Regional development

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Today we are debating regional development, an area of expenditure that is considerably narrower than one might think given that the policy area is broad and difficult to define. What constitutes regional development policy and what does not is difficult to keep separate because almost all policy areas in one way or another affect the conditions for living and working in different parts of the country.

Given this, it remains to be seen where today's debate will lead. My guess, Madam Speaker, is that from this rostrum during this debate we will hear much that in one way or another has bearing on regional development but which in the state budget belongs in completely other expenditure areas than those being debated today.

We will, as is customary, hear that the whole country must live, from members from left to right. No party either wants to make any revolutionary cuts in this expenditure area. There are naturally differences, and we make different prioritizations. But on the whole, the difference between the proposals is relatively marginal as long as we stick to the currently existing budget items.

And some parties in this chamber want to introduce new and extensive compensatory measures for the unreasonably high fuel costs that they themselves advocate for. As is well known, the Sweden Democrats and the other Tidö parties stand for a completely different solution to this problem, why such measures are not necessary.

Just when it comes to fuel prices and transport costs, I mean at least that there are few things that made life so tough for people in Sweden's countryside and small towns as the prices for gasoline and diesel. When we paid up to 30 kronor per liter for diesel and actually, for a period, had the world's highest price at the pump, families and companies were on their knees. The prices of goods and services skyrocketed, and inflation was driven up. Now we have, thank goodness, lower prices instead, and not only that – we stopped the lousy proposal for a new travel deduction that otherwise would have been introduced by the Social Democrats with supporting parties, while at the same time we raised the level of the existing travel deduction.

We are making investments in the road network, and we are abolishing the aviation tax. We are, in fact, convinced that reasonable transport times and reasonable transport costs are an important prerequisite for development in all parts of the country. The maintenance debt is, however, enormous, and the investments that need to be made are so extensive that it will take a long time and require many budgets with sensible investments before we are at the level of the need.

Let us for a moment look at something that is directly linked to this expenditure area, namely the support for commercial services in our countryside. Here one can note that there is almost a political will in the budget to outdo one another - good so. The Sweden Democrats have long advocated that the design, adequacy, and accuracy of these supports should be scrutinized to ensure that they provide the intended benefit. Pleasantly enough, one can read in the preparatory works of the committee report that the evaluations that have actually been carried out show that this seems to be the case, but this is of course something we will closely follow as it is a matter close to our hearts. The commercial service often constitutes an important hub in various parts of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! In these debates, I usually speak of one of the most important prerequisites for regional development being that there are people with drive who want to and can live in all parts of the country. Human capital is central in this context.

My and also my party's conviction is that these people and companies want and deserve good conditions, regardless of where in the country they choose to live or operate. A successful regional development policy is more about creating sensible conditions that are not based on an image of being parasitic and in need of a mass of different support measures. This is important, not least for the self-image and pride out in the country. We must simultaneously be better at removing obstacles and rules that seem to be hindering. Let me emphasize: People who live out in the country do not want us to feel sorry for them and see them as subsidy-dependent. They want fair conditions to show that they actually have the ability themselves.

I usually make some personal reflections in these debates based on my own observations out in the country. I have, as some of you here in the assembly surely know, a past as a truck driver, even though it is now starting to be many years since I steered large, heavy rigs along Sweden's and Europe's roads. It was, however, an educational time, and the impressions became many and strong.

A lesson I drew was how different the conditions are in different regions, not only within the country but also in different parts of Europe. This can be quite important to consider given that large parts of this expenditure area are actually linked to EU grants.

Another lesson was that in very many places in our country there are companies and operations that few outside the area they operate in have any significant knowledge of, but whose reputation and standing is great within the industry where they operate. In seemingly insignificant buildings, a peerless innovative power and a know-how or a production that is in demand all over the world are often hidden. It is a striking insight.

The examples are pleasingly many, so that it is difficult to choose which ones should receive a mention. But if I allow myself to start in my own home municipality Gällivare, I cannot help but mention Aimpoint, whose red dot sights, which were developed in a villa garage at home, are now world-famous and used by military and police forces all over the world. If I then continue out into my own constituency Norrbotten, I can mention Mobilaris, which was bought by Epiroc, which at its office in Luleå develops satellite-independent navigation systems for the mining industry. Both are examples of companies that are leaders in their respective fields.

Gällivare and Norrbotten are not unique in this regard. This type of company exists literally from north to south. It involves everything from large industrial companies with hundreds or thousands of employees to small innovation-driven companies with a modest number of employees. To this is added, naturally, a long line of other companies, not least within the tourism and visitor industry, which together in one way or another put Sweden on the map and contribute strongly to regional development.

Madam Speaker! When we now speak about regional development, it is my and the Sweden Democrats' view that it is high time to evaluate the outcome of the reform that was implemented a few years ago, when the responsibility for regional development was moved from the county administrative boards to the regions. Has the reform contributed to increased regional development or not? Should the county administrative boards regain all or parts of the mandate, or are the regions handling the mandate in a satisfactory way? There is such thing as pointing to a need for an unbiased review, because ultimately we have a collective responsibility to ensure that the funds are distributed in such a way that they do as much good as possible. We are all, after all, in agreement that all of Sweden shall live.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish the Speaker's chair, the members here in the chamber, and the fantastic civil servants who are a prerequisite for keeping the Riksdag's work going a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Eric Palmqvist for his speech.

I do not intend to use the change of speaker to talk about the Jimmie prices, but it may happen that I bring up the Jimmie prices on food, electricity, housing and so on in my speech.

I thought I would take the opportunity to speak about something that Eric Palmqvist did not mention and which comes further ahead. For 2026 and 2027, the SD government announces a reduction of the Just Transition Fund, which was negotiated during the S-led government and which implied opportunities for support for the steel industry in northern Sweden - in Norrbotten and in Västerbotten - but also for the cement industry on Gotland.

It is pleasing that the SD government is not phasing out the entire fund. It is also pleasing that SSAB has been awarded another project this year to actually enable fossil-free steel production.

What I want to highlight are the projects on Gotland that mean that Heidelberg Materials Cement will be able to continue to quarry limestone for cement. It is absolutely crucial that we can do this on Gotland because this government has categorically ensured that all applications for limestone quarrying in the rest of the country are rejected. Then it must be on Gotland that one intends to quarry. But how is that going to work when one has said no to all offshore wind farms around all of Gotland in the Baltic Sea?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Isak From for the questions. I will start from the end. As the Member surely knows, it is for defense policy reasons that the applications for these wind farms are chosen to be rejected. I stand completely behind this explanation from the government. I believe that the military policy and defense policy considerations are extremely important. These considerations must actually be able to be taken into account. If the assessment is made that this threatens our defense capability or in some other way is detrimental to the defense, it is a reasonable assessment to make.

Then the members speak about these funds. We obviously stand behind a vibrant business life and a vibrant industry. But it must not be dependent on politically appointed funds. A healthy enterprise does not need that type of funds. A healthy enterprise and a healthy business life need its own capital and venture capital, capital that comes from those who believe in the ideas, who believe more than the 349 members in the chamber in the investments. Therefore, the capital must come from there primarily. If one creates good conditions otherwise, the capital will come if one believes in the idea. If one does not do that, the capital will not come. But it is not we 349 members who are to allocate money so that these projects will fly, so to speak.

I also note that member Froms party shall attempt to form governments with parties that do not want to contribute these 2.5 billion to support increased fuel costs. I think the member should reflect on that.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Eric Palmqvist spoke about corporate support. In that case, it is reasonable that one has fair conditions. Now we are actually members of the European Union. Just Transition Fund, the Fund for a Just Transition, enables co-financing with EU funds which the SD government is now saying no to. It will directly affect the conditions for breaking limestone for cement on Gotland.

Madam Speaker! I have had debates with Ebba Busch and Romina Pourmokhtari here in the chamber regarding the rejected applications for limestone quarrying in Värmland and in Norrbotten. The question that the steel industry in Norrbotten asks is what they should do if they cannot get limestone from Gotland. The question that Heidelberg Materials asks, if they cannot get energy on Gotland, is how they will then manage the carbon storage they have intended to carry out or increase the proportion of carbon-free produced cement. That is the major question.

We have had debates here earlier today where it has been pointed out that we need to have cement. I am completely clear on this - I push the issue hard - that we need to be able to extract these materials here in Sweden. In that case, the companies that actually do so must have the conditions to transition to a fossil-free production. In that regard, I see nothing that this government does that long-term enables continued limestone quarrying on Gotland. But Member Palmqvist is welcome to convince me otherwise in the next reply.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I perceive it as that Member From did not want to touch the allocation of funds to compensate for the high fuel prices at all. That was what I tried to get in during the final phase of my previous reply.

Now I know that Member From has no further remarks. But it would still have been interesting to hear how the Social Democrats reason in this matter. The large party wants to compensate for unreasonably high fuel prices, but intended coalition partners, who perhaps have a more restrained view on private car use, do not seem to want to do so.

It is at least interesting that we can speak about limestone quarrying today. The scenario a few years ago here was that the entire limestone quarrying production on Gotland was threatened. We were one of the driving parties to establish rules that allowed us to secure production for the future. We are also one of the parties that has most strongly pushed for the regulatory framework surrounding permit processes and the like. We have done more in two years than the previous government managed to do in eight years when it comes to permit processes.

These are two cornerstones regarding the possibility of continuing with the extraction of limestone, which is an important industrial mineral, among other things, as the member mentions, when it comes to the production of cement and concrete. There is no opposition there. These are issues that we have urged for all the time, to ensure that we have a cement production.

I believe the member can recall how the debate went here about two and a half years ago when the production was actually threatened. It was not that it was our party that did not push in that issue.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Our budget motion regarding the frameworks has fallen. Therefore, we are not participating in the decision-making. Instead, we have a special statement, largely because our budget space in this area is significantly larger. We want to make a major investment in private car use in rural areas for several major reasons. Now we see in the government's budget that there are even more reasons. With the centralization policy and the closure of agencies across the country, it is actually required that one can get to the larger central locations. We do not like that development, but it is a fact.

Madam Speaker! We are past the halfway point, and the SD-led government has presented its third budget. There are very clear differences. Sweden's wage earners are being treated very poorly. They are becoming poorer than they would have needed to be. Ten years of real wage increases have been erased. Ordinary Swedes will finish this mandate period poorer than it began. Christmas this year will be difficult for many.

Housing policy has failed. Unemployment is skyrocketing. Growth is almost disappearing, while gang violence is creeping down into younger ages. The SD government has driven forward a healthcare crisis. It is bad politics, but it is good that the political differences are clear. It is clear who is ruling and to whom they are ruling.

We Social Democrats believe that we can do better. In our Social Democratic budget alternative, there are clear alternatives in every area. We prioritize reinforced healthcare, Sweden's growth, and powerful measures to stop the violence and new recruitment.

Madam Speaker! We are debating regional development. This is how the government writes in its budget bill: "The government's development and management of regional development policy shall be coordinated with certain measures within the expenditure areas 18 Social Planning, Housing Supply and Construction and Consumer Policy, 20 Climate, Environment and Nature, 21 Energy, 22 Communications, 23 Rural Industries, Countryside and Food, 24 Business and other relevant expenditure areas. Measures within the areas shall complement each other and contribute to synergies." It is perhaps for that reason that regional development policy enters different areas.

Madam Speaker! The Government writes "supplement" and "contribute to synergies." Housing construction has stalled. Construction workers are unemployed and collecting unemployment benefits instead of building homes and elderly care facilities. When it comes to consumer policy, we can see that it has become expensive. There have been Jimmie prices on falukorv, cheese, electricity, housing, and accommodation. This is something that particularly affects rural counties. It is among the reasons why we have an initiative and want to increase the appropriation by 20 million to strengthen the service in just the rural areas.

Madam Speaker! Do you remember the Rural Committee and the rural proposition that came a few years ago? At that time, almost all parties were in complete agreement that large-scale investments were needed in rural and sparsely populated areas. One specific part of that was that 70 million kronor were allocated to 39 municipalities in northwestern Sweden, from Torsby to Kiruna, for business development. It was an initiative that has been described by almost everyone as one of the most successful that has been carried out. It has contributed to local business development and guidance for companies to seek both venture capital and other support, as well as guidance for seeking permits.

But what happens now? Now this is being removed. These 39 municipalities are no longer being prioritized. They are being removed.

Madam Speaker! We also see how the privatizations hit, not least, rural and countryside areas. The pharmacy reform that has been in place for a number of years now is taking full effect, and especially the pharmacies in rural and countryside areas are having great problems with stocking necessary medicines, i.e., what the pharmacies are supposed to do. They should not only have skin cream, sunscreen, and bandages but necessary medicines. In another budget area, we have proposals to introduce 300 national pharmacies with a special responsibility to ensure that they have necessary medicines.

This budget area shall be linked with the budget area Communications. When it comes to infrastructure, the government is investing heavily in roads but almost nothing in the railway, despite the industry across the entire country crying out for necessary measures. The appropriation for the railway is increased by 5 percent, despite the enormous maintenance debt that exists.

When it comes to communications, the state is not upholding its promise of co-financing regional transport, but instead, it is shifting a portion of the costs onto the regions while simultaneously not providing funds to the regions.

Madam Speaker! Despite what the Moderate Party's party leader wrote to the forest owners about strengthening the forest owners' position, we see the opposite after just over two years. Logging is decreasing, more nature reserves are being established, there are more rejections, and taxes are being increased. This is what has happened after just over two years of this mandate period.

Madam Speaker! This simply does not hold together! If we are to have a vibrant countryside with equal welfare and conditions for communications, we also need a policy for the entire country.

In previous debates, I have spoken about the size of the state. Regardless of the size of the state, we Social Democrats believe that the state should be present throughout the entire country. Now, the SD-led government has announced a major reduction in Statens servicecenter. How it is to be done, they do not want to say, but they have tasked Statens servicecenter with reporting back on this. At the same time, we see how state activities are being withdrawn from the smallest municipalities.

We had a plan to expand the Statens servicecenter with service offices in all municipalities, for Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen, Skatteverket, Migrationsverket and the police. But now we see cuts and longer journeys instead. Then we also need to invest in those who need the car the most. That is why we allocate more than 2.6 billion more to this budget area. We need to strengthen those who need the car the most, i.e., those who live in sparsely populated areas and the countryside. With this government, Madam Speaker, the service is going away.

I could go into more areas. We have written about them in our special statement. For our part, we see that the budget is a cohesive unit of all areas. In order for people to be able to live and reside in the whole country, a functioning healthcare system is needed. There needs to be food in the store. One needs to be able to get to work and the necessary locations. What we see now is that the state is centralizing and withdrawing. It is really not okay.

Much of the money available in this area is tied to various EU projects. We see the necessity of actually utilizing them. It is about being at the forefront and taking advantage of the opportunities that, for example, the Just Transition Fund provides, so that we get jobs and development and so that we can strengthen the steel industry in northern Sweden and the cement industry on Gotland.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have a question for Member Isak From regarding the appropriation of almost 2.6 billion SEK to compensate for high fuel prices. One wants, therefore, an appropriation in the expenditure area that would more than double the entire expenditure area. In his original proposal, one thus more than doubles this.

You who know the Social Democrats - who think that tax is great except when it affects their own lotteries - know that one takes a lot and then throws out a few crumbs. It never becomes full cost coverage.

Let us say that the assessment is made that the people in the countryside shall receive 2.6 billion in some kind of support measure. Then, at least my guess is that a calculation has been made. With the fuel prices that your party advocates for, the rural collective will be hit with far more than 2.6 billion.

So you want these fuel prices - together with your future government parties. But we do not see any other party on the left flank that has a similar proposal in its budget. My question to the member then is: How much will it cost the Swedish taxpayer collective to drive a car with your future government? How large will the additional cost be for the Swedish taxpayer collective? Can you assure the voters that you, with your coalition parties, could get through a compensation measure that covers the countryside, and would it be a full cost coverage?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eric Palmqvist, for the questions!

We have discussed fuel prices here in the chamber many times. We have been clear that the reduction obligation should not have risen to the levels it did, but the reduction obligation is absolutely crucial for achieving the climate goals. The reduction obligation also provides a great opportunity to increase the self-sufficiency rate regarding fuels. Shall we be dependent on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, or shall we manufacture our own fuel? That is the big question.

Madam Speaker! We are fully aware that it costs to travel by car. Therefore, we want to compensate the group that has no alternative. This becomes particularly clear now, with the centralization policy being pursued by the government.

It is thus several measures. We may need to raise this and compensate more. But we step in and try to compensate those who actually need it. We see that some would probably be able to travel by public transport to a greater extent, even in sparsely populated areas and the countryside. At the same time, we see how the SD-supported government removes its hand from the regions and announces a reduction of the support to public transport.

It is another reason why we need to invest in those who actually need to get to the service points. It is absolutely crucial, and it is an issue that we are driving. It is about fair support for those who actually need it.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Isak From, for the answer!

The Chairman mentioned the service points. Statens servicecenter has a budget of approximately 950 million. We have made an efficiency deduction or a reduction of approximately 50 million. I have looked several years back at this appropriation, which I believe is in expenditure area 2. It is a fairly small difference in the appropriation we have now compared to the outcomes in previous years. This is, therefore, an efficiency assignment. It is not a reduction of the operations. It is not an assignment to Statens servicecenter concerning closing offices and the like. It is a Social Democratic interpretation of the whole.

If we are now going to talk about the reduction obligation and about being self-sufficient, I can say: We were heavily dependent on imported slaughter waste to be able to meet the reduction obligation. If the whole of Europe had tried to have Sweden's reduction obligation, the one we had during the time of the Social Democratic and Green Party government, the European slaughter waste would not have been enough. It would not have been enough to achieve that reduction obligation.

I do not quite understand how this is supposed to work. Furthermore, one lives in a world where one wants to govern together with a party that is against meat production and meat consumption altogether. You are more than welcome to explain this.

I want to return to the questions: How much more shall Swedish taxpayers – yours, mine, and others' voters – pay collectively for fuels in Sweden with a Social Democratic government? Only the countryside should be compensated with 2.6 billion, where a minority of Sweden's population lives. How much shall it cost the Swedish tax collective to fuel the car with the Social Democrats at the helm?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! The big question is therefore: Shall we compensate those who need it, or shall we give money to those who have alternatives? Shall we provide conditions for those who have alternatives and can travel in another way or pay for themselves, or shall we compensate those who actually need it?

An S-ledd government announced large investments in many different areas. This concerned, among other things, several fuel factories, which were to invest in by-products from the forest. But with SD's influence over the government, that need has decreased significantly - disappeared. Who is then going to invest in this? We do not see that.

We see what impact the global factors have on us. Should we rely on Saudi Arabian oil shipments, or should we produce our own fuel?

Madam Speaker! With SD's influence over the government, we have received worse public transport, less money for regional culture, a saving on the state's service office, a decommissioned business development in the 39 most needy municipalities, enormous cuts on study associations and closed offices. Vuxenskolan, ABF and several others are closing in many smaller places. They are selling the road testing, privatizing the employment service, and putting zero kronor into municipalities and regions. That is the result of having the Sweden Democrats in government.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Isak From, for the speech!

There is much that can be said. One can begin by stating that perhaps only one committee in the Swedish Riksdag was needed during next year's debates, since everything that is possible to present will come here.

I will try to tick off some questions.

I begin with this: Sweden and its population have become poorer. The government took over when inflation increased. It has been up to 10 percent. Isak Froms government wanted to fuel it. They wanted to give more money in a situation where it would be eaten up and burned. It was roughly like throwing them on a bonfire.

I would therefore like to ask Isak From where he thinks we would have stood today with such a policy. How high would the inflation have become? Would we have been able to bring it down?

This government has dedicated itself to fighting inflation to do the best possible for AB Sverige and for the population.

The second thing I would like to take up with Isak From concerns the reduction obligation and fuels, something that a former member also touched upon. The Social Democrats would like to play Robin Hood. One is to collect, and then one is to distribute. At the same time, one does it in a very bureaucratic manner. In what way does that benefit the country's citizens? Why should not everyone be able to have the opportunity to get reduced costs for fuels at the pump?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, for the questions!

With a Social Democratic policy, I believe we could have maintained purchasing power. We would also have ensured that tax cuts were targeted at families with children and those with the lowest income – those families with children who today have difficulty buying training clothes or, for some, hockey equipment for their kids.

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnson's party rewards them with the absolute highest incomes, people who do not know what to spend the money on. We have a Finance Minister who could not point out what she would spend her tax cut on. I can guarantee, Madam Speaker, that the families with children know exactly what they need to spend the money on. They might even wish to be able to go to a restaurant at some point and in that way support the local business community.

Madam Speaker! With a Social Democratic policy, I believe we would have maintained purchasing power, and the drastic decline we are now seeing in growth could have been avoided. We are almost the worst in the EU. It is bad, Madam Speaker!

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to purchasing power, Sweden is a small, export-dependent country that sells to a world that is in a state of ups and downs. We have the election in the USA with that entire journey, and we have China and exports to Germany, which is our large sales country. We have also had electricity prices that have affected the situation.

This government has compensated the families with children that Isak From mentions. Child allowance has been increased and so on to make it better in a difficult time with inflation, and we have fought inflation so that the increased allowance money would not disappear from these families and make things more expensive.

I would also like to bring up the 39 municipalities that Isak From mentions and which have fared so poorly because they have not received more funds. One can then ask why Isak From and his government did not provide more funds. This was a project. Sometimes the Social Democrats forget to give the whole picture. This was a project to build up an organization to help the business sector from 2018 to 2024. That is six years. At some point, projects end, and one transitions to being self-sustaining. If one is not, Isak From and his government must provide more funds.

Now an investigation and a proposal will be submitted to look at the whole when it comes to regional growth and how one can be able to use the synergy effects that the member himself touched upon in his speech. How can one get as much benefit as possible from these synergy effects?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! It was a successful project. The Chamber was, for the most part, entirely in agreement that something needed to be done to strengthen the most vulnerable municipalities. The National Audit Office, SKR with several others have pointed out that this was a very cheap and effective reform. A great deal has been achieved for comparatively little money.

This government is streamlining by 50 million at Statens servicecenter next year. Then they propose a saving of 100 million in 2026 and 150 million for 2027. The question then is: Will Statens servicecenter even be able to cope? We are now seeing how the state is withdrawing in area after area. Then citizens and municipalities must rightly ask themselves: Do we have an equal Sweden? Are these fair conditions?

Madam Speaker! I come from Norsjö municipality. None of these authorities are present there. The state activity we have is the one with the yellow-green sign, where products are sold in different bottles. It is a popular activity, but it is the only state activity that exists on site.

It is true that one can reach Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan digitally. But our promise here in the chamber was that all citizens in the entire country should have the same conditions. Now we see, area by area, how this is deteriorating.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

The government's budget proposal for 2025 addresses the major challenges and opportunities that our nation faces, and we are now debating expenditure area 19 Regional development, which is a very small part of the whole.

This narrow area of expenditure hooks into a breadth of policy areas. Not least, the Riksrevisionen's report on regional growth policy has pointed out the difficulties in delimiting what is regional development policy and what is not, because a diversity of all policy areas in one way or another affects the conditions for living, existing, and operating in all parts of the country. It is something that we have had to take part in here.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report from 2022 came with a number of recommendations. One such is the possibility of joint assignments. Cooperation and synergy effects would be achieved. The current government has taken this to heart. They want to work cross-sectorally with regional growth to reach new opportunities.

This occurs by the government, with proposals to strengthen cooperation between state and local levels, aligning with consolidating the actors' mandates into a whole. In these contexts, the government has, for example, tasked several agencies to report in 2025 and 2027 on how their activities have contributed to the goals of the regional development policy and the coherent rural policy, and how the activities have been of significance for the EU's cohesion policy.

It is important to measure what is being done and see what effects it has for the competitiveness and growth that is so important for AB Sverige and for those of us who live, work, and operate here. In that work, Tillväxtverket has a central role with instructions, analyses, reports, coordination, method development, and learning for state agencies' tasks within regional development policy and rural policy.

Tillväxtverket has, together with Boverket, Trafikverket and the county administrative boards, been tasked to, based on the agencies' responsibilities, offer the regions support in strategic planning through, among other things, increased knowledge and developed cooperation in regional development work.

The government has also given Tillväxtverket a mandate to support the county administrative boards in designing and implementing skill-enhancing initiatives for better agency contacts with companies. This includes contributing knowledge on simplification and the companies' conditions, something that is fundamental for us Moderates. The mandate shall be reported by December 2026 at the latest.

If we are serious about competitiveness and growth being important, it is also important that our authorities move in the same direction and do not hinder and obstruct. The authorities shall be part of the solution for our business sector.

Madam Speaker! Resources must be used more efficiently. For example, the government has signaled an efficiency gain in certain regional supports, and that is good. Taxpayers' money must go to projects that create real growth and jobs, not to administration. The design of regulatory letters is also important in this context.

Physically, it is crucial that people can travel and goods are transported. For this to be able to happen in a competitive way, all modes of transport, not least aviation, are needed in our elongated country. It is in everyday life that we notice how it is interconnected, and we who commute during the week meet people who travel to work.

In my neighboring municipality Svalöv, a highly sought-after welding training is offered. Professionals travel there from various regions of the country - most recently from Norrbotten - to receive the training. This is for me a good example of how our country creates benefit for everyone when we can gather education and deliver further education. Precisely in that way, I believe one should take advantage of and maximize effect and benefit.

The boys who were on the trip told that they would get fantastic opportunities in the future at work, also in terms of income, with this education. Not everything can be available everywhere, but everyone can share in knowledge to increase their competence.

Madam Speaker! With the government's policy, the support opportunities for grocery stores and fuel stations in the country are now being expanded. This is being done with the help of a new ordinance which implies a possibility to receive support.

An important part of the work to strengthen the countryside is to support the small grocery stores and gas stations. In this area, I can give examples of debates held with the responsible minister in the previous government, for example regarding pumps and gas stations. There was 1 billion in allocated funds to increase the possibilities for them to transition. They were small gas stations without much space. There were restrictions regarding the funds, and they began to be offered via the rural program. This meant that they got stuck in state support, which in turn meant that they could not be paid out. Thus, time passed. Then funds were introduced to the regions, which meant that they came to compete with other things that the countryside would need.

At the same time, we can imagine a situation where we can take the example of Abisko, which is far from Norway and ten miles from Kiruna. Abisko might perhaps be left without a fuel station. How would it then work with the home care service that is supposed to drive all these miles? It would not work in everyday life.

We have also discussed how EU funds affect things. If you have already invested in one thing for your grocery store or station, it could mean that you do not receive money for any other purpose. This is an example where it is important for authorities to do things correctly from the start, so that it is possible to take advantage of the opportunities.

Let me return to the budget area Regional Development. There is a clear goal, namely to strengthen the conditions for living, working and living in the whole country - from rural areas to large cities.

The goal of the regional development policy is development power with strong local and regional competitiveness for sustainable development in all parts of the country. There are four main areas, and it is easily understood that it becomes policy for all expenditure areas. They connect the length and the width.

With the Moderaterna at the forefront, we want to see a regional development policy that does not only distribute resources but also builds freedom and faith in the future throughout the entire country. Let us give people and companies the opportunity to succeed from north to south and from city to countryside. For this to become a reality, clear priorities are required, namely a business-friendly climate, a well-functioning infrastructure, and an efficient state that supports, rather than hinders, growth.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

I wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I thought we could continue the discussion on another area.

The Alliance government deregulated and sold off large parts of Bilprovningen. Now, the SD-led government has sold what was left of Svensk Bilprovning to TÜV Rheinland AG for 1.2 billion. This money is being set aside and goes toward paying off the national debt.

Madam Speaker! Does the sale ensure the availability of primarily registration inspections throughout the country? The Riksdag's investigation service has made a compilation of much of what the National Audit Office stated, namely that the sell-off and privatization of large parts of Bilprovningen has resulted in more stations in densely populated urban areas. Furthermore, it has resulted in increased accessibility for the vast majority when it comes to ordinary car inspections, except in Jämtland which has a negative result.

Then we have the question of registration inspection. It is a quite important measure, not least for small business owners in rural areas. Many companies convert trailers, and they need to be registered inspected. There are quite a few A-tractors in rural and countryside areas that need to be inspected. The stations that have existed primarily in the small municipalities have also handled registration inspection. Can AnnCharlotte Hammar Johnsson guarantee that this will be the case even with a new owner?

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Isak From for the question.

There are never any guarantees for anything, so it would be strange if I could guarantee anything here and now or at all. It doesn't matter whether it is a question of the public sector or the private sector. It has nothing to do with the matter.

Bilprovningen is sold. Divestments are the same as a sale; we are selling companies.

All of this is new, but what has been said so far is that there shall be an expansion in the countryside. We must follow the issue, and it shall not be different now than before. That is the goal. It is only positive if it becomes better.

After having answered the question, I choose to return to Isak From's earlier questions. There was talk of healthcare among other things, and I thought that part was interesting. Isak From mentioned that Sweden has been placed in a healthcare crisis. So it cannot be. In that case, it is a question of regional crises.

Let us look at the example from Isak From's party and Stockholm. We can observe that a variety of things have been dismantled. Previously, there was freedom of choice. It has decreased. There were no healthcare queues, and now they have increased in scope.

The buses are becoming fewer, taxes are becoming higher, and the economy is deteriorating. In what way is this the government's fault? It runs like a red thread through the regions. Funds have been added previously. Some manage the task, while others do not manage the task. Here it seems to be the case that in social democratically governed parts of Sweden, the outcome is worse than in moderate parts of the country.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Bilprovningen is sold. Will the availability improve? From almost 0 percent presence of Svensk Bilprovning in the smaller municipalities, a private company is now taking over. Will that company maintain the part concerning registration inspection, which is particularly crucial for companies? That is the question that we will, of course, follow. This can be mandated to operators via legislation, if one wishes. We have not gone that far, but we must follow the development and see.

When it comes to Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnson's question about healthcare, it is crystal clear. The government chooses large tax cuts for the wealthiest and hands over the bill to municipalities and regions.

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson has said it herself: There are effects of inflation that also affect municipalities and regions, but the government does not compensate the sector for this. Investment is not being made in this sector, which in large parts operates out in the country and which is necessary for regional development. It is a very clear political difference, Madam Speaker.

I would like to conclude by wishing the colleague in the Committee on Industry a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I also wish the Committee on Industry's secretariat and Madam Speaker with her staff a Merry and peaceful Christmas.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Regarding healthcare - the red line across the country - and that it costs more, it results in longer queues with the Social Democrats. It is not that the government has not provided funds. We have done so.

A journey that one must undertake if one wants regional parliaments is that one must manage its mandate and take advantage of what it has. There are overhead structures, and there are other ways of working that one should take advantage of. This is something the regions must take hold of. I can only state that Stockholm is an example that clearly shows the differences between a Moderate-led region and a Social Democratic-led region.

I want to conclude by bringing up adult education, which was on the agenda earlier. I took up the example that education is being centralized and that one can travel from the countryside to receive an education in one place. As stated earlier, it is important that an education provides jobs so that it does not become a development where people are simply placed in school benches. It is important that job opportunities are provided afterwards. That is why we steer and steer correctly when it comes to education.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! It concerns expenditure area 19 Regional development. I could give many examples of regional dismantling. The dismantling has been ongoing in this country for decades, regardless of the color of the governments.

There was a time when there was a real effort to get the whole of Sweden populated and when the countryside's contribution, based on its various strengths in terms of growth, was utilized.

I will not go into different items in the expenditure area, because I actually think it is irrelevant. I can reassure the Tidö parties that we, if it becomes a Social Democratic-led government, will certainly be able to achieve a budget that we agree on even in this area.

I shall give a brief look back. One begins to feel like a dinosaur here, but this is significant when it comes to why we have ended up here.

I am not looking to blacken any government, but I can state that when, for example, agricultural policy became subject to the EU's common agricultural policy, one completely lost sight of what happens in the countryside when small-scale farming disappears.

I naturally understand that it was no dream job for the generation that saw their parents go to the barn every day of the year. They never had holidays, and on the finest summer days, they worked the hardest to get fodder for the livestock.

But in the eagerness that prevailed when it came to getting cheap food and getting people to move to the industrial jobs, one completely forgot that the self-sufficiency rate when it comes to food sank every year.

The municipalities' finances became increasingly difficult to balance with the aging and simultaneously decreasing population. The technological development that has taken place and which still continues has naturally contributed to a redistribution of where the labor force is needed.

I can take my profession as an example. In 1984, I started as a logger in the forest. In a semicircle of ten miles around my home, there were about 20 villages - everything from some really small ones with just one farm to old municipal parts with several hundred inhabitants.

Well, in 1984, there were certainly more than 300 forest workers who every morning made their way out from the cabins to work in the forest. During the summers, the number could almost double for a few weeks. Today, there are perhaps 25 workers in the same geographical area who work with logging in the forest and who live and pay taxes in my home municipality.

The logging has, however, not decreased. For some years it even increased compared to the extraction of the 80s. Today, the large companies have reduced their volumes a little, but the private forest owners are more active.

Even here, one can see how logging contractors, especially from Finland, come and work with things that were completely excluded a few decades ago. And not only are logging assignments carried out by companies whose workers, as well as the companies themselves, pay tax in another country, but more and more properties are also owned by the children or grandchildren of those who once farmed and provided Sweden with food and who lived on the farm. This means that the property owners more often live in a large city in another municipality, perhaps even in the municipality we are in now. They pay tax here that comes from resources from the rural municipalities, which at the same time struggle to make the economy stretch to everything that a municipality is expected to provide to its municipal citizens.

Often, the logging today occurs with resources that contribute zero to the municipalities. The owners of the properties contribute zero to the municipalities from the forest revenues. The municipalities that have the highest municipal tax often only provide these operations with infrastructure maintenance and then watch as values disappear from the municipality without it receiving anything in return.

When it comes to forestry, the number of workers in the forest doubled during a few summer weeks in 1984, but the number today is practically zero. There are, of course, a few brave ones who try and who continue to fight. Those who perform these jobs come from the Baltic countries or from some exotic country whose workers can earn as much in a month here in Sweden's forests as their countrymen at home earn in an entire year.

Everything I describe is the consequence of us having allowed our countryside to be drained of people in the pursuit of profit optimization. What is now expected of the countryside is that we should contribute to the transition with minerals and electricity. At the same time, we are expected to stand with our hands in our pockets and just watch as values in the form of natural resources are shipped out and expected to save the climate and the world.

Vänsterpartiet obviously thinks that it is now more than ever important that we take the chance to repopulate those parts of the country that have been drained of people, now that labor is truly needed to make a sustainable transition of society and industry.

To gain acceptance for supplying Sweden with minerals, electricity, and other resources that are site-bound to these specific rural municipalities, a different policy is needed that distributes the values more fairly so that people are attracted to move and build their future exactly where the resources are located and extracted.

A society must feel that the natural resources it possesses provide an added value that everyone in society can share in when they are extracted. Only then does acceptance and understanding grow for something that may be perceived as negative, but where the positive effects outweigh it when a better life can be provided to all citizens and it does not just become a payout to the capital owners, which is almost universally the case in the current situation.

Madam Speaker! I return to the appropriation that the report concerns. The parliamentary majority has, in the first step of the budget process, given the budget policy a different direction than the one that the Left Party desires. I therefore abstain from taking a position regarding the allocation of the appropriation. I elaborate on this a bit more in our special statement, if anyone wishes to read more about it.

With this, I wish my colleagues, the Chancellery, and Madam Speaker a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(cont. § 10)

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