and video games, justice in a single speech in a debate like this. The areas are distinct from one another in a number of respects. Public service, film and video games actually deserve to be debated individually, I would think. But now it is laid out as it is, and I will, of course, take up the consideration in accordance with that, Madam Speaker.

Public service and film have long been self-evident and major components of state cultural policy. Those issues are, of course, well-debated both here in the chamber by us members of parliament and outside in various ways. The debate surrounding both issues naturally has an ideological charge. But it is also the case that large sums of taxpayers' money go into these areas. These are two examples of, I think, why it is not strange that they receive such focus.

Video games are a cultural form that very many Swedes have a relationship with and engage in in different ways. Politically, including here in the Riksdag, the area has however largely remained in the shadows. But recently, much-needed steps have been taken to get the issue of video games on the agenda.

Madam Speaker! The film policy investigation that the Sweden Democrats and the government parties commissioned just over a year ago is approaching its deadline. I do not know exactly what the investigation will propose. But I know, given the directives that the Tidö parties have jointly given the investigation, that decisive questions for the future of Filmsverige are being addressed. The investigation will provide us with substance and a basis that will move us forward so that proposals can land on the Riksdag's table. That we are awaiting the investigation is an important reason why we should reject the various motions that have been submitted by the opposition, I believe.

The investigation addresses, through the directives, questions regarding the national goals in film policy, the forms of stakeholder and industry cooperation, the design of production incentives, and a living film heritage – to name a few things.

Just a review of the national goals in film policy is something that the Sweden Democrats have long considered necessary and pressed for. We are, of course, pleased to have contributed to it being included as part of the investigation directives.

To strip away the wet blanket of left-wing identity politics that has stifled artistic freedom in Swedish film policy, this is crucial. The current equality and diversity goal in Swedish film policy has been a kind of politically correct failure, which has not contributed to the success of Swedish film but rather damaged the possibilities for free filmmaking without political finger-wagging. That such a goal exists today is an important reason why this review needs to be made.

Madam Speaker! At the end of January, on the same day as the opening of the Gothenburg Film Festival, the Film Policy Summit took place. The summit is an annually recurring film event that gathers political representatives from both national and local levels but, of course, also a long line of representatives from the industry. For my part, I participated in the event for the third year in a row to debate film policy.

The opening of the film festival received a lot of media focus on the same day after Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand gave a high-profile opening speech. There was booing and mocking laughter from industry representatives in the audience when the minister announced that there are actually limitations on how much of the taxpayers' money can be pumped out to cultural actors.

During the film summit earlier today, people behaved in the same way several times. They heckled from the floor when they didn't like what politicians and other debaters said from the stage. I was there myself and debated during the day and could see people behaving in a way that more resembled some kind of youth union debate at a rowdy high school.

The state film policy should, of course, support and create the best possible conditions for Swedish film. But it is time for the penny to drop for more industry representatives in Sweden. Money does not actually grow on trees. It is not a human right to be allowed to create film at the taxpayers' expense, but rather a privilege granted to some if certain conditions are met.

As elected representatives, we members of the Riksdag have a great responsibility to support a long series of different activities in our society, and film is there as one of many things. When it comes to cultural policy in general, where film policy is included, it is important to understand that one must also be able to broaden one's sources of funding and not just scream for more grants. The audience's boos and mocking laughter in connection with the film festival is for me a strong reminder of this.

Madam Speaker! The public service issues, concerning the three public service companies SVT, SR and UR, have during the mandate period to a large extent been politically tied to the work in the parliamentary committee that has worked on the issues. The committee's final report has since last year been on the government's desk.

The new licensing period for public service shall begin in 2026, so similar to film policy, the current status is that the policy area is in a kind of intermediate stage between investigation and a finished proposal to be presented to the Riksdag. Things will, however, happen soon, and precisely that intermediate stage we find ourselves in is, similar to in the film area, an important reason why the motions from the opposition should be rejected by the Riksdag.

Regarding the public service issues, we in Sverigedemokrater have made a difference during this parliamentary term. Through the parliamentary committee that we have been a part of, we have, together with the other Tidö parties, been involved in submitting proposals that are in line with what we have advocated for and motioned for in the Riksdag for many years.

To abolish the current mirroring mandate is, as the Sweden Democrats see it, a decisive victory in what has emerged from the committee's work. For us Sweden Democrats, it has been important to remove meddlesome, left-wing identity politics that do not belong there. Including requirements in the broadcasting license that attributes such as ethnicity, gender identity, and the like must be mirrored in the public service companies' activities inevitably leads to quotas and so-called positive discrimination. That the public service committee for the future proposes an entirely new mirroring mandate that makes all of Sweden visible from north to south, without politically correct requirement lists from the political left wing, is therefore very pleasing.

There are also other interesting proposals that have emerged from the public service committee's work concerning how the upcoming broadcasting license may look, but perhaps the single most important gain, if I were to mention one, is precisely the change of the mirroring mandate.

Madam Speaker! Video games as a cultural form and an industry have for all too long received far too little attention in the Riksdag and in the broader Swedish political debate. It is unreasonable. We are talking about a growing industry with Swedish video game companies turning over many tens of billions of kronor, and therefore the lack of political focus when it comes to the area becomes both strange and problematic.

It is therefore liberating that we have recently been able to see that the political debate increasingly seems to embrace video game issues. Here in the Riksdag, the questions received a lot of attention in the autumn in connection with the Culture Committee organizing a seminar on just video games and gaming. The feeling I got was that the initiative was much appreciated both by us political representatives and by the representatives from the industry who were present.

A seminar in itself is not worth much if it does not lead us further in some way, but I believe that this seminar can contribute to that. We Sverigedemokrater ska see to it that we sharpen our proposals in the area further moving forward, and surely there are other parties that think the same from their own political standpoint. Unlike other parties, however, Sverigedemokraterna has since several years back had an extensive motion with proposals concerning video games and gaming. Several of these proposals are also found in the report that we are debating here today.

Madam Speaker! At the beginning of my speech, I pointed out that it is not easy to meaningfully capture such disparate and heavy areas as public service, film, and video games within a single speech. In any case, I have made an attempt, which hopefully provides a picture of how the Sweden Democrats view the proposals found in the report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Runar Filper and Daniel Lönn (both SD) concurred.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jonas Andersson, for your speech! I pushed in for a reply when the member began speaking about what happened in Gothenburg and the Minister for Culture's speech there.

We perhaps do not need to get so stuck on the Minister for Culture specifically, but rather on what the Minister for Culture said and the meaning behind it. I completely agree with the member that the entire situation was unworthy in many ways, but I must also say that in that part I think the Minister for Culture behaved somewhat unfairly towards the paying audience. They had come there to see a film and received that instead.

Apart from that, I believe, unlike the member, that many who bid and reacted did not do so because one as a filmmaker sees it as a privilege to receive money. It was actually for the sake of the film and the art that the bidding occurred and not out of self-interest.

I also believe that very many people reacted against the fact that the film was presented as a commercial art form. It is an art form that can be commercial, but there are very few Swedish and even international films that manage without state and public support.

Should I understand the member's speech here as that we cannot expect more state support for the production incentive? I pointed out many advantages of the production incentive in my previous contribution, for example, that we would otherwise lose tax revenues and jobs.

I also want to ask about how the film will manage commercially. What is the government and the Sverigedemokraterna doing to strengthen the possibilities for culture in general to manage commercially?

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think it is good that Mats Berglund and I agree that the behavior in that context was indecent. As I see it, there are not many mitigating circumstances, but it was an extremely unworthy behavior. I can also say that similar instances have occurred earlier during this event, but it broke all records this year when it comes to just those parts.

As Mats Berglund very well knows, many of the film policy issues, such as the question of production incentives, are included in the investigation that will soon be presented to the government. It would therefore be strange if I were to anticipate that investigation and comment on how it should be in different ways.

I also see production incentives as an important part of the state film policy, and from the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we raised it as an important part even during the previous mandate period. Then one can always discuss exactly what level the production incentive should be at. The investigation that came from Tillväxtverket and the Swedish Film Institute actually wanted that 300 million kronor should be added per year, but when the red-green government ensured that production incentives were included as part of the state policy, it did not itself provide the resources that were desired in the investigation.

If you want to target us and discuss production incentives, I think I can therefore pose a counter-question to Mats Berglund. Why did the previous government, which the Miljöpartiet was part of, not provide the money that the investigation desired? Instead, you are coming now when you are in opposition and attacking us about this, Mats Berglund.

When it comes to broadened forms of funding for culture, there is naturally much to say, but I see that my speaking time is running out. I may be able to return to that in my next reply.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

I think this is an interesting discussion, because it exposes much of the very large ideological difference that currently exists within cultural policy. It is therefore an important discussion even from a larger perspective, I think.

I will first answer the question I received about why the previous government did not budget more money. This proposal came in the restart investigation, even though it has naturally existed previously since corresponding support exists in almost all European countries while Sweden has lagged behind. I do not have the total sum in my head, but the restart supports involved very large sums that went to culture. It could perhaps have been increased more, but it was an attempt.

Miljöpartiet has seen that more money is needed, and therefore we have also allocated significantly more money in our shadow budget. When I ask around, 300 million is what most in the industry believe is the level one needs to land on, and therefore Miljöpartiet considers that we need to land there.

The member states that one should not anticipate the investigation, but I think that is what both the Minister for Culture and the member Jonas Andersson, in his statement, are doing. It cannot be interpreted in any other way than that culture is not to receive more money and resources. Culture should instead be happy and content with the crumbs, if I may put it that way, that it receives. One is also, in some way, directed towards some kind of provision for cultural workers, which I think lands very wrongly. It is about culture, which these cultural workers truly stand behind.

Again: How will the film industry manage without more state support? How will culture get more money?

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mats Berglund, for your reply!

I will return a little to this matter of broadened funding sources, that is, how to bring in money in other ways – for example to civil society, if we take it as part of the broader cultural policy. One example that we from the Sweden Democrats' side have pushed for a long time is the possibility to broaden and develop the gift tax deduction in different ways. It is an example of how one could bring in more money here.

It is of course not the case that such a thing, for example the gift tax deduction, would be a universal solution in any way. We see instead the different parts as complements. We have never said that we are going to phase out the film support entirely or anything similar. If one looks back at how the financing of the film support and the state cultural policy in general looked under the red-green governments, one realizes that there is actually not that much difference financially. I think a picture is being painted here of enormous differences between the Green Party's policy and ours in these parts, and that is not true at all.

Then I thought I heard Mats Berglund say that one has more money in one's shadow budget. That does not surprise me, because I recognize it when it comes to the red-greens' way of talking about this. They say: We have more money in our budget. Yes, but you also implement various different tax increases and other things, Mats Berglund. With your politics, you are making people in Sweden poorer. They will therefore not be able to afford to consume culture in the same way, given all the ways you want to make it more expensive to be Swedish. I think that is a very bad culture policy.

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Center Party's reservation 2 in this matter.

More film incentives, fix the application process for the film incentives and protect public service! That was the answer I received from the film company that some of us in the Culture Committee met when we visited a filming location. My question was open: What do you want to send with us parliamentary politicians? One can certainly draw different conclusions from that answer, Madam Speaker, but there is no doubt that public service plays a major role for film and drama production in Sweden.

We agree that film is important and that it is important for the creative sector. There are many professional categories needed for a film to be made, not just those who are directly linked to the film production itself – everything from actors to screenwriters, costume, and all that it is – but also others. When a film team comes to a location somewhere in our long country, other services are also needed. Catering companies and electricians are needed, and the taxi industry notices when the film team arrives. Film recordings are made throughout the country and therefore also become an important reflection of our entire long country.

Public service is something many have been involved in, and there is no doubt that in a restless time – such as the one we find ourselves in now – we need news that we can trust the source of. Therefore, I appreciate SVT's verification work very much, among other things. News comes from all over the world, and for us to be able to take part in it in our language and in our context, it needs to be verified that the source is real. Does it really look in reality the way it does in the image one has just received? It is a great amount of work that is being done, and naturally, it draws resources.

We must protect public services, independence, infrastructure and the reflection of the entire country. We must have a secure news service – or several – in restless times. It is truly unfortunate that we in the public service committee were not in agreement until the very end. There were many good discussions in our committee work, but in the final stretch, things happened that resulted in a number of reservations from us in the opposition.

While we sat there and disagreed on the importance of public service, there was a Defense Committee that was in complete agreement on public service's special status in the total defense. I think it should be noted: In the Defense Committee, there were no reservations when it comes to public service.

Why is it then so important with a public service that people are used to watching? I am a warm supporter of public service continuing to have a broad mandate, precisely so that it can reach the audience during those days, moments, and times when it actually needs to be there. Then people should also have a habit of taking part in what comes from public service and feel that trust. It is self-evident that public service should work to ensure that what they say is true and correct, and we must always have that requirement even from the political side.

Films have been discussed here before, as have video games. There are some areas where we in Sweden often stretch ourselves and are very proud, for example the music industry. Several of my colleagues here have now testified that this also applies to video games, and I therefore leave it at that.

Public service, film and video games

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 February.)

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